“The Conservatives chose to stop debating this bill so they could go to sleep early. Thirteen percent of their members and their leader did not even show up to vote on it. They are playing games, but we take this debate seriously.”

“Mr. Speaker, again, it is truly amazing. The Conservatives need to calm down a little. They had the opportunity to have more debate on Bill C-20, but they intentionally chose not to because it was night-night time for them. I do not say that lightly. We had to have a vote. We voted on the Conservatives’ motion to call it quits for the night because it was getting late, and 13% of their caucus did not even show up to vote. Even their leader decided not to vote on this. We have this great brain thrust coming from the Conservatives, saying they want to play this game. It is time to try to trick the Liberals and maybe get home a bit earlier tonight so they can get to bed a little earlier. What did that do? Even their leader did not show up to vote, let alone 13% of their caucus. What a game. This might be a game for the Conservative Party of Canada, but I would like to tell those who are following the debate that we take it very seriously—”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →

“Our government promised to take crime seriously and make our communities safer. We want this bill to pass, but the Conservatives are delaying it and coming up with excuses to vote against it. They claim to be tough on crime, but they do nothing to help.”

“Mr. Speaker, even though the Conservatives might want to make a joke of this evening and not necessarily fully participate on the issue of crime, let me assure those who are actually following the debate at home that we have a Prime Minister and a Liberal caucus that just last year went through an election, and we made a commitment to Canadians that we would take the crime file seriously. In fact, that was part of our platform. We have brought forward a suite of legislative initiatives to actually address making our communities safer for all Canadians. The biggest roadblock for making that happen, for seeing the legislation pass, is the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives come up with excuses as to why they do not want to see legislation passed, and then they put in whatever mechanism they can, even if it is silly, in order to prevent legislation from passing. Let me give a good example of that. Here is a good example on Bill C-16. If we listened to the debate and the complaints coming from Conservative Party members, we would draw the conclusion that the primary reason why they do not support this legislation is that they had a bit of a flip-flop on the issue of having a safety valve for mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums are something the Prime Minister and this government are taking very seriously. That is the reason why we have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums. There are a number of them, and I will go through a few of those, but the Conservatives say they cannot support it because there is a safety valve. Let me give a quote. The member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations is actually the new Conservative justice critic. He replaced the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Let me tell colleagues something about the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola when he was the justice critic for the Conservative Party of Canada. Now, in fairness, the Conservatives have gone even further to the right since the replacement of this particular member, but here is what he had to say: “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve; that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed.” Seriously, we have the former Conservative justice critic actually recommending to the government that we need to invoke a safety valve, yet today, they have had a change in policy. Why? It is not because it makes sense, but because they want to use that as an excuse in order to filibuster the legislative agenda that this Prime Minister and this government have for making our communities safer. I say shame on the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, we had to bring in time allocation because the Conservative Party has absolutely no intentions whatsoever to allow Bill C-16 to pass. It is because it does not fit their political agenda. Their political agenda has more to do with self-interest and promotion. Take a look at the reality of what the Conservative Party members like to do. They like to talk tough on crime. They love to talk tough on crime. What did we talk about today during private members’ hour? We listened to Conservative after Conservative be critical of the government on the issue of transferring from maximum-security to medium-security prisons. They try to give the impression that the Liberals are soft. If we look over the last 15 years, the record high in terms of transfers from maximum to minimum security was actually when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. The Conservatives actually had the highest number of transfers from maximum- to medium-security prisons. Colleagues might not have thought that. What did the Conservatives do at the time? They did absolutely nothing. On that issue, they did exactly what they did in regard to restoring mandatory minimums: absolutely nothing. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“I want the Conservatives to stop delaying and vote for this bill. It brings back mandatory minimum sentences for child abuse and makes controlling abuse against a partner a crime. The Conservatives talk tough on crime to raise money, but they block our laws to make communities safer.”

“Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Conservatives like to talk tough on crime, but the reality is that their actions speak louder than words, because when it came to those mandatory minimums, we witnessed that the Conservative Party did absolutely nothing under the leadership of today’s Conservative leader, even when he sat in the Conservative caucus in a majority government. The Conservatives had the opportunity. They chose not to do anything. The Prime Minister and this government are moving forward and reinstating mandatory minimums, but not with help from the Conservative Party. It is a roadblock, but let us go on. What is the motivating factor for the Conservative Party? Do not tell me it is about good public policy. It is far from that, because at the end of the day, the Conservatives are more concerned about using this issue for two things. Number one is to try to give a false impression that they are tough on crime. Number two, they are using it as a fundraising tool. They like to be able to say how bad things are in Canada. I could bring some wonderful quotes of how those members take these extreme radical thoughts and try to raise money on them. I have actually been a recipient of Conservative fundraising letters, where they try to make money off the issue of crime. I say to my Conservative friends across the way that it is time they stopped thinking about the leadership of the Conservative Party and the Conservative right wing dominating that party more and more every day. I think it is time they started putting the interests of the Canadian public ahead of the Conservative Party leadership and the far-right movement here in Canada. The amount of misinformation literature that constantly flows from the Conservative Party of Canada to Canadians is disgraceful. It really and truly is. It needs to stop. There is misinformation after misinformation, whether it is inside the chamber or outside the chamber. Let us take a look at what Bill C-16 would actually do. Around the world, I suspect we would get some recognition that we are, for the first time, talking about coercive actions by a spouse and elevating that to make it a new offence in Canadian law. That is what the Conservative Party is holding up because of its behaviour. Bill C-16 would deal with the issue of femicide. Show me another country in the world that actually has legislation that would elevate femicide to first-degree murder. The Conservatives talk tough, but in reality, once again, they just do not want to see the legislation pass, even though it is a substantial piece of legislation that would have a serious impact on our communities. Members talk about bringing back mandatory minimums. Let me give a sense of what those mandatory minimums are. First of all, the bill would bring back mandatory minimum sentences for sexual interference with a child and invitation to sexual touching. This is a very serious issue. At least on this side of the House, we have a Prime Minister and a government that recognize this is something that should have a mandatory minimum. That is why, within the legislation, we would be reinstating that as a mandatory minimum. Let me give another example. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have a few examples, so the member should calm down and listen to them. The member will learn something here and hopefully change his attitude and vote in favour of the legislation. Second, the bill would reinstate mandatory jail time for sexual exploitation of a child, including abuse by people in a position of trust. This is the type of legislation that I would expect the Conservative Party would be excited to get behind and support. Let us take a look at another restoration. The bill would restore mandatory minimums for making, possessing, accessing or distributing child sexual abuse material. The bill goes on. There is a lot more within the legislation, but day after day, we see Conservative member after Conservative member looking at the holistic approach of the suite of crime legislation that we have brought forward, and this is not the first time that I have had to try to shame the Conservatives into doing the right thing and delivering for their constituents. Let me give another example. The legislation brings back mandatory minimum jail time for online child luring and child sextortion, crimes that devastate children and families. These are the types of mandatory minimums that would actually be reinstated so that we could have safer communities. If the Conservatives want to talk about having safer communities, it is about time they put action to their words and got behind what the Prime Minister and the government are putting on the floor of the House of Commons. It is time for them to stop playing games and vote in favour of the legislation. Whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons or in our standing committees, the Conservatives need to recognize that at the end of the day, as the Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus has indicated very clearly, we want to build a stronger, healthier Canada, a Canada that is there for all Canadians. When we talk about building a healthier and stronger Canada, that includes the issue of community safety. That is the reason we have a suite of legislative actions. Let us remember Bill C‑2, the first action we took. We had a minority situation, and we could not get co-operation from any political entity in the House. They did not want that legislation to pass. I had the opportunity to talk about that legislation. I was discouraged. The legislation talked about issues like fentanyl, lawful access, protecting our borders, asylum seekers and stabilizing the issue of immigration. There was a great deal of substance within that legislation. However, the combined unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives made the decision that they would not allow Bill C‑2 to move forward. As a government in a minority situation, we had to break up the bill. We brought in Bill C‑12, where we could at least build somewhat of a consensus that would enable us to pass the legislation. However, it meant we had to leave a lot out. We made a commitment back then to attempt to bring it back at some point. On the asylum issue and the issue of safer borders, we brought that back in the form of Bill C‑12. We were able to get that passed, but it was not easy, much like Bill C-14. When we talk about Conservative delays on Bill C‑16, let us look at what took place on Bill C‑14. Bill C‑14 was all about bail reform legislation. We had law enforcement officers, the citizens we represent, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and many other stakeholders all onside saying they wanted Bill C‑14 on bail reform. I remember standing in this very spot last year, back in November, making a very clear statement: Would it not be nice if we could actually pass this legislation and deliver it out of the House of Commons before Christmas? That was a very real opportunity. We could have done it. The only thing that prevented us from doing it was the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what prevented us from being able to pass through bail reform legislation. It was very unfortunate. If members consulted and listened to what law enforcement, other jurisdictions and stakeholders were saying, I think it would be virtually unanimous in terms of the poor performance of the Conservative Party of Canada in denying Canadians the opportunity to have legislation that would make our communities safer. They had the opportunity. Then we go to Bill C‑22, which, again, comes out of Bill C‑2. It deals with issues like extortion and, again, child-related criminal activities. Now we have the Conservative Party saying, “Absolutely, no way. We do not want it.” They want nothing to do with it. Even though, in talking to the law enforcement agencies, there is phenomenal support for Bill C‑22 out there in our communities, the Conservative Party will not, in any fashion, lend support for lawful access legislation. On the one hand, they jump up like jumping beans at times, talking about the issue of extortion. They like to talk about it, but when we bring forward legislation to deal with it, what they do is filibuster again. That is fine. They want to focus on character assassination. That is their primary focus. The government and the Prime Minister are going to be focused on delivering sound public policy through legislation and budgetary measures. We will find, whether it is legislation or the budget, it is nothing but a reflection of what came out of the last election and what Canadians are telling Liberal members they want.”

