Andrew Lawton
Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“They will claim full coverage, as we see across southwestern Ontario in particular, when everyone who lives there knows that is just a joke. I thank my colleague across the aisle from Compton—Stanstead for introducing this very important discussion. I have actually spent some time in her riding in the past, and I know it is very rural.”
“I want to see us identify ways to ensure accuracy in telecom coverage maps in rural Canada, but I also want to see us fix and expand those areas where we know the coverage is not there.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is a particular privilege to speak to a bill such as this one, which speaks directly to one of the most persistent concerns I hear from people in the rural communities in my riding, scattered across Elgin County…”
“We still have the same problem, which is that we have people looking to a new technology, but that not solving the problem, which is applicable to not just the farmers in my riding, but all the people who live in these rural communities who want to work in these communities, want to study in these communities and, as my colleague for Aval…”
“As technology evolves, we see farmers incorporating more and more technology into their work that requires cellular connectivity, especially if they are out in the field, far from the Wi-Fi routers they may have in their homes or, increasingly, in their barns.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. It is with great pride and pleasure that I present a petition on behalf of representatives of the Elgin County Drowning Prevention Coalition, including Briar McCaw, Linda King and Nathan MacIntyre of the RIP Current Information Project.”
The complete record
Every one of 676 lines we hold for Andrew Lawton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 14.
“In the end, it was unfortunate that this was ruled out of scope when it came back to the House because that would have been an incredibly important safeguard that would have told Canadians we are not giving unchecked power to cabinet ministers representing a government that, by the way, does not have a great track record on upholding civil liberties and that when cabinet ministers say to just trust them, we might as well play the laugh track from a 1990s sitcom because that is about as much as it is worth. We are always going to approach anything that looks like surveillance or a violation of privacy rights with a level of skepticism.”
“That is a balance that we need to get right, not only because it is simply our duty but also because the last thing we want to do is pass a law that we will have to somehow find a way to fix years later if a court finds it to be unconstitutional. This is the tricky thing we have to deal with here. We cannot pass law that will not withstand charter scrutiny. Interestingly, with regard to Bill C-8 , I mentioned the tremendous work of my colleagues on the public safety committee and other colleagues in caucus. Bill C-8 had been amended by Conservative efforts, with the support of the Bloc, to have judicial oversight for some decisions that the minister would make, and that was so important.”
“What the Liberal government has been doing, and not just on lawful access but on other justice bills that have come before them, is selectively deciding when they want to listen to law enforcement and when they do not, selectively deciding when they want to hide behind this stakeholder or that stakeholder and when they do not. (1650) We are the lawmakers in this chamber. It is an honour I do not take lightly. We have to listen to all stakeholders and come to a reasoned constitutional position that balances the rights and needs of a free citizenry in this country with the practical expectations and needs of law enforcement to effectively discharge their duties.”
“We cannot look at simply being able to confirm subscriber data, perhaps for an offender or a suspected offender who is possessing, producing or disseminating child sexual exploitation and abuse material, and say that that will solve the overall problems. We have to look at lawful access in the same vein as we look at other things in the criminal justice system that would interact with that suspected offender, such as the sentence they are going to get. This week the justice committee is reviewing Bill C-16 . We are saying that the Liberal government is jeopardizing mandatory minimum sentences for people who peddle in child sexual exploitation and abuse material. We believe wholeheartedly that the government needs to have robust punishments to vigorously go after these heinous predators.”
“The men and women of law enforcement in my riding and across the country want to take bad guys off the streets. We, as a party, want to make sure they have the tools and resources to do that. It is not entirely accurate to say that Canada has no lawful access regime. Police have been able to access subscriber data, they have been able to access electronic materials and they have been able to get warrants to search people's computers, phones and accounts. The issue is the speed they need when dealing with it. We welcome anything that provides an opportunity, lawfully and with judicial oversight, to access the type of information at play here. We cannot look at any of these things in isolation.”
“Now, one thing I will point out is that they welcome having expanded powers and clear authority. They welcome a lot of what is in Bill C-22 . Last week I spoke to Chief Thai Truong of the London Police Service. It is a very large police service given London's size. I also spoke to Chief Marc Roskamp of the St. Thomas Police Service. I have spoken to other frontline officers and I am happy to continue doing this work because, unlike the Liberal government, this party has a history of listening to law enforcement when they say they do not want anything to do with the Liberal government's gun confiscation scheme, when they say they need real bail reform so they are not arresting the same people over and over again, and when they say there are tools and clarifications they need to do their jobs. We will continue to do that.”
