EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights NUMBER 017 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT Wednesday, February 4, 2026 Le mercredi 4 février 2026 Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE February 4, 2026 Committee NUMBER 017 NUMBER 017 NUMÉRO 017 17 04 02 2026 2026/02/04 16:15:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights JUST Chair James Maloney 1 45

(1615) [ English ]

The Chair (James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.)) :

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for being here with us today. I want to call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 17 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of November 18, 2025, the committee is to continue its study of Bill C-14 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act, regarding bail and sentencing, and to later today proceed to its clause-by-clause study. Today's meeting is taking place in the hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using Zoom. I would like to confirm that sound tests were made successfully. Before we continue, I would ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table.

These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of participants and especially our interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the cards, which links to a short awareness video. I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Now, for our first hour today, I'd like to welcome our witnesses. From the City of Kelowna, we have Mayor Tom Dyas. Thank you for being here. From the Regina Downtown Business Improvement District, we have Judith Veresuk, executive director, and from the Toronto Police Association in my hometown, we have Clayton Campbell, president. I'm going to give each of you five minutes for opening remarks, but before I do that, I'm going to go a bit off script. There's a ceremony taking place today while we are in committee: the long service awards for staff on Parliament Hill.

There isn't a member of Parliament around this table who will disagree with me when I say that we are nothing without our staff. I want to say thank you to all of them, and I want to give a special shout-out to Clare Barry, who has been working with me for five years. Rather than going to receive her long service award, she's doing what she always does: She's here at my side. Clare, I want to say thank you. I couldn't do this job without you and, frankly, I wouldn't want to. I will turn it over to the witnesses now. Mr. Dyas, I'll start with you.

Tom Dyas (Mayor, City of Kelowna) :

Chair Maloney and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I will, knowing that it's being translated, maybe not speak as fast as I am now. I may be just a little bit over five minutes, but I'll move through this. It is timed for just about five minutes. As stated, my name is Tom Dyas, and I am the mayor of the City of Kelowna. I am here today because what you are debating has very real financial and visible consequences in communities like mine across British Columbia and Canada.

Business owners are dealing with repeated break-ins, vandalism, theft, threats to employee safety and general disorder, including windows being smashed for repeated theft without offenders being charged or held for their previous actions. Business owners are exhausted, frustrated and losing confidence in the justice system every day. We share in those frustrations. This is common in cities across Canada. It is systemic, it is not acceptable and it requires a significant change in policy and legislation. Our local RCMP have recently shared a chronic offender profile with us.

One individual has accumulated 223 police files between 2021 and 2025, including 31 failures to comply with conditions and 32 failures to appear in court. Offences occurred almost monthly, including assaults, thefts, threats and public disturbances. Many of those offences happened shortly after release, indicating rapid reoffending under the current bail conditions. There are many examples of repeat failures to abide by bail conditions and failure to appear in court followed by reoffending. These situations, which are outlined, for some should be met with meaningful consequences.

Considering a reverse onus in these cases would better reflect the risks posed by individuals who consistently disregard court authority only to quickly reoffend after release. In 2024, just 15 individuals in Kelowna were responsible for 1,335 police files. This trend is regrettably not isolated. B.C. is made up of approximately 189 municipalities. When I was in Victoria at UBCM last fall, the collective of municipalities had similar experiences of individuals and repeat property and violent offenders within their communities.

Persistent property offences and incidents of social disorder are having a significant and costly negative impact on our communities, affecting resident safety. Repeat property offenders are brazen knowing there is minimal consequence in the justice system that does not hold them accountable. Canada's third-largest RCMP detachment is in Kelowna. Our hard-working frontline officers are frustrated. They know who the repeat property offenders are, they arrest them and then they see the same individuals released within days, at times even hours, recommitting similar crimes.

The RCMP do not have the tools and support they need to help keep our communities safe. Public safety is a top priority of councils across Canada. We have advocated consistently to the federal government for bail reform that addresses repeat property offending and to the provincial government for investment in Crown prosecutors and justice resources. We have produced evidence-based advocacy papers, including “Chronic Offenders—Closing the Revolving Door”, because municipalities are living with the consequences and costs of decisions that are made elsewhere.

Local governments have limited impact if the same individuals continue to cycle through the justice system and then back onto our streets. That is why Bill C-14 matters. I urge the committee and the House to move this bill forward quickly. In particular, the focus on repeat and violent offending and the requirement for courts to consider the number and severity of outstanding charges when making bail decisions is critically important.

I ask that the committee consider further defining “repeat” with the addition of the term “property” to reflect the realities playing out on our streets, impacting our residents and businesses and hurting local economies.

(1620) Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. We must do what we can to support and protect them—and, importantly, to protect our downtowns. In closing, without meaningful bail reform, municipalities across Canada will continue to absorb the impacts and costs of a system that is not functioning as intended and will not support a one Canadian economy.

Communities like mine in Kelowna are asking for tools that reflect reality on the ground, allow the justice system to respond appropriately to repeat property offending, hold individuals accountable and provide tougher sentences for those who blatantly show disrespect for the law. Bill C-14 goes a long way in achieving that. I thank you for the opportunity to share Kelowna's experience and the experience that municipalities are encountering across this country. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, sir. Ms. Veresuk.

Judith Veresuk (Executive Director, Regina Downtown Business Improvement District) :

Good afternoon. I would like to thank the chair and the committee for providing me with the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Judith Veresuk. I'm the executive director of the Regina Downtown Business Improvement District, representing over 600 businesses in Regina's downtown core. The Regina downtown BID is also a proud member of the International Downtown Association of Canada. Our mandate is to create the conditions for strong economic activity, entrepreneurship and cultural life in urban centres.

Regina's downtown, like many downtowns and main streets across Canada, is the economic and cultural anchor of our city. The downtown area is a major provider of jobs, while also serving as a gathering place for arts, events and community life. However, today crime and public safety concerns are becoming significant barriers for the residents, workers and small business owners who bring life to our downtown. The effects of repeat offenders cycling through the justice system to disturb the same downtown locations are highly visible in Regina. These growing concerns have real consequences.

Small businesses are being forced to reduce their hours. Investment is declining. New business entry is slowing. Employees don't feel safe commuting to or being at work these days. Canadians—Regina's in particular—are avoiding our downtown. The consequence is devastating for our city's small business landscape and our economy as a whole. What we are seeing mirrors what I hear from my colleagues nationally, underscoring the need for meaningful bail reform legislation from the federal government to address these challenges.

Public opinion polling in western Canada shows that downtowns across the region face this same pressure. The City of Saskatoon found that the vast majority of their residents, or 82%, felt that crime was somewhat or very high in their community. In a 2025 poll done by the Calgary Police Association, more than half of Calgarians said they felt that social disorder has increased since 2024. In Edmonton, a similar survey conducted by the Edmonton Police Service reported that just under half of their residents, or 46%, felt their city was getting less safe.

That perception was even more acutely felt by the city's indigenous residents, with 64% of respondents saying they felt Edmonton was less safe. These figures indicate a stark diagnosis for Canadian downtowns. People are losing faith in the safety of their neighbourhoods and communities. These results also point to this challenge occurring across municipal and provincial jurisdictions, reinforcing the need for effective, federally led bail reform to address the systematic changes being faced by Canadian communities.

Bill C-14 represents an opportunity for such a decisive action by strengthening bail provisions for repeat and violent offenders and improving protection for workers and communities most affected by these crimes. On behalf of the Regina downtown business community and downtown areas across Canada, our organization advocates for Bill C-14 to include strengthened bail provisions for repeat and violent offenders, including reverse onus considerations, and enhanced recognition of the serious offences committed against retail and public-facing workers.

By ensuring that these conditions are met, this legislation can simultaneously address challenges with public safety and restore confidence in Canadian downtowns, which need to revitalize themselves and contribute to more vibrant communities. Our community, and many of your communities that you represent, need it. We look forward to your leadership to make this possible. We urge the committee to advance bail reform that reflects the realities on our streets. We believe Bill C-14 does this.

Subsequently, we hope that all parties can support this bill's ratification to ensure better outcomes for downtown business communities across Canada. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

(1625) The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. Campbell, over to you.

Clayton Campbell (President, Toronto Police Association) :

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice-Chair, members of the standing committee and legislative staff, including Clare. You have the same name as my daughter. She just turned 17 and got into U of T, so I'm going to put that out there. My name is Clayton Campbell. I'm the president of the Toronto Police Association. As president, I feel very privileged to represent more than 8,500 members of the Toronto police service who work both in uniform and in civilian roles. Since my last appearance before this committee, the TPA has continued to call for changes to bail and sentencing, especially for repeat violent offenders.

We've had formal and informal discussions with federal Liberal and Conservative members of Parliament. We've engaged your counterparts at the provincial level, including the Ford government, which has been a champion for public safety in the province of Ontario. We've also been invited and have participated in several community town halls at the invitation of both the Conservative and Liberal parties. From my perspective, the process of consultation on Bill C‑14 has been exceptional. We have repeatedly said that this is not about politics, it's about public safety.

It is why we're back here today, asking all parties to support Bill C‑14 and do what's necessary to facilitate its timely passage through the legislative process. While there's still work to be done, we have been clear about our support for the proposed legislation, which includes many of the recommendations we put forward. Specifically, we recommend clarifying that the ladder principle does not apply to an accused who's subject to a reverse onus in a bail proceeding. At bail, the justices and judges must consider whether an allegation involves random, unprovoked violence when denying release.

It would include modifying the tertiary grounds for release to include consideration of the seriousness of any outstanding charges when determining if bail would undermine the public's confidence in the administration of justice. We recommend the creation of new reverse onuses for a number of offences, many of which will have a direct impact on the criminal activity we're experiencing in Toronto. Conditional sentences should be made unavailable for serious sexual offences, including those against children.

Custodial sentences should be made available to youth who commit bodily harm rather than requiring it to be just violent. The publication of youth information should be allowed where the youth is at large and poses an immediate grave danger to the public. We have also been pleasantly surprised to see the inclusion of offences against a first responder as an aggravating factor at sentencing.

Not only will these provisions close many of the gaps our members experience on a daily basis, but we feel they'll strike an appropriate balance, recognizing what we have always stood for, which is not more people in custody but the right people in custody. We would be remiss not to take this opportunity to highlight a few significant recommendations that were not included in this bill. Through the government's ongoing public safety agenda, we strongly encourage adopting the three strikes provision, placing limitations on who can be surety, and immediate parole system reform.

As these discussions continue, we remain committed to the process of engagement and consultation, regardless of the political party. Canadians, despite their differences or political affiliation, all want and deserve the same thing for themselves and their loved ones. Thank you and I look forward to answering any of your questions.

