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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
There's a challenge to the chair, Mr. Baber. We'll deal with that and then we'll move on.
The Clerk
The question is that the chair's ruling be sustained.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mr. Lawton mentioned a precedent, and I wanted to share that this precedent actually involved me. It involved a chair who resigned as a member of Parliament, and it was in the middle of a meeting when the meeting was suspended.
Mr. Spengemann was the chair at the time, and Mr. Ehsassi was elected to the chair. My view previously had been that, effectively, the election of the chair led to the adjournment of the previous item—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Genuis, I'm going to interrupt you.
This is the same point of order.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
No, Mr. Genuis, just hear me out.
I've ruled on it, and an objection was noted. We voted on it, and it was upheld.
We're not going to hear the same point of order again, and you're certainly not going to re-argue something that we've already decided. We're going to move to clause-by-clause.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, it's a different point of order. Will you allow me to finish, Chair?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
It's not a different point of order, because you're arguing the same point that Mr. Lawton just did.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, you got a little bit hot when you thought people were challenging your integrity. I'm not challenging your integrity yet, but I would encourage you to be fair to all members and let me finish my point of order.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, I think.
The ruling was made by Mr. Ehsassi, who is still a member of Parliament. The ruling specified—and I'm quoting directly from the minutes of the meeting.... I mean, we certainly wouldn't want a situation where Liberal chairs made contradictory rulings in different meetings based on what they considered their partisan interest.
The ruling by Mr. Ehsassi was this. I am reading from the minutes: “The Chair ruled that the election of a Chair does not constitute a new substantive question before the Committee, and that therefore the committee remained seized with the motion and amendment previously under debate.” This was the ruling of Mr. Ehsassi in exactly the same situation.
I just want to clarify—and maybe the clerk can address the committee on this—the role of precedent in the committee. Is this precedent relevant? Is it relevant that you have invented an approach that is completely opposite to what a Liberal chair did in exactly the same situation? I wonder if the clerk can address the relevance of precedent as a matter before the committee, which is, I think, a distinct issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I've just consulted with the clerk. This is exactly the same point of order—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Would you allow the clerk to address the committee on the relevance of precedent, Chair?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Would you allow me to finish?
This is the same point of order. It's already been ruled on.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
No, it's not the same point of order, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
It's already been challenged, and it's already been upheld.
My ruling is that this point of order is out of line—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
What is your ruling on the relevance of precedent, Chair? Does precedent matter? The Standing Orders—
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Can I cite the Standing Orders, Chair, which very clearly say that in unprovided-for cases...? It's in the Standing Orders. Will the clerk be allowed to address the committee? In unprovided-for cases—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Genuis, I have ruled. You're now getting into the realm of debate, which is inappropriate because you've already been ruled inadmissible and out of line.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order, Chair.
Have you been a chair previously? I think you have.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
So, we're going to move on to Mr. Baber's first amendment.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.
The chair calls new clause 1.1.
Mr. Baber, I'll give you the floor.
November 27th, 2025 / 3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to put on the record that Mr. Housefather did not have the floor to move his amendment, but it seems as if the chair has decided, and any prosecution of process going forward is probably not a good use of our time.
Chair, for the last two years, members of the North York community have been subjected to unprecedented events, including harassment, threats, interference with their enjoyment of property, and more. We fully understand that the events of October 7 have given much to think about, much to discuss and much to argue about, politically and otherwise, but under no circumstances should the conflict in the Middle East spill onto Canada streets. Regrettably, that's what we've been witnessing for the last two years.
I'll formally move amendment CPC-1, reference number 13768114.
Several weeks ago, I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-257, to amend the Criminal Code, prescribing a new criminal offence, a new section 83.171. It's about the wilful promotion of “terrorist activity or terrorist group, or any activity of a terrorist group”.
The first four amendments that are put before the committee today are all my amendments that essentially seek to incorporate Bill C-257 into Bill C-9.
I'd now like to make an unusual request of a friend on the committee, namely Mr. Housefather, to waive privilege with respect to one of his amendments that he will introduce later today, to enable us to have a full discussion.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I am fine to discuss LIB-2, which is similar to Mr. Baber's amendment, and to allow the justice officials to comment on the two. I have no problem with that.