“We have seen them go down roads that most people never would have thought possible, using plain language that we must take at its word and at face value. The Liberal government has not been constrained by the charter, and it has not been constrained by norms. That is why Canadians from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms have raised concerns about Bill C-22 . That being said, I do have to acknowledge the very real demands that law enforcement have made. I have taken on the responsibility, not just as a member of the justice committee but as the member of Parliament for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, to talk to law enforcement and to speak to them exactly about the shortcomings they feel exist in the current system.”
“That is relevant because what the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal found is that the government violated the charter rights of Canadians not only by unlawfully invoking the Emergencies Act but by using the fake emergency to justify freezing people's bank accounts. Now, this was one of the reasons that our amendments in Bill C-8 included conscience and speech protections, because recent Liberal government history has revealed precisely why those protections are necessary, and why, when people come up with scenarios, we do not actually take the Liberals seriously when they try to dismiss those scenarios by saying that would never happen and it would never get there. We have seen them go there already.”
“Why I bring this up and why it is so important is that the reason there has been such push-back with respect to Bill C-22 so far, from civil liberties groups in particular, on the left and on the right, is that the Liberal government has squandered the trust that Canadians have and can have in government, specifically in the current government, due to the way that it has eroded civil liberties in the past. (1645) Again, as I say this, I am reminded of the fact that a few weeks ago the Liberals filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on their Emergencies Act usage just over four years ago.”
“Conservatives worked collaboratively with our colleagues in the Bloc, and we put forward amendments that would deal with these challenges. However, now there is Bill C-22 , a bill that repackages a lot of what was already in Bill C-2 , a lot of what had already been rejected by Canadians, and it puts it forward for review. Fortunately, the Liberals have finally understood the essence of some of these challenges. I am very grateful that in part 1 of the bill, they have eliminated some of the most problematic components. I will give credit where it is due. Again, the Liberals should have been more keenly aware of these things from the get-go, but there have actually been significant improvements. That being said, the lack of oversight on some parts of Bill C-2 very much warrants scrutiny here.”
“This was something that, again, I thought we would be able to find common ground on across party lines, but the devil, as always, is in the details. We looked at Bill C-8 , and I thank my colleague from Kitchener South—Hespeler and my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for their work on this. We saw that the bill would actually give the Minister of Industry and cabinet members of the Liberal government incredible power to take people or companies off-line, with no oversight and no scrutiny. I am so proud to be part of a team that understood that enforcing the law and protecting Canada from threats cannot and need not come at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms and at the expense of civil liberties.”
“That is not something Canadians wanted and is actually something that Canadians rejected so vociferously that the Liberals, thankfully, decided to, among other things, pull it aside and not proceed with it. Bill C-2 also would have given the ability to, without a warrant, inspect Canadians' letter mail. Even letters that Canadians send to us as members of Parliament and letters that someone might send to a loved one across the country would have been subject to warrantless scrutiny by Canada Post. Therefore, we had to look into the details of Bill C-2 , and in doing so we found that it could not be supported. Then there was Bill C-8 , which, again, on the surface is something we want and welcome. It is legislation that would deal with very real threats to cybersecurity infrastructure that companies and countries face.”
“I have seen this first-hand since I had the great privilege of being elected, just shy of one year ago. The government's very first bill was presented to Canadians and to the House, Bill C-2 , as a border security bill. Again, I have been among the people talking for years about how the government has allowed the borders of this country to become a joke. I welcomed the Liberals' recognizing that there was a problem, but when we looked into the bill, we saw that lawful access provisions had actually been snuck in. We also saw that the bill, which, again, was presented to Canadians as being an answer to the border crisis, inexplicably had a proposed ban on transacting in cash above a certain amount.”
“I have the great privilege of sitting on the justice committee, where Conservative colleagues and I worked vigorously to ensure that real, tangible reforms to the bail system were put forward in the government's bail bill, Bill C-14 , not so long ago. The bill was inadequate, but it did something. In fact, law enforcement officials had been telling us that they wanted more. They had been telling us that the Liberal government had actually caused the bail problems in this country and that they wanted more to fix them. We were happy to do that. I have also been, as many people would know, very vocal, even before I was elected to the House, in calling out decisions and bills by the current government that would erode not only trust in institutions but also civil liberties of Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. This is an incredibly important issue, and it is one that, as lawmakers, we cannot afford to get wrong. On one hand, we are talking about ensuring that the people enforcing the laws that we set out in this place have the tools, resources and laws in place to do their jobs. On the other hand, it is about being a guardian of the most fundamental rights and freedoms Canadians have: the right to due process, the right to privacy and the right to freedom from search and seizure. I am someone who understands and greatly values both of these things.”
