Evidence of meeting #12 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Yes, we will suspend. We'll probably have bells in the interim, so we'll work through that.
We agreed to resume to the extent possible, so 10 minutes after the vote concludes we'll resume, if that's the case. It will allow for the subamendment to be translated into French and properly distributed, so it's fortuitous.
Let's wait for the bells to ring.
Ms. Lattanzio, do you have a question? Otherwise, we will suspend.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
We will resume. I'm going to read Mr. Lawton's subamendment.
Do you have a point of order to make before that, Larry?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
You should have it in your inboxes, and I will read it out for everyone in both official languages. Mr. Lawton has moved that the amendment be amended by adding, after the word “allows”, the following: “provided that the Government table its legislative response to this Supreme Court of Canada ruling before the end of 2025, and that this motion be reported to the House.”
Is there debate on this subamendment?
Mr. Brock, please go ahead.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
I have Mr. Chang, Mr. Housefather and then Mr. Maloney.
Go ahead, Wade.
Liberal
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
Chair, I want to take a moment to bring this back to who really matters here—the victims, the children who have been exploited, whose innocence was stolen and whose lives will never be the same. We cannot undo their trauma, but we can make sure that those responsible face the full force of the law. That's our duty as members of Parliament, and that's why this issue demands precision, not politics.
I understand the emotion that comes with this. Everyone in this room wants to see justice done, but justice is not achieved by using tools like the notwithstanding clause. That weakens the legal foundation of Canada. It's achieved by writing strong constitutional law that ensures that predators are punished every single time.
When Parliament legislates carefully—when we write laws that balance justice, fairness and constitutionality—those laws endure, and they don't get struck down. We don't get challenges in the way. They protect children for good.
The government is already moving on this. Legislative work is under way to strengthen protections, close loopholes and make sure that sentencing provisions reflect the gravity of those crimes. We need to give those processes the space to happen properly because getting it wrong would mean reopening wounds for survivors and creating more uncertainty for victims.
Let's be firm. The abuse of children is one of the most despicable acts imaginable, so every offender should face the toughest sentence possible under Canadian law. However, we must do this right. We must do this in a way that respects the charter, that respects judicial independence and that ensures that those sentences stand.
This is not about being soft. This is about being smart and being unwavering in our commitment to protecting children through the laws they lost.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Thank you, Mr. Chang.
Next I have Mr. Housefather, followed by Ms. Dhillon.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, may I ask a question, procedurally, before I speak?
Am I allowed to move a subamendment to the subamendment or not?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
No, you can't.
You can't sub a subamendment. It would have to be voted on and then you could technically reintroduce an amendment to that, in substance and form of what you were currently trying to propose. That's the way it would work.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I understand.
Mr. Chair, I'm fine with the general verbiage of the subamendment except for the words “and that this be reported to the House.” To me, what we should actually be doing is sending a letter to the Minister of Justice advising him of the committee's recommendation. We can certainly inform the House by sending a note to the Speaker. I'm not sure what the words “that this be reported to the House” actually achieves.
If there's a way to do this, I think the very first step is to advise the Minister of Justice and to talk to the Minister of Justice about what the desire of this committee is. If the committee wishes to make a point, he really should be the focal point of this because we're asking the government to take an action that would be spearheaded by him.
Again, I think we have a situation here where we're broadly in agreement that the offenders committed a pretty terrible crime and that these two gentlemen really needed to go to prison. The Supreme Court here didn't change their individual sentences, but we might want to work on sentencing going forward and be more specific about that. We might want to work on sentencing and talking about sentencing guidelines. We might want to look at the issue of using hypotheticals and talk to the minister about having Parliament rein in hypotheticals that are used that have really very little relationship to the cases before the court. I think this would be better achieved by a cross-partisan approach to the minister.
I'm not really aware that reporting it to the House makes the difference. I think this should be a letter to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to ask him to effect the reforms that the committee is asking him to do and to work with us on more issues, including sentencing guidelines and the issue of the use of hypotheticals.
I don't support the crafting of this subamendment, but I would support it if the words “and that this be reported to the House” were replaced with something else or just dropped and we could agree on whatever that would be.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Next we'll have Ms. Dhillon, followed by Mr. Lawton and then Mr. Brock.
November 6th, 2025 / 6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
When we talk about sentencing for child exploitation, we're talking about some of the most serious and horrific crimes imaginable. Every image, every video and every click represents a real child being abused. The pain and trauma are lifelong.
Our position is simple: These crimes deserve the toughest sentences our justice system allows, full stop. However, the answer cannot be to grab the notwithstanding clause and throw it into play. That's not how responsible government works and that's not how strong laws are made.
The notwithstanding clause was never meant to be a partisan response to a court decision. It was meant as a constitutional safeguard—an extraordinary measure for extraordinary circumstances. Once we start normalizing it as a political tool, we open the door for any future government to override rights on a whim.
Let's be clear. That's not just about legal theory; it is about real people, real rights and real consequences. If we erode the charter in one area, we make it easier to erode it anywhere else. Our government's focus is on fixing this properly. We're already doing the work to bring forward legislation that ensures offenders face serious, consistent and constitutional sentences for crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children.
We want laws that hold up—laws that can't be struck down again because they were rushed or politically motivated. We want laws that deliver justice for victims and send a clear message of deterrence that actually sticks. Yes, we agree with the intent behind this motion, but we won't support shortcuts that risk making the problem worse. This is about real solutions, not symbolic gestures.
Make no mistake, the government is not standing still on this. Work is already under way to strengthen sentencing provisions and support enforcement efforts. That's how you protect children. That's how you make real change.
Liberal
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I trust that Mr. Housefather did not mean the word “gentlemen” when he was referring to these people. That's not a slight at Mr. Housefather. These are despicable dirtbags we're talking about in this ruling. I think we need to understand that when we're talking about what's at stake in this.
The reason our motion and, in this case, our subamendment to the amendment to the motion calls for reporting to the House is that it means something very specific. We believe that this is something that needs to be sent to the House. We do not need a committee motion for us to send strongly worded letters to the Minister of Justice or to anyone. We can notify Minister Fraser and tell him all we want, but we want there to be an official process here by which this House has to acknowledge what we have agreed on as a committee after this vote.
Reporting to the House is not just putting a sticky note in front of the Speaker. It is a very real process by which this issue can be given the consideration it deserves. No, it would not be satisfactory for us to just agree on a strongly worded letter to the Minister of Justice and then wipe our hands of this and say that we've done our job as a committee. If the government has not yet presented legislation, not yet told us what is going to be in legislation, and has indicated through the debate we've had on this committee that there won't be use of the notwithstanding clause, and there likely will not be a mandatory minimum, then that is precisely why this motion that we have put forward is the only way to get this issue before the House in the manner it needs to be entertained.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Given that it is now 6:28 and that we have resources until 6:30, and we are worlds apart in terms of coming to a reasonable conclusion to these motions and subamendments, I'm going to ask and encourage the chair to suspend until the next meeting, which would be November 18.
Liberal
