Rebel News Podcast - EZRA LEVANT ｜ Andrew Lawton breaks down Bill C-9's threat to religious freedom and free speech

00:00:00.000 Tonight, a journalist who became a freedom-fighting MP, a feature interview with our friend Andrew

00:00:21.960 Lawton. You're watching The Ezra LeVant Show. Well, one of my favorite journalists is a freedom-oriented

00:00:43.500 journalist, but then he got this big idea that maybe he would become a parliamentarian, and indeed,

00:00:49.220 he succeeded. Wow! Has he ever become a star in that place, fighting for the same values that he did

00:00:57.080 as a reporter? You probably know who I'm talking to. His name is Andrew Lawton. He's the member of

00:01:01.820 parliament, let me see if I can get this right, for Elgin, St. Thomas, London, South, and what a

00:01:06.260 delight to catch up with him after a very busy first, I guess, half a year. Andrew, nice to see

00:01:12.660 you again. Congratulations, by the way. Likewise. Thanks very much for having me, Ezra. You know,

00:01:17.960 one of the things I'm really grateful for is that you have not lost your civil liberties spirit.

00:01:23.760 Sometimes when journalists enter parliament, they suddenly lose their principles. All the things

00:01:28.920 they talked about when they were writers, I think of our friend Charles Adler, who Trudeau put in the

00:01:33.600 Senate. You, in fact, have done the opposite. You have leaned in to your civil libertarian side and

00:01:39.200 have made that a focus. Why don't you share with our folks who might not be following parliament closely,

00:01:43.920 tell us about some of the battles that you've faced, some of the questions you've asked in committee,

00:01:49.120 some of the question period stuff. This is for folks who don't know. Bring them up to speed and don't be

00:01:54.240 shy about throwing to clips. If we don't have those clips here immediately, we'll add them a little bit

00:01:59.360 later before we publish this because you've had some exciting moments. So bring us up to speed. Tell me about

00:02:04.700 the battle. Oh, well, look, I, first off, I appreciate it, Ezra. I mean, when I made the

00:02:10.540 decision to run, a big part of my decision was, can I continue to be a champion and an advocate for

00:02:17.600 the things that I've always cared about and the things that I use my platform as a journalist to

00:02:22.400 champion? And I wouldn't have done it if I wasn't going to be able to do that. And that was a key part

00:02:28.600 of why I decided to run in the first place. It was, where can I make the biggest impact? And in my

00:02:33.840 maiden speech to the House of Commons, I actually said that the reason I went to Ottawa was to make

00:02:39.400 Canada a freer country. That was a commitment that I made to myself, to my constituents and to all

00:02:45.380 Canadians. Let's have a quick clip of that. And again, the maiden speech, that sort of, everyone

00:02:50.120 watches that one. Your folks back home watch it. Other MPs, they want to take your measure. Here's a

00:02:55.480 clip from Andrew's maiden speech. My writing is made up of incredible communities filled with

00:03:01.520 incredible people. And I get to represent them. Everyone, regardless of how they voted. The farmers,

00:03:08.840 the artists, the entrepreneurs, people who have just made Canada their home for the first time, and

00:03:15.280 people who helped settle this country and settled the community generations ago. But it's people in

00:03:21.120 these rural and smaller communities in particular who have felt most neglected by the last 10 years of

00:03:27.800 liberal government. And it was their struggles that motivated me to jump into politics. As a journalist

00:03:34.720 and broadcaster, I could not spend an election with the stakes so high on the sidelines. I had to have a

00:03:40.740 hand in the solutions. Like most in this chamber, I spent the campaign knocking on doors. I spoke to

00:03:47.800 thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people in my writing. And I want to share, Mr. Speaker, a few of the

00:03:54.400 stories that have stood out and that I carry with me today. One was a retired teacher from St. Thomas,

00:04:01.320 a woman who said she had voted liberal every single election in her entire life. And I asked her,

00:04:08.340 why not now? And she said, I just can't. Now, a good politician probably would have taken the vote and

00:04:14.680 walked away. But I asked as a journalist one further question. Why? She said, because my sons are 28 and 30

00:04:21.560 years old, and they live with me, and unless things change, they're never going to be able to move out.

00:04:28.240 That is one conversation I had that is so similar to countless more. People whose families could not

00:04:34.900 develop and thrive the way that most Canadians dream, the way people in my writing dream, because of

00:04:40.700 liberal government policy that has made home ownership just fantasy rather than a dream and an aspiration.

