“Canadians need this bill to stop repeat offenders from getting bail. But the government is cutting off debate to rush it through. That is not democratic and it lacks transparency.”

“Mr. Speaker, I know the provisions of Bill C-14 have great utility for the people of Canada right now. They have suffered for a decade or more under Liberal rule and a system that allows repeat offenders out on bail to wreak havoc in communities. What I do not think is acceptable is the lack of transparency and the use of routine, normal negotiations to get this bill through the House expeditiously. I find the concept of closure anti-democratic, and the lack of transparency is absolutely against the interests of Canadians.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 44 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 minister to explain why the government is cutting off debate on this bill. It is an important bill and we need more time to talk about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, while I agree that there is a time and place where time allocation makes sense, this is not one of those times. This is an important piece of legislation that does not have unanimous consent in the House and therefore needs debate. Can the minister please explain why the Liberals want to shut down debate on the legislation at this point in time?”

“Survivors of sexual assault asked why people convicted of these crimes keep getting bail. I want to know if the justice minister will promise to change the law later if this bill does not do enough to stop them.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will remember that several times in the House I have raised the issue of a three-year-old little toddler in my riding who was brutally raped and beaten and left for dead. About a week and a half ago, survivors of sexual assault from early age to adulthood came to Ottawa to talk to members of the House about their stories of survival. This is not a partisan issue for me. This is something that we need to do as a country. These survivors came to Ottawa and asked me to ask the Minister of Justice why it is that we continually see people being given bail after being convicted of sexual assaults against children and adults. Will he commit to ensuring that if this legislation does not go far enough, there will be amendments made in the future to ensure that for the perpetrators of these vile crimes against children, it never happens again?”

“Liberals used to complain when Conservatives cut off debate on bills. Now the Liberals cut off debate even more often. I want the minister to explain why that is okay now.”

“Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the minister was not here during the last Conservative government. There are members across the way who were here, and they may recall the outrage whenever the Harper government used time allocation. If we look at the number of sitting days the Liberal government has had in place since it got its majority, it is on a vastly higher pace in the use of time allocation. I would like to read a quote from the debate on Bill C‑38. It said that the government has consistently demonstrated a lack of respect for democracy and the parliamentary process when discussing the use of time allocation. Who said that? It was the member for Winnipeg North. I am wondering if the minister could explain to us how the glass house he lives in is different now than it was 12 years ago when the member for Winnipeg North was yelling about the same issue.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 66 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the glass house he lives in”.

  See full analysis →

“Crime has gotten out of control under the Liberals. They are shutting down debate on this crime bill, but the opposition has a job to suggest changes to it.”

“Mr. Speaker, crime has gone out of control under the Liberals with violent crime, extortion and those out on bail. They make it seem as if they are the bearers of truth and justice and getting things done when they are the reason we are in the situation we are now. They are closing down debate. We have a role to play. I am sure the Liberals would prefer there not be an opposition. We have a responsibility to bring forward amendments as the opposition on behalf of Canadians, because almost all the time the Liberals get it wrong.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 36 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 →

“The government is rushing this bill and shutting down debate instead of making it stronger. Crime is out of control, and victims are asking for stronger laws to protect them from repeat violent offenders. We need more time to debate and fix this bill to keep Canadians safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, the government thinks it can fix the chaos it created by rushing legislation and shutting down debate. I am hearing directly from survivors, women who have faced repeat violent offenders, and they are asking for stronger protections, not weaker laws. Organized crime has taken over, as criminals know there are no real consequences. There are real amendments that need to be made to better protect Canadians, yet the government is cutting off debate and limiting committee work. Why are the Liberals shutting down debate instead of strengthening the law to keep Canadians safe?”

“The justice minister criticized how Conservatives used House rules in the past, but he defends how the government is using them now. How can he compare the two when the government is currently shutting down debate in committee?”

“Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the Minister of Justice referenced the procedural tools of the trade that are used. He decried the Conservative Party’s use of the tools in the past and justified the use of the tools in this present hour. How is the Conservative Party’s use of procedural tools equivalent when comparing what is being done to stifle debate at the health committee by going in camera on PrescribeIT versus what we are witnessing here today?”

“I want to protect victims, but I am voting against this bill because it makes mandatory minimum sentences optional. The government is wrongly saying we do not care about victims, and they are shutting down debate so we cannot speak up.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I debated on Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act, I spoke clearly to my community to say that I am not voting wholeheartedly against this piece of legislation. I am not voting against protecting victims. I am not voting against protecting intimate partner violence victims, but I am voting against completely negating the entire thing by making mandatory minimums optional. I knew this was going to happen, that we would be told that we voted against protecting victims. That is untrue. This is exactly the importance of debate in this House. Why is the government shutting down debate? Do they want to silence our voices so they can gaslight Canadians and say we vote against everything?”

“Canadians deserve to feel safe, but the Liberals have caused a crime wave. Conservatives proposed a bill to keep serious offenders in jail instead of letting them out on bail, but the Liberals voted against it. How can the minister say this is urgent now when the Liberals caused the problem and rejected our solution?”

“Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canadians want, need and deserve to feel safer in their communities, especially after the Liberal government has unleashed a crime wave across the country. The minister, of course, acknowledged here today that Canadians want this urgently. They urgently want some changes to the situation that the Liberal government has caused. However, the Conservatives have brought forward a number of proposals, including Bill C‑242, the jail not bail act that would keep serious offenders behind bars and not out on bail, yet that was defeated by these Liberals. How can the minister stand here today and talk about the urgency of addressing the issue that the Liberals caused in the first place with their own reckless policies, when they voted against our common-sense proposals to keep serious offenders behind bars?”

“Conservatives tried to make this bill stronger and pass it faster. The Senate added loopholes back into it. We need to remove those loopholes to make our streets safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it so rich that the Liberals now find some urgency to do this. The Conservatives have offered multiple times at committee to advance this legislation, bring it forward faster, get things done, include common-sense amendments and deal with the loopholes that could have been presented. Now we have loopholes that have again been put into the bill through the amendments from the Senate. These need to be addressed. Those loopholes need to be removed to make this a solid bill so that the Canadian public can once and for all have safe streets again, after 11 years of the Liberals’ mismanagement of the justice file, among every other file.”