This is a single
speech (house debate) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
This is a single
speech (house debate) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
{
"time": "2026-03-10 19:25:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Garnett Genuis",
"fr": "Garnett Genuis"
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"9207225\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, that is such a nonsense question that is objectively false. The member just said the religious defence has been protected. It has not been protected. This circular \u201cfor greater certainty\u201d clause that says that something is not a hate crime if it is not a hate crime means nothing. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"9207226\" data-originallang=\"en\">Moreover, the fact that it does not reassure me is not the point. It has not reassured any individual or group who had concerns initially. The Rabbinical Council of Toronto is not reassured. The 350 Muslim organizations are not reassured. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is not reassured. There is not a single organization that has said everything is fine now as a result of this nonsense \u201cfor greater certainty\u201d clause. The Liberals should actually listen to faith communities if that is what they care about. </p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"9207225\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, c'est une question qui n'a absolument aucun sens; c'est objectivement faux. La d\u00e9put\u00e9e vient de dire que la d\u00e9fense pour des motifs religieux a \u00e9t\u00e9 prot\u00e9g\u00e9e. Or, ce n'est pas le cas. Cette disposition de pr\u00e9cision \u00e0 la logique circulaire qui dit que quelque chose n'est pas un crime haineux si ce n'est pas un crime haineux ne veut rien dire.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"9207226\" data-originallang=\"en\">De plus, le fait qu'elle ne me rassure pas n'est pas la question. Elle ne rassure personne et elle ne rassure aucun groupe parmi ceux qui ont exprim\u00e9 des r\u00e9serves au d\u00e9part. Le conseil rabbinique de Toronto n'est pas rassur\u00e9. Les 350 organismes musulmans ne sont pas rassur\u00e9s. La Conf\u00e9rence des \u00e9v\u00eaques catholiques du Canada n'est pas rassur\u00e9e. Pas un seul organisme n'a dit que, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 cette absurde disposition d'interpr\u00e9tation, tout va bien maintenant. Si c'est ce qui tient \u00e0 c\u0153ur aux lib\u00e9raux, ils devraient pr\u00eater l'oreille aux groupes confessionnels.</p>"
},
"url": "/debates/2026/3/10/garnett-genuis-14/",
"politician_url": "/politicians/garnett-genuis/",
"politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4383/",
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "13397103",
"h1": {
"en": "Government Orders",
"fr": "Ordres \u00e9manant du gouvernement"
},
"h2": {
"en": "Government Business No. 6\u2014Proceedings on Bill C-9",
"fr": "L'affaire \u00e9manant du gouvernement no 6 \u2014 Les d\u00e9lib\u00e9rations sur le projet de loi C\u20119"
},
"document_url": "/debates/2026/3/10/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2026%2F3%2F10%2F"
}
}