“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.”

“I want the Conservatives to stop delaying and let us pass this bail reform bill. I want to know what the minister thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, six months ago I was standing in this very place, literally pleading with Conservative Party members to allow passage of Bill C‑14, recognizing just how popular this legislation was and the support it had. I literally was begging, saying we would sit until midnight and extend the sitting, how nice it would be to see this bill actually pass before Christmas, yet, once again, here we stand waiting for the Conservative Party to recognize just how important this legislation is and that it needs to pass. I am afraid that without this tool being used, it would be the intention of the Conservative Party to continue to postpone and never let this bill pass. Could the minister comment?”

“I want the House to pass this bill right now before summer break. It will help stop car theft, home break-ins, and other violent crimes. Delaying it hurts public safety.”

“Mr. Speaker, if we go back to the timeline the hon. member is citing, I raised with colleagues in different parties in the House my concern about the shenanigans being played out at justice committee that were preventing the advancement of this bill and the protecting victims act. We are now in a position that reflects precisely the advice we provided to the opposition at the time, which was that we would potentially see months-long delays in the implementation of these bills, which they claim to support. We have an opportunity to take action today to combat extortion, home invasions, auto theft and sexual assault. The only question is whether we are going to act today or months down the road. That kind of delay is senseless and would not offer an ounce of contribution to public safety. We are moving forward. I would ask that all members recognize the urgency with which communities are calling for these measures so we can implement them in law before Parliament rises for the summer.”

“The Senate's changes to this bill are not loopholes. One change helps us collect better bail data, and we are giving the provinces money to do it. Another change delays youth justice rules because Ontario asked for more time to prepare. We are rejecting a change that repeats rules we already have. I want the member to show where these loopholes are, because I do not see them.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is characterizing amendments from the Senate as loopholes. One of the amendments proposes that we do a better job of collecting and reporting data on bail. We are not just reporting and collecting; we are going to contribute financially to provinces’ exercises to do that. Another loophole would be the delayed implementation of certain measures on the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and that comes as a direct request from the Conservative government in Ontario because it has to make sure its system is ready to handle changes to the law. Another proposed amendment is being rejected on the basis of its redundancy. To the extent the member is pointing to loopholes, I would ask him to identify them, because simply, I do not see them.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →