.
.
They are prepared to mount with the support of the block epiqua a full-scale assault on religious freedom.
What the amendment is targeting is section B. This is a red line.
Did Minister Fraser inform you that he wanted to remove that religious defense?
Yes or no? Um and I I do believe this is a matter that touches on touches on privilege. uh
he specifically is claiming that a particular amendment with particular provisions is coming before the
committee. Uh and I I I don't think you can do that. That was taken away from us. That was
stripped from this justice committee which I find deplorable. I I am also so encouraged by the fact that
we have 14 conservative MPs that are here. I'm going to stop you from speaking now.
I will continue to say the things out loud that many of my colleagues and many
in government and far too close to government do not have the courage to say and I will never be silenced from
saying it. It's uh kind of a crazy situation we find ourselves in to even be having this
conversation. We see a political party who says they are very concerned about the overreach of the federal government
and yet comes here to Ottawa begging for that federal government to have more power over the people who send them here
shamefully. Yeah. On you. You are a hypocrite.
So I'm going to ask you to apologize. Oh, that's not going to happen. There is a standing order that allows us to be
appealed directly to the speaker if you deprive him of the floor. You probably don't know that.
Put it this way. Mr. Javani is not going to speak again until he retracts those comments. Okay. Well, chair, then I I would like
to raise a question of uh privilege.
This may be one of the most important videos we have ever produced and we strongly encourage you to watch it until
the end. Over the past week, a highly controversial block amendment has been circulating in the media. Its goal is
simple and dangerous. It would remove a safeguard in the criminal code and open the door to prosecuting a member of any
religious faith solely for their beliefs. In this episode, we take you
inside yesterday's justice committee meeting, which was scheduled for 8 hours. Because of a parliamentary
blackout, only the final four and a half hours were accessible. And as of now, none of the footage is available on
Parl. We've done our best to keep our coverage concise, but what we did obtain is deeply alarming.
You will see some of the arguments leading up to the vote on the amendment, the dangerous attempts by Liberal
members to violate parliamentary privilege, the blatant disregard for long-standing procedure, and the
inspiring effort now underway to undo the damage. This is about safeguarding
freedom of expression and protecting every Canadian's right to hold their religious beliefs without fear of
prosecution. Let's take a look.
So before we get to the committee folks, we have to inform you what is actually changing here. This is the current
criminal code and this is section 319 or 319. What does this say? Public incitement of
hatred. Everyone who by communicating statements in any public place incites
hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead
to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
two years or an offense punishable on summary conviction. Willful promotion of hatred. Two,
everyone who by communicating statements other than in private conversation willfully promotes hatred against any
identifiable group is guilty of a an indictable offense and is liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or b an offense punishable on
summary conviction. Willful promotion of anti-semitism. Everyone who by communicating statements
other than in private conversation willfully promotes anti-semitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the
Holocaust, is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding two years or is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction. This is where the
amendment targets folks. So this is the defenses to the actual criminal code
violation and what the amendment is targeting is section B. So it says no
person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection two if in good faith
the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on
a belief in a religious text. So what the amendment aims to do is to remove
that section which means to remove that defense.
What does this do? This opens up any member of any religious community to
possible prosecution just because of a belief.
It opens up any member of any uh religious faith who is preaching
to prosecution just because of what you're preaching in your faith. Now,
it doesn't necessarily protect you from incitement to violence because that's a different story.
But this this is a problem because this is around hate and we've discussed this
before. The issue with these ridiculous hate speech laws is who gets to define
what is hateful. This is the concern and this has been a
protection in Canada for decades and it is being ripped out. Now Sean
Frasier will say, "Well, you know, the uh the justice community hasn't need to rely on that defense for for the last
couple of decades." Well, here's the problem. We really haven't had hate laws that are this aggressive that you're
trying to implement. So using that as an excuse to put this in when you're putting in a law whose
sole intent is to start prosecuting for people for hate laws, it doesn't hold water. And this is why
groups around the country are sounding the alarm. Over 65% of Canadians believe
in some sort of higher power. Now I am not a religious person. Tanya is not a
religious person, more agnostic, but we understand that people that are
religious deserve to have this right. And also, if this right to practice
religion and and this right of freedom of expression starts to be eroded this way, it's a
very slippery slope and it's only a matter of time before they start coming
after non-religious people for things that they say. So this is extremely
dangerous. Well, it's like the state is trying to impose secularism and that's not okay,
right? It's a violation between the separation of church and state. Now, this is where we get into
committee. So, four hours had already gone by at this point. We'd already
covered some of this in our video that we dropped yesterday, but this is around
the 4hour mark into committee and they were in the midst of discussing the
block amendment. You're going to see some sections here that are sped up because we wanted to
show you in real time everything that happened at committee, who was present,
because there started to be a massive number of conservatives that started to
enter committee as time went on. So with that, here's what happened in the last back
half of the justice committee yesterday.
I I will ask some questions hypothetically through you chair that it would be wonderful if the Liberal
government's representative on this committee Miss Latanzio would answer uh which is whether the government is okay
disregarding the calls that have come from Muslims, Christians, Jews, uniting all religious observing observant
religious members of of the Abrahamic faiths and other faiths as well who are alarmed that this will infringe on their
religious freedom. I would ask uh the Liberal government's representative here as well about uh how the government
squares the fact that the Supreme Court has only upheld the constitutionality of
Canada's hate speech laws in the first place because of these defenses which
exist to provide for a wide array of protections understanding the importance
of religious freedom and of freedom of expression. I would hope the government in its submissions and in its comments
here would answer the question of what precisely
they think it is doing other than alienating people of faith to have a
someone who's now a minister of the crown look to Canadians and say that they
should be prosecuted if they dare express a religious belief the government finds objectionable. And I
would also ask the government why it has continued to respond to these questions with silence.