00:04:47.100 Well, excellent. Now, how have your fellow MPs, and there's some conservative senators too,

00:04:52.460 how have they reacted to you picking up the torch of free speech? Have they joined in? Have they

00:04:58.080 encouraged you? Have some said, oh, fella, better calm down or something? What's been the reaction?

00:05:04.020 No, it's been incredible. I mean, we obviously look as a conservative party. We didn't win this

00:05:09.380 election, but we did tremendously well in terms of our raw vote total. We made inroads in

00:05:15.520 communities that are not used to electing conservatives. Largely, I think the reason

00:05:20.980 that that was so successful and so important and gives us something to build off of is because

00:05:25.940 we need to be able to have these conversations about what's at stake. I was talking about freedoms

00:05:32.600 for gun owners in rural communities and across the country, freedom of expression, freedom of the

00:05:37.980 press. And then we had this really dangerous government bill that was put forward called Bill

00:05:44.420 C-9, which is a bill that, again, the noble intentions surrounding it, as you've been covering,

00:05:50.900 as I was covering as a journalist, you know, the unbridled, brazen hate that's been directed to the

00:05:57.120 Jewish community in particular, but also we've seen arsons and vandalism of Christian churches in the

00:06:02.380 last five years. There are a number of communities that I think have been crying out for action, but

00:06:07.420 the answer to that was not a bill that censors what Canadians can say. So Bill C-9 has become a bill

00:06:15.040 that I've become very vocal and active on, especially now that it's expanded to remove

00:06:20.820 longstanding religious freedom protections. And certainly the support from my colleagues

00:06:25.140 in the Conservative caucus on this battle has been tremendous.

00:06:28.500 Now, let me ask you, because when I was young and starting to learn about civil liberties,

00:06:36.240 when I was in my 20s, let's say, I had a chance to meet a fellow named Alan Borovoy,

00:06:41.120 who at the time was the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I think it would be fair to

00:06:45.420 call him a man of the left. In fact, he was pretty progressive, as we'd say today. But he loved civil

00:06:51.080 liberties as much as anyone I've ever met ever. There was a time when civil liberties used to be a 0.95

00:06:57.200 nonpartisan issue, where people on the left and people on the right believed in it. Maybe wokeism

00:07:03.720 killed that on the left. But let me ask you, have you had any of the more high-minded liberals? I don't

00:07:10.500 even want to ask about the block or the NDP, because I think I know the answer there. But have

00:07:14.780 any more moderate liberals, more thoughtful, old-style liberals said, hey, Andrew, maybe we disagree with you

00:07:23.020 on a few things. But we love civil liberties too. Have you seen any hope across the aisle on this

00:07:28.520 stuff? Look, not in Parliament. Now, I'm going to make a division between liberals in the House of

00:07:35.580 Commons and people on the left who are not partisan liberals in Canada. Because outside of Ottawa, I would

00:07:42.400 agree there is, in general, among people on the left and the right, an understanding that freedom of

00:07:48.400 expression is important. Religious freedom is important. The right to protest the government, this is an

00:07:53.440 important fundamental right in a free society. And when liberal government, when the Justin Trudeau

00:08:00.200 government was pushing forward the Online Harms Act, a lot of the criticism came from people that no one

00:08:05.840 has ever mistaken for being conservative. People like Margaret Atwood, people like, oh, I mean, Andrew

00:08:12.580 Coyne and Neil MacDonald of CBC. So this is where I think we have to draw a line between some of these

00:08:19.900 cultural people on the left and the political left. The Liberal Party right now has been the party that's

00:08:25.700 been advancing these really significant moves away from freedom of expression and away from religious

00:08:32.080 freedom. This was a hallmark of the Justin Trudeau government, and that has been picked up by the

00:08:37.280 Mark Carney government. But on Bill C-9, the condemnation has come from left and right. You

00:08:43.160 know, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association, which is even further

00:08:48.080 to the left, have condemned it. It's been condemned by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, organizations

00:08:55.280 on all sides of the political spectrum, leaving me to wonder, why are the Liberals still standing by it?

00:09:01.500 And the only reason is because fundamentally, they do not support freedom of expression.

00:09:06.060 I want to come back to C-9 in a moment. And you're right, it's a concerning law. And I've read

00:09:12.660 through the law, I've talked about it in a monologue, but you've really engaged the government

00:09:17.020 with it. Let's put that aside just for a minute, because I want to ask one more follow-up question

00:09:20.400 about how civil liberties, if it is still something shared by other people. A lot of censorship comes

00:09:27.960 from government, of course, and that is regulated in part by the Charter of Rights, which limits how the

00:09:33.580 government can infringe on our freedoms. However, a lot of censorship in my observation these days

00:09:40.140 comes from tech companies, that is, private companies, not governments, whether it's YouTube

00:09:45.700 or TikTok or Facebook. Now, Elon Musk buying Twitter and making it very free-speechy has changed things.

