Justice Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

You could make a very simple argument that bail is relevant because bail doesn't just deal with release. Bail deals with conditions. For instance, when someone is arrested on a hate-motivated offence, they would be subject to various conditions, such as a seizure of their communications devices or maybe a prohibition on social media, so it is relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

You have a point of order, Ms. Lattanzio.

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

Yes, I do.

The member just said that we do not want to debate Bill C-14. Again, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to send Bill C-14 to the House so we can carry on with third reading and deal with Bill C-14 in the House.

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

Mr. Chair, could we have a brief suspension as you granted earlier on a similar request?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Do we have unanimous consent? Let's deal with that first.

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

You earlier offered a suspension under this exact circumstance.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'll suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I recall the meeting.

Go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, we would be happy—more than happy—to send Bill C-14 back to the House, because it is a priority for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Is there unanimous consent?

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

It's a priority for stakeholders. The answer is yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Do we have unanimous consent?

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

From the Conservatives you do.

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We don't have unanimous consent.

I promised Mr. Brock that I would give him an answer with respect to timing within the next hour, and I have one minute left.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Being true to my word, I'm telling you now that I'm suspending the meeting, and I will see you in January.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:08 p.m., Thursday, December 11, 2025]

[The meeting resumed at 11:17 a.m., Monday, January 26, 2026]

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Good morning, everybody. Welcome back, and happy new year. I say this with 100% sincerity: I'm very glad to see all of you and am looking forward to this session of working together and making some steady progress in a constructive way. We're all going to get along famously doing it. That's not in the notes; I made that part up.

I will now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the continuation of meeting number 14 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of October 1, 2025, the committee is meeting to continue the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places.

Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using Zoom. I would like to confirm that sound tests were done successfully.

Before we continue, I would ask that all in-person participants consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of the participants and, more importantly, our interpreters. You also have a QR code on your desk. You can use that for further information.

I have a few comments to make for the benefit of witnesses and members. Meeting number 14 is close to becoming one of the longest meetings in parliamentary history, so you know all the rules.

Please wait to start speaking until you've been recognized by the chair. Those on Zoom have the buttons and translation devices. All comments should be made through the chair.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses back and thank them for what has been and continues to be great patience. You are a valuable resource to all members of the committee. I know I'm speaking on behalf of everybody when I say we really appreciate it, so thank you.

We have Kristen Ali, who is manager and senior counsel, criminal law policy section; Joanna Wells, senior counsel, criminal law policy section; and Marianne Breese, counsel, criminal law policy section.

We suspended the meeting on December 11, and we were debating Mr. Brock's subamendment to Mr. Lawton's amendment, which was CPC-8.1. I still have a speaker list from December 11, which I will pick up on. Some of the people who were on that list are not here today, and some are.

Just so people know, of the people here on the speaker list, I have Mr. Genuis, Mr. Fortin and Mr. Housefather. Mr. Baber is here. I think that's it.

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

There's also Mr. Lawton.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Lawton, do you want to be on the list? I was just going through it.

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

I do, actually.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay.

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

Chair, I have a point of order. I'd like some of our regular members to speak before me. If you don't mind striking me and putting me at the bottom, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's done.

That means Mr. Fortin has the floor.

(On clause 4)

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to clarify that when we left off, we were discussing Mr. Brock’s proposed amendment to amendment CPC‑8.1.

I must say that our committee has a lot of work to do. We have important bills pending: Bill C‑14 and Bill C‑16. Bill C‑9 is no less important. In my opinion, we have already wasted too much time, and I am convinced that everyone around the table agrees with me that we should move forward so that we can finish reviewing the other important bills we need to consider before the end of the spring session.

Before the holidays, we adopted the amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois on the issue of religious exceptions in the context of hate speech. Now, the amendment proposed by our Conservative colleagues seeks to say something quite the opposite of what was said in the Bloc Québécois amendment that we adopted. Amendment CPC‑8.1 proposes, among other things, the following wording: “This section shall not be construed or applied in a manner that infringes on freedom of expression or freedom of religion.” However, these freedoms are already provided for in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in no way could our committee say anything that contradicts what is written in that charter. What is there is there and will continue to be there. Therefore, I do not see the point in repeating it.

However, the subamendment proposed by our colleague Mr. Brock seeks to replace “freedom of expression or freedom of religion” with the following:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.

Once again, one could say that the provisions of this subamendment are already provided for in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or that the subamendment aims to reinforce what has already been done by our committee through previous amendments, including the one on religious exceptions provided for in the Criminal Code. I see little point or consistency in this subamendment. I think we should stick with what has already been done. I do not want to repeat what has already been said about the importance of having a clear Criminal Code that we can all agree on and that does not create laws that apply specifically to a religious, gender or other community.

I like what has been done so far in Bill C‑9. However, I will say again that the subamendment proposed by our Conservative colleagues seems to me to be either an unnecessary repetition, since the proposed provisions are consistent with what already exists in the charter, or an attempt to limit or diminish what has already been done, which I would find rather deplorable.