Silence when the media was asking, silence when members of parliament in question period were asking, and silence
now when I'm asking and these members are curiously glued to their phones rather than deal with the fact that they
are prepared to mount with the support of the block epiqua a full-scale assault on religious freedom in this country. We
have had tens of thousands of people that have reached out to us that have signed petitions that have sent emails.
Members of parliament from all parties have been receiving phone calls and emails and visits to our office for days
now because this is a red line. This is the government that was not that long
ago entertaining stripping charitable status away from houses of worship and is now deciding to take away
religious freedom protections in the criminal code to protect people of faith
who believe in good faith in religious scriptures from prosecution. It is not
only shameful that this amendment has even been considered by a government that pretends to speak for Canadians,
but
it is all the more shameful that the representatives of the Liberals
here on this committee do not have the courage of their convictions to
state on the
record what they are going to do. So this came in response to Andrew Lton
trying to question the parliamentary secretary to Shawn Frasier who was actually sitting in committee
questioning her on like why why are you doing this? What problem do you
hope to solve here? And there's been nothing from the liberals on this.
Well, and that's just it with our laws, especially our criminal laws. What? Like
what is the goal? Why are you trying to put in extra legislation for a problem that doesn't exist?
And what was brought up repeatedly by the conservatives, Larry Brock, everybody else, Rowan Bab, is is is a
problem we've called it before. How about you start exercising the laws
that we have right now because there are many provisions in the
laws to deal with this stuff. Now, I will say if you watch the full committee, um there was some political
games, perhaps you could call it that, by the conservatives, um like they weren't totally innocent. They were
trying to get this amendment pushed aside and they were wanting to discuss Bill C14 instead. Um but
at this point, there's nothing else that they can do. They are outnumbered because the block is voting with the
liberals in this committee and the only things they can really do are kind of play games and filibuster
and filibustering does get a bad rap in in many cases when you're trying to do
good things. But unfortunately, the filibuster has to be there in order to
actually give parties a tool when bad things are are trying to be uh accomplished as
well. And so the conservatives repeatedly were trying to introduce motions to shelves bill C9 and actually
get to a law and amend that to put in some protections to that to reform bail
which is C14. Introduce proper bail reform with some of the amendments that they want to put in there and actually
save people's lives. You know, protect women, protect men, protect everybody
because of people that are out on bail repeatedly and committing violent crimes.
But they don't want to do that. This is their priority. Bill C9, taking away Canadians freedom of
religion. It's disgusting. And Larry Brock was not
just Larry. All of them were phenomenal. Folks, if if you want to spend a day
whenever this footage does become available, watching a committee meeting for eight hours or the entire day, this
is one to watch. They were fighting so hard throughout this. I I can't even tell you.
Really, really makes you proud. But as we move along,
um you'll see Larry Brock start questioning some of the um legislation
writers that were actually at committee. Now, these aren't these aren't elected members of parliament. They're people
that draft the legislation at the direction of the government and they typically do have additional
training to do this. They're not just plucked off the street. Um, but it was
interesting that they couldn't answer Larry Brock's questions.
Did Minister Fraser inform you that he wanted to remove that religious defense?
Yes or no?
Mr. Chair, if I may, what I will say is Bill C9 does not, as drafted or
introduced, contain a proposal that would withdraw or defense. Did Minister
Fraser during the drafting of this bill, during all of your consultations,
maybe not you yourself, but other members in the department, including the
minister himself, perhaps even Miss Latanzio, did anyone from a political
entity, whether it's the minister or the parliamentary secretary, give you instructions to explore the
possibility of removing that religious defense. Yes or no?
I think the way that I can be helpful to the committee is to clarify that both the communications that we give to the
minister and the instructions that we receive from the minister are subject to solicitor client privilege and I am not
able to share any more on this than we have already. The instructions he gives you is not
protected. So I disagree with you on that interpretation
and perhaps if the minister who obviously is probably following this
because he had a very very uncomfortable week in the House of Commons
flip-flopping, not being clear with Canadians, backing himself into a corner, trying to appease
the Bubcqua who made it abundantly clear that you pull out of this secret
agreement that we had don't expect us to support any provision of Bill C9. And
that panicked the minister, that panicked the prime minister. That
panicked these four members of the justice committee. So now they're playing koi. Now we want to hear from
the committee. Well, to my colleague, Mr. Watton's point, if that was truly
genuine, they wouldn't have canled meetings where we had witnesses lined up and perhaps we
could have explored by hearing from stakeholders
as to whether or not this is an appropriate removal. But that was taken away from us. That
was stripped from this justice committee which I find deplorable.
But it's clear the Liberals will do whatever it takes to pass this. Even
though it was never their idea, was never their intention two years ago. It
was never their intention during the hearing of the numerous witnesses that we've heard until it became abundantly
clear that they would be going into a winter break without the passage of
Minister Fraser's signature piece of criminal legislation. the only piece of
criminal legislation that he had brought forward to be
studied at committee since the election almost eight months ago.
Man, Mr. Brock is going to make a way better attorney general than Sean
Frasier. Well, it's just unfortunate they're not in there now, but you know, here we are.
And what he's calling out is
I
don't even know what to call it anymore, folks. But you have people
dying on the streets. You have people dying in their homes. You have
kids
being shot in their homes while they're asleep. You have kids being assaulted in
their homes, three-year-olds by perverts out there,
all as a result of them being out on bail and not held in custody after their arrest, not
being denied bail because of the danger that they threat uh threatened to the community. All as a result of the
principle of restraint and we've talked about that at Nauseium. And what's Shawn Frasier's priority?
C9 taking away your religious freedoms.
Whether you voted conservative or liberal or NDP or block in the last election is irrelevant.
