Justice Committee on Feb. 4th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I think I'll dismiss the witnesses, if that's okay.

We're moving on to some other business, so let me say thank you to all three of you not only for being here but for your service generally. We're all incredibly grateful. I know I speak for everybody in this room and beyond this room at large too. I appreciate it.

Mr. Lawton, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I don't want to take a lot of time. This is really just a housekeeping motion to ensure that our committee priorities are where I think Canadians expect them to be.

I just want to point out that Conservatives have been—and I'm very grateful for this—extremely productive in this Parliament. We've supported the quick passage of Bill C‑19, the grocery benefit, and C‑14, which we're working on now and will finish today. We are very committed to that, prioritizing bail reform. We saw Bill C‑18, which is Canada-Indonesia free trade, Bill C‑13, which is Canada-U.K. free trade, and Bill C‑5, the major projects law.

This is very much in that spirit and in the spirit of collaboration. We want to make sure that Bill C‑16 is similarly prioritized as we were finally able to do with Bill C‑14. Again, in the spirit of collaboration here, to quote the Prime Minister from earlier today, “to pass the legislation Canadians are counting on”.... .

I just want to make sure that we have absolute clarity on this. We're not going to be debating this, but I want to propose an amendment to Mr. Brock's motion, and this has been translated already. We'll send it around.

That the motion be amended by replacing the words “the committee immediately proceed to the consideration of Bill C‑16”, with the following: “the next priority of the committee be the consideration of Bill C‑16, provided that:

“no fewer than eight meetings, totalling at least 16 hours, be provided for the purposes of receiving witness testimony, wherein the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety be invited to appear for one hour each on separate panels. The witnesses include victims and their advocates, police services and associations, municipal leaders and any other witnesses the committee deems relevant;

“the chair only be permitted to schedule a meeting for the purposes of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill after both the ministers of Justice and Public Safety appear as prescribed in this motion;

“the number of hours of witness testimony received is at least equal to the number of is described in this motion and the Minister of Justice has separately appeared on his mandate and priorities for two hours as unanimously requested by the committee on September 23, 2025.”

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

We have Ms. Lattanzio and then Mr. Housefather.

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

It's okay, Mr. Chair. We're ready to vote.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm just going to say one thing, Mr. Chair, since I have the floor.

First of all, there was a deal made last week, which the Conservatives voted for, that said we were going to move to Bill C‑14. We were going to do three meetings on Bill C‑14, and we would have moved immediately back to clause-by-clause on Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act, which is an act that not only do I care deeply about but communities across the country care deeply about. We have voted for that and we have made the deal to move back to the combatting hate act.

It's funny. My colleague, Mr. Fortin, told me that this would probably happen. Despite all this, now the Conservatives aren't abiding by the deal that they made. It's terrible. They're now trying to tell the committee that we can't study Bill C‑9.

I'm against Mr. Lawton's amendment, which would essentially delay the combatting hate act for generations.

I think it is important for communities across the country to know that the Conservatives have not only gone against the motion that we passed one week ago, where they voted for going back to C‑9, the combatting hate act's clause-by-clause, in return for doing three meetings and clause-by-clause on this, but they are essentially seeking to delay the combatting hate act forever.

I'm against Mr. Lawton's amendment, and I'm appalled.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We have Mr. Lawton and then Mr. Brock.

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

Thank you.

It's just a very quick point. Bill C‑16 was referred to this committee just this week. We have heard from countless stakeholders, including some of the witnesses who testified here today, about how important that bill is. We heard on our earlier bail study from victims about some of the measures that are in Bill C‑16. We have that bill referred to this committee now. There is a lot more consensus from Canadians about this, and I think they are expecting us to get it done.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

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

I'd like to take exception to some of the comments from Mr. Housefather. I thought some of his language was rather inflammatory, prescribing ill motive to our Conservative motion.

I echo Mr. Lawton's comments. When that agreement was brokered, Bill C-16 had not been referred to the committee.