00:09:54.840 It's really fostered communications and an international conversation. Have you had any

00:10:02.140 interaction with tech companies or their lobbyists since you've come to Ottawa? Where are they on the

00:10:09.760 free-speech issue? Because for a few years there, they were really the vanguard of censorship. That's

00:10:15.080 how it looked like to me. Yeah, I've met with a number of stakeholders. I met with YouTube. I've

00:10:21.620 met with Rumble. I've met with X. I have not had a meeting with anyone at Meta formally, but I've run

00:10:28.920 into people at Meta. And look, the position that I have expressed to them is one that I am firmly in

00:10:35.520 the mindset that we need to have freedom of expression. I have also been very clear on this,

00:10:41.820 that I do not believe government should be regulating what these platforms can have on

00:10:46.680 themselves. But I also want to take a step back here because I believe that one of the big problems

00:10:53.660 we've seen is when government forces tech companies to do, not to take a particular decision, but forces

00:11:00.620 them to regulate a particular aspect of what they do. And then those tech companies respond in a way

00:11:07.120 that they're the ones making the decision. And I'll use a prime example of this, which is the Online

00:11:12.860 News Act. The Online News Act did not force Facebook to take news off of its platform, but it created

00:11:20.640 a framework where that was the most logical thing for Meta to do. But if you're an independent news

00:11:28.240 platform and you're saying, well, hang on, now I've been banned from Facebook, the government says,

00:11:33.340 well, don't look at us. That's Meta. Meta made that decision. Well, yes, but they made that decision

00:11:37.840 as a response to government regulation. And I said the same thing when the Online Harms Act was

00:11:43.280 being put forward. If government is saying to tech companies, these are the hate laws in Canada,

00:11:49.060 and you have to figure out how you're going to keep this type of content from your platform,

00:11:53.700 it's going to force an overbroad interpretation by companies that don't want to deal with the government

00:12:00.440 and the government's regulatory regime. So you end up with censorship that is technically being

00:12:06.900 perpetrated by tech companies, but really your beef is with the government. So I think the more we can

00:12:13.060 disentangle government as a content regulator from social media companies, the better it is for Canadians.

00:12:20.540 Yeah. I mean, we're effectively banned on Facebook. It was a decision because the government would have

00:12:27.020 taxed Facebook for every link. But whether the government did it directly or it happened

00:12:32.800 as a side effect, we're still banned. Yeah, but you don't have the recourse. You don't have the

00:12:39.540 recourse available that you would. You cannot take Meta to court because Meta would say, well,

00:12:44.140 we're a private company. And you can't take the government to court because they'll say, well,

00:12:47.480 Meta made that decision. So this is the problem when government is basically deputizing tech companies

00:12:52.980 to do what the government really wants to do. Well, and not just that, a lot of smaller or

00:12:59.860 independent or startup media companies, they need that word of mouth, that free marketing that comes

00:13:05.520 from enthusiastic sharing. If you're an incumbent in the marketplace, everyone's already heard of

00:13:11.180 CTV Global and CBC. They don't really need advertising. They're not going to say they're a monopoly,

00:13:17.520 but they have big brand power. You're a little startup. You need that organic sharing. That's

00:13:23.360 how Rebel News goes. We don't have a marketing budget. Let's get back to C9. And I mean, that bill,

00:13:30.500 every weekend near my house in Toronto, and I live in a fairly Jewish neighborhood, there's a group of

00:13:37.060 pro-Hamas activists. I'm not saying pro-Palestinian because they're much further than that. They literally

00:13:42.140 had this recreation of the terrorist leader Yahya Sinwar in his final moments. Like these folks

00:13:48.080 openly support Hamas and they come into a Jewish neighborhood. They block the streets. They utter 1.00

00:13:54.420 threats. They disturb the peace. They violate noise bylaws. Sometimes they walk into residential areas

00:14:02.360 screaming at people. Other pro-Hamas protesters in Toronto have smashed windows in some extreme cases,

00:14:09.180 shot at a Jewish girls' school three times. I guess what I'm saying is there's a lot of what I would 1.00

00:14:15.100 call regular laws they're breaking, not hate laws, uttering threats, etc. My view is the way to deal

00:14:22.940 with those things is to enforce the law. And those laws are not being enforced, in my view, for political

