COLUMN: On Parliament Hill – Rushing through C-9 and the fabric of Canada

Hate is real. Threats are real. Intimidation is real. Violence against Christians is real. When churches are burned, when schools are no longer safe, and when community spaces are targeted, Canadians expect Parliament to stand up and respond.

Yet since 2021, around 100 Christian churches across Canada have been burned, vandalized, or desecrated. It stunned many Canadians when Parliament could not unanimously condemn these actions when the motion was brought forward on Feb. 2, 2024.

This reality forms the backdrop to the debate over Bill C-9. Ironically, the abbreviated name of the bill is the “Combatting Hate” Act. Legal experts explain that many provisions of this bill duplicate what already exists. That’s why Conservatives claim the challenge is not new legislation, but consistent enforcement of the laws that already exist.

An exception is an amendment proposed by the Bloc and accepted by the Liberal government in order to secure Bloc support for the bill. The amendment removes the religious freedom safeguard from the Criminal Code, exposing people of faith to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting sacred texts. As Member of Parliament Andrew Lawton said, “the Liberals have agreed to team up with the Bloc to dismantle longstanding religious freedom protections.” The oft-quoted statements of the former Liberal chair of the House of Commons justice Committee, Marc Miller, called sections of the Bible and Torah “clearly hateful.”

Such a change to the Criminal Code would be significant. Historically, religious teaching and discussion have not been treated as criminal activity. In a free and democratic society, faith followers must be allowed to live with the integrity according to their convictions.

The Liberal/Bloc Québécois amendment to Bill C-9 removes that protection.

This week you may have also heard that the government has moved to limit parliamentary debate on the bill. Curtailing debate on legislation that directly affects freedom of expression and religion raises serious concerns about whether Parliament fully understands the consequences of this bill.

Furthermore, if the law already criminalizes these acts, we must ask: what exactly is Bill C-9 adding? Critics argue that instead of strengthening enforcement against clear criminal conduct, the bill widens the reach of criminal law into the realm of speech and belief and expression.

This is why many Canadians are alarmed. If passages from foundational religious texts can be characterized by lawmakers as inherently hateful, the line between criminal conduct and lawful religious teaching becomes dangerously blurred.

The issue is not theoretical. Sermons, classroom discussions, public debates, and the ordinary expression of faith all involve quoting and interpreting sacred texts. Once those texts are viewed through the lens of criminal suspicion, the freedom to practice religion openly begins to diminish.

History shows how quickly speech laws can expand beyond their original targets. Giving government broader authority to police expression is not helpful to a healthy, open society.

No one in Parliament is defending violence, threats, or intimidation. Those acts are already crimes and must remain crimes. But punishing criminal acts is different from treating religious belief and free speech as criminal.

Canadians should not have to fear prosecution for quoting the Bible, teaching doctrine, or discussing scripture. The removal of the existing safeguard signals a shift in how the government views religious expression.

Religious Canadians are not asking for special privileges. They are asking for the freedom to live openly according to their beliefs, to teach their children, to worship freely, and to speak about their faith without fearing that longstanding convictions will be treated as criminal.

That expectation should not be controversial in a free country.

At the time of writing this, while a motion has passed in the House of Commons to limit the debate of C-9, the bill is not yet passed. Should C-9 pass in the House of Commons, it is directed to the Senate, where it would need to be passed before becoming law.

Let’s hope the right decision is made—that our long-held convictions for religious freedom remain firmly intact.