The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.
House of Commons Hansard #137 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hate.
House of Commons Hansard #137 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.
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act First reading of Bill C-286. The bill seeks to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Food and Drugs Act to allow physicians to prescribe psilocybin counselling to patients without requiring override approval from Health Canada bureaucrats. 300 words.
Combatting Hate Act Bill C-9. The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to combat hate, including creating new offenses for intimidation or obstruction at places of worship and adding the noose to the list of prohibited hate symbols. Supporters, primarily from the Liberal Party and Bloc Québécois, argue the bill provides essential protection against rising hate. Conversely, Conservative Party members oppose the legislation, arguing it endangers religious freedom and risks criminalizing good-faith expression while failing to address enforcement of existing laws. 29800 words, 4 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned Members debate a motion to end debate on Bill C-26, authorizing $1.7 billion for provinces to boost housing supply. Liberals argue the urgent funding is essential to stimulate construction, citing Ontario's success. Conservatives condemn the lack of study and oversight, characterizing the bill as a blank cheque that bypasses necessary parliamentary review. 4700 words, 30 minutes.
National Framework on Sickle Cell Disease Act Second reading of Bill S-201. The bill aims to establish a national framework for addressing sickle cell disease, including improved research, screening, and patient support. While MPs across party lines acknowledge the importance of the issue, concerns persist regarding federal interference in provincial health jurisdictions, the need for cost transparency and accountability, and ensuring genuine collaboration with provinces. The motion passed and was referred to committee. 6700 words, 1 hour.
Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26 Members debate Bill C-26, authorizing $1.7 billion for housing. The Bloc Québécois supports the legislation for respecting provincial jurisdiction despite their concerns about fiscal imbalance, while Liberals argue the funding is vital to boost housing supply. Amidst opposition frustration regarding the government’s frequent use of closure motions to bypass debate, the House votes to pass the bill. 8100 words, 2 hours.
Admissibility of Government Business No. 13 Claude DeBellefeuille and Elizabeth May argue that Government Business No. 13 creates an unprecedented, unfair, and undemocratic precedent by imposing a retroactive deadline for committee amendments, thereby hindering the opposition's ability to participate effectively. 500 words.
An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund Second reading of Bill C-26. The bill would authorize the Minister of Finance to provide over $1.7 billion to provinces and territories to increase housing supply. Liberal members argue these payments allow flexibility to lower development fees and accelerate construction. Conservative members criticize the lack of accountability and measurable outcomes for taxpayers. Bloc Québécois members support the unconditional transfers as respecting jurisdictions, while the NDP argues the bill fails to prioritize affordability and housing need. 15800 words, 2 hours.
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member mention frequently that there was an election in which we elected a Prime Minister. I know this may seem pedantic, but we do not elect prime ministers in this country. Under Westminster parliamentary democracy, each member in this place is equal to every other member. Every constituent has the choice to elect their member of Parliament. If their member of Parliament happens to be the leader of a party, and that party has the most seats in the House or can hold the confidence of the House, that person becomes prime minister, with no particular constitutional authority. We certainly do not directly elect them as is done in the United States.
I know it may seem pedantic, but we did not elect the current Prime Minister; we elected our own MPs. Only the people in Nepean elected the Prime Minister. Beyond that, we did not elect a CEO. We did not elect a dictator. We elected a Parliament. Parliament needs to do its work. I find time allocation and programming motions offensive to those principles.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary wants to comment.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, absolutely. I wish I would be given the time to give a full answer on it.
When people go to the voting booth, they exercise their vote, and the names of the local candidates are on the ballot. However, to deny the fact that people vote for the leader of political parties, the party itself and the local candidate is to deny reality.
At the end of the day, people contrasted our Prime Minister to the leader of the official opposition and others. Ultimately, the support garnered for the leader helped a lot of Liberal candidates get elected in the last federal election.
