That's not a point of order, Chair. That's a matter of debate.
Look, the reason I bring this up is that we have members from a variety of communities here whom I have not actually seen testify before this committee. If these witnesses are so invested in Bill C-9, and I hope they are—I hope all of us are—why have the Liberals not allowed us to do a proper study on Bill C-9? Bring these people here who have not testified. It includes some of them, although I can't see everyone over there. Bring them to testify as witnesses and have the consultation on Bill C-9 that we were supposed to have. This is precisely the point we're discussing.
Now the Liberals have invited all of these stakeholders for a clause-by-clause, which they themselves forced, before this committee finished the work it needed to do on Bill C-9. While I definitely understand the circumstances that have led to the bill, I don't actually believe I have gotten a single constituent email urging the speedy passage of Bill C-9. I have had emails from more constituents than I can count—as an MP, not as a member of the justice committee—saying that we must stop this bill. They understand what the Liberal members choose not to: This bill will attack freedom of expression.
When you want to force something through quickly that does not have cross-party consensus, it's only because you are concerned about what will be revealed when proper scrutiny and study are actually at stake. I believe if you went back to the three meetings we were allowed to have on Bill C-9, you would hear from our witnesses very little support for what Bill C-9 has actually done. Even witnesses who were conceptually supportive of Bill C-9 believed it needed changes—changes that are so fundamental they would alter what the bill actually is.
If the Liberals believe this bill needs to be passed immediately, then they have to replace it with a bill that does not do what has been so alarming to people from left and right and from religious groups representing a range of religions. You have members of the Indian community who feel very personally targeted by this bill and feel that their religious freedom will not be protected. In the course of debate, we have talked about changing the Criminal Code—by the way, even beyond what Bill C-9 seeks to change—to remove the religious defence under section 319. In the course of discussion, when people see a member of Parliament refer to verses of scripture as potentially hateful, then all of a sudden religious people in Canada feel like they're going to be targeted by Bill C-9. I don't understand how the government believes that a bill designed to attack hate against religion can do so by inciting hate against religion and, more importantly, against people who themselves are religious, which is the majority of Canadians.
You know, we often heard Justin Trudeau talk about how diversity was our strength as a country. If you read through census data, not just in any of the constituencies we represent but across the country, you'll see a range of religious backgrounds and belief systems. You'll see denominations you never knew existed. That's because we have such a diverse array of political and religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds and languages. If we take a stand for religious freedom, then we take a stand for all religious freedom. People's religious beliefs influence their political beliefs, including their beliefs on, in some cases, geopolitics. We've seen this at issue with regard to what's been happening since October 7. We should be able to, in a free society, have these discussions and have these debates. We should be allowed to engage in the dialogue we need to have in order to reach the political conclusions we need or the societal standards we want to employ.
Look, John Stuart Mill wrote On Liberty, one of the most seminal pieces on freedom of expression. Mill was far more of a utilitarian than I am, but one thing he did so eloquently in On Liberty was talk about what freedom of expression gives us and the value of speaking with someone with whom you disagree. What Mill wrote was that you speak to someone you disagree with, and then what they do is perhaps tell you that you're wrong. Maybe you go over to their perspective. Maybe you find a middle ground that you didn't know existed. Maybe the act of debating and defending your position reinforces your beliefs. No one loses when we have the freedom to engage in that dialogue.
It's interesting that, ironically, we're talking about freedom of expression here, about free speech and the right for people to speak their minds, and Ms. Lattanzio is tweeting about how she doesn't want me to have a right to speak. She doesn't want me to speak about these issues, issues that have been raised by Canadians from far and wide about concerns they have on Bill C-9.
The Liberals may wish to do what they're doing for social media clicks here, but the point is that we cannot take at face value what they are telling us, because, to go back to the Emergencies Act, they have shown an unwillingness to accept a Federal Court decision that told them that they broke the law. They have been found to have violated the most supreme law in this country, the Constitution of Canada.
Bill C-9, cloaked in noble intentions, is the gateway to U.K.-style social media policing. We've heard from the minister that it applies to what you see and say online. We saw the Liberals try to ram forward clause-by-clause consideration while denying us two crucial meetings, six hours of witness testimony and, by their own admission, plenty of witnesses here, engaged in the bill, who have not had the opportunity to testify yet. I read through the list of some of them—dozens and dozens of witnesses, witnesses proposed by Liberals, witnesses proposed by Conservatives.
There is an internal incoherence. One of these prospective witnesses we didn't get to hear from, Brian Doody, who I believe is a lawyer, talks about the “internal incoherence”. He says that we would have sections in this law that belong in other sections of the Criminal Code. He doesn't believe it was properly done.
From the Hindu Canadian Foundation, we had concerns regarding the use of the word “swastika”, a word that appropriates a very sacred symbol for them, an ancient Sanskrit word, and concerns they have about things that resemble other things.
