Transcription
Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgen, St. Thomas, and London.
I said in my maiden speech in this chamber that I came to Ottawa with the goal of making Canada a freer place. Indeed, one of the motivations I had for getting into politics was seeing how our fundamental freedoms, including notably the freedom of expression, was under threat, largely by a lot of policies we've seen and decisions we've seen from this Liberal government in the last few years. And it was in that spirit that I rose to the task of combating this very dangerous bill C9 from the get-go when the Liberals put this forward. And I saw in the text of the bill language that will not be used to protect marginalized communities, but will actually inflict harm on the very people the Liberals claim it will protect.
Now, let me say first and foremost that hate is real. It is a scourge in society. I have seen the brazen anti-semitism unleashed on Canadian streets since October 7th. London comprised as a part of my riding. We saw five years ago the brutal slaying of the Afsal family, a Muslim family targeted by a man with hate and evil in his heart, purely because of their faith. We have also seen 123 Christian churches burned or vandalized in the last five years. Actions that, when Justin Trudeau, the former Liberal Prime Minister, was asked about them, he said they were, quote, "understandable." Hate is real, and sometimes it can come from political leaders. But Bill C9 was not an antidote to hate, a problem that was allowed to fester on the Liberal government's watch.
Much of what Bill C9 does, such as criminalizing obstruction to a house of worship or prohibiting the display of hate symbols, treads over ground that is already covered by existing laws. Laws that have been unenforced for the last several years because of a failure of political leadership by the Liberals. But then you look at what Bill C9 actually does that changes things. It creates a new definition for hate, which every witness who testified before the justice committee said was lowering the threshold, making it easier to charge people for the words they say than is the case now, removing critical safeguards against overzealous prosecution. And then, of course, you have the removal of the religious defense, removing long-standing religious safeguards for political speech. A decision that became especially significant when we looked at the transcripts of the Minister of Canadian Identity and Cultures' comments that, in his view, there is clear hatred living within holy texts that millions of people around this country read and cite and pray over from a place of love. But to the minister, he says there's clear hatred, and not only that, prosecutors should be able to, in his words, "press charges against those who cite them."
That is why all of the declarations and claims from Liberals that they will protect Charter freedoms, they will protect freedom of expression, they will protect religious freedom, why all of those claims ring so hollow, because they have been abundantly clear in their language that they do not protect that. They do not value the role that faith plays in society. And I want to give a perfect example of why the Liberals cannot be taken at their word that they will protect Charter freedoms. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice said before committee, quote, "Freedom of religion is already fully protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." She said that to assuage concerns that Bill C9 would lead to the further erosion of these freedoms. Well, does it sound familiar to you, Madam Speaker? It should, because Justin Trudeau said something very similar when defending the invocation of the Emergencies Act. He says, "I want to reassure Canadians that when the Emergencies Act is invoked, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to protect their individual rights." The Federal Court later determined that was a lie. The Federal Court of Appeal later affirmed that that was a lie. A government claim that it is protecting Charter rights is not sufficient to actually protect those rights. And this is coming from a government that has a long history of censorship bills.
And now, on Bill C9, when Conservative members of the justice committee wanted to bring the testimony from people who are among the millions of Canadians of faith who will be directly affected by this, the Liberals have moved to the motion before us today to shut down debate. The Liberals are censoring debate on their censorship bill. The Liberals are denying us the opportunity to read letters from imams, pastors, rabbis, civil liberties advocates, individual Canadians who have been flooding Members of Parliament's inboxes and voicemail boxes and phone lines with their concerns about Bill C9. The denunciation of Bill C9 has not come from some far-right conspiracy, like some of the members in this chamber have alluded to today. It has come from the left and the right. It has come from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, A Gal Canada. We have groups representing almost every faith tradition in this country, civil liberties organizations, social justice organizations, all of whom believe that Bill C9 will harm the very groups the Liberals claim it will protect.