With respect to time allocation, I can say to my friend opposite that Peter Van Loan, who sat two desks ahead of me, would do the same sort of thing. He brought time allocation over 100 times in the last few years of the Harper government.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague has provided an accurate description of the turmoil and concerns that Bill C-9 has caused among the people.
Does he not acknowledge that the government may have failed to explain Bill C‑9 properly, allowing the situation to escalate because of what appears to be incorrect information? What will the government do differently next time to explain its legislative initiatives more effectively?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity, as has every member of Parliament I am sure, to address this issue, which has become fairly contentious because of the misinformation funnelled through the House of Commons by one political entity, the Conservative Party. However, I believe the majority of Canadians will become much more familiar with and see the benefits of the legislation as a whole. Therefore, I am expecting the legislation to, in fact, pass. We all have a job to do to alleviate the concerns that have been raised by the—
Bill C-9 Combatting Hate ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary made reference to one of the symbols noted in the amendment, which is the noose. As he knows, it is an issue of particular importance to Black Canadians. I wonder if he could discuss why it is important to list symbols such as the noose as hate symbols.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it allows me to highlight what Senator Bernard indicated. I made reference to it at the very beginning of my speech. It is a fairly long quote, but the essence of it is an individual who was sitting around a dinner table, then went out for an evening walk, where there was all sorts of language used by someone driving a truck toward her, telling her to go back to Africa, and on the truck was a noose. It would be exceptionally intimidating and life-threatening. Racism to that degree hurts in many different ways. To deny that reality, I think, does a great disservice.
As parliamentarians, I think we need to recognize where Canadians are hurt by symbols, and take action. That is exactly what Bill C-9 would do.
Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)
Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, I have heard the Conservatives make reference to, “Why do we need this bill at all? We already have existing laws.” It is really surprising to me, hearing that come from the Conservatives, considering they claim to be tough on crime and want longer sentences.
In this bill, a simple assault committed due to hate would go from five years to 10 years in prison. Sexual assault with a weapon causing bodily harm would go from 14 years to life in prison. This bill would provide for longer, appropriate sentences and appropriate punishment for those who commit crimes involving hate.
I want to know what the parliamentary secretary thinks about that. Are the Conservatives even tough on crime anymore?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, our secretary of state has highlighted Bill C-9, but it is not that alone. We also have Bill C-16, as the secretary of state knows full well, wherein we would be reinstating mandatory minimums and leading changes to criminal laws, dealing with femicide, as an example, by dealing with the issue of coercive behaviour from a partner. The Conservatives are opposing that legislation too. It really does make one wonder why it is that they like to talk tough and raise money on the issue of crime, but when it comes time to vote and get the legislation through, they are nothing more than a barrier. They go out of their way to prevent legislation from passing.
I appreciate the question because it highlights the roadblock the Conservatives continue to put up on us making our communities safer.
Ryan Turnbull LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)
Madam Speaker, who here does not believe that all Canadians should live free of hate? I cannot fathom how the Conservatives cannot support this legislation, how they can position freedom of expression and freedom of religion against combatting hate, as if this bill would not defend and protect people's charter-protected rights to freely express themselves. Hate is the very thing that has people afraid to express themselves, to worship the way they choose to worship. It is unfathomable to me that the Conservatives have taken the position that they have, that they are somehow opposed to combatting hate. It is just deplorable
I wonder if my colleague, who made a great intervention in the House, would speak to just how shocking and appalling it is.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, we have seen today's Conservative Party continue to move further and further to the right. It has become an extreme right that is dominating the House leadership within the Conservative Party. We see that more and more, and I do not say that lightly.
If we take a look at it, not one Conservative has stood up and asked me a question about my comments. I suspect it is because they are a little reluctant, given the seriousness of the debate, and they recognize the weakness, and, in fact, that they are making a mistake, by not getting behind Bill C-9. Instead of getting behind it, they are allowing their House leadership team to continue to promote and get out misinformation on the issue.
