Justice Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Right after “reported to the House”, I propose we add the following paragraph: “and that the meeting of this Thursday, November 20 be the final meeting with witnesses on Bill C-9. Clause-by-clause on Bill C-9 will commence on Thursday, November 27 and continue for as many meetings as required without interruption by any other subject. The deadline to submit amendments to Bill C-9 will be Monday, November 24 at 4 p.m.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Has everyone received the text of this amendment?

That doesn’t seem to be the case, but it shouldn’t take long.

I see the clerk drafting on the fly, so you should have it in your inboxes within the next few seconds.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

I suggest we suspend, so we can review this properly, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

I'll suspend so that everyone can have a chance to review it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

We are back.

Welcome, Mr. Housefather.

We suspended on the amendment that Ms. Lattanzio had put forward. We're now at the stage of discussion on the topic.

Mr. Brock, you have the floor. It will then be Mr. Fortin’s turn.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I've reviewed the content of the amendment proposed by the Liberal team, and it is completely outside the scope of what the original motion was about. It's not even closely resembling the intent or any aspect of the original motion. Quite frankly, in terms of abbreviating the time that was originally set aside for the study of Bill C‑9, it is a complete slap in the face and disrespectful to the witnesses who had actually attended and ultimately could not testify and to the witnesses who were scheduled to attend today and had to be cancelled.

Bill C‑9 is an important study. We all agreed to that study. We agreed to prioritize that study. We all agreed to the number of meetings. For the life of me, I cannot accept the position of the Liberal team that we should be shortchanging those witnesses who deserve, and have an absolute right, to testify if they've been invited to attend.

My first line of attack, Chair, is that this particular amendment is completely outside the scope. I'd be asking for a ruling accordingly from the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

I will rule on it. I think Mr. Fortin and Ms. Lattanzio want to speak on this first, but I will rule on it.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I withdraw my request to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

You wanted to discuss the same topic as him.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Yes, that’s right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Okay.

Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to remind the member opposite and the Conservative team that when this motion was brought forward, we were actually on the study.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I have a point of order.

It is not a debatable motion, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

I can allow some comments on it, since Mr. Brock—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I don't believe you can. [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Right, but he didn't move it immediately. Mr. Brock gave commentary on introducing the motion. I think Ms. Lattanzio has a right to reply. I will proceed to the ruling right after that.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, when this motion was brought forth, you will recall that we were on a study on Bill C‑9. The motion, if it happens now to have nothing to do with C‑9, was brought forward while we were studying C‑9. I think it is more than relevant that this amendment be brought forward.

I'd also like to remind the members that today was also supposed to be a day on the study of Bill C‑9, as per our schedule. The schedule had been agreed to by all members in good faith, and here we are, discussing another motion that has nothing to do, supposedly, with C‑9.

Mr. Chair, I would ask you to rule in favour of the relevancy of incorporating my amendment into this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

The amendment is indeed not in order. It is out of scope.

Technically, we now go back to the motion as amended to vote on or to have discussion and debate on.

Are there any hands up from anyone who wants to discuss the motion as amended?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Could you please read the motion that is before us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Yes. We'll get the clerk to read it for clarity, because this is getting increasingly—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I would ask for a brief suspension after the motion has been read in its current form, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Okay.

You have the floor, Mr. Clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Monsieur Fortin, please go ahead.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am therefore giving you the result of all this. The amended motion is as follows:

That, given that the Supreme Court of Canada removed mandatory minimum sentences for offences related to child sexual exploitation, and incorrectly ruled that these mandatory minimum sentences were cruel and unusual;

And given that the premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, as well as the Leader of the Official Opposition in Manitoba, have all publicly called for the use of the notwithstanding clause to overturn this decision;

The committee call on the government to table legislation to address child sexual exploitation reaffirming Parliament’s unwavering commitment to protecting children and ensuring that offenders face the toughest sentences our justice system allows 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.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, I had understood that we were voting on the motion amended by Ms. Lattanzio and on her proposed amendment. What I understand is that her subamendment to the amendment is inadmissible.

However, the amendment I had noted aimed to table legislation to combat the sexual exploitation of children, rather than to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

Did I misunderstand?

Are we now voting on the proposed amendment to the main motion?