Justice Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

We are. We are talking about another amendment, an amendment that's supposed to protect people from the impact of this bill, which is an overreach. I'll move on, Mr. Chair, but I am deeply concerned about that.

I think there are a few people left in this country, although they're becoming fewer, who fought, in the course of a world war and in peacekeeping missions, to defend the freedoms that this country stands for and that our allies around the world stand for—freedom to believe what you want to believe and freedom to believe in any religion and any faith. My grandfather is a Second World War veteran. He left the farm in Margaret, Manitoba, population 100, and fought against hateful people for freedoms.

It's not that Conservatives are opposed to this bill because we all of a sudden want hateful acts and hateful language to continue to be spread all over this country. That's exactly the opposite of what we believe. I think the vast majority of my constituents would expect me, though, to be here, standing up for their freedom to believe what they want to believe. They and generations before us from our region have put their lives on the line, not just in this country but around the world, to defend religions that they didn't even know or understand when they were getting on a boat and being shipped over there.

It's shocking to me that a group wants to remove these types of freedoms and protections in our society. I think Mr. Lawton has an important amendment that is trying to at least balance what is happening. I think Mr. Baber and Ms. Kronis brought important context to light when they were sharing their deep legal understanding of the law, both being practitioners of it themselves, like, of course, our shadow minister, Mr. Brock. These are folks who understand this deeply, and I think probably more deeply than maybe even some of the Liberal members, but I digress.

I really want to stress that Manitobans understand standing up against hateful acts. We've seen challenges with ethnic communities in Winnipeg being targeted by hateful acts, particularly with the rise of the conflict in the Middle East, and hateful protests outside the Jewish Folklorama pavilion, where people take their kids to celebrate faith. Manitobans are neither strangers to nor isolated from these activities that are disturbingly going on in our country. We see them, but we believe that the provisions to protect Canadians from these actions already exist in Canadian statutes and in Canadian law.

We have a problem with enforcement in this country, a problem that exists across many different types of crimes, thanks to Liberal governance over the last 10 years. This is just another example of a failure to enforce and prosecute laws that already exist.

I would encourage the Liberals to pull back on this bill, abandon their partnership with the Bloc—which shouldn't really have to be said, but apparently it does in this context—and rethink this bill. I think we really need to make sure that this country....

By the way, the generation who fought for these freedoms in other countries came back after the great wars and said they needed to solve this problem on their own and needed to make sure that these things they just fought a war to protect can't happen here. That is why we have the Bill of Rights, as a colleague mentioned, and why the charter was patriated. It came back to Canada, and all of these provisions were added to protect the freedoms that Canadians deserve. They were brought here onto Canadian soil and into Canadian law.

I don't understand why the Liberals are trying to find a problem where none exists. We have a lot of problems facing this country, as I have learned very quickly since getting elected at the federal level. There are a lot of challenges.

However, the state policing the religious beliefs of its people is something we leave to other countries around the world—some of which the new Prime Minister seemingly gets along very well with and spends a lot of time flying around the world to see and discuss. Maybe there are some commonalities. I don't know. I'll leave it up to him to justify it to his constituents in Nepean and across the rest of the country.

The fact is that those principles have no place here. They don't belong in this country. That's why Mr. Lawton's amendment should pass. It strengthens a terrible act. It makes some improvement in as limited a fashion as possible, given the deeply flawed nature of the original draft.

It's heartening to see, at least within our Conservative team, which is made up of members of Parliament from many faiths—many of whom are around this table and many of whom I am proud and pleased to serve with in this Parliament—that we are unified. In hearing from the communities we represent, we are unified in the belief that where the Liberals are going with this and what they're proposing to do are wrong. Canadians will not stand for it.

I appreciate, Mr. Chair, that you've mentioned there are resources for us to discuss this further for the rest of the week. That's important, because Canadians have a lot of concerns. There are a lot of views to share. This is the first public discussion point that I've had hundreds of calls about from people. These calls are from Brandon's longest-standing religions, such as the First Baptist Church, which just celebrated its 140th anniversary in the city, and from members of the community who opened the very first gurdwara in Brandon's history earlier this year.

They are unified. They are reaching out to me with deep concerns and fears, suggesting that this bill, in fact, reflects bills that came into force in the countries they purposefully fled to Canada to avoid. Now they're seeing them reflected here in the Canadian Parliament.

To my Liberal colleagues, I will end with this and reprieve the committee of further Grant Jackson interventions for now.