(1630) The Chair :

Thank you very much. We're going start the first six-minute round. We started late. Out of respect for the witnesses, I don't want to cut the time short, so we'll just take the witness portion a little longer rather than stop at 5:30 as we're supposed to. Mr. Brock, it's over to you.

Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. I echo the words of our chair with respect to all our staff members here on the Hill and our respective constituents. They make our job so much easier. I would agree that no one could exist without the incredible years of service that every staff member puts in. At this point I'd love to point out my chief of staff in my constituency. Her name is Teresa Percival and she is a long-time Conservative supporter. She has contributed to all the years of service since my 2021 election.

Previously to that, she worked with my predecessor, Phil McColeman, who was the member of Parliament for Brantford—Brant. I sincerely want to thank her for all her incredible efforts. Thank you, witnesses, for your attendance. I really enjoyed your opening statements. Mr. Campbell, it's always a pleasure to see you again. I want to sincerely thank you for all of your incredible advocacy. In my view, it was that consistent messaging that always remained the same. You are always loud and clear with other stakeholders to move this government in the appropriate direction.

We will soon go to clause-by-clause on this particular bill before it gets back into the House for third reading and ultimately to the Senate. I want to bring to you some amendments that the Conservatives are seeking and I want to get your opinion on them, sir. One amendment that we are seeking is to add a consecutive sentence rule for repeat human trafficking offences. Is that something that policing should support?

Clayton Campbell :

Absolutely.

Larry Brock :

Okay. The Liberals will not support that. Secondly—

Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.) :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

Anthony Housefather :

He just made a statement with no foundation about an entire group of people. We don't know whether we will support it or not, and different people may have different views. I don't think that's appropriate, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

I tend to agree with you. Mr. Brock, we haven't gotten to that amendment yet, so I would reserve judgment on that, with all due respect.

Larry Brock :

Sure. I have a different position on that. I'm not going to elaborate, but I wanted to bring certain passages to Mr. Campbell's attention. I will certainly seek his support on various Conservative amendments that are being brought. Another significant amendment is with respect to the principle of restraint. We've talked about that numerous times.

Section 493.1, ushered in by Bill C-75 , in my view as a former Crown attorney, was the origin of catch-and-release. What we want to do, where it relates to violent repeat offending, is replace the wording in subsection 493.1 to not “give...consideration to the earliest release...on the least onerous conditions” but to make public safety and security the primary consideration when releasing or detaining those individuals. Is that something that policing would support?

Clayton Campbell :

I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer, because there are probably lots in this room. I'm not sure how that process would work. I know that Bill C-14 tried to clarify that in the language. I can say that the wording of “the least onerous conditions” “at the earliest opportunity” caused lots of issues that we're seeing in the community. I'm not going to speculate on how that should be done, but if there is any way to limit it, we would support it.

Larry Brock :

Would policing support a term to surrender a passport as a potential condition depending on the circumstances?

Clayton Campbell :

It makes sense to me. It is my first time thinking about it, but it does make sense to me.

Larry Brock :

Would policing support an amendment to the tertiary grounds under subsection 515(10) to include terms such as ensuring safety and security of the public; preventing physical or psychological harm to victims, including child victims and their families; and preventing interference with the administration of justice? Would policing find that to be helpful for a justice considering detention or release on the tertiary grounds?

(1635) Clayton Campbell :

I would have to go back and look at each section, but clearly there's an issue with repeat violent offenders. I know that there are some amendments around tertiary grounds for the gravity of the offence and the number of offences, so I kind of read that as repeat violent offenders, but we would be open to looking at anything that's going to keep our communities safe.

Larry Brock :

Would policing support another Conservative amendment that would require mandatory detention for certain offences committed under a major offence category? This could be a current alleged major offence being committed while the accused was at large on release for another major offence. It would be for significant criminal activity and if the accused had been convicted of a major offence within the previous 10 years. Is that something the police would support?

Clayton Campbell :

We did support what is commonly referred to as the “three strikes and you're out” provision. When someone is convicted of a second or a third serious violent offence, for the third offence, they're not allowed to be released. I know there's some language around it. I think it's commonly referred to as a “release valve”, but we supported that in principle.

Larry Brock :

Would policing support the expansion of the conditional sentence unavailability specifically as it relates to further firearms offences, weapons trafficking and human trafficking? Is that something that makes sense to you from a policing perspective?

Clayton Campbell :

Definitely for the firearms offences and a conditional sentence, we do agree with that. We're seeing many times people out on bail or conditional sentences committing further firearms offences in the city.

Larry Brock :

I've heard from a number of witnesses that the problem that we find ourselves in as a nation with respect to criminal justice issues and bail is a lack of data and sharing of the data. One other Conservative amendment being sought is to require the Department of Justice to table an annual report on the state of judicial interim release, including outcomes and compliance, recidivism data, analysis of effectiveness of release conditions and accessibility and disparities across groups. Would that be something that policing would support?

Clayton Campbell :

I think it's really important, when we're going to see how this bill—if passed—works, to collect data. We have called for an annual report in a recommendation to both the government and the Conservatives. We went further to say that we should really be identifying judges and justices publicly if they have an ongoing pattern of releasing people. There could be training provided to them. Yes, the public has a right to know when people are released.

The Chair :

Mr. Brock, I gave you extra time because of how you started your remarks.

Larry Brock :

I didn't restart my clock, but internally I thought I was probably getting close to being done.

The Chair :

You deserved extra time for saying what you said. Ms. Lattanzio, it's over to you.

Patricia Lattanzio (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, would like to take the opportunity to thank employees, who are on the Hill today and this evening, for their long service—six years especially. I would like to thank Stefan Hoffman, my chief of staff, who is here in the room, as well as Laura Anastacio. They are also recipients of this award this evening. I'd like to thank them for their hard work and thank all employees who are going to be receiving their awards this evening. Mayor Dyas, municipal leaders do not write criminal law, but communities experience the consequences when repeat and violent offenders are released.

What does Bill C-14 signal to cities about Parliament taking responsibility for strengthening bail where risk is at its highest?

Tom Dyas :

I believe I will go back to the statement I made about being at UBCM and having roughly 189 municipalities there. At that point in time, we were in discussions. A group of us got together to ask the governments to save our streets. The effect that repeat property offences are having within communities and the revolving door—catching individuals and releasing them back into our communities—not only affects our RCMP; it also affects our local bylaws, our fire departments, our DKAs and basically our individuals who are trying to right the wrongs that are happening continually within our community.

We had a forum a week ago in Kelowna where about 300 businesses came together. The concern was consistent. The expense associated with making repairs due to the individuals who are continually breaking glass and stealing things from their store or these repeat offenders within the community is slowly deteriorating downtown cores across the country. Somehow, something needs to be put up to stop this from continually happening.

The continuation of this without addressing it one way or another continues to deteriorate exactly what we're trying to do within our country, which is to make our economics that much stronger with prosperity through many different areas. The effects are great, but they're not just great for my community. There are continually individuals throughout communities—British Columbia and any other province throughout this country—who don't have one, two or three offences on them, but have hundreds of offences on them. Once they do get charged, they just don't show up for their actual hearing.

Bringing this together and the completion of this will mean a lot. It's just vitally important.

(1640) Patricia Lattanzio :

My next question is for you, Mr. Campbell. Before I ask you the question, I just want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the frontline workers in Toronto. Recent statistics show significant progress, including a 47.1% decrease in homicides, a 24.8% decrease in auto theft and a 19.5% decrease in robberies. On behalf of the government, we thank you and your members for the work that has contributed to these outstanding outcomes. Building on that progress, can you speak to how federal measures, like those in Bill C-14 that focus on strengthening bail and sentencing for repeated and violent offenders, can help support continued reductions in serious crimes?

Clayton Campbell :

We go to a lot of town halls with city councillors. We've been to some with the Conservative Party. We went to one just recently with Ruby Sahota . It is the theme in Toronto. Public safety is still an issue. It's usually number one in polling. We're seeing the numbers come down. We don't want to celebrate too much right away, but we need to be happy about it. I think a lot of it has to do with some reinvestment in public safety. The police service was underfunded for many years. We're seeing the number of police officers and special constables really increase.

I think it sends a message to the public that the government's listening and getting something done. No bill is perfect. There's not everything in it that we wanted, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. It will help us, hopefully, to keep some of these repeat violent offenders in custody. They've caused some really horrific things in the city of Toronto over the last number of years.

Patricia Lattanzio :

The law itself can't solve all the issues. On that, policing outcomes depend on the full administration of justice, including courts, prosecutions and corrections. Can you speak to some of the challenges that officers encounter in Ontario related to the broader justice system, and why federal and provincial governments need to continue working together to sustain and build on recent progress?

Clayton Campbell :

I think for Ontarians, for Torontonians, we see the government sitting down with our premier and having conversations—the same thing with the mayor of the City of Toronto. I think it's something everybody wants. We want to have safe and healthy communities. We want to go about our daily business without fear of crime. You mentioned some of the statistics. If you look at places like our TTC, our transit system, you see there is still a lot of fear of crime in the community. I think when you see everybody working together—disagreeing, debating—that's good.

Hopefully we will see the passing of Bill C-14 in some form. Again, we talked about the data—come back and review it at another time. If it hasn't had the impact everybody's looking for, then let's make changes in the future as well.

Patricia Lattanzio :

Bill C-14 is focused on the federal government's role in setting the criminal law framework from a policing perspective. How important is it that bail rules clearly address repeated high-risk offending, so officers can better manage the risk in collective communities?

(1645) Clayton Campbell :

It's been a long ongoing frustration. We're talking about a decade of frustration where we're seeing the same individuals repeatedly, time and time again. In Toronto, we're seeing some horrific crimes, such as people out on bail for shooting somebody only then to commit a murder. I think making these changes and trying to keep repeat violent offenders in custody is going to send a message to my members too, that the federal government is listening. I can say for both the Conservatives and the Liberal Party, it's been a great consultative process. We and our members feel like we've been listened to, and our ideas and suggestions have been included in this bill.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. Fortin, we'll go over to you.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Dyas, Ms. Veresuk and Mr. Campbell, thank you for joining us today. Following the example of my colleagues, I too would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of my team. Last year, one of my employees celebrated her tenth anniversary with my team and another celebrated her fifth. I want to thank Isabelle and Mireille for working with me. It's always important. That said, I'll turn to you, Mr. Campbell. Obviously, we've talked a great deal about Bill C‑14 . It concerns bail, but also youth criminal justice. I would like to hear your comments on this.

The Supreme Court has already stated that youth who commit crimes are entitled to a presumption of diminished moral culpability in comparison with adults. Given their age, they have heightened vulnerability, less maturity and a reduced capacity for moral judgment. Do you agree with this statement?

[ English ]

Clayton Campbell :

We do, although we've proposed that in a small number of limited offences—we're talking about murders, attempted murder, shootings—there should be provisions for adult sentencing. Also, with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, something you brought up, which I hadn't thought of when I was here before, there are consequences for adults recruiting youth. I was happy to see that it has made its way into Bill C-16 . I can hardly keep track of all the numbers, but I think that recommendation was in there.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

I understand that, in all cases, you consider that young people who commit crimes such as murder should be prosecuted in adult courts. Any distinctions must be made on a case‑by‑case basis, depending on the individual.

[ English ]

Clayton Campbell :

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but in some of our discussions and recommendations, if they're showing behaviour that they planned it, that it was premeditated, that they're acting as an adult, we thought that should be something that's considered. It's definitely not that we want the majority of youth...but when we're seeing someone who murders somebody back out in three to four years or less, committing very serious offences, that's unacceptable.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

Do you believe in the rehabilitation system, Mr. Campbell? In your opinion, is it unrealistic or is it possible to rehabilitate individuals?

[ English ]

Clayton Campbell :

Absolutely. In 99% of the cases with youth, but it's just that small number of youth committing.... Say you're walking in downtown Toronto and you kill somebody with a hammer, and it's premeditated. You need to stay in custody because you're going to get back out and continue those offences. It's a small number.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

I gather that you agree that rehabilitation is possible in 99% of cases. I'll move on to another question. Bill C‑14 proposes to allow police officers, in urgent situations, to publish information that identifies young people who committed an indictable offence. I would like to hear your comments on this. Do you think that it's a good idea to allow police officers to do so, or should they ask a court for permission first?

[ English ]

Clayton Campbell :

I don't have the language in front of me. I think if it's a grave, immediate danger—it's pretty limiting language—the police can get that information out right away. It's imperative. I get that there needs to be a court order in other cases, but if there's an immediate, grave risk to public safety, I think it's really good that we can get that information out quickly.

(1650) [ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

I gather that you can't think of any examples of situations experienced by your team, which includes 8,500 members, involving an urgent need to publish information without consulting or obtaining authorization from a judge or court. You can't think of any examples.

[ English ]

Clayton Campbell :

I can definitely get you some examples. I can follow up on that. When there's an urgent need with a youth who is out there, committing violence, we know their identity and we need to get that to the public immediately. I can get you some examples. Definitely.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

I apologize for insisting. You don't need to answer me, of course. However, I would like to know whether you have an example in mind for us.

[ English ]

Clayton Campbell :

I don't have one offhand, no.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

In terms of bail data, most experts say that it's difficult for them to do their job. They don't have the data to determine whether recidivism has occurred and to assess the effectiveness of the bail. You touched on this topic a bit with my colleague earlier. I would like to hear your comments on this. In your opinion, is it possible and feasible to obtain data from all the provinces, or at least from you in Ontario?

[ English ]

Clayton Campbell :

I don't know if I'd have the answer to it. I just know that with anything you do, you want to measure it. If there's going to be a new piece of legislation, clearly, you're going to want to track whether it's effective. For the process of how that would be done, I don't have an idea offhand, but I think it's important to look at and try to do it.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Mr. Dyas, I would like to ask you the same question. In your opinion, is it possible to share data on recidivism or bail effectiveness?

[ English ]

Tom Dyas :

I hope it ends up being.... I heard it correctly; the question came through. It was about the sharing of data for repeat offences and bail. The awareness I have on this is that when individuals are repeatedly committing offences, that information is obtained and held within the court system. At this point in time, individuals are coming before the courts and that information is not readily available and shared appropriately with the judge or the person who is making the future decisions about whether that individual should receive bail or not. We feel it is appropriate that the information be looked upon.

It goes back to the reference I mentioned of 15 individuals in Kelowna in 2024 who had 1,336 offences. Each of them had 80 situations of reoccurrences with police files within one year, and they continued repeatedly to not be held accountable for those situations.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Dyas. I might have to cut off the staff appreciation extensions. Otherwise, the meeting might go on a lot longer. I know I started it. It's my fault. We're all very incredibly grateful. Mr. Gill, it's over to you for five minutes, sir.

Amarjeet Gill (Brampton West, CPC) :

Good afternoon everyone. Thanks to all the witnesses. Mayor Dyas, thank you for your public service. Right now, repeat offenders are causing a disproportionate amount of crime in your community. Is that correct?

Tom Dyas :

Yes, that is correct.

Amarjeet Gill :

Based on what you see in your community, do you agree that Bill C-14 , as currently drafted, still leaves repeat offenders free to continue harming communities?

Tom Dyas :

With reverse onus, with them being held responsible for their repetitive charges, there may be a couple of conditions I mentioned in my comments with regard to adding repeat property offences in there, so there could be some adjustments to Bill C-14 as it sits right now. I'll go back to what Clayton said. There are communities, municipalities and cities throughout this whole country that need this addressed. It's affecting businesses and our residents. It may not be, at this particular time, exactly the way it needs to be. I think that would come to a future discussion to add it, but it does need to be addressed.

(1655) Amarjeet Gill :

Would you support strengthening Bill C-14 to further reduce repeat crime?

Tom Dyas :

As I mentioned, there are a few items with regard to reverse onus and adding property and a couple of items in there. However, as I said in my comments, we are grateful, and we're hopeful that this committee and both parties are successful in moving this forward and in continuing to answer those questions.

Amarjeet Gill :

Based on Kelowna's experience, would you agree that, after multiple bail breaches or repeat offences, public safety should take precedence over continued release and that the law should clearly reflect that threshold?

Tom Dyas :

Public safety should definitely take precedence over release.

Amarjeet Gill :

Thank you. Mr. Campbell, do you believe that judges should be required, rather than merely encouraged, to consider an accused person's prior offence when deciding whether to grant bail?

Clayton Campbell :

Yes, they should.

Amarjeet Gill :

In your comments, you mentioned that no bill is perfect. Do you think Bill C-14 still needs specific measures to strengthen it?

Clayton Campbell :

As I said, we would encourage, at a minimum, that it pass in its current form, but there are some things we asked for that weren't in it. We asked for strengthening things around sureties. We supported the “three strikes and you're out” provision in there. We want to see some tracking and some data that can come back to us. The parole system itself needs some work, and I had some conversations with the public safety minister on that. We would like to see some changes in that.

As I mentioned, a small number of youths committing murder and other heinous acts should be treated as adults and should be sentenced more severely. Those are some things we didn't see. As I said, no bill is perfect. We support it in its current form. If some things were added, we would support that too.

Amarjeet Gill :

You might know that Conservatives have supported a jail not bail act, C-242 , which has addressed surety, where criminals should not vouch for criminals for surety purposes. Do you agree with that as well?

Clayton Campbell :

Yes. We put forward, in our recommendations, as our starting point, that if someone was convicted of a criminal offence, it should be strongly considered whether they could be a surety or not. If they're in a position of power, as an example, or if they've been a surety in the past and someone breached their conditions, they may not qualify for being a surety.

Amarjeet Gill :

Thank you. Ms. Veresuk, under Bill C-14 , extortion punishments are not standard. Mandatory minimum sentences are not introduced. In your view, are mandatory minimums necessary to better protect businesses from extortion, especially in cases of targeted and repeat offences?

The Chair :

You have time for a very short answer.

Judith Veresuk :

I think any and all tools that help support the prosecution and deterrence of some of these actions that have now cropped up as more commonplace in our downtowns, including extortion, are things we need to explore. If it is not included in Bill C‑14 now—as my colleague here has stated, no bill is perfect—let's continue to come at it. Let's see what's working, see what's not, see what still needs to be addressed, and then address it in the future.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Dhillon.

Anju Dhillon (Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today and highlighting the importance of passing Bill C‑14 as quickly as possible. As you said, Ms. Veresuk, it's not easy to get everything in a bill, but we should start somewhere. Mr. Campbell, you mentioned that you were happy with the consultative process and were quite satisfied. You would like to see this go through. You specifically mentioned that first responders and frontline police officers were affected by this bill and that it would bring them a certain level of safety as well in their work. Can you please talk to us a little bit more about that?

(1700) Clayton Campbell :

Yes. We were very pleasantly surprised to see first responders, paramedics and firefighters included at sentencing. That has to be considered as an aggravating factor. We work very well with the paramedics union, CUPE 416, and the Toronto firefighters union as well. They were all very supportive of this. I think it sends a really a strong message, too, that first responders are out there risking their lives in helping people. It really should be taken more seriously if they're the subject of a criminal offence or an assault.

Anju Dhillon :

As well, different categories have been added with reverse onus. There's violent auto theft. With these kinds of categories, how much more efficient—I won't say easier—will it make police work?

Clayton Campbell :

I think adding reverse onus provisions is important. We did see that with Bill C‑48 , I believe. The challenge is that I don't know if they were applied. Hopefully, some of the clarifying language in Bill C‑14 will help justices and judges apply the reverse onus properly. Yes, we're supportive of the increase with regard to reverse onus crimes.

Anju Dhillon :

Perfect. Thank you so much. Ms. Veresuk, you mentioned during your testimony that in bail reform, reverse onus is also important and something that you'd like to see. Every first minister has now called on Parliament to quickly take action. From a downtown business perspective, what does it mean to see Parliament put this bill through?

Judith Veresuk :

We're thrilled. This is something that we have been directly impacted by, even more so since the pandemic, when we started to see criminality rise in all our downtowns across Canada. It really is taking a toll, not just financially but also mentally on a lot of our retailers and storefronts. I have testimony from my colleague who operates a restaurant in the lobby of my building. She says she was physically assaulted last winter, and is verbally harassed almost every day at work. Staff feel unsafe when they're working, especially if there's a disturbance in the lobby.

They see drug usage at their back door, which makes their staff feel unsafe when they're heading out to their cars at the end of the day. This is daily. This is a significant restaurant in our downtown that is on the verge of closing. They're tenuous now. They can't keep staff, because the staff are worried about being assaulted. They're also not making any money, because patrons are scared to come down. This is just reflective of a lot of what we're seeing in small businesses across Canada. This is just a drop in the bucket. So yes, we are extremely supportive of this bill.

Any tools we can give to our communities to help enforce this and reduce crime in our communities will benefit our businesses and our downtowns.

Anju Dhillon :

Thank you so much. Mr. Dyas, you mentioned that people are not showing up to their court appearances and the importance of this bill when it comes to that. Also, can you talk to us about cities asking for clearer federal direction on bail for repeat and violent offences? How can Parliament move forward with Bill C-14 and give municipalities the confidence to know that action is being taken?

Tom Dyas :

As the other panellists have said here, the advancement of Bill C-14 itself shows that Parliament is taking action. It may not have everything that everyone wants within it at this particular point in time, but that's part of the process of then continuing communication and working on it. To have individuals within our community like the one I mentioned who had over 30 appearances but was not showing up for court, with no repercussions, with no regard to any of that actually taking place, other than going back out into our community and causing more disturbances....

Residents within these communities feel threatened. They're looking at the justice system itself and saying that there is nothing within the justice system: Where does it come from? Who is going to truly help us? We don't want to ever see it get to a point of any vigilantism or anything along those lines, but regrettably, the reality of it is that they feel at wit's end. They don't know how to move forward. Bill C-14 and the steps you're discussing give people hope that there's change on the horizon. It may not be exactly what everybody wants, but it gives people hope that, yes, people are listening.

There are so many frontline workers and so many families who own businesses and everything else who are affected. If I may add—

(1705) The Chair :

Thank you. I'm sorry. We're tight on time.

Tom Dyas: Thank you, Chair. My apologies.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Fortin, it's over to you for two and a half minutes.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Campbell, Bill C‑14 talks about adding the use or attempted use of random and unprovoked violence to the factors for the court to consider when granting bail. I would like to hear your comments on this. Is this a significant factor for the police officers? If so, could you explain a bit how this could affect the danger posed by the individual?

[ English ]

Clayton Campbell :

We were very glad to see that in this bill. In Toronto, we've seen some really horrific attacks, especially in the downtown core, completely unprovoked, with the accused and the victim not knowing each other. There has been some really disgusting violence. Yes, we're very happy to see this included in Bill C-14 .

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

What's the rough percentage of cases of random violence compared to the percentage of cases of violence committed for objective reasons?

[ English ]

Clayton Campbell :

I wouldn't have that data, but I can say that they really have an impact on public safety and on the fear of crime, especially downtown. I mentioned it before: an attack with a hammer downtown and assaulting and serious injuries. What happens is that regular citizens think that they don't want to go down there. On our TTC, as an example, where you're seeing some attacks that are unprovoked, that causes fear of crime, so the percentage isn't as relevant.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

I apologize if I'm rushing you, but my time is running out. I understand what you're saying. However, how common is this? You keep talking about a hammer attack. I understand that it's traumatic, but is it a daily, weekly or monthly occurrence? Do you see this often?

[ English ]

Clayton Campbell :

Yes, definitely in our transit system. If you take the TTC and you go down there, there are a lot of individuals.... A lot of it is mental health and addiction. There has been some investment by the municipality into the TTC, but yes, I think it's a common occurrence to see some unprovoked violence from unknown offenders. The numbers say one thing, but we still see the fear of crime as being the number one priority in the city of Toronto. Really, those unprovoked and unknown attacks create a lot of fear in the community.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fortin. Mr. Lawton, it's over to you for five minutes.

Andrew Lawton (Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for being here. I'd like to start with you, Ms. Veresuk. You are not from my riding or my province, but I know that you've spoken to a lot of the concerns that have been raised. I was speaking about this issue last year with Paul Jenkins of the St. Thomas Chamber of Commerce. One of the things he pointed out some years back was how his chamber was one of those that were really pushing other chambers in Ontario and Canada to start realizing that crime and justice issues are business issues and economic issues. I'm wondering if you can speak to what that cost is.

I've heard from constituent businesses of mine about the issues they have with insurance. Just in driving down the street, I've seen that more businesses have vacated cores entirely. Especially with small and medium-sized businesses in mind, what is that cost?

Judith Veresuk :

I have a cost for our community that we've been able to track as a whole. I will give you some anecdotal information here. We have one local landlord who had to spend over $3 million converting a parkade to seal it. They were running into significant property damage and vehicle break-ins because people could get into that garage. Now they've had to put up gates and secure doors for $3 million. A perpetrator was caught shoplifting and activating fire alarms in our downtown mall. One evening, she stole a taxi and drove it into the storefront of a local business, and then she drove through the mall.

That was $2 million worth of damage. It becomes astronomical when you add up what people are reporting plus what people aren't reporting to you. Those are the folks who have raised it with us, but there are so many others whose windows have been broken but have stopped going to insurance because the insurance is going up.

(1710) Andrew Lawton :

It is happening in communities of all sizes. I mentioned St. Thomas. Part of London is in my riding. I've spoken about this with Kristen Duever at the London Chamber of Commerce. It's in big cities and small communities. It's everywhere. Mr. Campbell, I wanted to get you to speak to this, if you will. I'm sure you've heard, probably with some frustration, when property crime has been diminished as non-violent crime, often it doesn't stay that way. I was hoping you could speak to how property crime fits into the broader fabric of the types of offences we're talking about, especially with the bail system.

Clayton Campbell :

Property crimes are destructive. You were just mentioning damage to homes and businesses. When you create that disorder, I think it feeds into the fear of crime, as you see things that are destroyed or see that people won't go into certain businesses or parks. Yes, I think it has a real impact on the fear of crime.

Andrew Lawton :

Mayor Dyas, I don't know if you meant it as an amendment formally, but you proposed a change to the bill. I was hoping you could be a bit more specific about what you would like to see added and where.

Tom Dyas :

It is with regards to property and repeat offences including the phrase “property offences”. If I may touch upon your previous question, as a community, we did a study over three years, and our cost as a community was about $20 million to deal with all of the effects related to this. That expense is translated through to all of the businesses as they continue to incur expense. When we do our budgets as municipalities, nowhere in our line items do they have anything to do with that. It's an additional cost that is not allowing us to spend that capital on the infrastructure that municipalities need.

Andrew Lawton :

Thank you. I yield to Mr. Brock.

Larry Brock :

Thank you, colleague. Chair, I filed a motion last week. At this time, I'd like to move that motion. The motion reads:

That, at the conclusion of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑14 , the committee immediately proceed to the consideration of Bill C‑16 .

This is consistent with messaging not only from the Prime Minister last week but also from our Minister of Justice , Sean Fraser.

The Chair :

I think I'll dismiss the witnesses, if that's okay. We're moving on to some other business, so let me say thank you to all three of you not only for being here but for your service generally. We're all incredibly grateful. I know I speak for everybody in this room and beyond this room at large too. I appreciate it. Mr. Lawton, go ahead.

Andrew Lawton :

Thank you. I don't want to take a lot of time. This is really just a housekeeping motion to ensure that our committee priorities are where I think Canadians expect them to be. I just want to point out that Conservatives have been—and I'm very grateful for this—extremely productive in this Parliament. We've supported the quick passage of Bill C‑19 , the grocery benefit, and C‑14 , which we're working on now and will finish today. We are very committed to that, prioritizing bail reform.

We saw Bill C‑18 , which is Canada-Indonesia free trade, Bill C‑13 , which is Canada-U.K. free trade, and Bill C‑5 , the major projects law. This is very much in that spirit and in the spirit of collaboration. We want to make sure that Bill C‑16 is similarly prioritized as we were finally able to do with Bill C‑14 . Again, in the spirit of collaboration here, to quote the Prime Minister from earlier today, “to pass the legislation Canadians are counting on”.... . I just want to make sure that we have absolute clarity on this. We're not going to be debating this, but I want to propose an amendment to Mr.

Brock's motion, and this has been translated already. We'll send it around. That the motion be amended by replacing the words “the committee immediately proceed to the consideration of Bill C‑16 ”, with the following: “the next priority of the committee be the consideration of Bill C‑16, provided that: “no fewer than eight meetings, totalling at least 16 hours, be provided for the purposes of receiving witness testimony, wherein the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety be invited to appear for one hour each on separate panels.

The witnesses include victims and their advocates, police services and associations, municipal leaders and any other witnesses the committee deems relevant; “the chair only be permitted to

schedule a meeting for the purposes of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill after both the ministers of Justice and Public Safety appear as prescribed in this motion; “the number of hours of witness testimony received is at least equal to the number of is described in this motion and the Minister of Justice has separately appeared on his mandate and priorities for two hours as unanimously requested by the committee on September 23, 2025.” Thank you.

(1715) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lawton. We have Ms. Lattanzio and then Mr. Housefather.

Patricia Lattanzio :

It's okay, Mr. Chair. We're ready to vote.

Anthony Housefather :

I'm just going to say one thing, Mr. Chair, since I have the floor. First of all, there was a deal made last week, which the Conservatives voted for, that said we were going to move to Bill C‑14 . We were going to do three meetings on Bill C‑14, and we would have moved immediately back to clause-by-clause on Bill C‑9 , the combatting hate act, which is

an act that not only do I care deeply about but communities across the country care deeply about. We have voted for that and we have made the deal to move back to the combatting hate act. [ Translation ] It's funny. My colleague, Mr. Fortin, told me that this would probably happen. Despite all this, now the Conservatives aren't abiding by the deal that they made. It's terrible. They're now trying to tell the committee that we can't study Bill C‑9 . [ English ] I'm against Mr. Lawton's amendment, which would essentially delay the combatting hate act for generations.

I think it is important for communities across the country to know that the Conservatives have not only gone against the motion that we passed one week ago, where they voted for going back to C‑9 , the combatting hate act's clause-by-clause, in return for doing three meetings and clause-by-clause on this, but they are essentially seeking to delay the combatting hate act forever. I'm against Mr. Lawton's amendment, and I'm appalled.

The Chair :

We have Mr. Lawton and then Mr. Brock.

Andrew Lawton :

Thank you. It's just a very quick point. Bill C‑16 was referred to this committee just this week. We have heard from countless stakeholders, including some of the witnesses who testified here today, about how important that bill is. We heard on our earlier bail study from victims about some of the measures that are in Bill C‑16. We have that bill referred to this committee now. There is a lot more consensus from Canadians about this, and I think they are expecting us to get it done.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

Larry Brock :

I'd like to take exception to some of the comments from Mr. Housefather. I thought some of his language was rather inflammatory, prescribing ill motive to our Conservative motion. I echo Mr. Lawton's comments. When that agreement was brokered, Bill C-16 had not been referred to the committee. I circle back to my earlier comments with respect to moving my original motion.

This is exactly what the Prime Minister of Canada and our justice minister, Sean Fraser , referenced, both in the House of Commons and outside the House of Commons, in that the priority would be the passage of these two justice bills: Bill C-14 and Bill C-16 . There was no mention by Sean Fraser or Prime Minister Carney about prioritizing Bill C-9 over Bill C-14, or Bill C-9 now over Bill C-16. It's not just Conservatives who want this priority; it's what Canadians have been asking for for 10 long years. It's what stakeholders, premiers, mayors, law enforcement and victim advocacy groups have been asking for.

This is what they're asking for. We are not suggesting that we will forever not return to Bill C-9 . It is only the beginning of February. Absent our break weeks over the next several months, we are not rising for the summer vacation until the second or third week in June. We're not asking for a full-on, multimonth extension of consideration of Bill C-16 . We will work as collaboratively and co-operatively as possible to move Bill C-16 through the process, absent any other priority bill that Sean Fraser introduces.

I know he's talking about an online harms bill, which, again, may take priority from the perspective not only of our justice minister, but of the Prime Minister . We have ample time before we rise for our summer vacation to return to Bill C-9 . Thank you.

(1720) The Chair :

Mr. Fortin.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I speak, I would like to make a request to clarify my understanding. I don't know whether it's possible for the clerk to provide the text of the motion that we adopted last week. As I recall, the motion stated that we would study Bill C‑14 and that we would look at Bill C‑9 again as soon as we had finished. I would just like the text of the motion to make sure that I'm being accurate and sticking to the facts. That said, Mr. Housefather is right. I'm a fairly optimistic person. However, unfortunately, the facts are sometimes so clear that it's hard to remain optimistic.

I did tell him that we must be naive to believe that the Conservatives would let us look at Bill C‑9 again. They just don't want us to work on the bill that fights hate. I must say, that's a bit sad. Unfortunately, I must take issue with what our friend, Mr. Brock, just said. Not all Canadians want us to set aside the bill to combat hate. On the contrary, I think that it's an important bill. Bill C‑14 is vital, as is Bill C‑16 . However, Bill C‑9 is also vital. Right now, throughout Quebec and the rest of Canada, and even around the world, we're seeing more and more population movements.

We're facing unprecedented migration flows. We face the challenge of organizing our societies to ensure that all these people can live together in peace and harmony. I'm not saying that newcomers are to blame for the problems. On the contrary, the issues are often our own fault. We either don't adapt well, or we don't adapt well to the newcomers. We need to organize our societies. I'm thinking of situations where we see hatred, or where hatred is fomented. We were talking about demonstrations outside mosques, churches, synagogues and other places.

We've seen demonstrations where people tried to prevent individuals from entering their place of worship. It isn't right. There have been fairly frequent news reports of situations in schools involving broken windows or violence against children. I think that the entire population of Canada and Quebec needs a slightly clearer framework. We already had relatively clear legislation. We now need an even clearer framework to ensure that peace is maintained and that people can live in harmony and show respect for one another. People are counting on us, because our job is to serve as legislators.

We may forget this from time to time. However, it's our job to draft legislation and to do so as constructively and effectively as possible. It's for the benefit of our constituents. It's for the benefit of the entire population. I don't agree with everything in Bill C‑9 , just as I don't agree with everything in Bill C‑14 . I probably won't agree with everything in Bill C‑16 or in any of the other bills that we'll be studying.

That said, I consider it my job to try to work on a bill and to make it as consistent as possible with what I believe constitutes the legal framework necessary for us to live together in harmony. I would like us to work on Bill C‑9 to give our constituents what they deserve and what we owe them. We owe them the most effective legislative framework possible. It must address as closely as possible the concerns of our Conservative friends and colleagues, but also my own concerns and the concerns of our Liberal friends and colleagues, the people of Quebec, the Bloquistes and everyone else.

Everyone will try to put their own interests first, to some extent. That's normal when we're working on bills of this nature. However, refusing to study them and putting them off indefinitely means refusing to do our job. It's refusing to do the task that we were elected to carry out. I think that everyone in this Parliament is acting in good faith. I've often said, even to journalists, that I've encountered plenty of people whom I've disagreed with on Parliament Hill over the past 10 years. However, I've never met anyone who was here to cause trouble. I think that people are here in good faith.

We each have our own vision, our own political agenda and our own point of view. We stand by these things, which is normal. After all, that's why we were elected. I think that we're all basically people of good faith who make proposals for the benefit of the public.

(1725) Today, we're coming here and saying that we won't be working on Bill C‑9 , when the committee has already postponed this study for three meetings to work on Bill C‑14 . Incidentally, I deplore how we rushed through the study of Bill C‑14. We're talking about a crucial bill that will change the reality for many people. We're talking about sending people to prison. This isn't a trivial matter. This bill would have warranted more than three meetings. Perhaps we should have taken a few days, or even a week, after the testimonies for the clause‑by‑clause consideration.

It's also important to do this step properly. I accepted the idea of postponing the study by three days, even though I wasn't in favour of it. Unfortunately, as I suspected, we're now in a situation where our Conservative colleagues are again proposing to postpone the study, this time by eight meetings. Eight meetings means four weeks. We know what the House of Commons spring

schedule looks like. I hesitate to call it light, because we'll still be working hard. However, let's just say that we won't be sitting much. After this week, we'll have next week. We then have a parliamentary break for a week, after which we'll be back for a week. I can't remember the exact order, but there aren't many sitting weeks. If we accept our Conservative colleagues' motion and postpone the study for eight weeks, this will take us to some point in April, if not later. I don't want to sound skeptical or pessimistic.

However, I suspect that, after these eight weeks, another motion will be introduced asking us to move on to something else. I'm thinking, for example, of the bill to amend the Divorce Act with regard to parents exercising control over their children. I don't remember the term.

(1730) Patricia Lattanzio :

Are you talking about coercive control?

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

It isn't coercive control, but no matter. This bill will be referred to our committee today or tomorrow. Many other bills will be coming in. While they're all important, people will always say that they're more important than the bill to combat hate. The entire population has been dealing with the hate issue on a daily basis for a number of months, if not years. Unfortunately, it won't stop. So, I would like us to carry out our study of Bill C‑9. We already finished the testimonies. We started the clause‑by‑clause consideration, and we adopted a certain number of clauses.

It may take us another hour or two to complete it. It seems that, even if we don't like everything in this bill, we should be able to recognize that a bill to fight hate is important. We should work on the bill and complete our study in order to give our constituents, when the House adjourns in March, a better bill than the current one. You can see that I'm opposed to the motion put forward by our colleague, Mr. Brock. I'm also opposed to the amendment. I can't remember whether it was moved by Mr. Lawton or Mr. Baber, but no matter. I agree that we should do this work when we have finished the study of Bill C‑9.

I think that postponing the study of this bill by a few months runs contrary to the mandate that we received from our constituents.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thanks, Mr. Fortin. Mr. Brock is next, but before that, the gist of this motion and amendment is to defer Bill C-9 until we deal with Bill C-16 . I think we're all in agreement that we need to deal with Bill C-14 . Our positions on this motion have been explained pretty clearly. We can stay here and debate all night. You're free to do that and I don't want to stop anybody from doing that. I just want to remind people that we do have witnesses in the room for the next panel. Out of respect for them, I would encourage people, if they have something to be said that hasn't already been said, to do so. Otherwise, I hope we can move forward. Mr. Brock.

Larry Brock :

I think it's Mr. Baber who had the floor.

The Chair :

I'm sorry. Mr. Baber, go ahead.

Roman Baber (York Centre, CPC) :

I'll be quick. Canadians elected a minority Parliament and they expect all parties to work together. I do not understand the reaction by the government members of this committee when they received an offer from the Conservatives to work together and pass Bill C-16 , which was just referred to our committee. Bill C-16 , while not perfect, includes some important provisions regarding the Jordan principle. We have cases being dismissed for delay every day of the week, serious cases at times. It catches up on child protection, something that everybody on this committee is very passionate about.

We have debated Bill C-16 for a handful of days in the House of Commons at second reading before the bill was allowed to move through to this committee. You now have an offer from the Conservative side to work together to pass Bill C-16 fairly expeditiously, similar to the manner in which we've been working on Bill C-14 . I don't understand why the Liberal government is now standing in the way of its own crime legislation and apparently filibustering Bill C-16.

The Chair :

Mr. Brock.

Larry Brock :

I wholeheartedly endorse the comments from Mr. Baber because that's exactly what's transpiring before us. With respect to Monsieur Fortin's comments about our limited

schedule between now and our summer break, there's also a possibility, Chair, we could look at additional sitting days throughout the week. We could prioritize this. We're willing to work with the government to ensure that we have a number of witnesses as set out in the amended motion so that we can hear from all the subject matter experts throughout this country and prioritize exactly what has been plaguing Canadians and what has been plaguing law enforcement. With respect to Mr. Housefather's comments about Canadians wanting to deal with Bill C-9 , yes and no.

Canadians I have heard from, religious leaders I have heard from, religious leaders Mr. Baber and Mr. Lawton have heard from, and from Mr. Gill's perspective, right across this country never saw fit that this Liberal government that introduced Bill C-9 would then make a deal with the Bloc Québécois to put into play the removal of a religious defence that has been available to religious leaders for over four decades.

We've heard loud and clear with respect to hands off our freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and this is the path this Liberal government has chosen to take to not prioritize what the Prime Minister wants them to prioritize. Perhaps they need to be talking to the Prime Minister himself or the PMO, because this is exactly the messaging he delivered inside and outside the House. We're willing to work collaboratively to get the job done for Canadians.

The Chair :

Okay, I think we're ready to vote. Sorry, Mr. Fortin, please go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

I had my hand up, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I asked earlier for the text of the motion we adopted. I received it, and I'd like to read it for everyone, because that's what we decided last week. I think it deserves to be looked at. The motion proposed that the committee pause the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑9 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), which we were in the process of doing. The motion also proposed that the committee allocate three meetings to consideration of Bill C‑14 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), beginning at its next meeting. The motion then proposed that the committee not adjourn its third meeting on Bill C‑14, which is this one, until clause-by-clause consideration of the bill is complete. Finally, the part of the motion that I want to remind everyone of is that at the meeting following the completion of clause-by-clause of Bill C‑14, the committee resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑9.

That is what our Conservative and Liberal colleagues and myself unanimously decided last week. We can't change our minds every week unless our Conservative colleagues can explain what's happened since last Monday. Did something incredible happen to change everything and render invalid what we decided Monday of last week? This is almost a point of order, Mr. Chair. We need to abide by our decision and finish the study of Bill C‑9. Regarding Mr. Brock's proposal to add days, if he can guarantee there won't be any systematic obstruction, I'd agree to take an extra day next week to finish our study of Bill C‑9.

However, we really have to do it. There will be no postponing the study for eight weeks or putting it off indefinitely. Once again, Monday of last week, we decided to work on Bill C‑9 starting at our next meeting. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1735) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fortin. Mr. Lawton.

Andrew Lawton :

Mr. Fortin asked what changed. Very simply it's the referral of Bill C-16 to the justice committee. That has always been a priority bill. We have spoken out very supportively of the intent of the bill. We have witnesses lined up ready to testify and there is consensus. We are eager to move forward in the spirit of collaboration.

The Chair :

We'll put the amendment to a vote. (Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

The Chair: Ms. Lattanzio.

Patricia Lattanzio :

I'd like to bring forward an amendment. Just before I do, nothing has changed from last week. I'm glad that Mr. Fortin asked for the reading of the motion because Bill C‑16 had already been referred to this committee before we voted unanimously to proceed on Bill C‑9 .

My amendment is as follows: “That, at the conclusion of the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑14 , the return to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑9 , as agreed to on January 26, 2026, and if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑9 by 1 p.m. on February 9, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, and the chair shall put the question forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑9, and that the committee begin consideration of Bill C‑16 at the next meeting following the completion of clause-by-clause of Bill C‑9.” I will send a copy to the clerk immediately.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Roman Baber :

I have a point of order. This is subject to further comments that may be made with respect to whether Ms. Lattanzio's motion is indeed in order. I'd like the chair to please consider that, in my view, the proposed amendment by Ms. Lattanzio is not in order in that she disposes with process and privilege of these members to consider clause-by-clause and argue clause-by-clause. Further to the request to suspend, please advise if the motion is in order or out of order.

The Chair :

The motion is receivable.

Andrew Lawton :

On the same point of order, I would urge the reconsideration of the point of order. The amendment addresses a bill that's not in the main motion, so it is out of scope as an amendment, given the motion that was put forward.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lawton. We'll suspend now.

(1735) (1755) The Chair :

I'd like to call this meeting back to order, please. We were waiting to circulate Ms. Lattanzio's amendment, which has now been done. There was a question as to whether that amendment was acceptable. I ruled that it was.

An hon. member: Challenge.

An hon. member: Point of order.

The Chair :

What do you want, a challenge or a point of order?

Roman Baber :

I have a point of order on a different ground with respect to Ms. Lattanzio's motion.

The Chair :

We're dealing with this first.

Roman Baber :

I'm saying that the motion is not receivable.

The Chair :

It's a different ground. We're dealing with the point of order.

Larry Brock :

We're doing the challenge first.

The Chair :

We have to deal with one item at a time. Mr. Lawton has challenged my ruling. Mr. Clerk.

The Clerk of the Committee (Jean-François Lafleur) :

The question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained? (Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)

The Chair :

Thank you.

Roman Baber :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Yes, Mr. Baber.

Roman Baber :

The motion proposed by Ms. Lattanzio addresses a bill that is not referred to in the main motion.

The Chair :

Just so I'm clear, are you challenging the fact that this motion can be received or not?

Roman Baber :

That's correct.

The Chair :

That's already been ruled on. It's been voted on. It's been challenged and voted on. If you're just arguing the same issue, we're moving on from that.

Roman Baber :

I'm presenting a different ground.

The Chair :

It doesn't matter. You're a lawyer, Mr. Baber. I don't know how many times you go into court and a judge rules and says, “Hold on. I have another argument. It might change your mind.” That doesn't apply here either. Mr. Lawton.

Andrew Lawton :

I'd like to speak to the amendment. Conservatives on this committee came in the spirit of collaboration to address the issues that Bill C-14 deals with and the issues that Bill C-16 deals with. We have been clear, as have Canadians, that these are the priorities they expect of this committee and of the House of Commons when it comes to criminal justice. It has also been clear how much division and disagreement there is on Bill C-9 , which was why it was frustrating in the fall when our numerous attempts to prioritize bail reform were blocked and thwarted by Liberal members of Parliament.

I had hoped that in the new year, we would be able to have this reorientation, and I was encouraged by our ability to dedicate—it should have been more, as Monsieur Fortin said—three meetings to deal with Bill C-14 . I will say, our Conservative team is prepared to sit here all night long until Bill C-14 is finished. We believe in this issue. On the amendment that is being proposed by Ms.

Lattanzio, not only does it downgrade Bill C-16 , the government's own bill, as being less significant, despite the fact that there is more consensus around this, it also pushes a fundamentally undemocratic demand that not only Bill C-9 be dealt with on Monday, but that all debate must end by one o'clock, and that any division, disagreement, anything we want to address to bring in from stakeholders, from constituents, if we can't get that put on the record in two hours, Canadians do not have a right to have their voices heard.

This is not just undemocratic, but it is disgraceful on a bill about which the justice minister himself said in December, in response to some of the issues that were raised about Bill C-9 , he was going to spend the winter consulting with faith leaders. There has been no report given to this committee or anyone else. There has been no formal update about what has come of those consultations. I've heard from some people who have reached out to the minister hoping their voices would be heard as part of it, who have not gotten a response.

I would note that in our study of Bill C-9, we never as a committee had the opportunity to even study the removal of the religious defence. To say that not only should we not be able to study that, but also we shouldn't even be allowed to debate it because we're going to invoke this arbitrary cut-off point where if we can't get to something by one o'clock, that's it, debate is over and we have to vote on all amendments, that is something on which no member of Parliament can look their constituents in the eye and tell them that they took the deliberative process of this committee seriously. We had hoped that Mr.

Brock's motion to prioritize Bill C-16 and stress that spirit of collaboration would be welcomed. There is a priority of justice legislation. Evidently, the Liberals do not want to get to sentencing and intimate partner violence; they do not want to get to child protection as much as they want to get to censoring religious texts. It is clear from Ms. Lattanzio's amendment where the Liberal priorities are, and that's something they'll have to own up to to Canadians.

Given that and given our seriousness about dealing with criminal justice issues that Canadians expect us to deal with, I move that the committee proceed to the consideration of witness testimony on Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act, with the second panel of witnesses.

(1800) The Chair :

What becomes of Ms. Lattanzio's amendment?

Andrew Lawton :

A motion to proceed to an item on the agenda is a dilatory motion.

Anthony Housefather :

Mr. Chair, I have a question.

The Chair :

There's no debate because it's a dilatory motion, but if it's a point of clarification to understand the motion....

Anthony Housefather :

I understand, Mr. Chair, but—

Andrew Lawton :

I have a point of order. Nowhere in the House of Commons rules on procedure does a “point of clarification” exist.

The Chair :

Well, Mr. Lawton, that may be true, but in order for people to vote, I would hope that you would afford them the opportunity to understand what it is you're proposing so that they can vote on it. That's all.

Larry Brock :

I'm pretty sure Mr. Housefather understands.

The Chair :

Well, if we let him make his point, we'll find out, won't we?

Anthony Housefather :

Mr. Brock chose to bring forward his motion to go away from Bill C-14 and stop talking about it before the second panel. Why did the Conservatives choose to do it then if they want to go to the second panel? They mysteriously interfered with the testimony. I'm confused. I would just like clarification.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Patricia Lattanzio :

Mr. Chair—

Voices: [ Inaudible—Editor ]

The Chair :

Hold on, please. I'm going to suspend for one second because there are too many people talking at one time. The clerk is trying to speak to me as well. I'm going to suspend for a moment.

(1800) (1805) The Chair :

I call the meeting back to order. I've reviewed Mr. Lawton's dilatory motion. It is not receivable because it is procedurally incorrect. Therefore, we'll continue. Is there any further discussion?

Andrew Lawton :

I have a point of order. Why? Can you offer the citation of the standing order that supports that?

The Chair :

You can't bring a dilatory motion to move to do what we're already doing, which is having witnesses. You can move to move on to some other item or some other issue, but you cannot do this. It's in the rules. Is there any further discussion on Ms. Lattanzio's amendment?

Larry Brock :

If I understand correctly, Mr. Chair.... Do I have the floor?

The Chair :

Are you making a point of order, Mr. Brock?

Larry Brock :

Yes.

The Chair :

Okay, well, make that clear.

Larry Brock :

Are we going to continue to show disrespect to the witnesses on the second panel?

The Chair :

That is not a point of order, Mr. Brock. I made it very clear about 45 minutes ago that I would like to move on and get to the witnesses because they went to a lot of trouble to be here today. If people want to sit here and continue making accusations against one another, we're not going to get to a productive discussion. The issue on the floor right now is Ms. Lattanzio's amendment. Let's have one person speaking at a time, please—and I'm speaking to both sides of the table when I say that. Ms. Lattanzio's amendment is what is before us right now. If there is any further discussion on that, raise your hand. Otherwise, we are going to proceed to a vote. Mr. Baber.

Roman Baber :

Thank you. I believe the leaders of the respective parties have met today to look for a way for the opposition and the government to work together. We have had a sensible proposal made by MP Larry Brock to find a way forward and not just complete Bill C-14 today as intended. I'm going to put it on the record that Conservatives are not going to leave today until we finish bail and also proceed with the second piece of legislation that's now before the committee, that deals with crime, Bill C-16 . As I've said, Bill C-16 is not perfect. We're very concerned about the safety valve.

We're concerned about the fact that the bill actually undermines mandatory minimum sentences, as opposed to figuring out a way to strengthen them. Instead of figuring out a way forward to work co-operatively on priorities that Canadians expect us to work on, the government is ramming through a motion to essentially end debate—to create a time allocation on Bill C-9 , which is not before the committee right now. My friend Mr. Housefather has heard from Mark Sandler, who was invited here both by the Liberals and by the Conservatives. Mr.

Sandler was sitting right there, and he said that there is nothing that Bill C-9 does, that there is nothing that Bill C-9 criminalizes, that is not already criminal under the Criminal Code. Instead, what the Liberals have done is U-turned two or three times. On the religious defence, I suspect there may be some disagreement even within the Liberal caucus on Bill C-9 . We recall that initially the PMO denied any knowledge of the Bloc amendment. Where we find ourselves, instead of voting, discussing, debating and then voting clause by clause—

The Chair :

I'm sorry, Mr. Baber, Mr. Fortin has a point of order.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

Mr. Chair, I've been listening to Mr. Baber and, with all due respect, I'd like to remind everyone that the Bloc Québécois amendment on the removal of religious exemptions was debated, voted on and adopted. We were doing clause-by-clause on Bill C‑9 . So I think it's a waste of time to discuss what we did two weeks ago to see whether or not it was the right thing to do. That's one thing. The other thing is if we want to discuss Bill C‑9, we'll have to do so when we come back to that study. We're currently debating a motion to decide whether we're going to come back to Bill C‑9 or discuss Bill C‑14 .

Based on what Mr. Baber's saying, we're already discussing C‑9. So let's adopt the motion and move on. However, if we want to finish our study of C‑14, I suggest we put forth arguments on Bill C‑9 the next time we study the bill, which will be next Monday. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1810) [ English ]

The Chair :

If I may help to clarify—I'll give you the floor back, Mr. Baber—where we are is we are waiting to hear from our last panel of witnesses on Bill C-14 . We are then going to proceed to clause-by-clause. We have resources until 2:15 a.m. We do not have resources available tomorrow, but we do have resources from 11 a.m. Friday until midnight, and we will be using them if necessary, pursuant to the motion that was agreed to last week. There's a motion on the floor from Mr. Brock and an amendment proposed by Ms. Lattanzio. If Mr. Baber, Mr.

Fortin or anybody else wants to make submissions on Bill C-9 , I would suggest the contextual environment for that is when we're discussing Bill C-9, not when we're debating a motion about Bill C-14 and we're in the midst of discussion about Bill C-14. If we want to have that discussion about amendments within Bill C-9 , we can do so pursuant to what the committee agreed to last week. If we're going to discuss Ms. Lattanzio's motion, I would encourage you to do so. I would ask you to restrict your comments to that and not other bills. Thank you.

Roman Baber :

I take exception to that, Chair, because Ms. Lattanzio's motion explicitly mentions Bill C-9 . However, I'd like to turn the committee's attention to the reason we're here today, and that is to get Bill C-14 done, something the Conservatives intend to call on the committee to follow both in spirit and in the letter of the motion that got us here. Let's shelve debate; let's leave it be. Let's hear from our witnesses. Let's proceed to clause-by-clause and finish Bill C-14 tonight. That is the option I'm proposing, and to do so, I move that the debate be now adjourned. (Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Patricia Lattanzio :

Mr. Chair, I call the vote on my amendment.

Larry Brock :

I'm still recognized; I'm on the list.

Patricia Lattanzio :

How many speakers do we have on this?

The Chair :

At the moment we have one. Mr. Brock, go ahead.

Larry Brock :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect to Ms. Lattanzio's amendment, I move to adjourn debate.

The Chair :

We just voted on that. You can't bring the same dilatory motion twice in a row.

Larry Brock :

Yes, and I'm bringing it again.

The Chair :

You can't.

Larry Brock :

Why?

The Chair :

It's against the rules. That's why we discussed this. I would encourage you to speak to your people behind you. All right. Who's the next speaker? I don't have anybody on the list right now. Mr. Lawton is next and then Mr. Gill.

Andrew Lawton :

Thank you. A few minutes ago, Mr. Chair, you accurately set out where we are. We had all agreed—Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc Québécois—to deal with C-14 on an incredibly expeditious timeline. We had hoped to deal with it in the fall, but here we are. We had committed, and I'm actually still hopeful—less hopeful after the previous Liberal vote there a moment ago—that we would be able to dispense with C-14 tonight. I've had women's groups, including from my riding, reach out to me, very encouraged about the referral of Bill C-16 to committee.

I told them that I was hopeful we'd be able to get to C-16 as early as Monday. It's curious to me that the Liberals do not want that. One of the trends that we saw in the fall was Liberals holding their own justice reforms hostage behind Bill C-9 , a bill that has been steeped in division, a bill that has been denounced in whole or in part by The United Church of Canada, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Council of Imams, the rabbinical council of Toronto, the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

It's quite disturbing to me that the Liberals think they know better about faith in this country and religious freedom than all of these groups representing virtually every denomination and every faith group in this country. Why that is relevant—to reiterate my previous point—is that Ms. Lattanzio has put a guillotine on debate on Bill C-9 , which prevents any of these voices from being considered when we meet next. In doing so, she is holding up crucial reforms to sentencing that we were eager.... Again, we could work across party lines in the spirit of collaboration and deal with this.

I had been very optimistic that we would be able to hear from our second panel of witnesses, understanding that we have only had three meetings dedicated to Bill C-14 . Evidently, the Liberals did not want to hear from our witnesses, which is why they voted against Mr. Baber's motion to adjourn debate. I think that's quite shameful, but this is just what we have to deal with. We are still committed, as we always have been, to fixing the broken Liberal bail system. I understand your previous ruling about moving to something that was already on the agenda, but I'm taking my cues from your previous ruling, Mr.

Chair, and I move to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14 , a separate item on the agenda.

(1815) The Chair :

We are on clause-by-clause of C-14 .

Andrew Lawton :

No we are not. We are on witness testimony.

The Chair :

We're on witness testimony and then we're going to clause-by-clause. Are you moving to dispense with the witnesses and not hear from them?

Andrew Lawton :

Actually, I move to proceed to hearing from the witnesses, but you ruled that out of order. If you're willing to reconsider, I'm happy to move again that we hear right now from our witnesses on C-14 .

The Chair :

You've now thrown two or three things out there. Which is it?

Andrew Lawton :

Chair, with respect, I previously moved that we proceed to hearing from witnesses. You ruled that out of order. If you are not willing to accept—

The Chair :

I ruled it procedurally out of order, Mr. Lawton. That's correct, yes. What are you moving now?

Andrew Lawton :

If you will not allow that, I move that that we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14 .

The Chair :

That would require us to not hear from the witnesses. I'm asking for clarification.

Andrew Lawton :

I would love to hear from witnesses.

The Chair :

I'm asking what the effect of your motion is, Mr. Lawton. It's a very simple question.

Andrew Lawton :

That would be the effect, but I say that with reluctance because I would love to hear from the witnesses.

The Chair :

I'm asking just so we're clear, so that people know what they're about to vote on.

Andrew Lawton :

Yes, but I would prefer to hear from the witnesses.

The Chair :

You motion is that we don't hear from these two witnesses and that we move immediately clause-by-clause on C-14 .

Andrew Lawton :

Chair, you are being very playful with your words, and I think it's to serve a political purpose, with respect.

The Chair :

Mr. Lawton, do not challenge my motives or my integrity ever again, please.

Andrew Lawton :

You are trying to inject a motive in my motion.

The Chair :

I'm asking for clarification of your motion so that everybody is clear on what they're voting on.

Andrew Lawton :

With reluctance, given your previous ruling, I move to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration, which would require ending witness testimony on C-14 .

The Chair :

Thank you. That was a very easy way to get to that point, Mr. Lawton.

Patricia Lattanzio :

Mr. Chair, can we suspend for a couple of minutes?

The Chair :

Yes. The meeting is suspended.

(1815) (1835) The Chair :

I call this meeting back to order. When we suspended, we had just finished clarifying Mr. Lawton's motion. Upon reviewing it, my ruling is that it is not receivable, so we're back to Ms. Lattanzio's subamendment.

Larry Brock :

I challenge the chair's ruling.

The Chair :

That's your right. (Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)

The Chair :

We're back to Ms. Lattanzio's subamendment.

Andrew Lawton :

On a point of order, is it not an amendment from Ms. Lattanzio?

The Chair :

I'm sorry. What did I say?

Andrew Lawton :

You said subamendment.

Larry Brock :

It is a subamendment.

Andrew Lawton :

No. It's an amendment.

The Chair :

We're back to Ms. Lattanzio's amendment to Mr. Brock's motion. We voted on Mr. Lawton's amendment and now we're back on Ms. Lattanzio's amendment. Mr. Gill, I believe you have the floor.

Amarjeet Gill :

Thank you, Chair. First of all, it is important that we get to work on fixing the Liberal broken bail system. We are here to address Bill C-14 , and the panellists are also here. We must listen to them as well. It is very important, in my opinion. We are here to offer collaboration and co-operation. We heard from business owners, local politicians and law enforcement that the bail system is broken. It's an issue critical to the safety of our communities. Canadians have been clear that they want us, as parliamentarians, to work together to fix the bail system.

The Liberals have created a system that sees our streets flooded with repeat offenders released on bail hours after their arrest, only to reoffend. I have been hearing from my constituents that they are scared. They are worried about their safety. They are begging us here in Ottawa to make their streets safe and to ensure that repeat offenders are behind bars, not out on the street or out on bail. We should go to clause-by-clause on Bill C-14 and address all those things that matter most to Canadians, especially those in my riding of Brampton West.

While we on the Conservative side of the House believe that Bill C-14 is also flawed, we agree that it is an improvement over the current catch-and-release system of Bill C-75 . That is why we want the committee to move on this important bill, as our constituents are asking us to do. I will suggest that we must proceed to clause-by-clause. This is a very important bill, and that's why we are here today. This is an important matter that we are discussing. As soon as we complete, Bill C-14 , we can send it to third reading and then it can go to the Senate, and communities will feel some confidence at least.

I strongly suggest that we should go on to clause-by-clause. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Gill. I see Mr. Lawton, Ms. Lattanzio and Mr. Brock.

(1840) Andrew Lawton :

Thank you. Again, I cannot stress enough that we should be finding opportunities for collaboration and consensus whenever we can. Minister Fraser was here last week. I had hoped that he would come, and I hope he still will come at some point, for his mandate and priorities appearance that this committee agreed to in September. I note, with great interest, the Liberal deference to a motion we passed last week on Bill C-14 , but they have not been as keen to uphold the other motions we passed months ago to have the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice here.

Last week, Minister Fraser talked about what he views as a very aggressive crime-fighting agenda from the Liberal government. Of the three bills that he has introduced as justice bills—Bill C-14 , Bill C-16 and Bill C-9 —Conservatives have been very eager and willing to work on two of them with the government since the day that they were tabled. The reason we're in this situation is that the very first justice bill the Liberal government put forward was Bill C-9 , a bill that we heard testimony on from a range of groups, from civil liberties activists to labour groups.

In doing so, we heard a lot of really frustrating concerns about the bill that were not just coming from people of faith but from people who value the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—again, not voices the Liberals typically want to hear. Why this is important is that Bill C-9 got even more divisive and toxic in the committee stage when it was amended, by an amendment from Monsieur Fortin that was supported by my Liberal colleagues, to remove long-standing religious protections. That is why Conservatives have taken the position we have on Bill C-9 and have done the work we have done.

I spent much of our winter recess engaging with communities that were not consulted as part of Bill C-9, were not allowed to testify before committee and had not even been invited to weigh in on the religious defence aspect because it was introduced as an amendment. My office took the liberty of asking for people to submit unofficial briefs that, when we will deal with Bill C-9, I am going to continue to cite, because these are people who should have had their perspectives heard as part of the original consultation.

I bring this up to stress the point that it is absolutely negligent and undemocratic to try to condense all further discussion about Bill C-9 into two hours on Monday morning, which is what Ms. Lattanzio's amendment would do. By the way, I don't know the exact number, but there are numerous amendments from all parties—Conservative, Liberal and Bloc—that have been put on notice, that we cannot discuss the contents of because of parliamentary privilege. Each one of them raises important legal and political questions that we as a committee must, in doing our job, consider.

All of that has to be done in two hours and, if we don't get to it, then it automatically goes to a vote, without our ever having the chance to discuss it or to speak to the Department of Justice officials, who have been very patient through this whole process and who have a lot of very important insights to share. That is why we do not believe that it is fair or reasonable for the Liberals to hold Bill C-9 hostage behind bills that we are eager to work with them on and, as evidenced by what we've done on Bill C-14 , are willing to do. It is 6.45 p.m. Chair, you told us that we have resources until 2:15 a.m.

I have seen the amendments. I think that there is a lot of common ground among parties. I still hold out hope that we could have Bill C-14 completed tonight and sent back to the House. That is my sincere hope. This poisonous amendment from Ms. Lattanzio is yet again attempting to hold our work on Bill C-14 hostage, behind something that we cannot support on Bill C-9 . However, I am willing to have this discussion and to debate this amendment and the motion at hand, as amended or not amended. I ask for unanimous consent from this committee that we continue this discussion, in good faith, on Ms.

Lattanzio's amendment and Mr. Brock's motion, at the conclusion of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14. That would allow us to, tonight, in a matter of hours, send a bail bill back to the House of Commons for third reading. I am seeking consent that we prioritize that now, whether that is witnesses or clause-by-clause.... I would hope that we could do witnesses first, but I am seeking unanimous consent from the committee on this.

(1845) We'll continue this motion after clause-by-clause on Bill C-14 is concluded.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lawton. Do we have unanimous consent?

Patricia Lattanzio :

No.

The Chair :

Thank you. Is that the end of your submission, Mr. Lawton?

Andrew Lawton :

That was hesitant.

The Chair :

Is that the end of your submission, Mr. Lawton?

Andrew Lawton :

No. I'll just point out for the record that once again Liberals have obstructed fixing the bail system right now.

Anju Dhillon :

No they haven't.

Andrew Lawton :

Now I'm finished.

The Chair :

Next, I have Ms. Lattanzio and Mr. Brock.

Patricia Lattanzio :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have been at this for maybe close to two hours. Can I indulge and ask the clerk, Mr. Chair, how many speakers from the opposition have spoken to my amendment up until this point? I'm just curious. How many times have they taken, for example, the floor to speak to an amendment that was brought forward by—may I remind the committee here—Mr. Brock? While we were in the middle of listening to witnesses, we could have easily continued listening to witnesses this evening and carried on, on what we set out to do, which was the clause-by-clause study on Bill C-14 . What are we doing?

We are arguing over a timetable of Bill C-9 as to when we are going to conclude the study of Bill C-9. We took a unanimous decision last week to continue the study of Bill C-9 and here we are reversing course. Not only that, we have taken advantage of introducing this motion in the middle of having witnesses here. They've been very patient and I feel for you. We could have done this perhaps at the end of the meeting. But no, we need to do this now. This is classic obstruction and filibustering. They have the gall to say, “We want to pass Bill C-14 .” The actions don't reflect what they're saying. Mr.

Chair, can I just have a readout of how many people have spoken on this amendment, and how many times have they taken the floor to speak on this amendment?

The Chair :

There are four members from the Conservative Party. I'm not sure how many times they have spoken.

Larry Brock :

All four of us have spoken.

The Chair :

All four have spoken.

Patricia Lattanzio :

Over and over and over, this is not complicated. You're either for this or you're against this. Let's carry on. If your intentions are to get Bill C-14 done, Mr. Chair, let's do it. Let's vote on this. You vote in favour of it or you vote against it. Let's carry on. It's classic filibustering. It's classic obstruction right here. There you go. I call the vote.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio. Mr. Brock, you have the floor.

Larry Brock :

Thank you. All I can say is, wow. I'm not done, not even close to being done, okay? Mark your clocks, because I'm not even close to being done. Wow from the parliamentary secretary who is virtue signalling, trying to suggest that we are here to filibuster Bill C-14 , when the parliamentary secretary herself decided to censor Conservatives from sharing stories gathered right across this country since we adjourned just before Christmas.

Patricia Lattanzio :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I take exception. What is this censor?

The Chair :

We've discussed this in the past and I'm going to say this to both sides.

Larry Brock :

That's not a point of order.

The Chair :

Mr. Brock, I'm trying to maintain a level of civility here. I think you respect the fact that I do try to do that. I'm asking all members of this committee to speak in a manner that shows respect to your colleagues on both sides of the table. I don't want to get into a situation where I have to rule on something somebody said that might have been offside. Just keep that in mind, that's all I'm asking.

(1850) Larry Brock :

I don't want to offend the sensitivity of my Liberal colleagues. I'll move away from the word “censorship”, but she certainly wants to restrict my parliamentary privileges—and Mr. Baber's, Mr. Gill's and Mr. Lawton's—by unilaterally deciding that, as parliamentary secretary, and I guess by extension, speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice , who promised the House that he was going to be meeting with stakeholders over Christmas....

We've heard that several stakeholders have reached out to his office asking for a response, and he doesn't have the decency to respond, nor have we heard anything from his office or through Ms. Lattanzio as to who he met with. How many individuals did he meet with? What were their concerns? What were their suggestions? What did he telegraph? Ms. Lattanzio, as parliamentary secretary, has decided that she wants to breach parliamentary privilege. She wants to put a limit on our democratic rights as members of Parliament. We all represent constituencies, some larger than others.

I have heard loud and clear from stakeholders in the great riding of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I've taken meetings. I've answered emails. I've responded to phone calls. I've made presentations at churches and at community groups. There is absolute outrage out there that this government, not on their own initiative.... Now, I appreciate Mr. Housefather's passions, and I'm sure that as a very strong advocate he made his position known not only to Ms. Lattanzio, but to Mr.

Fraser : his concerns about the events that we heard about through Monsieur Fortin, about that radical Islam preacher in Montreal, which in my belief was the genesis of the creation of their amendment. I'm sure Mr. Housefather shared those concerns. I have no doubt that he advocated, to some degree, for its removal. For Bill C-9 , as introduced in the House at first reading, as debated at second reading and as studied over the course of I don't know how many days, Mr.

Chair—but several, at least a half a dozen days—we heard from witnesses chosen by the Conservative Party, by the Liberal Party and by the Bloc Québécois. I'll say this again. I've repeated this comment at least three times. This might be the fourth time. Apart from Monsieur Fortin's advocacy, the focus of all of his interventions was to gain a perspective as to whether or not individual witnesses from across this country supported the removal of the religious exemption.... Not one member of the Conservative Party pursued that avenue, and not one member of the Liberal Party, maybe with the exception of Mr.

Housefather. If Mr. Housefather raised it during one of his questions, I'll stand corrected. It certainly was not, Mr. Chair, a persuasive theme that was introduced by any member of the Liberal team, save and except the advocacy of Monsieur Fortin. We get to the point where clause-by-clause is about to start and all three parties put forth their suggested amendments.

(1855) There was no amendment from the Conservative Party that supported Monsieur Fortin's amendment to remove that exemption and, of great significance, I might add, there was not one amendment by the Liberal government to support Mr. Fortin's amendment to remove that defence. I would dare to say that, perhaps with the exception of Mr. Housefather, not one member of the Liberal front bench—including the justice minister and the Prime Minister —or backbench spoke in favour of the Liberal government supporting the Bloc amendment.

I want Canadians to really appreciate that narrative because that narrative is the absolute truth. It is all on record for anyone who sees fit to review the comments I've made, to verify those comments as being said in the House of Commons or even outside the House. I'm a ferocious reader when it comes to Canadian politics. Sometimes my staff get quite angry with me because I might be reading something at five o'clock in the morning and I feel the need to share that. Sometimes I'm disturbing the sleep of my staff. That's just who I am.

I've warned all my staffers in the interview process, “You have to accept the idiosyncrasies of your boss. Sometimes an idea might come to me at three o'clock in the morning, and I need to reach out to a staff member. That's just who I am.” During the course of all of my review of various political articles from all the major publications that are out there and of the media, not once did I review anything remotely coming from the Liberal Party of Canada, specifically the members on the justice committee, telegraphing any support for Monsieur Fortin's amendment.

We were optimistic, as Conservative members, that we were going to work collaboratively with the Liberal government. I agree with Mr. Baber's assessment that there is nothing in Bill C-9 .... In fact, in part of my speeches that I made on Bill C-9, I clarified that Bill C-9 is completely redundant, absolutely redundant. Does this give the police services that magic elixir to finally deal with the hatred that has been spewing on our streets on a daily basis? No. This never was an issue of a lack of tools.

This was a lack of will, a will being dictated either by management of police services or by—or in conjunction with—their municipal leaders and partners. In fact, I think on the last occasion I gave an example; I didn't identify the city. I'll repeat it again. There were blatant examples of criminality directed towards Jewish people who simply wanted to enjoy their faith, to congregate with their peers and to celebrate whatever celebration existed on the Jewish calendar when that event took place. What they were subjected to in the presence of police was appalling. Really, Mr.

Chair, it's no small wonder that the Canadian public has completely lost faith, not only in our federal institutions but also in police services, and this is another theme that I often speak about in my interventions in the House and at committee.

(1900) I recently returned from a trip in Surrey. I spoke to media out there. I spoke to victims of extortion and this is, in my view, not only a local but a provincial and national crisis. Again, the theme is, “We don't trust the police.” The police are telling them to just pay whatever the amount is that they're trying to extort from them or to maybe hide in their basement or in a locked room, or create a safe room. It's horrible advice. It's absolutely despicable advice.

Someone should enjoy the sanctity of their castle peacefully, knowing that they're not going to be facing an extortion crisis or someone shooting into their residence or their business and threatening to kill them. This is what life is like on the streets in Surrey. It's a breakdown again in policing. Again, it's full circle. Where are we at now? We're at this point where the government.... I don't know why.

There has not been any explanation offered by the Prime Minister or any member of this committee on the Liberal side or from our justice minister, Sean Fraser , as to why he saw fit to secretively reach out to the Bloc Québécois and broker a deal to support the Bloc's amendment to remove a four-decade-old law and defence in the Criminal Code in exchange for buying support for the passage of the rest of the bill. The media certainly caught on to it. That particular weekend, I read about this secretive backroom deal.

The only thing I could surmise from that, given the history that I have shared with this committee today and on other days, is that there must have been some fear on behalf of the government that Bill C-9 was in jeopardy. Why else would they make an absolute political decision that runs completely contrary to anything that they did by way of communication or in terms of interviewing witnesses at this committee? I think it was Mr. Lawton or Mr. Baber who raised the point that, had we known that this would be an issue, perhaps there would have been a refocusing of questioning from my Conservative colleagues.

Quite frankly, we need to hear evidence from subject matter experts on this issue. I don't think we necessarily got the best evidence for any member of this committee, maybe with the exception of Monsieur Fortin, to make that reasonable conclusion that there was evidence to support his position. We were critical of the government's approach to prioritizing Bill C-9 as the first piece of criminal legislation introduced by this so-called new Liberal government led by Mark Carney . We knew that crime was a major issue in the last election because all the parties were talking about it.

How could they not talk about it? I dare say, I can't wake up—sometimes at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning—and look at my news feed. I can't read another heartbreaking story of some other repeat violent criminal promising the court that they'll comply with all of these conditions.

(1905) I don't care how restrictive the conditions are, Your Honour, I'll agree to electronic monitoring if necessary, I'll stay away from victims, I'll stay away from certain places, I'll refrain fro