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
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Will you have a response before the end of this day?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'll keep asking. I'll find out. I will let you know when I know.
Just so we're clear, yesterday I had resources available for three hours, but because of other events that were taking place, I thought it would be nice if we didn't have a meeting. I've explained that to some of you. I hope people respect that.
Mr. Brock, I will find out. I've made the inquiry and I'll let people know.
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
—that the Conservatives are prepared to sit every single day, if necessary, to defend my holy Bible and the other holy books around this table. I will never stop that pursuit.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Brock, I'm glad you brought that Bible, because it's my Bible too.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I was born and raised, and I am, a proud Catholic. I think everybody around this table has strong religious beliefs. We all share that sentiment.
As for the speakers list, I think Mr. Gill was first.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I had the floor. You had given me the floor, and I was speaking.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Genuis, we can start off this way. You will have ample opportunity to speak. Mr. Gill is the next speaker. I will add you to the list again.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Gill, but I had the floor. Could you read out the speakers list that you have?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Well, put me on the list, then, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Yes.
Hold on. Let's make sure we have everybody.
Who had their hand up?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Do you have me on the list now, Chair?
Conservative
Amarjeet Gill Conservative Brampton West, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
We are all committed to working around the clock, if needed, to help Canadians, and especially the residents in my riding of Brampton West.
Let me begin by saying that every member of this committee, every party and every Canadian agrees that hate-motivated violence and genuine incitement have no place in our society. Not one of us is here to defend it. Not one of us is here to defend hatred. We are here to defend freedom—freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of peaceful assembly and, most importantly for my constituents in Brampton West, freedom of religion. I was elected by the people of Brampton West to stand up for their rights and to voice their needs.
Bill C-9, with its sweeping changes to the Criminal Code and the troubling removal of the religious text protection, puts those freedoms at risk. As Conservatives, we believe that when legislation grants the state more power over speech, belief and lawful expression, we cannot just wave it through based on its title or intent. We must scrutinize the consequences, especially the unintended ones.
Let me say that while we are spending precious committee time debating this amendment to Bill C-9, violent repeat offenders are being released back into our communities daily. The bail and sentencing act, Bill C-14, should be our priority. Canadians are begging us to move on that bill.
This amendment suppressing religious expression would have a significant impact on communities across the country, especially in my riding of Brampton West. Brampton is a community full of religious diversity, so when Bill C-9 proposes to remove the long-standing good-faith religious text defence under section 319 of the Criminal Code, my community is alarmed, because a law that is vague, overbroad and lacking safeguards can misinterpret religious doctrine as criminal speech.
That could depend on who holds power or how prosecutors interpret a passage, so this amendment leaves Canadians worried. Will reading a scripture, quoting doctrine or discussing moral teachings become a legal risk? Will religious leaders be forced to self-censor deeply held beliefs to avoid being dragged into a criminal process?
The government's defence of Bill C-9 tends to rely on assurances rather than clear statutory language. However, these concerns are not nearly as loud as the concerns I'm hearing from the residents of Brampton West about the rise in crime across the country. Across levels of government and across political parties, there has been a demand for immediate bail and sentencing reforms, so it is astonishing that this committee is prioritizing the regulation of religious expression instead of fixing a broken bail system through Bill C-14.
Canadians have been crystal clear that dangerous repeat violent offenders being cycled in and out of the system is a crisis. Instead of saving lives, the Liberals are delaying bail reform with yet another speech-control bill. Yes, hate speech is an important issue, but repeat offenders are terrorizing communities. People are scared, and they want change. Once again, it appears that the government would rather police words than confront violent criminals.
If we are asked to trust that the law won't be used unfairly, that means the law is capable of being used unfairly. A right protected by prosecutorial discretion is not a right; it is a gamble. That is why the existing religious text defence has been so important. It provides a clear, objective, constitutional safeguard. Removing it strips away certainty and replaces it with political interpretation. These uncertainties should not be written into criminal law. Meanwhile, none of these uncertainties compare to the very real certainty that the bail system is failing Canadians, which Bill C-14 directly addresses.
It is no wonder that Canadians are demanding action on sentencing reform, not more speech policing. The most common argument I hear in favour of Bill C-9 is that we need to do something about hate. I agree that we do, but the Conservatives' position is that the best way to combat hate is to punish actual harm and not to suppress legitimate speech or belief. We must target perpetrators of violence, defacement, intimidation and incitement, which are already illegal. Conservatives support strengthening penalties for genuine hate-motivated crimes, but we do not support granting the government broad new powers to criminalize speech simply because it is unpopular, uncomfortable or rooted in one's faith or religion.
As I mentioned, Canadians are worried about this amendment, not because they are hateful, but because they are uncertain of the restrictions imposed. Uncertainty is the enemy of freedom. The Criminal Code should be clear, narrow and predictable. Bill C-9 is none of those things.
The government has not produced a single compelling case showing that hate crime prosecution has failed because of the religious text defence—not one. If a safeguard has not impeded justice, why remove it? The answer is ideological, not practical.
Meanwhile, the practical, urgent work of protecting Canadians through bail and sentencing reform and the measures outlined in Bill C-14 remains sidelined. This is also unacceptable.
Conservatives believe in targeted, effective, charter-compliant measures to address hate. We support stronger penalties for violent hate-motivated crime; more resources to protect synagogues, mosques, temples, gurdwaras, churches and community centres; education programs that extend interfaith understanding; and police training focused on actual threats rather than subjective speech.
What we do not support is turning the Criminal Code into an instrument for regulating religious discourse, moral teachings or peaceful expression. Canada does not need more restrictions on thought. It needs more unity, more dialogue and more respect. To put this in simple words, Canada needs the bail and sentencing act, Bill C-14, far more than it needs another expansion of the hate speech law. Canadians want stronger consequences for violent crime, not another debate policing beliefs.
Legislation that touches fundamental freedoms must be drafted with reason, precision, humility and a clear respect for charter rights. Bill C-9, as currently written, fails that test. It expands state power without a clear definition. It removes vital safeguards. It chills legitimate religious expression. It replaces constitutional clarity with political discretion, and it threatens the fabric of open, pluralistic communities like Brampton West.
We can and should take action against real hate, but Bill C-9 goes far beyond that purpose and risks undermining the very freedom that defines us as Canadians. At a time when violent crime, repeat offending and unsafe communities are top of mind for Canadians, our committee should be dealing with Bill C-14, real justice reform, not debating how to restrict religious expression.
Let us protect Canadians not only from violence but from unnecessary government intrusion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate having the floor back, and thank you for the conversation we had.
I wasn't going to start here, but it's relevant to some issues of committee process and the underlying issue. I want to start with a bit of a reflection on rules of order, the rule of law and how they relate to Bill C-9.
I'm very fond of a particular passage from the famous play A Man for All Seasons, which I've probably read into the record half a dozen times in various fora in my time as a member of Parliament. I assume many members will know the context, but this is an exchange between William Roper, who would become Sir Thomas More's son-in-law, and Sir Thomas More himself.
Roper says to More:
So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More says:
Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper says:
I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Then More says:
Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast—Man's laws, not God's—and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
The reason the rule of law is so important—and the cases in which it is tested are inevitably the cases in which a generic appeal to reasonableness isn't good enough—is that some structure is needed to protect all of us, to ensure fairness and to protect the ways we interact with each other. The principle of the importance of rules being adhered to is often, therefore, tested in the unsympathetic cases, in the cases of individuals appealing for the protection of rules either here in Parliament or elsewhere who are, for whatever reason, considered unsympathetic figures by the person making or enforcing the rule.
I think we have come to understand and appreciate in our tradition that it is through structures, rules and standards that are clearly established, clearly laid down and impartially enforced that we are all protected. I think what has been a bit of an issue in this committee is seeing the importance of reflecting on how an adherence to rules instead of something else is important for how we govern ourselves and how we relate to each other. It's also of broader importance—that is, importance in society as a whole.
Freedom of speech is only tested in controversial cases. Legal doctrines around freedom of speech are not required in the cases of uncontroversial speech, because nobody wants to go after people who are engaged in uncontroversial speech. If freedom of speech is something important at all—and on this side of the House we believe deeply in the importance of freedom of speech—