James Maloney
Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would be honoured to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in relation to Bill C-231 , an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, during the last election, we committed to connecting Canada's electricity grids from east to west rather than from north to south.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in relation to Bill C-16 , an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters regarding child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians made a big decision in University—Rosedale, Scarborough Southwest and Terrebonne by putting their trust in this new government's plan and our Prime Minister . To everyone who put their name on the ballot, I want to say thanks. Our democracy is better off for their participation.”
“Mr. Speaker, five years ago yesterday, the House adopted a motion declaring March as Irish Heritage Month. In 1847, Irish immigrants arrived on our shores. They were sick; they were hungry; they were dying. What did Canada do? We welcomed them. The Irish have helped build this country.”
The complete record
Every one of 82 lines we hold for James Maloney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The first is the sixth report, in relation to Bill C‑223 , an act to amend the Divorce Act, in which the committee requests an extension to hear from witnesses and complete its study of the bill. The second is the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in relation to Bill C‑235 , an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to increasing parole ineligibility. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Bilateral Mission in Warsaw, Poland; Riga, Latvia; and Tallinn, Estonia, from November 9 to 15, 2024; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, on September 2 and 3, 2024; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Oulu, North Ostrobothnia, Finland, from September 22 to 24, 2025; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region and Arctic Frontiers 2025: Beyond Borders Conference in Tromsø, Norway, from January 25 to 28, 2025; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the meeting of the First Part of the 2025 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, from January 27 to 31, 2025; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the meeting of the Third Part of the 2025 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, from June 23 to 27, 2025; and the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the meeting of the Fourth Part of the 2025 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, from September 29 to October 3, 2025.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would be honoured to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in relation to Bill C-231 , an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, during the last election, we committed to connecting Canada's electricity grids from east to west rather than from north to south. Can the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources share with the House how we are going to build those interconnections, grow Canada's clean electricity capacity and ensure families and businesses can decarbonize affordably and reliably?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in relation to Bill C-16 , an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters regarding child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians made a big decision in University—Rosedale, Scarborough Southwest and Terrebonne by putting their trust in this new government's plan and our Prime Minister . To everyone who put their name on the ballot, I want to say thanks. Our democracy is better off for their participation. I would like to congratulate our new colleagues Danielle Martin and Doly Begum, and of course welcome back our colleague Tatiana Auguste. This government has a clear mandate to continue taking action on the important issues that matter most to Canadians, and with these three newly elected colleagues and under the leadership of our Prime Minister , we will do just that.”
“Canada and Ireland are two great friends. They are two great allies, and they share values. There is so much more to do. I want to celebrate this month because Canadian Irish history is Canadian history. Sláinte .”
“Mr. Speaker, five years ago yesterday, the House adopted a motion declaring March as Irish Heritage Month. In 1847, Irish immigrants arrived on our shores. They were sick; they were hungry; they were dying. What did Canada do? We welcomed them. The Irish have helped build this country. Our first Governor General was from Ireland, our second Governor General was from Ireland, and our current Prime Minister is from Ireland. When Lester Pearson commissioned our new flag, he tapped a man by the name of Patrick Reid, who had fought alongside Canadian soldiers in World War II. The red maple leaf ensign was on their shoulder, and that is what inspired the flag design that we fly so proudly today. When we walk out the doors of this building onto Wellington Street, it is a street named after a man who was born on Grafton Street in downtown Dublin.”
“Mr. Speaker, there was not really a question there, and there was not really any new information. As I also said in my speech, members are entitled to debate, suggest amendments and vote the way they want to.”
“Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member should review my speech and reflect upon my comments about the “for greater certainty” provision. This amendment is designed to dispel all this misinformation. There is nothing in the bill, and I will say it again, that would prohibit anybody from practising their religion in any way, shape or form. These amendments were designed to obfuscate, to misdirect and to lead people down a road in the wrong direction. I encourage people who believe what the member just said to go read the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The people who have not had the benefit of watching the committee go through this process should go back and review it, because the Conservative members on the committee do not even agree. They come to committee, meeting after meeting, with different approaches and conflicting opinions. This is simply designed to be political, in my opinion. With respect to the emails that are going out to raise money, to my colleague's point, a number of people have approached me about what they perceive to be in the bill but is just completely false. This is because they have been told things that are not true, and we have a responsibility as parliamentarians, whether we agree with legislation or not, to act responsibly and to reveal information that is accurate, all the time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I work with him on the committee, and at times I enjoy it. The simple fact remains that when this bill is passed in its current form, I will be allowed to go to church and my colleagues will be allowed to go to their synagogues or their mosques. Nothing changes. Any notion that this bill would somehow restrict people from practising their religion or reading from scripture is absurd. It is misinformation, full stop.”
“They will have the opportunity to support the legislation or oppose it, but Canadians deserve to see Parliament reach a decision. The issue before us ultimately comes down to responsibility. As legislators, we have a responsibility to debate legislation thoroughly, to listen to witnesses and to examine the amendments, but we also have a responsibility to complete our work. Communities across the country are asking for stronger protections against hate and intimidation. They are asking Parliament to respond. They are asking Parliament to act. After months of study and debate, it is time for Parliament to fulfill that responsibility. It is time to move forward. It is time to vote.”
“There are bills that address public policy, justice reform, economic policy and issues that Canadians expect Parliament to address. When one bill is repeatedly delayed through obstruction, it consumes time that could otherwise be used to advance other legislation. It slows the entire legislative process, which affects Parliament's ability to respond to the needs of Canadians. The motion before us today is not extraordinary but simply ensures that the committee can complete its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 and that the House can proceed to a vote. Debate has taken place. Studies have taken place. Witnesses have been heard. Amendments have been proposed. The next step in the legislative process is decision. That is what this motion allows Parliament to do. Members of the House will have the opportunity to vote.”
“When these concerns were raised, Parliament responded responsibly. A “for greater certainty” clause was introduced to explicitly confirm that peaceful religious expression is not captured by the legislation. That is how legislative collaboration should work. Concerns were raised, members worked together, clarifications were introduced and legislation was strengthened. Collaboration requires participation from all sides. It requires members to bring forward amendments, to debate provisions and to vote, but collaboration does not mean using procedural tactics to prevent Parliament from completing its work. There is another important point that must be understood. When legislation is stalled, the consequences extend beyond a single bill. Parliament has a significant legislative agenda.”
“Some of the debate surrounding this bill has focused on the removal of the religious exemption provision in the Criminal Code. Let us address that clearly. Freedom of religion in Canada is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That protection is fundamental and is not changing. Courts in Canada have consistently confirmed that hate propaganda offences require a very high legal threshold. That threshold requires proof that someone wilfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group. Reading scripture does not meet that threshold. Teaching religious doctrine does not meet that threshold. Practising one's faith does not meet that threshold. Those freedoms remain fully protected under the charter. Nevertheless, concerns were raised by some faith communities about how the legislation might be interpreted.”
“These measures respond directly to what community organizations, law enforcement agencies and human rights groups have been asking Parliament to address. (1615) The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examined these issues in depth. In December 2024, the committee released its report on heightened anti-Semitism in Canada and how to confront it. The report contained recommendations aimed at strengthening Canada's response to hate-motivated crimes and intimidation. Many of those recommendations are reflected in Bill C-9 . In other words, the legislation before us today is not the product of a sudden idea. It reflects a parliamentary study, expert testimony and the voices of communities who have asked Parliament to act.”
“Muslim communities have reported intimidation outside mosques, Black Canadians have spoken about racist harassment, Asian Canadians have faced hostility fuelled by misinformation and prejudice, and LGBTQ Canadians have experienced intimidation in spaces meant to provide safety and support. These incidents undermine the sense of safety that Canadians expect in their daily lives, and Bill C-9 responds to those concerns. It strengthens the Criminal Code to address intimidation and obstruction directed at spaces primarily used by identifiable groups. It creates clearer tools for law enforcement when crimes are motivated by hatred toward a person's identity. It addresses the public display of symbols used to promote hatred and intimidate communities.”
“The legislation before us addresses an issue that communities across Canada have been raising for years. Hate-motivated intimidation and harassment have become increasingly visible in our communities. We have seen individuals threatened as they approach their places of worship. We have seen hateful symbols displayed outside schools and community centres. We have seen people intimidated simply for being part of a particular religious, cultural or identity group. These are not theoretical concerns. These are real experiences reported by Canadians across the country. Jewish communities have spoken about threats directed at their synagogues. We have only to look at this past weekend in my city of Toronto.”
“Members of the House are free to disagree with legislation. They are free to oppose it and to vote against it. That is their right. That is democracy. If a member believes a clause should not be adopted, they can vote against that clause. If a member believes an amendment should be rejected, they can vote against the amendment. If a member believes the entire bill should fail, they can vote against the bill. This is how the legislature functions. Members make their arguments and cast their vote, and Parliament reaches a decision. What is not responsible is attempting to delay the legislative process indefinitely through procedural tactics. That does not strengthen legislation, it does not improve legislation and it does not serve Canadians.”
“That is how good legislation becomes better legislation, but there is a difference between debate and obstruction. Debate is when members raise arguments, propose amendments and explain their position to Canadians. Obstruction is something very different. Obstruction is when procedural tactics are used to prevent Parliament from doing its job. Obstruction is when hours are consumed not discussing the bill itself but discussing procedural manoeuvres. Obstruction is when legislation cannot move forward, even after extensive study. This is what we have seen repeatedly during the study of Bill C-9 . The opposition parties have prolonged debate in ways to prevent clause-by-clause review from progressing. Every hour spent on procedural delay is an hour in which Parliament is prevented from completing its work. This is the simple reality.”
“It was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where witnesses appeared, experts testified, communities shared their experiences, amendments were proposed and clauses were debated. In total, Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours debating and studying this legislation. That is not rushed consideration but serious parliamentary scrutiny. This is exactly how our legislative process is supposed to work, but there comes a moment when scrutiny must lead to decision. Parliament cannot function if debate never leads to a vote. Opposition parties play a critical role in our democracy. Their responsibility is to challenge legislation, question its provisions and propose improvements. That is healthy, and it is necessary.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre . First let me say that, as always, it is a privilege to stand in the House and represent the great people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, whom I have the honour of representing. I rise today to speak in support of the motion before the House. This debate is about more than procedure. It is about how Parliament chooses to do its work. It is about whether we allow legislation to move forward after thorough study, or whether we allow it to be stalled indefinitely through procedural obstruction. Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act, has now been before Parliament for months. It was introduced in the House of Commons on September 19, 2025. It is now March. It received second reading debate.”
“Similarly, provisions that are duplicative and costly will not be supported. We stand ready to collaborate with the member opposite and with all colleagues in the House to develop practical and sustainable solutions consistent with the spirit of Bill C-219 .”
“That said, these provisions fail to account for important factors such as the CRTC's lack of expertise to determine whether a genocide has occurred. The bill could also benefit from amendments allowing the CRTC to address content distributed by foreign broadcasters of concern and to rely on the expertise of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, both domestically and internationally, when making determinations related to political influence and international criminal law. In conclusion, the government looks forward to continuing the in-depth study of this bill in committee. We firmly believe Parliament can address the concerns raised and strengthen the legislation by adopting meaningful amendments. Let me be clear: We cannot and will not support amendments that compromise the safety of individuals.”
“We have also moved forward with innovative tools to seize and repurpose sanctioned assets in support of Ukraine's reconstruction. Canada was the first G7 country to introduce legislation allowing for the seizure and repurposing of sanctioned Russian assets, and we continue working with partners to ensure those resources are directed toward rebuilding Ukraine. Lastly, I will touch on the bill's proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Act. Acknowledging the crucial role media plays in supporting and advancing human rights, I think we can all agree this is a shared objective. We have seen how disinformation has been weaponized in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, reinforcing the importance of credible, independent media and responsible regulatory frameworks.”