00:14:28.660 or even demographic voter reasons. C9 seems to me, and you tell me if I'm wrong, was sort of to say,

00:14:36.080 hey, Jews, we're going to bring in a law against hateful words. So we'll fix the problem with yet

00:14:44.620 another law. My first reflex is, well, why don't you enforce the laws as they are? Why are you making

00:14:52.120 another law other than avoiding doing the hard work? I think the whole premise of the law is a

00:14:58.600 distraction from the fact that police and prosecutors aren't enforcing the current laws. What do you think of

00:15:03.860 that? I think you're right. I mean, Bill C9 is the Liberal government attempting to deflect

00:15:10.400 responsibility for how it has allowed anti-Semitic hate to fester over the last two plus years.

00:15:16.860 The lack of political leadership on this vile and often violent anti-Semitic rhetoric has been a failing

00:15:24.180 of political leadership. It has not been a lack of laws. And this is something that even a lot of the

00:15:30.980 Jewish organizations in Canada have been saying for the last two plus years, that we need to enforce

00:15:35.720 existing laws, such as the laws surrounding intimidation and harassment and mischief against

00:15:42.540 religious properties, incitement to genocide, which is already a criminal standard or criminal code

00:15:48.400 offense with a very specific meaning and a very high threshold, as there should be for anything

00:15:53.920 relating to speech. So what C9 does is it retreads a lot of things that are existing illegal under

00:16:01.500 existing laws. And again, if the existing laws are not being enforced, how do we know the new laws are

00:16:06.620 going to be? But the things that it does that are fundamentally different are things that will go

00:16:11.940 after speech that is right now protected. And this is where we get very concerned about not just the

00:16:19.660 lowering of the threshold for what constitutes hate speech. They're putting in a new definition of hate,

00:16:24.780 which lowers the threshold that's been used in Supreme Court jurisprudence on this. And also now a critical

00:16:31.700 change in this is that the Liberal government has made an agreement with the Bloc Québécois, and they passed an

00:16:37.540 amendment at one of the last meetings of the Justice Committee that will remove longstanding religious

00:16:45.360 freedom protections that have prevented people who, quote, scriptures the government finds offensive

00:16:51.660 from being criminally prosecuted. And this is a change that will target Christians, it will target 0.70

00:16:58.120 Jews, it will target Muslims, it will target anyone of faith in this country. And this is not protecting 0.88

00:17:04.380 anyone from hate. You are not protecting any community from hate if you're opening up, if you're opening them

00:17:10.420 up to prosecution. You know, Sean Fraser, the Justice Minister, says, oh, it's never being used,

00:17:17.720 the religious defense. Let's just actually talk about the substance of what's being proposed,

00:17:23.820 because there's a lot of misinformation that is being shared around there, suggesting this is

00:17:27.780 the criminalization of faith, which I don't think any parliamentarian would stand for.

00:17:31.260 No, but there will be concerns. Like, there are certain faiths, like I was raised Catholic,

00:17:35.040 right? You know, people, you know, adherence to that, strict adherence, think homosexuality is a

00:17:40.400 sin, gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, you know, same-sex adoption shouldn't be allowed, 1.00

00:17:44.540 and might have concerns that if preaching that or advocating that, that they could be targeted for

00:17:49.160 a crime. The religious exemption will protect them from that, but you argue the threshold's much

00:17:54.040 higher than something that way. Certainly, the threshold is much higher to willfully promote hate

00:17:58.140 against an identifiable group of people. There's a difference between saying you have a point of view

00:18:02.220 or reading scripture about same-sex marriage and actually promoting hate, vilifying or inciting

00:18:09.060 violence against a particular group. Moreover, the protections that this individual provision

00:18:14.340 could have potentially afforded a person would likely be protected by the charter or the existing

00:18:20.640 public interest exemption. From my point of view, we should recognize that religions in this country

00:18:25.900 promote messages of love, of peace, of inclusion, and I think it's a perversion of what

00:18:31.980 the world's major religions stand for, to have people suggest that somehow reading scripture or

00:18:37.080 holy text from a religion of your choice would somehow constitute willfully promoting hate.

00:18:42.000 I grew up in a Catholic household too, read scripture on Sundays. This is not what religion is about, 1.00

00:18:48.020 and I have faith that we're going to be able to move forward with the protections,

00:18:51.080 including the ones that were designed specifically to protect religious communities in this country.

00:18:54.460 You know, one of the things in the law that scares me, Andrew, is that someone can make an argument

00:19:01.980 in good faith, quoting their Bible or Jewish Bible or

00:19:07.080 Quran or other holy book, and they genuinely believe it. They don't mean it as an attack.

