Any time.
House of Commons Hansard #132 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was affordable.
House of Commons Hansard #132 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was affordable.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Conservative members move to split Bill C-22 into two parts to address government surveillance concerns effectively. Conservatives argue that splitting the bill would allow expedited passage of part 1 while providing necessary time to debate contentious provisions in part 2. Liberal members criticize the delay, characterizing Conservative tactics as an attempt to impede tougher crime measures and hinder law enforcement access to modern investigative tools. 4400 words, 1 hour.
Bill C‑20—Time Allocation Motion Members debate a time allocation motion for Bill C-20, which establishes "Build Canada Homes." Minister Gregor Robertson defends the new Crown corporation as essential for the housing crisis. Conservative MPs criticize creating a redundant housing agency without clear targets, while the Bloc Québécois requests flexibility for regions facing unique costs. The House then moves to a recorded vote. 4500 words, 30 minutes.
Build Canada Homes Act Third reading of Bill C-20. The bill proposes establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation to accelerate affordable housing delivery. Liberal members argue this necessary Crown corporation provides the autonomy and tools needed to increase housing supply. Conversely, Conservative MPs contend the legislation creates a fourth federal housing agency, arguing it imposes unnecessary bureaucracy without clear, measurable targets. Opposition members further claim the focus should remain on lowering construction costs rather than expanding federal administrative structures. 42100 words, 6 hours in 3 segments: 1 2 3.
Remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules on a question of privilege raised by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, concluding that the dispute over economic data interpretations does not constitute a prima facie case of intentionally misleading the House. 600 words.
Corrections and Conditional Release Act Second reading of Bill C-232. The bill mandates that dangerous offenders and multi-murderers remain in maximum-security institutions. Conservative members argue these serious criminal offenders require strict confinement to ensure public safety and respect victims, whereas Liberals and the Bloc Québécois contend such policies undermine rehabilitation efforts and favor punitive measures over evidence-based correctional practices. 7600 words, 1 hour.
Protecting Victims Act Third reading of Bill C-16. The bill, titled "the protecting victims act" (/debates/2026/6/9/anthony-housefather-2/), aims to update the Criminal Code to address modern crimes, including coercive control and online child exploitation. While the government argues the legislation strengthens protections for children and victims of gender-based violence, the Conservative opposition has criticized the inclusion of a "safety valve" provision (clause 63, /debates/2026/6/9/larry-brock-3/) that allows judges to bypass mandatory minimum penalties, arguing it undermines accountability for serious offenses. 25500 words, 3 hours.
Adjournment Debate - Marine Transportation Gord Johns criticizes the inequitable federal funding for BC Ferries compared to Atlantic Canada, arguing for a new support model. Caroline Desrochers defends the current arrangements, emphasizing the federal government's existing indexed contributions and reaffirming that ferry operations remain, by agreement, a primary responsibility of the British Columbia provincial government. 1400 words, 10 minutes.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, he says “any time”, which is not really true.
We were having this healthy debate on Bill C-20. Remember, that is the debate the Conservatives were crying about because they wanted more time to speak to it. Do members remember that?
The member for Oxford, as he was concluding and I was all ready to ask a question, moved a motion to adjourn debate. It was truly amazing. I do not think the House leadership really understood what was taking place. Let us think about this. For the first time in years, the Conservative Party actually voted just a few hours earlier to say it was okay for the House to sit until midnight. The Conservatives made that decision. They voted in favour of the House sitting until midnight.
What did they do two hours or three hours later? The member for Oxford stood up—
Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The hon. member for Leduc—Wetaskiwin is rising on a point of order.
Mike Lake Conservative Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is an ironic debate. I do not think we have quorum, because there are not very many of his colleagues around.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, there are more Liberals than there are Conservatives.
Mike Lake Conservative Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Speaker, actually, there are not. This is the Liberals' bill.
Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
We do have quorum.
The hon. parliamentary secretary may resume.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, if my friend opposite does not like what he is hearing, he has a choice. He can leave the chamber.
At the end of the day, it is important that Canadians see the games the Conservative Party members play day in and day out, whether they are filibustering or trying to prevent debate on important legislation that we, as a government, put forward in the House of Commons in the hope that the Conservatives will, at some point, wake up and actually do the right thing and deliver for Canadians, whether that is with Bill C-16 or Bill C-20.
Let me get back to what I was trying to highlight about the Conservative Party. It supported sitting late. A couple of hours later, the member for Oxford said, “Let us adjourn debate.” What does that do? It stops the debate—
Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
Arpan Khanna Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member has a tendency to go off on his own tangents. We are discussing very important legislation today, with a focus on protecting victims, yet he is not talking about the issue at hand.
I understand that he will play games—
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Nothing could be more relevant to the debate than an action that happened during the debate.
Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
There is broad latitude in these types of debates. I know the member will get himself back on topic.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is really somewhat sad and pathetic that the members opposite have stood up on a point of order twice now. They do not want Canadians to see the silliness that we witness on the floor of the House of Commons coming from the Conservatives. Shame on them.
At the end of the day, let us realize that all they did by moving that motion to adjourn was make a couple of statements to Canadians. One is that the Conservatives really do not want to sit late. That is what it really comes down to. They are taking us back to their lazy attitudes of the past. The other statement is that while they say they want to debate bills, instead of actually debating the bill, they used the bells to use up the debate time, thereby denying more Conservatives the chance to speak on the legislation—
Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, again, it is truly amazing. The Conservatives need to calm down a little.
They had the opportunity to have more debate on Bill C-20, but they intentionally chose not to because it was night-night time for them. I do not say that lightly. We had to have a vote. We voted on the Conservatives' motion to call it quits for the night because it was getting late, and 13% of their caucus did not even show up to vote. Even their leader decided not to vote on this.
We have this great brain thrust coming from the Conservatives, saying they want to play this game. It is time to try to trick the Liberals and maybe get home a bit earlier tonight so they can get to bed a little earlier. What did that do? Even their leader did not show up to vote, let alone 13% of their caucus. What a game. This might be a game for the Conservative Party of Canada, but I would like to tell those who are following the debate that we take it very seriously—
Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The hon. member for Regina—Wascana is rising on a point of order.
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member have anything at all relevant to say about Bill C-16, which we are debating?
Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I have already addressed the issue of relevance. There is broad latitude on this matter.
The hon. parliamentary secretary may resume.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, even though the Conservatives might want to make a joke of this evening and not necessarily fully participate on the issue of crime, let me assure those who are actually following the debate at home that we have a Prime Minister and a Liberal caucus that just last year went through an election, and we made a commitment to Canadians that we would take the crime file seriously. In fact, that was part of our platform.
We have brought forward a suite of legislative initiatives to actually address making our communities safer for all Canadians. The biggest roadblock for making that happen, for seeing the legislation pass, is the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives come up with excuses as to why they do not want to see legislation passed, and then they put in whatever mechanism they can, even if it is silly, in order to prevent legislation from passing.
Let me give a good example of that. Here is a good example on Bill C-16. If we listened to the debate and the complaints coming from Conservative Party members, we would draw the conclusion that the primary reason why they do not support this legislation is that they had a bit of a flip-flop on the issue of having a safety valve for mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums are something the Prime Minister and this government are taking very seriously. That is the reason why we have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums. There are a number of them, and I will go through a few of those, but the Conservatives say they cannot support it because there is a safety valve.
Let me give a quote. The member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations is actually the new Conservative justice critic. He replaced the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Let me tell colleagues something about the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola when he was the justice critic for the Conservative Party of Canada. Now, in fairness, the Conservatives have gone even further to the right since the replacement of this particular member, but here is what he had to say: “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve; that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed.” Seriously, we have the former Conservative justice critic actually recommending to the government that we need to invoke a safety valve, yet today, they have had a change in policy. Why? It is not because it makes sense, but because they want to use that as an excuse in order to filibuster the legislative agenda that this Prime Minister and this government have for making our communities safer. I say shame on the Conservative Party.
At the end of the day, we had to bring in time allocation because the Conservative Party has absolutely no intentions whatsoever to allow Bill C-16 to pass. It is because it does not fit their political agenda. Their political agenda has more to do with self-interest and promotion.
Take a look at the reality of what the Conservative Party members like to do. They like to talk tough on crime. They love to talk tough on crime. What did we talk about today during private members' hour? We listened to Conservative after Conservative be critical of the government on the issue of transferring from maximum-security to medium-security prisons. They try to give the impression that the Liberals are soft.
If we look over the last 15 years, the record high in terms of transfers from maximum to minimum security was actually when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. The Conservatives actually had the highest number of transfers from maximum- to medium-security prisons. Colleagues might not have thought that. What did the Conservatives do at the time? They did absolutely nothing. On that issue, they did exactly what they did in regard to restoring mandatory minimums: absolutely nothing.
Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order. I am going to ask for the back-and-forth to stop. There will be a 10-minute question and comment period afterwards if we keep the back-and-forth down. It has taken us about 12 minutes to get through 10 minutes of the speech.
I am going to ask the member to resume his comments.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Conservatives like to talk tough on crime, but the reality is that their actions speak louder than words, because when it came to those mandatory minimums, we witnessed that the Conservative Party did absolutely nothing under the leadership of today's Conservative leader, even when he sat in the Conservative caucus in a majority government. The Conservatives had the opportunity. They chose not to do anything. The Prime Minister and this government are moving forward and reinstating mandatory minimums, but not with help from the Conservative Party. It is a roadblock, but let us go on.
What is the motivating factor for the Conservative Party? Do not tell me it is about good public policy. It is far from that, because at the end of the day, the Conservatives are more concerned about using this issue for two things. Number one is to try to give a false impression that they are tough on crime. Number two, they are using it as a fundraising tool. They like to be able to say how bad things are in Canada. I could bring some wonderful quotes of how those members take these extreme radical thoughts and try to raise money on them.
I have actually been a recipient of Conservative fundraising letters, where they try to make money off the issue of crime. I say to my Conservative friends across the way that it is time they stopped thinking about the leadership of the Conservative Party and the Conservative right wing dominating that party more and more every day. I think it is time they started putting the interests of the Canadian public ahead of the Conservative Party leadership and the far-right movement here in Canada.
The amount of misinformation literature that constantly flows from the Conservative Party of Canada to Canadians is disgraceful. It really and truly is. It needs to stop. There is misinformation after misinformation, whether it is inside the chamber or outside the chamber.
Let us take a look at what Bill C-16 would actually do. Around the world, I suspect we would get some recognition that we are, for the first time, talking about coercive actions by a spouse and elevating that to make it a new offence in Canadian law. That is what the Conservative Party is holding up because of its behaviour. Bill C-16 would deal with the issue of femicide. Show me another country in the world that actually has legislation that would elevate femicide to first-degree murder. The Conservatives talk tough, but in reality, once again, they just do not want to see the legislation pass, even though it is a substantial piece of legislation that would have a serious impact on our communities.
Members talk about bringing back mandatory minimums. Let me give a sense of what those mandatory minimums are. First of all, the bill would bring back mandatory minimum sentences for sexual interference with a child and invitation to sexual touching. This is a very serious issue. At least on this side of the House, we have a Prime Minister and a government that recognize this is something that should have a mandatory minimum. That is why, within the legislation, we would be reinstating that as a mandatory minimum.
Let me give another example.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a few examples, so the member should calm down and listen to them. The member will learn something here and hopefully change his attitude and vote in favour of the legislation.
Second, the bill would reinstate mandatory jail time for sexual exploitation of a child, including abuse by people in a position of trust. This is the type of legislation that I would expect the Conservative Party would be excited to get behind and support.
Let us take a look at another restoration. The bill would restore mandatory minimums for making, possessing, accessing or distributing child sexual abuse material. The bill goes on. There is a lot more within the legislation, but day after day, we see Conservative member after Conservative member looking at the holistic approach of the suite of crime legislation that we have brought forward, and this is not the first time that I have had to try to shame the Conservatives into doing the right thing and delivering for their constituents.
Let me give another example. The legislation brings back mandatory minimum jail time for online child luring and child sextortion, crimes that devastate children and families. These are the types of mandatory minimums that would actually be reinstated so that we could have safer communities. If the Conservatives want to talk about having safer communities, it is about time they put action to their words and got behind what the Prime Minister and the government are putting on the floor of the House of Commons. It is time for them to stop playing games and vote in favour of the legislation.
Whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons or in our standing committees, the Conservatives need to recognize that at the end of the day, as the Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus has indicated very clearly, we want to build a stronger, healthier Canada, a Canada that is there for all Canadians. When we talk about building a healthier and stronger Canada, that includes the issue of community safety. That is the reason we have a suite of legislative actions.
Let us remember Bill C‑2, the first action we took. We had a minority situation, and we could not get co-operation from any political entity in the House. They did not want that legislation to pass. I had the opportunity to talk about that legislation. I was discouraged. The legislation talked about issues like fentanyl, lawful access, protecting our borders, asylum seekers and stabilizing the issue of immigration. There was a great deal of substance within that legislation. However, the combined unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives made the decision that they would not allow Bill C‑2 to move forward.
As a government in a minority situation, we had to break up the bill. We brought in Bill C‑12, where we could at least build somewhat of a consensus that would enable us to pass the legislation. However, it meant we had to leave a lot out. We made a commitment back then to attempt to bring it back at some point. On the asylum issue and the issue of safer borders, we brought that back in the form of Bill C‑12. We were able to get that passed, but it was not easy, much like Bill C-14.
When we talk about Conservative delays on Bill C‑16, let us look at what took place on Bill C‑14. Bill C‑14 was all about bail reform legislation. We had law enforcement officers, the citizens we represent, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and many other stakeholders all onside saying they wanted Bill C‑14 on bail reform.
I remember standing in this very spot last year, back in November, making a very clear statement: Would it not be nice if we could actually pass this legislation and deliver it out of the House of Commons before Christmas? That was a very real opportunity. We could have done it. The only thing that prevented us from doing it was the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what prevented us from being able to pass through bail reform legislation. It was very unfortunate.
If members consulted and listened to what law enforcement, other jurisdictions and stakeholders were saying, I think it would be virtually unanimous in terms of the poor performance of the Conservative Party of Canada in denying Canadians the opportunity to have legislation that would make our communities safer. They had the opportunity.
Then we go to Bill C‑22, which, again, comes out of Bill C‑2. It deals with issues like extortion and, again, child-related criminal activities. Now we have the Conservative Party saying, “Absolutely, no way. We do not want it.” They want nothing to do with it. Even though, in talking to the law enforcement agencies, there is phenomenal support for Bill C‑22 out there in our communities, the Conservative Party will not, in any fashion, lend support for lawful access legislation.
On the one hand, they jump up like jumping beans at times, talking about the issue of extortion. They like to talk about it, but when we bring forward legislation to deal with it, what they do is filibuster again. That is fine. They want to focus on character assassination. That is their primary focus. The government and the Prime Minister are going to be focused on delivering sound public policy through legislation and budgetary measures. We will find, whether it is legislation or the budget, it is nothing but a reflection of what came out of the last election and what Canadians are telling Liberal members they want.