Justice Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We did not get unanimous consent for Ms. Lattanzio's proposal. We have not had unanimous consent for other proposals.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I was going to say that Mr. Lawton had his hand up first, but he's pointing at you.

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

We don't have the collaboration locked in. We made it clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

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

I made it clear, Mr. Chair, that as the vice-chair and as shadow minister for the Conservative Party of Canada, I wanted to speak on behalf of our position. I sought clarification. You denied my ability to seek clarification. If you continue to refuse my ability to seek clarification from Ms. Lattanzio, I am asking for a brief suspension so I can have a conversation with her to determine under what circumstances and conditions she is seeking unanimous consent. I think that is a reasonable request given what has transpired for almost three hours now.

I share her frustration. Hopefully, she shares our frustrations as well, but in the spirit of the season and in the spirit of collaboration, which this justice committee has always earned a solid reputation for on difficult issues—we are very passionate about our positions, but in the end, we always strive to work collaboratively—I am asking for this indulgence so I can seek some further clarification.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Lawton has made it quite clear that there will be no collaboration.

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

I have a point of order.

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

We are trying to work diligently on Bill C-9 so we can move to Bill C-14—

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

I have a point of order.

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

—but it is not going to happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm going to interrupt. I'm looking right down the middle of the table. If something is done on this side of the table or that side of the table, I'm going to call it out. Speaking over each other is not going to work. I think both sides have made their positions very clear.

I'm not sure of a suspension at this point, Mr. Brock.

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

I have a question of privilege, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You have a question of privilege. Go ahead, Mr. Lawton.

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

A comment that I did not make on the record was just misstated and misrepresented on the record by Ms. Lattanzio. I said that the Liberals did not have unanimous consent. That is what I said. She was seeking UC. I said, “You do not have it.” It is very irresponsible to read into the transcript a misrepresentation of what I said, and I want to state my intentions clearly.

The Liberals do not have unanimous consent on that request, with the caveat from what Mr. Brock said, which is entirely valid: that we need to understand what exactly they're seeking agreement on first.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I understood it clearly and I think everybody else did too. I will suspend for about three minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I call this meeting back to order.

Ms. Kronis, you have the floor.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to confirm that I'm sitting in as a member of the committee for MP Brock for the duration of my remarks. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

As long as he continues to sit back there, yes, you are.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Talk as long as you want, please.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I get it.

I'm really glad to see in her remarks that Ms. Lattanzio is starting to understand the importance of Bill C-14. My constituents are looking to this committee to study that bill. I am getting a lot of emails about it. They are not just looking for us to send it back to the House. They're looking to hear the perspectives of other Canadians on it.

Colleagues, I want to speak today in favour of MP Brock's subamendment and MP Lawton's amendment, which would restore the protection for freedom of speech and religion in Bill C-9 after the Bloc and Liberal members of the committee passed an amendment to remove the defence for good-faith religious speech from it two days ago.

All of us around this table know that this defence has never protected the kind of speech that people sometimes imagine it does. It's never shielded those who deliberately promote hatred. It's never shielded those who promote violence, and it's never actually been a loophole for extremism. The reason it has existed, as I explained in my intervention a couple of days ago, is to protect sincere expressions of belief by people who are acting in good faith, even when others strongly disagree with them. Yet, the moment the Liberal-Bloc amendment passed, we started to see exactly what many of us warned about.

My honourable colleague from Niagara West just spoke about unintended consequences, and I'd like to provide an example of that. On my own social media, in the short time since this amendment has passed, a community member—who does, I will acknowledge, comment frequently—wrote that happily it passed and that people like Charlie Kirk in Canada won't be able to hide hate speech behind religious freedom.

Every member of this committee knows that the amendment will not enable any such thing. It is not going to touch the kind of speech that this individual was talking about. What the comment does reveal is something very important to our deliberations. It reveals a sentiment that I hope this committee finds very troubling, because it is an example of just how quickly and in what manner this amendment will be weaponized.

In my remarks the last time we sat, I warned that this amendment would be interpreted by members of our communities as having significance to those who want to silence people whose views they don't approve of. This comment, which came in such a short period of time, shows how easily people will assume that the removal of the defence gives them licence to silence views they dislike. It demonstrates how eager some Canadians are in this moment and at this time of tension and division to believe that the Criminal Code should be used not only to stop hate but also to stop conversations they find uncomfortable.

That is exactly why this defence existed in the first place. It was never about protecting bad actors. What it was about was protecting the space for good-faith disagreement in a diverse and pluralistic country. It acknowledged that Canadians hold deeply different convictions on questions of faith, ethics and morality, and this is reflected in some of the case law. Some of the differences we have around these topics do run directly into each other. That is the reality of pluralism.

