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.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Ms. Lattanzio is I presume deliberately misrepresenting what was agreed to last week. There was no limitation of debate. The actual desire by the Liberals to censor and restrict debate was not agreed to by anyone. That is a misrepresentation of the motion at the end.
Liberal
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Are there other Conservative members?
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I'm going to make submissions, Chair. I'm just asking if other Conservative members have indicated their willingness to intervene on this issue.
February 4th, 2026 / 7:05 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you.
I can continue to wax on, but I want to get to the point because I guess Ms. Lattanzio doesn't appreciate relevancy and I was going to circle back to relevancy literally within, I don't know, maybe another half an hour from now. I can cut to the chase and if necessary I can go back and I can finish the history that I wanted to share with this committee.
I'm prepared to move a subamendment to Ms. Lattanzio's amendment to read:
That, at the conclusion of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14, the committee immediately proceed to the consideration of Bill C-16.
That was the preamble to my motion.
Ms. Lattanzio's amendment was to return to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 as agreed to on January 26, 2026. I would delete the following: “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,”
That entire passage would be deleted, and the rest of the motion continue: “and that the committee begin consideration of Bill C-16 at the next meeting following the completion of clause-by-clause on Bill C-9.”
That is the subamendment I'm moving at this time.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'd like to call this meeting back to order.
When we suspended, Mr. Brock had just put forward his subamendment to Ms. Lattanzio's amendment, which I believe has now been circulated and received by all, and you've all had an opportunity to read it.
Is there any discussion on Mr. Brock's subamendment?
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
No, we have to go back to the amendment.
Now we're going back to Ms. Lattanzio's amendment as amended by Mr. Brock's subamendment.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
The amendment has been changed by the subamendment and it was voted for. Wouldn't we just go to the main motion with the subamendment as included?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We voted on the subamendment. Now we're voting on the amendment as amended by the subamendment. That's procedurally the correct way to do it.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
It's the same wording again that we're voting to accept that we just accepted.