00:19:14.300 They're not using it as a sword. It's more a shield. Let me take three. I'm sorry.

00:19:23.080 Andrew, one of the things about the law is that it removes what has historically been a defense

00:19:28.980 to hate speech charges, which is religious belief. If you genuinely believe a passage of the Bible 0.90

00:19:35.700 or the Jewish Torah or the Muslim Quran, you could, to this day, plead that as a defense saying,

00:19:42.920 Your Honor, sorry someone felt I was doing something hateful. I'm actually just relying

00:19:47.840 on this scripture. This law would remove the religious defense. And a lot of people think

00:19:52.800 that's, I mean, again, the government would say, oh, that'll stop some of the anti-Semitic hate speech.

00:19:58.380 I don't think so. I think that this law will be selectively applied. And I'm just going to go on

00:20:03.840 record making a prediction that this law will be used against Christian street pastors, not against 0.94

00:20:11.260 these Hamas thugs who are threatening Jews every Sunday in my neighborhood. I don't know. I'm just 0.72

00:20:16.000 nervous that we're removing a defense. We're removing a freedom defense for everyone. When again,

00:20:24.340 as we said earlier, we don't need to change the law. We just need to enforce the laws that there are.

00:20:29.000 But it makes me really nervous that the government gets to decide what religious speech is hateful and

00:20:34.100 what isn't. Yes. And you're right to use the magic words there, good faith. The defense only applies

00:20:42.060 to good faith expressions of religious beliefs or citing religious texts. So the one that's often held

00:20:49.740 up by the liberals and indeed now, or by the Bloc Québécois and now the liberals as being the sample

00:20:55.800 case for this is a man in Quebec, Adil Charcawy, a hate preacher who called for basically Jews to be

00:21:03.940 eradicated, but he did it in the context of a prayer. And first off, there is no such thing as calling for

00:21:10.980 genocide in good faith. So even if you are using your religious justification, however distorted it

00:21:18.220 is to call for something so heinous, that is not in good faith. But more importantly, the defense does

00:21:23.940 not apply to violent speech. It does not apply when the criminal charge of inciting genocide, for example,

00:21:31.320 is engaged. It only applies to willful promotion of hatred. So we are talking about hate speech here

00:21:37.660 and with a government definition that is lower than the current definition, and testimony from people such as

00:21:44.420 Bruce Party, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, that this

00:21:50.360 combination will be used to go after people whose views government finds offensive. And that's why we've been

00:21:56.820 mounting such a significant defense of free speech, of religious freedom. I have a petition that we put forward,

00:22:03.560 which is to protect religious freedom. This petition has gotten in the first week, I think, about 10,

00:22:10.740 it was like 50,000 signatures. It was something massive like that. And from all over the country,

00:22:15.740 and still continuing, because people realize how important this is to protect these fundamental

00:22:21.320 freedoms. We've had Muslims, Jews, Christians, as I said, that have all reached out the Conference of

00:22:27.120 Catholic Bishops, again, an organization that does not get particularly political, speaking out about what

00:22:32.740 this means, that they're now being told by the government, that you have to watch what you say in your

00:22:38.620 sermons, you have to watch which verses of scripture you quote. This is from a liberal government who had a

00:22:45.280 member who's now a cabinet minister, talk about how ministers, priests, clerics who quote the Bible or the Torah

00:22:52.880 should be subject to criminal charges if they read verses that he deems as hateful. That's Mark Miller, now the

00:23:01.420 minister of Canadian identity and culture. So this is a very significant issue and one that we need

00:23:06.900 to put a lot of pressure on the liberal government to reverse course on before the House of Commons

00:23:11.700 comes back in January. Yeah, that was a crazy quote by Mark Miller here. Take a look.

00:23:17.080 I just want to dig in a bit about the concept of good faith, Mr. Ross. In Leviticus, Deuteronomy,

00:23:24.660 Romans, there's other passages, there's clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals. I don't know,

00:23:29.340 understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a

00:23:34.200 passage from, in this case, the Bible, but there are other religious texts that say the same thing

00:23:38.360 and somehow say that this is good faith. I mean, clearly there are situations in these texts where

00:23:44.680 these statements are hateful, they should not be used to invoke or be a defense, and there should

00:23:51.940 perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges. I just want to understand what your notion

00:23:56.520 of good faith is in this context where there are clearly passages in religious texts that are

00:24:01.520 clearly hateful. You know, there is one famous case that I think went all the way to the Supreme

00:24:06.640 Court of Canada that was sort of a trial run for this. Let me remind you, tell me if you know the

00:24:11.100 one I mean. In the greater Vancouver area, there is a small Christian university called Trinity

00:24:17.620 Western University. It's a very good school, but as I mentioned before, they have a Christian ethos.