The good-faith religious defence ensured that people could express their beliefs without fear that someone would accuse them of hate simply because they hold a traditional or unpopular view. Removing the defence doesn't stop hate. Hate is already prohibited. Removing the defence, though, does send a very different signal. It suggests that the state is narrowing the space for sincere disagreement. It invites people to believe that if they find a belief offensive or outdated, it might be criminal. It encourages exactly the kind of misinterpretation that I saw within hours of the vote to pass that amendment, where someone confidently declared that this amendment allows us to target each other.

If the Liberals and the Bloc continue to support the removal of the good-faith defence from Bill C-9 and don't support our amendments to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion, Canadians will be able to conclude—and will conclude—that it is the intention of these parties to encourage the kind of misinterpretation we are already seeing online and that they support the weaponization of Bill C-9 against people of good faith with views that are distasteful to them.

Tensions are high in our society. People are frightened by what they see online. They are exhausted by polarization and are desperate to make some of the dialogue out there stop. I understand that impulse. I think every one of us in this committee does, but of all the times in our history, this is an especially irresponsible moment to remove this defence.

The Criminal Code is literally the bluntest instrument we have. It allows the state to restrict people's freedom—the fundamental freedoms of movement and liberty. It cannot and must not be used to manage discomfort. It cannot and must not be used to stifle legitimate conversations.

When emotions are running this hot, Parliament needs to be especially careful, because in moments like this, people do not draw fine distinctions between hateful expression—which is already illegal—and beliefs that they find personably objectionable. They see disagreement and they assume danger. They see traditional religious statements and they assume hostility, and now, without the defence that has long reassured faith communities, they may also assume that these sentiments are criminal. That's why the committee's amendment this week was so irresponsible and why Mr. Brock's subamendment and Mr. Lawton's amendment are so important.

This committee's misguided amendment did not strengthen protection for vulnerable communities. These protections are already strong. Instead, it weakened the safeguards that preserve space for peaceful disagreement and it increased the likelihood that ordinary Canadians will misunderstand our intentions and misunderstand the law and try to use it to silence those they disagree with.

The examples that I gave at the beginning of my remarks today are not outliers. They're a preview of the very outcome that many of us warned about and how quickly this disturbing Liberal-Bloc amendment will be deployed, not against hate but against dissent—against neighbours, against community members.

Once accusations of criminal hate speech begin to be thrown around, in some cases lightly, trust will break down even further. People will retreat further into their corners. Dialogue will become harder, and the very fabric of our pluralism may begin to fray.

Our responsibility as legislators is not only to protect Canadians from hate, but also to protect the conditions that allow Canadians to live together despite profound differences. That includes protecting the space for those who express their beliefs in good faith, whether we agree with them or not.

The good-faith religious defence was one of the mechanisms that allowed us to maintain the balance. Its removal creates uncertainty where clarity is needed. It invites misuse at a time when restraint is essential.

I urge this committee to reflect carefully on what is happening in this room this week and on what we are already seeing out there on social media. When the public misunderstands a legal change within hours of its passage, that is a sign that Parliament is doing the wrong thing.

The person who made this comment on my social media is not an unintelligent person. They are not an unkind person. They are simply a person who saw what this committee did and believed that circumstances had changed sufficiently to enable them to go after people whose views they find distasteful.

When people believe that the Criminal Code can now be used to silence views they dislike, it is a sign that we have created expectations that law cannot meet. When those expectations encourage people to weaponize accusations of hate, it is a sign that we are moving in a dangerous direction.

We must recommit ourselves to a balanced approach. We must protect Canadians from true hatred, and we must also protect the space for good-faith expression, including religious expression and religious expression that we find offensive or distasteful in a country that depends on respectful disagreement to function.

Removing this defence does not advance justice. It undermines the very conditions that allow justice, pluralism and civil dialogue to survive. This committee's unwillingness to put Bill C-9 aside, despite its obvious shortcomings, also stops this committee from dealing with the important issue of Liberal bail. As the Liberals sit here trying to restrict the freedom of Canadians, they are letting violent criminals out on bail to do more damage in our communities.

Their colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, is also sitting in the House verbally attacking my Conservative colleagues to relax our “stubbornness” on not moving swiftly to pass Bill C-14. I think he must have meant the Liberals.

As the people who have been following these proceedings and the proceedings of the House at home can see, we can't get this committee to move to study Bill C-14. I implore this committee to move on and do the work that is necessary to make all Canadians safe.

Accordingly, I move, in light of the remarks I've just made and in light of the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons within the last 90 minutes, that this committee now proceed to the consideration and study of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Kronis.

To clarify, are you seeking unanimous consent? Is that what you're doing?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I am. Yes.

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

You're moving this.