[Some hon. members]

More.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate it. That's deeply flattering. I noticed that the chair didn't join in. Maybe he will next time. I'll try harder, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I smiled. That's the best I can do.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you. I appreciate that very much.

To my Liberal colleagues, given everything that's going on in this country for young people, seniors, criminals and victims of crime, can we not take a reprieve from this bill and get on with the business of locking up criminals and bringing safety back to our streets, which is not being infringed upon by preachers, other religious figures and people generally just trying to get an understanding of faith? Can we not get back to dealing with real criminals, locking people up and bringing back safety to our streets?

Let's put the people of this country first and do all the good we can for as many people as we can as quickly as we can. I am sure this committee will still be here to deal with this ridiculous bill when we have achieved some results in making communities safer in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

I'm going to suspend for five minutes, and then we're going to come back with Mr. Rowe.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're going to resume the meeting.

Mr. Rowe, it's over to you.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Sure.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier, my colleague Mr. Jackson made some very concerning comments regarding somebody potentially doing something that is very much against our rules in this committee. I know you are holding back on providing any kind of guidance on the question of privilege by my colleague Mr. Genuis. Could we have an update on that? This is very serious. People are not allowed to take photos of these proceedings. If a photo was taken, has it been deleted, and then deleted from the deleted file? Do we have assurances from the whip's office?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

First of all, I'm not holding back on anything. I took Mr. Genuis's point under advisement earlier.

I take the point about the picture very seriously. I did then and I do now. You know where I've been sitting since the issue was raised half an hour ago. I have somebody looking into it and will let you know as soon as I find out.

Mr. Rowe, it's over to you.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

I think this is a point of order as well.

There was an accusation made against a Conservative colleague—that he was making fun of someone's language here. It was very evident that we were having a discussion about the merit of the conversation and the debate. It was very insulting to both my colleague and Wade Chang, who speaks better English than many people and probably better than I do. It was insulting to even say that we were making fun of his English when he speaks perfect English. I think that kind of language is not appropriate. Those are big accusations to make against members at this table.

I will continue on without—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Rowe, I take your comments very seriously. As to the point I made earlier, I take that very seriously too. If I see you or any other member of this committee...whether it's on your side or the Liberal side, I will address it. I saw what I saw. We can review the tapes.

Let's move on. I understand your point. Thank you.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

On the question of whether this photo does or does not exist, and on whether it has or has not been...we just got back from being gavelled. I am very concerned that this allegation was brought up at least 15 or 20 minutes ago. You're telling me that no one from the Liberal whip's office has been able to get the information and get back to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm telling you that it's being investigated. I've been sitting in this chair. I went to the bathroom on the break. I will give you an answer as soon as I have one. I have more than one person looking into it. Raising the point over and over again isn't going to accelerate the process.

Mr. Rowe, the floor is yours.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the last few hours and few days, I've been trying to get words to paper on this issue, and it has been challenging because it's so frustrating. The lead in my pencil keeps breaking.

It's so frustrating, because you have to ask yourself why. As my friend Grant Jackson mentioned, our ancestors fought for freedom of religion. They went overseas and they fought. They were in the trenches, fighting shoulder to shoulder. It was alluded to by some members of the Liberal caucus that we may be here during Christmas and over the holidays. I think they said it sarcastically—maybe not—but if that's what it takes to make sure we're fighting for freedom of religion, I know that I'll be here.

I'm willing to bet that there are going to be three or four, half a dozen or maybe even dozens of Conservatives here shoulder to shoulder with me, because it's the least we can do out of respect for our ancestors and out of respect for all Canadians and all people in the world who fought for the freedom of religion. We will continue to do that, and I know that I will be here, come hell or high water.

It's very strange. I'm not here to argue, although my passion may make it seem that I am. I'm here to try to bring some reason. When Bill C-9 was introduced, I asked myself, “What's the purpose of this bill?” Everything the bill tries to do current laws could already do, so it was very interesting. It almost makes me wonder if the intent of this whole amendment backroom deal with the Bloc was to confuse Canadians so they wouldn't understand what the amendment was, because the amendment wasn't released until later. A lot of times, things like this happen among confusion, and it's very difficult.

I'm hoping we can make some clarifications on things, and I think we've made some clarifications tonight. You may say, “Jonathan, no, things are very clear.” We have a situation where the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, said that the committee went rogue and made a backroom deal with the Bloc, yet they gave Marc Miller a promotion after saying the outrageous thing that a verse in the Bible should be considered a hate speech. I mean, he alluded to this and believes there are certain verses that could never be used in good faith. After that comment was made, he was promoted to cabinet minister.

