House of Commons Hansard #99 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hate.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Amendments to Bill C-8—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules that three Conservative-proposed amendments (CPC-2, CPC-5, and CPC-15) to Bill C-8, concerning cybersecurity, are inadmissible because they exceed the bill's scope by transferring executive authority to the judiciary, thus declaring them void. 1300 words.
Combatting Hate Act Third reading of Bill C-9. The bill, Bill C-9, aims to address hate crimes by strengthening the Criminal Code and protecting community spaces. Liberal Party members argue the targeted legislation is essential for security. Conversely, the Conservative Party and members of the NDP criticize the bill, warning that its language is dangerously vague and threatens freedom of expression. The House passed the bill following the defeat of a Conservative amendment. 12200 words, 3 hours.
Adjournment Debate - Public Safety Conservative MP Andrew Lawton criticizes the government for appealing court rulings that found the invocation of the Emergencies Act unlawful and a violation of Charter rights. Liberal MP Patricia Lattanzio defends the government's actions regarding the 2022 blockades, stating the matter is before the courts and shouldn't be debated. 1500 words, 10 minutes.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the offence of promoting hatred involves publicly communicating with the wilful intent to target a group. I would like to hear my honourable colleague's thoughts on that.
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, in fact, that is precisely what is addressed in the bill we will have the opportunity to vote on this evening. I hope this bill will pass unanimously, as its sole purpose is to protect Canadians so that they feel safe. A very specific provision has been included in Bill C-9 to make it clear that a person who recites the Bible or the Torah in the proper manner and in good faith will not be penalized.
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Mr. Speaker, this is a political exercise for a party that does retail politics very well. We know what this is aiming for. This bill would not make anything safe. It would not help anything.
Is it better for the government to enforce the legislation we have on the books when it comes to protecting people rather than doing what it is doing to divide people further?
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think the colleague should revert to his party and see within his ranks because therein lies the division on this bill, which is only coming in to be able to protect Canadians. On this side of the House, we are all united and we are all for the adoption of protecting the people and individuals who are subject to hate every day. On this side of the House, we are unanimous. The division lies on the other side, unfortunately.
Anthony Housefather LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience
Mr. Speaker, I have been asking for this bill for two years. This is a bill I feel passionately about, and it is a bill that is desperately needed.
In the last month, three synagogues in Toronto were shot at. Jewish institutions were shot at in Belgium and Holland. A synagogue in Detroit was attacked with a car by a guy who was armed. He rammed into the gate. Over and over in this world, we have seen acts of hate directed at many communities, but in particular right now, it is directed at the Jewish community.
In the last year, Jews were killed in Washington, D.C., because they were Jewish, killed in Colorado because they were Jewish, killed in Manchester in the U.K. because they were Jewish, and killed at Bondi Beach in December because they were Jewish and celebrating Hanukkah.
One of the ideas in this bill is something that I started promoting two years ago based off an incident in my riding. During this incident, demonstrators surrounded the Federation CJA and Jewish buildings in Montreal that house the Jewish Public Library and the Montreal Holocaust Museum. For a period of three hours, people were blocked from entering the building to go hear a speaker and from leaving the building after work, all while the Montreal police sat there and did not arrest one person. They did not arrest one person for blocking the Jewish community buildings, including the Jewish Public Library and the Holocaust museum, for hours.
Later that week, the same thing was done outside of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue, yet again nobody was arrested. When I talked to the police about it, they said that it was not really that clear that intimidating and obstructing people from entering or leaving a building was a criminal offence. It was not one they felt comfortable charging.
What we then said was that we needed a specific offence for this. We needed a specific intimidation offence, an obstruction offence, to make sure people have the right to enter or leave their churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras, places of worship, schools, community centres, seniors homes or LGBT centres. This is included in the bill.
This bill would afford people special protection in the event that they are part of a group in Canada seeking to worship. It would allow people to know that they can enter or leave a space without protesters yelling hateful slogans, carrying terrorist symbols or screaming and yelling at them. To me, that is the core of this legislation.
There are many parts to the legislation, and all of them, as my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said, were recommended by the justice committee. When we did our study on anti-Semitism in 2024, a study that I moved, we came up with different recommendations. Some were for the federal government, some for the provincial governments, some for municipal governments, some for colleges and universities and some for the police. There are many jurisdictions involved in stopping hate in this country.
Those recommendations included a stand-alone offence for hate, an intimidation or obstruction offence to stop people from blocking people's access to community buildings and something to deal with terrorist symbols and hate symbols to make it harder for people to go out in public, yelling and screaming chants and holding terrorist symbols, such as the symbol of Hamas or Hezbollah, in these demonstrations. These were all recommendations made by the committee, and when we look at the Conservative Party's dissent in the report, it did not dissent on any of those four issues at all.
We also tried in this bill to deal with and accommodate concerns that had been expressed. There were concerns, including from me, related to the way hate was defined and the fact that it did not completely reflect what Keegstra said. We went back and used an amendment that reflected the wording of Keegstra, requiring extreme detestation or vilification to rise to the level of wilfully promoting hate.
While I felt the consent of the provincial attorney general should not be needed for public prosecutions, and I personally advocated for amending the bill to say only that attorney general consent was required for private prosecutions, I listened to my colleagues who had concerns about the attorney general not being needed for public prosecutions. So did my other colleagues from the Liberal Party, including the parliamentary secretary for justice. We voted to remove the part of the bill, as recommended in the anti-Semitism report of the justice committee, that would have removed attorney general consent. We put it back. The attorney general consent is there.
We tried our best, I think, to accommodate the many reasonable comments we got from everyone.
There are two arguments that I hear on this bill, particularly from my Conservative colleagues. The first relates to enforcement. It is the idea that we do not need a new bill. We just need to enforce existing laws. One of the things about enforcing existing laws is that provinces enforce the Criminal Code. In 90-some per cent of cases, it is provincial authorities and the people on the ground who make the decisions on arrests, working with their local prosecutors, which are usually provincial, and the local police. The federal government, and even the Prime Minister, cannot tell the Toronto or Montreal police they have to arrest Mr. X or Mrs. Y. They cannot even do what the attorney general of the province can do, which is provide clear instructions as to when the charge should be laid in a provincial matter.
The idea that we should not do this because it should just be enforced means that we, as a federal Parliament that can rewrite the Criminal Code, should do nothing. We can say our fancy words and say we are very upset that the police are not arresting people, but we would be doing nothing. Why on earth would we do nothing when we could add the specific offences police have asked for and said would make it easier for them to prosecute the people we want them to prosecute, who are committing hate offences?
The idea that there is already an intimidation and obstruction offence protecting these specific buildings is not true. There is no stand-alone hate offence in the Criminal Code right now. This bill would add measures. That is why it is important.
The other argument relates to the removal of the defence for wilful promotion of hatred. The argument is that it is somehow going to mean one thing because one member said one thing at one committee meeting that is now being extrapolated.
For someone to be charged with extreme detestation or vilification, they would have to be someone the police arrested and the prosecutor wanted to charge because they were promoting hate wilfully, and that rises to a level of extreme detestation or vilification. It would have to be something that is wilful. The person must knowingly and intentionally want to promote hatred, and that would apply to somebody reading the Torah, the Quran, the Bible or any religious text. It is absolutely asinine. It makes no sense that the person arrested by the police and charged by the prosecutor, agreed to by the provincial attorney general, would be somebody who was benignly reading or preaching a religious text. Everyone here knows that is not true.
When we scare people and pretend something is true, of course they are going to react, sign petitions and call, but it is not true.
I am someone who has always fought against the use of the notwithstanding clause. I opposed it with respect to taking away religious rights in my own province, and I even held rallies for religious freedom, so the idea that I would support something that would do that is ridiculous.
This bill is important. I encourage all of us to adopt it.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
Even though my colleague and I are from different parties, we have often found ourselves in agreement on a number of issues. We worked on the justice committee together.
I really want to address something he was speaking about at the end. I have two points to make, and I would love an on-point response or rebuttal from him.
The first point is that he spoke about the promotion of hatred and what one of his colleagues said, who is now a cabinet colleague. When I see somebody saying something like reading from the Torah is hateful and then that person gets promoted to cabinet, that is a bit of a problem. The second point is that when the Liberals go along with a Bloc amendment talking about protecting religious people who speak and protecting their freedom of expression, that becomes an issue.
Those are the concerns, not what he said. Those are all laudable concerns.
How would he respond to that?
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I extend the same appreciation to my colleague, whom I often work with and very much enjoy working with.
The member asked about two things. First, I have called for the repeal of the religious-based defence since early 2024, when CIJA called for it, and I agreed with them, following what happened with Charkaoui in Montreal. I have supported removing that for two years. It has never successfully been used in Canadian history. The fear is that it deters prosecutors from pursuing a case against somebody who clearly and wilfully promotes hate in the street.
Second, as the hon. member knows, hateful speech is not hate speech. There are a lot of things in this country that are hateful but do not rise to the level of prosecuting them under the Criminal Code for the wilful promotion of hatred, which rises to the level of detestation and vilification.
While I may disagree with what my hon. colleague said, he never said that somehow, people would be prosecuted as a result of doing what he said they—
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand how it is acceptable, in a secular society like Quebec, to argue that someone should not be criminally prosecuted under a religious exemption even if there is a hateful intent behind it all. That is unacceptable. Quebec has chosen secularism. It is unacceptable, but that is our current reality. This is not misinformation. The Criminal Code allows someone to defend themselves by invoking the religious exemption. It is absurd.
Does my colleague truly fear that, if he decides to read excerpts from his holy book or even display a symbol of his religion without any threat of violence toward anyone, Bill C-9 will infringe upon his freedom of expression?
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, of course the answer is no. It is clear that people could read any sacred text, pray to it, or do anything else, and no one would be charged for reading a sacred text. The issue here is the promotion of hatred, that is, deliberately wanting someone to be slandered. The idea that this would happen simply because a person goes to church and reads the Bible there makes no sense. It is not fair. It is not true.
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, my dad grew up in my hon. colleague's riding. I thank the member for being a tireless defender and an advocate for action on anti-Semitism.
It is shocking to me that in a city like Guelph, members of the Jewish community are worried about their safety. They are looking for leadership. They are looking to us to do something.
I ask my colleague, with regard to the protection of access to community centres and synagogues, to outline how this would also apply to other places of worship. Why are we responding in this moment? How would it apply more broadly to protect people and their faith?
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say is that this bill, when we talk about anti-Semitism, is something that has been asked for by all of the main Jewish organizations in Canada, including CIJA, B’nai Brith and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center. I can go on and on about the Jewish organizations that support the bill and have asked for the bill.
They want to see actual action, not just words. This bill is action. This would change the law to make sure that not only the Jewish community is protected, but that other faith groups and other minority groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, are protected.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with my hon. colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, when I came to this House, I made a commitment to work to make Canada a freer place. I wish it were not the case, but today I have to make good on that pledge. I will be voting against Bill C-9. This is not a surprise to people who have been following the discussions we have been having over the last few months.
Instead of focusing on the fact that we are not complying with what the Liberals want us to do, I will focus on the fact that they have not actually been engaging with the “why”. It is not just the Conservatives, but so many Canadians, including different parties in this House, who are opposed to what they are doing. It is because they see through it. Canadians know legislation will not protect people of faith or any Canadian from hate when it exposes them to prosecution for expressing good-faith religious beliefs, and even political beliefs as well. All Canadians, and certainly all members of Parliament, must know what is at stake today under the guise of combatting hate, which is a very real problem in this country.
I have spoken about the murder of the Afzaal family in London. This family was killed because of their Muslim faith. I have spoken about the rise in anti-Semitism in Canada. These are egregious, despicable things that happen every day because of laws that are not enforced. I have spoken about the hate facing Christians, Sikhs and Hindus. Hate is real, but it will not be combatted with legislation that goes after sincerely held religious beliefs, that stifles debate, that silences dissent and that criminalizes expression and, yes, potentially even the citation of religious texts.
I will go back to the most important part. Bill C-9 was deeply flawed and very concerning when it went to the justice committee. It was downright dangerous when it came out. With no witness testimony, no consultation and no meaningful intervention by any of the Liberal members of the committee, the Liberal and Bloc Québécois members teamed up to remove a decades-old protection for religious speech called the religious defence. It was actually something Pierre Trudeau's government put in place. Back then, the Liberals understood the importance of freedom of expression and religious freedom.
I would say even Liberal MPs see the danger of Bill C-9. I would like to quote the Liberal member of Parliament for Nunavut, who said, “This bill seems to be more about criminalizing people who speak out than it is about addressing the growing racism against racialized people.” She also said, “the bill has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent.” That is quite interesting, because the member for Nunavut voted in favour of the report stage of Bill C-9 just a couple of days ago.
The Liberals have even stifled dissent within their own ranks on this bill, just as they have censored debate and dialogue in this House, limiting our discussion at third reading to just a couple of hours of debate on a Wednesday afternoon. We do not have not one full day, but one half day of debate.
I had the great privilege yesterday, alongside dozens of members of Parliament from different parties, of attending the National Prayer Breakfast in Ottawa. This was my first time doing so as a member of Parliament, and my first time attending it all. The Leader of the Opposition was there. He spoke very eloquently about the role of faith in Canadian society. I was grateful to see even the Prime Minister there, yet one day after standing with nearly 2,000 people of faith from across the country, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party are putting forward legislation and passing it through the very final stage of the process in the House of Commons that will erode long-standing protections for religious speech.
One thing that is so important to stress is how faith unites Canadians. I am not talking about one religion. I am not talking about one denomination. Over the course of the last few months, I have been doing the consultations the Liberal government never did with faith communities affected by this. I spoke to imams, rabbis, pastors, priests, civil society activists and lawyers who specialize in the Constitution. I have spoken to so many people. One thing that was so apparent as I spoke to faith leaders was how people of faith have so much more in common with each other in terms of what they value.
There is a joke I have shared a couple of times. I hope the Speaker will forgive me for repeating material. I have not shared it in this chamber before. If I had 20 faith leaders, between them I could probably find 25 different opinions on theology, because people of faith have differences on what scripture means and what we are commanded to do in this sense or in that.
If the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals were truly serious about secularism, religious freedom would mean that people of faith have the freedom, without state intervention, to have those discussions and debates. That is why people of faith have united against Bill C-9.
There has been a declaration circulating among Christian churches and groups. As of today, I believe 800 Christian organizations, representing nearly one million people, have signed on, opposing Bill C-9. Just this week, 89 Quebec civil society organizations signed a letter. Again, the Bloc Québécois tries to tell us that there is consensus on this, but even in Quebec that is not true. Two weeks ago, there were 350 Muslim organizations. There were dozens of orthodox Jewish rabbis from the Rabbinical Council of Toronto. The entire Abrahamic faith community understands that Bill C-9 would not protect them if it is jeopardizing their religious beliefs.
We prepared to accept it. We understood that the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois had made their deal. We knew the bill was going to pass. We wanted to minimize the harm as much as possible. The Liberals rejected every single effort to do so. They rejected our offer to set aside the divisive bill so that real consultation could take place, and instead focus on other justice priorities. They said no. We offered up stakeholder concerns made in good faith for the Liberals to incorporate. They ignored it. We offered for language affirming charter freedoms to be put in the bill. They rejected it. We offered to split the bill and speedily pass the things that no one takes issue with. They said no.
The Liberals have said no to people of faith. They have effectively accused people of faith of being so dumb that they cannot understand for themselves what is happening. They are saying that they know better than all of the organizations and all of the people who have been calling and emailing our offices, engaging in good faith with the government on this, or trying to anyway. They are saying that they know better. This is something that is so deeply offensive, not just to people of faith but to all Canadians who value freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
We have heard comments about how this defence should not exist, because it is not necessary because of the charter. Then, we also hear the contradictory argument that the religious defence should not exist, because it is unfair and gives people of faith an unfair advantage in law, so those who are pushing Bill C-9 in its current form are saying two opposing things: that Bill C-9, in removing the religious defence, would do nothing, so we do not need to worry about it, and that it would do something that is so important that we cannot choose not to do it. In the months of discussion about this, no one in the Liberal Party has been able to answer that. Even today, I have no idea whether the Minister of Justice will truly defend the removal of the religious defence, or if his parliamentary secretary will, because they have not wanted to so far. Therefore, we are calling on the Liberals, once and for all, to do the right thing.
However, I want to tell the Canadians who have been speaking out that they have been heard. Their voices have been heard and are so important, and while we will fight to ensure this bill does not become law, if we are not successful we will not give up. I will not give up. I will always stand for religious freedom. I will always stand for freedom of expression. I will always commit to repealing any Liberal censorship law in whatever form it comes, now and forever.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I too will stand up for religious freedom. I do that all the time. I am going to be voting in favour of the legislation, because the Charter of Rights guarantees every Canadian the right to freedom of religion. It is in our Constitution. There is nothing happening that would take away the religious rights of individual Canadians that is not there today. There is a great deal of misinformation being circulated to create what I would suggest is a false fear.
Can the member opposite provide his thoughts on the Charter of Rights? Does he believe in Canada's Charter of Rights?
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an illustration of what I mentioned in my speech. This is the Liberals doing the “It does not do anything, therefore there is no point in opposing it” argument, to which I would ask, “Then what is the harm in leaving it in?”
I absolutely believe in the rights enumerated in our charter. I only wish the Liberal government had the same view. If it did, it would not be appealing the Emergencies Act decision to the Supreme Court after two courts have said the government violated the charter rights of Canadians despite pretending that it was never going to happen and could never happen. The Liberals made the same arguments when they invoked the Emergencies Act, that the charter would protect people from bad laws, and here we are. They are saying the same things about Bill C-9.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights. However, we have collectively agreed that freedom of expression cannot extend to the offence of promoting hatred. These are not trivial matters, differences of opinion or insults. Promoting hatred is no trivial matter.
The issue here is eliminating the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for this offence. That means that we continue to guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of religion, but not to the extent of promoting hatred.
I would remind the House that, in October 2024, the preacher Adil Charkaoui called for the death of Jews in his prayer at a protest in Montreal. Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions determined that he could not prosecute him. That is why this change is being made. We support freedom of expression and religion, but not to the extent of allowing the offence of promoting hatred.
Does my hon. colleague believe that the preacher Adil Charkaoui had a right to call for the death of Jews in his street prayers?
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question from the Bloc members so many times. I wish they would listen to my response. The case of Adil Charkaoui was a failing in political leadership and prosecutorial discretion. The religious defence was never cited by prosecutors as being a rationale for not charging Charkaoui, and more importantly, the religious defence does not apply to any Criminal Code offences dealing with violence, threats to violence or calls to genocide.
I think the political leadership problem is at issue here and in many of the other cases involving brazen anti-Semitism, but the religious defence applies only to good-faith expression. As such, when we remove it, we are only removing protections for people making religious expressions in good faith.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the hard work he has done on this. I know the folks in my riding of Ponoka—Didsbury certainly appreciate his efforts and the efforts of the Conservative team.
We heard a little while ago from the member for Mount Royal, who cited a whole bunch of examples of why this piece of legislation is needed, yet when we look at the Criminal Code, section 264 deals with harassment where people fear for their safety in their communities; mischief is section 430, which deals with interference with people's lawful enjoyment of property; intimidation is section 423, which deals with obstruction, coercion or making people feel fearful. Plus, there are the hate speech provisions that we already know about in the Criminal Code.
As such, do any of the arguments that the Liberals are using to pass Bill C-9 hold water at all?
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is no. I would actually point out that the member for Mount Royal was urged by former Liberal member of Parliament Irwin Cotler to consider leaving the Liberal Party because of anti-Semitism in the Liberal Party. If he wants to talk about inaction, he needs to look around at his colleagues. The Liberal government has no moral high ground to be the arbiters of hate, and let us face it: Canadians do not trust it to draw a line that would not be used to silence dissent.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the second time this week to speak to Bill C-9, after the Liberals rammed it through committee and this House and are censoring debate on their own censorship bill. At third reading, we are no longer deliberating intentions. We are deciding consequences. The consequence of Bill C-9, as it now stands, is clear: a fundamental change to Canada's Criminal Code that the Liberals have never been able to properly justify, even today.
Let us be clear at the outset: Conservatives believe that hate is real. We believe that Canadians of every faith deserve to be safe in their communities and free from intimidation, violence and harassment. However, what we are dealing with today is not simply a bill about protecting communities. It is a bill that has been altered mid-debate in a way that raises serious legal, constitutional and moral concerns, and we have a government that still refuses to explain why.
The central issue before the House is the removal of the religious defence from section 319 of the Criminal Code, a protection that has existed for 56 years. The government did not campaign on removing it, nor was it in the original bill or even introduced after broad consultation. It appeared late in the process through an amendment supported by the Liberals and the Bloc, and since that moment, Canadians have been asking one simple question: Why?
To this day, not one member of the Liberal Party has been able to give a clear answer. What we have heard instead are shifting justifications, vague references, and an inability to articulate why a long-standing defence, one that has formed part of the legal balance in Canada's hate speech laws since 1970, should suddenly be removed.
Meanwhile, outside this chamber, Canadians have been speaking, and they have been speaking so loudly. Civil liberties organizations, legal experts and faith communities across this country have all raised concerns. We are not talking about a narrow group or a fringe issue. We are talking about millions of Canadians, constituting Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and others, who have spoken out against this change and directly written to every single Liberal MP on the other side of the House.
As was noted at committee and in submissions, Canadians hold a wide range of beliefs that some may not agree with, but in a free society, disagreement is not grounds for criminalization. That is the principle that has guided our law for decades, yet the government is now proposing to remove one of the key safeguards that protects that principle.
Christine Van Geyn of the Canadian Constitution Foundation put it clearly in her analysis of this bill. She warned that what is being proposed here is not simply a technical adjustment but rather a fundamental shift. She wrote that removing the religious defence would gut the defence that protects good-faith religious opinion or speech rooted in religious texts, and cautioned that the Liberals do not have justification for dismantling a safeguard that protects millions of Canadians from state intrusion into matters of faith. That is the core issue. Parliament does not legislate for the most extreme example. It legislates for the millions of ordinary Canadians whose rights depend on the clarity and balance of our laws.
Van Geyn also pointed to something even more significant: the constitutional foundation of the law itself. In the Supreme Court's decision of Keegstra, the hate propaganda provisions were upheld because of the statutory defences, including the religious defence. She notes that the court viewed these defences as essential to ensuring that the law minimally impairs freedom of expression. If we remove that safeguard, we do not simply change the law. We risk undermining the very basis on which it was upheld.
That is not a theoretical concern. That is a constitutional reality, yet, despite these warnings, these concerns and the clear need for careful study, what did the government do? It shut down debate. Through its programming motion, the government forced this bill through committee. Clause-by-clause consideration resumed under conditions where no further debate was permitted, no amendments could be meaningfully examined, and even the reading of the amendments themselves was curtailed.
This is legislation that would affect the Criminal Code, the most serious law we have, and it was rushed through without the scrutiny it demands, for political reasons only. This raises a deeper question. If the government is confident in this change, why not defend it? Why not allow it to be debated? Why not hear from Canadians and test the arguments openly? Instead, what we have seen is a government that has chosen speed over scrutiny, process over principle and politics over clarity.
We also need to be clear about what this change would actually do. Calls to violence and incitement of hatred are already illegal in Canada and have been so for decades. They are not protected by the religious defence. They never have been. What this defence does is protect good-faith religious expression.
As Van Geyn wrote, “religious expression is messy, symbolic and deeply human.... These are precisely the areas where the criminal law must not tread.” That is a line we are now being asked to cross, and once crossed, it is not easily redrawn. This is not about protecting hate. It is about protecting the boundary between the state and the conscience of the individual. It is about ensuring that in Canada, the government does not become the arbiter of theology.
This debate ultimately comes down to a question of principle. It is not whether hate should be condemned, as it should be, and not whether Canadians should be safe, as they must be, but whether Parliament is prepared to remove a long-standing defence for freedom of expression and freedom of religion without clear justification, without proper debate and in the face of widespread concern from Canadians. This is exactly what this bill would do. It would remove the safeguard that has existed for more than 50 years. It would do so after limiting the very debate meant to test such a change.
Today, Conservatives are offering the Liberal government one more opportunity to get this right. Through our motion, we are asking that Bill C-9 be sent back to committee for one simple purpose: to restore the religious defence in section 319 of the code, which are protections that have long safeguarded good-faith religious expression in Canada.
That is a reasonable, targeted fix that would respond directly to the concerns raised by the broad range of religious communities and civil liberty advocates across this country. It would preserve the ability to combat hate while maintaining the constitutional balance that has guided Canadian law for decades.
The question now is simple: Will the Liberal government listen? Will it listen to the legal experts who have raised constitutional concerns? Will it listen to the millions of Canadians who have spoken out, or will it continue down a path of rushed legislation, limited debate and unnecessary division?
Conservatives will always proudly stand for freedom of expression and freedom of religion, full stop. Today we are giving the Liberal government one final opportunity to stand with us to restore these protections, to respect the concerns of Canadians and to ensure that our Criminal Code reflects both justice and freedom.
Therefore, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clause 4 with the view to amend the Bill so as to restore paragraph 319(3)(b) and paragraph 319(3.1)(b) of the Act, in order to preserve longstanding safeguards for good faith religious expression, address concerns raised by a broad range of religious communities across Canada, and protect freedom of expression and religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
After careful consideration, the amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting amendment. I am not going to be supporting the amendment, obviously, because, yet again, it is another attempt by the Conservative Party of Canada to filibuster. The Conservatives talk about limiting speech. Get serious. This has been on the table and has had hours of debate, whether in committee or in the chamber.
Let us be very clear. The Conservative Party does not want the legislation to pass, ever. It required the government to get the support of another opposition party in order to be able to have the motion that we have today. We know that it has nothing to do with religious freedom. It has more to do with the Conservative drive to raise more money. That is what this is all about for the Conservative Party of Canada. The charter guarantees religious rights. We know that.
How many hours does he believe it would require before the Conservative Party would ever concede defeat and allow the legislation to pass?