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
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I apologize, Mr. Chair.
I seek unanimous consent for this.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I don't know if the Chair has any further information about timing, but I could literally talk out the clock. I don't intend on doing that, because I have a number of colleagues who want to add their perspective on this issue and share stories regarding their faith, if not stories from constituents in their riding.
A number of times we've heard the derogatory, negative comments from Marc Miller, now Minister Miller, in the role of the chair, which is largely supposed to be independent and impartial. I had to weigh in. Quite frankly, to my colleague Mr. Lawton's point, it has been the only clear direction that anyone has received from the Liberal Party that they're supportive of the Bloc amendment. How the conversation initiated over the weekend and who initiated it don't really matter to me. The fact is that the truth is now out.
The Liberal Party produced a piece of legislation when this issue was never an issue. By and large, the number of witnesses we heard from who gave testimony and were examined by members at this committee, with the exception of my Bloc colleague, never really focused squarely on the issue of removing the religious defence—not exemption, but defence. However, here we are, with the telegraphing of a message from the governing Liberal Party that it's prepared to do that. I suspect, until someone tells me otherwise, that was the only path it saw to get Bill C-9 passed back in the House and ultimately into the Senate to receive royal assent.
I want to put on the record the exact words of Marc Miller, because we have all used various versions based on memory or certain passages from newspaper articles. I took the opportunity of checking the blues, and I have the actual transcript.
Marc Miller said, “I'll use chair's prerogative to ask a follow-up question of Mr. Ross.” For those who don't remember Mr. Derek Ross, he testified as the executive director of the Christian Legal Fellowship.
Marc Miller continued:
As despicable and as unlawful as the statements made by Mr. Charkaoui are—and would be, if they were stated again—we don't know why the prosecution chose not to continue with the charges. Perhaps this is to Mr. Fortin's point.
I want to dig a bit into the concept of good faith, Mr. Ross.
In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals. I don't understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible, though there are other religious texts that say the same thing. How do we somehow constitute this as being said in good faith? Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful.
I'll repeat that. He said, “Clearly, there are situations in these texts”—in reference to the Christian Holy Bible and other holy texts—“where statements are hateful.”
He continued:
They should not be used to invoke...or be a defence. There should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.
I just want to understand what your notion of good faith is in this context, where there are passages in religious texts that are clearly hateful.
That incendiary statement by the then chair of the justice committee ignited a firestorm across the country, with faith leaders and constituents from right across the country flooding our inboxes and mail services with concerns. If I've said it once, I'll keep repeating it: I have no doubt that the five Liberal members in this room probably received the very same volume, but have we heard anything from the Liberal bench? All we have heard are crickets in this committee, crickets in the House of Commons and crickets outside the House.
No one from the Liberal Party wants to talk about it, except, now, the Minister of Justice, who caged himself into a corner and is trying his best to nuance his way out by indicating that perhaps—maybe—he jumped the gun. I'm paraphrasing his comments. Perhaps he jumped the gun. Maybe he should have consulted. Jeez, I would have thought that was ministerial responsibility 101, but I guess Sean Fraser didn't get the message. He failed miserably at immigration, he failed miserably at housing and he's not off to a good start on the justice portfolio. It's a little too late.
Then we have the infighting going on with the Liberal caucus. We have the infighting in the Prime Minister's Office.
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I'm getting to that. Relevance is very subjective, my friend. I told you I have a lot to say.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Hold on, please.
Mr. Brock, you and I have had this conversation before, and I have asked you this question once before. Tell me what judge you appeared before who told you relevance was subjective.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
It was as defence counsel and as a Crown prosecutor.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
That would make everything relevant, I think, if that was the criteria.
In any event, I would like to keep this focused on the subamendment as closely as possible.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I was getting to that before I was interrupted by Mr. Chang yet again.
For the sake of timing, because I indicated that I could go on for hours but I'm not going to, I have probably, I don't know, 20 or 30 pages of emails and letters from constituents and religious leaders, not only from my riding but also from other parts of the country.
I'm going to read a statement from Bishop James Lewis, who is a bishop in the Norfolk area. He says as follows, and he's been ordained.
“My calling is simple: to help people discover a God of love, not a God of fear.
“Because of that calling, I need to speak clearly and publicly about Bill C-9, the federal ‘Combatting Hate Act,’ and in particular the proposal tied to it that would remove a long-standing protection for religious expression in Canada's Criminal Code.
“Let me be very clear from the start:
“I oppose hatred, intimidation, and violence against any person or group.
“I support laws that genuinely protect people from being targeted, threatened, or terrorized.
“But I cannot support any move that opens the door for the state to effectively edit, chill, or police sincere preaching from sacred texts—whether those texts are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or anything else.
“That is the line for me as a pastor, and as a Canadian. Scripture is not the enemy—hate is....