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to add to that because I do not believe that anyone is opposed to peace, which is the opposite of hatred. This bill will help us build a new Canada that is fundamentally committed to promoting peace.
Could my colleague offer his comments and explain why the opposition continues to fight this bill?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, to pick up on the first part of the member's comments, Canada is a diverse country. Our diversity is one of the greatest strengths that we have, and we can demonstrate leadership throughout the world by passing legislation of this nature and cherishing our diversity.
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Madam Speaker, today I rise on a topic of great concern to people in my community and to many Canadians from coast to coast. Perhaps no piece of legislation in this place has drawn as much public interest as Bill C-9.
Combined, our offices have received tens of thousands of emails from concerned citizens opposed to the bill. The bill is about trust: who we trust with our beliefs, who we trust with our words and whether we can still trust that the government will protect our right to hold both. That trust is challenged when 240,000 postcards to MPs and senators remain in boxes at the Senate, undelivered.
I have personally sponsored and presented petitions that have received signatures from people who value free speech and civil liberties. In my community of Cambridge, whether it is at events or just in the parking lot of a grocery store, I have had people come up to me to say that I should not let this one pass without a fight.
It is no secret that religious freedom across this nation is under threat. We have seen churches burned, people threatened in the streets, synagogues vandalized and violence amongst different groups of people. This is not what life was like in Canada just a few years ago. Conservatives unequivocally condemn this hatred, and we want the chaos in our streets to come to an end.
The government would have people believe that the response, Bill C-9, is some innocent bill. It calls it the combatting hate act. Nobody here is opposed to combatting hate. Nobody wants their church, temple or mosque to be attacked, but that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether the tool the government has chosen to use to address hatred is one that respects the very liberties that make Canada the best country on earth. It is about whether the legislation would actually protect religious freedom or just restrict it further.
When people from across the political spectrum, from the Canadian Labour Congress to Catholic bishops, Muslim imams, rabbis, academics, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and more, come out in opposition to the bill, I think we know what the answer is. Their main concern centres around the removal of the religious text defence under section 319 of the Criminal Code.
I would also like to recognize that I would like to split my time.
For years, Canadians who expressed a sincere, honest religious belief have had a legal defence available to them when they expressed views on moral and social questions. That defence existed to protect freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which are enshrined in our charter. That was not a loophole. It was a deliberate choice by Parliament to recognize that sincere religious expression deserves protection, even when others find it uncomfortable.
The Liberals, with help and encouragement from the Bloc Québécois, agreed to strip that defence out of the Criminal Code. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops warned that this would create a chilling effect on religious expression. One wrote that Canadians should not be criminally prosecuted for sincere, truth-seeking expression made without malice and based in centuries of religious tradition. He is right. The people in my community, from all faiths and backgrounds, wrote to me to say the same thing. They are afraid, not because they want to spread hatred, but because they are now uncertain whether what they believe and how they speak about it could one day be used against them in a court of law.
Members can think about what that chilling effect looks like in practice: a pastor who self-censors a sermon because he is not sure where the line is anymore; a mother or father who is uncertain whether what they say around the dinner table could one day be characterized as something it was never intended to be; and the person who fought their way out of addiction through faith, who credits their belief with saving their life and who now wants to share that story openly, to tell others there is another way. That person now has to wonder whether speaking from their own lived experience, drawing on the very thing that pulled them back from the edge, could one day be used against them in a court of law.
I have heard from all of them, people who picked up the phone or sat down to write to me because they genuinely do not know what the bill would mean for their lives.
The government itself has mused about this. The Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, one of the people in charge of writing, introducing and implementing the bill, named specific parts of the Bible he found hateful. There is little in the bill to stop him from acting on those beliefs once it is passed.
Let us talk about what the bill would not do. It would not actually address the root causes of hatred or offer the tools many people in our communities are asking for as they deal with this new wave of hatred. Burning a church, attacking a synagogue or calling for the death of someone in a particular religious group is already illegal. Bill C-9 would not have stopped any of the heinous offences we have seen in the news over the past months and years.