What is relevant is what this law aims to do. Right? And you don't create a better
society by taking away freedoms. Like it or not, it's everyone's
god-given right to hate each other. It is.
But the this is the price, right? The price of allowing freedom of expression and freedom of speech
is to allow somebody to think poorly of of one another.
It's allow allowing religions to have their own beliefs. And when that
crosses over into violence or threats of violence, we already have laws that deal with that.
So there is no reason for the government to be stripping away the right to free
expression, especially when it comes to to having religious beliefs.
It is a dangerous dangerous precedent to set. And
I shudder to think where this could go. And we are not overstating this.
Well, and this is why we have to fight so hard against it. Now, as we move ahead, it was discovered
that Sean Frasier actually leaked the amendment that was actually
going to be presented at this committee because the conservatives hadn't seen it yet. And this really, really concerned the
conservatives. and Garnet Jennis who is is not a voting member of this community. He was brought in as backup
because of how good he is at procedure. First uh procedural issue I wanted to
raise is just regarding a statement that my uh colleague Mr. Lton uh referenced
uh uh from uh Minister Fraser. Um I noticed in that statement that it says
um today as part of its study of Bill C9, the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights is
set to discuss an amendment repealing section 3 uh13
sub3 subb. Um and I wonder if you could provide a ruling chair on whether the
minister's uh announcement of that amendment uh that I don't think was made public by the committee or had been
moved yet uh constitutes a violation uh of the privileges of committee or at least if you could rule on whether this
is a question that touches on the issue of privilege.
I I haven't seen the minister's statement to be honest with you. Um, so
I'm uh you want to suspend for a second? I can chair. I if if you want to consider that
question
and and I can I'm happy to do that if you want to continue continue for
the time being. It was tweeted by the minister at 307. Um and I
I do believe this is a matter that touches on touches on privilege. Uh he specifically is claiming that a
particular amendment with particular provisions is coming before the committee. uh and I I I don't think you
can do that. So again, we are getting more familiar
with the protocols around parliamentary privilege than we would actually like to
because just to recall parliamentary privilege is not the allowance to do
something, it's the duty to do something. The terminology is a little different. Parliamentary privilege is
the ability for any member of parliament to exercise their oath of office to
participate in the legislative process to voice the um the concerns and the
feedback from their constituents and to to be able to vote accordingly. So,
we've seen examples over the uh of this over the last couple of years with Michael Chong having his family
threatened. That is a violation of parliamentary privilege because you have a foreign state trying to coersse or
influence
a member of parliament in how they're going to vote just because of the
way that they're threatening their family. And this is a uh potential
breach of privilege as well because you have a minister publicly sharing an amendment trying to influence public
opinion before this amendment is even table at committee before the conservatives even are able to see the
the amendment and debate on it. Meanwhile, you have the justice minister on Twitter and and we showed you that as
part of uh Mr. Jennis reading that trying to influence public opinion before this is even being brought
forward at committee. It's a blatant violation of parliamentary procedure and
the standing orders. And I didn't see any evidence that the chair
even considered that. And the and the problem is is that the chair just moves
on and the chair and I've checked I've checked this. I've actually consulted
with a a a chair of another committee that is currently uh um currently
serving as chair and I said it can you just confirm my understanding? I thought
that when a question of privilege is raised everything stops and the chair has to deal with that
immediately. And I was informed, yes, question of privilege takes precedence. You must
deal with it right then and there. So, not only is the Liberal Justice
Minister Sean Frasier violating parliamentary procedure in the standing orders by doing what he did, now James
Maloney, the chair of the justice committee, is violating parliamentary procedure in not addressing this right
away. We continue. I appreciate Miss Latanio earlier in her
uh
unwillingness to answer my question said she would be listening to the
interventions of members of this committee and sharing thoughts of her
own. Uh she has had the opportunity to listen to interventions from this committee and I did not hear in what she
said a clear position on where the Liberals will be voting on this
amendment. Uh now I don't know whether she wrote her own remarks or whether Minister Fraser did the the courtesy of
it but I I do not believe for a second that she is is speaking uh as a rogue member that has not consulted with uh
the minister that she represents and the prime minister she represents. Now uh we did learn earlier in media coverage that
the prime minister's office and uh the minister of justice were apparently not in line on this issue and that may have
led to some of the uh subsequent cancellations, postponements, extensions, abbreviations of of
meetings. But you we are talking about a fundamental altering of not just the
criminal code but of long-standing religious freedoms in this country. the kind of decision that if it is to exist
at all should have been a standalone bill. And it was. And when it was a standalone bill, the Liberals rejected
it because they realized that this does not belong in a pluralistic country that
represents people of all faith backgrounds and a House of Commons that represents people of all faith
backgrounds. So my request of the government right now, my request of Miss Latanzio as the parliamentary secretary
to the Minister of Justice is to have the courage to state that they will be voting for this if that is in fact their
decision or to have the even greater courage of standing up for religious liberties and and vowing to reject this.
All right, we're going to put it to a vote.
Okay. So, vote on BQ3. Madame Latanio, we
wow. Wow. Mr. Chang, surprise.
Madame Dylan, had no idea that was coming. Mr. House Father,
we Mr. Babber, no. Mr. Brock,
absolutely not. Mr. Gil, big no. Mr. Lton,
absolutely not. Mr. Fine.
Okay. BQ3 carries. So, ladies and gentlemen, BQ3, that was
the amendment in question. And you could probably hear some of the conservatives
voicing their disgust as the liberals started voting for this. Anthony Housefather very well known that
he is of the Jewish faith voting to criminalize his own religion
essentially. Yeah. Um in in any of the beliefs that uh that
someone would consider to be hateful. Who gets to determine that? I don't know.
