I'd like to speak to the amendment.
Conservatives on this committee came in the spirit of collaboration to address the issues that Bill C-14 deals with and the issues that Bill C-16 deals with. We have been clear, as have Canadians, that these are the priorities they expect of this committee and of the House of Commons when it comes to criminal justice.
It has also been clear how much division and disagreement there is on Bill C-9, which was why it was frustrating in the fall when our numerous attempts to prioritize bail reform were blocked and thwarted by Liberal members of Parliament. I had hoped that in the new year, we would be able to have this reorientation, and I was encouraged by our ability to dedicate—it should have been more, as Monsieur Fortin said—three meetings to deal with Bill C-14. I will say, our Conservative team is prepared to sit here all night long until Bill C-14 is finished. We believe in this issue.
On the amendment that is being proposed by Ms. Lattanzio, not only does it downgrade Bill C-16, the government's own bill, as being less significant, despite the fact that there is more consensus around this, it also pushes a fundamentally undemocratic demand that not only Bill C-9 be dealt with on Monday, but that all debate must end by one o'clock, and that any division, disagreement, anything we want to address to bring in from stakeholders, from constituents, if we can't get that put on the record in two hours, Canadians do not have a right to have their voices heard.
This is not just undemocratic, but it is disgraceful on a bill about which the justice minister himself said in December, in response to some of the issues that were raised about Bill C-9, he was going to spend the winter consulting with faith leaders. There has been no report given to this committee or anyone else. There has been no formal update about what has come of those consultations. I've heard from some people who have reached out to the minister hoping their voices would be heard as part of it, who have not gotten a response. I would note that in our study of Bill C-9, we never as a committee had the opportunity to even study the removal of the religious defence.
To say that not only should we not be able to study that, but also we shouldn't even be allowed to debate it because we're going to invoke this arbitrary cut-off point where if we can't get to something by one o'clock, that's it, debate is over and we have to vote on all amendments, that is something on which no member of Parliament can look their constituents in the eye and tell them that they took the deliberative process of this committee seriously.
We had hoped that Mr. Brock's motion to prioritize Bill C-16 and stress that spirit of collaboration would be welcomed. There is a priority of justice legislation. Evidently, the Liberals do not want to get to sentencing and intimate partner violence; they do not want to get to child protection as much as they want to get to censoring religious texts.
It is clear from Ms. Lattanzio's amendment where the Liberal priorities are, and that's something they'll have to own up to to Canadians. Given that and given our seriousness about dealing with criminal justice issues that Canadians expect us to deal with, I move that the committee proceed to the consideration of witness testimony on Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, with the second panel of witnesses.
