Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to Bill C-9, a piece of legislation that has brought forward huge concerns for Canadians of every religious background across the country.
Canadians I speak with in my community are not asking for more censorship. They are asking for safer streets, stronger communities and a government that focuses on real problems. Instead of focusing on these concerns, the Liberal government has chosen to prioritize Bill C-9, a bill that targets some of the most fundamental charter freedoms we have as Canadians: freedom of speech and the freedom to practise our faith. That choice matters because it tells Canadians what the government values and what it is willing to put aside.
Let us take a step back and clearly understand what this bill would actually do. Under the current Criminal Code, there is a narrow and carefully constructed safeguard. Section 319 allows individuals to express, in good faith, opinions on religious subjects or based on a belief in religious texts. It is for all persons of faith, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh. This safeguard is not broad. It is not a loophole and it is not a free pass. It applies only to one specific offence. It does not apply to violence. It does not apply to threats or incitement. These actions are already illegal, and they should be. There is no charter right to hate or to act hatefully.
Even the Supreme Court has recognized that this safeguard is necessary to maintain the constitutionality of Canada's hate speech laws. It exists to ensure that we strike the right balance between protecting people from harm and preserving the freedoms that define us as a democratic society.
Bill C-9 would remove that safeguard. That is where the problem begins, because when that protection is removed, uncertainty is introduced into the law. A situation is created where Canadians could face criminal consequences for expressing sincerely held beliefs grounded in their faith, not because they are promoting violence or because they are attacking an individual, but because those beliefs may be interpreted by the state as crossing a line that this Parliament is choosing to make unclear. That should concern every Canadian, regardless of what they believe or if they do not believe in any religion at all. It is about whether the government should have the authority to decide which beliefs are acceptable and which are not.
We often hear the Liberals point to extreme examples to justify this bill. They talk about hate. They talk about violence. They talk about incitement. However, what they do not say is that all of those things are already illegal. There is no protection in Canadian law for violence. There is no protection for incitement.
Experts who testified before the committee confirmed this. Legal experts, witnesses and practitioners all made it clear that the current law for hate crimes already addresses the scenarios the government keeps raising. When these examples are used to justify this bill, they are not identifying a gap. They are describing conduct that is already criminal. If those laws are not being enforced, then the issue is not the law but enforcement.
However, instead of addressing enforcement, the government is choosing to expand its power over speech. That is a very different conversation, because now we are no longer talking about protecting Canadians from harm. We are talking about regulating what Canadians can say and what they can believe. We are not talking about extremists hiding behind religion to justify harm. This is already illegal, and there are no protections for that under current law.
We are talking about ordinary Canadians: pastors delivering sermons, rabbis teaching scripture, imams guiding their communities, parents teaching their children values rooted in their faith and traditions, and educators discussing religious texts in classrooms. They are the ones who would feel the impact of this change, not the people who seek to sow hate.
I have heard these concerns directly from members of my community. Earlier this year, I met with more than 30 local faith leaders, alongside my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. He is a member of the justice committee and has studied this bill extensively. No one in that meeting was seeking to promote hate. They only brought forward concerns that this bill creates uncertainty around what they are allowed to say, teach and share with their own religious communities.
They wanted me to tell this story to all the MPs in Parliament because they are scared that quoting a religious text could be legally misinterpreted. They are worried that the law is moving in a direction so that they can no longer speak freely without fear of consequences. When we hear that directly from people affected, it becomes very clear that this bill is not as straightforward as the Liberal government claims.
That concern has also been echoed by organizations across the country. There are not many pieces of legislation that would unite the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Centre for Free Expression, and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. From left and right, these organizations agree that we should not proceed with Bill C-9 in its current form.
In a free society, people should not have to second-guess whether expressing their beliefs would lead to legal consequences. They should not have to weigh their words against the risk of prosecution simply for speaking openly about their faith. This is Canada. Even if prosecutions are rare, the fear alone changes behaviours. It silences people. It discourages open discussion. It weakens the very foundation of a pluralistic society, and that is not something we should take lightly.
Again, we have to ask what problem this bill would solve. It certainly is not addressing a gap in the law. Instead, it is removing a protection. At the same time, the government is choosing not to focus on the issues Canadians are actually worried about.
Across the country, communities are dealing with the consequences of a broken bail system. Police chiefs have raised concerns. Provinces have raised concerns. Municipalities have raised concerns. Canadians have raised concerns. They are seeing repeat offenders released out onto the streets, sometimes within hours, only to reoffend. That is the reality. That is what people are living with. Instead of prioritizing meaningful reform to address this problem, the government is focused on regulating what Canadians can say and what they can believe.
This bill would not make Canadians safer from acts of hate. The bill would shift attention away from the real public safety issues and toward the regulation of speech. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are not optional in a free society. They are foundational. They protect the ability to disagree. They protect the ability to question. They protect the ability to hold beliefs that may not always be popular. Once the state begins to decide which beliefs are acceptable, those freedoms become conditional. They become dependent on the approval of those in power. That is not what Canadians expect, and that is not the direction we should be heading.
I will leave my Liberal colleagues with this: If the law already makes violence illegal, if the law already prohibits incitement and calls for genocide, and if experts have confirmed there is no gap that requires this change, then why is the government so determined to remove a safeguard that protects peaceful, good-faith religious expression? More importantly, why is the government choosing to focus on regulating belief instead of fixing the real problems that Canadians are facing in their communities every single day?