We already have laws against obstruction, against threats and against the incitement of violence. If those laws are not being enforced consistently, the answer is not to add new vague offences. The answer is to resource law enforcement and the courts to apply existing law with consistency and fairness. The answer is also to not ram a divisive, threatening bill through the House of Commons under the guise of unity and freedom.
The government introduced this bill only a few months ago. It has silenced the opposition and made backroom deals to move it forward. It has ignored organizations of all stripes and the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of Canadians from communities like mine who took the time to write, call and petition. This is not how we stop hatred. This is how we build resentment.
This bill would amend the Criminal Code. It is not a minor administrative matter. Changes to the Criminal Code affect every Canadian in every province and every courthouse in the country. They affect what can be prosecuted, what defences are available and what the state can do to a citizen who says the wrong thing at the wrong moment.
This deserves more than a rushed timeline brokered with the Bloc Québécois, while the official opposition was left on the outside. The tens of thousands of Canadians who wrote to MPs like me deserve a full debate. The Catholic bishops deserve a full debate. The Muslim imams deserve a full debate. Even the rabbis and civil liberty advocates who raised the alarm bells deserve a full debate. The pastors, teachers and parents who contacted my office deserve a full debate.
I want to close by bringing this back to the people who sent me here. There is a woman in my neighbourhood, someone who has given decades to our community, who wrote me a letter about the bill. She is a woman of faith. She told me she is not a hateful person. She would never want anyone to be targeted, threatened or made to feel unsafe. She asked me in plain and honest language if the bill would mean that what she believes about the world, drawn from her faith, could one day be used against her in a courtroom. She asked if this bill means her grandchildren will live in a country where sincere belief is a liability.
I did not have a reassuring answer for her, and that is precisely the problem. When a law aimed at combatting hate creates fear in the hearts of law-abiding, community-minded, faithful Canadians, when it drives them to petition their MP and write letters by hand, something has gone wrong in the drafting, in the process and in the government's willingness to listen.
Our party, at its core, is about protecting what is worth protecting: the freedom to speak, to believe, to gather and to live according to our conscience without the state breathing down our neck. It is about trusting Canadians rather than managing them. It is about building policies that are durable, fair and based in common sense, not laws that are stitched together in backroom deals and rushed through a House that was not given adequate time to examine its implications.
When people in my community hand me petitions and write to me by the thousands to oppose Bill C-9, they expect me to be their voice in Ottawa. They trust me to stand here to say clearly that this bill, in its current form, goes too far. The government has consulted too little and sacrificed the freedoms of too many Canadians in the name of a goal that could have been achieved more carefully, more fairly and more honestly.
I am proud to be their voice in a Parliament that needs to hear it, because that trust, the trust Canadians place in Parliament to get it right, is worth protecting. I will never stop fighting for it.
Ryan Turnbull LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)
Madam Speaker, although I disagree with much of the speech of the member opposite, what I wanted to know from her is, since this bill proposes a stand-alone hate offence in the Criminal Code, which essentially doubles up on other offences, if someone in her community were to commit a theft, for example, of a convenience store, but they did it based on a hate motivation, does she believe that person should have a tougher sentence? This is what I want to know from the member.
Is she tough on crime? Does she believe a hate-motivated crime should be a tougher offence?
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Madam Speaker, the member across the way is the one who has been fighting against mandatory minimums, so I do not see how he is going to want to be strengthening the laws.
The Liberals created this problem, and the Conservatives have the solution. Removing the religious defence will not make Canadians safer. It will not stop repeat offenders. It will not stop violent criminals, and it will not stop gang violence. It will not stop extortion. It will not stop human trafficking, and it will not stop criminals who continue to terrorize communities across Canada. What we need is for the laws we currently have to be strengthened and enforced.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, we listened to the Liberals earlier, especially the member for Winnipeg North, bash and attack anyone who disagrees with Bill C-9, actually in fear that they are all far right, right-wing, crazy white supremacists if they oppose the government on this.
