“The Liberals used to always vote against cutting off debate when they were in opposition. Now they are doing it themselves. I want the justice minister to answer for going against what the Prime Minister promised.”

“Madam Speaker, there was a point in time when the Liberals were in opposition. Those were the glory days, when they were in opposition— An hon. member: And the third party. Larry Brock: Madam Speaker, they were the third party, to boot. They would routinely oppose time allocation motions. They did it every single time. How hypocritical are they now? I have a question for the justice minister. Effectively, this runs completely contrary to the messaging of the Prime Minister. Literally within minutes of the Prime Minister securing a majority government following the by-elections and the floor crossings by the cowards who left the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister—”

“I take back what I just said. Instead, I say they are doing it for their own selfish reasons.”

“Madam Speaker, I withdraw that and replace it with “for their own selfish reasons”.”

“The Prime Minister promised to work with other parties, but the Liberals shut down debate on this bill and would not hear more witnesses. I want the justice minister to explain why he is going against his leader's promise.”

“Madam Speaker, literally within minutes, this is what the Prime Minister had to say. He pledged to work collaboratively with the House, stating that the government is “open to ideas from anyone”, yet at the justice committee, the Liberals actually shut down debate during Bill C-16. They did not allow additional days for additional witnesses to be heard. We now have the justice minister shutting down the will of Parliament to voice its concerns over Bill C-16. The question is simple: Why is the justice minister going against the will and direction of his leader?”

“The government is cutting off debate on this bill again, and that is wrong. The Supreme Court struck down mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography, but the Attorney General refused to use the notwithstanding clause to overrule the court. I want to know if he would ever use the clause for any law.”

“Madam Speaker, this is yet another example of the Liberal government stifling debate. We are here to debate the bill in good faith, and unfortunately, we are in for another time allocation motion, which does not allow members to fully debate their mind. I believe that is not the way to go. I would like to ask the Attorney General a specific question. He knows that at committee, I brought a motion forward to bring a further amendment to Bill C‑16 to invoke the notwithstanding clause in response to the Senneville decision, in which the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for the possession of and access to child pornography. I subsequently read in the newspaper that the Attorney General had, in fact, considered invoking the notwithstanding clause. I ask the Attorney General this question. If he refused to invoke the notwithstanding clause in response to the minimum sentences for the possession of and access to child pornography being struck down, is there a possibility that he would ever do it with respect to any legislation? Would he ever specifically invoke the notwithstanding clause, or is—”

“I want the Senate to pass Bailey's law right away, and I want the minister to help. The government has taken my words out of context to claim I support this bill. I do not support it. Finally, the government should use the term child sexual abuse material instead of child pornography.”

“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is particularly important to me to rise today on this point. Number one, Bailey’s law is languishing in the Senate. It should be passed by the Senate tomorrow or today, and I hope the hon. minister will help with that. Number two, I have been quoted on this bill, Bill C-16, more times than I can count. The funny thing is that it is on the issue of the safety valve, and I do not think I have given a single speech on the issue of a safety valve on this bill. The Liberals, for years, mocked Conservatives when we talked about constitutionality and said that we were out to lunch, so between 2022 and 2024, I spoke about these issues. I did not assert and support government legislation when it came to Bill C-16 and give my imprimatur of approval. I want that to be very, very clear. In my comment here, I want to say very clearly that I believe my words have been misconstrued. If my words are going to be stated, the whole context of it should be stated, particularly when I was stating it with respect to sex offences against children, which the government refused to legislate for years and years. The last thing is that I would remind the hon. minister that it is not called “child pornography”; it is called “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”.”

“The government is cutting off debate on this bill so they can go on vacation. Witnesses have asked us to include elder abuse in this law, but the Liberals refuse. We should stay and keep working on this.”

“Madam Speaker, it is shameful that the government has decided it is going to use a hammer to restrict our ability to continue debating this important bill. The minister has stated that he wishes there were more, such as a parliamentary study on the idea of elder abuse and coercive control. All he would have to do is read through some of the testimony we have been hearing at FEWO for the last couple months, and there is ample. We have had witness after witness make it very clear that this needs to be put in. We have had tons of stakeholders bring this forward as a massive issue, yet the Liberals say that it is not important and that they are not dealing with that right now. Also, they are limiting any ability to have any further debate on this issue because they want to go home for vacation. We are here to work, and we expect that, so why is the minister so keen to get out of here, get to somewhere else and go on his vacation rather than stay here and work for Canadians?”

“I want the government to stop cutting off debate on this bill. We all agree on protecting victims and being tough on crime. But we need time to discuss the details, and shutting down debate hurts our democracy.”

“Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not at all appreciate the government’s decision to invoke closure on this debate. Nobody wins when the government limits debate on a bill, especially one that deals directly with justice. When it comes to the basic principles of this bill, we all agree that we need to ensure greater protection and get tougher on crime. As always, the devil is in the details. That is particularly true when it comes to justice and crime. We are all in favour of tougher laws. We all agree that we need to better protect victims and that we need to crack down on criminals, especially in cases involving sex crimes or other related offences. Does the minister agree that, unfortunately, democracy as a whole loses when the government shuts down debate on such a sensitive subject?”

“The minister should not blame Conservatives for the problems in our justice system. The government passed laws that damaged the system. We warned them about this, but they ignored us.”

“Madam Speaker, to listen to this minister complain about and blame Conservatives for the situation of our justice system in Canada today is laughable. When Bill C-75 was passed, Conservatives opposed that bill because we knew the damage and the consequences that bill would wreak on our justice system. Jody Wilson-Raybould, the minister at the time, said that passing that bill would speed up all of the delays in the court system, delays that seem to still exist. Arif Virani, during the debate, defended the government’s use of time allocation and argued the opposition was blocking. Randy Boissonnault did the same thing and argued that Conservatives were holding things up. We were simply trying to warn Canadians about the damage these guys were doing. Fast-forward to Bill C-5. David Lametti, as this bill’s sponsor, said that Bill C-5 needed to move forward quickly and efficiently, and again blamed Conservatives for stopping the government from removing mandatory minimum penalties. Now, fast-forward to the current public safety minister and Mark Holland arguing the same thing. All of this is evidenced in the Hansard and the Debates of those parliaments. For this minister to stand here today and actually blame Conservatives for telling them that they were wrong and we were right all along is ridiculous.”

“The government is rushing this crime bill through Parliament. We have not had enough time to debate it or study it in committee. I want to know why the minister is cutting off debate.”

“Mr. Speaker, I just want to poke holes in the justice minister’s argument over the length of debate on Bill C-16. We only debated this for two days at second reading, and then we let it go on division so we could get it to the justice committee for study. We asked for eight meetings to actually do a proper study on this bill and to bring in the proper witnesses. The Liberals shut it down to only four meetings. We have only had one day to debate the bill at report stage, and they are already moving closure. My question is for the minister who wraps himself in this paper tiger, saying that we do not respect the process and that there has been plenty of debate. We know that on the Liberal side, the only person who ever gets up and talks is the member from Winnipeg North who has said the most words ever, but has said the very least. Why does this minister hate democracy, and why is he undermining parliamentary processes?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 93 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Why does this minister hate democracy”.

  See full analysis →