“I want to limit debate on the Senate's changes to this bail and sentencing bill to five more hours. After that, we must vote on them right away.”

“moved: That, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to the Bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the said stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.”

“I want the House to pass this bail reform bill today. Every premier wants it, and the changes are small and simple. We should not delay it for months.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not certain I heard a question in the intervention; however, I am happy to address the issue the member put forward. It is very clear, given the limited nature of the amendments, that there is no need for a multi-day, months-long debate that would extend into the fall the measures that every premier in this country is demanding the House take action on, that members of all parties in the House are asking us to expedite and that have been studied in depth at the committee. There are a small number of simple amendments that are easy to deal with. We have an opportunity to do something to promote public safety and to do it today. I hope we will not waste this particular moment in time because as the House very well knows, given the remaining sitting calendar of the House, the consequences of delaying further the consideration of this bill would delay its implementation for many months, which Canadians and communities across this country cannot afford.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 49 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“We need to pass this bill right away. The Senate changes are easy to accept. If we delay now, it could take months to put these new rules in place for violent repeat offenders.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree. The recent amendments made by the Senate are, indeed, fairly easy to deal with. It is my view that we can ill afford to risk the potential consequences of delays now. Even one or two days of delay in this chamber could lead to a months-long delay on the measures when it comes to violent repeat offenders. We just heard a petition read out in this regard. We have an opportunity to make a difference. The only choice that we have before us, given the seeming collaboration of different parties, is whether we are going to make the difference today, this week, or we are going to kick the can down the road and delay the implementation of the protections that Canadian communities are asking for and that every premier in this country has forcefully argued must be implemented right away.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bail reform bill now. The Conservatives are delaying it, even though they asked for it and provincial leaders want it. It will make Canadians safer.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am finding it fascinating that the position the Conservatives have adopted in this debate is to delay the implementation of the bail and sentencing reform act. This is something for which they have been asking for many months now. It is something that premiers of all parties, including conservative parties across the country, are saying in public must be implemented right away. There is widespread consensus among many members of the House that the measures included in this bill would lead to a greater degree of public safety for Canadians. Communities are asking for this bill. I have no appetite to delay further after many months of filibustering at the justice committee. We have an opportunity to make a difference, and we cannot let this narrow window of time before the House rises for the summer months prevent the protections for Canadians from coming into place expeditiously.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Conservatives are delaying votes on bills just to waste time, even when they support the bills. They force us to cut off debate so they can complain about it. They should stop playing these games.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting, listening to Conservatives talk about accountability and how dare we use this opportunity to move closure. Yesterday we moved closure on Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, which was supported unanimously in the PROC committee and then got to the House. They forced us to move closure on it just so they could vote on it as well. It passed unanimously in the House too. It is clear that all the Conservatives are doing is using any possible delay tactic, regardless of whether they even support a bill. Would the minister not agree that perhaps it is time for the Conservatives to put down the tool of forcing us to use time allocation just because they know they can delay until the point that we have to do this, so they can then use the 30 minutes to stand in the House and say, “Oh, how dare you disrupt accountability?” Meanwhile, it is all about the games that they are playing.”

“The Conservatives say they want us to act fast, but they keep delaying this bill. We need to pass it to keep Canadians safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, let me be specific in response to the member’s question, the spirit of which I agree with wholeheartedly. Over the past few days, we have seen repeated dilatory motions put forward in the House to adjourn the debate or adjourn the House for the day, knowing the limited amount of time that must take place before a piece of legislation can move forward. In particular, the protecting victims act was delayed by an entire day in going to the Senate, which further jeopardized the possibility that those protections would be in place before the House rises for the summer. We cannot, on the one hand, have the Conservative Party demanding that we take action, that we move more quickly, and, on the other hand, accept sincerely its position in this debate that we need to further delay the implementation of these measures. The Conservatives’ argument has become self-defeating. What is most important, though, is not the procedural tactics at play. It is delivering protections to Canadians to make communities safer.”