“He said, “I fully agree that the Emergencies Act is a dangerous tool that was not required.” The condemnation of the federal government's track record on civil liberties has come from the left and from the right. It has come from multiple faith groups. It has come from people who would identify as traditionally Liberal. Therefore, why do these groups, in the parliamentary secretary's eyes, not take her and her government seriously on this?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with those fundamental freedoms. I just do not believe the government is being authentic in its desire to protect them. The parliamentary secretary wanted to weave a narrative in talking about the use of the Emergencies Act involving COVID measures and the nature of the convoy, but I would note that even if all of that were accepted in the same way by everyone, which is not true in Canada, that does not mean that the use of the Emergencies Act was legitimate. I would refer to lawyer Paul Champ, who was and still is a very strong critic of the convoy. He is a lawyer representing a proposed class action against the convoy.”
“Why will the government not accept this ruling, vow to uphold the charter and, in doing so, listen to what two courts have said?”
“I would argue they are natural rights, things that need to live in the hearts and minds of Canadians, in the institutions of Canada, including the courts, and certainly in the hearts and minds of those who make the laws. We should never, as lawmakers, pass legislation or make decisions in the hope that the courts will save Canadians from their rights being violated. We must actively seek out ways to protect them in all terms. In the case of the Emergencies Act, suppose that the government gets its appeal and the Supreme Court hears this case, and suppose that the Supreme Court makes the same finding that the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal did: that the government violated the charter rights of Canadians. What good would that do five years later? The infringement has already taken place.”
“The so-called new government has a new Attorney General, whom members may know from such extraordinary work as he brought to the immigration and housing files before the Prime Minister decided to put him in charge of justice. He has now had to wear the decision by David Lametti and Marco Mendicino that two courts have found to be unlawful. This is so important because we have had a discussion in this country about how strong the charter really is and how well the charter will protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. I am a firm believer in the rights enumerated in the charter. These are rights that predated the charter.”
“It is especially timely at this exact moment, because moments ago the Liberal government voted for and advanced through Bill C-9 , which is a bill that it has been giving very similar assurances on: that it will not violate charter rights because the charter is there to protect those rights. However, in the case of the Emergencies Act, that same pledge did not result in real protection. Just last week, the Attorney General , the justice minister, filed for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision on the Emergencies Act. It was on the last day by which the government could ask the Supreme Court to take on the case. It was in the last hour of the last day that the government made this move. In doing so, this so-called new government is forced to wear the decision of Justin Trudeau.”
“It is because, in the interceding four years, the Liberal government has failed to accept what now two courts have determined, which is that it violated the fundamental charter rights and freedoms of Canadians. That is so important because the Federal Court and then the Federal Court of Appeal said that not only was the usage of the Emergencies Act by the Liberal government unlawful, meaning it did not meet the tests set out in the Emergencies Act, but the measures it invoked and deployed using the Emergencies Act violated the fundamental rights of Canadians. The right to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peacefully protest are things that in a free society, all Canadians should hold dear.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am so glad to have been ready and willing to rise on this adjournment proceeding on behalf of the good people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. The question on which I am following up is one that has become even more timely since I asked the original question of the government in question period, although if we look at the response, we realize that question period is not an appropriate name for it. The question was dealing with the federal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act. One may wonder why I was asking in question period about a four-year-old decision by the government. That would be a very good question.”
“Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is no. I would actually point out that the member for Mount Royal was urged by former Liberal member of Parliament Irwin Cotler to consider leaving the Liberal Party because of anti-Semitism in the Liberal Party. If he wants to talk about inaction, he needs to look around at his colleagues. The Liberal government has no moral high ground to be the arbiters of hate, and let us face it: Canadians do not trust it to draw a line that would not be used to silence dissent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question from the Bloc members so many times. I wish they would listen to my response. The case of Adil Charkaoui was a failing in political leadership and prosecutorial discretion. The religious defence was never cited by prosecutors as being a rationale for not charging Charkaoui, and more importantly, the religious defence does not apply to any Criminal Code offences dealing with violence, threats to violence or calls to genocide. I think the political leadership problem is at issue here and in many of the other cases involving brazen anti-Semitism, but the religious defence applies only to good-faith expression. As such, when we remove it, we are only removing protections for people making religious expressions in good faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an illustration of what I mentioned in my speech. This is the Liberals doing the “It does not do anything, therefore there is no point in opposing it” argument, to which I would ask, “Then what is the harm in leaving it in?” I absolutely believe in the rights enumerated in our charter. I only wish the Liberal government had the same view. If it did, it would not be appealing the Emergencies Act decision to the Supreme Court after two courts have said the government violated the charter rights of Canadians despite pretending that it was never going to happen and could never happen. The Liberals made the same arguments when they invoked the Emergencies Act, that the charter would protect people from bad laws, and here we are. They are saying the same things about Bill C-9 .”
“Even today, I have no idea whether the Minister of Justice will truly defend the removal of the religious defence, or if his parliamentary secretary will, because they have not wanted to so far. Therefore, we are calling on the Liberals, once and for all, to do the right thing. However, I want to tell the Canadians who have been speaking out that they have been heard. Their voices have been heard and are so important, and while we will fight to ensure this bill does not become law, if we are not successful we will not give up. I will not give up. I will always stand for religious freedom. I will always stand for freedom of expression. I will always commit to repealing any Liberal censorship law in whatever form it comes, now and forever.”
“This is something that is so deeply offensive, not just to people of faith but to all Canadians who value freedom of expression and freedom of religion. We have heard comments about how this defence should not exist, because it is not necessary because of the charter. Then, we also hear the contradictory argument that the religious defence should not exist, because it is unfair and gives people of faith an unfair advantage in law, so those who are pushing Bill C-9 in its current form are saying two opposing things: that Bill C-9, in removing the religious defence, would do nothing, so we do not need to worry about it, and that it would do something that is so important that we cannot choose not to do it. In the months of discussion about this, no one in the Liberal Party has been able to answer that.”
“We offered up stakeholder concerns made in good faith for the Liberals to incorporate. They ignored it. We offered for language affirming charter freedoms to be put in the bill. They rejected it. We offered to split the bill and speedily pass the things that no one takes issue with. They said no. The Liberals have said no to people of faith. They have effectively accused people of faith of being so dumb that they cannot understand for themselves what is happening. They are saying that they know better than all of the organizations and all of the people who have been calling and emailing our offices, engaging in good faith with the government on this, or trying to anyway. They are saying that they know better.”
“Again, the Bloc Québécois tries to tell us that there is consensus on this, but even in Quebec that is not true. Two weeks ago, there were 350 Muslim organizations. There were dozens of orthodox Jewish rabbis from the Rabbinical Council of Toronto. The entire Abrahamic faith community understands that Bill C-9 would not protect them if it is jeopardizing their religious beliefs. We prepared to accept it. We understood that the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois had made their deal. We knew the bill was going to pass. We wanted to minimize the harm as much as possible. The Liberals rejected every single effort to do so. They rejected our offer to set aside the divisive bill so that real consultation could take place, and instead focus on other justice priorities. They said no.”
“If I had 20 faith leaders, between them I could probably find 25 different opinions on theology, because people of faith have differences on what scripture means and what we are commanded to do in this sense or in that. (1705) If the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals were truly serious about secularism, religious freedom would mean that people of faith have the freedom, without state intervention, to have those discussions and debates. That is why people of faith have united against Bill C-9 . There has been a declaration circulating among Christian churches and groups. As of today, I believe 800 Christian organizations, representing nearly one million people, have signed on, opposing Bill C-9 . Just this week, 89 Quebec civil society organizations signed a letter.”
“I am not talking about one denomination. Over the course of the last few months, I have been doing the consultations the Liberal government never did with faith communities affected by this. I spoke to imams, rabbis, pastors, priests, civil society activists and lawyers who specialize in the Constitution. I have spoken to so many people. One thing that was so apparent as I spoke to faith leaders was how people of faith have so much more in common with each other in terms of what they value. There is a joke I have shared a couple of times. I hope the Speaker will forgive me for repeating material. I have not shared it in this chamber before.”
