Madam Speaker, in the drafting of Bill C‑9, some interpretive clauses were added that, in my opinion, address the concerns of my Conservative colleagues. I am going to read them, and I want my Conservative colleagues to tell me what is missing from these clauses so I can reassure them. The goal is not to prevent individuals from worshipping in accordance with the religions they wish to follow.
There are two interpretive clauses that say pretty much the same thing. Here is the first one:
11.1(1) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.
That includes people who make religious statements.
The second clarification uses more or less the same wording, but states the following at the end:
...if they do not wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.
Why are my Conservative colleagues not reassured by these interpretive clauses?