Justice Committee on Nov. 27th, 2025

Evidence of meeting #13 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 c-9.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Bill C-9

Election of Chair

Members speaking

Before the committee

Breese Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Ramcharan Deputy Director General and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

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

I agree.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Marc Miller

—and some have different views on Bill C-9 and would like to at least assist in the clause-by-clause. I'll let you continue briefly, but if you do have a motion—and you said you did—please introduce it.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

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

Okay. I will introduce the motion.

I will speak to it as well, because I think the context will become clearer when it's introduced. This is a motion that has been put on notice. The motion is as follows:

That, in relation to the agenda of the committee for the remainder of 2025,

(1) The committee prioritize the study of Bill C-14, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act ahead of the study into Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, and meet at least twice a week for the remainder of the Fall 2025 session to concurrently study Bill C-14 and other non-legislative studies agreed to by the committee, with at least one meeting per week scheduled for the purposes of considering legislation and at least one meeting per week scheduled for the purposes of undertaking other studies;

(2) With respect to the non-legislative studies, the committee complete witness testimony on bail and sentencing, and begin to prepare a report that focuses on measures needed beyond those contained in Bill C-14, then proceed to the study on the appointment of federal judges, followed by a study into the impact of the supreme court decision in relation to mandatory minimum sentences for possession of Child Sexual Exploitation Material;

(3) With respect to the oversight function of the committee, the Chair be instructed to reiterate the invitation it made to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to appear on his mandate and priorities, and issue him a new invitation to appear in relation to the Supplementary Estimates (B) 2025-2026, provided that meetings for this purpose be scheduled before Dec. 4, 2025;

(4) In relation to the study of Bill C-14, the following witnesses be invited to appear on separate panels for one hour each:

a) Sean Fraser, Minister of Justice and Attorney General,

b) Gary Anandasangaree, Minister of Public Safety,

c) Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime), and,

d) Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime;

(5) In addition to the aforementioned witnesses, at least 8 meetings be dedicated to receiving testimony from departmental officials, victims and survivors of crime or their advocates, law enforcement officials, provincial and municipal representatives, and other witnesses to be submitted by members of the committee, and;

(6) The Chair may only schedule a meeting for the purposes of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14 after all of the witnesses listed in point 4 have appeared, and the specified number of meetings in point 5 have occurred.

The reason this is so crucial.... I'll go back to the point made earlier by Ms. Lattanzio. It was not Conservative obstruction that prevented us from hearing from Bill C-9 witnesses. It was the unwillingness of the Liberal MPs on this committee to do the right thing and adopt a very simple motion, which was so over-complicated that it ended up taking up six hours of this committee's time when it should have been, as it ended up being, a motion that we agreed on unanimously, calling on the government to introduce legislation to protect children, to stand up for the rights of children, to reinstate mandatory minimums for those who peddle in child—

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

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

I have a point of order.

Mr. Chair, I understood, when my colleague intervened at the very beginning, that he wanted to do housekeeping, but under the guise of a point of order. We are well over 20 minutes into this meeting, and I'm not too sure if this could be considered a point of order any longer.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

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

It is not a point of order.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

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

Well, you specifically said you had a point of order.

This is going way beyond a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'd like you to rule on the fact that this is really not a point of order. We are filibustering. It is quite clear that the Conservatives do not want to proceed on a clause-by-clause study. They sent in their amendments to be able to dispose of this today, but it is quite clear that they do not want to deal with this today.

Mr. Chair, I submit to you that this is not a point of order.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The member's point of order is not a point of order. She didn't cite any standing order. It has nothing to do with the rules. She's just trying to disrupt my colleague's comments.