Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Skyview for splitting his time with me. I know how difficult it is to take any speaking time away from a former gurdwara president.
Along with a rise in violent crime in this country, we also see a rise in hate crimes right across Canada. Canadians are looking to the government for leadership and action. Laws that already exist need to be enforced, and new legislation needs to be brought in to help keep communities safe. Unfortunately, Liberal Bill C‑9 would take away protections and create uncertainty and fear among many communities and people of faith.
At the heart of the debate today on Bill C‑9 is the proposed removal of a long-standing religious freedom protection that has been part of Canada's Criminal Code for more than 50 years. When Parliament first enacted hate propaganda laws in the 1970s, it deliberately included safeguards for truth, public interest, lack of intent and good-faith religious expression based on sincerely held religious beliefs and religious texts. These protections were designed to ensure that Canada could combat genuine hate crimes while preserving the fundamental freedoms that are essential in a free, democratic country. Let me be clear: This defence has never protected calls for violence, threats, genocide or any other criminal act. Those actions were already illegal and remain illegal.
The issue before us today is not whether anyone should be free to spread hatred. The issue is whether Canadians acting in good faith should lose a long-standing protection for lawful religious expression. Bill C‑9 would remove that protection, and the Senate amendment would do nothing to restore it.
The Liberal government has proposed changes to the Criminal Code through Bill C‑9 that could have serious consequences for freedom of expression and for religious liberty in our country. The bill would repeal long‑standing provisions that protect individuals speaking on a religious subject or quoting their sacred texts. These protections have existed for over five decades to ensure that good‑faith expression or belief is not misinterpreted as criminal conduct. With these changes, individuals acting in good faith, meaning reasonably and without malicious intent, could face the risk that preaching, sharing beliefs or expressing political views may be treated as hate speech under an expanded interpretation of the bill.
It is no surprise that many people of faith, and different religious organizations, have been sounding the alarms, warning that the legislation would create uncertainty for faith communities, where sincere religious expression could potentially be subject to criminal investigation or prosecution. In fact, the same religious minority groups that are often victims of hate crimes have raised concern about parts of Bill C‑9 that could backfire and be used against them, potentially undermining the civil liberties that have historically protected them from persecution.
The legal counsel for the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association acknowledged that Islamophobia is a serious issue affecting her community. She explained that Muslims, along with other racialized and marginalized groups, often face hatred, not only because of their religion but also because of race, ethnicity, language and even clothing. Despite these concerns, she urged the committee and the Senate to reject Bill C‑9 in its current form because of its impact on civil liberties. She warned that the bill would not improve public safety. Instead, she said, it could lead to overcriminalization of marginalized communities, limit political expression and reduce constitutional freedoms. She also cautioned that it could discourage people from participating in democratic debate and civic engagement, which would ultimately not make anyone safer.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has also raised significant concerns regarding the proposed removal of religious exemption in Bill C‑9. In an open letter addressed to the Prime Minister, the bishops stated that the proposed amendment could have unintended consequences for religious freedom in Canada and that the current defence provides a crucial and vital safeguard for Canadians who express sincerely held religious beliefs in good faith. They noted that the provision has long protected individuals from criminal prosecution for discussing or teaching beliefs grounded in religious traditions and sacred texts.
They also warned that removing the exemption could create uncertainty for faith communities, clergy, educators and religious organizations. According to the bishops, some may fear that traditional religious teachings on moral or doctrinal matters could be misinterpreted as hate speech, potentially exposing individuals to criminal proceedings. They express their serious concern that people would be put in a position where they must refrain from teaching their sincerely held religious beliefs. In other words, the fear of the state's cracking down on ideas with which it disagrees would lead to priests and faith leaders being silenced.
Balpreet Singh, legal counsel for the World Sikh Organization of Canada, testified that his organization's recent study found that 65% of respondents across Canada have expressed anti-Sikh hate. At the same time, he raised concerns that parts of Bill C-9 could undermine lawful political expression, peaceful protests and religious freedom. He also warned that Bill C-9 has already become the target of a disinformation campaign, particularly in foreign media and online, which has falsely claimed that the bill is aimed at the Sikh communities in Canada.
According to Mr. Singh, these claims are misleading and are intended to create fear and suspicion within the Sikh community. Mr. Singh emphasized that this combination of unclear legislation and misinformation has created unnecessary fear within the community even before the bill has been fully enacted.
Just recently, the Senate proposed an amendment to Bill C-9 that would do nothing to address the real issues with the piece of legislation. While the amendment would add the noose to the list of prohibited hate symbols, it would do nothing to restore the protections for freedom of religion and freedom of expression that Bill C-9 would remove. The Senate amendment would not restore the religious defence. It would not address concerns about freedom of expression. It would not address concerns about freedom of religion, nor would it respond to the warnings raised by many of the communities the legislation is supposed to protect. At its core, the debate remains about fundamental freedoms.
On this side of the House, we support stronger protections for churches, synagogues, gurdwaras, mosques, temples and cultural centres, and for the Canadians who gather inside them. No one should face—
