Justice Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

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

It was on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, so you're first, and then it's Mr. Brock, Mr. Baber and Mr. Genuis.

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

It was clear during some of our witness meetings on Bill C-9 that an amendment of this sort was coming. We heard Monsieur Fortin ask questions about it. We heard him cite those horrific and heinous words by a man I will not even dignify by calling a preacher, Charkaoui, in Quebec. It was easy to suspect that an amendment like this was coming.

Be that as it may, this is a significant incursion on religious freedom and the freedom of expression, for reasons I'll share in a moment. The fundamental point is that this committee has not studied this. This committee has had no opportunity to call witnesses with specific expertise about this. When we learned through media reporting that this amendment was coming, I took it upon myself to reach out to some of our witnesses who had testified and invite them to submit further briefs. I realized that it would be too late to have them circulated on the committee, but at least we would have the opportunity as members to have a bit of insight into this.

I want to share a very important timeline on this. There was a report in the National Post eight days ago, I believe, indicating that the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois had reached a secret deal to launch this assault on religious freedom and exchange, quid pro quo, adoption of Monsieur Fortin's amendment for support from the Bloc on Bill C-9, a bill with tremendous flaws that has been derided by pretty much every religious group in the country and that has been derided by civil liberties advocates—and for good reason.

Now all of these issues with Bill C-9 would be supercharged by this amendment should it pass, and I have little doubt that it will given what we've heard. What is interesting is that the Liberals seem to not be willing to stand by this. For the past week in the House of Commons, there have been attempts to get clarity from the government on where they stand. The Minister of Justice, who has not yet decided to appear before this committee on his mandate and priorities, coyly said that the committee will decide, as though the committee does not have any direction given by the minister, the Prime Minister or other operatives within the Liberal apparatus.

Beyond that, we had a rather interesting turn of events. At first, it was not clear that there was going to be this meeting today. We got a notice only on Monday, which was for an eight-hour meeting. Then we learned that the meeting had been truncated to two hours, which, as we've demonstrated, would not have given us enough time to get there, suggesting that the Liberals could not agree on what they were going to do on this precise amendment. Then, evidently, they got a clear direction on it, and the meeting was extended again to eight hours, the meeting we are finding ourselves in right now.

In the time that transpired, further media reporting cited that sources in the Prime Minister's Office indicated that the Liberals intend to support this amendment—again teaming up with the Bloc Québécois—which I realize has a very distinct political context in Quebec that it is responding to. I realize that three of my Liberal colleagues hail from Quebec as well, and I don't know to what extent that is going to influence their decision. Evidently, there has been no desire to listen to the concerns raised by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus or Buddhists—there are potentially other groups that have raised concerns, as well, that I have not yet heard—that this will come as a direct threat to their ability to practise their faith.

When we hear the example of Charkaoui brought up, a man prosecutors in Quebec did not claim was spared from prosecution because of anything to do with the religious defences that this amendment would take away.... The religious defences do not apply to any of the sections of the Criminal Code pertaining to incitement, pertaining to calls for genocide or pertaining to threats.

When Mr. Charkaoui was talking about death to Jews, even if it was determined that it was in good faith—and no call for violence can ever be made in good faith—this religious defence would not even have applied to the sections of the Criminal Code that would have been engaged had there been political leadership and, I would say, courage by prosecutors in that case.

To invoke Charkaoui to justify eroding long-standing religious protections from law is a red herring. It is a misrepresentation, either deliberate or unintentional—I won't speculate—of what the law says. However, we do know what this will mean for people of faith.

Your predecessor, Mr. Chair, who's now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, sat in that very chair and said that Christians and Jews who preach from books of the Bible and the Torah in ways that he finds hateful should be subject to prosecution. Prosecutors should, according to Minister Miller, be able to “press charges” against people who dare to invoke scriptures the government finds offensive.

Earlier today, Minister Fraser issued a statement in which he tried to claim that this isn't going to have anything to do with religious freedom, but the Liberals have not stated on the record what their position is. I'm grateful that we have officials from the Department of Justice. We also have, in Ms. Lattanzio, a high-ranking representative of the Liberal government. She is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

I will ask her this right now: What is the Liberal Party's position on this amendment? Is she willing to answer as a representative for the government?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It's not appropriate. I suppose if Ms. Lattanzio wants to answer, she can, but it's outside the course of procedure, Mr. Lawton. I think you know that.

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

If I may, with Ms. Lattanzio's consent.... Will you agree to speak for the government right now?

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

I will not speak for the government. I will speak as a member of Parliament.

I'm very much looking forward to hearing you and anybody else who wants to take the floor on this issue. When everybody has finished speaking, including me, I will make my decision, and you will know my decision through my vote.

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

Is the position of the Liberal government that it has no position on this amendment, which has been responsible for cancelled meetings, extended meetings and shortened meetings? It's been eight days since the reporting.

Is the Liberal Party claiming that it does not have a decision on this?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Lawton, Ms. Lattanzio was kind enough to respond to you, even though she's not required to do so. She's not a witness before the committee.

You have the floor. If you want to continue with your submissions, you're free to do so.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think it is only fair to recognize that we're all individual members of the committee and we all make our own decisions. We're not here as representatives of the government, so to ask her to do that is just not fair.

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

It's fine. I answered it.

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

If I may respond to that point of order, Chair, the parliamentary secretary is literally the Minister of Justice's representative.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

The parliamentary secretary is a member of the justice committee for the purposes of what we're doing here today.

Mr. Lawton, if you want to continue, please do so.

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

I will ask some hypothetical questions, through you, Chair. It would be wonderful if the Liberal government's representative on this committee, Ms. Lattanzio, answered them.

Is the government okay with disregarding the calls that have come from Muslims, Christians and Jews, uniting all observant religious members of the Abrahamic faiths—and other faiths—who are alarmed that this will infringe on their religious freedom? I would also ask the Liberal government's representative here about how the government squares the fact that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Canada's hate speech laws in the first place only because of these defences, which exist to provide for a wide array of protections, understanding the importance of religious freedom and freedom of expression.

I hope the government, in its submissions and comments here, will answer this next question. Precisely what does it think it is doing, other than alienating people of faith? It has someone, who's now a minister of the Crown, looking to Canadians and saying they should be prosecuted if they dare express a religious belief the government finds objectionable.

I would also ask the government why it has continued to respond to these questions with silence when the media was asking them, silence when members of Parliament were asking them in question period and silence now when I'm asking them. These members are curiously glued to their phones rather than dealing with the fact that they are prepared to mount, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, a full-scale assault on religious freedom in this country.

We have had tens of thousands of people reach out to us, sign petitions and send emails. Members of Parliament from all parties have been receiving phone calls, emails and visits to our offices for days now, because this is a red line. This is the government that was, not that long ago, entertaining stripping charitable status from houses of worship. It is now deciding to take away religious freedom protections in the Criminal Code that protect from prosecution people of faith who believe in good faith and religious scriptures.

It is not only shameful that this amendment has even been considered by a government that pretends to speak for Canadians; it is all the more shameful that the representatives of the Liberals here on this committee do not have the courage of their convictions to state on the record what they are going to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Are you finished?

Thank you.

Mr. Brock.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Further to the comments made by my colleague Mr. Lawton, this is in direct response to Mr. Housefather's comments that we're only members of the justice committee. If anyone actually believes that for a second, that is just garbage. The Liberals take a position based on policy and direction directly from the Prime Minister's Office and from the Minister of Justice. To have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General claim somehow that she's immune from articulating a position is absolutely disrespectful. It's disgusting, quite frankly, because clearly there are Liberal—

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

I have a point of order.

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

I said the comments are disgusting.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

It doesn't matter. Indirectly you're saying what you cannot say directly. We all know this.

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

It's not a point of order.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Yes, we all know this.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Brock, in fairness, I'm not going to rule on the point of order, but we discussed decorum earlier. If we could avoid words like that, it might not be a bad idea, to make the meeting run smoothly. You can make your point without making accusations.

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

In any event, we all know what the Liberal Party's position is on this. Numerous unnamed Liberal sources have confirmed to numerous news agencies that this Liberal government was so desperate to get Bill C-9 back into the House to become law that it was prepared to abandon its long-held principles on this particular issue.

This issue regarding the removal of the religious defence is not the first time this government has heard of it. Two years ago, in 2023, a Bloc member—I don't believe it was my colleague Monsieur Fortin, but another Bloc colleague—brought in a private member's bill that did not pass first reading because there was no support. There was no support in the House. There was no support from the Liberal government.

Now we have Bill C-9, and Bill C-9 does not remove it. The Minister of Justice did not give instruction to Ms. Breese, Ms. Wells or Ms. Ali to draft terms that would remove that religious defence.

Because I'm surmising here, I'm going to ask a question that is not protected by solicitor-client privilege. Your advice back to the minister would be, but I'm not going to go there. Did Minister Fraser inform you that he wanted to remove that religious defence, yes or no?

[Joanna Wells]

Bill C-9 does not, as drafted or introduced, contain a proposal that would withdraw or remove the defence.

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

I'm aware of that.

Did Minister Fraser, during the drafting of this bill, during all of your consultations, maybe not with you but with other members in the department, including the minister himself and perhaps even Ms. Lattanzio...? Did anyone from a political entity, whether it was the minister or the parliamentary secretary, give you instructions to explore the possibility of removing that religious defence, yes or no?

[Joanna Wells]

The way that I can be helpful to the committee is to clarify that both the communications that we give to the minister and the instructions we receive from the minister are subject to solicitor-client privilege, and I am not able to share any more on this than we have already.