00:24:23.020 And they wanted a law school, but the thing about Trinity Western is their student code of conduct,

00:24:29.300 the student pledge, is not to have premarital sex. It's just part of the rules there. If you don't like

00:24:35.460 it, go to any other university in BC. So when this school applied for accreditation, including with

00:24:44.620 law societies across the country, basically they were saying, if someone graduates from Trinity Western

00:24:50.080 New Law School, will they be accredited at the Ontario Bar, at the Law Society of Ontario, Law

00:24:56.360 Society of Alberta, etc. And none of these law societies could find any flaws in Trinity Western's

00:25:03.960 teaching, in their academics, in their teaching of contract law and constitutional law and criminal law,

00:25:10.360 but they rejected Trinity Western based on their religiosity. And that basically killed the idea

00:25:21.300 that a Christian school could have a law school, not because they would be teaching things incorrectly,

00:25:26.280 but because they happen to have a student conduct pledge that you can't have sex outside of marriage.

00:25:33.480 And I think that's proof that the legal establishment in this country would use that as a weapon against

00:25:39.060 particular religious enemies. So obviously, they're going after Christian conservatives.

00:25:44.680 Obviously, this would be used by transgender activists against, say, pastors like Derek Reimer in Calgary,

00:25:52.140 who interrupted a trans book reading in a kid's library.

00:25:57.860 I think that not only is this not going to be used to stop hate crimes against the Jews,

00:26:04.380 I think it will be used to persecute Christians, as we've seen in Trinity Western and in other cases.

00:26:13.180 It's a reality is that we do not know how it will be used. And what I always tell people on the political

00:26:19.820 left who want to give government increased powers is imagine how the next government would use something

00:26:25.620 like this. And this is the same argument against the Emergencies Act. Say, you know, maybe the liberal

00:26:30.160 government didn't like the convoy protesters, but imagine how the next government that might not be

00:26:36.080 as amenable to you would react if protesters you did like were protesting. And that's the same argument I

00:26:42.260 use on anything related to free speech, is that I will support the right of people I agree with to

00:26:47.460 speak freely. I will support the right of people I disagree with to speak freely. I will support people

00:26:52.080 of my own faith to express their religious freedom. I will support people of other faiths to do it.

00:26:57.680 Because only if we protect these liberties for all, can we protect them for anyone. And this is so

00:27:04.400 tremendously important. And it's actually quite disheartening how short-sighted so many people are

00:27:10.060 who want to give the government of the day powers that they would never want another government of a

00:27:15.420 different political persuasion to have. But we are dealing with a threshold here that if this,

00:27:22.580 if Bill C-9 passes, and again, I'm fighting it quite hard as are my conservative colleagues,

00:27:27.400 but if Bill C-9 passes, this will be a full-on assault on religious freedom in this country.

00:27:33.520 Yeah, I'm worried about it. And there's other laws to come. I mean, in the last parliament before

00:27:38.340 Justin Trudeau quit and prorogued things, and there were other censorship bills making their way

00:27:44.040 forward, including the so-called online harms act. Do you have any information on that? That was a

00:27:49.340 much broader censorship law. Do you- Yeah, so here's one thing I will tell you that has not

00:27:54.160 gotten a lot of attention, is that under Bill C-9, this new hate offense they're creating doesn't just

00:28:00.220 apply in the criminal code, it applies to all acts of parliament. Right. Which means that there is now

00:28:06.500 a hate offense that can be tacked on to a Canadian Human Rights Act violation, that can be tacked on to a

00:28:13.120 Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission offence or infraction, CRTC. So there already is

00:28:20.340 through the back door, a way for C-9 to do what the Online Harms Act would have. And when I had 0.74

00:28:26.960 Sean Fraser before the Justice Committee on Bill C-9, I asked him about this, and he quite candidly said,

00:28:33.060 yes, Bill C-9 will affect what you say online, it will affect what you post on social media.

00:28:38.340 C-9 makes reference specifically with hate symbols to public spaces. Just to confirm,

00:28:44.480 does that include the internet?

00:28:51.820 Generally speaking, the law will apply equally online as it does in real communities.

00:28:57.200 So this bill will affect what people can say and write on the internet?

00:29:01.360 Just in the limited circumstances where there is the willful promotion of hatred against someone.

