Bill C-16, Protecting Victims Act · Third reading · now law Where it stands →
What the law does
The law amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence for coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It classifies intimate partner murders linked to controlling conduct or sexual violence as first-degree murder, and expands the offence of sharing intimate images without consent to cover realistic depictions. The law also gives victims automatic access to information about their cases, bars people suspected of domestic violence or stalking from holding firearms licences, and makes other changes across the justice system.
“We wanted to change the law on peace bonds so the rules are clearer and victims are safer. The Liberals voted against our changes. We will keep pushing to fix this.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to try to avoid some of the inconsistencies we see in Bill C-16. As I said in reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code, we want the criteria to be more objective than subjective. That was one of the amendments that had been proposed by my colleague to address this situation. That is the kind of amendment we would have liked to include in the bill, but unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it. So, we will definitely have to bring it up again. The issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code will need to be addressed, because it is clear that this section is not doing its job of ensuring that victims are safe. The Bloc Québécois will continue to closely monitor the issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code.”
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to try to avoid some of the inconsistencies we see in Bill C-16. As I said in reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code, we want the criteria to be more objective than subjective. That was one of the amendments that had been proposed by my colleague to address this situation. That is the kind of amendment we would have liked to include in the bill, but unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it. So, we will definitely have to bring it up again. The issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code will need to be addressed, because it is clear that this section is not doing its job of ensuring that victims are safe. The Bloc Québécois will continue to closely monitor the issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code.
“I agree with my colleague. The government should not disrupt groups that help abused women and build shelters. I want to know what real steps we can take to make sure the federal government works well with Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the remarks made by my colleague from Shefford. We are talking about taking back control of our lives. Just a few hours ago, during the debate on Bill C-20, we were talking about building Canada. I asked the following question: How could a program be implemented to the point of jeopardizing or suspending the activities of organizations that help abused women, even as they were in the process of setting up shelters for them? When my colleague says that the government must absolutely work in a way that is consistent with Quebec, I would like to know if there are, in fact, concrete steps that can be taken.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the remarks made by my colleague from Shefford. We are talking about taking back control of our lives. Just a few hours ago, during the debate on Bill C-20, we were talking about building Canada. I asked the following question: How could a program be implemented to the point of jeopardizing or suspending the activities of organizations that help abused women, even as they were in the process of setting up shelters for them? When my colleague says that the government must absolutely work in a way that is consistent with Quebec, I would like to know if there are, in fact, concrete steps that can be taken.
“Wait lists for women's shelters are getting longer. There are not enough safe places for women and their children to go after an emergency shelter. This traps women in violent homes because they have nowhere else to live.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is right: Representatives from those Quebec organizations did indeed come to testify about shelters. What we are seeing at this point in time is that wait lists keep getting longer. When I say that waving a magic wand will not fix things, Build Canada Homes is a prime example of that. We do not really know what it will amount to; it is still very unclear. We have a lot of questions. One thing we know for sure is that wait lists are getting longer. More and more women are turning to emergency resources. Without a space in a second-stage shelter, they are stuck at the emergency shelter stage, meaning that other women who need emergency resources cannot get them, so they stay home and cannot access emergency resources. Other women who are ready for that second stage cannot access it because there is no space. After second-stage housing, where do these women go and what do they do? Often, they have their families. We want to ensure that these people are housed safely and with dignity. Sometimes they need supportive housing to ensure follow up. In short, all the steps are being delayed. This is a key issue because it is often the reason why a woman feels she cannot get out. She feels that she is stuck in a cycle of violence because she does not know where to go with her children. It is a huge concern.”