I circle back to my earlier comments with respect to moving my original motion. This is exactly what the Prime Minister of Canada and our justice minister, Sean Fraser, referenced, both in the House of Commons and outside the House of Commons, in that the priority would be the passage of these two justice bills: Bill C-14 and Bill C-16. There was no mention by Sean Fraser or Prime Minister Carney about prioritizing Bill C-9 over Bill C-14, or Bill C-9 now over Bill C-16.

It's not just Conservatives who want this priority; it's what Canadians have been asking for for 10 long years. It's what stakeholders, premiers, mayors, law enforcement and victim advocacy groups have been asking for. This is what they're asking for.

We are not suggesting that we will forever not return to Bill C-9. It is only the beginning of February. Absent our break weeks over the next several months, we are not rising for the summer vacation until the second or third week in June. We're not asking for a full-on, multimonth extension of consideration of Bill C-16. We will work as collaboratively and co-operatively as possible to move Bill C-16 through the process, absent any other priority bill that Sean Fraser introduces.

I know he's talking about an online harms bill, which, again, may take priority from the perspective not only of our justice minister, but of the Prime Minister. We have ample time before we rise for our summer vacation to return to Bill C-9.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I speak, I would like to make a request to clarify my understanding. I don't know whether it's possible for the clerk to provide the text of the motion that we adopted last week. As I recall, the motion stated that we would study Bill C‑14 and that we would look at Bill C‑9 again as soon as we had finished. I would just like the text of the motion to make sure that I'm being accurate and sticking to the facts.

That said, Mr. Housefather is right. I'm a fairly optimistic person. However, unfortunately, the facts are sometimes so clear that it's hard to remain optimistic. I did tell him that we must be naive to believe that the Conservatives would let us look at Bill C‑9 again. They just don't want us to work on the bill that fights hate. I must say, that's a bit sad.

Unfortunately, I must take issue with what our friend, Mr. Brock, just said. Not all Canadians want us to set aside the bill to combat hate. On the contrary, I think that it's an important bill. Bill C‑14 is vital, as is Bill C‑16. However, Bill C‑9 is also vital.

Right now, throughout Quebec and the rest of Canada, and even around the world, we're seeing more and more population movements. We're facing unprecedented migration flows. We face the challenge of organizing our societies to ensure that all these people can live together in peace and harmony.

I'm not saying that newcomers are to blame for the problems. On the contrary, the issues are often our own fault. We either don't adapt well, or we don't adapt well to the newcomers. We need to organize our societies.

I'm thinking of situations where we see hatred, or where hatred is fomented. We were talking about demonstrations outside mosques, churches, synagogues and other places. We've seen demonstrations where people tried to prevent individuals from entering their place of worship. It isn't right. There have been fairly frequent news reports of situations in schools involving broken windows or violence against children.

I think that the entire population of Canada and Quebec needs a slightly clearer framework. We already had relatively clear legislation. We now need an even clearer framework to ensure that peace is maintained and that people can live in harmony and show respect for one another.

People are counting on us, because our job is to serve as legislators. We may forget this from time to time. However, it's our job to draft legislation and to do so as constructively and effectively as possible. It's for the benefit of our constituents. It's for the benefit of the entire population.

I don't agree with everything in Bill C‑9, just as I don't agree with everything in Bill C‑14. I probably won't agree with everything in Bill C‑16 or in any of the other bills that we'll be studying. That said, I consider it my job to try to work on a bill and to make it as consistent as possible with what I believe constitutes the legal framework necessary for us to live together in harmony.

I would like us to work on Bill C‑9 to give our constituents what they deserve and what we owe them. We owe them the most effective legislative framework possible. It must address as closely as possible the concerns of our Conservative friends and colleagues, but also my own concerns and the concerns of our Liberal friends and colleagues, the people of Quebec, the Bloquistes and everyone else. Everyone will try to put their own interests first, to some extent. That's normal when we're working on bills of this nature. However, refusing to study them and putting them off indefinitely means refusing to do our job. It's refusing to do the task that we were elected to carry out.

I think that everyone in this Parliament is acting in good faith. I've often said, even to journalists, that I've encountered plenty of people whom I've disagreed with on Parliament Hill over the past 10 years. However, I've never met anyone who was here to cause trouble. I think that people are here in good faith. We each have our own vision, our own political agenda and our own point of view. We stand by these things, which is normal. After all, that's why we were elected. I think that we're all basically people of good faith who make proposals for the benefit of the public.

Today, we're coming here and saying that we won't be working on Bill C‑9, when the committee has already postponed this study for three meetings to work on Bill C‑14.

Incidentally, I deplore how we rushed through the study of Bill C‑14. We're talking about a crucial bill that will change the reality for many people. We're talking about sending people to prison. This isn't a trivial matter. This bill would have warranted more than three meetings. Perhaps we should have taken a few days, or even a week, after the testimonies for the clause‑by‑clause consideration. It's also important to do this step properly.

I accepted the idea of postponing the study by three days, even though I wasn't in favour of it. Unfortunately, as I suspected, we're now in a situation where our Conservative colleagues are again proposing to postpone the study, this time by eight meetings. Eight meetings means four weeks. We know what the House of Commons spring schedule looks like. I hesitate to call it light, because we'll still be working hard. However, let's just say that we won't be sitting much. After this week, we'll have next week. We then have a parliamentary break for a week, after which we'll be back for a week. I can't remember the exact order, but there aren't many sitting weeks.

If we accept our Conservative colleagues' motion and postpone the study for eight weeks, this will take us to some point in April, if not later. I don't want to sound skeptical or pessimistic. However, I suspect that, after these eight weeks, another motion will be introduced asking us to move on to something else. I'm thinking, for example, of the bill to amend the Divorce Act with regard to parents exercising control over their children. I don't remember the term.

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

Are you talking about coercive control?

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

It isn't coercive control, but no matter. This bill will be referred to our committee today or tomorrow. Many other bills will be coming in. While they're all important, people will always say that they're more important than the bill to combat hate.

The entire population has been dealing with the hate issue on a daily basis for a number of months, if not years. Unfortunately, it won't stop.

So, I would like us to carry out our study of Bill C‑9. We already finished the testimonies. We started the clause‑by‑clause consideration, and we adopted a certain number of clauses. It may take us another hour or two to complete it. It seems that, even if we don't like everything in this bill, we should be able to recognize that a bill to fight hate is important. We should work on the bill and complete our study in order to give our constituents, when the House adjourns in March, a better bill than the current one.

You can see that I'm opposed to the motion put forward by our colleague, Mr. Brock. I'm also opposed to the amendment. I can't remember whether it was moved by Mr. Lawton or Mr. Baber, but no matter. I agree that we should do this work when we have finished the study of Bill C‑9. I think that postponing the study of this bill by a few months runs contrary to the mandate that we received from our constituents.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. Fortin.

Mr. Brock is next, but before that, the gist of this motion and amendment is to defer Bill C-9 until we deal with Bill C-16.

I think we're all in agreement that we need to deal with Bill C-14. Our positions on this motion have been explained pretty clearly. We can stay here and debate all night. You're free to do that and I don't want to stop anybody from doing that.

I just want to remind people that we do have witnesses in the room for the next panel. Out of respect for them, I would encourage people, if they have something to be said that hasn't already been said, to do so. Otherwise, I hope we can move forward.

Mr. Brock.

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

I think it's Mr. Baber who had the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm sorry. Mr. Baber, go ahead.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I'll be quick.

Canadians elected a minority Parliament and they expect all parties to work together. I do not understand the reaction by the government members of this committee when they received an offer from the Conservatives to work together and pass Bill C-16, which was just referred to our committee.

BillC-16, while not perfect, includes some important provisions regarding the Jordan principle. We have cases being dismissed for delay every day of the week, serious cases at times. It catches up on child protection, something that everybody on this committee is very passionate about.

