I cede the floor.
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
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
Thank you, Chair.
The Liberals and the Bloc Québécois have made a deal to eliminate Criminal Code safeguards for freedom of expression and religious freedoms in exchange for the Bloc supporting Bill C-9. They are removing paragraphs 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b), which state that people cannot be prosecuted for expressing, in good faith, an argument or opinion on a religious subject or based on belief in a religious text.
The Bloc has long pushed for the ability to persecute people for religious expression. It unsuccessfully attempted to make these changes in the previous Parliament through Bill C-367. The Bloc often cites the case of Montreal imam Adil Charkaoui, who in 2023 used a prayer to call for the extermination of Jews. Prosecutors denied to charge him. There is no evidence he was not charged because of the religious defence protection.
What Charkaoui said is really illegal. There is no defence for advocating genocide under section 318 or public incitement under subsection 319(1). The defence only exists for the wilful promotion of hatred and anti-Semitism charges. The refusal to charge Charkaoui was yet another example of authorities taking enforcement—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. Bailey. Just bear with me.
The room is getting a little loud again. Mr. Bailey has the floor.
Conservative
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
I'll repeat that. The refusal to charge Charkaoui was yet another example of authorities failing to enforce existing law. The Supreme Court has recognized the religious defence as necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional because of how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are.
The justice chair, Marc Miller, said in committee on October 30 that there was clear hatred in some books of the Bible and the Torah, singling out Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans. I'll quote him: “Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke...or be a defence.” He was clear: Prosecutors should be able to press charges.
Numerous witnesses told the justice committee that the religious text defence is narrow and does not offer blanket immunity, as the Liberals are suggesting. People of faith could be imprisoned for up to two years for expressing deeply held religious convictions that the government finds offensive.
I can speak louder.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
The meeting has resumed.
We had a discussion off the record, with a gentle reminder that we need to maintain decorum. I think we've all landed in a good place in the spirit of the season.
Mr. Bailey, you still have the floor.
Conservative
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
The good-faith religious defence protects minorities and those who sincerely hold religious beliefs. Religious communities, including Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Buddhist communities, hold a vast range of beliefs on religion, morality, sexuality, politics and culture. Though some may find these beliefs objectionable, old-fashioned or even hateful, a free country does not criminalize the expression of sincerely held religious doctrines. We debate people we disagree with; we don't silence or arrest them.
The courts have been clear that violence and calls to violence are not and never have been protected as free expression and are not in good faith, as the defence requires. Liberals insist their new bill is needed to protect religious Canadians from hate. Removing the religious freedom safeguard from the Criminal Code will not make Canadians safer. It will not protect anyone, least among them people of faith, from hate. This change will expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. It is not an accident that section 2 of the Canadian charter begins with the fundamental freedoms, in this exact order: the freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association.
In a free country, we answer speech with speech. We answer bad ideas with better ideas. We do not answer prayer, even ugly prayer, with prison. That is the road to tyranny. This bill will not make a single Canadian safer. In fact, removing the protection for good-faith religious beliefs is a path to state tyranny.
The government is repeating the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook: declaring certain religious beliefs hateful, criminalizing their expression and then claiming they are only protecting minorities. That is how every police state begins. This change will turn the wilful promotion of hatred into a sword hanging over every sermon, Bible study or Torah reading. The act claims to combat hate; it sows it by silencing minorities of belief.
The government is prepared to combat hate by stripping away the only explicit Criminal Code protection for Canadians who, in good faith, express an opinion on religious subjects or quote their own sacred text. That is not combatting hate. That is combatting faith.
John Diefenbaker said on August 10, 1960, “I am Canadian...free to speak without fear, free to worship...in my own way.... This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” Diefenbaker would be rolling in his grave at this clause. It's not a conservative issue or a progressive issue. It is the foundation upon which every other democratic freedom stands.
On April 1, 2024, Scotland's new hate crime act came into force. Religious aggravators were added, and the old religious offences were weakened. In the first eight weeks, 8,000 complaints were filed. That's more than one every seven minutes. Police in Scotland logged every single one, even anonymous ones.
A Catholic priest was investigated for preaching the catechism on marriage. Comedians were visited by police for jokes. J.K. Rowling dared police to arrest her. They didn't, but only because she was rich and famous. The Scottish Police Federation warned that the law had turned officers into thought police.
This is the future that subclause 4(2) is importing into Canada with Canadian politeness. Even if charges were to be eventually dropped, the process is the punishment—five years of investigation, $100,000 in legal bills and your name dragged through the media. That is enough to silence 99% of pastors, imams, rabbis or other religious defendants for expressing their deeply held beliefs.
I could go on about the hundreds of emails that my constituency office received. On December 16, I will be holding a Zoom meeting with 70 churches. I am one of the few MPs who have an entire city. Most cities now have two MPs. It just shows me how important this is to the people of Red Deer.
Our values have been tested by this Liberal government—our religious freedoms. We've been teased—I'm going to use that word—about charitable statuses, to the point where churches were calling my office constantly and sending emails concerned they could lose their revenues.
At this point, Chair, I would really like you to hear me out on a point of order. I'm seeking the unanimous consent of this committee to proceed with the consideration of Bill C-14.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm sorry, Mr. Bailey. As I ruled previously, since you're not a regular member, you're not in a position to do that.
Liberal
Liberal
