Evidence of meeting #17 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-14.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, I've been listening to Mr. Baber and, with all due respect, I'd like to remind everyone that the Bloc Québécois amendment on the removal of religious exemptions was debated, voted on and adopted. We were doing clause-by-clause on Bill C‑9. So I think it's a waste of time to discuss what we did two weeks ago to see whether or not it was the right thing to do. That's one thing.
The other thing is if we want to discuss Bill C‑9, we'll have to do so when we come back to that study. We're currently debating a motion to decide whether we're going to come back to Bill C‑9 or discuss Bill C‑14. Based on what Mr. Baber's saying, we're already discussing C‑9. So let's adopt the motion and move on. However, if we want to finish our study of C‑14, I suggest we put forth arguments on Bill C‑9 the next time we study the bill, which will be next Monday.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
If I may help to clarify—I'll give you the floor back, Mr. Baber—where we are is we are waiting to hear from our last panel of witnesses on Bill C-14. We are then going to proceed to clause-by-clause. We have resources until 2:15 a.m. We do not have resources available tomorrow, but we do have resources from 11 a.m. Friday until midnight, and we will be using them if necessary, pursuant to the motion that was agreed to last week.
There's a motion on the floor from Mr. Brock and an amendment proposed by Ms. Lattanzio. If Mr. Baber, Mr. Fortin or anybody else wants to make submissions on Bill C-9, I would suggest the contextual environment for that is when we're discussing Bill C-9, not when we're debating a motion about Bill C-14 and we're in the midst of discussion about Bill C-14.
If we want to have that discussion about amendments within Bill C-9, we can do so pursuant to what the committee agreed to last week. If we're going to discuss Ms. Lattanzio's motion, I would encourage you to do so. I would ask you to restrict your comments to that and not other bills.
Thank you.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I take exception to that, Chair, because Ms. Lattanzio's motion explicitly mentions Bill C-9.
However, I'd like to turn the committee's attention to the reason we're here today, and that is to get Bill C-14 done, something the Conservatives intend to call on the committee to follow both in spirit and in the letter of the motion that got us here.
Let's shelve debate; let's leave it be. Let's hear from our witnesses. Let's proceed to clause-by-clause and finish Bill C-14 tonight. That is the option I'm proposing, and to do so, I move that the debate be now adjourned.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Chair, I call the vote on my amendment.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I'm still recognized; I'm on the list.
Liberal
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to Ms. Lattanzio's amendment, I move to adjourn debate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We just voted on that. You can't bring the same dilatory motion twice in a row.
Conservative
February 4th, 2026 / 6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
It's against the rules. That's why we discussed this. I would encourage you to speak to your people behind you.
All right.
Who's the next speaker? I don't have anybody on the list right now.
Mr. Lawton is next and then Mr. Gill.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you.
A few minutes ago, Mr. Chair, you accurately set out where we are. We had all agreed—Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc Québécois—to deal with C-14 on an incredibly expeditious timeline. We had hoped to deal with it in the fall, but here we are. We had committed, and I'm actually still hopeful—less hopeful after the previous Liberal vote there a moment ago—that we would be able to dispense with C-14 tonight.
I've had women's groups, including from my riding, reach out to me, very encouraged about the referral of Bill C-16 to committee. I told them that I was hopeful we'd be able to get to C-16 as early as Monday. It's curious to me that the Liberals do not want that.
One of the trends that we saw in the fall was Liberals holding their own justice reforms hostage behind Bill C-9, a bill that has been steeped in division, a bill that has been denounced in whole or in part by The United Church of Canada, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Council of Imams, the rabbinical council of Toronto, the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. It's quite disturbing to me that the Liberals think they know better about faith in this country and religious freedom than all of these groups representing virtually every denomination and every faith group in this country.
Why that is relevant—to reiterate my previous point—is that Ms. Lattanzio has put a guillotine on debate on Bill C-9, which prevents any of these voices from being considered when we meet next. In doing so, she is holding up crucial reforms to sentencing that we were eager.... Again, we could work across party lines in the spirit of collaboration and deal with this.
I had been very optimistic that we would be able to hear from our second panel of witnesses, understanding that we have only had three meetings dedicated to Bill C-14. Evidently, the Liberals did not want to hear from our witnesses, which is why they voted against Mr. Baber's motion to adjourn debate. I think that's quite shameful, but this is just what we have to deal with. We are still committed, as we always have been, to fixing the broken Liberal bail system.
I understand your previous ruling about moving to something that was already on the agenda, but I'm taking my cues from your previous ruling, Mr. Chair, and I move to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14, a separate item on the agenda.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
No we are not. We are on witness testimony.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We're on witness testimony and then we're going to clause-by-clause. Are you moving to dispense with the witnesses and not hear from them?
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Actually, I move to proceed to hearing from the witnesses, but you ruled that out of order. If you're willing to reconsider, I'm happy to move again that we hear right now from our witnesses on C-14.
Liberal
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Chair, with respect, I previously moved that we proceed to hearing from witnesses. You ruled that out of order. If you are not willing to accept—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I ruled it procedurally out of order, Mr. Lawton. That's correct, yes.
What are you moving now?
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
If you will not allow that, I move that that we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
That would require us to not hear from the witnesses. I'm asking for clarification.
Conservative