Evidence of meeting #14 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-9.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
As I was saying, we are prepared to do what it takes to stop not just bad law but dangerous law from being enshrined in Canada's Criminal Code. The Liberals can do the right thing at any point and agree to prioritize Bill C-14. If not, they are holding critical bail reforms hostage to justify their assault on civil liberties, and it is not something we will stand for.
Thank you.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'm very grateful for the opportunity to speak here at the justice committee. I've been observing with great interest the discussion thus far on Bill C-9, and in particular the discussion on the issues of religious liberty that were raised by the Liberal-Bloc amendment that passed and that are now being further discussed in the amendment from my colleague Mr. Lawton aimed at protecting religious freedom.
As I talk about religious freedom, I want to acknowledge the presence of people in the room who have come to Parliament Hill to observe these discussions, people who are concerned about religious freedom issues. I saw people here whom I know from the Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities, all of whom came to observe these discussions. I certainly wouldn't want to put words in their mouths. They can all speak for themselves in various fora, but I want to thank people who care about religious freedom for being here.
I know there are many people watching these discussions online who care deeply about religious freedom. I want people who are watching to have a sense of something you can't see on the video feed. Normally at committees, the Conservatives would have four members sitting around the table, who are the regular members of the committee. Right now, I count 10 Conservatives sitting around this table. We've even had issues raised of people sitting too close to each other, which is something we can work out. It illustrates the point that many Conservative members of Parliament are here in the evening, and who will be here for as long as it takes, because we care deeply about the defence of religious freedom.
I know there are people watching who are fighting on this issue—who are writing letters, who are emailing their members of Parliament, who are talking to their faith leaders and who are even door knocking in their own communities to raise awareness about what's happening with Bill C-9. I want to thank Canadians from all faith backgrounds and from coast to coast who have worked hard to make their voices heard.
I want you to know that Conservatives are here in force. We hear you and we will stand with you, making the case for religious freedom and for freedom of speech. We need people at home, people across the country, people who care about religious freedom, to continue making their voices heard, to continue contacting members of this committee and members of Parliament and to continue talking to their neighbours and friends.
It has been incredible to see the speed and scope of mobilization in this country in response to this Bloc-Liberal deal attacking religious freedom. Communities have reacted with lightning speed. They have moved so much faster than I have ever seen before. I know this mobilization is only beginning. It was in response to this mobilization that the government initially appeared checked in their plans to attack religious freedom.
As recently as this week, there was an article quoting multiple government sources. It looked like it was people within the Liberal Party trying to throw the justice minister under the bus by stating that this whole thing was his idea, cooked up without consulting others. Whatever the genesis of this bad idea was within the Liberal Party, I guess today they have decided to close ranks in their attack on religious liberty. We have just seen members of the government all line up to support the Bloc amendment attacking religious freedom.
If members think they've started to receive a public response, if they think they've started to see Canadians concerned, I would say they ain't seen nothing yet. You're going to be hearing in the days, weeks and months ahead from Canadians who take their religious freedom and their freedom of speech seriously and who will be responding in force.
In particular, I know the Prime Minister has tried to suggest that he would be more open or more friendly to communities of faith than the last Liberal prime minister was, but with this amendment being adopted, that false impression has been totally blown out of the water. Prime Minister Carney has shown with the vote of MPs today that he is willing to go even further than his predecessor in attacking the basic religious liberties of faith communities.
I know that faith leaders in every community will take note tonight of the fact that the Prime Minister has allowed this to happen and has supported his justice minister, and that the government, notwithstanding whatever second thoughts they may have had, has followed through on this attack on religious freedom.
The Conservatives are the only party that is defending religious freedom. We will maintain that stand. We will stand for what is right. We will stand alone if necessary. We will stand against Bill C-9, and we will defend the fundamental freedoms of Canadians.
