What they said. What they meant.

Plain-language translations from the House of Commons.

Recent debates

8 latest topics

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

A very long bill to increase government power over Canadians' digital lives and data, including making it easier for the state to obtain info on people from telecom companies and online service providers. During discussion, the Conservatives nitpicked specific provisions while the Liberals talked up the bill's benefits, and both sides traded barbs about being soft on crime and supporting victims.

Official Hansard ↗

Kurt Holman

Conservative
“I don't like being accused of playing games. Liberals play games. I'm here for victims. Mandatory minimums are good. Why do Liberals want to be soft on crime?”
Our translation 75% shorter

Kelly DeRidder

Conservative
“This criminal should have spent longer in prison. Then we should have deported him. Immigration status shouldn't reduce your sentence.”
Our translation 87% shorter

Ned Kuruc

Conservative
“I'm using emotional language about Canadian history to introduce my real topic. The Liberals are soft on crime! Their bill reduces mandatory minimums, which I don't like. They voted against our bills for stricter penalties. I want criminals to stay behind bars longer. Canadians should feel less safe because of current laws. We like some parts of this bill, but adding a 'safety valve' is a bad idea -- mandatory should mean mandatory, not optional. Let's remove the safety valve part and pass the rest.”
Our translation 94% shorter

Hon. Mark Gerretsen

Liberal
“What you did doesn't match your speech. You tried to stop debate earlier, but now you're speaking passionately. I'll point that out to make you look insincere. I'm using the fact that some Conservatives didn't vote to paint your whole party as playing games.”
Our translation 75% shorter

Ned Kuruc

Conservative
“You don't want to talk about the bill. Let's talk about public safety. Mandatory minimums are good. My party's amendments would make Canada safer. The government isn't keeping Canadians safe.”
Our translation 70% shorter

Gord Johns

NDP
“You aren't focusing on the real problem. Conservatives keep voting against our amendments to help people. We should spend more money on prevention, housing, and income security. That would help women and children more than this bill. Why won't you support our spending ideas?”
Our translation 70% shorter

Ned Kuruc

Conservative
“I want mandatory minimum sentences for crimes against women and children. No exceptions. You should agree with us. A good bill needs our tough on crime approach.”
Our translation 80% shorter

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois
“The victims say we need this bill. I want the government to pass it. We can fix the last 1% later. I want more money for other programs too. We should pass this quickly and move on to more spending.”
Our translation 80% shorter

Ned Kuruc

Conservative
“I want judges to have less discretion. We need mandatory minimums to be tougher on criminals. If we don't do this, all our talk is meaningless. I want you to believe Conservatives are tough on crime.”
Our translation 58% shorter

Emma Harrison

Liberal
“I want to spend more money to stop violence against women and gender-diverse people. We have a strategy and bills with a lot of different parts. They educate, train, and give money to provinces. They also make new crimes for controlling partners, make judges call it femicide when a woman is killed because she's a woman, and treat online harassment more seriously. We've already passed some of these. Now I want you to vote for another one, Bill C-16.”
Our translation 93% shorter

Rhonda Kirkland

Conservative
“You say you care about violence against women. But your government wants to let judges ignore mandatory sentences for crimes where the victims are mostly women. That makes the word 'mandatory' meaningless. If you really care, why would you make mandatory sentences optional?”
Our translation 66% shorter

Emma Harrison

Liberal
“Don't say we're letting judges ignore mandatory sentences. This bill keeps 15 of them. Judges should get to decide. They're smart and they care. Stop saying things that make us look bad.”
Our translation 68% shorter

Hon. Stephanie McLean

Liberal
“What's their real reason for doing this? They just want to add mandatory minimum sentences. But those get struck down a lot. That would make this bill weaker and waste time and money in court. Do they want that?”
Our translation 64% shorter

Emma Harrison

Liberal
“I want you to feel bad for victims. I want you to support our bill. I don't want you to try stopping this bill.”
Our translation 83% shorter

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois
“Why did you take so long to write this bill? You knew about these problems for years. You only acted because the committee put on pressure. You want credit for this first step but I want people to know you were slow.”
Our translation 69% shorter

Emma Harrison

Liberal
“I want you to stop criticizing my party's delay and focus on the good. This bill is here now so stop complaining. The Conservatives are bad for delaying it more.”
Our translation 62% shorter

Jessica Fancy

Liberal
“I'm listing bad things to get you to support my bill. I talked to people in my riding. This bill will fix everything. I really want this bill to pass. I'm upset the Conservatives are delaying it.”
Our translation 97% shorter

Jeff Kibble

Conservative
“I want to argue this bill is weak. I want voters to demand tough sentences.”
Our translation 84% shorter

Jessica Fancy

Liberal
“I don't want to answer your question. I want to say many groups like this bill. I hope listing groups makes my bill look good.”
Our translation 83% shorter

Gord Johns

NDP
“I want you to spend more money. I say programs are essential. I hope saying 'critical' and 'essential' will make you spend more.”
Our translation 80% shorter