How is that? How is that not in law...? You would not promote someone who went rogue. I find it very hard to believe that this was against the PMO's wishes. Also, what we saw here tonight was that a Bloc amendment was voted on. If it was a rogue agreement against the PMO, why was it voted on yesterday?

To me, that shows the need for Mr. Lawton's amendment, to make sure that freedom of religion is protected. It's very important that it is. I made a video and put it on my social media a while ago talking about and sounding the alarm on Bill C-9 and the Bloc amendment. What was interesting was that there was much confusion. People were saying, “Well, Jonathan, you're spreading conspiracies and you're spreading misinformation.” I'm thinking, “Gee, I wonder, am I?”

I looked in the mirror and I had a hard conversation with myself. Maybe I'm in the Conservative echo chamber. Maybe I'm on Parliament Hill every day and hearing the circle of the echo chamber, but then I see that we have 23 news articles and pretty well every one of them is against Bill C-9 in one way or the other or is raising alerts about Bill C-9, so I don't think I'm in the echo chamber.

I did manage to get this on paper, and I want to read it out. There are so many groups in Canada, the same groups that Bill C-9 and the amendment.... They say it's a Trojan Horse. We hear this bill is going to protect these groups and going to protect religious groups. The same religious groups that it says it's going to protect are the ones coming out against it.

We have a broad, nationwide coalition of religious, civil liberty, labour and community organizations that have mobilized against Bill C-9 and the proposed removal of the religious text exemption among faith groups. Dozens of Catholic dioceses and parishes, led by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, have issued coordinated calls to action, joined by multiple Jewish and Sikh advocacy groups and by 40-plus Muslim and Palestinian community organizations in joint statements, warning of threats to religious freedom and civil liberties. Multi-faith networks have also weighed in, with a cross-country coalition of more than 20 Christian, Muslim, Jewish and secular justice organizations signing a unified appeal to halt the bill.

Civil society opposition is equally extensive. A 37-member organization of civil liberties societies and a legal coalition led by the BC Civil Liberties Association have condemned Bill C-9 as a threat to protecting rights, academic freedom and due process, while national labour bodies, including major public sector unions, have warned that the bill will criminalize legitimate worker and community demonstrations. It's just mind-blowing. This is not just the Conservatives blowing the horn; this is the whole country speaking out.

I don't know how you can get here in this committee and say there's no need for Andrew Lawton's amendment to this bill. Then we see they're talking out of two sides of their mouths, saying that we don't need this and that it's okay because it's protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Well, if that's the case, if religious freedom is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, why not have Andrew Lawton's amendment introduced? Why take out the religious exemption to begin with?

I will leave it there for today. Maybe I'll come back another day and express some more concerns.

Thank you very much, Chair, for having me.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

We'll go back to Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have a lot that I want to say on this subject.

I am so encouraged by the fact that we have 14 Conservative MPs here. It's after 10 o'clock here in Ottawa. The committee needs four Conservatives at any given time. I count around the table 14 Conservative MPs who have come out to fight for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I want to encourage folks at home that there are so many Conservatives, far more than need to be here, who want to be here to fight for your rights and freedoms and to oppose this attack on religious liberty.

I've already spoken a bit tonight. I'm going to cede my time now, because I want to hear what so many of these other great folks around the table have to say.

Chair, I'll ask you to add me to the list at the bottom.

Also, if you can, before we go to the next member, give us an update on your deliberations on how the justice minister violated the privileges of this committee by leaking confidential information and when you plan to make a decision on that.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Go ahead, Mr. Lawton.

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

I think members of this committee will know that I think freedom of religion and freedom of expression are incredibly important. I've said on the record and will say again that Conservatives will stand firm and defend these fundamental liberties for as long as it takes.

I want to reiterate, in the interest of working across party lines and in the interest of collaboration, that we would much rather focus on issues that are not so divisive, toxic and, quite frankly, unconstitutional. We would love nothing more than to not have to debate my amendment to Bill C-9 that says a specific carve-out is needed to defend the freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

At this time, I move that we consider Bill C-14 so this committee can do work that is far more relevant to Canadians and fix the broken Liberal bail system.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

What's the motion again, Mr. Lawton? I'm sorry.

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

That we proceed to the consideration of Bill C-14, the bail legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's a dilatory motion.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Mr. Lawton, thank you.

