Portage-Lisgar MP Branden Leslie has joined the chorus of critics condemning what he says is the Liberal government’s attempt to push through a controversial change to the criminal code that would remove a long-standing safeguard protecting the good-faith expression of religious beliefs.
The change is being considered as part of Bill C-9, which is legislation that amends various aspects of the Canadian Criminal Code. During committee consideration of the bill, the Liberal government with the support of the Bloc Quebecois proposed removing an existing provision in the code that protects individuals from being convicted of hate propaganda offences for expressing an argument or opinion based on a religious text in good faith.
That safeguard has existed in Canadian law for decades, and it does not protect hatred or violence, which are already illegal under the Criminal Code, say critics, including Leslie. Instead, it has ensured individuals cannot be criminally prosecuted simply for reading, quoting, or expressing beliefs drawn from religious texts.
“The bill, as it originally was, I think did have laudable intentions. We should absolutely try to protect people going to their place of worship,” said Leslie. “Hate speech is one element … that is the problem that we need to be tackling.”
He cited how the bill was originally targeted at tightening the language around hate speech and protecting religious institutions. However, through the committee process, the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment which would remove the safeguard from the code that Leslie says protects people from fear of conviction when expressing an opinion based on sacred texts.
“Given that the Liberals didn’t have anybody to help them pass this piece of legislation, they basically made a trade with the Bloc … okay, we’ll get rid of this section, this particular safeguard in the criminal code, if you give us support for the broader bill,” Leslie said. “We’ve seen basically every type of religious organization come out in opposition to this safeguard removal … diverse groups have come out and said what are you guys doing? Where did this come from?”
Leslie said the proposal has triggered a significant response from his constituents across Portage-Lisgar, including at a town hall meeting held Saturday in Winkler.
About 400 people came out to hear from Leslie and fellow Conservative MP Andrew Lawton, who represents the Ontario riding of Elgin-St. Thomas-London South and has been one of the leading voices raising concerns about the proposed changes.
“Over the past few weeks, I have received more correspondence about this issue than almost any other during my time as a Member of Parliament,” Leslie said. “People from many different faith communities and people with no religious affiliation at all are concerned about what it means to remove this protection from the criminal code.”
Leslie said those concerns had intensified after the Liberal government introduced a motion in the House of Commons March 5 that would limit debate and force the legislation through Parliament on an accelerated timeline.
The motion will force the justice committee to immediately resume clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and to vote on all remaining amendments without further debate. It directs the committee to continue meeting until the bill has been disposed of and requires the bill to be reported back to the House within two sitting days. The motion also limits debate in the House of Commons to one sitting day at report stage and one sitting day at third reading before forcing votes on the legislation.
Leslie said the move represents an extraordinary attempt to push a controversial change the through Parliament while avoiding proper scrutiny.
“The Liberals are trying to remove a long-standing safeguard protecting religious expression from the criminal code, and at the same time they are trying to rush the bill through Parliament and shut down debate,” he said.
Leslie had hoped the government would reconsider, but not only did they stick to it but they also limited debate and “basically just crushed all opposition voices at committee and in parliament and pushed this bill through,” he said.
Leslie concluded by describing it as a solution in search of a problem, and he is concerned that they went in an entirely different direction with the bill.
“They’ve offered no explanations. This safeguard has been tested in the courts … they couldn’t point to a single case where this prevented a prosecution, that this prevented something happening within the legal system.”
