Debates of Feb. 13th, 2026

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no, we have been focusing on strengthening the bill, not weakening the bill, which is why Conservatives put forward so many positive amendments. Thankfully, some that were entertained are now going to become law, should this bill pass through the Senate, but we are going to leave aside bills that would put the priority of convicted criminals above that of victims.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is it true? Did we just heard the member say that Bill C-9 is unnecessary? That is our hate crime legislation. Worshippers in Canada today have felt intimidated and threatened going to their place of worship. We are trying to protect Canadians from that threat, that fear for their lives.

The Jewish community has been asking for this bill for a long time, and it seems like the member does not care.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have received more emails, phone calls, and stops in the grocery store than I ever have on any other issue about the amendments to remove the freedom of religious expression, which the Liberals cooked up with the Bloc Québécois. That is the problem.

Of course, acts of hate are the problem. We should have a country where our prosecutors and police act on the laws that we have to protect worshippers of all faiths and all Canadians. It has only been during the last 10 years that we have seen this rapid rise in every type of crime, including hate crime, under the Liberal government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 9.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

I would like to make a brief statement for the benefit of all members.

The member in whose name the report stage motion is standing is not in a position to indicate that it should be adopted. No other members have indicated that it should be either adopted or negativized.

Our own practice is silent as to what to do in such a situation. However, the issue has come up in the British House of Commons. Erskine May, 25th edition, in paragraph 20.60, states the following: “When, on the question being put, no Member has said either ‘aye’ or ‘no’, the Deputy Speaker has declared the question negatived”.

Since the House is in a similar situation today, I will follow this precedent and declare the motions negatived.

I thank all members for their attention in this regard.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would request it be carried it on division.

(Motion agreed to)

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

moved that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing) be read a third time and passed.

Similarities Between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to contribute to the point of order raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands concerning the continued placement of Bill C-2, the so-called strong borders act, on the Order Paper.

As you and the whole House well know, Bill C-2 was a significant overreach.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

I invite the member to make his intervention, and then we will carry on after.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although the business of the House will continue in a mere moment's time, the whole House knows that Bill C-2 was a significant overreach. If passed in its current form, Bill C-2 would require law-abiding Canadians to lose important liberties to pay for the Liberals' failures on borders and immigration.

The government, realizing the passage of Bill C-2 would be neither swift nor assured, went back to the drawing board and repackaged the less contentious aspects into new legislation, Bill C-12, the Bill C-2 redo. However, the government has since publicly indicated that the orphaned portions of Bill C-2 not only remain Liberal policy but also continue to be part of its parliamentary agenda, as is.

I share the member's view that Bill C-2, in its current form, cannot proceed further in the House by virtue of the same question rule. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explains this practice at paragraphs 12.89 and 12.90:

A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House. Thus, if a bill or motion is rejected or adopted, it cannot be revived in the same session.... This is to prevent the time of the House being used in the discussion of motions of the same nature, with the possibility of contradictory decisions being arrived at in the course of the same session.

This rule is dependent upon the principle which forbids the same question from being decided in the House twice within the same session. Although two similar or identical motions or bills may appear in the Notice Paper, only one motion or one bill may be proceeded with. Thus, if a decision is taken by the House on the first bill, for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process, then the other similar or identical bill may not be proceeded with.

In the present case, Bill C-12 would be what is described as the “first bill” in Janse and LeBlanc's explanation, because it had been adopted at second reading back on October 23, 2025, while Bill C-2 would be the “other bill” described in that passage and therefore cannot now proceed.

Bill C-12 and Bill C-2 are, in my view, very similar in substance. Indeed, Bill C-12 is effectively a copy and paste of 11 of the 16 parts of Bill C-2, plus one of its two schedules, as the member enumerated in her argument.

Setting aside the marketing-oriented short titles of the two bills, Bill C-12 is composed of 136 of the 197 clauses found in Bill C-2, or 69% of its clauses, adjusted only insofar as necessary to reflect the passage of time between the introduction of the two bills. As such, if the House is called upon to vote on Bill C-2, it would be called upon to vote again for second reading of many legislative measures it has already approved, but it might yield a different result.

The Chair has had multiple opportunities during the previous two Parliaments to rule on these issues, after many Conservative private members' bills have been poached by the government as its own legislation. While we are happy to see a good idea get adopted, often it gets thrown into an omnibus budget implementation bill, or buried, some might say.

I would refer the House, for example, to the following rulings: Mr. Speaker Rota, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates; the Deputy Speaker on May 11, 2022, at page 5123 of the Debates; Mr. Speaker Rota on June 6, 2022, at page 6140 of the Debates; Mr. Speaker Rota on September 20, 2022, at page 7341 of the Debates; the Speaker's immediate predecessor on November 29, 2023, at page 19211 of the Debates, and again on December 12, 2023, at page 19978; and finally, the then Deputy Speaker on June 7, 2024, at page 24627 of the Debates.

In the May 2022 ruling, the Chair held that Bill C-250, the private member's bill proposed by our colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon South, could not be debated and would be rendered “pending” following the second reading of Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill that contained clauses similar to my friend's bill because:

The House should not face a situation where the same question can be decided twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

In June 2024, the Chair again fashioned a similar procedure, which would have seen the vote at third reading of another private member's bill, Bill C-323, held in abeyance, if necessary, until the budget implementation bill, Bill C-59, had completed its course through Parliament.

This approach to placing pieces of legislation on hold after a similar bill has made progress is not a brand new practice. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener, who said on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, in another situation concerning nearly identical pieces of legislation:

...the House is not going to occupy itself on two separate occasions under two separate headings with exactly the same business. That would not be reasonable, and I can find no support or authority for following such a course. Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

To sum up one of my most brief points of order ever, 69% of the content of Bill C-2 is replicated in Bill C-12, making the two bills substantively similar. The House has since passed Bill C-12 at third reading, in another example of the wonderful collaboration that is found in this place, and it is working its way through the procedures of the other place.

Because the two bills are substantively similar, the same question rule precludes the House from voting on the same matter twice, and therefore, Bill C-2 must be placed in abeyance while Bill C-12 remains before Parliament. If Bill C-12 receives royal assent, Bill C-2 then must be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper.

I note that all of the records were from nearly the last 100 years, again a departure from my usual practice in raising the precedents that guide the decisions of the Chair.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention, and certainly the matter will be taken under the consideration of the Chair.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the third time and passed.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request that it be carried on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call at 1:30 p.m. so we could begin Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 6, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Clean Coasts Act

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak in the House today, and since it is the last time before the big day tomorrow, February 14, I would like to take a moment to talk about Valentine's Day.

I think it is an important day for many people. Obviously, it is very important to me. I would like to take this opportunity to send my love to my partner, to whom I am deeply devoted, as well as to my children, Ulysse, Malbaie and Marcéline. I would also like to wish a happy Valentine's Day to everyone in the House and to all my friends and acquaintances. I might add that today is one of the few days when the colour red does not annoy me, so people here might want to take note. Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to declare my love for my nation, my country: Quebec. I doubt my partner will consider that cheating.

Today, we are discussing Bill C-244, which was introduced by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country in British Columbia. This member is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, so I would imagine that his role in committee may have led him to take an interest in the subject of his bill. Judging from the name of his B.C. riding, I also assume that he lives near the water.

Bill C-244 deals with the issue of derelict vessels in our waters. It should be noted that this issue has been addressed under the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act since 2019. Bill C-244 seeks to amend that act, which essentially states that Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Department of Transport are responsible for implementing a framework for dealing with abandoned vessels. The act also gives the Coast Guard the mandate to keep an inventory of these problematic and dangerous vessels, which are scattered throughout the country.

I would say that at first glance, this bill appears to be in the public interest. Its main provision is contained in clause 3. In fact, clause 3 basically sums up this bill, which aims to amend the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by adding section 34.1, concerning transfer of ownership, after section 34. This is what the new section 34.1 would say:

It is prohibited for an owner of a vessel to transfer ownership of it to a person, if the owner knows that — or is reckless as to whether — the person lacks the ability, resources or intent to maintain, operate or dispose of the vessel in a manner that prevents it from becoming wrecked, abandoned or hazardous.

Responsibility is therefore assigned to an individual or organization during a transfer of ownership, in order to ensure that the person to whom the boat is being transferred will take care of it and does not intend to let it become a wreck. In my opinion, this is not a negative thing, quite the contrary. Of course, this may not be enough to solve the problem of wrecked vessels, let us be honest. Nevertheless, I think it is still an initiative that cannot be described as bad. We welcome it.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-244 so that it can be examined in committee. We will even try to improve it, if possible, because I think this is an important issue. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has examined this issue before and it tabled a report with a whole series of recommendations in the House on October 22. We may be able to draw on that report in committee to further improve the bill before us, since I am assuming that everyone in the House will want to send this bill to committee.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans' report highlighted certain issues involving wrecked and abandoned vessels specifically, including vessel ownership identification. Sometimes it is difficult to know who owns and is responsible for a particular wreck. There is also the issue of managing private mooring buoys, because sometimes it is unclear how to deal with them. The approval process for removing a derelict vessel is also slow and bureaucratic. I will have the opportunity to talk about this a little later, because there are some very concrete examples from certain ridings. There is also the obvious issue of cost. Removing wrecks is not free. It costs money.

There is a specific case that brings to mind the issue of costs and red tape. The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon experienced this first-hand in her riding. The Kathryn Spirit was beached on the shores of Lake Saint-Louis in Beauharnois from 2011 to 2018. The ship sat there for seven years. This is completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, nobody in authority seemed willing to deal with it.

People often complain that the federal government is not fulfilling its responsibilities. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that respecting jurisdictions is very important. In fact, we sometimes find that the federal government interferes too much in our jurisdictions. Some things do fall under federal jurisdiction, but it seems as though the federal government is not interested in those things and is not taking care of them. In the case of the Kathryn Spirit, it is completely unacceptable that a ship has been left there as a wreck for seven years. It also proves that the federal government often does not do its job properly.

It is not just a matter of political stripe, either, because between 2011 and 2018, there were both Conservative and Liberal governments in power, and that is how long it took for the ship to finally be moved. The people in the region represented by my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, were fed up with this situation, and understandably so.

Abandoned vessels can cause all sorts of problems. There is rust in these vessels and possibly contaminants. Children may decide to go and play in the vicinity of these vessels, teenagers or homeless people could get hurt. There are people who will go and explore them out of curiosity, and we can understand that it might be interesting. It may be more the exception than the norm, but in some places, shipwrecks even become tourist attractions and draw curious visitors in regions such as the north shore or elsewhere, where people want to go and see the wrecks. Nevertheless, these wrecks cause significant damage to the environment and the surrounding area.

We are familiar with the well-known zero plastic waste initiative. We know that the oceans are full of plastic, and that it is accumulating. We also know of the challenge inherent in what is called “net zero carbon emissions”. Perhaps we should give some thought to a net zero shipwreck or net zero abandoned vessel initiative, since they also pose a major challenge. No one wants abandoned vessels cluttering our waterways, lakes and rivers. Obviously, without a vision, action rarely follows. Without a coherent vision, it becomes difficult to take coherent action on problems like this.

In coastal areas, fishing boats are extremely useful. People need them to put food on the table, and they generate good economic activity. The same goes for recreational boating, which lets us experience remarkable sights, or for commercial shipping, which carries goods essential to the vitality of our communities and our economy. However, we have to consider what happens when these vessels reach the end of their life cycle, too. This is not an issue to be ignored, on the contrary.

We know that contaminants find their way into our environment, which can harm human health and compromise our constituents' quality of life. We do not want to see what has happened in some places. There are shocking images of plastics piling up in the oceans. We do not want to see vessels piling up in our lakes and rivers, lying all over the place. Ultimately, this prevent us from developing these resources on a long-term basis. However, it is not just a matter of developing resources, but also of protecting ourselves and protecting biodiversity and nature.

In conclusion, it is shocking to see the federal government's frequent lack of action when it comes to these issues. In this context, we are pleased to see that a member is committed to trying to make things happen. We are pleased to be having a discussion on this issue today. Discussions lead to solutions. At the very least, discussions lead to more awareness and allow for action to be taken.

I urge all members to reflect on this issue as parliamentarians to see what else we can do. I am thinking, for example, of the Magdalen Islands, which has developed expertise in recovering old—