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
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Yes. I'm actually moving a motion, as I believe I'm entitled to do. It's a dilatory motion. I believe we must go to a vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
You're allowed to bring the motion. It's just that we've seen a bit of both throughout this morning. I wanted to make sure which one we were on.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I'm bringing a motion, Mr. Chair. I'd like a recorded vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay. Well, I'm ruling on the motion. We've already decided on that motion several times today, so we'll move on.
Who has the floor next? It's Mr. Mantle.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Just to confirm, I'm subbed in for MP Gill. Is that correct?
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this issue, and in particular to speak to Mr. Brock's subamendment to Mr. Lawton's amendment. They are critical to bringing back religious freedom and the freedom to express sincerely held religious beliefs and to read from sacred texts, whether that be the Bible, the Torah or any other text, which my colleagues in the Liberal Party seem to believe are hateful.
We know they believe that, because one of the ministers—
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I'm so sorry, but to make the claim that we believe a religious text is hateful goes beyond debate. I would ask that it be withdrawn. It is very unfair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Housefather, Mr. Mantle. We're all entitled to express our views on the pros and cons of the subamendment, the amendment or the bill itself, but suggesting that of anybody in here or challenging their faith in that way, with all due respect, sir, is completely over the line. I would ask that you refrain from doing that going forward.
Mr. Lawton.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
On the same point of order, I have a quote from former justice committee chair Marc Miller on October 30. There is “clear hatred” in books of the Bible and Torah—
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I take your comments seriously. I don't mean to suggest that certain members or all members have that view, but I will read into the record the views of one member of the Liberal government who made these comments on the record. I don't believe that could be impugned in any way. These are his words. They're not mine.
Is that permitted, Mr. Chair? May I read his words into the record?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I don't know which member you're talking about or which words those are. Let's deal with that as it comes.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Okay. I will read Mr. Marc Miller's words into the record. If you think that's inappropriate, you can tell me at that time. He said this at committee on October 30: “Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke...or be a defence.” He further said that prosecutors should have the ability to “press charges”.
My view is that it's Mr. Marc Miller's opinion that these texts I just referenced are clearly hateful. I think it's fair to say that. Those are his words, not mine. That goes to the point of why it's important that Mr. Brock's subamendment to Mr. Lawton's amendment be passed by this committee. We have a Liberal minister who made these comments. In fact, he was promoted after those comments were made.
I'm not sure what signal Canadians should take from that, from the Prime Minister's decision and judgment to move someone who holds those views into a position of authority in the government. It's not just any position. It's the culture and heritage minister. I think our religious beliefs and faith, and our ability to express them, are critical, and—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Mantle.
The room is getting a little loud. Mr. Mantle has the floor. I think we need to show him some respect on both sides, please, and at the back. I know there's food in the room, but please keep your voices down, or preferably just don't talk at all.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that reminder. It's well noted.
I'll just move back a step to what I was saying. I was asking a rhetorical question about what type of signal it sends to Canadians when the Prime Minister, in his judgment, decides to promote a minister who holds that view and who has said it publicly.
In my view, that calls into question the Prime Minister's judgment. That calls into question his commitment to free expression and the ability to express our religious views, which should be protected by the government, recalling of course that the charter is meant to protect Canadians from the overreach of government. Part of its purpose is to curtail the ability of government to circumscribe Canadians' fundamental freedoms.
I'll remind members that the freedom of conscience and religion is in a section of the charter that refers to them not only as freedoms but as fundamental freedoms. There has not been, in my view, enough scholarship and discussion on that, because when we interpret a constitutional text or a legal text, we have to give effect to the words that are there. That's a general principle of interpretation. I'm sure my justice colleagues would agree with that maxim. When the charter says that these are fundamental freedoms, I think we have to ask ourselves why that is and what the drafters of that section meant to convey to Canadians about these freedoms.
I want to talk about three things in my remarks. First, I want to talk about a laudable goal. I also want to talk about the faulty premise the Liberals have about a laudable goal. Finally, I want to talk about misplaced priorities.
The laudable goal, of course, is combatting hate and acts that promote it, propagate it or normalize it. I share the goal that Liberal members, Conservative members and Bloc members have. We want a society that does not promote, tolerate or accept that. That is a laudable goal, but unfortunately, that laudable goal will not be achieved by Bill C-9, and that's the faulty premise.
The faulty premise is that the government, the Liberals, with their co-conspirators, the Bloc, believe that taking away people's religious freedoms will somehow stop the promotion of hate in Canada. On its face, on a common-sense, prima facie basis, that doesn't follow. However, it's worse than that, because not only will this not achieve the goal they have set out for themselves, but in fact we are seeing that it might be weaponized against those who hold a different view from those who are in power.
That was on display with Mr. Miller's comment. For Mr. Miller—I won't impugn his intention; I'll just read his words—it might not have been about a “defence”, but rather using it as a sword. Oftentimes, in legal discussions, we talk about whether laws can be used as a sword or a shield. This defence was of course meant to be a shield against an allegation of hate speech, but we're seeing it potentially being used as a sword. That undermines the laudable goal and leads me to believe that Bill C-9 was brought forward on a very faulty premise.
It's also a faulty premise, because we know that many of the things that members have complained about or that members of our community have raised with us are real. For just over the last eight years, I worked right downtown. My office was at Bay and King, and after October 7, I played witness to marches right in the centre of Toronto that I had never witnessed in my life. There are often protests downtown, and frankly, none of us who work in ivory towers pay much attention to them, but this was different.
Many times, colleagues of mine and I, out of the BMO tower, First Canadian Place, went down to the street to see what these were about. Frankly, I was horrified to hear what members of those protests—if you want to call them that—were saying, what their views were based on what they were yelling and what they were arguing with people on the street about. I'm not a prosecutor. It's not my area of practice, so I'll leave out whether it rose to the Criminal Code definition of hate speech. As a layperson, it certainly seemed pretty hateful to me.
Then I saw, over the next months, that it progressed to not only marching in downtown Toronto but marching into northern Toronto, up Bathurst Street into Jewish neighbourhoods. Again, I'm not an expert on protests, but you have to ask yourself why people want to protest in an area of our city that is heavily populated by one community and one community only. It doesn't take an expert to know that this section of the city was picked because of the members of the Jewish community who live there. Again, as a layperson, I think that's pretty hateful.
This goes to my faulty premise, because the actions of the people in those protests may have been already criminal. I'll mention a few of the provisions of the code that I think may have been at issue and, of course, leave it to the Crown and the police to make the ultimate determination.
There is, for example, in the code, section 63 for unlawful assemblies. Section 175 is about causing a disturbance. Section 176 is about obstructing or disturbing religious worship or meetings. Section 264 deals with criminal harassment. Section 264.1 is about uttering threats. I certainly heard threats at those marches. Sections 298 to 317 are about defamatory libel. Section 423 deals with intimidation, and section 430 with mischief.
There may be other sections. That's just what I was able to glean in reading through the Criminal Code. I would submit to members of the committee and to those who support Bill C-9 that what they are trying to achieve is already achievable in the Criminal Code. The question then is, why are the police and Crown prosecutors not going forward with this?
There's at least one reason that comes to mind, and I would suggest that it's a lack of political support and political will. That's both at the municipal level of government with the City of Toronto and also at the federal level of government with the Liberal government.
I don't think it's unreasonable for police and prosecutors to want their political leaders to stand up for them if they are going to enforce these provisions of the Criminal Code, but they don't. They don't, going back to Mr. Miller's comments, hear comments from the government and from senior ministers about how they should understand what's happening in Toronto and other places across the country. They don't see support for them to enforce these laws.
I would encourage—in fact, I demand it—the police to enforce the laws that exist to protect our religious liberties and those of our Jewish community in this particular example, and to do that for all religious communities in this country. I think all parliamentarians should expect the police to do that, but I understand why they may hesitate, because they do not have the support of the government. They do not have the support of the Prime Minister. They do not have the support of the justice minister, and they certainly don't have the support of the new minister of culture and heritage. It is a laudable goal, but a faulty premise to achieving it, unfortunately.
The last thing I want to talk about in my submission is misplaced priorities. That has been on full display here at the committee.
We have all heard the stories of violent offenders out on bail or being released on bail who then commit more violent offences. These stories are from across Canada. One poignant example is the case of Bailey McCourt. As we've learned, the accused in that case, James Plover, was supposed to have gone through a consideration of various factors prior to being released. In that story, Mr. Plover was released and committed the horrible murder of his estranged wife. That has shaken Canadians, and rightly so, because Mr. Plover should never have been released.
I have a report on that. This is important, especially for Mr. Chang. This is in his province of British Columbia. I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to table this report with the committee as evidence, especially for Mr. Chang and other members from British Columbia. Would I have unanimous consent for that?