However, we have seen the leadership of all the Abrahamic faiths in Canada oppose big parts of Bill C-9. I wonder if my colleague agrees that perhaps there is more to this issue that needs to be studied and that we should not just label everyone who opposes it as being racist, as the Liberals seem to be doing.
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. Anti-Semitism is real, and Jewish communities deserve protection, but the Criminal Code already provides that.
A lawyer the Liberals themselves brought to committee said Bill C-9 would not criminalize anything that is not already illegal. The real conversation is about why existing hate crime laws are not being enforced consistently. We agree on the goal of protecting vulnerable communities. The question is whether duplicating existing law, while removing the religious text defence, actually gets us there.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague the same question I asked earlier. I hope I get an answer by the end of the debate.
Bill C-9 contains interpretive clauses specifically intended to ensure that under no circumstances are individuals prevented from practising the religion of their choice or communicating the contents of a biblical text. The following involves subsections 319(2) and 319(2.2):
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.
Why is my colleague not reassured by Bill C-9's interpretive clauses?
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Madam Speaker, Canada's hate speech laws currently provide a defence against prosecutions for the wilful promotion of hatred where a person, in good faith, expresses an argument or opinion on a religious subject based on a belief found in a religious text.
The defence applies only to that specific offence. It does not apply to advocating genocide or counselling violence or threats. It does not apply to any other Criminal Code offence. Calls to incite hatred or violence, whether cloaked in religion or not, are already illegal and are not protected by the religious defence.
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, it is finally sunny in Ottawa, but to me, this is one of the darkest weeks in the history of Canadian democracy. Bill C-9 is back in the House after a brief stint in the Senate that did not make a dent in the problems with the bill.
Predicated on false pretenses, the repeal of the religious defence to hate speech remains. The new hatred offence would still criminalize conduct, contrary to a civil statute. Nothing that minority communities are actually worried about in terms of security would be changed by Bill C-9. The Liberals are ramming it through at the end of the summer sitting as the government-subsidized media is already at the cottage.
In the same week, the Liberals are ramming through Bill C-22, a bill that would require telecoms and Internet companies to seize all Canadian metadata, including their geographic location and who they called or texted in the last year, without their having committed an offence and without a search warrant. Bill C-22 would allow the Minister of Public Safety to order Internet providers to break encryption, something that has never been done before, even though every security expert is sounding the alarm that the privacy of law-abiding Canadians would be at major risk.
In the same week, the Liberals are also introducing Bill C-34, the digital safety act. Of course, we have to protect children, but that does not mean that we have to deny children their charter rights to access media communications, which is an explicit right, or prevent them from communicating with each other through popular apps. It is a plan that failed in Australia and that will fail everywhere else. Unless we are prepared to implement a Beijing-style, authoritarian Internet surveillance regime, this is unenforceable. Are Canadians ready for that? Obviously, they are not.
In the same week, which is the last week before the legislature rises, the Liberals are introducing so-called privacy legislation, which would eliminate the Privacy Commissioner in favour of their so-called digital safety czar, who would regulate, enforce and judge all at the same time. This would be a Liberal government appointee reigning over what we do on the Internet, with unlimited powers over how we communicate and how the world's most innovative companies do business. Surely by coincidence, the same thing is now happening in England this week, and it just happened in Australia.
I was trained in the common law. It was the beacon of hope for any modern civilization. Anywhere the common law went, prosperity followed, but now we have these egomaniacs, career technocrats and misguided lefties who think they know better than everyone telling us how to live for our own benefit and how to keep us safe. I want to be safe from them.
Bill C-9 would do nothing to protect the Jewish or Muslim communities. It would not protect any community. This entire thing has been a major Liberal failure.