And why this is so fundamental, I go back to my comments in my maiden speech that freedom of expression has always been and will always be my hill to die on. There's a line from James Madison that comes to mind. "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." Put simply, if all other freedoms were stripped away but the freedom of expression, the freedom of speech, we would be able to use that fundamental liberty to fight back for all the others. Removing freedom of expression takes away a vital tool that Canadians have against an overzealous and authoritarian government. And it is fitting that the Liberals are laying their intentions out so bare, that they are prepared to censor the very debates and discussions we need to have in this chamber to justify legislation that will censor the thoughts and expressions of Canadians. The best remedy, even for offensive speech, is more speech, not enforced silence. The best antidote to someone abusing scriptures is the freedom for all Canadians to freely discuss and debate those scriptures and share their true intention to read their holy texts and demonstrate that these texts come from a place of love. This lies at the heart of the guarantee of freedom of expression. Censorship is the confession of a society that it no longer trusts truth to win. That it no longer trusts people to be the arbiters of what should be discussed and debated and freely disseminated in society. When the state dictates what dictates what words can be uttered and what scripture verses can be read, it polices the ideas that can be shared and even what can be believed at a fundamental level by Canadians. In the absence of freedom of expression, there are only official lies. A society that fears words has already begun to fear thoughts themselves. And that is why the groundswell of opposition to Bill C9 has been so robust. Freedom of expression was not enshrined in our Charter to protect the easy or the popular. It was there precisely to protect the difficult and the unpopular. Those are the ideas, the sentiments, or some Liberal members need to be told the scripture verses that need protection the most. So this is not when we stand up for freedom of expression a guarantee that every voice will be or should be welcomed. It's to say that no voice should be silenced because of the dictates of a state that wants to draw an arbitrary line on what constitutes hate to silence those it hates. And that is, to be perfectly frank, what is at stake today.
Madam Speaker, the Liberals not only want to silence in our society certain viewpoints and ideas and yes, people, but they want to silence those voices from even being heard in the legislative process. I will close on this. Freedom of expression is the covenant of a free people. That no idea is so dangerous it must be buried. And that no citizen is so small that their voice must be denied the light. The Liberals may wish to be the arbiters of what we say and even what we think, but they do not have or deserve that license. Thank you.
>> Questions and comments.
The Honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.
>> Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, through the issue of time, Canada has evolved and adhered to values that are envied around the world. And a part of that means that there have been legislative changes that have taken place, both at the national and the provincial level, because it is deemed, based on a reflection of Canadian values. For example, hate-motivated assaults. They take place today in Canada. Madam Speaker, and I truly believe that the values that Canadians have reflect very negatively on that aspect of society. This legislation incorporates that particular value. Someone shouldn't be assaulted because of a particular faith that they might belong to. That makes it incorporated into legislation. Madam Speaker, does the member oppose that?
Member for Elgen, St. Thomas, London South.
>> Uh, thank you, Madam Speaker. Not only do I not oppose it, but I'm very proud that it is already illegal, and nothing in Bill C9 changes that. Perhaps the member should spend less time, you know, talking and more time reading the legislation he talks about.
The Honourable Member for Mercier.
>> Thank you, Madam Speaker. I listened closely to my colleague's speech. What we are debating today is not necessarily the substantive aspects, but rather the process for the adoption of C9. I know my colleague is a new member, and I admired his talent as an auditor at the public safety committee where he was able to take up a great deal of time to filibuster when we were studying C12 after 50 hours of debate. Does he not believe that we can stop and move forward with the adoption of C9? I know that the amendment about the religious exemption is not something he agrees with, but at a certain point, we need democracy to take its course, and today we want to speed things up. Speed things up because the Conservatives are causing filibustering.
St. Thomas, London South.
>> Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I'll choose to appreciate and thank my colleague for her compliment there. But here's the challenge: is that while we have had some time at committee to look at Bill C9, the most contentious part of it, the removal of the religious defense, had no witness testimony, has had no opportunity to freely discuss with the people most affected. And it is in that spirit that even our efforts to rectify this were met by denunciation from the Liberals, who on one end claimed cooperation and collaboration, but on the other hand, slapped our hand away when we offered to give them a legislative safeguard that did what they claimed they wanted Bill C9 to do. So when we are, as a committee, looking at a bill, we do not, as Members of Parliament, have the moral or legal right to bargain away Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms.
Questions and comments. The Honourable Member for Sault Ste. Marie.
>> Apologies for Sir Reese Manulan, Nickel Belt. No, Sir Musl, colleague for his wonderful speech, and he mentioned in his speech that this was a hill for him to die on. This is something he takes very seriously. I'm just wondering if he could expand on that and explain why our caucus and him personally feel so strongly about this matter.
The Honourable Member for Elgen, St. Thomas, London South.
>> I I'd actually like to share a quote if I can to respond to that. It was I didn't have time to include it in my speech. It's from John Stuart Mill in *On Liberty*. He writes, "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." We all, as free people, have the right to express who we are and express our values, and we respond to that with other values, with debates. We do not respond with censorship. Attitudes change over time, and indeed, slavery ended because of the religious convictions in the British Parliament of Wilberforce, a position that was unpopular but was morally correct, and history bears that out. Only when we allow free speech do we have the opportunity for truth to win. Please.