“I had the great privilege yesterday, alongside dozens of members of Parliament from different parties, of attending the National Prayer Breakfast in Ottawa. This was my first time doing so as a member of Parliament, and my first time attending it all. The Leader of the Opposition was there. He spoke very eloquently about the role of faith in Canadian society. I was grateful to see even the Prime Minister there, yet one day after standing with nearly 2,000 people of faith from across the country, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party are putting forward legislation and passing it through the very final stage of the process in the House of Commons that will erode long-standing protections for religious speech. One thing that is so important to stress is how faith unites Canadians. I am not talking about one religion.”
“I would say even Liberal MPs see the danger of Bill C-9 . I would like to quote the Liberal member of Parliament for Nunavut , who said, “This bill seems to be more about criminalizing people who speak out than it is about addressing the growing racism against racialized people.” She also said, “the bill has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent.” That is quite interesting, because the member for Nunavut voted in favour of the report stage of Bill C-9 just a couple of days ago. The Liberals have even stifled dissent within their own ranks on this bill, just as they have censored debate and dialogue in this House, limiting our discussion at third reading to just a couple of hours of debate on a Wednesday afternoon. We do not have not one full day, but one half day of debate.”
“Hate is real, but it will not be combatted with legislation that goes after sincerely held religious beliefs, that stifles debate, that silences dissent and that criminalizes expression and, yes, potentially even the citation of religious texts. I will go back to the most important part. Bill C-9 was deeply flawed and very concerning when it went to the justice committee. It was downright dangerous when it came out. With no witness testimony, no consultation and no meaningful intervention by any of the Liberal members of the committee, the Liberal and Bloc Québécois members teamed up to remove a decades-old protection for religious speech called the religious defence. It was actually something Pierre Trudeau's government put in place. Back then, the Liberals understood the importance of freedom of expression and religious freedom.”
“Canadians know legislation will not protect people of faith or any Canadian from hate when it exposes them to prosecution for expressing good-faith religious beliefs, and even political beliefs as well. All Canadians, and certainly all members of Parliament, must know what is at stake today under the guise of combatting hate, which is a very real problem in this country. I have spoken about the murder of the Afzaal family in London. This family was killed because of their Muslim faith. I have spoken about the rise in anti-Semitism in Canada. These are egregious, despicable things that happen every day because of laws that are not enforced. I have spoken about the hate facing Christians, Sikhs and Hindus.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I came to this House, I made a commitment to work to make Canada a freer place. I wish it were not the case, but today I have to make good on that pledge. I will be voting against Bill C-9 . This is not a surprise to people who have been following the discussions we have been having over the last few months. Instead of focusing on the fact that we are not complying with what the Liberals want us to do, I will focus on the fact that they have not actually been engaging with the “why”. It is not just the Conservatives, but so many Canadians, including different parties in this House, who are opposed to what they are doing. It is because they see through it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Liberals are getting their money's worth with their media bailout, but that does not eliminate the many concerns that Canadians have raised across this country. The Liberals say, when these civil liberties concerns are put at their feet, to just trust them that they will not violate charter rights, because the charter protects those rights. However, last week, that very Attorney General appealed the Federal Court of Appeal decision that ruled the use of the Emergencies Act unlawful and found that the government, despite the promises of Justin Trudeau, did violate the constitutional rights of Canadians. If the Liberals truly are serious about protecting these rights, why will they not drop their appeal and drop Bill C-9 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, no community in this country will be protected from hate with legislation that threatens to imprison them for deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs, but that is precisely what Bill C-9 would do. This is a bill the Liberals are forcing to a vote today despite the cries of millions of Canadians from multiple faiths and civil society groups that this bill would violate their civil liberties. It may appease some people, like the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture , who believes one needs a black highlighter to read a holy text, but most Canadians want the freedom to live out their beliefs. Will the Liberals do the right thing, and reduce this divisive and toxic bill to the rubble bin where it belongs?”
“Mr. Speaker, as it has been said in the House by a number of us, the volume of emails and phone calls we have been receiving from people urging us to oppose Bill C-9 is astronomical. I have one in front of me from a man named Brandon. He said removing the religious defence creates serious concerns for Canadians of any and all faiths and religions who believe the freedom to teach and practise their religion in good faith should remain clearly protected. That man lives in Winnipeg North, but he did not feel like his call would fall on anything but deaf ears with the member across the way, so he reached out to us, and I am very grateful for that. My colleague from Manitoba has heard these same messages. What stands out to him about what Canadians think about the government and its priorities on freedom of expression, or the lack thereof?”
“We have seen this through the online harms bill and through the Online Streaming Act . We have seen it, to some extent, in the Online News Act . The member has approached this issue rather interestingly. He is not just focused on religious freedom. He has talked about the importance of freedom of expression in general, and I am hoping he can elaborate on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee for his fantastic speech and for hosting an amazing town hall in Vernon, which I had the great privilege of presiding over with him. Over 600 people from B.C.'s beautiful Okanagan came out, because they reject what the Liberals are trying to do with Bill C-9 . The member had, rather infamously now, spoken about how a few Liberals had invited him to cross the floor. I think his stand for free speech disqualifies him from joining their ranks, given the contempt that the Liberals have shown, through Bill C-9 and other bills, towards religious freedom and freedom of expression. The member understands full well that the bill is not the only attempt by the Liberals, and not the first attempt by the Liberals, to erode long-standing protections for religious speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a pastor in my riding named Al Stone, who is actually in Ottawa this week for the National Prayer Breakfast. Pastor Stone wrote a very heartfelt letter about Bill C-9. He said that in his decades in the church, he has never heard a preacher read from the books, even the ones that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said were hateful, and do so from a place of hate. They have done it from a place of love. However, the Liberal government does not respect that fundamental religious freedom or free expression. The member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke has been in the House for a long time. When did this become such a crisis that no Liberals will stand up for free speech?”
“Mr. Speaker, I had the chance to be in the member's beautiful province speaking about Bill C-9 with people from across Manitoba. One thing that was so clear there is that these are people who are very motivated by their faith, their religious traditions and their religious beliefs. They understand their faith to be, in totality, about a message of love. Their concern is not that they want a license to preach hate, but that they do not trust the government and other bad actors in society to weaponize this definition or the powers of Bill C-9 against them and their beliefs. My colleague has spoken to his constituents about this. I wonder if he could share the positive role that faith and faith institutions play, as well as what would be in jeopardy if we were to take aim at religious freedom like this.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals continue to misrepresent what happened in the Adil Charkaoui case. This man should be charged, because inciting violence is already illegal. Threatening violence is already illegal. I cannot say this clearly enough: Neither of those offences is subject to the religious defence. That is a bald-faced misrepresentation of the law. By the way, the prosecutors in Quebec did not at all cite the religious defence for their refusal to charge Mr. Charkaoui. The religious defence and the protections that apply to good-faith religious expression have nothing to do with that deplorable man in Quebec who committed a heinous criminal act that should have invited prosecution.”
“This is so key. What the Liberals would be doing would actually be to create a tool that could be weaponized against people for their core religious beliefs, and that is not what law enforcement wants.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from just down Highway 401, not just for his question but also for his service, and I thank other law enforcement members in this country who have been very clear that the support they seek from members of Parliament is not the right to go in and arrest people for preaching religious texts. They want us to get serious about fixing Liberal bail. What is interesting is that we have an enforcement problem. There have been a number of cases across the country in which existing laws concerning people calling for violence and people inciting genocide have not been enforced. If we have a system in which there is a huge disparity between what the law says and how it plays out, new laws are not going to solve that problem. They are only going to give us more things to point to that are not actually being done.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture : “Clearly, there are situations in [religious] texts where statements are hateful.” Prosecutors should be able to “press charges”. I fail to see where the misinformation is, when a Liberal cabinet minister is on record wanting people criminally charged for quoting scriptures he disapproves of.”
“One cannot rob a bank, run down the road yelling “God is good” and expect the police will not follow them, but the religious defence does protect against overzealous and politically motivated prosecutions to silence people because of a hatred and contempt for what they believe, for who they are. As I said in my last speech on this subject, hate is real. In London, a Muslim family was killed because of its faith. Just this past week there was another church burned, the 124th in the last five years in Canada, this one in New Brunswick. We have seen the brazen anti-Semitism. Hate is real, but no community is protected by legislation that infringes on its right to believe what it wants to believe. Bill C-9 must be defeated.”
“We are protecting all faith institutions from a world in which government decides which religious scriptures we can cite and which ones we cannot, and which religious beliefs are legitimate and which ones are not. I cannot stress enough that the people of faith in this country, including the hundreds of Muslim groups and the hundreds of Christian groups, representing among them literally millions of Canadians, do not want the right to preach hate. They want the protection that the state will never weaponize the definition of hate to silence them. That is key. No one is asking for a hall pass to commit a crime under a religious pretext.”