Debate not just about tone

I read Mr. Deveryn Ross’s May 2 Brandon Sun column, “Less partisanship, more consensus building,” with interest.

Mr. Ross took issue with the language used in my recent mailer on Bill C-9. Fair enough. Members of Parliament have a responsibility to explain legislation clearly, accurately and in a way that helps people understand why it matters. That balance is not always easy to strike, and I welcome constructive feedback from the people I represent.

I also appreciated Mr. Ross’s acknowledgment that Bill C-9 raises legitimate and serious concerns in its current form. On that point, we agree.

For more than 50 years, Canadian law has tried to preserve a careful balance between combating hatred and protecting freedom of conscience and expression. Removing a longstanding safeguard in the Criminal Code is not a minor technical adjustment. It is a significant shift in how the law interacts with religious belief, free expression and public debate.

When Parliament removes a protection that has existed in criminal law for more than half a century, the burden of proof should be high. The government should be able to explain clearly why the change is necessary, what problem it solves, and how our fundamental freedoms will remain protected.

That is especially important because this change was not part of the government’s original bill. It appeared late in the committee stage. That is not how Parliament should handle a serious change to criminal law.

My Conservative colleagues and I raised these concerns at length. We proposed amendments. We tried to improve the bill. Those amendments were not invented out of thin air. They reflected concerns brought forward by Canadians from different faith communities, ethnic backgrounds, political views and walks of life. Unfortunately, most of those amendments were defeated by Liberal members of the Justice Committee, with support from the Bloc Québécois MP.

That matters. This is not simply a debate about tone. It is a debate about law, rights, public safety, religious freedom, free expression and whether Parliament is willing to fix flaws before they become real problems.

Canadians can support strong laws against hatred and still insist that Parliament be careful when changing the Criminal Code. We can protect people from intimidation and violence without weakening longstanding safeguards for good faith belief and expression.

The purpose of my mailer was to explain where Bill C-9 now stands, why serious concerns remain, and how constituents can share their views with Manitoba’s senators. The bill is now before the Senate, and I will continue urging senators to amend it so its failings are fixed. I would encourage all Manitobans to do the same.

Finally, I want to sincerely thank every Brandon-Souris resident who has contacted me about Bill C-9. Whether you agree with me, disagree with me or simply want more information, it is vital for me to hear from you. That is how our democracy is supposed to work.

GRANT JACKSON

Brandon-Souris MP