Evidence of meeting #19 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 interest.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I'm not going to engage in a back-and-forth with you, Mr. Brock.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
When you have the floor, you can have the floor.
Nobody in this committee who voted on this had any such intention, and that's not what the law would be. The law didn't change in that respect. Nothing changes in who can be charged with wilful promotion of hatred. So this clause is being inserted, to all those people who have been misinformed and confused by what people have said, whether truly or falsely—
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I am saying what I absolutely believe. People have been misinformed. This clause is stating, again, accurately what the government, what the members of the committee by majority, believe the law to be.
What Mr. Lawton's subamendment does is change the law. What Mr. Lawton's subamendment does would effectively mean that nobody could ever be charged with wilfully promoting hatred in almost any circumstance. Having listened to previous statements by Mr. Lawton, I think that may be what he actually wants to do. He may actually not want people to ever be charged with wilful promotion of hatred, no matter how much they vilify or attack a group or no matter how much it meets the Keegstra standard. Maybe he would have been a dissenting judge in the Keegstra case. I don't know. But for sure Mr. Lawton's subamendment changes the law.
I would like to ask the officials this: If Mr. Lawton's subamendment were adopted, if the committee removed the words that Mr. Lawton is seeking to remove, would that change the state of the law in Canada?
Senior Counsel and Team Lead, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What I can say is that it would certainly change the intent of the provision. I think one of the challenges is that this has been introduced as a “for greater certainty” provision. It would no longer be appropriately a “for greater certainty” provision, or it would be inappropriately classified as a “for greater certainty” provision, because it would state the law in a way that it doesn't currently exist.
I'm probably oversharing in terms of the legal impact of the “for greater certainty” piece, but yes, it would change the state of the law.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
It would change the state of the law, because there are no words in good faith in here. I am not disagreeing with other aspects. The wording may not be perfect. There may be other ways of expressing it. But what Mr. Lawton was proposing to do was actually change the state of the law so that, essentially, nobody could almost ever be charged with wilful promotion of hatred, no matter how egregious what they did was.
That's the effect of Mr. Lawton's subamendment. This is what Mr. Lawton is proposing: The Supreme Court ruled this in Keegstra? Forget it. Let's go back to what the dissent said in Keegstra.
Conservative
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Let's deal with the subamendment. Let's vote against this subamendment. That's my proposal. I am happy to have good-faith conversations with anyone about the clause itself, but the subamendment is a really big problem.
It completely changes the legislation as it stands.
I'll cede the floor, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think Mr. Lawton or Mr. Baber said that you have to be inside the tunnel of public interest discourse, but that's not the real tunnel. The real tunnel is the fomenting of hatred. If no one was fomenting hatred or anti‑Semitism, as prohibited under section 319 of the Criminal Code, there would be no need for the interpretive clause.
I agree with Mr. Housefather, who just said that the interpretation clause was proposed by our Liberal colleagues to try to allay the fears that some citizens might have because of the many public interventions made by our Conservative colleagues. If I understand correctly, they may have had the opportunity to raise funds or gain votes on this issue, and they have also commented extensively on this bill since last fall, claiming to anyone who would listen that people would be prevented from reading the Bible, the Quran or the Torah. With all due respect, that's absurd. That's not what this is about. We've never talked about it, and we'll never talk about it. At least, I hope not. I can guarantee I won't. No one in the Bloc Québécois will do that. We don't want to prohibit people from reading a religious text. We want to prohibit them from fomenting hatred. That's what section 319 of the Criminal Code says.
I still respect the fact that people may have fears, even if I don't share them. In an attempt to address these fears, which I don't think are justified, our colleague Ms. Lattanzio has proposed section 11.1, which says not to worry and that if there's no intent to foment hatred, there's no problem. That's basically what section 11.1 says. I don't think section 11.1 is necessary, but that's the way it is. When you negotiate, you can't have it both ways. I don't have a problem with including section 11.1 in Bill C‑9.
However, this seems increasingly absurd. With all due respect, I don't understand the discussions we're having. If our Conservative colleagues think that section 11.1 doesn't help them, then I would invite our colleague Ms. Lattanzio to withdraw section 11.1, because it's unnecessary.
That said, I feel that we're reaching an impasse. If I correctly understood what Mr. Brock was saying earlier, our Conservative colleagues are led by religious lobbies who tell them that they shouldn't do this, that they should do that, or that they should reject this section and propose another. As a legislator, I do not agree with being dictated to by a lobby group, be it religious, corporate or otherwise. I'm not interested in that. I think of myself as, and I'm proud to be, a free man and a free politician who recommends to his constituents what he believes is best for them. So, with all due respect to Mr. Ross, whom I don't know, to be told that Mr. Ross told Mr. Brock to remove this and add that, doesn't seem to me to be an argument that'll move things forward. If our Conservative colleagues are really stymied by what Mr. Ross does or doesn't want, I don't see how we're going to get out of this.
On our end, in the Bloc Québécois, what we want is to preserve the secular nature of our institutions, both in Quebec and across Canada. We want to protect Canadian secularism and respect for the rule of law that governs all Quebeckers and Canadians. That's what we're here to talk about. What we have before us is the difference between the rule of law and secularism, which apply to everyone, and the wishes of certain religious groups dictated to our Conservative colleagues. Between what the Bloc Québécois is asking for, which is respect for secularism and the rule of law, and what the Conservatives are asking for, which is respect for what the various religious groups think or want, our Liberal colleagues are trying to please both sides, but they're making lukewarm proposals.
I get the impression that, once we're done with this, it won't mean anything anymore. We've been working on Bill C‑9 since last fall. We've made progress. Unfortunately, the religious exemptions set out in the Criminal Code still have not been abolished, even though the committee voted to abolish them last fall. Now it's the end of February, and we're still talking about this. I don't know when we're going to finish the study, but I suspect we're really at an impasse. I feel that, as committee members, we're going to have to vote and take a position: Are we in favour of religious groups and do we want to address all of their fears, founded or not, useful or not, harmful or not? Or will we protect the rule of law and secularism? The Criminal Code applies to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, professions or location. In Canada, we should be governed by the Criminal Code and the rule of law.
So I'm sorry to see this impasse. We've been stuck for a long time. If our colleagues were to move a time allocation motion, I admit that I would seriously take it into consideration. Unfortunately, I don't like saying this, but I sense that there is bad faith or, in any case, an intention to block our work. We have to move past this. It's in the interest of all of our constituents. We need to work in the best interests of the people who pay us to be here and who elected us to be here, not in the best interests of one or two religious groups.
I'm sorry. I have a lot of respect for my Conservative and Liberal colleagues, but I think we've reached our limit.
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I did not interrupt Mr. Fortin because I believe he has a right to express his opinions.
However, I would draw your attention, Chair, to a decision you made twice in December, in this committee, which was to eject two members for making a comment that you deemed imputed motive. Mr. Fortin imputed motive to us and our conduct. He said that we are beholden to religious interests. He said that we are allowing religious interests to dictate the decisions we're making and the advocacy we're taking. That motive is not true.
We are doing what we're doing because we believe in the values we're speaking about. Your own precedent dictates that his comment should be withdrawn.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I think what I did, Mr. Lawton—if you go back and look at the record—was ask that member to stop talking, and I gave the floor to somebody else. Mr. Fortin has now finished speaking.
Mr. Brock, you—
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
You asked them to withdraw the comment.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I would ask that you make the same request of Mr. Fortin.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Are you ruling that my point of order is invalid?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm sorry. I stand corrected. You cannot challenge a ruling on a point of order.
Mr. Brock, you have the floor.