“I am worried other parties are using delays to stop this bill from passing before the summer break. We need to pass these tougher bail rules now to protect people from violent repeat offenders.”

“Mr. Speaker, the reason is that there is a heightened degree of anxiety on my part, given the procedural tactics we have seen play out in this chamber over the past number of days. I just cited an example, in response to the last questioner, of a very specific series of motions that in fact delayed the advancement of criminal justice reforms to the Senate in hopes that we can adopt them before the end of this sitting. I do think there is risk, depending on the level of collaboration that we see or do not see with other parties, but it is a risk that we can ill afford to take. There is no world in which I would feel good going home in the summer knowing that we did not do everything we could to ensure that we advance measures that protect against the harms from violent repeat offenders. The kinds of things we are talking about are harms to first responders and tougher bail rules. I see I am running out of time, but I think the member gets the spirit of the response.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“We are accepting several suggested changes to this bail bill, including funding provinces to collect bail data. Most of us agree on this bill, so we should stop debating and pass it quickly.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my friend from the opposite coast of this country. We have many issues of common concern. I am glad he recognizes the importance of the bill, but just as a matter of fact, I do need to correct the record. He suggested that the amendments are simply being dismissed. With respect to the amendment on the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, that is an amendment that we are accepting. With the proposed amendments impacting the role of sureties, that is something we are willing to accept. When it comes to doing a better job of collecting and reporting on bail data, we are not just accepting the amendment, but we are actually going to be funding provincial governments, which are the custodians of that data. Given the widespread agreement among members of the House, and given the work that we have done in collaboration with the Senate, there is not a significant need to debate endlessly the narrow set of reforms that have been proposed. We need to move and we need to move quickly if we are going to ensure that this bill becomes law expeditiously.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill quickly. It stops people convicted of sexual crimes against children from serving their sentences in the community. It also makes bail harder to get for violent and repeat offenders, and gives them harsher sentences.”

“Mr. Speaker, let me signal, as a sign of good faith, that it is not a partisan issue when we are dealing with something as heinous as sexual crimes committed against children. Though this bill is focused more squarely on bail and sentencing, I would point the member to changes that would be made in this act when it comes to conditional sentencing orders for sexual offences, including sexual offences against children, which would no longer be available should this bill pass. In addition to the issue that squarely addresses the member’s concern, in this bill we are proposing a series of changes that would make it more difficult for violent and repeat offenders to receive bail and would result in harsher sentences. The spirit of his question is reflected in the text of the bill. I hope we can use that as motivation to quickly implement the measures so families and survivors, as he has referenced, have the protections that this bill would provide.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“People in my riding are asking why this bill is delayed. Can the minister explain why we need to pass it and how it will help Canadians?”

“Mr. Speaker, just today, I received multiple calls from my constituents about why this bill is delayed. For months, it has been on the table. Could the minister explain to us why this bill is so crucial to pass and how it would help Canadians?”

“We need to make our bail and sentencing laws tougher on violent and repeat criminals. Giving courts more power to keep dangerous people in jail will protect the public from serious crimes like home invasions, car theft, and extortion.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her continued advocacy on behalf of public safety in the community she represents. She has been a tremendous advocate, saying that we need to ensure the bail provisions in the Criminal Code and the sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes she has witnessed in her own community, with a view to improving public safety. Very specifically, we have an opportunity to ensure the Criminal Code treats more seriously violent and repeat offenders and gives courts the tools they need to ensure that when public safety is at risk, there are stronger grounds to detain a person so that we do not pass the risk on to the general public. Whether we are dealing with home invasions, auto theft, violent extortion or crimes committed against our first responders, there is a very clear need to ensure that we strengthen the criminal law reform as part of the public safety strategy, which would also include more support for the front line and upstream investments to end violent crime in the long term.”

