Justice Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is just to make the committee aware of the relevance of Bill C-9 and what it proposes to do and the importance of this bill and, basically, to echo what our stakeholders have been asking us to do, which is to look at this very important piece of legislation. What I'm trying to convey to the committee members is that this is a very important study. We must be efficient and we must take the necessary time to look at it as soon as possible. My colleague Mr. Maloney and I have said time and time again that if we do agree to the 10 sessions that are being proposed by Mr. Brock, this piece of legislation will not be disposed of in a timely manner in this committee. We're looking at at least February if not March 2026. We would not be efficient and respond to—

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

I have a point of order.

Ms. Lattanzio is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I've listened to the last five or six minutes of her simply reading out Bill C-9, which is public. We all have the ability to read it. We don't need instructions from a parliamentary secretary to read out the important provisions of Bill C-9. This is nothing more than a classic Liberal filibuster, which is extremely disrespectful to my witness, who travelled here from Brantford—some six hours away—to give relevant, cogent evidence about the impact of sentencing and bail issues in our country. To listen to Ms. Lattanzio and listen to Mr. Maloney and listen to Mr. Chang repeat the same argument over and over again with every single attempt that we raise to call a vote is disgusting. It's absolutely disgusting.

There is a protocol, I believe, Mr. Chair, for filibusters that there's a prohibition on simply reading out for the sake of reading out. We all have access to Bill C-9. We agreed as a Conservative caucus to allow debate to collapse after two days and approximately six hours' worth of debate to bring it to committee. We are not arguing the importance and seriousness of Bill C-9, but my God, let's get on with this. This is disgusting behaviour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Again, I've ruled on the relevance. Ms. Lattanzio can continue.

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

Thank you, Chair.

To answer colleague Brock, I think what is despicable is that we have witnesses who were ready to render their testimony today.... We made a decision at the beginning—you actually made the decision, Mr. Chair—to postpone this to the end of the meeting. What we've done is that we've interjected before this witness, who is Mr. Brock's witness, to reintroduce this motion and go back on the ruling you made earlier.

I am not reading straight from the bill. If you have the bill in front of you, I'm adding context to the importance of Bill C-9, and what I'm telling you is—

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

That you are reading—

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

—the scope because there's a lot in this bill, Bill C-9, and there's an objective. Unless, Mr. Chair, you want to suspend, but if not, I reserve the right to just keep going and illustrate to committee members and the public at large the significance and the importance of Bill C-9.

The legislation will strengthen Canada's response to hate-motivated crime. It creates a new hate crime offence applying to any federal offence broken out of hatred. It introduces a new offence for publicly displaying hate or terrorist symbols to promote hatred. It codifies the legal meaning of “hatred” and removes the Attorney General's consent requirement for hate propaganda charges, making enforcement swifter and more consistent.

Any federal offence would capture all offences in the Criminal Code or any other federal law, such as the Firearms Act. It would serve to broadly and explicitly denounce all criminal conduct motivated by hate: for example, vandalism of a cultural centre motivated by anti-religious hate or the public display of Nazi symbols or terrorist insignia to wilfully promote hatred.

Also, it would propose the codification of the definition of “hatred”. The bill clarifies what conduct is captured by the new hate crime offence, as well as the existing hate propaganda offences, and supports a more consistent use of these offences by law enforcement. Based on the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the definition is also centred on the concept of vilification and detestation. It also specifies what is not hatred: namely, mere dislike or disdain or acts that merely offend or humiliate. This measure was included in the former Bill C-63.

Furthermore, it also proposes—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would be happy to let our colleagues speak, but could we at least excuse the witnesses, out of respect for them?

The Barreau du Québec representatives certainly have other things to do, and I am sure that this is also true for the witnesses invited by the Conservatives. I propose that we excuse them so that we can listen to Ms. Lattanzio until she is finished.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

You are aware, as I am, of the issue of billable hours for lawyers. I assume that this is a very sensitive issue for this group.

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

I think I know where this is going. Unless we can come to a conclusion, we would have five minutes per witness without any opportunity to ask questions. I dare say that—

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

Go ahead, Mr. Chair, dare.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

There are 20 minutes left in the meeting. I think that we should excuse the witnesses. I agree.

The fact that the witnesses were unable to make their presentations is a burden that the entire committee bears. On behalf of the committee, I apologize to them, but this discussion does take precedence. We can excuse the witnesses.

I know that tempers have flared somewhat. Mr. Fortin, along the same lines, would you like to propose reducing the number of meetings? I could suspend the meeting for five minutes. We could save some time and see if we have consensus.

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

Mr. Chair, I wanted to move an amendment, but when I saw the extent of the debate on whether or not to start the discussion on Bill C‑9, I thought that there was no point in arguing about the possibility of adding a witness or increasing or reducing the number of meetings. If I do that, we will never finish, and we will still be here next week.

I am ready to vote, because the lesser evil would be to get started. If we keep arguing about when we will begin, we never will.

If you think that we can suspend the meeting and Ms. Lattanzio and Mr. Brock can talk to each other, I will be happy to help you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Let's do that. Let's suspend for five minutes.

Let's try to get to a consensus. If we can do that, great. If not, we'll go back to Ms. Lattanzio's point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

I call this meeting back to order.

Before we get to this—and it's very important—I want to draw your attention to the budgets that you all got a copy of. I'm going to assume it's fine. It is pressing because we need to compensate witnesses for their appearances. Unless there are any objections to that, I will deem that adopted. It's important that we dispense with that today.

Ms. Lattanzio, I understood, from the discussions, that there was a consensus, but it's either clear or clear as mud. Let's perhaps put your proposition forward for the clerk to hear. We can get it properly reduced to paper and we can all vote on it, assuming everyone agrees. Let's just get all the words out, and then we can vote. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you.

The amendment to the motion presented by Mr. Brock is as follows. Instead of 10 meetings, we propose five meetings on the study of Bill C-9, concurrent with the other bail study. Each meeting will be three hours, and the first meeting of three hours on Bill C-9 will commence on October...on the next Tuesday after Thanksgiving. I'm sorry. It will start October 9, but with just the Minister of Justice appearing here for the first hour. The three hours—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Yes, and it's with officials for the second hour.

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

The subsequent Tuesday, which is October 21, will be the first Bill C-9 three-hour meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Does it matter whether it's Tuesday or Thursday for each one?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Would they alternate in sequence?

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

Yes. Bill C-9 will be on Thursday, October 23, not the Tuesday.

We commence Bill C-9 this Thursday, with the minister appearing for the first hour.

The meeting will be on Bill C‑9.

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

Was he not coming to talk about the study on bail reform?

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

He is coming for the study on Bill C‑9.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

As we understand it, just to summarize, we'll have the minister this Thursday for one hour and, then, officials for the next hour. That is a two-hour sequence. When we return from what I'm calling the Thanksgiving break, we will resume three hours on bail on the Tuesday.

Then, the following Thursday, we will have three hours on Bill C-9, and then we will rotate accordingly until the agreed-to meetings are exhausted.