No.
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.
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
David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB
Would a rabbi teaching Torah commentary, a Muslim parent quoting the Quran to explain moral teaching, or Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist teachers be targeted simply for articulating traditional beliefs?
Conservative
David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB
Any person of faith quoting their sacred texts could face up to two years in prison if the government or a prosecutor finds their beliefs objectionable.
In a country such as Canada, home to such rich religious diversity, this is chilling. A free society debates and engages. It does not imprison people for sincerely held religious convictions. The Liberals insist that their bill protects religious Canadians from hate while simultaneously displaying a deep disdain for religious communities that express views different from their own. This contradiction is staggering.
Let us also remember the historical context the Liberals prefer to ignore. It was a Conservative government led by John Diefenbaker that first enshrined these fundamental freedoms in Canadian law through the Bill of Rights. The very Criminal Code that the Liberals are rewriting was drafted by Sir John Thompson, a devout Catholic and Conservative prime minister who understood that criminal law must restrain real harm, not police belief or censor sacred texts. He even initially declined to become prime minister after converting to the Catholic faith due to the intense sectarian hatreds of his time.
Today's Liberals lecture Canadians about rights while gutting the rights that Conservatives and even Liberals historically worked hard to establish and protect. Removing the religious expression safeguard in section 319 will not make Canadians safer. It will not stop real hate. Genuine incitement and advocacy of genocide are already illegal, will remain illegal and must be prosecuted by the system that already exists.
This bill will succeed in one area, though. It will expose millions of peaceful, law-abiding people of faith to criminal prosecution simply for quoting scripture or expressing long-held religious convictions. This is chilling. That is not what Canada is supposed to be. It is not constitutional, it is not just and it is not worthy of a free society.
I urge every member of this committee to accept the amendment from my learned colleague and defend the freedoms of religion, expression and conscience, which form the foundation of our democracy. The Liberals may have forgotten these principles, but Canadians haven't.
I have one question for the witnesses. If passed in the restrictive form right now.... The government side and the Bloc have made great statements to the effect that it doesn't matter, that the charter exists; there won't be prosecutions, but could the government use the notwithstanding clause to maintain enforcement, even though we have been assured that we need not worry about this infringement because of the freedoms found in the charter? I would love to hear a comment from all three of you.
Kristen Ali Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can speak generally to the requirements of section 33 of the charter, which says that a declaration made must be done expressly by the legislature under this section in order to have the effect that such operation of the charter rights would not apply. That the declaration must be done expressly would apply for only sections 7 to 15 of the charter and would apply for only five years.
Understanding that the federal government has never invoked the notwithstanding clause, those are the requirements of form in terms of the declaration needing to be done specifically by the legislature.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't have anything to add to what my colleague Ms. Ali has said on the scope of section 33 of the charter. I don't know whether there was another question.
Conservative
David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB
It was the same question to all witnesses. Could the notwithstanding clause be used to defend Bill C-9 in its current form prior to the amendment from my colleague across the way if it were struck down by the court?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What I can say is that there's nothing in the bill, as introduced, that suggests the government intended to invoke section 33 of the charter.
Conservative
David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB
I understand that, but if this bill were enacted, proclaimed and subsequently found to be not constitutional by the court, could the government use the notwithstanding clause to maintain a portion of it?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We're here tonight to speak about what is in Bill C-9 and the impact of the amendments that are before the committee, not to opine on what would happen or what the government might do in a situation in which a law is struck down. That is not the role of justice department officials.
Conservative
David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB
Okay. Thank you. At least I got you speaking, so I appreciate that.
I want to close with some commentary. I was contacted by numerous faith leaders in my riding over the previous few days, and I find it very hard to express how deeply afraid they are of where this might go, what it portends for their faith and their traditions, and how the chilling effect has fallen on top of them at the beginning of the Christmas season. I want all members to think very deeply, looking into their souls, about what this portends.
With that, Chair, I cede my time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you.
Mr. Jackson, go ahead. Don't make me miss Larry Maguire even more than I already do.
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, would you mind reading the list out before we go to the next member?
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Do you really want me to read who's on the list? Okay. It's Mr. Rowe, Mr. Genuis, Mr. Lawton, Mr. Holman, Ms. Goodridge, Ms. Jansen, Mr. Mantle and Mr. Brock. Does that make you feel better?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
It's not about how I feel, Chair. It's about being kept informed of what's happening during proceedings.
Thank you for doing your job. I appreciate it.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm sure my predecessor is looking fondly on our interaction today. He may even be watching. Who knows? He is a bit of a political animal.
Mr. Chair, I wanted to start with a bit of a procedural question for you, as I am new here. Not long ago—although a bit of time has passed, and I didn't want to interrupt my colleagues—an individual approached the table and took a picture of the proceedings. Then he sat down, and I noticed that someone from the Liberal staff team went up to the individual and I'm assuming asked him to delete it, although I did not hear that.
That individual has now left the room. I had to google him to find out who he is. I believe it was John-Paul Danko, who is a member of Parliament. It was quite obvious to me that he was holding his cellphone sideways, right here at this angle of the table.
I just want to make sure, Mr. Chair, that you will investigate this and ensure that the photo was in fact deleted. I would hate to see it on social media. Also, knowing that it was a member of Parliament who did it is deeply concerning, because that is against our rules. I wonder if you would investigate that and report back.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Jackson. I wasn't aware of that. It is not allowed. It may have happened during the time when we were suspended. We were suspended a number of times.
Anyway, I will look into it. I'll find out about it. If it did in fact happen, I'll make sure the picture is deleted.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Secondly, I have a copy of Mr. Lawton's amendment here. I want to make sure I stay on topic as best I can.
Listen, I have been astounded by the debate since Bill C-9 was introduced and by the general direction that the Liberal government has decided to go on this. As a relatively new member of Parliament, I don't often speak loudly about faith, or my faith in particular, but I certainly am a person of faith. When it comes to the outpouring of deep concern regarding this bill, I haven't seen anything quite like it since I was elected.
Different faiths are more politically active than others, I would say. That's okay. It's their right to participate, in politics or in commentary, on the issues of the day.
We have a joint statement here. I'm not sure if the committee has received it. It's signed by a number of multi-faith and civil liberty organizations. It's dated December 1. Let me read from it:
We, the undersigned multi faith, civil liberties and community organizations, collectively reject Bill C-9—An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the so-called “Combatting Hate Act.”
As Bill C-9 proceeds through the Parliamentary process, we emphasize that this bill shouldn’t be passed. The risks it poses to protest rights, labour rights, and public accountability are too serious and too far-reaching.
Bill C-9, far from protecting communities, criminalizes protest, suppresses dissent, and expands police discretionary power at a time when over-policing, surveillance, and disproportionate targeting of racialized communities are already well-documented.
They also have demands:
1. Withdraw Bill C-9 in its entirety....
2. Affirm the right to protest as a cornerstone of Canadian democracy....
3. End the expansion of police powers and discretionary authority. Protect communities, not institutions.
4. Commit to evidence-based approaches to addressing hate....
It goes on and on for some time. It's two full pages. I won't read the whole thing, I promise.
The reason this really stood out to me is that I was raised in the United Church of Canada. Some of my fellow Christians like to call us “Christian light”. Sometimes it's affectionate; sometimes it isn't. That's okay. We take that quite well, as members of the United Church in this country, based on, of course, the Methodist faith. The United Church of Canada is one of the most pro centre-left politics.... They weigh into politics all the time as a central organization for the church, always supporting Liberals, and sometimes even going further to the left of that on the spectrum.
I often have debates with people within my own church community and our faith leadership about why our church chooses to be so public about their political views and why they're always with the Liberals and not on the left. Even they have signed this statement asking for this bill to be pulled out. It's that bad. The Liberals have even managed to tick off us nice folks in the United Church. I don't understand how the Liberal Party could be so off base with this bill that they have lost their biggest advocate in the faith community, which is in fact the leadership of my own church.
Part of the foundational principle of our church under John Wesley is the quote now made famous by Hillary Clinton in her election campaign for president in 2016. That's something that won't endear me to my Conservative colleagues, but who could say no to Morgan Freeman's voice? It goes as follows: Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.
Even the United Church is saying that this is not the right path to do it, folks. You need to pull this bill back and have a sit-down with the Centre for Free Expression, Independent Jewish Voices, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East and the Chinese Canadian National Council, Toronto chapter. It goes on and on. The signatories to this statement are saying that this bill is an abject failure. It's a total disaster. These are people with very different political views on every topic that matters, except for this one. Here they agree that their faiths are all put at risk by this piece of legislation, which has been made worse tonight by the Bloc-Liberal separatist coalition.
I will have a really hard time going home and justifying to my constituents in rural Manitoba how this is supposed to make their life better. I really don't see it, because you have all the experts saying that this will, in fact, make life much worse.
I'm still not really sure what this is going to achieve. I've heard from the experts. I'm filling in for Mr. Baber now, and I was here before that. They've admitted on the record that all the serious crimes that can be done and that have been done are already crimes. It's already criminal—it's in the Criminal Code—to incite violence against another religious group based on their religion or on any other factors when you're trying to incite violence against a particular group in this country.
What exactly does this achieve? I've yet to hear an answer. We had some Liberal members try to answer questions when they, of course, didn't have to be on the record about it.
Does anybody want to answer that question? How is this going to make it better than what's already illegal to do in this country?