“Canadians elected this government to lead. We have introduced important laws to make communities safer. The Conservatives are blocking these laws with delay tactics and games.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is relatively new to the House of Commons, but he is not alone. There were over 70 Liberals who were also elected in the last election. Canadians made the decision, and I would suggest it was a good decision, when they compared the leadership of all the political entities and elected a new prime minister. The new Prime Minister and the new government have brought in substantial pieces of legislation. The Conservatives need to get off the thinking of previous governments and focus on the current government and the actions that are being taken to make our communities safer. They need to take responsibility not only for their voting record but also for their behaviour inside the House. It is the Conservative Party that is denying Canadians safer communities because of their attitudes, filibusters and games here on the floor of the House of Commons.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Signal 29 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 →

“Conservatives are sharing false information online about this bill to protect victims of abuse. I want to know how this misinformation is affecting people in my colleague's riding.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague’s speech. I worked as a family law lawyer, and I assisted women who were fleeing violence at home. However, one of the things that I noticed, which has been very challenging to deal with, is the amount of misinformation that constituents are reaching out to me on about Bill C-16 because of what our Conservative colleagues are putting out on their social media. In fact, just tonight, a constituent of mine emailed me asking about a video he had seen posted by the former Conservative member from Peterborough, and thank God she is the former member, which was basically saying all kinds of nonsense about Bill C-16. How does my colleague see this manipulation of information by our Conservative colleagues affecting how his constituents understand Bill C-16?”

“The Conservatives are misleading Canadians about this bill. It brings back mandatory minimum sentences to protect children from exploitation, which is a good thing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the excessive abuse by the official opposition when it comes to the issue of misinformation, whether it is inside the House of Commons, here on the floor, or through social media and emails. It is literally non-stop. For example, on the mandatory minimums that we would reinstate under exceptional circumstances, the Conservatives are trying to mislead Canadians on what that would actually do. At the end of the day, Bill C-16 would reinstate mandatory minimums. It would protect, in particular, our children from all forms of exploitation. I see that as a positive thing, and it is really lame and sad to see the Conservative Party intentionally mislead Canadians on this issue.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 19 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 →

“I want the Conservatives to stop blocking this bill and let it pass. Our government wants to make communities safer, and this bill helps do that.”

“Mr. Speaker, what often happens with the Conservatives is that they do a great deal of research to try to justify a behaviour, which does nothing but downgrade and be disrespectful in terms of Canada and the way Canada is moving. I can tell the member that he needs to get ahead and start looking at what has taken place over the last 13 to 14 months since Canadians made the wise decision, I would argue, to elect a new prime minister and a new government with a totally different agenda, and part of that agenda is making the communities we represent safer. I wish that members of the Conservative Party of Canada would, to use their words, get out of the way and allow the legislation, these initiatives, to become law so that our constituents would be safer.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 24 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 →

“We have worked to protect women from controlling and abusive partners since 2018. I want to know why Parliament cannot work together to keep women safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, in 2018, at the justice committee, we studied the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour. From that time to now, we have been trying to make sure that women are safe in our communities. I would ask the member why he thinks we are not able to come together as a Parliament, as Canadians, as leaders in our country, to provide support to women and to make sure that their safety is paramount within our legislature and within our communities.”

“I want the House to support this bill. It makes controlling a partner a crime and makes killing women first-degree murder in certain cases. The Conservatives should not make excuses to oppose it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe Bill C-16 is a wonderful piece of legislation that we could have very easily had a coming together to recognize, for example, coercive control as a new offence and to recognize femicide being elevated to first-degree murder in certain situations. These are very tangible things. Ultimately, I would liked to have seen members on all sides of the House recognize the value. We did not have to look for a false excuse in order to justify poor behaviour, which is what we have witnessed from the Conservative Party.”

“A Conservative member yelled that my colleague was off his meds. It is wrong to insult people with mental health issues. I want that member to apologize.”

“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as my colleague for Winnipeg North was beginning his remarks, a member from the Conservative caucus yelled, “He’s off his meds.” Members would never yell, “They’re off their insulin.” To disparage Canadians who are dealing with mental health is unparliamentary, and it deserves an apology.”

“Police chiefs support this bill to stop controlling and violent partners. A woman is killed by an intimate partner every two days. I want the Conservatives to stop delaying this bill and explain why they will not vote for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, while there were very heartfelt emotions that came from the member, I do question why she is conflating mandatory minimums with what victims of domestic violence and intimate partner violence are facing. In 2018, when there was a study within the justice committee about coercive control behaviour as a Criminal Code charge, the chief of police for Peel Region was very much in favour of this and said we needed it. Even now, chiefs of police are standing up in support of the bill. I do not understand why the Conservatives are holding up a bill that would save lives. Every other day, a woman is murdered because of intimate partner violence. I do not understand the justification that the member has provided for voting against the bill.”