Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I share the same concerns Mr. Lawton raised in a point of order. As I've said numerous times and will continue to say numerous times, I have the utmost respect for my colleague Monsieur Fortin, but his choice of language hurts. It hurts our integrity. I agree with Mr. Lawton. Although the entire committee receives input from many stakeholders—in this case, religious stakeholders who have been following this debate since the fall and have tried to assist all committee members to fully understand their position—by no means can you construe from this that we are beholden, strictly, to certain religious groups.
I can tell you what we are beholden to. We're beholden to the Canadian charter. Our party stands for the right of freedom of expression and freedom of religion, which is under attack by this particular poison pill Bloc amendment. Mr. Fortin, in trying to frame this as a philosophical, intellectual divide between the Bloc position and the Conservative position, indirectly painted the picture that it's the Liberals who are the moderates here, and that it's the Liberals who are trying to bridge this philosophical difference between the two parties.
I've said this numerous times and it bears mentioning again—and I will turn to the officials for greater clarification on this: Bill C‑9 was introduced by Minister of Justice Fraser in the fall of 2025. Nowhere in the draft of the bill was there any reference to the Liberal government seeking the removal of a 56-year-old defence under section 319.
I've said that numerous times because it's important for all the stakeholders and Canadians watching this. The Liberals are by no means the saviours here, trying to come up with an agreement that everybody can live with. The Liberals never intended this when the bill was drafted, presented, debated at first reading and second reading, and then studied. I don't know how many meetings we've had on this particular bill, or how many witnesses were called. Not one specific subject matter expert on the issue of the removal of this decades-old defence was ever called.
Mr. Fortin, as he had every right to do, made it abundantly clear that this is, ultimately, his position. He used pretty much every opportunity to expand upon his concerns about the removal of the defence and get evidence from some of the witnesses. I don't recall any Liberal member on this justice committee ever displaying any support for Monsieur Fortin's line of questioning on removing the religious defence until late in the fall, when we, as parliamentarians, received news one weekend that the Liberal government—ostensibly through Sean Fraser, our justice minister—had decided to create a backroom deal with the Bloc Québécois. In exchange for the Bloc supporting the passage of Bill C‑9 at all stages, they would now, some six or seven months removed, see merit in removing a 56-year-old defence.
With that as the backdrop, officials, please help me with this.
Were both of you involved with all the stakeholder consultations that Sean Fraser engaged in, in terms of formulating his position on how he would instruct you to draft the original Bill C-9?