Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.
I, too, share many of the concerns of my colleague who just spoke. We have seen first-hand, in my respectful opinion, a master class of Liberal hypocrisy.
On full display yesterday, during question period, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, who is a sitting Liberal member of the committee, said:
Mr. Speaker...after weeks of Conservative delays, the justice committee finally resumed its work on the combatting hate act, and we will continue that work on Thursday [meaning today].
Will the Conservatives make sure bail reform is passed before Christmas? Could the minister speak to the importance of keeping this work moving so Canadians can have these important justice reforms take place?
Clearly, it was a question posed to the secretary of state, who responded, in turn, by saying:
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been clear that they want stronger protections in the face of rising hate and that they want meaningful bail reform. After weeks of Conservative delay tactics and stalling in committee, I am really happy to see that they might move forward on the combatting hate crime legislation on Thursday.
Much to my surprise, and to the surprise of all my colleagues, I got to the office this morning at 8.30 a.m., looked at my P9 inbox and saw a message from the clerk of the justice committee announcing that today's important meeting was cancelled by the Liberal chair. It is probably as a result of the absolute split in the Liberal caucus over how to properly deal with this particular religious exemption defence.
At no time did the Liberal government ever project any intention of removing that religious exemption. Behind closed doors over the past weekend, they approached the Bloc Québécois member who has been steadfast in his position that this particular exemption needs to be removed. They worked out a deal that they would support this particular amendment, largely, if the Bloc Québécois would continue to support the eventual passage of Bill C-9. This is very dangerous, and hypocrisy at its finest.
We have experienced, as my colleague indicated, abrupt cancellations of meetings. We have had abrupt endings of meetings. We had allocated resources to go to midnight this past Tuesday, but the meeting abruptly ended at 5:30 p.m. as a result of religious leaders following this not only locally but also right across Canada. I, too, am receiving a lot of feedback expressing concerns about what the Liberal government is prepared to do. They abruptly adjourned, so I can only surmise that there is a lot of internal conflict between the justice committee and direction from the PMO on this particular issue.
At the heart of the Bloc Québécois amendment is something its members tried to pass through a couple of years ago that did not make it past first reading. They referred to an incident of a radical imam from Quebec, in October 2023, giving a speech at a pro-Palestinian rally.
He said:
Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don’t spare any of them.
That is what they are relying upon. As I will explain further in my speech, ultimately, the prosecution service in the province of Quebec declined to proceed.
Today, in the National Post, I read a very interesting article from Christine Van Geyn, one of the top constitutional lawyers in this country, part of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. The title of the article is “Changes to Bill C-9 aren't combatting hate—they're criminalizing faith”.
She wrote, “To secure Bloc Québécois support for its censorious Bill C-9, the Liberals have reportedly agreed to a troubling trade: removing the long-standing religious defence from Canada's hate-speech laws. This would be a mistake...Throughout the justice committee's hearings, Bloc MPs fixated on this defence. Their central example, repeated to nearly every witness, was” the example of the imam that I just referred to.
She continued:
Those comments were rightly condemned. They are grotesque. Complaints about them were investigated, and the RCMP prepared a report. It was reviewed by three Crown prosecutors, who concluded that no charges were warranted.
As Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions put it, “The evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the words spoken constitute incitement to hatred against an identifiable group” under Sec. 3 19 of the Criminal Code.
One may argue that “Zionist” was just code for “Jews.” One may also believe that praying for death is morally abhorrent. But the decision not to charge Charkaoui turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence [under section 319].
That is a very important distinction that the Bloc never repeats and that the Liberal government has never cited. There was no indication for the prosecution service that the religious defence was an impediment to prosecute or that it was even considered.
Logically speaking, it is also true that anyone who thinks Charkaoui was not charged because of the religious defence must also believe that his speech was given in good faith and, therefore, was reasonable and delivered without malicious intent.
She wrote further that “even if it had involved the defence, one inflammatory prayer at a political rally is not a justification for dismantling a safeguard that protects millions of Canadians from state intrusion into matters of faith.” That is what the Liberal government continues to do and has done, not only in this particular Parliament but in the 44th.
She continued:
The religious defence has also been essential to the constitutionality of the hate-speech prohibition itself. In R v Keegstra, the Supreme Court wrote that the offence is a minimal impairment on the right to freedom of expression, in part because of “the presence of the Sec. 319(3) defences.” The courts upheld the law because the religious exemption exists. Remove it, and the constitutional floor collapses.
But even beyond constitutional risk, removing the defence is a profound moral and civil liberties mistake. We should not want, let alone empower, prosecutors to criminalize any form of prayer.
Religious texts across traditions contain pleas for justice against enemies, metaphors for divine retribution and expressions of anguish, symbolism and cosmic struggle. This is not the realm of the police. If the state begins parsing Psalms...line-by-line in a courtroom, then we have forgotten why the Charter exists at all.
This is all the more reason for everyone in the House to support our motion to ensure that every major stakeholder who wishes to express an opinion to defend the religious expression that we have in the charter needs to be heard. If the Liberals will not do it on their own, we are asking collectively for the House to do it.