Justice Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

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

Amendment BQ‑2 seeks to amend subsection 319(2.2) proposed for the Criminal Code by clause 4 of Bill C‑9, which begins as follows:

Everyone commits an offence who wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group by displaying, in any public place, a symbol….

We propose replacing the three symbols listed with a single symbol, by replacing line 15 on page 1 to line 6 on page 2 with the following:

…-ing, in any public place, a symbol that is principally used by, or principally associated with, a listed entity, as defined in subsection 83.01(1).

This means that the offence would relate to a symbol identifiable with a terrorist entity and no longer to the swastika or a similar symbol. The reason behind this proposal is that the swastika is a symbol that was used not only for serious crimes committed during the Second World War by the Nazis, but also by religious communities, and we believe that we should not ostracize or indirectly punish them with this bill. In addition, proposed paragraph (c) refers to a “symbol that so nearly resembles…that it is likely to be confused”, which we find rather vague and counterproductive.

In short, amendment BQ‑2 aims to limit the ban to symbols identified with a terrorist entity listed in the Criminal Code.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Mr. Brock.

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

Thank you, Chair. I'm moving a motion that the committee proceed to the consideration of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. It's a dilatory matter. There's no debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Brock—

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

There's no debate. I'm asking for a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Brock, we're in the middle of clause-by-clause. There's a motion on the floor. That motion is—

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

It's a dilatory motion, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I understand what a dilatory motion is, but there are times when you can bring them and times when you can't, and this is one of the latter situations.

If you have comments on the amendment put forward by Mr. Fortin, the floor is yours.

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

I have a point of order. I'm hoping you could please, Chair, cite the authority on which you determined it's out of order, because it sounds an awful lot like you're trying to prevent the bail study from taking place.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Lawton, give me one second. We have two people talking at the same time, but I'll let you start over.

Mr. Lawton, I'm sorry; I interrupted you.

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

It sounds like you're just trying to predetermine the outcome because the Liberals do not want to allow study of their own bail bill. I'm curious on what authority you're saying this motion is not permissible when we're saying we can and should move to a bill on which there is a lot more consensus than there is on Bill C-9.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That sounds like debate on a dilatory motion to me, but no, the editorializing isn't necessary. I understood what Mr. Brock was trying to do. I ruled that his motion was out of order because of the timing it was put on the floor. We're in the midst of debating BQ-2.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order.

Chair, very respectfully, the green book clearly identifies a series of dilatory motions, and I know that, respectfully, you're in your second meeting in this role as justice committee chair. It's on page 1,167 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice where the dilatory motions are listed. You would only use a motion to proceed to another item in a situation where you want to proceed to a different item from the one that is currently on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Genuis, if somebody wants to challenge my ruling, they're free to do so. I'm not entertaining debate on a ruling I've already made.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, I promise you that I'm not making things up.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Genuis, I've already made the ruling. If somebody wants to challenge my ruling—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It's on page 1,167 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

—that is their right to do so. This is not a debate.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Could the clerk clarify the rules at least?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

No. The ruling has already been made, Mr. Genuis. I've set out the process we're going to follow here. Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You don't get to make things up, though, Chair. There's a book—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, and you don't get to speak when you don't have the floor.

Mr. Genuis, you're done.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair—

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

I'm challenging the chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Brock is going to challenge my ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)

Thank you.

Is there any further debate on Mr. Fortin's proposed amendment?

Ms. Lattanzio.