But we don't we don't we don't know. We don't know.
Now, in anticipation of this passing,
the Conservative staffers were hard at work in in in behind the scenes and want
to make sure we put a huge shout out to the staffers that are working for the Conservative MPs um because
they're some of the unsung heroes that you never see. and they were preparing a
new amendment to be brought forth by the conservatives to try to ensure that there is at least
some safeguard for religious beliefs and freedom of expression
as a result of this amendment coming in. Point of order.
Yes, Mr. Lton. I I have an amendment pertaining to the matter at hand uh that
I would would fit into the line now um that's being circulated with the clerk. I I just wanted to that may not be a
point of order, but it it should go in now logically with where we are. So, the matter at hand being the clause by clause,
sorry, the the matter at hand being where we are in the order for amendments, it fits into where we are
now in the bill. Okay. Well, maybe we can uh suspend for a moment or two so we can have a look at
it.
Well, I I'm I I can read it and you can make a decision. Why don't you
read it and then we'll suspend because I assume you don't have it
translated.
Yeah, we do. This was prepared by legislative drafters. Uh and and I I should just by way of
context, the reason it was not in our original amendment package is because we had not seen uh the block amendment at
the time. So, it it only emerged when we saw that this was uh coming up. Um the
amendment is as follows. Uh in in French
that bill C9 under section four should be amended by addition after line two
page three as follows 61. This section cannot be interpreted or
applied in a way that it would actually infringe on the freedom of expression or
religious freedom. C9 in clause 4 be amended by adding after line two on page
three the following 6.1. Nothing in this section is to be interpreted or applied
so as to interfere with the freedom of expression or the freedom of religion.
Okay, we'll suspend for a moment now. Thank you. So that is the attempt by the
conservatives to undo some of the damage. And
what ended up ensuing for the rest of the committee was
arguing that amendment and uh it was a long time long time. and
and well, we'll get to that, but um let's just let's just see how this
starts to play out um as we continue through what is becoming the back quarter of uh
the justice committee yesterday.
Well, well, thank you, chair. I I do have a lot that I want to say on this subject. Um, but I'll I I am also so
encouraged by the fact that we have 14 Conservative MPs that are here. It's,
you know, it's it's after 10:00 here in Ottawa and we have uh a committee needs
four Conservatives at any given time and I count around the table 14 Conservative MPs uh that have come out to fight for
freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And uh I want to encourage
folks at home uh that um that that there are so many conservatives uh far more
than need to be here that want to be here uh to fight for your rights and your freedoms and to oppose this attack
on religious liberty. So um I've already spoken a bit tonight. I'm going to uh seed my time now because I want to hear
what uh so many of these other great folks around the table have to have to say. But Cher, I'll ask you to read me
to the list at the bottom. uh and and uh also if you can before we go to the next member give us an update on uh your
deliberations on how the justice minister violated the privileges of this committee by leaking confidential
information uh and when you plan to make a decision on that. Thank you chair. So um you could see you could see in the
in the start of that clip the amount of people that were around committee and um
and we'll show it now. You can actually see Jonathan Row from Newfoundland. Um the the Conservatives were had so many
people at committee that they were wrapped around over to the liberal side so that the conservatives were literally
sitting
right next to the liberals at the table there. There was a bit of a
disagreement that ended up breaking out later on between
uh was it Arnold Verson? Correct. And um oh the name Mr. Chang, that's right. Um
and and uh you could just see the tension like yeah the issue was is uh because so the
rules are is you you the conservatives had to have at least four people there because that's that's their entitlement
but you can have more right you can have more and they can come in and they can speak to motions they can speak to
amendments and and things like that they just need to be added to the speaking list. So, what the Conservatives uh did
after they uh they saw that the block motion passed, um Team Canada got
together. That's what happened. Well, and I suppose you could make the argument that they're just bringing in
more people to filibuster. Sure. But when you've got the Liberals in the block teaming up to take away Canadians
religious freedoms, what else can you do? It's all hands on deck when you're trying to fight against this, right? Um
so they um they moved to speaker after speaker after speaker after speaker. Um
all speaking for the danger of removing
um this type of safeguard and the need to reinstate this safeguard as part of
the amendment put forward by Andrew Lton. So, um it's it was just it was
something else to see that. Um and and I was really glad that Garnet Jennis uh called it out. Now, this is a couple of
hours after Mr. Jennis raised that question of
privilege in the first place. Right. And Garnet Jennis has been around Parliament for a little while, so he
knows procedure quite well, which I think we'll see comes in handy a little bit later on, too.
I am resurrecting my motion to prioritize the consideration of Bill
C14, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, and work together to report the bill to
the House at the earliest opportunity. And I'm seeking unanimous consent at
this time. No. And I just heard a no from the Liberal
member Anthony House Father. Thank you, Mr. Brock. that says everything that we need to know that
they do not prioritize have never prioritized community safety.
Thank you, Mr. House Father. Okay. Thank you so much. So, um I don't I don't know how many
times that was that Larry Brock tried to move that they shell C9 so they can
actually focus on C14, you know, to introduce bail legislation to change the laws to stop all of these
animals that are on the street and keep Canadians safe, right? Uh and uh and all of them were
just you you could tell all of them were ashamed
to uh to oppose that, but they did anyway because that's what they're told
to do. And Larry Brock, good on them. Good on them for calling it out. At this point, um they had been in the room for
7 hours and 30 minutes. And that's Bab, that's Brock and uh and and and Garnet
Jennis and Andrew Lton, I believe. And Andrew Lton and uh and Mr. Gil. So
um never mind all the other conservatives that had joined them uh afterwards. But now we get to
just a phenomenal speech by Melissa Lanceman in defense of religious
freedom. All right. Sorry, buddy. Enough. Enough. Enough.