00:29:07.500 It will apply to the internet. The internet is within the jurisdiction of...

00:29:09.760 It would be possible that someone could commit a hate crime on the internet, certainly.

00:29:13.160 So, building off of Mr. Babber's points about the lower threshold for the definition of speech,

00:29:20.500 there is, under this law, assuming Bill C-9 passes, something that might not be legal to say today on the internet.

00:29:28.640 Or it might be legal to say on the internet, could actually be illegal in the future, under C-9, could it not?

00:29:35.960 No, that's entirely inaccurate, and I say that with no judgment to your perspective, but let me explain.

00:29:43.000 The only circumstance where you could imagine some online comment attracting scrutiny under this law

00:29:49.400 would attach to behavior that is criminal today, but would be punished less severely.

00:29:53.520 The symbols piece that you pointed to, for example, is attached only to the willful promotion of hate.

00:30:00.740 This is not a blanket symbols ban.

00:30:02.700 The willful promotion of hate is a crime today, but we want to recognize a distinct charge

00:30:06.740 where that same behavior uses certain symbols of hate to bring a higher degree of culpability.

00:30:11.680 So there is no new human behavior that would attract the scrutiny you're talking about.

00:30:14.840 I understand, but I'm building off of the discussion earlier on the definition.

00:30:18.700 Is your view that the change in wording, and there was a change in wording,

00:30:23.560 you made a deliberate decision to change the definition that was spelled out in Keekstra

00:30:28.140 and reaffirmed in Watcott.

00:30:29.700 Is your view that your definition in C-9 will not capture anything beyond

00:30:36.060 what is currently captured right now by the hate definition?

00:30:39.260 The definition was an attempt to codify, and the reason that there was a...

00:30:43.860 This is a yes or no question, Minister.

00:30:44.840 Are any...

00:30:45.720 Is there at all a lower threshold or a broader net on hate in Canada after C-9 if it passes?

00:30:53.500 My view on the definition question, because the offenses I would give a different answer to you for,

00:30:58.520 but on the definition, my view is that it codifies the same behavior that is there today,

00:31:03.420 and it was meant to provide clearer guidance to law enforcement in the criminal code

00:31:07.600 to apply the existing standard that has been recognized by the Supreme Court.

00:31:11.140 Because the same arguments that are being used by you and your government to push Bill C-9

00:31:16.800 to protect people against hate, which on the surface sounds incredibly noble,

00:31:20.880 but these arguments are the same arguments that have led to the United Kingdom

00:31:25.500 having police literally knocking on people's doors over their tweets.

00:31:30.320 So what guarantee can you give Canadians that we are not headed down that very road,

00:31:35.000 especially in the context of other priority areas identified by you and your government,

00:31:39.680 such as the Online Harms Act, which was introduced twice, actually, in the last two parliaments?

00:31:44.820 So this legislation is not identical and kind to the reforms that have put place in the UK,

00:31:49.680 and we've actually looked at their experience and see that there are real challenges with how it's played out.

00:31:54.000 For example, we've got a different approach where some jurisdictions around the world

00:31:58.060 have adopted a more blanket glorification that could attract the scrutiny of liking a Facebook post, for example,

00:32:05.880 and we chose a different path.

00:32:07.320 We instead tried to be very clear that we would not interfere with the Chartered Rights of Canadians

00:32:11.940 to freely express themselves, but at the same time make it easier to lay charges

00:32:16.140 where hate crimes are committed today.

00:32:18.800 To the extent that you think there is a better way to clarify and codify the existing definition,

00:32:25.680 do know that I believe in Parliament, and I don't care which party comes forward with these amendments.

00:32:30.020 If it creates a multi-partisan buy-in to codify the test, that's okay by me.

00:32:33.720 Can you guarantee that if C9 passes, no Canadian will end up being charged

00:32:37.660 because of something they've posted on Twitter or Facebook?

00:32:41.700 Well, if they commit the crime of willfully promoting hatred against another person.

00:32:46.500 A crime with a definition that you're changing.

00:32:49.360 But it's possible that they could be convicted for willfully promoting hate online today.

00:32:57.260 So certainly I would hope if someone commits a crime in the real world or online

00:33:03.040 that they would face the appropriate criminal penalty if in fact it's captured by the code.

00:33:07.580 Yeah, I mean, they're really not shy about it.

00:33:09.960 I mean, they have the support of the Bloc and the NDP on most of this stuff, don't they?

00:33:13.340 So, you know, you can be hollering at the moon and they don't care.

00:33:17.520 They really seem intent on ramming this through, or do they?

00:33:20.600 Well, they certainly were trying.