We're now on to Mr. Holman.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to say that I speak here in honour of and on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe, but also for all Canadians, as attacks on freedoms are a detriment to the democracy we live in as we speak. When there are concerns with regard to the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression on the table, I, like my Conservative colleagues, will stand up, shoulder to shoulder, to defend the freedoms that all of us Canadians do not take for granted, but take as part of the day-to-day process of being Canadians.

With regard to me, yes, I was recently elected as member of Parliament for London—Fanshawe, back in April of this year, 2025, but I come from the small town of Forest, Ontario, in between London, Ontario, and Sarnia. It has a population of 2,800. Forest is famous for having the oldest running movie theatre in the world. It was opened in 1917, just before the age of the talkies. The reason I bring up the opening age of 1917 is that, yes, it was Canada then, and we had the freedom of religion. Fast-forward to 2025, and now there are concerns at this committee that we will lose aspects of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

On top of that, growing up in a small town, I went to an elementary school, a Catholic elementary school, but we did learn the various Christian religions that are in modern Canadian culture even up to today—Catholicism, Baptist, Anglican, the United Church—which my fellow colleague MP Jackson mentioned. There are also the religions of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

Now we stand here at this committee with concerns about religious freedoms. That is why I'm speaking here with concern regarding Bill C-9 and the Bloc amendment BQ-3, and the attack on freedom of religion and freedom of expression—concern that people of faith could be imprisoned for expressing deeply held religious beliefs that the government finds offensive. What the government may find offensive is so vague that it is alarming. That's it—just whatever the government may find offensive.

On that note, there are a few items that stand out. One, 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. Two, we debate, as a civil democracy, people we disagree with, not silence or attest them. Three, the courts have been clear that violence and calls to violence are not and never have been protected as free expression and are not done in good faith, as the defence requires. Four, this change will expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting their own sacred texts in person, in public or online.

I want to share some quotes from testimony that were shared with the committee. First, Derek Ross, executive director of Christian Legal Fellowship, said, “The courts have been very clear that one cannot simply embed a hateful message in a so-called prayer and expect to receive the benefit of that defence. The courts have specifically said that is not permitted.”

The second quote is from Noah Shack, chief executive officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. He said, “I'll just say that the jurisprudence is clear that the religion defence cannot be used, as a Trojan Horse, to allow otherwise hateful speech to come through”.

Another statement in regard to imam Adil Charkaoui comes from Mark Sandler, one of Canada's most respected and prominent criminal lawyers. He said:

He committed at least two offences. There's the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, and he also committed the offence of inciting hatred against an identifiable group likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

I heard the position was taken that he was expressing a view on a religious subject. That's nonsense. The defence would not be available to him. It wasn't made in good faith, and it was simply the wilful promotion of hatred.

Additionally, on that note, a person inciting violence on another group or another person is already embedded in the Criminal Code, not protected by freedom of religion. With regard to Bill C-9, why are we even here tonight? What is the point of this bill when the aspects that we're debating are already part of the Criminal Code?

I've received many letters from my constituents in London—Fanshawe, and I want to share one of the letters that was emailed to me. It was from a gentleman named Paul. He said that Bill C‑9 represents an unacceptable assault on free expression in Canada. This bill would give the government the power to criminally prosecute Canadians for their opinions. It would lower the bar for what legally constitutes hate and would strip away vital safeguards that keep authorities from weaponizing laws against descendants. It risks turning controversial memes into crimes and silencing open debate through fear of prosecution.

My constituent urges us to take a clear stand for freedom of expression and do everything in our power to stop Bill C‑9 from becoming law.

Paul, I am here at the justice committee, and I agree with you. We have to defend the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression. My Conservative colleagues and I stand up for these freedoms.

Another concern is that the Liberals and the Bloc are going down a slippery slope, slowly taking away these freedoms. I have to ask, what's next? It is December. It is the holiday season. Should we be concerned that singing traditional Christmas songs will be viewed as hatred? These are songs we hear every year, such as O Holy Night, Hark! The Herald Angels Sing and O Come, All Ye Faithful. I'm not talking about just Christian songs. Adam Sandler's Chanukah Song has been around for 30 years. If I sing that, do I have to be fearful of prosecution? Will I go to prison?

I just want to end by saying that I applaud my colleague MP Lawton for his amendment. I'll repeat the amendment for proposed subsection 6.1: “Nothing in this section is to be interpreted or applied so as to interfere with the freedom of expression or the freedom of religion”, which I and my fellow Conservative colleagues are protecting as we sit here tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Holman.

Ms. Jansen.