We have debated Bill C-16 for a handful of days in the House of Commons at second reading before the bill was allowed to move through to this committee. You now have an offer from the Conservative side to work together to pass Bill C-16 fairly expeditiously, similar to the manner in which we've been working on Bill C-14. I don't understand why the Liberal government is now standing in the way of its own crime legislation and apparently filibustering Bill C-16.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Brock.

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

I wholeheartedly endorse the comments from Mr. Baber because that's exactly what's transpiring before us.

With respect to Monsieur Fortin's comments about our limited schedule between now and our summer break, there's also a possibility, Chair, we could look at additional sitting days throughout the week. We could prioritize this. We're willing to work with the government to ensure that we have a number of witnesses as set out in the amended motion so that we can hear from all the subject matter experts throughout this country and prioritize exactly what has been plaguing Canadians and what has been plaguing law enforcement.

With respect to Mr. Housefather's comments about Canadians wanting to deal with Bill C-9, yes and no. Canadians I have heard from, religious leaders I have heard from, religious leaders Mr. Baber and Mr. Lawton have heard from, and from Mr. Gill's perspective, right across this country never saw fit that this Liberal government that introduced Bill C-9 would then make a deal with the Bloc Québécois to put into play the removal of a religious defence that has been available to religious leaders for over four decades.

We've heard loud and clear with respect to hands off our freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and this is the path this Liberal government has chosen to take to not prioritize what the Prime Minister wants them to prioritize. Perhaps they need to be talking to the Prime Minister himself or the PMO, because this is exactly the messaging he delivered inside and outside the House. We're willing to work collaboratively to get the job done for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, I think we're ready to vote.

Sorry, Mr. Fortin, please go ahead.

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

I had my hand up, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

I asked earlier for the text of the motion we adopted. I received it, and I'd like to read it for everyone, because that's what we decided last week. I think it deserves to be looked at.

The motion proposed that the committee pause the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑9, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), which we were in the process of doing. The motion also proposed that the committee allocate three meetings to consideration of Bill C‑14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), beginning at its next meeting. The motion then proposed that the committee not adjourn its third meeting on Bill C‑14, which is this one, until clause-by-clause consideration of the bill is complete. Finally, the part of the motion that I want to remind everyone of is that at the meeting following the completion of clause-by-clause of Bill C‑14, the committee resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑9.

That is what our Conservative and Liberal colleagues and myself unanimously decided last week. We can't change our minds every week unless our Conservative colleagues can explain what's happened since last Monday. Did something incredible happen to change everything and render invalid what we decided Monday of last week?

This is almost a point of order, Mr. Chair. We need to abide by our decision and finish the study of Bill C‑9. Regarding Mr. Brock's proposal to add days, if he can guarantee there won't be any systematic obstruction, I'd agree to take an extra day next week to finish our study of Bill C‑9. However, we really have to do it. There will be no postponing the study for eight weeks or putting it off indefinitely. Once again, Monday of last week, we decided to work on Bill C‑9 starting at our next meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Mr. Lawton.

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

Mr. Fortin asked what changed. Very simply it's the referral of Bill C-16 to the justice committee. That has always been a priority bill. We have spoken out very supportively of the intent of the bill. We have witnesses lined up ready to testify and there is consensus. We are eager to move forward in the spirit of collaboration.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We'll put the amendment to a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Ms. Lattanzio.

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

I'd like to bring forward an amendment.

Just before I do, nothing has changed from last week. I'm glad that Mr. Fortin asked for the reading of the motion because Bill C‑16 had already been referred to this committee before we voted unanimously to proceed on Bill C‑9.

My amendment is as follows:

“That, at the conclusion of the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑14, the return to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑9, as agreed to on January 26, 2026, and if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑9 by 1 p.m. on February 9, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, and the chair shall put the question forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑9, and that the committee begin consideration of Bill C‑16 at the next meeting following the completion of clause-by-clause of Bill C‑9.”

I will send a copy to the clerk immediately.