We had also, from Canadian Women Against Antisemitism, a written submission on Bill C-9 by Talia Klein Leighton. She submitted this brief in which she talks about the “ever-growing crisis of antisemitism and antizionism.” She says these have “found amplification in schools”.
In one of those three meetings when we were doing witness testimony, we had a witness here who represented the Canadian Teachers' Federation. I hadn't read a brief from the Canadian Teachers' Federation, so I didn't know at first why they wanted to testify about Bill C-9. I was quite surprised when I learned it was because they were worried that teachers were subject to hate right now, and that this was going to be answered by Bill C-9. That witness had never heard of a report by the federal government talking about hate in schools, some of which comes from schools themselves, and in some cases from teachers. The witness hadn't heard of that.
There is no objection from Conservatives to the idea that hate is a scourge in society. There are some very different beliefs on how to handle it. There are proposals from the Liberals to actively expand what the state is permitted to censor, and there are proposals from the Conservatives to enforce the law: Do not stand for people calling for violence on the streets. Do not stand for people who believe inciting genocide is their freedom of expression. Do not stand for people who are repeatedly terrorizing Jewish community members in this country.
As someone who's been to Israel twice, as someone who has always been a supporter of the Jewish people, a supporter of the Jewish state, I'm very aware that there are members of the Jewish community who believe Bill C-9 should pass, not because they think it's a good bill but because they are desperate for something from this government. That has been a message that I've heard, not just from stakeholders at the national level but also from people I've spoken to in my riding, people who are incredibly concerned and realize that the community is reeling.
Again, they are not trusting this government. They do not trust this government. They simply believe that something needs to happen, and they're taking this little bit of breadcrumb that the Liberals are throwing them because the Liberals are trying to mask their failure to deal with this issue substantively.
You know what, I applaud my colleague Mr. Baber, who I believe is next to speak on this motion that is before us right now. He has tried to deal with this issue in a responsible, targeted way with Bill C-257, an act to amend the Criminal Code pertaining to “promotion of terrorist activity or group”. This bill is one that the Liberals should get behind. Unlike Bill C-9, Bill C-257 does not change the definition of hate speech. It does not allow for this incredible mission creep by people who may have authoritarian impulses to rein in freedom of expression. It specifically narrows itself to those who wilfully promote terrorist activity, terrorist groups or the activity of terrorist groups.
It's shocking that in 2025 such a bill is necessary. It's shocking that there has been such a blind eye turned in communities across the country to open, overt support for terrorists, for terrorist groups and for terrorism.
I was speaking to a witness on this committee. I forget the name of the organization, but he acknowledged a flaw in Bill C-9. I didn't agree with his characterization, but I thought he had a right to express his opinion on this. He was speaking about the issues with tying hate symbols that are banned to the list of terrorist entities. On that list of terrorist entities, he said that it was a very flawed process. I asked him if Hamas belonged on the list, and he wouldn't give an answer. He wouldn't say whether Hamas was a terrorist group or not.
We do have some belief systems that we need to combat, but the way we combat this is by engaging in debate, engaging in discussion and engaging in dialogue.
It's interesting. The Liberal government is trying to shame us into passing bad, dangerous legislation. We are not going to back down on standing up for civil liberties. We are not going to back down on standing up for freedom of expression. We are not going to back down on standing up to a bill that does the very thing it claims to stop, especially if amendments, which I suspect will be forthcoming given the dialogue that has happened on this committee, come forward that further erode religious freedom.
I go back to former prime minister Justin Trudeau, who, interestingly, said it was understandable that someone might want to burn a Christian church in Canada. That was echoed by his former principal secretary, Gerald Butts. I believe his line was “fully understandable”. I do not believe anyone in this House of Commons would ever say the same thing had a synagogue been burned or had a mosque been burned—nor should they—to justify people who want to inflict significant harmful damage to religious institutions and, by extension, terrorize people who adhere to those religions. Some of those ideas are embedded in the discussions we hear about how to combat hate.
I believe the Liberals need to shed the partisan games on Bill C-9. Do not force something through that we are clearly not ready for. Allow the proper study of it. Also, align the priorities with the mandate of this committee.
The reason we were denied witness testimony on Bill C-9, and the reason we were not able to hear from witnesses for six hours—and I'm actually shocked by this—is that the Liberals decided to filibuster on a motion condemning the Supreme Court decision that condemned a mandatory minimum sentence of one year for people peddling child sexual abuse and exploitation. My goodness, if I had told anyone ahead of time that motion was going before this committee, they would have said, “You know what, that should take 90 seconds. You can read the motion, everyone will throw their hand up and support it, and you can move on to Bill C-9.”
I am a new member of Parliament. I'm still learning the ropes of how some of the rules and regulations around this place work. I realize that you have only a finite amount of time in the House of Commons and in committee to deal with certain things. I realize it's frustrating when you have an agenda that's scheduled for one thing and you need to deal with another thing that has come up.
