Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the proposal to remove the religious defence was not studied at all at committee. Witnesses made passing reference to it, but that amendment was not proposed until after witness testimony was done. Unfortunately, the lack of study is demonstrated by the complete disinterest of Liberals, in particular, to engage with the substance of the bill and some of the misunderstandings about the legislation.
For example, the religious defence applies to hate speech, not to incitement to violence. The Bloc claim that the religious defence had something to do with an issue of incitement to violence not being charged in Quebec is completely legally incorrect because the religious defence does not apply to incitement to violence. What the Quebec prosecution service said in that case was that, in its view, there was a lack of clarity around the identifiable group, which is why it did not lay a charge, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the religious defence, as the religious defence does not apply to incitement.
Why is there so much ignorance from the other parties on the basic provision of the bill when it has not been properly studied at committee?