“I want to limit how much more time we spend debating this bill so the House can vote on it.”

“moved: That in relation to Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), not more than one further day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and at the end of the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading 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 bill quickly. It will protect people right away from new harms, like fake intimate pictures made with AI, which mostly hurt women. We have worked well with other parties before, and we should work together now.”

“Madam Speaker, respectfully, I find that I have enjoyed a productive working relationship with members of the opposition, including, specifically, the hon. member as the critic of this portfolio. We have accepted a number of amendments from different parties, including from the Conservative Party. This has come to embody the work we did in government before and after the moment it became a majority. I would note, in particular, the collaboration my office and I have undertaken with the public safety critic, a Conservative member of Parliament, specifically with respect to his work to advance Bailey’s Law, Bill C-225. We built relationships with the family to ensure that important protections, including some that are similar to those in Bill C-16, were baked into law to honour the memory of their beloved and departed relative. We have the opportunity to take good ideas from different members of the House of Commons from different parties. In the present instance, the reason we wish to move quickly is that there are protections that could be afforded to people very soon, or they could delivered months from now. This comes at a time when, in my home province, in just these past few days, we are seeing news stories about the rampant increase of AI deepfakes depicting people, without their consent, in intimate scenarios against their will. We have an opportunity to nip in the bud growing social problems that are disproportionately having a negative impact on women in the country and are promoting cultures of violence and discrimination, and I think we can do our part to help advance protections as quickly as possible. I would invite collaboration from all members of the House. Hopefully, the points in debate will be on substantive concerns, rather than a mirage of false claims that we are not being collaborative.”

• 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 working with other parties on this bill, and some of their ideas are already in it. A committee will meet six times to study it. We need to pass this bill quickly to protect victims of crime right away.”

“Madam Speaker, I disagree with my colleague when he says that the government is not collaborating. He also talked about transparency. I want to clarify one thing: There will be six meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights devoted to consideration of this bill. We have an opportunity to improve protection for families and communities. I will give him an example of collaboration: Some of the ideas in this bill come from critics for the Bloc Québécois and other parties as well. For example, the idea of creating a new offence for recruiting young people to commit criminal offences comes from a Bloc Québécois critic. I think that is a good idea. Indeed, the purpose of the bill is to prevent youth exploitation. I think we can continue this collaboration, but protection does not stop there. We have to advance these protections expeditiously if we can afford protections over the next number of months for victims of crime, particularly sexual crime. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to be part of the solution today or we want to kick the can a few months down the road. I clearly stand on the side of taking action today.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The opposition wasted months at committee on other things, which delayed our work to protect victims of crime. Now we might face more delays. Also, his plan to use the notwithstanding clause to bring back mandatory minimum sentences only gives temporary protection, because that clause expires after five years.”

“Madam Speaker, first, I take issue with the characterization of not providing adequate opportunity for debate. I warned the member and his colleagues on the justice committee that their shenanigans and filibustering for months on a separate bill, which tied up work, would delay our work on bail reform, sentencing reform and protections for victims of gender-based violence. Here we are, months down the road. They spent hours upon hours debating whether they prefer puppies or kittens, rather than how we can protect victims of crime. We are now facing a potential delay over the summer, due specifically to the wasted time at the justice committee, including the member’s repeated interventions that were designed to chew up the clock, rather than advance protections for Canadians. I disagree with him on his threshold question. On the substance, we examined a range of different options for how to address the fallout of the Senneville decision to restore mandatory minimums in cases involving child pornography, as well as mandatory minimums that were previously struck down or were constitutionally vulnerable. One of the reasons his proposal would result in weaker protections for victims is the temporary nature of the notwithstanding clause. There is a five‑year term, which would expire when we have the same constitutional challenges that would—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We worked with members from different parties, including the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, to improve this bill. We listened to them and made sure judges still have some choice in rare cases where the punishment would be too harsh.”

“Madam Speaker, finally, in order to drive home the point that we believe we found a better path forward, we did not rely just on guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada. We took guidance from members of Parliament from different parties, including the public safety critic within the Conservative Party of Canada and the justice critic within the Bloc Québécois, who demanded that and implored their colleagues from all parties move forward with what they discussed as a safety valve to provide some residual discretion where there are grossly disproportionate consequences. That is the path we followed.”

“I want Parliament to pass this bill now. A woman is killed every 48 hours in Canada. Making controlling behaviour a crime lets us stop domestic abuse before it turns deadly. We also need to stop people from using AI to make fake, non-consensual sexual images of others.”

“Madam Speaker, let us think about what my colleague just said. There is a woman killed every 48 hours in this country. There could not be a more pressing desire to act, and to act now. We have the opportunity, by criminalizing coercive control, not only to punish wrongdoing after it has taken place, but to intervene in relationships before they become violent and before that violence becomes fatal. I mentioned during a previous answer that I saw, after debating the specific point last week in scrums and in the Senate, that we need to take action against the proliferation of AI deepfakes. I arrived back in my home province to see that someone is facing 79 charges, with an uncertain outcome through the trial, of using AI to generate deepfakes in horrific and heinous sexual acts without the consent of the person whose likeness is in these images. We have an opportunity to be part of the solution today. I would urge all parliamentarians to take it.”

“We should pass this bill today because we have studied it enough. I want to stop elder abuse, but we cannot simply copy the rules against partner violence into this bill without more study first.”

“Madam Speaker, first, on the closure issue, I have made the case that there was ample study. There was filibustering at the committee. We have an opportunity to take action today, and I believe we should. On the substance of her question, it is an area where I am genuinely interested in identifying the best policy path forward. However, I did not think it appropriate to copy and paste protections that were developed very specifically for the purpose of combatting intimate partner and gender-based violence when it came to coercive control. It may not be that the exact same test can be replicated to deal with the very serious issue of elder abuse. I do think the five-year review period included in the bill would provide that opportunity. However, should parliamentarians desire to take action sooner, I do believe a parliamentary committee study would shed light on the best way to address that very serious issue, because elder abuse certainly is a problem in this country. I just do not know that the identical solution for gender-based violence could be applied equally to those circumstances without doing the policy work.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support my colleague's work on this law to protect victims of intimate partner violence. I want the Senate to pass it quickly. My colleague also claims his words were misunderstood. But the record shows he once strongly supported giving judges more sentencing choices so that minimum prison terms could stay in place. I can share the video and the record to prove it.”

“Madam Speaker, first of all, my hon. colleague has done admirable work advancing Bailey’s law. I support it fully. I urge senators to adopt it expeditiously to deliver some of the protections. The member has been working with family members who have been working with me and my team. We owe it to those who continue to advocate on Bailey’s behalf to get that bill implemented to become law in Canada to protect victims of intimate partner violence. I want to thank him specifically for his collaboration in honour of the loss of Bailey’s life and to prove that it was not in vain. In addition, my colleague raised his concerns about his words being misconstrued. Thankfully, there is a record of the words spoken in this place. I would note that he tried to distinguish his argument on the basis that his comments previously were about child sexual exploitation and abuse material. That, in fact, was very specifically at issue in the Senneville decision, which motivated the use of the safety valve in this particular case. I have been curious if he was going to participate in the debate on this issue of the safety valve. I would be happy to dig out the video evidence of his position on the matter, or the Hansard record, whichever manner would demonstrate that, in fact, he previously made the case very strongly, imploring even his colleagues within his own party to adopt a safety valve approach so we can restore, very specifically, mandatory minimum penalties. I would be happy to provide that record to the member or to the House, as it would satisfy those listening to the debate.”

“I want the House to pass this bill now. It protects victims of violence, including people harmed by fake sexual images made with AI. We have debated it enough, and the Conservatives need to stop delaying it.”

“Madam Speaker, the measures included in this bill have the potential to save the lives of victims who are facing violence. To be accused of wanting to go on vacation when I am willing to sit through the entirety of the summer to get this done, if necessary, is absolutely ludicrous. I see people in my own community and in my own province facing 79 charges of using AI to create deepfakes of intimate images depicting people in heinous sexual acts without their consent. Shame on me for wanting to take action. There have been six meetings at the justice committee. After months of the Conservatives’ filibustering and denying the progress of this bill, we have an opportunity to deliver protections for people who are facing violence. To be accused of wanting to go on vacation is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, we are here to work. I would suggest all members of Parliament, regardless of party, are here to work, but let us stop the charade of pretending there has not been an ample debate on this issue. Let us move forward with the protections that victims so richly deserve.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives delay every single bill. Because they block everything, the government has to force debates to end so bills can move forward.”

“Madam Speaker, I find it really amusing to listen to Conservatives talk about games being played in the House when they are literally the party that hid people behind the curtain during a very important vote months ago. Would the minister not agree with me that, time after time, we see the Conservatives refusing to let legislation through, so we have to eventually use a tool like this to advance it? If they were more selective and did their filibustering tactics every once in a while, it might hold a bit more credibility. The problem is that they do it at every single opportunity, so with every single bill, it seems like this is the only way to keep it advancing forward. We will get to the point where the public does not even realize what is going on anymore because the Conservatives do it every single time. Would the minister not agree that the Conservatives’ approach and strategy would probably be a bit more productive if they were a bit more selective in choosing when to use the tool of filibustering to prevent and delay legislation from moving forward?”

“I want to pass this bill right now. Conservatives are delaying it in committee. Victims, police, and judges need these protections today instead of waiting months.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague makes an excellent point. I wish I could say that this is a surprise. Realistically, when we had members of the justice committee filibuster for months a study on a previous piece of legislation that had been adopted by the House, we warned them. We told them that their antics were going to delay the implementation of protections that would be embedded in Canada’s criminal law, and that it would delay for victims the beneficial impact of the laws that we are putting forward in the House. Did the Conservatives listen? No, they did no. They continued to filibuster for hours upon hours, talking out the clock and preventing the work of the justice committee from advancing. We are now exactly where we said we would be because of that delay. We have been forced to move forward, despite the fact that there has been a robust study, by the way. This is the question that is central to this debate: Do we think it is acceptable to wait a few months to implement the protections that victims are demanding we put in place, that judges are calling for from the bench and that law enforcement are demanding, or do we want to implement them today? The Liberal Party of Canada wants to implement them today. It is a shame the Conservatives want to kick it down the road to the fall.”