Mr. Speaker, the member is right: Representatives from those Quebec organizations did indeed come to testify about shelters. What we are seeing at this point in time is that wait lists keep getting longer. When I say that waving a magic wand will not fix things, Build Canada Homes is a prime example of that. We do not really know what it will amount to; it is still very unclear. We have a lot of questions. One thing we know for sure is that wait lists are getting longer. More and more women are turning to emergency resources. Without a space in a second-stage shelter, they are stuck at the emergency shelter stage, meaning that other women who need emergency resources cannot get them, so they stay home and cannot access emergency resources. Other women who are ready for that second stage cannot access it because there is no space. After second-stage housing, where do these women go and what do they do? Often, they have their families. We want to ensure that these people are housed safely and with dignity. Sometimes they need supportive housing to ensure follow up. In short, all the steps are being delayed. This is a key issue because it is often the reason why a woman feels she cannot get out. She feels that she is stuck in a cycle of violence because she does not know where to go with her children. It is a huge concern.
“I worry this bill removes mandatory minimum prison sentences for most crimes. I want my colleague to explain how that will affect society.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives take public safety and the justice system very seriously, and there are quite the concerns with Bill C-16 regarding the removal of mandatory minimums, with the exception of murder and treason. I would like to ask my Bloc colleague, with the removal of mandatory minimums, how will that have a ripple effect on society?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives take public safety and the justice system very seriously, and there are quite the concerns with Bill C-16 regarding the removal of mandatory minimums, with the exception of murder and treason. I would like to ask my Bloc colleague, with the removal of mandatory minimums, how will that have a ripple effect on society?
“This bill includes my party's ideas to bring back minimum prison sentences for serious crimes, protect youth, and stop fake videos. It helps victims. We should vote on it now and move forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of disinformation because the bill we are studying this evening essentially reiterates the Bloc Québécois’s proposal to restore mandatory minimums for serious crimes. It also echoes the Bloc Québécois’s idea about the potential recruitment of young people at earlier stages and about deepfakes. This bill is making progress on a lot of fronts. I think we have reached the point where we need to put this to a vote. It is time to move forward. I know there is room for improvement. We will have to continue to monitor progress, as I said, because this will not be like waving a magic wand. However, I think that the disinformation needs to stop and that we need to work on making progress, recognizing victims and helping survivors find their way and rebuild their lives.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of disinformation because the bill we are studying this evening essentially reiterates the Bloc Québécois’s proposal to restore mandatory minimums for serious crimes. It also echoes the Bloc Québécois’s idea about the potential recruitment of young people at earlier stages and about deepfakes. This bill is making progress on a lot of fronts. I think we have reached the point where we need to put this to a vote. It is time to move forward. I know there is room for improvement. We will have to continue to monitor progress, as I said, because this will not be like waving a magic wand. However, I think that the disinformation needs to stop and that we need to work on making progress, recognizing victims and helping survivors find their way and rebuild their lives.
“I want my colleague to tell us what local programs in her riding are best at stopping controlling and abusive partners.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Shefford for her work with people experiencing homelessness, female victims of violence, seniors and vulnerable individuals in the region where both of our ridings are located. I would like my colleague to explain which solutions for fighting coercive control are most effective in her riding, including community-led initiatives. What is working well in her riding?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Shefford for her work with people experiencing homelessness, female victims of violence, seniors and vulnerable individuals in the region where both of our ridings are located. I would like my colleague to explain which solutions for fighting coercive control are most effective in her riding, including community-led initiatives. What is working well in her riding?
“We need to make controlling and coercive behavior in relationships a crime. Police need this law so they can spot warning signs and help victims sooner.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would say that listening to victims is what works best. As the representatives of many police forces said, the first step in addressing coercive control is to include it in the Criminal Code so that police have the tools they need. Otherwise, it is too difficult for them to act or to be proactive and act sooner. That is what this does. Recognizing coercive control means recognizing that there are warning signs and that police need be able to intervene much sooner. In order to achieve that, we need to criminalize this behaviour and listen to victims.”
Mr. Speaker, I would say that listening to victims is what works best. As the representatives of many police forces said, the first step in addressing coercive control is to include it in the Criminal Code so that police have the tools they need. Otherwise, it is too difficult for them to act or to be proactive and act sooner. That is what this does. Recognizing coercive control means recognizing that there are warning signs and that police need be able to intervene much sooner. In order to achieve that, we need to criminalize this behaviour and listen to victims.
