Justice Committee on Feb. 25th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 19 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of October 1, 2025, the committee is meeting to continue the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to welcome our witnesses. From the Department of Justice, we have Chantele Ramcharan, deputy director general and general counsel, criminal law policy section, and Joanna Wells, team lead and senior counsel, criminal law policy section.

We are continuing the debate on Mr. Lawton's subamendment to Madam Lattanzio's amendment. When we are done with those two, we will go back to Mr. Brock's subamendment to CPC-8.1.

We left off at the subamendment proposed by Mr. Lawton. At the end of the last meeting, Mr. Housefather and Mr. Baber had both made some submissions on whether it was admissible or not. There was a lot going in the room, and I wasn't able to hear everything clearly. What I'm going to do is ask both of you to repeat what you said on Monday.

I'll start with Mr. Housefather and then I'll go to Mr. Baber.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Basically what occurred on Monday, which feels like forever ago, was that Ms. Lattanzio proposed an amendment that would clarify the state of the law with respect to when you would not be charged with wilful promotion of hate.

Mr. Lawton had proposed a subamendment to remove the last part of the sentence, “if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.” The subamendment was specifically, “That everything after 'publication or debate' found in 11.1(1) be deleted, and that everything after 'publication or debate' found in 11.1(2) be deleted."

In my representation, Mr. Chair, in the event you rule this in order, I will have substantive arguments against the subamendment by Mr. Lawton.

In the normal course, simply removing words from an amendment would be a perfectly legitimate subamendment, but in this case, what Mr. Lawton is proposing would not be valid, because it goes completely against the intent of both the amendment of Ms. Lattanzio and the bill. It could not have been proposed as an amendment on a stand-alone basis. Let me explain why.

Ms. Lattanzio's amendment was clarifying the law when someone could not be prosecuted. Mr. Lawton's subamendment changes the law. Mr. Lawton's subamendment would essentially mean that anybody could communicate a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, and then not be charged with wilfully promoting hate even if the statement was not made in good faith under the Keegstra case.

As such, Mr. Lawton's subamendment changes the state of the law, and it changes the intent of the bill. The intent of the bill was to give greater protection to targeted minority groups, and Mr. Lawton's subamendment would essentially do the reverse. It would create a new state of law, and I'm sure you can clarify that with the officials. In that way, I don't believe that it is a valid subamendment. I think there are other ways of phrasing this that would be more palatable.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Go ahead, Mr. Baber.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Housefather's submissions spoke to the admissibility of the amendment. There's nothing precluding us from amending the law. There's nothing precluding us from amending the bill. That is the entire reason we are here.

I'll start very briefly with the fact that the subamendment cannot be ruled out of order if it basically seeks to delete a portion of the proposed amendment. This is precisely what a subamendment is meant to do.

I think Mr. Housefather's concern is more of over substance and policy. I don't agree with Mr. Housefather that the deletion of the last line and a half would not be in line with the intent of the bill, or the criminal law as it is now or will become, should this bill pass.

That is a substantive argument that my friend is making, and as such I kindly ask that you allow the subamendment to be in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

I'm going to ask the officials if they have any comment on this. I don't mean the procedural component; I'd like you to address Mr. Housefather's point on whether this changes in substance the nature of the amendment with respect to the bill.

[Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel and Team Lead, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I can speak quickly to that. It would change the substance of the proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

All right. Thanks.

I've reflected on this over the last couple of days. My job at this point is to determine whether it is procedurally admissible. I've listened to Mr. Housefather and I've listened to Mr. Baber and I've discussed it with the officials, and I'm going to rule that it is admissible.

We will proceed to debate on the subamendment.

We'll start a new speaking list.

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

I have a point of order.

Just hearing Mr. Housefather's concerns on this and having reflected on it as well, if the purpose of what the Liberals are seeking to do through Ms. Lattanzio's amendment is truly to send a signal that religious texts and the expression of religious sentiments will be protected, I can propose an alternative by which the subamendment would be withdrawn. I am seeking unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment and undo the adoption of BQ-3.

If we reinstate the religious defence as is, we have the perfect clarity that the law needs.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I will ask the question.

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

I see Liberals laughing at religious freedom, so I guess that's a no to unanimous consent.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

We're laughing at you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Lawton, that's....

Hold on, everybody, please. This—

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

If you want clarity, it would give clarity.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I don't think the commentary interpreting other people's physical expressions is necessary or an accurate reflection.

I will pose the question. Do we have unanimous consent on what Mr. Lawton is proposing?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, thank you.

I will now start a new speaking list on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Lawton.

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Go ahead, Mr. Fortin.

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

I just want to make sure we're talking about the same things.

Mr. Brock proposed a subamendment to modify amendment CPC‑8.1. Do I understand correctly that this has been put on hold for the time being?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

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

We're talking about Ms. Lattanzio's proposal to add section 11.1 and the subamendment proposed by the Conservatives to strike a part of that and to add “good faith”. Is that correct?

Given that there is no agreement on the amendment, should we not go back to amendment CPC‑8.1 and to the subamendment proposed by Mr. Brock?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You're accurate in terms of where we are in the proceedings, but if there is debate on the subamendment, we'll hear it and then vote on it. Then we'd have to continue the debate on the proposed amendment, whether it's amended or not, and then vote on that before we can go back. That's where we are.

Mr. Brock, you had your hand up. Was this on the subamendment?

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

Yes, it is.