“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?”

“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 →