“However, it would have negative impacts by adding unnecessary paperwork and administrative burdens. The Prime Minister has been clear that he wants to improve government efficiencies. That said, our government supports some of the legislative amendments proposed in this bill such as new sanction triggers, and we look forward to further discussions on this at committee. Canada's use of sanctions has been a critical tool in responding to Russia's war against Ukraine. We have worked in lockstep with allies to impose one of the largest sanctions responses in history, including coordinated measures to freeze assets and restrict access to global financial systems. We have sanctioned thousands of individuals and entities linked to the Kremlin and those enabling the war effort.”
“We have contributed funding to international financial institutions and reconstruction initiatives aimed at rebuilding critical infrastructure, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and strengthening democratic institutions and anti-corruption reforms. We have also supported international investigations into atrocities, including efforts to pursue justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Canada has funded documentation efforts, legal assistance and accountability mechanisms, including support for international courts and Ukrainian prosecutors working to hold perpetrators accountable. I will emphasize again that supporting human rights defenders is not optional. It is imperative. Bill C-219 aims to amend Canada's sanctions regime and the Special Economic Measures Act to address certain perceived gaps and shortcomings.”
“Canadians care deeply about human rights and expect their government to help protect and advance human rights at home and around the world. Canada recognizes the vital role that human rights defenders play, often at great personal risk, in upholding universal rights and strengthening the rule of law. We have demonstrated this through concrete action. Canada has trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops under Operation Unifier and its continuation in Europe, contributing instructors and expertise in multinational training missions, which I saw first-hand last year. (1830) We have provided advanced military equipment and worked with partners to strengthen Ukraine's resilience on the battlefield and beyond. Canada has also supported Ukraine's long-term recovery and reconstruction.”
“When and where necessary, Canada will respond decisively to states' use of repression and violence beyond their borders, as well as against their own people. Considering this, as mentioned in the first hour of the second reading of this bill, the government supports the objectives of Bill C-219 but remains concerned about significant flaws in the legislation. We look forward to working with the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and our opposition colleagues at the foreign affairs committee to address these concerns. Under the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, human rights defenders, activists, journalists, lawyers, community leaders and ordinary citizens are essential for accountability and progress.”
“Human rights defenders are often on the front lines, shining a spotlight on violations and advocating meaningful change. Canada has supported Ukrainian civil society organizations, accountability initiatives and documentation of war crimes to ensure that perpetrators are held to account. We have also welcomed tens of thousands of displaced Ukrainians through special immigration measures, and provided support to help them rebuild their lives in safety, including work permits, settlement services and access to education and health care. Support for human rights defenders is non-negotiable for these courageous individuals who hold governments and companies to account, often while risking their safety in the face of reprisals and repression.”
“We have also funded demining initiatives and battlefield medical support to help save lives. In addition to military support, Canada has provided billions of dollars in financial assistance to stabilize Ukraine's economy. This includes sovereign loan support and direct budgetary funding to help the Ukrainian government continue delivering essential services like pensions, health care and education, even as the war continues. Humanitarian support remains a cornerstone of Canada's response. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars in life-saving assistance, including food aid, emergency shelter, clean water, medical supplies and winterization support. Canada has also provided generators, transformers and grid repair equipment to help restore a lot of the electricity and heat following Russian strikes on energy infrastructure.”
“The promotion, respect and advancement of human rights continues to be at the heart of Canada's foreign policy. Protecting and defending human rights is essential to building stable, prosperous and inclusive societies. We see this clearly in Ukraine, where civilians continue to face indiscriminate attacks, including strikes on energy infrastructure, schools and hospitals. We have delivered over $23.5 billion in military, humanitarian and financial assistance since the war began, making us one of the largest contributors to Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction. Canada has provided armoured combat support vehicles, artillery systems and ammunition, drones, winter gear and advanced air defence systems to help Ukraine protect civilians and critical infrastructure.”
“Under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, Canada has imposed sanctions against 80 foreign nationals. Canada has also imposed dozens of sanctions against individuals and entities responsible for human rights violations and corruption under the Special Economic Measures Act. Let us also recognize that today marks the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. On this solemn anniversary, we remember those who have lost their lives fighting against Putin's tyranny, and we recommit to ending this war and holding Russia to account. Since the invasion began four years ago, Canada has imposed sanctions on thousands of individuals and entities linked to the Kremlin, including senior officials, oligarchs and those enabling the war effort.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-219 and Canada's ongoing work to promote human rights and address corruption. Canada recognizes the work and influence of Sergei Magnitsky in helping create international tools designed to respond to acts of significant corruption and human rights violations. These tools remain essential as we confront modern threats to international peace and security. I want to acknowledge the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his role in enacting Canada's Sergei Magnitsky Law and thank him for introducing Bill C-219 . The bill seeks to amend four pieces of federal legislation related to foreign policy, sanctions, international human rights obligations and broadcasting licences.”
“Mr. Speaker, today marks the fourth anniversary of Russia's barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine. As we sit in the House, our friends in Ukraine continue to make sacrifices as they bravely fight for their freedom. Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs share with the House how Canada is working to support Ukraine and Ukrainians in their time of need?”
“Madam Speaker, I have a long-held view that opposition day motions are actually obstruction day motions, and today seems to be no exception. These motions clearly are designed to create and perpetuate a false narrative. In this case, the Conservatives are perpetuating a false narrative that this auto strategy is designed to help American auto manufacturers. I would like the member to address that false narrative, and at the same time explain how this is going to help enhance the Canadian electric vehicle manufacturing sector.”
“Mr. Speaker, my friend is right. We need to have an evidence-based approach that is solution-focused. Rhetoric does not help anybody, except for people on social media, perhaps. I would love to talk to the member at greater length. I do not have a lot of time right now, but Bill C-16 , for example, addresses some of the very concerns he just raised. That is evidence-based legislation. This legislation, like Bill C-14 , was done after thorough and extensive consultation with the parties who are most affected by the challenges we face, and that is why we are seeing widespread support for all of these bills. Again, I will emphasize and ask members to please work with us to get these bills passed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will say again that I enjoy working with colleagues on the justice committee and elsewhere. I mean that, but it is more enjoyable if we actually work constructively to try to get these bills passed. Bill C-2 is a perfect example. With the passage of these laws, the issues that the Conservatives continue to raise time and time again would be addressed. However, as I also said earlier, I sometimes cannot help but think that they are more concerned about having a live issue than a real result.”
“Mr. Speaker, I assume the member is talking about the opposition motion because what we are debating here is a motion, not a bill. Since he was careful to correct people on their use of language, I thought I would return the favour. I have expressed my views very clearly. I think the motion before the House is a form of obstruction in itself, because if we go through all of these pieces of legislation, Bill C-2 , Bill C-8 , Bill C-12 , Bill C-14 and Bill C-16 , they are addressing the very issues that Canadians are clamouring for and that the member and his colleagues are clamouring for. I will repeat: Please help us get the legislation passed like we did with Bill C-14 .”
“I am afraid that people get the impression, and I hold this view myself sometimes, that on the bills we are talking about that are before the House right now, everybody supports them, including mayors, premiers and police associations, except for the Conservative opposition. I am asking the Conservatives to please work with us, to work with the government. Let us get these bills through the House.”
“This is because the conversations I have privately with opposition members, and the conversations I have with opposition members out in the corridors of this place, often are not an accurate reflection of what we see and hear inside committee rooms, which is really unfortunate. To conclude, Bill C-75 is subject to great criticism, but every time the Conservatives mention Bill C-75, they conveniently leave out the part of the bill dealing with intimate partner violence. If we are going to talk about a bill, then talk about it in its entirety and talk about the constructive steps that were taken as a result of that bill.”
“(1615) However, that type of rhetoric, that type of an approach to politics, does not do that. What it does is create a mindset in society that strikes fear into people. They believe something is not really what it is, and we were talking about this earlier. I really hope, going forward, that I can work with opposition members in the House and out in the corridors and get all of these bills that we have before the House passed, because Canadians want them and Canadians need them. In order to do that, we have to work together and do what we did with Bill C-14 . Sometimes I think it would be far better, and we would get way better outcomes, if we were to conduct committee meetings and proceedings in this chamber without cameras.”
“This motion today, like so many opposition day motions, is intended and designed to create an impression in the public. Sometimes, and I believe many times, and others share this view, opposition parties are far more interested in having an issue than finding a solution. It is better to have the issue alive and out there, because then they can take their “clip, snip and post” political approach. They can get sound bites and go out there and use phrases like “soft on crime” and “catch and release,” all of which is total utter nonsense, because as I said at the beginning, everybody in the House believes that criminals should be in prison, that people should be entitled to a fair trial and that society should be able to exist with a feeling of safety.”
“We now fast-forward to just before Christmas. One of the opposition members was just talking about the filibuster in December at the justice committee. The same member who was prevented from coming to committee because of his religious views came to committee to filibuster, saying that we needed to be free to express our religious opinions. How can that be called a principled approach to developing policy? It is obstruction, period, and I do not know any other way to put it. We can work together in committees. Just last week, we passed Bill C-14 . It took us until 1:15 in the morning, but we did it, and we did it as a result of collaboration between all the parties around the table. I think everybody is quite proud of that accomplishment, as they should be. However, we are not seeing that on other pieces of legislation.”
“Shortly before the bill was scheduled to come to the committee, that member went on a podcast of one of my colleagues and made some comments about his own religious beliefs, which he is entitled to do and I respect him for, even if I do not necessarily agree with him. The result was that his caucus colleagues put him into the Conservative witness protection program and filibustered the committee for two straight weeks. We sat for extended hours, and they were filibustering saying that the sponsor of a private member's bill did not have to come to speak to his own bill. I do not know a member in the House who does not await the opportunity to come to committee to speak about something they are so passionate about. Lo and behold, the Conservatives blocked him from coming because he was speaking about his own religious views.”
“I literally looked at him and said that they needed to get together and coordinate their submissions a little better. How in the face of that can someone say it is a principled approach to dealing with legislation? It is not. It is political, and this is my concern. I like putting policy before politics, but with those types of arguments, it is hard to say that they do because they just do not. I will give another example. Last year at the justice committee, we were about to deal with a private member's bill that had come through the House. It was the private member's bill of the member for Peace River—Westlock .”
“I will not call it obstruction necessarily, but I will give one example from the justice committee. About a week and a half ago, a member I will call Conservative member B made a very carefully crafted and thoughtful argument and then put a question to one of the officials who was in the room. His point was that we have good laws in place, but that they just needed to be enforced; therefore, we did not need this new law. It was a valid point, perhaps. The problem is that at the very next meeting, we were debating a different piece of legislation. One of his colleagues on that committee, whom we will call Conservative member L, made what he thought was a very compelling, well-thought-out argument and said that we had laws on the books that were not being enforced, so we needed new laws.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate because I was just talking about how much I like the opposition members, so I will scratch that part from my speech. An hon. member: It is refreshing. James Maloney: It is refreshing; that is right. Mr. Speaker, it is genuine. I really mean that, and the opposition members know that. Let us deal with the obstructionism, and I will try to put it in its best frame possible. There are a number of pieces of legislation before the House that Canadians want and desperately need, and that are designed in response to widespread consultations with the legal community, the community at large and other political parties. The problem is that it is tough getting these bills through committee. I will give two examples of this.”
“The problem with that statement is that he should be giving that speech tomorrow morning at his national caucus meeting, not here in the House of Commons, because his comments should be directed at his own caucus members. I thoroughly enjoy working with opposition members, particularly on the justice committee. I look across the way and say that with sincerity. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”