00:33:22.040 I mean, we had a very, very important fight the week before Parliament rose.

00:33:26.360 The Liberals wanted to get Bill C9 just completely waved through without any scrutiny.

00:33:32.240 They actually denied us two of the meetings we were going to have to hear from witnesses on this.

00:33:37.460 And we had a lot of fantastic civil liberties lawyers lined up, including the Democracy Fund

00:33:42.600 and Mark Joseph, including Lisa Bildy of the Free Speech Union that we never got to hear from.

00:33:47.760 So that was, I think, a big part of why they didn't want us to have all of the time on this

00:33:52.520 that we should have had.

00:33:53.500 And they were threatening to have the committee sitting right up until Christmas

00:33:56.920 because they wanted us to get this through.

00:33:59.140 But we told them this is a red line that we cannot cross.

00:34:02.360 So we were able to hold it off, but we need to ensure that the Liberals reverse course,

00:34:07.060 in particular on removing the religious defense.

00:34:09.800 That's the issue, the amendment that has really awakened a lot of Canadians that I don't really

00:34:14.740 think we're paying attention to this too closely because it is very personal.

00:34:18.560 When the government starts telling people of faith what views they can express, what scriptures

00:34:23.200 they can quote, that is something that anyone understands.

00:34:26.720 Yeah.

00:34:27.100 Well, I'm glad you're in there fighting.

00:34:28.520 And I'm glad the Conservative Party has dedicated itself to free speech.

00:34:33.560 And I think that they have.

00:34:34.920 And I'm not saying that just to give a compliment.

00:34:38.220 I think they have.

00:34:39.060 And I think the Canadians care about this.

00:34:40.840 I think that I've really never seen a poll where Canadians want more censorship.

00:34:48.780 I think every human being says, well, I can make decisions for myself.

00:34:53.040 Maybe he can't make decisions for himself.

00:34:55.440 As in everyone, but everyone wants to be their own censor, if you understand my meaning.

00:35:00.300 Everyone wants to make the choices for themselves.

00:35:02.180 And I think that's a natural human streak.

00:35:05.900 Andrew, it's great to catch up with you.

00:35:07.240 What's the best way for people to stay in touch?

00:35:09.100 Do you have a newsletter or something?

00:35:10.440 Do you have a website people can sign up to?

00:35:12.880 Yeah, people can head to my website, which is at andrewlaughton.ca.

00:35:17.300 And you can sign up there.

00:35:18.780 You can also follow me on X or Facebook and YouTube.

00:35:21.900 I try to post all the work that I'm doing on those platforms.

00:35:24.180 Well, thanks for taking the time to keep in touch with us.

00:35:26.880 We're excited that someone with your history of being an independent-minded,

00:35:31.580 civil liberties-loving journalist is in Parliament.

00:35:34.760 It's very exciting.

00:35:36.060 Give us hope to the rest of us, independent journalists.

00:35:39.840 And keep it up.

00:35:41.140 And let's catch up in the new year.

00:35:43.800 I think you're right.

00:35:44.860 I think C9 will be a big battle.

00:35:46.460 And hopefully we can get an update from you in a few months.

00:35:49.780 I look forward to it.

00:35:50.860 Merry Christmas, Ezra, and to all of your audience as well.

00:35:53.100 Merry Christmas.

00:35:54.180 Thanks, and to you too, my friend.

00:35:55.860 There he is, Andrew Lawton, one of the good guys, that's for sure.

00:35:58.200 We miss him as a journalist, but he's doing very important work in the Parliament.

00:36:02.860 That's our show for today.

00:36:04.320 Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters,

00:36:07.740 to you at home, good night, and keep fighting for freedom.

00:36:10.840 Be here.

00:36:12.180 Bye.

00:36:16.860 Bye.

00:36:19.440 Bye.

00:36:21.520 Bye.

00:36:22.400 Bye.

00:36:23.300 Bye.

00:36:25.280 Bye.

00:36:27.220 Bye.

00:36:27.300 Bye.

00:36:27.580 Bye.

00:36:28.300 Bye.

00:36:28.560 Bye.

00:36:29.560 Bye.

00:36:31.040 Bye.

00:36:32.560 Bye.

00:36:32.980 Bye.

00:36:34.040 Bye.

00:36:34.640 Bye.

00:36:34.820 Bye.

00:36:35.140 Bye.

00:36:35.180 Bye.

Rebel News Podcast - December 27, 2025

EZRA LEVANT ｜ Andrew Lawton breaks down Bill C-9's threat to religious freedom and free speech

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript