Justice Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

—then it is precisely for those controversial cases, those cases in which people are pushing the envelope, are proposing ideas that are contentious or are perhaps even presenting ideas in ways that are contentious.... The protection of the ability to do so and the existence of clear and narrow exceptions are the only things that give real life to doctrines of freedom of speech. This is why we have not only charter-protected freedoms in this regard, but also protections around freedom of speech that go back much further and much deeper within our constitutional traditions.

Similarly, the freedom of religion is protected precisely because of the existence of opinions or practices that might attract unwanted attention from the state absent protections. It's not cases with majority-aligned opinions that require any human rights protections; it's exceptional cases.

I think the point that A Man for All Seasons highlights is that the adherence to rules that are clear and that prescribe these things at some point becomes important for all of us. An individual might think they are part of the sympathetic majority and not the unsympathetic dissenters in a particular case, but that might change as their convictions change or, over the course of their lives, as the convictions of the majority around them change. This is why, again, these protections are important.

I think we can identify times in the past when opinions that were considered contentious, outside the mainstream and even extreme were eventually opinions that won the day and laid the foundation for what became a broader consensus. This is why we protect freedom. I think the protection of freedom is important as a matter of individual rights, but it is also important for the common good that the process of exchange and creative disagreement creates the conditions in which new realizations can be identified and can move forward.

Chair, I didn't plan to speak for long this morning. I wanted to share that reflection and open the floor up to some of my colleagues. I have a lot more I want to say on this subject, but I want to make sure that everybody around the table has an opportunity to share.

Before I wrap up, I hope you'll indulge me. I had a little something to share that is very much relevant to this topic but also in the spirit of the season:

'Twas the night before Christmas, the elbows were down, the members of Parliament may be leaving town.
We've had our ups and downs, what a wild, bumpy ride, now we hope once again for a turn in the tide.
There's one former minister, free as a bird, at least he has convictions in every sense of the word.
Now on floor crossing rumours there's been quite the buzz, our Nova Scotia caucus stronger than it was.
Before he committed that most terrible sin, he almost withered beneath the House leader's grin.
We've got 99 problems, that seems like a ton, at least the Beach's MP, for us he ain't one.
But these days it seems tough to be Liberal as well, when your Trump-pleasing strategy has all gone too helpless.
If things grow truly desperate, then here is the rub, you might throw a big party in the consul general's residence—

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

I have a point of order. How is this relevant to the consideration of clause-by clause?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It's completely irrelevant. You're quite right, Mr. Chang.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm getting there, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Genuis, I am going to cut you off. You're quite right, though. It is a big burden being in government. Maybe we can talk about that someday.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, I'm getting there.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

No, that has nothing to do with this; it's irrelevant. If you want to get back to something related to the clause-by-clause, that's fine. Mr. Chang is right.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have some lines on Bill C-9 here.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Well, if you want to talk about Bill C-9, then be my guest; you have the floor, but if you're going to continue reading poetry that you spent the night writing, I'm going to cut you off.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I have a point of order.

The amendment we are debating is about enshrining in Bill C-9 the freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has been abundantly clear that freedom of expression includes artistic freedom. That freedom is incredibly important for all members to enjoy, and it is put in jeopardy by Bill C-9.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Hold on, everybody, please.

Mr. Genuis started out by talking about the rule of law, rules and procedure. I spent three years in law school and 20 years practising. One of the issues you have to deal with is relevance. We're talking about a specific clause and about what happens to be your amendment Mr. Lawton.

What Mr. Genuis was doing, while perhaps creative and entertaining to some, has absolutely no bearing on what we're talking about today, and I'm not allowing him to continue. That's the end of that discussion.

If you want to get back to talking about Bill C-9, please do so, Mr. Genuis. Otherwise, we'll move on, because I believe that Mr. Lawton is waiting anxiously to speak. He's next.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, I'll just conclude with the relevant sections of the poem.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Genuis, no.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

They're on Bill C-9—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

No.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The relevant—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Genuis, I've made a ruling. You started your morning by talking about rules and how important it is to follow them. If you're going to make a mockery of the process while doing so, we're going to move on.

Unless you have something relevant to say about Bill C-9, I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Lawton.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I will say two brief things about Bill C-9, Chair. The first is:

We celebrate a baby, read scripture and talk, as long as we're allowed by the Liberals and Bloc.
Liberal Bill C-9 has made a—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Genuis, you are done. That's it.

Mr. Lawton, you have the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Brock, I know what you're going to say, and you're right, but if he's going to continue to make a mockery of the process and try to challenge me by being cute, we're not going to get along very well.

As I said at the beginning, I'm prepared to sit here all day and as long as people want, as long as we talk about relevant issues. We're not here to make a mockery of the process, and that's what Mr. Genuis is trying to do.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I was hoping to lighten the mood a bit, Chair, but since I seem to have done the opposite, I'll cede my time for now. Add me to the list for later.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's perfect. Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Lawton, the floor is yours.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

This issue has quite pleasantly surprised me given the volume of responses I've received as a member of Parliament.

Oftentimes when we discuss issues of freedoms and constitutional rights, they can feel abstract to people, but Bill C-9 and the amendment adopted by the Liberals at our previous meeting are so offensive to people of faith in this country that it has come across as incredibly personal to people in this country. I've had folks reach out, not just from my riding but across the country, to say they've heard members of their church, mosque or synagogue who have never become involved in politics before talking about what Bill C-9 will do.

The amendment that was adopted by the Liberals on Tuesday erodes long-standing religious freedom protections in the Criminal Code, making it so one can be prosecuted for quoting what our predecessor, Marc Miller, called “hateful” verses of scripture in this very book, the Bible; in the Torah that my colleague Roman Baber brought; in the Quran; and in holy texts of other faiths as well. My amendment, which we're debating now, cannot totally reverse the harms of the previous amendment, but it can state firmly the importance of standing up for and enshrining in Bill C-9 religious freedom and freedom of expression.

We debated this particular amendment for hours on Tuesday, and I do not believe one single Liberal member of Parliament put themself on the speaking list or made an intervention either way—whether supporting or opposing this. Not one single person spoke up and said, “Absolutely, yes, we agree that Bill C-9 should protect religious freedom and freedom of expression.”

When we were debating the prior amendment, the amendment moved by Monsieur Fortin that removed these religious protections, we heard from the Liberals that they were going to listen to all and were going to engage and ask questions, and we got one short boilerplate intervention from Ms. Lattanzio before the Liberals very quickly moved to a vote. They did not have the courage of their convictions to defend religious freedom. How could they? They couldn't, because they were the ones who were complicit in seeking to remove those very freedoms from Canada.

I represent an incredible riding, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It has a long religious history. We had a Quaker settlement established more than 200 years ago, which is still very vibrant today in the historic village of Sparta. We had large numbers of Mennonites immigrate from Mexico in the 1950s, although they had a long history before that, and they have maintained and preserved their faith traditions. We have had, in recent decades, immigration from India, including Sikhs, Hindus and Christians.

Just to give an understanding of how people of faith truly are in this country—they are not hate-mongers, as the Liberals seem to be suggesting—there is a temple on Redan Street in St. Thomas. It is a Hindu temple. I apologize; my knowledge of Indian languages is not particularly great, but it's called the Shree Hari Har Mandir, and it is a Hindu temple used by Sikhs because there is no Sikh gurdwara in St. Thomas. Sikhs and Hindus work together and share this space.

There's a Malayali Christian community. They are people from the Kerala region of India. They have an amazing Christmas party. I was an honoured guest at their Onam festival in the fall.

All of them are people of faith who have brought their own faith traditions to their lives and contribute so much to the community. The St. Thomas mosque opened in 2021, and when you take into account London, which is also part of my riding, you have an even more diverse and broader array of faith institutions. All of these people contribute so heavily to Canada. They contribute to education. They contribute to philanthropy. They contribute to the cultural fabric of our country.

Of the 110,570 people in my riding—I'm looking at the latest Statistics Canada data—there are 65,000 Christians. More than half of the population are Christians. Within that, we have Catholics and Anglicans. We have the Mennonites I mentioned. We have Pentecostals and people from the United Church. We have the whole range of Christian denominations. We have 3,100 Muslims, 500 Sikhs, 580 Hindus and 315 Buddhists.

I've met many of these people, and I've had amazing conversations with them. I've had many of them reach out to me, deeply concerned about what the Liberals are doing to religious freedom. I'd like to share a few of the messages that I've received.

One is from a woman, who says, “My name is Nancy Cartwright. I live in your riding in St. Thomas. I'd like to register my objection to the plan to amend Bill C-9, which would repeal important provisions that protect those speaking on a religious subject or based on a belief in a religious text. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. No government has the right to criminalize the teaching of the Bible, which is the foundation of my faith.” That's just a portion of the message Nancy sent me.

I have another message, from a pastor, similarly in St. Thomas. He says, “Mr. Lawton, thank you for your leadership on the matter of Bill C-9. I have been preaching the gospel for over 40 years. I pastored the Bible Baptist Church in St. Thomas, Ontario, for 30 years. I've been a chaplain for the St. Thomas police and now fire department for the last seven years.

“In that time, I have used God's word on a daily basis to assist people through the very difficult times of life. My message, as is the message of most God-fearing preachers, is a message of love. In that message of love, there are times that I must, as I did with my children, use correction when there was error. There were times where I had to be stern and had to tell them the truth, even if the truth was difficult for them to receive, in preaching God's word.

“I have seen tens of thousands of lives changed. I've seen people who are desperate and despondent change and become fully equipped for life in difficult times. I will continue to preach the full counsel of God, for I am ordered to by God himself, that very same God that we beg in our national anthem to keep our land. My question is, keep it how?”

I won't read the entire email at this particular moment, but he goes on. He says, “If there is any hate speech in the country, it is coming from the Liberal parties in our government. Their obvious hatred for religious organizations has been evident for many years, constantly trying to bring out taxation and the elimination of those who preach the gospel we've never seen more clearly. Why are those seeking to add and change our laws not looking to penalize those who indeed preach, promote and publicize what we know as hate? Instead, they're trying to demonize the scriptures, which in totality promote love, peace and contentment.”

There's more, which I may read in a future intervention.

I have one more message from another constituent, who says, “I'm a supporter of what you're doing. I, for one, will never stop proclaiming and shouting from the rooftops the truth, way and life of the gospel, because me going to jail doesn't slightly compare to one soul in hell. A believer who believes will fight for freedom of speech.”

There are people who have said that if the Liberals are going to criminalize quoting scripture, then they had better start building new jails.

I would point out that, as we've been talking about bail and justice issues, it appears that thought crimes are the only crimes the Liberals seem to want to penalize. We have been trying on this committee for months to get to work on the serious criminal justice issues that our constituents sent us here to tackle. This is what Canadians want. This is what Canadians expect of us. This is what Canadians have demanded. They have not demanded restrictions on freedom of expression. They have not demanded restrictions on freedom of religion. They have demanded action on bail.

With that, I move that the committee now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act.