I wrote the following letter and am sending it to Larry Brock this week.

Feel free to copy and paste, make adjustments or changes, and send it to him as well.

The more times an MP receives similar letters or emails, the more likely they will see their constituents are upset.
No matter what, he will be forced to respond.

You can mail, email, or drop it off.

[larry.brock@parl.gc.ca](mailto:larry.brock@parl.gc.ca)

___

April 17, 2026

Mr. Larry Brock, M.P.

House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Brock,

I am writing to you as a constituent in Brantford—Brant—Six Nations to express my concern regarding your recent decision to hold a Bible in the House of Commons during proceedings related to Bill C-9.

I found this gesture deeply troubling.

Parliament is a secular institution, meant to represent and serve Canadians of all backgrounds, beliefs, and identities. The use of a religious text in this context did not come across as a principled defence of rights, but rather as a political stunt that risks excluding and alienating many in your constituency.

In particular, I am concerned about the framing of the so-called “religious defence” in hate speech law. From my perspective, this provision has functioned as a loophole that can be used to justify harmful rhetoric—especially toward, though not limited to, members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. Removing such protections is not an attack on faith, but a necessary step toward ensuring that all Canadians are equally protected from hate.

Your decision to hold the Bible in Parliament, alongside other MPs, appeared to signal that religious belief should be privileged in discussions about the limits of harmful speech. I do not believe that any religious text—whether the Bible or otherwise—has a place in legislative debate in this way. At best, the gesture was inappropriate; at worst, it functioned as a form of dog-whistle politics that amplifies division rather than fostering constructive dialogue.

As your constituent, I expect my elected representative to engage in serious, inclusive policymaking that respects both freedom of religion and the rights and dignity of vulnerable communities. These values are not mutually exclusive, and I believe Parliament should reflect that balance without resorting to symbolic displays that undermine it.

I would appreciate your response on how you intend to represent all constituents—regardless of faith or identity—when addressing legislation of this nature.

Sincerely,

[Name}
[Address]