Uh, Miss Lance, when you have the floor, I'll I'll I'll take my time on the floor
if the Liberal members opposite um stop obstructing the and your colleague to your left. It's
happening on both sides to be fair. The obstruction on the committee, frankly, of uh of studying um and of
looking at um the liberal bail system uh which we have talked about over and over
tonight uh as not seen as a priority. In fact, it's odd to me that uh that
liberals would stand in the House um and talk about the obstruction of uh their
own liberal bail laws uh while obstructing their own legislation at
committee um by prioritizing what we learned last week and we'll start from
the beginning. We learned last week as a secret deal between the Liberals and the block um to eliminate the obvious
safeguards that we've had in this country. uh for a number of years uh for
a number of decades on uh on the expression of of religious freedom. And when you come to parliament um I think
if you if you grew up in in a a background like I I think many of us um grew up in uh in
communities. I was uh I was raised by uh by my community and and indeed my my
family who uh who moved to this country uh frankly so they didn't have to
practice religion behind a curtain uh light candles under floorboards uh which is both um dangerous but uh obviously
what they would have had to do in the Soviet Union um to be able to practice freely. And I'll have to say over the
last the better part of the last two and a half years,
we've seen particularly in the community that I represent that I come from
an explosion of of anti-semitism. We've seen gunshots into schools. We've
seen firebombings into businesses, protests on a weekly basis uh in
residential neighborhoods and and this is what this is predicated
on trying to solve. The the problem is is that C9 doesn't do any of that and it
wouldn't stop any of that. And it is sad that trying to convince a community
coming in at the 11th hour. Remember when Bill C9 was introduced, it was a day after
the government recognized a Palestinian state. That's exactly why C9 got to uh
you know got to uh to an announcement when it did which is shameful in its own right to try to distract u from the
absolute vitriolic relationship that this government has created with both with the Jewish community and a long and
a long-standing democratic ally. That's why C9 was introduced.
But particularly on this amendment, there is no reason
why anybody should come here and fight on behalf of their community.
Fight
the scourge of anti-semitism in the community. Fight what's going on in
the streets. Fight what's going on in the schools, in our universities,
in
every institution, in in labor unions, in in our in our
university faculty clubs, in police forces themselves. Now
if you don't do it on the basis of something that you believe and taking away the right to believe
that I think is a very very big problem in the country.
Uh, and I don't think that anybody would fight the fight that our party, that our
leader that I have been fighting for the better part of two years if they didn't
do it from a place of deep religious belief. Because this isn't about a state
or a conflict on the other side of the world. It is rooted in the value of
Torah and religious scripture. Not necessarily if you're if you're Jewish, if you're if you're if you're Christian,
if you're Muslim, if you're Hindu, if you're seek, if you're not fighting
for the things that you believe in and if you're not fighting on the basis of that and you're not fighting to protect
it, then there's no point of doing any of this at all. And that's why I think Mr. Lton's
amendment is important. And what I what I don't understand is how it could be interpreted as
anything other than the protection of freedom. anything other than the
protection of freedom to believe what you want to believe because none of what
none of what has been expressed by either the block or frankly the liberals
now who have aligned themselves with the block who used to stand up against this stuff.
none of this would have been none none of this none of what they have said
would be prosecuted would actually have been prosecuted like it was this was
already against the law and we see in communities over and over again every
weekend after every weekend um and I'm oftentimes the only one to stand up and
denounce it and at great peril and it's because
fundamentally I believe that you should be able to practice ractice your religion in this country. You should be
able to hear your religion preach. You should be able to teach it in school because it is a fundamental value of why
we fight for the things that we fight for. I'll tell you, my background is not
dissimilar to the background of so many other Canadians. My parents came here uh
from the former Soviet Union. My father was an uncredentialed engineer. He drove a taxi, put my mom through school. And
in one generation, you go from the front seat of a taxi to the front row of Parliament Hill. That can only happen
here. And one of the fundamental reasons they moved here is so that they can be
who they wanted to be, practice the religion that they wanted to practice out in the open. So they weren't
subjugated into a corner where uh Jews frankly in the Soviet Union
were subjugated to punishment or frankly much worse throughout history. They came
here for one of those freedoms. They came here to be able to raise their children the way they wanted to, to be
able to stand up for what they believed in, and to be able to have that protected in law. And to watch the party
that once believed in all of those things, too, line up
with the block and put all of that in jeopardy. You have to wonder
if saying anything at all against hate in this country is ever going to be
worth it with members opposite in this committee.
We've said these things. We've defended communities at great peril
to our own safety, to the safety of our families. And I think all of that
is worth it. And I think all of that is worth it predicated on the fact that you
would be protecting the fundamental freedom to believe what you want to believe in this country. And
I don't have to believe what everybody else believes. And nobody has to believe what I believe, but I should believe in
the right to protect it because without that we lose it all. Here,
Mr. Chair, I think that uh Mr. Lton's
amendment uh on this is critical uh and it is critical to send a message
to all Canadians who have faith, those frankly who don't,
to tell the world, to tell the rest of the G7, the G20 if
you will, that this is a country based on the rule
of law, democracy, freedom, the values that we used to hold
as shared values. And I wouldn't want to think that the
last two years of advocacy on behalf of any community,
whether it's the community that I come from or any other one that I have stood up for and fought for,
would be in jeopardy because the the liberals want to make a deal with the block.