“I support this bill because it protects women from violence and controlling partners. Ten women have been killed in Quebec in just four months. This bill makes controlling an intimate partner a crime and increases penalties for killing women. It also punishes people who share private sexual pictures without consent.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the last four months of 2026, Quebec has mourned 10 victims of femicide. This number rivals the annual average for the past decade. That is horrific. I hope that my colleague on the other side of the House is aware of that, because these are tragedies. This is really an unacceptable number of domestic tragedies. I find the increase extremely alarming, perhaps more so than my colleague across the way. Advocacy and civil society groups are reacting the same way, because at this rate, 2026 could exceed the record 16 femicides committed in 2021. We do not want that. Words matter here: “Femicide” is not a trivial matter; it is a serious societal issue. Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters with regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures, has reached third reading. As my colleague mentioned earlier, this bill amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It also provides that murder known as femicide when committed against a female person is first degree murder in any of the following circumstances: the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour; the murder is committed in the context of domestic violence; the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking; or the murder is motivated by hatred. Now is the time to say enough is enough: no more femicide. The Bloc Québécois will continue to support the bill. Obviously, we do have some reservations. I still think that Bill C-16 represents a very significant step forward in protecting people from intimate partner violence and sexual offences. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports the changes regarding court delays, specifically the issue of mistrials. We support the new Criminal Code offence of recruiting a young person to commit a crime, the introduction of a safety valve for minimum sentences, and the strengthening of the Criminal Code provisions regarding harassment and sexual violence, which primarily affect women. As I said earlier, the committee study of Bill C‑16 took place despite the deliberate attempts by our Conservative colleagues to do what they think is their duty. Unfortunately, partisanship is leading to attempts to obstruct our work. By introducing a litany of amendments that are clearly beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues in the official opposition engaged in a series of delay tactics. Some were posted on social media for purely partisan purposes, effectively turning the committee’s work into an election platform. What else can we expect from them? Sometimes I wonder if they even care about being constructive. Despite it all, the work got done and that was in large part thanks to my colleagues from Rivière-du-Nord and Shefford. Protection for the loved ones of victims of coercive control has been expanded to even include pets. That is a good thing. It is good news. An aggravated sentence was also created for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. Two decisions made at committee leave gaps that warrant attention because they make the bill less coherent and could jeopardize the safety of the very people that Bill C‑16 seeks to protect. Let me come back to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. During the 43rd Parliament, I served as the vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We conducted a study on the online pornography giant Pornhub. I watched hundreds of hours of pornographic content depicting women being filmed against their will while engaging in sexual acts, whether consensual or not. These women did not even know they were being filmed, let alone that the footage would end up online. As a mother of two young adults, I cannot tolerate the fact that there are brutes, people with no sense of decency, who seriously film videos of these women, and men too, without their consent during sexual acts. Imagine how that can destroy a person’s life, career, family and self-confidence at an age when people are still developing as human beings, when they are building their self-confidence. Let me be clear: Committing such an act against people aged 37, 45 or 75 is just as reprehensible and must be deemed both criminally and ethically unacceptable. Our society is changing, our mores are changing and our means of communication are changing. I am terrified that this could happen to any of us these days, and with complete impunity. We must act now, through other means that can address certain shortcomings. Let us take care of ourselves, and let us ensure that justice is done.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, in the last four months of 2026, Quebec has mourned 10 victims of femicide. This number rivals the annual average for the past decade. That is horrific. I hope that my colleague on the other side of the House is aware of that, because these are tragedies. This is really an unacceptable number of domestic tragedies. I find the increase extremely alarming, perhaps more so than my colleague across the way. Advocacy and civil society groups are reacting the same way, because at this rate, 2026 could exceed the record 16 femicides committed in 2021. We do not want that. Words matter here: “Femicide” is not a trivial matter; it is a serious societal issue. Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters with regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures, has reached third reading. As my colleague mentioned earlier, this bill amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It also provides that murder known as femicide when committed against a female person is first degree murder in any of the following circumstances: the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour; the murder is committed in the context of domestic violence; the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking; or the murder is motivated by hatred. Now is the time to say enough is enough: no more femicide. The Bloc Québécois will continue to support the bill. Obviously, we do have some reservations. I still think that Bill C-16 represents a very significant step forward in protecting people from intimate partner violence and sexual offences. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports the changes regarding court delays, specifically the issue of mistrials. We support the new Criminal Code offence of recruiting a young person to commit a crime, the introduction of a safety valve for minimum sentences, and the strengthening of the Criminal Code provisions regarding harassment and sexual violence, which primarily affect women. As I said earlier, the committee study of Bill C‑16 took place despite the deliberate attempts by our Conservative colleagues to do what they think is their duty. Unfortunately, partisanship is leading to attempts to obstruct our work. By introducing a litany of amendments that are clearly beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues in the official opposition engaged in a series of delay tactics. Some were posted on social media for purely partisan purposes, effectively turning the committee’s work into an election platform. What else can we expect from them? Sometimes I wonder if they even care about being constructive. Despite it all, the work got done and that was in large part thanks to my colleagues from Rivière-du-Nord and Shefford. Protection for the loved ones of victims of coercive control has been expanded to even include pets. That is a good thing. It is good news. An aggravated sentence was also created for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. Two decisions made at committee leave gaps that warrant attention because they make the bill less coherent and could jeopardize the safety of the very people that Bill C‑16 seeks to protect. Let me come back to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. During the 43rd Parliament, I served as the vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We conducted a study on the online pornography giant Pornhub. I watched hundreds of hours of pornographic content depicting women being filmed against their will while engaging in sexual acts, whether consensual or not. These women did not even know they were being filmed, let alone that the footage would end up online. As a mother of two young adults, I cannot tolerate the fact that there are brutes, people with no sense of decency, who seriously film videos of these women, and men too, without their consent during sexual acts. Imagine how that can destroy a person’s life, career, family and self-confidence at an age when people are still developing as human beings, when they are building their self-confidence. Let me be clear: Committing such an act against people aged 37, 45 or 75 is just as reprehensible and must be deemed both criminally and ethically unacceptable. Our society is changing, our mores are changing and our means of communication are changing. I am terrified that this could happen to any of us these days, and with complete impunity. We must act now, through other means that can address certain shortcomings. Let us take care of ourselves, and let us ensure that justice is done.
“This is an urgent and serious problem. I want to know what my colleague thinks we should do first to address it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague’s speech, particularly her comments on how things went at committee. I think she gave a very good description of the situation. It is an urgent problem, one that we are taking seriously. Given the seriousness with which this matter must be addressed, what does she think is most important in the short term?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague’s speech, particularly her comments on how things went at committee. I think she gave a very good description of the situation. It is an urgent problem, one that we are taking seriously. Given the seriousness with which this matter must be addressed, what does she think is most important in the short term?
“I want MPs to stop playing political games with this debate. On serious issues like crime and safety, we need to put people first and work together.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is some parliamentary gamesmanship going on. There are procedures that can be used to carry out or slow down our processes, but I implore my colleagues to realize that, on some issues, there is no room for partisanship. I am telling all members of the House that when it comes to issues like safety, crime or even medical assistance in dying, we must set partisanship aside and put people at the centre of our decisions.”
Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is some parliamentary gamesmanship going on. There are procedures that can be used to carry out or slow down our processes, but I implore my colleagues to realize that, on some issues, there is no room for partisanship. I am telling all members of the House that when it comes to issues like safety, crime or even medical assistance in dying, we must set partisanship aside and put people at the centre of our decisions.
“The government only passed this bill by making a backroom deal with the Bloc Québécois. That is not a fair or open way to make laws for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed to hear, this evening, that Bill C‑9 passed thanks to a deal between the government and the Bloc Québécois. In my view, that is not fair. That is not really how we should be making laws. I want to know whether my colleague thinks that this is really how she wants laws to be created here, that is, with deals, agreements and bartering, instead of being transparent with Canadians.”
Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed to hear, this evening, that Bill C‑9 passed thanks to a deal between the government and the Bloc Québécois. In my view, that is not fair. That is not really how we should be making laws. I want to know whether my colleague thinks that this is really how she wants laws to be created here, that is, with deals, agreements and bartering, instead of being transparent with Canadians.