Religious freedom is deeply important. It is part of our Constitution. As has been noted, it's part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It wasn't new with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The defence of religious liberty was part of the Canadian Bill of Rights. It was part of the implied bill of rights dating back to our founding as a country. It is fundamental to our political tradition.
It is also in our commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I'll read from article 18:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
I want to observe that article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights underscores the nature of religious liberty. It is not just a right for communities to preserve their traditions. It is not just a right that applies to people who are themselves religious. Religious freedom is for all people, whether they consider themselves religious or not. It is the freedom of thought and the freedom of conscience. It is the freedom of the individual to consider their humanity, to consider their place in the universe, to consider questions of ultimate meaning and truth, and, in the process of that consideration, to come to their own conclusions that reflect their conscience, to deliberate about those conclusions, to change their conclusions, to forcefully debate those conclusions with others and to live in accordance with those deeply held convictions.
In that sense, religious freedom, as outlined in article 18, can be thought of as the first freedom, the most foundational freedom, because the freedom of thought and the freedom of conscience, which are linked to freedom of religion in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.... The ability to form one's actions based on conscience and conviction is the foundation of all other freedoms. It is the basis of our humanity, which leads us to further actions. It is these provisions in article 18 that have been attacked by this Bloc-Liberal amendment.
While I'm speaking, if one of my colleagues could get me a glass of water or two, I would be extremely grateful.
Speaking of article 18, I have worked a great deal in Parliament over the last 10 years on issues involving religious freedom. Issues of religious freedom have always been deeply important to me as a person of faith, as the grandson of a Holocaust survivor and as someone who has in their time in Parliament come to know closely many different ethnic and religious communities in this country that have faced attacks on religious freedom.
When I was first elected, our leader at the time, Rona Ambrose, gave me the great honour of taking on a role in our caucus that was called deputy shadow minister for human rights and religious freedom. Nobody I told initially had any idea what that was, but it was a role within our caucus that involved advocating for human rights and in particular religious freedom.
It's interesting that back in 2015, when you took on a role called “human rights and religious freedom,” it was a given that you were talking about issues in other countries. Back in 2015, it was assumed that religious freedom was something we had in Canada and that was protected in Canada. Of course, I've mentioned that Canada is a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and our various constitutional documents underline the importance of religious freedom. This is well established in our law.
By the way, just parenthetically, I think the argument you hear from the government in response to concerns about the previous amendment we were discussing, the Liberal-Bloc amendment, is, “Don't worry, because religious freedom is protected in the charter.” The argument they're making is essentially that we need not worry about a statute that would appear on the face of it to violate religious freedom, because religious freedom is protected in the charter, as if the existence of the charter establishes some law of physics that prevents legislation from passing that violates it.
No, that's not how the charter works. The way the charter and constitutional protections on religious freedom and other rights work is that laws can still get passed that violate those rights, and those laws are in force until they are struck down, until a judicial process intervenes. In fact, they can create a chilling effect that limits the free practice of religion, that limits freedom of speech and that establishes other limits on practice and behaviour. Those laws can persist in place unless and until a case challenges them and establishes that the previous law was unconstitutional. Then and only then is that previous statute overturned.
I think we saw, during the pandemic period in particular, for example, that you can have the passage of laws that are unconstitutional, and those laws can remain in force for a while. Sometimes, the subsequent determination that those laws were unconstitutional comes so far after the fact as to not be as immediately relevant to those who were victims of the human rights violations in the first place.
The argument of the justice minister, repeated by the parliamentary secretary and other Liberals, is, “Don't worry; we have the charter.” Well, that is not an argument for passing unconstitutional laws or laws that violate religious freedom. Those laws are still in effect, and they remain in effect until they work their way through the process.
Furthermore, the existence of a judicial process for addressing violations of human rights does not obviate members of the obligation to consider issues of human rights during parliamentary debate or to consider the implications of the decisions they make for the protection of fundamental human rights. Our legislature has a responsibility to deliberate about matters of human rights and consider judgments about them. We did not cease to have a legislature when the Charter of Rights was adopted, and we did not cease to have responsibilities as legislators for considering questions of fundamental human rights, yet that appears to be the implication of much of the rhetoric from the government.