I uh I can't imagine that anybody who has stood up for their community
could support such an amendment. Would support making a deal to eliminate
any of the safe safeguards of something that is the critical center of the way
in which many of us were raised at the many at the in the way in which many of us live in our communities, interact
with our communities. If the thought that you have ever going
in to a place of worship is is that person is what that person is
saying what the clergy at the front of the room saying criminal or not. I think we have a big big problem in this
country and we will sit here day after day and hour after hour and I have
spoken to 50 rabbis today and I will speak to 50 more before tomorrow is over
and they too will express their concern on this.
they too will express the same concerns that all
clergy in this country will express on this piece of legislation or on this amendment. Frankly,
we haven't even gotten to to sort of how it all started and the
rest of Bill uh C9, but to all of those watching,
particularly in the Jewish community, if you think this legislation will protect
you, it will not. It will be used against you.
It will be used. The very same people who purport to protect the community
will use this legislation against you. It happened on Bill C63
and they were wrong on that. You cannot have freedom in this country when you
curtail freedom. You cannot have safety and security for
a community if you're going to pick and choose which verses out of which books you're going to defend. And I will not
stop sitting here. Not a single hour of a single day.
My life has changed over the last number of years and it's for standing up for a community and a community that I believe
in. And there is no chance that the being under 24-hour RCMP
protection is ever not going to be worth it. I will continue to say the things
out loud that many of my colleagues and many in government and far too close to
government do not have the courage to say. And I will never be silenced from saying it. not by this amendment and not
by any piece of legislation that we will ever allow to come through this house. So with that uh Mr. Chair, I am happy to
have other um uh other colleagues um who have come here who have canceled all of
their plans and I'm sure are happy to cancel um all of the rest. And for those who can't do this on Christmas Eve, I am
happy to fill uh fill that role. Um I can do it on Christmas Day. I can do it
every other single day of uh of the week and I'm happy to sit in for my colleagues who have stood up uh for me
when this government uh did not. So with that, Mr. Chair, I'll uh I'm happy to
seed my time to many of the other Conservative members that are here fighting for your rights. You're here. Thank you.
The conservatives are so lucky to have Melissa Lansman. She's a phenomenal
speaker. Such a strong, strong lady. This is what a strong independent woman
looks like, folks. Um, you know, you don't have to virtue signal. You just
have to carry yourself with confidence and and humility and and strength, and
that's what she does. Um, and I love that she spoke to the camera, to all of us, um, when she was when she was going
through her her intervention, um, and just highlighted so many dangers and so
many good reasons that we cannot go down this path. We cannot go down the path
that Britain is going on. It is so dangerous and we cannot afford to do
that. So, I just I just want to say thank you so much, Melissa, for for your strength,
your conviction, and for your willingness to sit through their Christmas break um until
until this horrendous uh amendment is dealt with in hopefully
a positive way for Canadians and people of faith. Now,
the the the thing about Garnet Jennis is um he is that guy that you hate
when they're when they're opposing you, but you absolutely love when they're on your team.
Well, because he's smart and he knows all the rules. He knows all the rules. He's
quickwitted. um he knows when to cross the line and when to just step up to it and uh
this is about to ignite the last part of this uh about of this meeting. Check this out.
Okay, we have Mr. Jennis again and then Mr. Verson.
All right, chair. Um well, uh I think I'm going to be brief again and go to the bottom of the list because I I know
Mr. Verson is is eager to get on in on this and I was going to preempt his
comments by um discussing how the investature crisis was more important for the development of notions of
separation of church and state than the reformation was and I know he would be interested in that. Um but uh but I'll
I'll I'll pick up on that uh later on. So, if you can add me to the list uh
again uh right after you update the committee on how you're planning and when you're planning on ruling on uh the
um the Minister of Justice's uh violations of the privileges of this committee by leaking uh documents that
uh that uh were were clearly the property of the committee. Uh so if if
you
can provide an update to the committee on when you're going to rule on
the justice minister violating the privileges of this committee. Uh and
uh
after that I look forward to hearing from Mr. Verson. Uh and um and then uh
following up once it becomes my turn again. I'm going to ask Mr. Lawrence to get a pen and paper and write down it's under
advisement. So every time Mr. Jennis speaks you can just slide it in front of him for the rest of the evening.
So Mr. Jennis again says chair
what are we doing about this question of privilege? And James Maloney rather flippantly
says,
"Well, you know, we should just, you know, have a have a piece of paper
to to hold it up in front of Mr. Jennis." That's not how this works,
Mr.
Maloney. And there was a section where he was being challenged
by
the conservatives on his rulings and they're saying, "Well, you know,
we know you're new here. You've only been here a couple days." And James
Maloney
responds, "I've been a chair for six years." Well, then you should know better. Absolutely. A question of privilege is a
serious thing. It means that an MP is being impeded from doing their dulyeleed
job. And it doesn't matter if it's one MP or all 343.
The priority of a question of privilege remains the same. That's how serious
this is taken in Westminster democracy. And it's how serious it should be taken
by the chair of the committee. And he's just, yeah, it's under consideration.
Well, that's a BS answer, Mr. Maloney. So, Mr. Javanni, then.
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak, of course, in favor of Mr. Lton's amendment. You know, tomorrow morning,
there will be hundreds, if not thousands of churches across our country that open
their doors to feed their neighbors. There will be hundreds, if not thousands
of churches across our country who open their doors to offer counseling to
heartbroken couples at risk of separating. There will be hundreds of thousands of
churches that open their doors to help people overcome addiction and a whole
host of other challenges. And the message these churches should be receiving from their government is
respect, encouragement, and gratitude for the services they provide
for struggling people and for people who need hope. And instead what they are getting from
their government is ridicule, disrespect
and outright attacks on their foundational beliefs. the very beliefs that motivate them to be good citizens
and good neighbors, good fathers, good mothers.
It's uh kind of a crazy situation we find ourselves in to even be having this
conversation. And in the process of disrespecting
these very important Canadian institutions, we have seen hypocrisy
exposed on the part of two political parties in this room. On the part of the
blockqua, we see a political party who says they are very concerned about the overreach of the federal government and
yet comes here to Ottawa begging for that federal government to have more power over the people who send them
here. shamefully. Yeah. On you. On you.
