Evidence of meeting #21 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 c-16.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I was going to suggest that we suspend, because it's being circulated right now.
Thank you. We'll suspend.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'd like to call the meeting back to order.
We just heard from Ms. Lattanzio on her motion. I believe Mr. Lawton wants to make some remarks.
Mr. Lawton.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you very much.
I appreciate the opportunity to have some direction on where we go as a committee from here. I think there is a lot of common ground between the parties on a lot of the parts of Bill C-16, but as we've discussed today in our interventions with the minister and with the justice department officials, there are a few very key areas that I think need some more clarity. I would love to go into clause-by-clause having done a lot of the work up front. That, as we've seen on previous bills that have come before this committee, is very important.
I've seen the witnesses who have been proposed by all parties. There are a lot of witnesses. I'm not convinced that we will be able to get through them adequately in five meetings. I would propose an amendment—and I hope we can find some unanimous agreement here—to replace “five meetings with witnesses on March 25, April 13, April 15, April 20 and April 22, 2026” with “nine further meetings”. We do not take a position as to the timing of those. If we need to sit on break weeks, that's obviously an option. That would give us time to get through all of the witnesses who have been put forward by all parties.
That's the amendment. I'd note the size of the bill. It's 170 pages. It is quite substantive, and I want to make sure we're covering the issues.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Everybody is free to speak to your amendment, Mr. Lawton. I just want to point out, though, that if you're only proposing a change to the second paragraph, the third paragraph might need to be changed, because I don't think we can complete it by April 27.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I'm sorry. If there's unanimous agreement, what I would say is to have nine further meetings, after which the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
All right.
Are there any comments? Are we ready to vote? Okay, I'm not going to miss that opportunity.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The amendment has been defeated, which takes us back to Ms. Lattanzio's motion.
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to propose an amendment to Ms. Lattanzio's motion. At the end of the last paragraph, immediately after “on Monday, April 27, 2026”, I propose adding “and that the committee then proceed with the study proposed by Rhéal Fortin on the appointment of judges, as adopted on September 23, 2025”.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I call the meeting back to order.
Does anybody have any comments on Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe's proposal?
Mr. Housefather, you have your hand up.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I would just like to understand, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Hepfner's private member's bill was referred to the committee. I'd like to know whether Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe is proposing that we consider Ms. Hepfner's bill once we're finished with Bill C‑16 or whether he's proposing doing his study and setting Ms. Hepfner's bill aside. I wasn't quite sure.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Logically, I believe committees have 30 days to examine a private member's bill, so the committee has obligations to deal with before these bills. The purpose of my amendment is to prioritize what we can once we're done with Bill C‑16 and the committee has met all of its other obligations.
The first study to prioritize once the committee has met its obligations, in other words, Bill C‑16 and perhaps the private members' bills, should be the one I'm proposing, depending on how much time we have left—or you have left, I should say, since I'm not on this committee. That is really what I'm trying to do with my amendment, so I think the wording of the amendment is pretty clear.
I hope that answers Mr. Housefather's question.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Just so everybody understands, it's Bill C-223, which has to be reported back to the House by June 18. We would have to satisfy those timelines and then proceed accordingly, as you've outlined.
Are there any other comments?
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Do we not have another private member's bill in the queue before our committee?
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Is Bill C-223 the only bill outstanding for the justice committee?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Yes.
Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)
I'm sad Mr. Fortin is not here. He's been trying to get this on the agenda for some time and he's not here for the vote.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
We're out of time for witnesses.
I have one budget that we have to get done. We have budgets for all the various studies. We're behind, and we haven't approved the food budget for the time we spent on Bill C-9, which is the parliamentary equivalent to dining and dashing, because we actually had the food; we just haven't approved the budget to pay for it. The budget total we're voting on is a supplementary request of $15,000.
The budget has been circulated. Everybody should have had it in their inboxes for some time now. Are all in favour?