Mr. Speaker, there is a concerted effort by various interests in Canada to undermine freedom of religion in Canada. The government has established the Office of Religious Freedom under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs, with an excellent ambassador in Andrew Bennett at the helm. I have personally made the case for freedom of religion where developing democracies like the idea but struggle to implement the reality. It is something I hope to contribute to in the next phase of my life through the newly formed International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief, founded in part through the efforts of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Last week, leaders of the faith community were here in Ottawa to express their alarm at increasing and unprecedented attempts to stifle freedom of religion, conscience, and expression in Canada. They identified deliberate attempts to suppress a Christian world view from professional and economic opportunity in law, medicine, and academia. I share these concerns, and I believe there is a growing and malignant trend by what some would call cyber trolls to engage, entrap, belittle, and embarrass politicians of faith over false constructs of the word “evolution”.

In the past month, there were a few words exchanged on social media, apparently inflammatory words: science, managing assumptions, and theory or fact related to macroevolution. My remarks were inflated by media, blended with other unrelated but alleged heretical statements, and became a top story on national media, creating a firestorm of criticism and condemnation. My profession and two institutes of higher learning were subject to slander, and constituents I have represented for 15 years were insulted in the fashion that most would find astounding in a mature democracy. Two other politicians at the provincial level were accosted, and I see this as evidence of a developing phenomenon of crowd shaming on what some would call the dark side of the Internet.

After 15 years of serving among members, most of my colleagues would know that I announced more than a year ago that I would not be seeking re-election, so why not just slough it off, shrug it off, let it blow over, and ride off into the next chapter of my life—why, indeed? Maybe it is because I have a background in science. My credentials, modest as they are, are superior on this file to those of many in the chamber and most of my critics. Maybe it is because I have Irish in me and I do not like to be bullied. Maybe it is because, in my time as an MP, I have been sued and exonerated by the courts over the use of the title “doctor”.

Maybe it is because, when I started my practice 40 years ago in Kitchener and 15 years later on Vancouver Island, there were senior practitioners who spent time in jail, accused of practising medicine without a licence. I admired them for their tenacity and clinical effectiveness, and I knew that I could improve my technical skills if I spent time with them, and in several cases I did. Maybe it is because I am tired of seeing my faith community mocked and belittled. To not respond is to validate my accusers and, worse yet, imply that I lack the courage of my convictions to stand up for what I believe. That is not a legacy I wish to leave behind.

Many colleagues represent constituents beyond the ones who elected them. I hope that no members of any faith community in Canada are compelled to defend the beliefs of their communities in the future. Freedom of religion and conscience are fundamental freedoms in Canada. Bigotry cloaked in defence of science is as intolerable and repugnant as bigotry from any other source. It is contrary to our multiracial, multicultural, and multi-faith character and the tolerance for diversity that defines us as Canadians.

I know that members on all sides of the House are concerned about bullying in general and cyberbullying in particular. The government has brought in new legislative measures to address some aspects of this brutal phenomenon, and there are many social actions that seek to shield the vulnerable, like the pink shirt initiative. We are living in an era where knowledge is increasing at an astounding pace. There are many technical advances, and it is hard to keep up with what we refer to in general as science. It has been parsed into more and more diverse pursuits of knowledge.

I know that time in the House is precious and there are some constraints on time, but I have been in the House for 15 years and am known to most in the House. With the support of my colleagues, I hope you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, the time to express my concerns to my colleagues here in the House, with the co-operation of my colleagues of course.

The question I want to ask is this. Is prevailing science always right, therefore? I want to give an example from my own life experience and that of a brilliant Canadian scientist about how wrong and how long science can be wrong. Dr. Robert Salter, one of Canada's most distinguished medical men of science, is one of my personal heroes. He pioneered innovative surgical procedures and left a legacy that has impacted millions around the world in the management of joint injuries. A tribute to this great man of science on the Hospital for Sick Children—SickKids—website said the following:

For 22 centuries, the traditionally accepted and enforced treatment for diseased and injured joints was immobilization.

Robert Salter determined this strategy was doing immense harm to cartilage and joints. His pioneering work on continuous passive motion is now used in more than 15,000 hospitals in 50 countries. His textbook, Textbook of Disorders and Injuries of the Musculoskeletal System has been translated into six languages.

Dr. Salter impacted my own life and practice in a remarkable way. It was 1986. He gave a keynote address to 500 doctors of chiropractic gathered in Toronto at our annual convention. He summed up his work this way: There are three phases we go through when we introduce a model of care that does not fit the current medical thinking. The first is universal rejection: Who do we think we are? The second is equivocation: Well, maybe. The third is universal acceptance: Of course, it is obvious.

He went on to say, “My work is now in the third phase. I'll leave it to you”—

James Lunney

Transcript

Routine Proceedings

Discussions (0)