You are a hypocrite. Oh, on the part of the All right. All right. Mr. Javanni, uh I
know you just arrived an hour ago. We had a we had a discuss a thorough discussion earlier on about language and
decorum and party people from all sides agreed not to be making accusations and using
language like that. I wasn't here to make that agreement. Well, okay. But you, nonetheless, you
said it and it's inappropriate. So, I'm gonna ask you to apologize. Oh, that's not gonna happen.
All
right. Well, then we'll move on to the next speaker. Mr. Lawrence, you
have the point of order, Chair. No. What's your point of order? What's
your point of order? It's it's a point of order, chair. Uh, chair, um, first of all, uh, there is
there is no precedent for calling the specific language that Mr. Gavanni used unparliamentary. members are welcome to
disagree with it. Uh but the whole discussion in this bill, I think, is about the fact that speech you might
disagree with is not necessarily speech that should be made illegal. Yeah, Mr. Jennis, you're now getting to
debate.
You've made your point of order. I'm debating the matter of order. No,
you've made your point of order. You're now in debate. I'm going to stop
you from speaking now. Mr. Javanni called a member of parliament a hypocrite. He did not. And I'm moving on
to the next speaker which is Mr. Mr. Colonizers and Mr.
Speaker's list later on. We're not going to tolerate that type of behavior. Mr. Lawrence, the floor is
yours. Say that again. Challenge your ruling. Point of order. Fine. You can challenge my ruling. That's that's your right.
Chair. You know, I think this exchange really shows that the Liberals know what
they're trying to push through with the aid of the block is wrong because you wouldn't have to defend it in this
manner. You wouldn't have to break up these fights because they wouldn't happen if it was a bill that was good
for Canadians. Well, and the point that Gavanni made against the block, excuse
the pun, is on point because all we've been hearing uh from
the block on the legislation that they're trying to use in Quebec to ban
certain religious uh paraphernalia and and garb. Um and um and the the
government wants to to essentially remove the notwithstanding clause or or
the ability to even uh to to even use it. Um it's it's it's government
overreach trying to interfere in how the provinces are governing themselves.
And so all you've been hearing from the block is, you know, this is this is government overstepping, overstepping,
overstepping. But then you have the block introducing this amendment and the
liberals supporting it of completely overreaching and and disrupting
freedom of expression and criminalizing potential religious beliefs.
Well,
and it's not just overstepping into the provinces or into the
municipalities. is overstepping into Canadians lives directly.
Yeah. Into your homes, into your places of worship. And that's frightening.
There
was a standing order that allows us to be appealed directly to the
speaker if you deprive him of the floor. You probably don't know that,
but it was
adopted as part of a provision that Bartish Chagger brought forward. All right. Thank you, Mr. Jennis. You're welcome.
The chair's be sustained. Madame Latanzio in favor.
Mr. Chang, yes. Madame Dylan,
Mr. House father, we Mr. Jackson,
no. Mr. Brock, no. Mr. Gil, no.
Mr. Lton, no. Mr. Fine, we
Hey, come on, Mr. German. Okay. All right. Mr. Lawrence, you have the
floor. All right. All right. All right. All right.
Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence, please. I wish to confirm
Mr. Javani's comment that the block are hypocrites. We'll move on. We can do this all night
if
you want. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hullman. Yeah. Point of order.
M. Lansman. Yeah. Mr. Sure. Is is there a list of words
that you can provide the committee uh that you're not okay with? If you're going to sit here and call
another member of parliament a hypocrite, then yes, I believe. He did not He did not call another
member
of parliament I've ruled on it once. I've ruled on it a second time.
This is not the same thing. We could What's your point of
order then? My my point of order is is whether is there is a list of acceptable words in this committee. Is that where we're at
now? It's not an exhaustive list. So, all right. What is the list? law.
Okay. Mr. Holman, you have the floor. No. Point of order. It It's a It's the same incident, but
it's a different point of order. Okay. You You ruled on Mr. Javani's comment.
We challenged your decision and moved on. The comment made by Mr. Lawrence was not
impugning an individual member. He made a general comment about a party. There is no precedent at all that I'm aware of
and no standing order that prohibits that. And it is certainly not the same as what you ruled on in the previous
members intervention that there we we we are free in this house and in this committee to make a range of comments
about parties broadly point. Mr. Lton, that's not no longer a point of order. We're getting into debate.
What is a point of order? Uh uh Mr. Holman, you have the floor. Uh Mr. Chair, I was really enjoying the
speech that Mr. Javanni was saying. I was wondering, may I yield my time to allow the gentleman to continue with his
speech? No, we'll continue with the speakers list if you want though. If you don't want to speak,
get back on it. Okay. Uh,
Mr. Speaker, point of order. Go ahead, Mr.
Mr. Speaker. I did not hear my colleague Mr. Javanni
apologize and I didn't hear him withdraw his remarks. So I would call for him to withdraw his remarks and for him to
apologize. Uh thank you Mr. Forend and that's exactly why I took his time away and moved to the next speaker.
He refused to apologize so that's why I moved on. Sorry you don't speak louder. Oh I'm sorry.
He he refused to apologize. He refused to retract his comment and which is why I moved on to the next speaker.
This is okay.
Can I Okay, we're back to Mr. Jennis.
Um uh thank you, chair. Um
I I was wondering if I'd be allowed to uh read a scriptural text that calls someone a hypocrite. uh or or if that
would be also deemed unparliamentary and illegal under the relevant legislation.
Um could but um I actually wonder since I think Mr. Javanni is is coming up on the list
again that I'll uh ask you to read me to the bottom of the list and strike my position for now.
