“I want to know what the member thinks about automatically making the murder of women first-degree murder, given how many women have been killed in recent years.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member has given a speech in which she outlined many important aspects of the bill. I would like to ask her about her thoughts on femicide being automatically first-degree, considering the scourge of femicides that we have seen in past years.”

“I support this change. It will make a big difference for Canada and especially for women.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is one of the changes I am most excited about. I think it would be game-changing for our country and game-changing for the better half of our population. It would be a hugely impactful change, and I support it wholeheartedly.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Our government is funding mental health, youth programs, and public safety. We gave money to a Halifax mosque to stop gang violence, and we are funding groups that help victims and prevent crime.”

“Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoy working with my colleague on all the great work we do here in the House. I am quite pleased that our government is supportive of mental health and youth, as well as in terms of crime and public safety. I was very pleased to announce significant funding through the mosque in my riding of Halifax to help prevent gang violence in the Muslim community in Halifax, which is being led by members of the mosque, as an example. I also know that the Minister of Women and Gender Equality has been talking a lot about the substantial funding that we have to support the organizations that are really on the ground, on the preventative side and the response side, to support victims in this regard.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  Only 3% of this statement directly addressed the matter under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Our plan makes communities safer and will hold up in court. We are passing laws to punish criminals and working with police and local governments. Does the member really think we should overrule the Charter instead of doing it properly?”

“Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that there is a difference between what the government and the Conservative Party are proposing. At the end of the day, exceptional circumstances would enable the legislation and the reinstatement of a number of mandatory sentences to be supported within the courts. That is a really important fact. Just over a year ago, this Prime Minister was elected with a mandate to make our communities safer. We have a series of pieces of legislation, not one but a half dozen or so, which would make our communities safer. We are working with provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement and indigenous communities to make sure we have safer communities and that there is a consequence for criminals who commit crimes. Does the member not believe that using the notwithstanding clause should be a last resort?”

“I am asking everyone to agree to move to private members' business now.”

“Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6 p.m. at this time, so we could begin Private Members’ Business.”