Debates of June 12th, 2026

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

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

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.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

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.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Minister of Justice says we have a very small window to push through legislation, that is entirely due to the government's decision to adjourn two days early. I wish the government had come to me and asked how I would feel about staying later this summer to properly study bills and not push through the destruction of pesticide regulations in an omnibus budget bill.

I know it is not the minister's problem, but we are being pushed to the last minute and told we could not debate something as important as the Senate amendments to Bill C‑14. I opposed Bill C‑14. It was never passed unanimously, contrary to what the Liberal deputy House leader said. It was on division because members like me, who are not in a recognized party, cannot even stand up and scream “no” when they decide to vote on division.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I love my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands but, unfortunately, when she raises her voice, that risks damaging the interpreters' hearing.

I urge all members of the House to be conscientious. Sudden outbursts like that can unfortunately affect other people.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for her intervention. Indeed, we must be careful in the House. Interpreters play a vital role in the proceedings of the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

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?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

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?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

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?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

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.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

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 a recorded vote.