Catholic entities have not had a seat at the table for any of the first three Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights meetings devoted to studying Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act.

Forty-six witnesses have delivered testimony on May 20, 21 or 25, and none officially represented the largest religious denomination in Canada. There have been multiple delegates from the Muslim, Jewish and Anglican communities, as well as speakers on behalf of Sikh and Hindu organizations. Civil liberty organizations, law enforcement groups, legal experts and academics have also had their say.

A member of the Senate communications team said the committee has not yet completed its work and still expects to hear from additional witnesses. The next meeting has not yet been scheduled.

Advertisement

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), however, in a statement to the Register, said it is not expecting to participate in forthcoming hearings.

“Regarding the Senate’s study of Bill C-9, the CCCB has not been invited to appear before the committee at this stage,” stated the message shared by communications director Pomeline Martinoski. “While the CCCB would have welcomed the opportunity to contribute directly to the hearings as an important stakeholder, we respect the independence of the Senate and its committees in determining their witness lists.”

CCCB President Bishop Pierre Goudreault of Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière and CCCB Vice President Archbishop Donald Bolen of Regina briefly discussed Bill C-9 with Mark Carney during their audience with the Prime Minister on May 1, the CCCB said.

Advertisement

“With respect to Bill C-9, the CCCB’s concerns and perspectives have already been clearly communicated to government representatives and officials, including through constructive engagement with the Department of Justice,” read the statement. “While the topic was not discussed at length during the recent meeting with Prime Minister Carney, the government is aware of the CCCB’s position and of the importance Catholics attach to protecting legitimate religious expression.

The core tenets of Bill C-9 centre on criminalizing intimidation and obstruction outside of establishments used by faith-based groups and banning the intentional flaunting of certain terrorism or hate symbols in public. However, the element of the bill that sparked spirited discussion is the controversial amendment, backed by the Liberals and Bloc Québécois in the House of Commons, that repealed the sincere religious speech defence from Canada’s hate speech laws.

In a May 21 exchange between Conservative Senator Salma Ataullahjan and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General Sean Fraser, the former told the latter about a call she received from a woman who had fled to Canada because she was restricted in practising her religion. Now, because of the removal of the religious speech guardrail, she feels apprehensive about remaining in Canada. Ataullahjan asked Fraser about how the government can reassure Canadians of faith with these trepidations.

“When we heard concern around the proposed removal of the religious exemption to hate crimes, we immediately recognized the need to make an adjustment through this for a greater certainty clause that makes very clear that the ordinary practice of your faith is not going to constitute the willful promotion of hatred in Canada,” replied Fraser. “I know with a high degree of confidence and certainty that the language we have chosen is not going to result in the criminalization of people reading their Scripture."

The greater certainty amendment to what Fraser cited reads as follows: “nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not willfully promote hatred, hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.”

Advertisement

The Register spoke to Phil Horgan, the president and general counsel of the Catholic Civil Rights League, when the amendment was first introduced in March.

He acknowledged that “it is difficult for me to assess the proposed amendment brought forward from the Department of Justice, as it seems to suggest that a charge will not be laid if there is an expression on a religious topic that is in the public interest. (This) may leave open the possibility of a charge if the Crown is of the view that a discussion of certain religious texts is not in the public interest, and in the absence of the good faith religious defence, a pastor or faith leader would be at the peril of a charge.”