Again, it's that we need not worry; we have the constitutional protection of human rights. If you think the government passes legislation that violates human rights, don't worry, as someone could fund an expensive charter challenge, and maybe a few years or decades down the line, we'll come to the conclusion that a bill shouldn't have passed. In the meantime, of course, the damage is done. That is an obvious problem. I would encourage members of Parliament to do their jobs—that is, to consider the implications for fundamental human rights and to vote on amendments and legislation in the context of that reality.
I want to go back. I was speaking about the origins of my engagement on the topic of religious freedom when I was first elected as a member of Parliament, taking on a role within our caucus focused on human rights and religious freedom. At the time, the understanding was that human rights and religious freedom were things we were concerned about in other countries because, generally speaking, in Canada, we had good protection for religious freedom. That was where we were in 2015. That was the general expectation.
I was pleased to take on this role at a time when the role was very personal for me for another reason, which is that Canada had established under the Stephen Harper government an office for protecting religious freedom. The office of religious freedom was embedded within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, again based on the understanding at the time that challenges to religious freedom would primarily be in the international domain.
More recently, when I talk about the office of religious freedom, a lot of people tell me that we could really use one of those focused on Canada and focused on domestic threats to religious freedom. At the time, this was an office embedded in Foreign Affairs. From what I understand, the genesis of this idea of former prime minister Harper was Shahbaz Bhatti, who had been the minister for minority affairs in the Pakistani government—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Genuis, can I interrupt you for a second? The interpreter is telling me that you're talking too fast. You can probably see this because you're looking at yourself on screen. I would ask that you slow down a bit for the benefit of the interpreters.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm sorry. I was under the impression that the committee wanted me to move as quickly as possible through the remarks. I am willing to speak slower.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
On that note, since we've paused for a moment, I have good news. We've secured resources for tomorrow and Thursday from 3:30 until midnight. The notice will be going out shortly, if it hasn't gone out already.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
When I graduated from high school, the motto was in omnia paratus, which means “prepared for all things”. I've taken that motto to heart in my service in Parliament.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Pardon me, Mr. Chair? Were you saying it wasn't that long ago?
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
On programming, you said that resources have been secured for tomorrow and Thursday, so I suspect meeting notices will be forthcoming.
Just so I know, are we going to be continuing with clause-by-clause of the Liberal censorship bill, or will they agree to let us study bail and Bill C-14 in one of those meetings?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
You'll have to wait until the notice comes out, but we're continuing with clause-by-clause on Bill C-9.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
On a point of order, I also want to clarify whether there are resources available Friday and next week as well, so we can get through this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I believe the answer to Friday is yes. We'll see about next week.
Please continue.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
On the issue of working on the weekend, I think there is a relevant scriptural text I can reference about that. I do so with some trepidation, wondering if this could lead to prosecution. I believe there's a passage that discusses whether it is permissible to pull out your cow if it falls in the well on the Sabbath, the implication being that, yes, even if on an obliged day of rest your cow falls in the well, it is still permissible to pull it out.
From my perspective, the passage of this Liberal-Bloc amendment is the equivalent of a cow in the well, and I will be prepared to work through the weekend and through whatever other holidays and holy days intervene in order to pull the cow out of the well as best I can. I hope the Minister of Canadian Heritage won't seek my prosecution as a result of that reference.
Anyway, going back to the point I was making, and out of great respect for our interpreters, I will endeavour to speak a little more slowly. I will speak to some of the context on issues of religious freedom.
When I took on this role in 2015 at a time when Canada had an office of religious freedom, that office was embedded within the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and did important work. The office was inspired by the work of one Shahbaz Bhatti, who had been the minister for minority affairs in the Pakistani government.
He was an advocate for the rights of minorities in Pakistan and an advocate against a blasphemy law that was used aggressively to prosecute religious minorities for a form of speech crime—that is, for somebody speaking in a way that was deemed inappropriate. Of course, there are all sorts of issues of false accusations, but Shahbaz Bhatti was involved in speaking against the misuses of the blasphemy law, effectively a form of speech crime used to target religious minorities. He was advocating for a woman named Asia Bibi, who had been arrested on a series of trumped-up allegations that arose as a result of a personal dispute.
When Mr. Bhatti was in Canada, he met with members of Parliament and spoke about issues of religious freedom in Pakistan. He asked Canada to do more to respond to this issue of violations of religious freedom. While he was here in our Parliament, he also talked about the fact that he believed his life was at risk as a result of his advocacy.
I know he met many of our colleagues. I don't think many of those folks are still around, but I know he met many members of Parliament at that time who were very touched and inspired by what he said. People asked him why he didn't stay here in Canada if his life was at risk. He said, no, for the defence of religious freedom, he must return to his country and would continue his advocacy on issues of religious freedom.
Minister Bhatti returned to Pakistan and was assassinated within two months. I remember this vividly, because it was, I think, around that time that my wife and I got engaged. Her family are Christians from Pakistan, so they followed these issues of minority rights in Pakistan very closely, and by extension, I was starting to follow these things as well.
Mr. Bhatti was an incredibly heroic figure, somebody who knew the risks, who talked about how he knew the risks and who nonetheless continued his fight for religious freedom. As I recall, he met former prime minister Harper while he was here in Canada, and following his assassination, the Harper government launched the office of religious freedom, an office designed to facilitate advocacy by Canada on international issues around religious freedom.
The office had a number of functions, one of which was to speak publicly about religious freedom issues internationally. Another was to inform the Department of Foreign Affairs to ensure that public servants were aware of the situation around religious liberty and how it may intersect with other work they were doing. The third function was to run concrete programming.
Today, I think about some of the issues that are now getting a bit more attention, such as the severe persecution of Christians in Nigeria. Before, in many cases, when we heard about the persecution of religious minorities, Canada's former office of religious freedom ran specific programs on the ground in those countries aimed at advancing religious freedom. They were active in more than just dealing with acute cases of abuse. They dealt with looking at causes and prevention. For instance, they tried to help get pro-pluralism content into books. The project in Nigeria facilitated dialogue between Christian and Muslim leaders in that country so that when there were flare-ups of violence, there could be the activation of networks of leaders who could address these kinds of issues.
The office of religious freedom, for a relatively small amount of money, was doing great work overseas. As I recall, from time to time, people asked it to comment on domestic issues, but that was not part of its mandate. It was focused on international religious freedom and helping support Canada's ability to be a voice for freedom and justice on the world stage around religious freedom issues.
After the election in 2015, when I was first elected and when the Liberals took office, the government decided it was going to eliminate the office of religious freedom. This probably should have been, in a way, a sign of things to come—the government immediately choosing not to renew the mandate of the office of religious freedom.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
What is the relevance, Mr. Chair? He's straying farther and farther away from an amendment to the bill and clause 4. We're not debating whether the office of religious freedom should be renewed.
This is getting very far away from where we're going, Mr. Chair. I understand that the amendment has the words “freedom of religion” in it, but I think you need to rein this back so we deal with the Criminal Code of Canada and the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I agree with Mr. Housefather. I lost the thread a while ago myself. It was after “high school”, I think—when you mentioned that.
If you could bring it back to what we're talking about, I'd be grateful.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, if you lost the thread, I'm happy to go even slower than I've been speaking.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Let me rephrase that: I don't think there was a thread. If you could bring it back closer to what we're talking about, we'd all be grateful.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, I was led to believe that these issues of religious freedom are important in your constituency as well, especially with the assaults on religious freedom we've seen against the Tibetan community and—