“[T]he Bible—or any sacred text—is itself [not] the problem....
“Sacred texts do not stand in the pulpit by themselves. Human beings do. What causes harm is not the text, but how it is used:
“Some leaders twist scripture into a weapon: to shame, to control, to dehumanize.
“Others, and I include myself here, use scripture to call people into healing, forgiveness, and love.
“The answer to abuse of religion is accountability for abusive behaviour, not the slow criminalization or intimidation of religious teaching itself.
“When a government starts saying, in effect, ‘These verses are safe, those verses are suspicious, and we'll decide whether your explanation of them crosses the line,’ we are no longer simply ‘combatting hate.’ We are inching toward state supervision of theology. That is not paranoia; that is a sober reading of what happens when you remove explicit protections for good-faith religious expression from hate-speech law and then expand those same laws.
“Why Bill C-9 concerns me as a minister
“Right now, the Criminal Code includes a protection that says, in plain language, that a person shall not be convicted of hate propaganda if, in good faith, they express an opinion on a religious subject or based on a religious text.
“That clause has been a crucial reassurance to faith communities: ‘You may preach your scriptures in good faith without wondering if every controversial passage could land you in a courtroom.’ The proposal tied to Bill C-9 would remove that protection.
“Now, the government says, ‘Don't worry, we're only targeting extreme hate, not religion.’ I appreciate the intention. But removing the religious defence sends a very different message to those of us who actually stand in pulpits and lead congregations: ‘Trust us. We'll decide later what counts as good-faith religious expression.’
“With respect, that is not good enough.”
I couldn't agree more.
He continues:
“They understand what's at stake: not the ‘right to hate,’ but the right to teach, wrestle with, and even struggle through hard texts without the state sitting in the front row with a notepad and a pair of handcuffs.”
That is what I am hearing in different words and different passages. That is the impact of what the Liberal government is prepared to do to secure enough votes to get Bill C-9 passed.
The bishop continues:
“The Charter is not a decoration
“Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not a wall plaque for courthouses. It is supposed to mean something in real life.
“Freedom of religion (s.2(a)) means more than silently believing in your head; it includes the freedom to manifest, teach, and practice that belief.
“Freedom of expression (s.2(b)) means more than the right to say only what the government currently finds acceptable or comfortable.
“Yes, the courts have already said there can be narrow limits on expression where there is extreme, dehumanizing hate. I accept that. I am not asking for a free pass to incite violence or vilify human beings made in the image of God.
“But when Parliament strips out an explicit protection that was designed to keep hate-speech laws from crossing into the sanctuary, it is tilting the balance away from freedom and toward fear. That is the wrong direction for a free and democratic society.
“What I stand for as a pastor
“Let me say this personally. In my ministry:
“I teach from the Bible and other spiritual texts.
“I preach a God of love, not a God of fear.
“I refuse to dehumanize anyone—regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or belief system.
“I challenge behaviour and systems that are rooted in fear, division, and ego, but I do not deny the divine spark in any person.
“I do not need a Criminal Code exemption to love people. But I do need a free pulpit to speak honestly about God, sin, grace, forgiveness, and transformation—even when that makes people uncomfortable.
He goes on:
“That is not healthy for Canada. It is not healthy for democracy. And it is absolutely not healthy for the spiritual life of this nation.
“What I am asking for
“I am not writing this to stir up rage. I am writing this to stir up clarity and courage.
“I respectfully call on:
“Members of Parliament—to oppose any amendment that removes the Criminal Code protection for good-faith religious expression...and to ensure that any law combatting hate is narrow, precise, and clearly separated from sincere theological teaching.
“Fellow faith leaders—pastors, priests, imams, rabbis, and others—to speak up together, not as rivals, but as guardians of shared freedom. We may differ profoundly on theology, but we are united in saying: the state must not become the referee of our scriptures.
“Everyday Canadians of goodwill—whether you are religious, spiritual, or secular—to recognize that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are your freedoms too. When one group's freedom is quietly weakened, everyone's freedom gets a little thinner.
“A final word
“I will continue to preach love. I will continue to teach forgiveness. I will continue to invite people into a deeper walk with a God who is not angry, but endlessly patient and kind. But I will also continue to say this:
“The government of Canada has no rightful authority to censor sacred texts or to intimidate sincere, good-faith preaching of them, so long as those teachings do not cross the clear line into dehumanizing hatred or violence.
“My prayer is that our leaders will have the wisdom to protect both: the dignity and safety of every person in this country, and the freedom of conscience, religion, and expression that keeps our society truly free.”
I could not have summed up my overall approach to this debate more clearer than that. I truly hope the Liberal members on this committee and the justice minister take note.
At this time, Chair, I wish to seek unanimous consent that we prioritize Bill C-14 immediately.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Brock.
Ms. Kronis, I'll turn the floor over to you.