We didn't know when we started our study of Bill C-9 that the Supreme Court was going to decide to stand with pedophiles in the way that it did. By extension, we didn't know that the Liberal government was going to similarly decide to stand with pedophiles, but that's what happened. As a committee dealing with justice, we had to deal with that. I had hoped we could do it across party lines expeditiously. It was the Liberals' refusal to stand for a mandatory minimum sentence of one year on child sexual exploitation and abuse that led to blowing up the calendar for two meetings on Bill C-9: three meetings total and nine hours that we could have been dealing with genuine justice issues. Instead, we were dealing with procedural wrangling, and ultimately it ended with—if anyone saw the last meeting—the Liberals supporting it because they thought they were voting on the amendment. It's not even like they could filibuster all that effectively.
This is where we look at our priorities as a country, our priorities as a party, our priorities, frankly, as Canadians who care about justice, who care about law and order, who care about the Constitution and the freedoms it protects, and who understand that victims have rights as well. Children have rights. Victims of crime have rights.
In my motion—the Liberal government, I hope, will adopt this motion when it goes before a vote, and I suspect there may be some others who wish to speak to it—we are arguing for prioritizing Bill C-14. I've spoken to police in my riding and across the country, and when they say what are the crucial public safety issues they need action from this committee on to protect the streets and protect communities, they don't say, “We are worried about what people are saying online.” They say, “We're worried that we're arresting people and they're getting released on bail by a justice of the peace, and then we're rearresting them hours later.”
Bill C-14 should have been the very first justice bill. In fact, I'd say it should have been Bill C-2. Bill C-2, interestingly, on civil liberties, was the bill that the Liberals decided was supposed to be about border security, but in the end was about banning cash transactions, allowing warrantless search of letter mail, and all of these other bizarre things that had nothing to do with border security. Bill C-2 should have been the bail bill.
That's what the priority should have been, but again, the government gets to set the agenda. The government has decided to set an agenda that does not at all align with where Canadians are. We cannot and will not pass bad law that censors what Canadians do simply because the Liberals are saying, just trust us. Because of this arbitrarily imposed calendar, clause-by-clause consideration, which was imposed without discussion, without debate, without an opportunity to debate, because the meeting was adjourned two hours early on Thursday, and with limited time to hear from witnesses....
By the way, I'm allowed to reveal this because it was going to be one of our motions. We had issued notice of a motion that we were going to table to extend the Bill C-9 study. When you put a motion on notice, it doesn't become public, but all members of the committee see it. I have to wonder if the reason we adjourned early was that the Liberals didn't want to have to say no to that motion, which would have been tabled, and vote against allowing more testimony on Bill C-9. I've been hearing from witnesses who have been very concerned that they didn't get the opportunity to have their say. As early as this morning, I had a phone call from a stakeholder who was hoping to be able to testify and was wondering if there might be a last-ditch chance to get in, and could not because, again, of this artificially imposed deadline.
Again, we could have had more information. We could have had more witness testimony. We could have had more insights had the Liberals not decided that one year was too cruel and unusual a punishment for people who traffic in child sexual exploitation and abuse material. I find it shocking that that was what they decided was their hill to die on. My hill to die on is freedom of expression. This Liberal government has shown reckless disregard for that. When we engage in work as a committee, we are the gatekeepers between law that has not been scrutinized, has not been vetted, has not been analyzed, and things that are passed by this House of Commons. When you try to aggressively and wrongfully accelerate the committee process, what you are doing is denying Canadians the opportunity to improve bad law or, in some cases, to gut terrible law. When you try to speed up that process, it is either because you do not care what Canadians have to say or, more importantly, because you know what they're going to say. This is precisely what's happening on Bill C-9. We have an artificially imposed deadline that we cannot meet and will not meet, because we do not have the adequate information.
Where we go from there, I don't know. I hope that we can agree to this programming motion that we have put forward, a motion that will allow us to reset this committee's priorities. I hope that we will be able to prioritize the study of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform, which itself will need a considerable amount of work. I'm hoping we can, in the spirit of collaboration, proceed with that and with the Bloc's study on judicial appointments. In doing so, run them concurrently, reiterate to the Minister of Justice his outstanding invitation to appear to discuss his mandate and priorities—not just the one priority he wants to discuss, which is Bill C-9, but all of his priorities.
I believe we had also issued an invitation to the public safety minister, who has not yet taken us up on that offer. We know public safety and justice are very intertwined. There are a number of things that I think we need to hear from the public safety minister on. One of them is whether he has managed to figure out, in the last few months, what a firearms licence is. These are crucial questions that I think should be asked of the minister responsible for confiscating firearms from law-abiding gun owners, and, by extension, directing police resources to do anything other than uphold bail conditions.
We are here at this committee because the Liberals could not make a very simple yes vote to denounce, in no uncertain terms, the Supreme Court decision that found that a mandatory minimum for someone who uses child sexual exploitation and abuse material is cruel and unusual punishment. That should have been almost an instantaneous, unanimous decision by this committee—and it was not.
