Evidence of meeting #19 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 interest.
A recording is available from Parliament.
February 25th, 2026 / 6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Exactly.
Thank you, Chair. That's my time.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Chair, I want to make a few comments. I don't know if I'm going to have time to get to Mr. Lawton's subamendment, but I think it's important to state at this point that our minister and our government have acted in good faith at every step of this legislation, Bill C-9. In a minority Parliament, we know that collaboration is not optional, but necessary. We have worked with all parties, including tonight, to negotiate—
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Ms. Lattanzio's own admission right now is that she is not speaking about the subamendment. She says she hopes to get to it eventually.
Given the direction you've given us, Chair, on the importance of relevance—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'll give her the same latitude I gave Mr. Brock. She's laying the foundation for what she's getting to, which is what she said.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
We know that in a minority Parliament, collaboration is not optional but necessary. We have worked with all parties, including this evening, to negotiate language that protects Canadians from hate and intimidation while at the same time upholding the charter. This bill is about protecting real people in real spaces: Canadians walking into a mosque to pray, families attending a synagogue on a Friday night, children going to school wearing a hijab or a kippah, community members attending pride events or volunteers gathering at a cultural centre. No one in this country should face threats, harassment or wilful incitement of hatred simply for who they are or for what they believe.
What happened here this evening is straightforward: We've asked the Conservatives to end the obstruction and stop the filibustering so that the committee can do its work and move this bill forward. We took 35 minutes of this committee's time to talk in private to decide whether they could commit to ending the filibuster, and, ultimately, they refused. Conservatives have now filibustered this bill, C-9, for more than 50 hours, Mr. Chair. That is 50 hours of delay on legislation designed to protect Canadians from hate and intimidation. The meeting is going to end in a few minutes, and Bill C-9 did not move forward this evening.
We remain ready to work. Canadians expect Parliament to function and not be stalled indefinitely for partisan reasons. The Conservatives need to stop stalling, stop shielding delay behind the process and let this bill move forward. If they will not stand with us, they should at least get out of the way so that we can stand with Canadians.
I think it's important to read the amendment into the record once again, and remind Canadians what exactly the intent of the subamendment is and what we've inserted or suggested:
11.1 (1) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating 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, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.
Mr. Lawton's subamendment would remove “if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.”
This would do away with the Keegstra decision and the common-law precedent that we have. Therefore, this would not allow anyone to ever be charged with hate.
This is what we're called upon to vote on, Mr. Chair. This is the proposal from the Conservatives that's sitting on the table right now. They are asking us to do away with the Keegstra decision, which, as Mr. Brock has pointed out, is an old and well-known decision that courts have been using. Mr. Lawton is suggesting to this committee that we do away with that and not have anybody ever charged for wilfully promoting hate. I think it's important to put this into context.
I understand that we've come to the end of our committee and, yet again, have not disposed of C-9.
Liberal