Justice Committee on Feb. 25th, 2026

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

We can't challenge a ruling on a point of order. What ruling can we challenge?

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

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?

[Joanna Wells]

We have been engaged on some, and through our own processes as well, where officials have direct engagement with stakeholders, but we are not party to all of the conversations that the minister's office has with stakeholders.

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

When did you know...if you know? If you don't, you don't. Can you tell us when those discussions began?

[Joanna Wells]

Which discussions are you referring to specifically?

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

In terms of creating the anti-hate bill, Bill C-9....

[Joanna Wells]

Elements of it were part of the government's platform, including the proposed new offences for obstruction and intimidation.

You'll also recall that other elements, like the proposed new hate crime offences, were part of former Bill C-63 and have already been introduced. Work on this issue and these related issues has been ongoing at the department for several years.

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

After the spring election in 2025, we, as parliamentarians, were led to believe, because of statements made by the justice minister and other ministers and the Prime Minister, that extensive discussions and meetings took place, which enabled the justice minister to deliver instructions to his department to create Bill C-9. How soon after the election—if you know, tell me, please—did those meetings start, when did they end and when did you get instructions from Sean Fraser to create Bill C-9?

[Joanna Wells]

I can't recall the dates. I think what I can say is that the department has long been working on these issues. Part of our role at the criminal law policy section is to be ready when asked to prepare, so I think to be helpful—

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

You can't give me exact dates.

[Joanna Wells]

I can't give you an exact date.

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

That's fine. I didn't think you would have that and that's fair.

Is it also fair to conclude that some of those stakeholder discussions, whether they be in person, whether they be on Teams or on Zoom—

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

I have a point of order.

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

—or simply exchanging correspondence, also included stakeholders from the province of Quebec?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Brock, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we have a point of order.

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

I don't know how the line of questioning is related to Mr. Lawton's subamendment. I think we're still on Mr. Lawton's subamendment with regard to removing the last line of my “for greater certainty” clause. Are we not, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's a fair point of order, Mr. Brock. Perhaps you could bring it back in.

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

I'll get to it, okay? I have a lot to ask and a lot to say.

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

I just don't understand the pertinence of this questioning on consultation and, if officials were in the consultation process, how that is related to Mr. Lawton's subamendment.

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

I'll get to that, but I'm not going to be put on a clock by you, Ms. Lattanzio, or by anyone else.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It's a fair point of order, Mr. Brock. We have to keep it relevant. Carry on.

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

Yes. Fair enough.

I think I formed the question before I was interrupted with a point of order.

Where there any discussions whatsoever with stakeholders from the province of Quebec?

[Joanna Wells]

I can't recall specifically. I can say generally that the department, at the very least, does have broad opportunities to consult with all provinces and territories.

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

Okay.

Do you recall, if you were party to these discussions or received information from the justice minister or any stakeholders, prior to the creation of Bill C-9, specifically asking for the removal of the religious defence as contemplated by the Bloc amendment?

[Joanna Wells]

What I can say to that, in the interest of being helpful, is that we have been aware at the department, for a long time, that the good-faith religious defence exception has been of concern among various stakeholders, and that there are various views on it.

To bring it back to your opening remarks, you can see that—and you know this—when Bill C-9 was introduced, as you indicated, it was not part of the proposed legislative package.