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.
February 4th, 2026 / 11:50 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I think what I heard him say is that he's withdrawing the provisions in here that don't have mandatory minimums.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
All right.
That's fine, Mr. Brock. You had asked the officials a question. You hadn't formally moved it yet. You're free to move it the way you want to move it.
Liberal
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Yes. Again, I'll turn to the officials to help me as I move this motion.
The focus of my amendment to this amendment is to capture only those penalties or charges if preceded by summary conviction or by indictment that does not have any aggravating features that provide for an MMP or the stand-alone offences that do not have an MMP. Those are the only charges I want to include in this particular amendment, if passed, as those that would not allow a judge to impose a conditional sentence.
Is that understandable?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Can I ask a question, just to clarify?
In response to Mr. Brock's first question, I believe some of the sections had mandatory minimums, but only certain occasions.
Does that mean it's only those certain occasions that you want included in this amendment?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
They're occasions that do not mandate MMPs.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
All right.
Our analysts want us to suspend in order to make sure we have this clear.
We'll suspend for a moment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Let's get going here, people. I know we're getting a little giddy. It's getting late.
Mr. Brock, do we have clarification?
Order.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Mr. Chair, there were two options available to me to amend this particular amendment. One was far more technical and complicated, and I sincerely thank the officials for guiding me through that potential option.
In these circumstances—bearing in mind what I anticipate to be the position of the Liberal government with respect to this amendment—the easiest way to get to a vote is to simply amend this particular amendment at the very end with a catch-all phrase that says, “where these offences are not otherwise punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty”, which is, I repeat, in and of itself a disqualifier for any consideration of conditional sentencing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Brock.
Is there anybody else? No.
Shall CPC-11 as amended with the wording Mr. Brock just put on the record carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
(Amendment as amended negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This takes us to BQ-9.
Mr. Fortin.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you.
Shall clause 43 carry?
(Clause 43 agreed to)
(Clauses 44 to 46 agreed to)
That's what I like to hear.
(On clause 47)
This takes us to G-7.
Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
This amendment is, again, a technical change that is consequential to G-5, which we amended before. It also amends clause 29 of Bill C-14.
This change is needed to ensure that there is a correct cross-reference to proposed subsections 524(4) and 524(6.2). The change would ensure that the form used for a summons sets out the consequences of failing to comply, including the possibility of the summons being cancelled and the accused being detained in custody under section 524.
Conservative
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Go to G-12. I ask for unanimous consent to apply the vote we're going to have on this one to G-6 through G-12.