Put
it this way. Mr. Javanni is not going to speak again until he retracts
those comments. Okay. Well, chair, then I I would like
to raise a question of uh privilege. Um because it is not merely a matter of order, but it is a matter of privilege
that members uh be able to speak before before committee. Um it is uh clearly
not um and and I know look, you're you're relatively new in your position.
Um but your authority as chair um is not in in right of you as an individual. It
comes from the rules. uh it is it is a reflection of the office that you hold. And there have been multiple occasions
today uh when you have um not respected established rules. And um you know there
uh it it is an established principle that members have a right to speak. And
if you deprive members arbitrarily of the right to speak, if you end their time, deprive them of the floor, these
are matters that are appealable directly to the speaker of the house. Um I regrettably can't remember the
specific standing order but uh uh someone will tell me at due course and I know it's in there uh that when
uniquely in the case where a member is is cut off in speaking uh that members
can appeal directly to the house uh to to to the speaker uh who who can uh
overturn the judgments of the chair uh and nullify all subsequent uh proceedings. Um so uh in any event this
is a matter of privilege. Mr. Javanni uh is a duly elected member of parliament. You're you're welcome to disagree with
him. Mr. Foran is welcome to disagree with him. Um but he uh he has a right to
speak. Uh and uh there are look there there there are plenty of of instances
uh where where members I can I can think of where Mr. Erskin Smith uh dropped a
few fbombs at a committee in the last parliament and uh and and and he was uh
encouraged to be uh more appropriate in his language. Uh but he was not deprived
of his rights as a member of parliament. Uh you cannot simply decide to deprive someone of of of their right to speak
because you don't like what they said. That is a violation of their privileges. So I would encourage you to uh um
consider whether this is a matter touching on privilege and uh if you find uh that it is uh I will be prepared to
move the appropriate motion. Well, Mr. Janice, let's let's do it this way. Uh I've been in the position of
chair at this committee for a week now. I've served as a committee chair for over six years. Uh I notice you've never
sat in a position as a committee chair. Um there's a reason for that. I suspect
um nonetheless um I I think that um
I think that in the circumstances uh suggesting that I've been denied anybody an opportunity to speak is vering on
laughable considering we've been here for 7 hours listening to people speak over and over again. This might be your
10th or 11th intervention. I've lost track. Um so it's an accusation with no merit. Having said all that, I think
what uh is the best course of action right now, our resources end in a few
moments.
I'm going to suspend this meeting for the day. Jar, I've raised a
question of privilege. You got a rule on the question of privilege.
Meeting suspended. So, that was a dog's breakfast, folks. And when I saw that last part and I saw
Maloney end the meeting, I was I was just in disbelief because not only did he not rule on the
previous question of privilege, he didn't rule on that question of privilege. And the fact that Maloney is
sitting there saying, you know, oh well, you know, the I'm being accused of not letting people speak. Well, it just happened.
You
just said you're you're taking his time away and he's not going to be
allowed to speak again. And guess what? Chairs don't have that power.
We've
actually covered this before. Chairs have the ability to conduct
meetings. And we've seen this with Kelly McCaulay over at Ogo when the Liberals
were getting so crazy in the uh in the last parliament. And Kelly couldn't do
anything
because he doesn't have the authority to do anything. He can't just
say, "Well, you're not speaking because that's a violation of
privilege."
It is. And the only things a chair can really do are either suspend or adjourn
the meeting. That's it. They can suspend for say 5 minutes, everybody gets their composure, then they're able to
continue. Or if everybody is being too rowdy, then they can adjourn the whole thing.
So now resources is not an excuse to not rule on a
question of privilege. You must do that. So the fact that Maloney was just like bye,
it completely violates standing orders and and and house procedures in ruling on a question of
privilege, right? Because remember, it's not the governing party that decides what the rules of parliament are. It's this book
right here. Now, this is the third edition, and they do have a fourth edition that was just recently released,
but point being, it's the green book. The green book tells the MPs how parliament is to be run,
right? And they and they must abide by it. They absolutely must.
So
I it makes me wonder, you know, the fact that the chair didn't even
rule on a question of privilege. Is that now a question of privilege?
Yeah, that's a good point because he's supposed to do that. And
you're
effective you're potentially violating the privilege of everybody by
not even ruling on a question of privilege. Well, and if I'm not
mistaken, when the chair makes a ruling, it's whether or not it's to be brought to the House. It's not a ruling of is
this a breach of privilege pretty much. So, I I wonder if we'll
we'll see a question of priv privilege today. Now, this has been a long video, folks. I hope you made it to the end.
We've shown you some of the most important parts of this, but this does not mean that the rest of this committee
was not important. What we tried to do is give you a sense of of what was going on and some of the
major events, but there are many many many many amazing interventions by folks
on the conservatives that that were fighting against this. And given that the amendment discussion
of uh for Mr. Lton's um amendment that he brought forward has not finished,
right? They didn't adjourn in the meeting. They suspended it. It means that this isn't done. This
isn't over and they're going to continue. So, the point of this is
you need to understand what's going on inside a committee and what's going on
when these people are making decisions that are affecting your rights as a Canadian and
your children's rights and your grandchildren's rights. And what do you do?
You need to be writing letters. You need to be booking appointments. You need to be calling your MP
regardless of party, especially if they're a liberal or block member, and letting them know this does not fly.
I did not vote you in. It was not part of any electoral platform to take away the rights of Canadians to take away
your right to freedom of express uh of expression and to take away your rights
to believe in what you want to believe in terms of your your religion. And that's what this amendment is in
danger of doing. So, please share this, discuss it, act
on it by contacting your your member of parliament and letting them know that
this this is a red line and Canadians are not going to allow this to happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment