Madam Speaker, I will read a quote:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God. When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them—
Indeed, it is important not to cut down trees.
—you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.
I was raised in a very religious family. Both of my parents are theologians. I decided to highlight Deuteronomy, chapter 20, which is in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, which is also the Devarim in the Torah.
This reminds us of one thing. Most religious texts were written before medieval times. These texts were written by humans at a time when the killing of ethnic or religious opponents or those with a different way of life was the norm. Of course, military leaders at the time were careful to include, as needed, whatever moral guidelines suited them. However, these texts all include passages that clearly constitute hate speech and calls for massacre. In any case, that is clearly the case for the three Abrahamic faiths.
Does that mean people do not have the right to read them? I just read them in front of everyone for educational purposes. Will I be put in jail? No. Did I commit a crime? No. I want to reassure everyone that I do not know any Hittites, Amorites or Hivites. I do not know any Jebusites either. However, I do know that some interpretations or explanations of these texts in the hands of rogue prelates or pastors could lead to a crime being committed. If I were a believer who thought these texts had historical value, the last thing I would want is for them to be used by malicious people. I actually think these texts do have historical value, but there is no doubt they can be used for such purposes.
That is how those texts could be used, because the last thing a reader would take away from them is that they should mend fences and spread love. Religions have evolved, but most religious texts are legislative texts that have not been amended as we are going to do with Bill C‑9. With the amendments to Bill C-9, with the way they are written, with the protections included in the amendments, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—which Bill C-9 and its amendments will be subject to—and with the case law that calls on us to adopt these amendments and clarify the law, we are protecting religious speech.
We are protecting religious values. We are protecting peace. We are protecting love. We are protecting the best parts of religions without allowing certain people to use them to their own end. That is what Bill C‑9 is all about. I will say one thing: There is a reason we are discussing Bill C-9.
The Conservatives are making noise on the other side.
I listened to the Conservatives. I am a respectful guy, most of the time. I listened to them and I want to tell them that no one has a monopoly on faith-based hate crime. In 2023, a total of 1,284 hate crimes were committed against a specific religion, 516 more than in 2022. These crimes were not necessarily triggered by a cleric's remarks. That is not what I am saying. However, each of these crimes was an attack on freedom of religion, freedom of worship and the freedom to go to a mosque, church or synagogue. These crimes are also a much more serious attack on freedom of religion than what the Conservatives are claiming about Bill C‑9.
The 45% increase in hate crimes in 2023 worries me a lot more. It was largely the result of the increase in hate crimes reported by police against Jewish populations. Jewish communities experienced a 71% rise in hate crimes. For Muslim communities, the increase was 94%. This is what needs to be addressed.
What does this bill do? I want to remind the Conservatives that we have a time allocation motion before us. Earlier, they said that that the committee dragged its feet at until two in the morning and that it had wasted everyone's time because it did not hear from enough witnesses.
Personally, I watched the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights meeting. People may not know how patient I am. The member for Rivière-du-Nord asked all the witnesses who appeared before the committee a question about the religious exemption. Some people agreed with it, while others did not, but the question was asked. However, getting on everybody's nerves does not count as debate. Spreading disinformation does not count as debate. Wasting time does not count as debate.
What does this bill do? It reinstates the requirement for the Attorney General to give consent before charges can be laid for the offence of inciting hatred. It aligns the definition of hatred with the definition in Keegstra to be consistent with case law. It abolishes the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for the offence of inciting hatred. According to Keegstra, it does not in any way interfere with the freedom to read and teach religious texts.
It is not normal to hide behind a particular provision of the Criminal Code in order to commit crimes. If I were a deeply religious person, the last thing I would want would be to be associated with someone who uses and exploits my religion to commit crimes. The case of Adil Charkaoui in Quebec is well known. That is why there is a consensus in Quebec for the kind of amendment we are proposing to Bill C‑9. There is a consensus, and that is why the Quebec Conservatives are hiding in the sub-basement.
In 2017, Imam Sheikh Muhammad ibn Musa Al Nasr stated that Jews were the worst of mankind and that they should be slaughtered on Judgment Day. An arrest warrant was issued against him. In August 2024, in his mosque in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Imam Adnan Abyat called for the death of Jews and Christians. Is that what love and kindness look like? In October 2024, Adil Charkaoui prayed for the death of Jews during a protest. Praying at a protest is a loophole. He is so good at loopholes that he would make a good tax lawyer. Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions was unable to prosecute him, concluding that he had taken refuge behind the problematic Criminal Code provision. If we had said the same thing, we would have had to face justice.
Priest Calvin Robinson was defrocked by the Anglican Catholic Church after giving the Nazi salute at a pro-life rally associated with Trump. Wow, this religion of love is so nice. Islamic preacher Uthman Ibn Farooq was denied entry to Canada, where he was planning to give a lecture. This was thanks to, among other things, the intervention of the Bloc Québécois and my colleague who is now the House leader. This preacher was banned from coming to give his lectures because he believed that members of the LGBTQ+ sexual minority did not have the right to live.
These are crimes, and these actions and words must be treated as crimes.