“I want to limit debate so we can pass this bail reform bill quickly. Conservatives wasted months stalling it in committee, and Canadians cannot wait any longer.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a failure of logic to assume the same rule can be applied across a very different set of facts in every instance and result in the same outcome. One of the reasons we are forced to move forward with time allocation ties back to the issue that I raised months ago when the member’s Conservative colleagues were filibustering for months at the justice committee. I warned them at the time that was going to delay the potential implementation of the bail and sentencing reform act and the protecting victims act. Despite the fact that there is widespread agreement on many of the measures included in both of those bills, the filibuster continued for months. We saw on the video clips members talking about their preference for puppies or kittens rather than how we can strengthen the criminal law response. I would dare argue in this House that as a result of those delays, we have a limited choice. Do we want to move forward expeditiously using the procedural tools to implement these reforms this week or do we want to simply throw our hands up and say this can wait several months down the road? Canadians are telling us they cannot wait, and I agree.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill today. The Conservatives say they support it, but they are delaying it. Police, cities, and provinces all agree these changes are needed.”

“Mr. Speaker, there was not a question that I could observe in the member’s statement, but he did cite that he has an obligation as a member of the opposition. I would ask him to talk to his colleagues on the justice committee, who, in my view, have failed to live up to that obligation. He says they should raise issues to improve the strength of the bill when they spent months filibustering, again talking about their preference for puppies or kittens, knowing they were going to delay the implementation of these measures. We have an opportunity to move forward with the measures the Conservative Party says it supports, but yet delays the implementation of them. We should get beyond the political back-and-forth and realize where we have widespread consensus, supported by law enforcement, provincial governments, cities and parliamentarians in the House and in the Senate from a wide range of regions and political affiliations. I suggest we should take the opportunity before us to implement these measures today.”

“I want the House to pass this bill quickly before we break for the summer. Premiers, mayors, and police across the country are asking for these changes to criminal law to keep people safe. We cannot afford to delay.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the potential adjournment date the House may be looking at, but I do know that the sitting schedule, as broadcasted publicly, is set to expire at the end of next week. I have a responsibility, in my view, to make good on the commitments that I have made and to respect the feedback I have received from premiers, mayors and law enforcement leaders across this country, to implement the criminal law reforms that I believe will contribute to public safety. This is a key piece of the puzzle. We also need to support those on the front line, both police and community organizations, and make upstream investments in mental health and addictions, affordable housing and programs that support at-risk youth. However, I do not think we can afford to delay, potentially months, the implementation of the measures that I know our counterparts from different walks of life across this country are screaming for and demanding that this House take action on expeditiously.”

“We promised to fight crime, and we have brought in bills to make communities safer. The Conservatives need to stop delaying this bill. It fixes bail rules, and almost everyone supports it. We need to pass our crime laws.”

“Mr. Speaker, my priority is the residents of Winnipeg North. I know, in the last election, a commitment was made to deal with the issue of crime. The Prime Minister made it a part of our election platform. This is something we have taken very seriously. We have brought forward a number of pieces of legislation to protect our communities and make them safer. I am tired of the Conservatives filibustering on all these crime initiatives. Bill C‑14 deals with bail reform and has wide support from many different stakeholders, virtually all stakeholders. I understand even the Conservatives might support it. How important is it for us to be able to get our crime agenda through? After all, it was in the election platform.”

“I want the House to pass this bill now. Police and community leaders asked us to crack down on car theft, home invasions, extortion, and sexual assault by fixing our bail and sentencing rules. This bill does that.”

“Mr. Speaker, let us just draw into focus what is at stake. We asked law enforcement leaders, community leaders and elected officials what the priorities are in their communities when it comes to public safety. They said, “We want you to do more when it comes to auto theft. We want you to do more when it comes to home invasions. We want you to do more when it comes to violent extortion and when it comes to sexual assaults. We want you to address specifically the challenges in the bail system and the challenges when it comes to sentencing for these horrific crimes.” We have listened to that feedback. This process has been a model of collaboration with provincial governments, with police leaders and with advocates for public safety. We have an opportunity to directly implement the solutions that we know communities are calling for. The only question we have, as a House, is whether we want to take advantage of the opportunity to do that now, or whether we can kick the can down the road for several months. In my view, when we have an opportunity to make a difference that is going to serve the interests of Canadians, reduce crime in this country and promote public safety, we should take it at the first opportunity.”

“We need to pass our bill to reform bail and protect victims now. The Conservatives are trying to delay it, even though police, mayors, and premiers support it.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to the member’s question, she drew into focus the importance of dealing with survivors who are faced with gender-based violence and sexual crimes. We need to move. However, it is hypocrisy in the extreme when the member yesterday voted against the protecting victims act, which deals specifically with the issues that she has just raised. The kind of action that she is asking for in her question is represented in the bill that she is now seeking to delay. We do not need to wait to implement the solutions that are widely agreed upon in this House; they come directly from police leaders, community organizations, mayors and premiers. It is extraordinary to me that the Conservatives have adopted the position, months after this debate has started, that we need to delay action on bail reform. I disagree.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“We need to limit debate and pass this bill quickly. Premiers, mayors, and police want us to act on bail reform now, but the Conservatives are trying to delay it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I question the relevance of the member’s question on a debate about time allocation for the bail and sentencing reform act. I have not been at the committee to which he refers, but it is important to recognize that we use a tool where it is appropriate for a particular job. The member suggested that I decried the use of this tool in other circumstances. If members check the record, I did no such thing. However, I recognize that sometimes people have to realize that a scalpel and a sledgehammer are appropriate for different items. When it comes to this particular use of time allocation, we are responding to the urgent call for action from premiers, mayors, law enforcement and concerned Canadians who care about public safety. The Conservative position that we should delay action on bail and sentencing in the face of these calls for action from the parties I just listed is bizarre to me. They have been demanding that I take action, that I implement the very reforms they have an opportunity to vote for, which they supported in the past, and now they are saying we should kick the can down the road. This is a failure of logic in the extreme.”

“The member voted against this bill because of one small part. By doing that, she voted against protections against fake sexual images, child abuse, harassment, and domestic violence. She should not claim she supported those protections when she voted against them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the hon. member that with her vote yesterday, she placed her objection to one narrow portion of the bill, which only deals with situations where there would be a grossly disproportionate outcome. She said with her vote yesterday that it was more important than dealing with AI deepfakes when it comes to non-consensual intimate images, more important than protecting the victims of child sexual exploitation, more important than the child-luring provisions, more important than the criminal harassment provisions, more important than the femicide provisions and more important than the coercive control provisions. Members may come to realize, as they spend more time in this place, that there is a range of different perspectives and that sometimes perfection can be the enemy of the good. We are not always going to agree on everything, but she should not colour the historical record and say she voted for something when she voted—”

“This bill includes good ideas from all parties, as well as police across Canada. It goes further than the Conservative member's bill, and it includes Conservative ideas. The Conservatives should not delay a bill that uses their own advice.”

“Mr. Speaker, the private member’s bill to which the hon. member refers did have some shortcomings, some provisions that I questioned as to whether they would actually promote public safety, other provisions that I questioned about their constitutional validity. However, where there were common ideas that we could collaborate on, we can actually see some of those ideas that came from Conservative members in this bill, one of which is the subject of a further amendment from the Senate committee involving a more restrictive use of sureties for people who have an indictment on their criminal record within the previous 10 years. There are other ideas that were of mutual concern that were reflected in both of our parties’ platforms. However, the measures proposed in this bill are far more reaching, more extensive and more clearly reflect the feedback of the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Police Association, even in my own community, the New Glasgow Regional Police. We can look at communities across Canada, we can look at provincial governments across Canada, and see ideas from Liberal, NDP and Conservative Party members alike that found their way into this bill. This has been a model of collaboration through the process. I thank Conservative members for their contribution. I find it objectionable that they seek to now delay some of the advice they provided to me, in terms of the content of this bill that should be implemented.”