“Members of Parliament should not use social media to raise money and campaign off this issue. It is wrong to put party politics ahead of basic human decency.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was just talking about partisanship. Partisanship has its limits. Not agreeing with a decision or voting nay is one thing. In my opinion, however, using social media as an election platform is unacceptable. I do not even want to know how much money was raised. Ultimately, what this shows is a lack of seriousness. We may think of ourselves as seasoned parliamentarians representing our constituents, but I am sorry, people are forgetting the essence of what it is to be human.”
Mr. Speaker, I was just talking about partisanship. Partisanship has its limits. Not agreeing with a decision or voting nay is one thing. In my opinion, however, using social media as an election platform is unacceptable. I do not even want to know how much money was raised. Ultimately, what this shows is a lack of seriousness. We may think of ourselves as seasoned parliamentarians representing our constituents, but I am sorry, people are forgetting the essence of what it is to be human.
“Every witness who spoke to our committee asked us to pass this bill to protect victims. It will also help fix court delays. But the government must give Quebec and the provinces more money to help our courts handle these changes. I want to know if my colleague agrees.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true that committee members worked as non-partisanly as possible. In the course of our other proceedings, members of various parties asked questions of the victims and the witnesses who appeared. Incidentally, as part of other studies, we asked people whether Bill C‑16 should be passed. Everyone we heard from asked us to vote in favour of Bill C‑16 and explained to us why it is such a huge step forward. I would like to point out another step forward. During the previous Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to address the impact of the Jordan decision on court delays. Bill C‑16 addresses this issue too. In this case as well, to avoid further delays in the court system, the government must seriously consider providing the provinces and Quebec with additional resources so they can administer this new legislative framework properly. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is true that committee members worked as non-partisanly as possible. In the course of our other proceedings, members of various parties asked questions of the victims and the witnesses who appeared. Incidentally, as part of other studies, we asked people whether Bill C‑16 should be passed. Everyone we heard from asked us to vote in favour of Bill C‑16 and explained to us why it is such a huge step forward. I would like to point out another step forward. During the previous Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to address the impact of the Jordan decision on court delays. Bill C‑16 addresses this issue too. In this case as well, to avoid further delays in the court system, the government must seriously consider providing the provinces and Quebec with additional resources so they can administer this new legislative framework properly. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?
“The provinces and Quebec must get the resources they need to put these measures in place. This will keep women safe and treat them with respect.”
“I think I am bothering some people in the House, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about my colleague across the way. He is coming back and bothering us. It is 10:30 p.m. We are tired. Seriously, we are talking about respect and dignity for women, and that is what we are doing tonight. I think some of my colleagues need some interpretation, because they are not understanding what I am saying at all. In short, the provinces and Quebec should be getting all the resources they need to implement these measures to ensure the respect, dignity and safety of women.”
I think I am bothering some people in the House, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about my colleague across the way. He is coming back and bothering us. It is 10:30 p.m. We are tired. Seriously, we are talking about respect and dignity for women, and that is what we are doing tonight. I think some of my colleagues need some interpretation, because they are not understanding what I am saying at all. In short, the provinces and Quebec should be getting all the resources they need to implement these measures to ensure the respect, dignity and safety of women.
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Motive imputedHidden agencyMockery
Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
LiberalLib
“I wanted to ask the member for Oxford a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House of Commons this evening. It is interesting, because I was actually looking forward to asking my friend, the member for Oxford, a question.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House of Commons this evening. It is interesting, because I was actually looking forward to asking my friend, the member for Oxford, a question.
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Motive imputedHidden agencyMockery
Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
LiberalLib
“The Conservatives complained that they wanted more time to debate, and they voted to work late tonight. But just a few hours later, a Conservative member moved to stop the debate early.”
“Mr. Speaker, he says “any time”, which is not really true. We were having this healthy debate on Bill C-20. Remember, that is the debate the Conservatives were crying about because they wanted more time to speak to it. Do members remember that? The member for Oxford, as he was concluding and I was all ready to ask a question, moved a motion to adjourn debate. It was truly amazing. I do not think the House leadership really understood what was taking place. Let us think about this. For the first time in years, the Conservative Party actually voted just a few hours earlier to say it was okay for the House to sit until midnight. The Conservatives made that decision. They voted in favour of the House sitting until midnight. What did they do two hours or three hours later? The member for Oxford stood up—”
Mr. Speaker, he says “any time”, which is not really true. We were having this healthy debate on Bill C-20. Remember, that is the debate the Conservatives were crying about because they wanted more time to speak to it. Do members remember that? The member for Oxford, as he was concluding and I was all ready to ask a question, moved a motion to adjourn debate. It was truly amazing. I do not think the House leadership really understood what was taking place. Let us think about this. For the first time in years, the Conservative Party actually voted just a few hours earlier to say it was okay for the House to sit until midnight. The Conservatives made that decision. They voted in favour of the House sitting until midnight. What did they do two hours or three hours later? The member for Oxford stood up—
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Motive imputedHidden agencyMockery
Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
LiberalLib
“The Conservatives are playing games and trying to stop debate on our important bills. Canadians should see that they keep delaying our work.”
“Mr. Speaker, if my friend opposite does not like what he is hearing, he has a choice. He can leave the chamber. At the end of the day, it is important that Canadians see the games the Conservative Party members play day in and day out, whether they are filibustering or trying to prevent debate on important legislation that we, as a government, put forward in the House of Commons in the hope that the Conservatives will, at some point, wake up and actually do the right thing and deliver for Canadians, whether that is with Bill C-16 or Bill C-20. Let me get back to what I was trying to highlight about the Conservative Party. It supported sitting late. A couple of hours later, the member for Oxford said, “Let us adjourn debate.” What does that do? It stops the debate—”
Mr. Speaker, if my friend opposite does not like what he is hearing, he has a choice. He can leave the chamber. At the end of the day, it is important that Canadians see the games the Conservative Party members play day in and day out, whether they are filibustering or trying to prevent debate on important legislation that we, as a government, put forward in the House of Commons in the hope that the Conservatives will, at some point, wake up and actually do the right thing and deliver for Canadians, whether that is with Bill C-16 or Bill C-20. Let me get back to what I was trying to highlight about the Conservative Party. It supported sitting late. A couple of hours later, the member for Oxford said, “Let us adjourn debate.” What does that do? It stops the debate—
“The member is not talking about the bill before us today. We need to focus on protecting victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member has a tendency to go off on his own tangents. We are discussing very important legislation today, with a focus on protecting victims, yet he is not talking about the issue at hand. I understand that he will play games—”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member has a tendency to go off on his own tangents. We are discussing very important legislation today, with a focus on protecting victims, yet he is not talking about the issue at hand. I understand that he will play games—
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Motive imputedHidden agencyMockery
Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
LiberalLib
“The Conservatives do not want to work late. They are using debate time on delays instead of talking about this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is really somewhat sad and pathetic that the members opposite have stood up on a point of order twice now. They do not want Canadians to see the silliness that we witness on the floor of the House of Commons coming from the Conservatives. Shame on them. At the end of the day, let us realize that all they did by moving that motion to adjourn was make a couple of statements to Canadians. One is that the Conservatives really do not want to sit late. That is what it really comes down to. They are taking us back to their lazy attitudes of the past. The other statement is that while they say they want to debate bills, instead of actually debating the bill, they used the bells to use up the debate time, thereby denying more Conservatives the chance to speak on the legislation— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is really somewhat sad and pathetic that the members opposite have stood up on a point of order twice now. They do not want Canadians to see the silliness that we witness on the floor of the House of Commons coming from the Conservatives. Shame on them. At the end of the day, let us realize that all they did by moving that motion to adjourn was make a couple of statements to Canadians. One is that the Conservatives really do not want to sit late. That is what it really comes down to. They are taking us back to their lazy attitudes of the past. The other statement is that while they say they want to debate bills, instead of actually debating the bill, they used the bells to use up the debate time, thereby denying more Conservatives the chance to speak on the legislation— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
