Evidence of meeting #14 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
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to be at the justice committee.
I don't want to give people the impression that I only come to committee to discuss procedural issues, but I will start with a couple of brief procedural issues in relation to this amendment that I wanted to highlight in response to the discussion. Then I will cede the floor for reasons I'll explain, but I'll ask to be added back onto the list to make substantive comments later on.
The first procedural issue I wanted to raise is regarding a statement that my colleague Mr. Lawton referenced from Minister Fraser. I noticed in that statement that it says, “Today, as part of its study of Bill C-9, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is set to discuss an amendment repealing section 319(3)(b)”.
I wonder if you could provide a ruling, Chair, on whether the minister's announcement of that amendment, which I don't think had been made public by the committee or been moved yet, constitutes a violation of the privileges of the committee. At least, I wonder if you could rule on whether this is a question that touches on the issue of privilege.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I haven't seen the minister's statement, to be honest with you. If you want to suspend for a second, I can look at it.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, if you want to consider that question—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
—we can continue for the time being. It was tweeted by the minister at 3:07. I believe this is a matter that touches on privilege. He is specifically claiming that a particular amendment with particular provisions is coming before the committee. I don't think you can do that.
The second matter of process I wanted to raise is regarding the role of parliamentary secretaries on committee. I don't know if Ms. Chagger is still in the room. I saw that she'd popped in earlier. There was a time when, as government house leader, she made forceful arguments about the unique role parliamentary secretaries play on committees because they are representatives of the government.
I want to quote her verbatim from the House of Commons in 2017, when she was arguing that parliamentary secretaries should be present on committees but should not be voting members, and should be understood to be speaking particularly for the government.
She said the following on June 15, 2017:
This is exactly why I believe part of the mandate we've been given by Canadians is to strengthen our institutions. A parliamentary secretary not only stands in for the minister but has access to information that would benefit members of the committee.
Imagine that.
That's why I'm suggesting that the parliamentary secretary be able to share that information. They could be equal members of the committee but not vote and not move motions. That way, they could travel with the committee so that information is being shared with all committee members, which I believe would contribute to the level of discourse and decision-making that takes place here.
The challenge with parliamentary secretaries voting on committees is that oftentimes we see them as just the voice of the minister of the government of the day, and oftentimes there is this perception that you need to vote exactly the way the PS does. That shouldn't be the case.
My colleague Mr. Lawton asked Ms. Lattanzio specific questions about the position of the government. This has been described as an unreasonable insinuation by her colleagues, but this is precisely the position articulated by the former government House leader—namely, that the role of parliamentary secretaries is to speak for the government in place of them in a parliamentary context. We are all eager to hear Ms. Lattanzio do exactly that and answer the questions that have been put before her on the government's position. I understand that she said she would be speaking to it.
I'll end my remarks there, if I can be re-added to the list to make a few substantive comments as well.
I'll await her response and also your ruling on the matter of privilege, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
That’s fine, Mr. Chair. I will abstain, or rather, I am prepared to vote, if possible.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
That's wishful thinking.
Ms. Lattanzio, go ahead, and then it's Ms. Kronis.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to add a few words regarding this amendment.
We recognize that the rise in hatred is extremely concerning. It is important to send a clear message: the religious exemption has never been used and will never be used to justify hate propaganda. Freedom of religion is already fully protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a legal clarification. The religious exception defence cannot be invoked to justify speech that otherwise meets the very strict definition of hate propaganda. This was not the case when the defence existed. We are unequivocally closing the door to any future interpretation in this regard, without undermining the rights already guaranteed by the charter.
We obviously continue to respect and protect freedom of expression and freedom of religion, both of which are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The removal of the religious exception in no way affects the ability of religious people to teach, practise or profess their faith.
Liberal
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Actually, I'm going to defer and ask that I be re-added to the list.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay. If everybody keeps deferring, we're going to get right back to you.
It's back to Mr. Genuis.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm sorry. If I can be re-added to the list, I'd like to give Mr. Lawton the opportunity to speak ahead of me.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay. I'll defer to the bottom again.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that earlier, Ms. Lattanzio, in her unwillingness to answer my question, said that she would be listening to the interventions of members of this committee and sharing thoughts of her own. She has had the opportunity to listen to interventions from this committee, but I did not hear, in what she said, a clear position on where the Liberals will be voting on this amendment. Now, I don't know whether she wrote her own remarks or if Minister Fraser did the courtesy, but I do not believe for a second that she is speaking as a rogue member who has not consulted with the minister she represents and the Prime Minister she represents.
We learned earlier in media coverage that the Prime Minister's Office and the Minister of Justice were apparently not in line on this issue. This may have led to some of the subsequent cancellations, postponements, extensions and abbreviations of meetings. We are talking about a fundamental altering of not just the Criminal Code but also long-standing religious freedoms in this country. It's the kind of decision that, if it is to exist at all, should be in a stand-alone bill. It was. When it was a stand-alone bill, the Liberals rejected it because they realized it does not belong in a pluralistic country representing people of all faith backgrounds and a House of Commons representing people of all faith backgrounds.
Right now, my request of Ms. Lattanzio, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, is to have the courage to state they will be voting for this—if that is in fact their decision—or to have the even greater courage to stand up for religious liberties and vow to reject it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
You're done. Thank you.
Who wants to speak? Ms. Kronis is done. Mr. Genuis is not at the table. That exhausts the speaking list, then.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
All right. We're going to put it to a vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I have an amendment pertaining to the matter at hand that I would fit into the line now. It is being circulated by the clerk. This may not be a point of order, but, logically, it should go in now due to where we are.