The Liberals wanted to eliminate the Attorney General's ability to consent to prosecutions. They realized how bad an idea it was and rolled it back. They wanted to redefine the term “hatred”. It is a definition that the Supreme Court used for 40 years. I am proud of this. It is one of the greatest accomplishments of my career that the Liberals have accepted my amendment to keep the old definition of hatred and not dilute it. People would not have to go to jail when they offend someone.
Just when I thought we were out of the woods, I saw the digital safety bill that attempts to regulate harmful conduct online. Surprise, surprise. Harmful content would include content that foments hatred. The bill states, “content that foments hatred means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group”. The Liberals are at it again. We just fixed the definition in Bill C-9, and now they have come back with a digital safety bill to regulate our conduct online and they have a different definition for hatred. Why is it “detestation or vilification”, not “detestation and vilification”, as the Supreme Court says? Where is the extreme or intense emotion that is required by the Supreme Court, like we agreed on in Bill C-9? Where is that in the digital safety act?
Why do the Liberals hate freedom of speech so much? The Liberals hate it because they are afraid of the truth. The Senate was asked to fix the new stand-alone motivated offence in Bill C-9, because this new offence that the Liberals dreamt up would not target criminal conduct only. It would target any offence under any act of Parliament. For example, people could violate the digital safety act or the human rights code, and that may attract criminal prosecution. The Liberals are turning our democracy into a banana republic.
Earlier, I heard the member for Whitby ask my colleague why she is opposed to a new hate-motivated offence. Does she not want someone to be punished when they engage in hatred? First of all, hatred is already an aggravating circumstance in sentencing, so do not give us that. Second of all, if the Liberals want to introduce another offence, introduce it for criminal offences. Do not penalize civil conduct, thereby putting civil conduct at risk of criminal prosecution.
The Liberals tout all of these benefits for the Jewish community, which is my own community. Let me tell the House something about what has transpired here. Everything the Liberals have done to clarify any existing law is already in law. They say they will have to protect people's ability to enter synagogues and be free from obstruction. We are already free from obstruction in entering a synagogue. Nobody can obstruct me from entering a synagogue. That is called assault.
How about intimidation? People should be free from intimidation when entering a school. Of course, that has not stopped the multiple school shootings that have happened in my riding. Nothing is happening about those. It is already a criminal offence to intimidate someone entering a school. It is called intimidation contrary to section 423 of the Criminal Code.
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, they are heckling me because they know I am right. They are heckling me because they cannot handle what they are doing here. I welcome their heckling. I wear it as a badge of honour.
The only thing the Liberals would do is eliminate the religious defence to an allegation of hate speech, and it is all because the Bloc says a guy named Charkaoui was not charged for calling for the extermination of the enemies of Gaza. The Montreal police said very clearly he was not charged because “the enemies of the people of Gaza” were not a identifiable group of people so as to attract prosecution under subsection 319(1) of the Criminal Code. It is not because of the religious defence.
The religious defence does not apply to incitement to violence. Everyone knows that. The Bloc knows that. The Liberals know that. The religious defence that the Liberals are looking to repeal does not apply. It does not excuse incitement to violence. A religious defence does not apply to statements that are not spoken in good faith. Calling for the extermination of people is not good faith.
This is a charade. The main operation of the bill is predicated on a lie. The more lies we get, the more we go down a rabbit hole, like we did with Bill C-9 and Bill C-22, the digital safety act, and as we will now with the changes to the Privacy Act that would eliminate the Privacy Commissioner.
Leave us alone and enforce the law. Stop trying to keep us safe. We need to be safe from the Liberal government.
I am blessed to represent one of the largest Jewish communities in the country. Every Sunday, thugs come to Sheppard and Bathurst and intimidate local neighbours. They deny us the enjoyment of property. That is mischief. Every Sunday, they try to walk down Sheppard and then make a right into Bathurst Manor or left into Clanton Park. That is intimidation. Every week, we see the arson or firebombing of a Jewish business or a store. Those are called assault or arson.