Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the criminal charged in the Lambton College shooting, which left one person dead, is not surprisingly out on bail. Only under these weak-on-crime Liberals could a man charged with murder and attempted murder be back on the streets before justice is served. These Liberals have turned our justice system into a joke, a revolving door for violent offenders. Victims get fear; criminals get another chance. How many more accused killers do these Liberals intend to release before they finally admit that their weak-on-crime laws are a complete and catastrophic failure?

Mr. Speaker, that minister and the government have had 11 years to get this right. Last week, Canada suffered a tragic loss when officer Marc Pinizzotto was shot and killed in the line of duty. It has now been revealed that the man responsible for the horrific crime was already out on probation. Then we learned that the U.S. consulate shooter was on bail. Thugs, who are already before the courts, known to police and prohibited from possessing firearms, are now back on the streets. This should have never happened. How many more tragedies will it take before these Liberals stop treating bail conditions like a joke and start keeping repeat violent offenders behind bars?

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Senate amendment that the government supports, my understanding was that the focus was to provide some special consideration for indigenous offenders in remote areas who may not have the resources and the swath of friends and family to act as sureties. My understanding was that there was supposed to be a specific carve-out. However, the language that came from the Senate is of general application, making no reference to indigenous offenders specifically. Why was there a change to make that more general, and why is the government now supporting it when there was an intention to carve out a specific exception for indigenous offenders?

Mr. Speaker, I can inform the parliamentary secretary that the Conservatives will never support the government's position in supporting the Senate amendment. I reject the premise of her entire speech, with all due respect. She claims that the Senate amendment would do nothing to alter the circumstances by which the government agreed unanimously to the Conservative amendment that a person convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years could not act as a surety. Now the Senate wants to give discretion to all judges, without any independent verification that any accused across this country cannot find someone who does not possess a clean record or something outside of 10 years. In those circumstances, why is the government backtracking on the position we all agreed to?

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to debate an absolutely crucial piece of legislation that seeks to restore justice to Canada's correctional services system. It would ensure the most dangerous offenders and mass murderers receive the punishment they absolutely deserve. I want to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, for introducing this bill, an act that would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This legislation is a common-sense response to growing concerns among Canadians that after 11 years of the Liberal government, our justice system is failing them and their families. In May 2023, under the Liberal government, Correctional Services Canada transferred convicted serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo from a maximum- to a medium-security prison. As many would know, Bernardo is the monster responsible for the abduction and deaths of Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffy and Tammy Homolka and the assault of dozens of innocent women. For the friends, families and communities of the victims, his release from maximum security was a traumatizing injustice. Sadly, after over a decade of Liberal weak-on-crime laws, this is not an isolated incident. It is simply a sad pattern. Sadistic sex killer Luka Magnotta; the brutal murderer of eight-year-old Tori Stafford, Michael Rafferty; serial rapist Russell Williams; and convicted triple murderers Dellen Millard and Mark Smich are to name a few. All these criminals are the worst of the worst, dangerous offenders who the Liberals have allowed to be released from maximum- and transferred to medium-security prisons. While there, they enjoy the comforts of hockey rinks, tennis courts, television and movies, while their victims' families grieve and bravely remember their loved ones every single day. They truly receive a life sentence. This is precisely why Bill C‑232 is so important. The bill would amend the release act to require that dangerous offenders and those convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder be assigned to maximum-security prisons. It marks a step toward a balanced justice system. The legislation would make two meaningful changes. First, it would bring back just, proportional language to the act. Bill C‑232 would reinstate the legal standard for prison assignments as “only the necessary restrictions” language that was successfully implemented under the Harper government in 2012. Of course, in 2019, the Liberals had to gut that. Bill C‑83 amended the legal standard to be the least restrictive environment. When asked about the impact of this weak standard, the former director general of the corrections and criminal justice directorate at Public Safety Canada said, “The Conservatives are absolutely right. Of course it contributed to Mr. Bernardo's transfer, because it is a principle that underlies all decisions...a fundamental one.” Reversing the detrimental impact of Bill C‑83 is crucial to rebalancing the Liberals' crooked sentencing regime. Second, Bill C‑232 would make it absolutely mandatory for dangerous offenders like Bernardo, Millard, Smich, Magnotta and Rafferty to be sentenced to maximum-security institutions. Sadly, only 13% of dangerous offenders in Canada are currently housed in maximum-security prisons. In 2023, of the 736 classified dangerous offenders in our country, 580 of them were classified to medium-security environments. Nearly 90% of dangerous offenders are currently housed in minimum-security or medium-security prisons. In November 2025, Dellen Millard, the convicted triple murderer of his father, Laura Babcock and Tim Bosma, was transferred from a maximum- to medium-security prison. I echo Tim Bosma's family's question: “If a three-time convicted 1st degree murderer is rewarded for ‘good behaviour’ in the Canadian penal system and moved to a lower security prison, who then is filling the maximum security prisons? White collar criminals?” It does not add up. On this side of the House, Conservatives are listening. Bill C‑232 is a response to the outrageous pattern of loose security classifications from the CSC. Police and victim advocates recognize this bill as a long-overdue step towards victim protection and bringing back confidence in our justice system. Niagara Regional Police Service Chief Bill Fordy sees every day the impact of violent crime on our victims and communities and the value of these discussions. Police and law enforcement officials across Canada understand the importance of building back a justice system that Canadians can trust. Alicia Googoo, a survivor of childhood violence and founder of the advocacy organization, Our Heart on Our Sleeve, understands the risks of failing to take dangerous offenders seriously. She urged Parliament to act, saying that public safety and accountability “have consequences for real children, families and survivors.” When Paul Bernardo was transferred in 2023, members of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers in Quebec and Ontario were baffled by the decision, calling on the Liberal government to make a change. It did not. Tim Danson, lawyer for the victims' families, was clear that “legislative refinement” is warranted when it comes to Canada's most dangerous offenders, yet time and time again these Liberals ignore Canadians' call to action. The Liberals claim to be tough on crime, but they repeatedly support legislation that hollows out our justice system and prioritizes offenders' rights over victims' rights. Bill C‑14 would preserve the principle of restraint that allows violent offenders to walk free and terrorize their communities. Bill C‑16 introduces a mandatory minimum safety valve, fundamentally undermining the deterrence and denunciation of MMPs and essentially handing criminals a “get out of jail free” card. What is more, the Liberals claim to have changed, but the truth is that they are the exact same Liberals with the exact same policies as the past 11 years. When Bernardo was released from maximum-security prison, the Liberal public safety minister at the time absolved himself of responsibility. He claimed to have no idea the transfer was coming, which no one believed, and absolutely failed to remedy the impact of this decision for Canadians. Thanks to relentless pressure from the Conservatives, the minister was shuffled out of cabinet, surely for this decision, yet the decision itself was never reversed. After that, the disgraced minister went on to be rewarded as the current Prime Minister's chief of staff. The Liberals now have an opportunity to finally reverse course. By supporting this legislation, the government could finally mean it when the Liberals say they have changed, that it is a new Liberal government and they want to keep Canadians safe. In 2022, homicides reached the highest rate in 30 years. In January 2026, an Angus Reid poll found that 62% of Canadians believe crime has been rising in their communities over the last five years and do not feel safe. Now more than ever, we must protect our communities, safeguard victims' rights and stand up against the most evil offenders in the system. In the words of Marcia Penner, Kristen French's childhood friend, to Bernardo's accomplice, “You will never win. Kristen, Leslie, and Tammy win. Their memories are very much alive and will be forever.... These girls will always be remembered, loved, and cherished.” Bill C‑232 exists to protect those memories.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise on behalf of the good people of my riding. This is now the third, or possibly the fourth, substantive intervention I have made on Bill C-16, not to mention the numerous interventions during our study at the justice committee and our extensive discussions during clause-by-clause consideration. I want to take this opportunity to pivot in a new direction. I want to take this opportunity to explain to Canadians the truth behind the bill, not the fiction and not the utopian world that the Liberal government is trying to portray. We have heard so often that it is like Chicken Little. The new Liberal government says that it is so serious about community safety and victim rights and that it is taking its responsibilities seriously. I have always said, during the numerous town halls I have conducted across this country, that the number one responsibility for the tired Liberal government is to keep Canadians safe. Why is it that after the 2025 election, there are three pieces of criminal legislation that would only move the needle so far but would not complete what is necessary to restore balance in our criminal justice system? We could take, for instance, Bill C-9. Everything was progressing reasonably at committee on Bill C-9 until a backroom deal was brokered between the justice minister and the Bloc Québécois to remove a 52-year-old statutory defence in the Criminal Code and potentially criminalize preachers and faith leaders who read out passages from their religious texts. That is Bill C-9. On Bill C-14, the government heard from all major stakeholders in this country for years. They were pleading and begging the government to give them the tools to keep violent repeat criminals off the streets. They were terrorizing communities and terrorizing victims. The government claims that it listened to those calls. It introduced Bill C-14. We talked about the principle of restraint in Bill C-14, which the government introduced under Justin Trudeau in 2019. It mandated that all accused were to be released at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. We Conservatives said that we needed to put the appropriate brakes on those who would terrorize our communities repeatedly. We needed to replace the principle of restraint with the principle of protection of the community. Hence, the member for Oxford, my colleague, brought the jail not bail act, a reasonable piece of legislation supported by major police associations and chiefs across this country. The government rejected it, and now we are debating Bill C-16. Again, I want to separate fact from fiction. The fiction the government is trying to demonstrate and argue is that Conservatives were always obstructionist when it came to debating Bill C-16 in committee, when we were looking at and studying the bill. The fact of the matter is that 99% of Bill C-16 was always supported by the Conservative Party of Canada. There was a poison pill and a red line, which is contained in clause 63 of the bill, that would completely upend the effectiveness of our criminal sentencing regime. It would cause mandatory minimum penalties to no longer be considered mandatory minimum penalties by allowing judges, of their own accord or through application by the accused or their defence counsel, to argue that the application of a mandatory minimum penalty would result in cruel and unusual punishment. Where did this discussion come from? It came from that disastrous decision by our highest court just a few blocks down from this hallowed House, the Supreme Court of Canada. It ruled in Senneville that a one-year mandatory minimum penalty for the collection and the accessing of child sexual abuse material is contrary to section 12 of the charter. These two individuals who brought their case to the Supreme Court of Canada had amassed hundreds and hundreds of still images and videos of victims as young as three years of age engaged in the most grotesque form of sexual activity with adults. Our learned justices down the road deemed that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to subject those two sadistic perverts to serve a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty. If I were the justice minister, I would say one year is not enough. Lock them up for five years, because that is where they belong, or longer. If we were talking about a similar case a few hours away from the Ottawa region in the United States, in New York state, those two sadistic perverts would be looking at double digits in prison. That is the difference between our two justice systems. What is even more appalling about that decision, and this is the problem with Bill C‑16, is that the trial judge on their own determined that notwithstanding the size of the collection and the content, as disturbing as it is, a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty was too harsh. That trial judge gave those two perverts a 45‑day weekend sentence. What was our reaction? The collective will of Canada was shaken at its core. What is going on with our judges? What is going on with our justice system? It is no small wonder that Canadians and victims have a lack of confidence in our criminal justice system, when they see the highest court in this country ruling in the fashion that it did. We urged and pleaded with the government to come up and deal with this and use the notwithstanding clause. Section 33 of the charter has been enshrined in our charter since 1982. We would not have a charter but for section 33, but no, the government cannot do that. No, we now have to give judges that ultimate discretion to determine on their own whether a mandatory minimum penalty is appropriate in the circumstances, and there are only a few guardrails. Condition number one is that the only two offences they cannot touch are murder and treason. Condition number two is that they have to impose a jail sentence. However, in that regard, there is nothing stopping judges across this country from imposing a one-day jail sentence or a time-served jail sentence. Under Bill C‑16, that would be a lawful sentence. I asked the justice minister repeatedly in this House and repeatedly at committee, if they wanted to bring back mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down, why can they not go further and include everything that was eliminated by Bill C‑5? Bill C‑5 is that disastrous piece of legislation that I warned David Lametti, then justice minister, would lead to adverse consequences. Now we have drug traffickers of fentanyl and other kinds of synthetic opiates, whom the judges across this country are calling the merchants of death, enjoying conditional sentences. They were once to be locked up for years, but now they can make an argument for a conditional sentence. Our justice minister shamelessly refused to bring back mandatory minimum penalties for all the drug offences and the majority of the weapons offences, including extortion with a firearm, which is raging across this country. For all those reasons, as indicated, I would encourage this entire House to vote against Bill C‑16.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard a question there, but I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague. There are definite enhancements when it comes to victim safety and victim procedure in Bill C‑16, which is why I said at the outset that 99% of the bill is supportable. We would be very supportive of splitting the bill and having the good parts, that 99%, pass into the Senate, but split off that poisonous safety valve consideration in proposed section 63, which is what we would like to have taken off.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope they would blame the justice, and more importantly, the tools that the justice relies upon, which the federal government provides, and this tool, Bill C‑16, is going to lead to absurd, obscene results across this country. I asked the justice minister to name one accused who is not going to say that a mandatory minimum penalty is going to lead to cruel and unusual punishment. Every single accused facing criminal charges where there is a mandatory minimum penalty is entitled to use that argument.

Madam Speaker, they were the third party, to boot. They would routinely oppose time allocation motions. They did it every single time. How hypocritical are they now? I have a question for the justice minister. Effectively, this runs completely contrary to the messaging of the Prime Minister. Literally within minutes of the Prime Minister securing a majority government following the by-elections and the floor crossings by the cowards who left the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister—

Madam Speaker, literally within minutes, this is what the Prime Minister had to say. He pledged to work collaboratively with the House, stating that the government is “open to ideas from anyone”, yet at the justice committee, the Liberals actually shut down debate during Bill C-16. They did not allow additional days for additional witnesses to be heard. We now have the justice minister shutting down the will of Parliament to voice its concerns over Bill C-16. The question is simple: Why is the justice minister going against the will and direction of his leader?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are sick and tired of watching violent criminals get chance after chance while victims pay the price. A non-citizen committed multiple violent crimes in 2019. Seven years later, he is still in Canada. He carried out two robberies at gunpoint and pistol-whipped another victim, yet somehow, these Liberals keep protecting him from deportation. We Conservatives fought to end sentencing discounts for serious criminals. They voted against it. Why is avoiding deportation more important than protecting Canadians from violent criminals?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians continue to watch violent offenders get lighter sentences, avoid deportation and stay in this country year after year. In Kitchener, a non-citizen strangled his wife in front of their child. He was found guilty. The victim and her child are now living in a shelter. He remains in Canada. Under these Liberals, violent offenders get sentencing discounts, delayed deportation and endless second, third and fourth chances, while victims get nothing but excuses. When will these Liberals stop bending over backwards to help violent criminals avoid deportation and start standing up for victims for a change?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the fine residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I sincerely thank them every opportunity I get for the trust they have placed in me as their representative for two consecutive elections. Let me start my remarks today by stressing, and I cannot stress this enough, that there are significant positive measures contained within Bill C-16. It is a position that we have maintained from the outset. Conservatives have worked constructively at committee and successfully improved the bill in several important respects. For example, we strengthened protections for children by improving provisions relating to child sexual offences. We successfully increased penalties where intimate images are knowingly created during or immediately following an aggravated sexual assault. We also successfully expanded the definition of intimate images to include AI-generated deepfakes or nearly nude images. We also required courts to order the deletion of illicit intimate image material within 48 hours. Our amendment to strengthen victims' rights by expanding access to information under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights also passed, which is a particular measure, I might add, that has been called for by victim groups and victims themselves for a number of years. These were all meaningful Conservative amendments that were accepted by the government and, in my respectful opinion, have improved Bill C-16. All of them were worthwhile reforms. These reforms would better protect victims. These are reforms that, most assuredly, would better protect children, and these are reforms that Conservatives were proud to support. Unfortunately, it is time to talk about the elephant in the room. It is a very large elephant, and it was a red line that we, as Conservatives, continually pushed back and tried our best to move the government to relent on because of its dangerous implications. That provision is clause 63 of the bill, which is the so-called safety valve. The government describes this as a modest safeguard, but in practical terms, it renders virtually every mandatory minimum penalty in the Criminal Code optional. What is important to realize here is that there are dozens of mandatory minimum penalties currently within the Criminal Code that have withstood charter scrutiny and were upheld as charter compliant. The so-called safety valve, which would apply to all of those mandatory minimum penalties in the code, would weaken the Criminal Code, weaken sentencing regimes and weaken protection for victims. It would render virtually every mandatory minimum penalty optional. If they can be simply ignored, they are no longer mandatory. They merely become suggestions. Parliament created MMPs for the most serious offences because Canadians expect certain crimes to carry certain consequences. Parliament determined that some conduct is so serious that it warrants minimum periods of imprisonment. It made that determination after consultation and hearing directly from victims, communities and the public. Bill C-16 would undermine that. Under the bill, judges would be empowered to bypass those MMPs for some of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code. This would include human trafficking, extortion involving firearms, weapons trafficking, serious firearm offences, drive-by shootings and restricted or prohibited firearms. These are serious crimes that are devastating lives, families and communities every single day. Human trafficking victims suffer unimaginable exploitation. Victims of aggravated sexual assault carry lifelong trauma. Communities terrorized by armed extortion deserve protections. Families affected by gang violence deserve protections. Canadians simply deserve more from the weak Liberal government. Parliament established mandatory minimum penalties for these crimes because Parliament had long recognized their gravity. The government now asks us to maintain the words while removing the substance. We ought not to be fooled by that approach. Mandatory should mean mandatory, full stop. If the government truly believes mandatory minimum penalties remain necessary, then they should remain mandatory. If it does not believe they are necessary, let us be honest with Canadians and repeal them outright. Instead, the Liberals have chosen the worst of both worlds. They are claiming to preserve MMPs while simultaneously creating a legal mechanism to avoid them. We tried our best as Conservatives to improve this provision at committee. We proposed reasonable guardrails. We proposed limiting access to the safety valve to offenders with no prior criminal record. That was defeated. We proposed ensuring offenders could not receive less than one half of the mandatory minimum sentence. That, too, was defeated. We proposed excluding aggravated sexual assault. It was defeated. Excluding extortion offences was defeated. Excluding serious child sexual offences was defeated. Excluding major trafficking offences was defeated. I do not know what is so funny about what I was indicating there, but the Liberals are laughing at my speech.

The fact of the matter is that the truth hurts, Madam Secretary of State. Mr. Speaker, we proposed excluding the most serious offences that Parliament had already identified as deserving MMPs. Every one was rejected. The government rejected every safeguard and every limit. It rejected every attempt to narrow the scope of the safety valve. The result now is that the floodgates would be completely open. Let the litigation begin, and let the charter applications begin. All of those applicants will declare, “Oh, Your Honour, I can't have a mandatory minimum penalty because that would be cruel and unusual punishment.” That would happen each and every time. My question is simple: If the government trusted its own proposal, why did it refuse every safeguard the Conservatives proposed? If it believed the mechanism would only be used in exceptional cases, why refuse to define exceptional cases? The government's justification rests largely on concerns arising from constitutional litigation surrounding MMPs, yet the Supreme Court itself remains divided on that issue. In the recent Senneville decision, the dissenting judge, Chief Justice Wagner, emphasized that courts must be cautious when relying on hypothetical scenarios to invalidate legislation. The Supreme Court warned against hypothetical scenarios that are fanciful, unrealistic, speculative, extreme or remotely connected to the actual facts before the court. It reminded us all that there are limits to what can properly be considered as reasonable hypotheticals. We proposed an amendment that would have required courts to focus on the actual offender before them, rather than hypotheticals. Again, Liberals voted against that amendment. Dissenting judges also reminded us that child sexual offences require strong denunciation and deterrence. They reminded us that society's condemnation of offences against children must be reflected consistently and rigorously in sentencing. Parliament determined that denunciation and deterrence matters. It has determined that public safety matters and that victims matter. The Liberals are now asking Parliament to walk away from these decisions. Conservatives will not do that. It is for that reason that at this time I move an amendment, standing in my name, to delete clause 63 of Bill C-16, the provision that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum penalty in the Criminal Code. This is to be seconded by the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Mr. Speaker, I was at the justice committee. I was questioning witnesses. I participated in clause-by-clause. The secretary of state did not. What she is proposing is absolutely incorrect. The only limitation of Bill C-16 is that a judge cannot deviate from a mandatory minimum penalty for two offences: homicide or murder and treason. Everything else is fair game, so long as there is a jail sentence. There is nothing preventing an activist judge, a clever defence counsel or a desperate accused to say that a one-day sentence is appropriate, as opposed to, say, a one-year mandatory minimum penalty. That is fine with the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. I did participate in one committee meeting at the status of women committee, where we were discussing the ineffectiveness and the tragic consequences of the enforcement of section 810 common law bonds. It is unfortunate that the whole concept of section 810 consideration did not find itself within the confines of Bill C-16. This would have been a glorious opportunity for the Liberal government to strengthen section 810 orders to protect women who have no recourse other than to ask for that type of protection. Again, the government claims to be tough on crime and claims to be very cognizant of victims' rights. Its actions speak to the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question, because that question exposes the severe hypocrisy of the Liberal government, which claims to actually give a damn about being tough on crime. When Bill C-5 was introduced, the Liberals claimed that it would address the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimum penalties. Here is an opportunity, and now they are saying mandatory minimum penalties work. This was an opportunity to reinstate them. I asked the justice minister several times why they did not, and not one—

Mr. Speaker, the ugly face of Liberal weak-on-crime policy rears its head again. This time, a Toronto carjacker stole a $1‑million Ferrari at knifepoint, but, thanks to Liberal laws, he will serve the sentence in the comfort of his own home. This is the legacy of 11 years of Liberal weak-on-crime laws. The Prime Minister claims to be tough on crime, but Bill C-16 would undermine mandatory minimums with a get-out-of-jail-free card. When will the Liberals get serious, take the crime crisis head-on and ensure that jail means jail for violent offenders?

Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals, it is more crime, more fear and more chaos, simply more of the same. Extortion is raging across this country, and victims are living in a state of perpetual terror. Homes are being burned, businesses are being shot at and communities are under attack, yet the Liberal Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe that the Liberals are tough on crime, when Bill C-16 would actually make our justice system weaker. When will the Liberal government repeal its failed soft-on-crime laws and finally make criminals who do the crime do their time?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are still getting hammered at the pump and these Liberals are making it worse. They know Canadians are struggling and they are still taxing more. Instead of real relief, they offer a gimmick, a third of the relief for a third of the year. Meanwhile, families are paying more for everything because Liberal taxes are driving up the cost of living. This is the reality: Higher fuel costs mean higher grocery bills. Every truck, every delivery, every shelf price goes up and Canadians are the ones paying the price. When Conservatives put forward a plan to scrap all federal fuel taxes for the year, cutting costs by 25¢ per litre and saving families over $1,200, these Liberals voted to keep those taxes in place. This was a choice by the Liberals to keep taking more from Canadians when they can least afford it. Conservatives are offering real relief, a full plan for a full tank. Canadians should not have to choose between filling up their car and feeding their family.

Mr. Speaker, with these Liberals, it is more spending, more debt, more inflation and more of the same. They tell Canadians that things are under control, but this Prime Minister doubled Trudeau's deficit, adding $90 billion in net new spending. Now debt interest costs Canadians $55 billion a year, more than we spend on health transfers. The C.D. Howe Institute says, “Fiscal excess has...undermined economic growth and living standards.” Translation: Reckless Liberal spending is making Canadians poor. Next week, this government tables its fiscal update. Will it doom Canadians to more of the same?

Mr. Speaker, hot air and no results, more of the same is exactly what Canadians are getting: reckless spending that never stops, billions on consultants, billions on their failed gun grab, billions on high-speed rail and more waste, inflation and pressure on Canadians. When the Prime Minister says that affordability has never been better, is that what he calls record prices and the worst food inflation in the G7? Will the Prime Minister cut the waste and bring down his out-of-control spending or is he just another Liberal?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the good residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for placing their trust in me to be their voice. This particular speech has some special significance to me. As a former justice participant, I probably participated in close to 50 jury trials. I personally know the importance, the sacrifices and all the consequences that flow from serving on a jury. It could be a couple of days, it could be several weeks or it could be several months, depending on the circumstances. I could not be prouder as a representative of the House of Commons, given my background, to support this particular bill. The bill itself may appear modest in scope, but carries profound meaning for our justice system, our democracy and the everyday Canadians who uphold both. At its core, Bill S-226 would designate the second week of May each year as jury duty appreciation week across Canada. Some may ask why such a recognition matters. Why designate a week for something that has long existed as a civic obligation? The answer, is simple: Jury service is not just a duty, it is a cornerstone of justice in a free and democratic society and, like many cornerstones, it is often overlooked until we pause to reflect on its importance. Every year, thousands of Canadians are called upon to serve as jurors. They come from all walks of life; they are teachers, tradespeople, parents, students and retirees. They are not legal experts. They are not politicians. They are citizens, ordinary individuals, entrusted with an extraordinary responsibility to weigh evidence, to assess credibility and ultimately determine the fate of another human being within our criminal justice system. That responsibility is immense. Jurors are often asked to listen, sometimes for weeks or months, to testimony that can be disturbing, emotional and deeply challenging. They set aside personal biases, they follow strict legal instructions and they deliberate with fairness and integrity. In doing so, they safeguard one of the most fundamental principles of our legal system: the right to trial by a jury of one's peers. Without jurors, our justice system simply cannot function as intended. This bill recognizes that reality. Its preamble clearly states that jury duty is a vital component of our justice system and our democracy. That is not symbolic language. It is a statement of fact. Yet, despite this critical role, jurors often serve in relative anonymity. They are rarely publicly acknowledged. Their contributions are seldom celebrated. Too often, the challenges they face, particularly those related to mental health and financial strain, are not completely addressed. We must be honest about the burdens of jury service. Serving on a jury can mean time away from work, lost income and disruptions to family life. In some cases, jurors are exposed to traumatic evidence, graphic details, distressing images and heartbreaking testimony. These experiences do not simply disappear when a trial ends. For many jurors, the psychological impact lingers. The bill speaks directly to that issue. It highlights the well-being and mental health of jurors who are paramount to the proper functioning of our justice system. A justice system that relies on jurors must also support them. Recognition is not a substitute for reform, but it is a necessary step. By establishing jury duty appreciation week, we would create an opportunity to raise awareness about the realities of jury service, to encourage conversation about juror supports and to remind Canadians that this civic duty deserves respect and attention. Some may argue that a commemorative week is merely symbolic, and that it does not change policy, funding or programs. While it is true that the bill would not create new financial supports or legal mechanisms, it is, at its heart, an act of recognition. Symbolism matters in a democracy. We designate days and weeks not because they solve problems overnight, but because they focus our collective attention. They educate. They inspire dialogue. They affirm shared values. Let us think of the many observations we already recognize. These observations shape public consciousness. They remind us of who we are and what we value as a nation. Jury duty appreciation week would do the same. It would shine a light on a civic responsibility that is often misunderstood or undervalued. It would encourage Canadians to see jury service not as an inconvenience, but as a meaningful contribution to justice. It would signal to those who have served that their efforts are seen, respected and appreciated. There is also an educational dimension to the bill. The preamble notes that designating a week of appreciation would help educate citizens, organizations and governments about the issues involved in fulfilling this duty. Many Canadians have a limited understanding of how juries work, what juries experience and why their role is so essential. The week could serve as a catalyst for public education through schools, community organizations and media, helping to demystify the process and strengthen public confidence in our justice system. Confidence matters. A justice system is only as strong as the trust people place in it. When Canadians understand and respect the role of jurors, they are more likely to view the system as fair, transparent and legitimate. We must also consider the broader democratic principle at stake. Jury service is one of the most direct ways citizens participate in governance. It is democracy in action. It is a reminder that justice is not imposed from above, but delivered by the people. In an era where trust in our institutions is fragile, reinforcing this connection between citizens and the justice system is more important than ever. The bill does exactly that. It affirms that jurors are not peripheral actors. They are central to the administration of justice. It acknowledges that their service is not only necessary but honourable, and it invites all Canadians to reflect on the value of this civic duty. I would also like to recognize the efforts of those who brought the bill forward. Originally introduced in the Senate and now before the House, the bill reflects years of advocacy and a growing recognition that jurors deserve greater acknowledgement. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a regional issue. It is a national issue, one that touches every province, every territory and every Canadian who may one day be called to serve. As members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to uphold the institutions that underpin our democracy. Those include our courts, our laws and the citizens who bring them to life. Passing this bill would be a small but meaningful step in that direction. It would send a clear message that Canada values its jurors, that we recognize their sacrifices and that we are committed to supporting them not only in words but in spirit. In closing, let us remember that justice is not an abstract concept. It is carried out by real people with real lives, who step forward when called upon to serve. They do so quietly, they do so diligently and they do so without expectation of recognition. It is high time we change that. Let us give the jurors the recognition they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stood in the House and promised to keep violent repeat offenders off our street, but it turns out that was just another speech, just another illusion. Violent crime is up 55%, and Canadians are watching violent offenders walk free with judicial discounts instead of real consequences. Speech after speech, the Liberals talk tough but deliver nothing. How many more empty speeches will it take before these Liberals stop the illusions and finally deliver justice for victims?

Mr. Speaker, here she goes again, talking tough and delivering nothing. The Liberals had the chance to protect victims and restore public safety, but voted against our jail not bail act, the consecutive sentences act and the one law for all to finally jail criminals. Liberal soft-on-crime laws continue to let violent repeat offenders roam free, handing out judicial discounts while Canadians pay the price. These Liberals keep recycling the same empty promises and the same illusions. How many more Canadians have to suffer before these Liberals admit their failure and stop giving criminals a judicial discount?

Mr. Speaker, the Brantford Bulldogs are off to the eastern conference finals tomorrow after eight straight playoff wins. They have had a historic season, leading the eastern conference into the playoffs with an impressive 106 points and 48 wins, finishing atop the league. Shift after shift, this team is working, skating and playing hard. They are winning battles, lighting the lamp and locking it down in their end. Back home in Brantford, we can feel it: the buzz in the arena, the roar of the crowd and a community rallying behind every goal, hit and save. This is playoff hockey at its best, and the Bulldogs are leading the charge. As a lifelong Brantford resident, I am proud to be a long-time supporter of the team that brings our community together. I encourage players, coaches and staff to keep their sticks on the ice, keep grinding and keep bringing the heat to the eastern conference finals. Brantford is behind them all the way, and we are ready to see that J. Ross Robertson Cup come home. Go, Bulldogs!

Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberal government has proven it is out of touch and out of ideas. While Canadians struggle to afford essentials, the Prime Minister has failed to listen, instead borrowing Conservative solutions without delivering full benefits. Across the country, Canadians are paying 51¢ more on gas and 75¢ more on diesel, which is almost 20% more than Americans. Producers are raising the alarm about the impact this will have on food prices. Canadian farmers say they will face extremely high grocery prices, which will be going up 25% to 50%. Canada already has the highest food inflation in the G7. That is why Conservatives have brought forward a plan to respond to Canadian needs and deliver on affordability when people need it most. Our plan would eliminate all federal taxes on fuel until the end of the year, which would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ and save families over $1,200. Canadians do not need half measures and Liberal headlines. They need real relief, and only Conservatives are fighting to deliver it.

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege and honour to speak on behalf of the great citizens of my riding, particularly on an important bill such as this. As a former member of the justice system, I know the great difficulty that law enforcement has had. Unfortunately, Canada has been an outlier in how efficiently law enforcement can gain access to information. Ultimately, the bill is a step in the right direction, but certainly much improvement is required. I will start off with the general notion that Canadians expect their government to do two things well. Canadians expect it to, number one, keep them safe and, number two, protect their fundamental rights and freedoms. In today's world, that balance is becoming increasingly complex. We know that crime is evolving, technology is advancing and law enforcement is facing new challenges in accessing the evidence it needs to investigate serious offences. No one in the House disputes that reality, but Canadians also expect that, when governments respond to those challenges, they do so carefully and not in a rushed manner. They will do it responsibly and with a clear understanding of the consequences. Unfortunately, that has not been the standard approach of the government. Time and again over the last 11 years, we have seen legislation from the Liberal government that is rushed, is poorly thought out and ultimately fails to strike the right balance between public safety and individual liberties. Conservatives have always believed, and will always believe, in law and order. We have always stood for measures that keep Canadians safe while respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms that are enshrined in our charter and define our country. I know that Liberals often talk about being the only party that stands on behalf of the charter, but that is not the case. For nearly a decade now, we have been urging the government to get this balance right. Unfortunately, what Canadians have seen instead is a pattern of failure, a pattern where the government lags behind evolving threats, introduces flawed legislation, and then expects Parliament to clean up its mess. We saw that just last fall when it introduced Bill C-2. That piece of legislation fell well short of protecting Canadians, while at the same time it overreached into areas that raise serious concerns about individual freedoms and privacy. Conservatives did our job. We pushed back, and we forced the government to reconsider that flawed piece of legislation. We successfully blocked provisions that would have infringed on the rights of law-abiding Canadians. Now, with Bill C-22, we are once again being asked to consider a lawful access framework. Let me be abundantly clear that there is a real issue here. As someone who has spent close to two decades in the legal system, I understand first-hand how critical timely access to digital evidence is in modern investigations. Today's criminals do not operate in the same world as they did 20 or 30 years ago. They are always several steps ahead of law enforcement. As a result, our law enforcement agencies must have the appropriate tools they need to keep pace. We know that delays in accessing basic subscriber information will often stall investigations. Quite often that is the difference between making an arrest and not. We know that gaps in international co-operation can allow serious offenders to evade accountability. We know that technological limitations can prevent police from acting on leads that protect victims. These are the real challenges, and they deserve real solutions. The question before us is not whether action is needed. The question is whether the Liberal government can be trusted to get it right, because over the last 11 years its track record suggests otherwise. As I have indicated, we have seen legislation that is rushed, overly broad and insufficiently thought through. We have seen measures that go either too far, risking Canadians' rights, or simply not far enough, failing to deliver real public safety concerns. Bill C-22 reintroduces elements from Bill C-2, and that alone demands careful scrutiny. Conservatives will not simply take the government at its word. We will examine the details, test the assumptions and ensure that any new powers are justified, targeted and subject to proper oversight, because Canadians have already seen what happens when the Liberal government rushes ahead without regard for Canadians' privacy. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is but one example. In Bill C-2, the Liberals tried to give themselves sweeping, unjustified access to personal information without the appropriate safeguards and without respect for the fundamental rights of law-abiding Canadians. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the government did not even consult his office before attempting to grant itself these sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers like banks and telecommunications companies without a warrant. Conservatives stood up, pushed back and forced the Liberals to retreat. Now, with Bill C-22, Canadians are right to be cautious. Any expansion of state power, whether through lower legal thresholds, new data demands or broad retention requirements, must be tightly limited, clearly justified and subject to real oversight. We will never accept a repeat of the same overreach simply dressed up in new language. We must ensure that any lowering of legal thresholds does not come at the expense of Canadians' fundamental rights. We must ensure that data retention requirements, particularly those that apply broadly, are necessary, proportionate and consistent with the charter. We also must ensure that any obligations placed on service providers are clear and reasonable and do not create any unintended consequences for innovation or privacy. This is especially important given the scope of this bill, which creates a new framework governing how electronic service providers must support lawful access. These provisions raise complex legal and technical questions. They involve requirements for data retention, technical capabilities and compliance mechanisms that could have far-reaching implications. While the government argues that this is necessary to modernize our investigative framework, we must ensure that we are not creating a system that overreaches or lacks sufficient accountability. At the same time, we simply cannot ignore the broader context. Public safety and, I would add, trust in our federal institutions and in our democracy have been deteriorating. Canadians are seeing rising violent crime, repeat offenders cycling through the system and a growing sense that the justice system is not working for them. In fact, many victims do not even refer anymore to “the Canadian justice system”. They do not see it as justice for them, as they have been ignored for over 11 years. They see it simply as a legal system. At the same time, we have seen failures in basic areas of law enforcement capacity. We have all read and seen reports that the RCMP has struggled to recruit enough officers to meet operational needs. We have seen gaps in resources, coordination and leadership. Therefore, when the government brings forward legislation like Bill C-22, Canadians are right to ask if this is part of a coherent plan to improve public safety or if it is another isolated measure that fails to address the root problems. Tools alone are not enough. We need the people, the resources and the leadership to make those tools effective. Conservatives believe in giving police the tools they need, but we also believe in accountability. We believe in getting that balance right, and we believe that any legislation must be clear, targeted and respectful of Canadian rights. That is why we will be carefully reviewing the bill. We will listen to experts. We will hear from law enforcement and consider the views of civil liberty organizations. We will do the work necessary to ensure that any final legislation reflects the interests of Canadians, not the political priorities of the Liberal government. Canadians deserve to be safe. They deserve a justice system that works, and they deserve a government that gets it right the first time. Unfortunately, that has not been the trademark of the Liberal government. That is why it falls to this House to do the necessary hard work of scrutiny, accountability and improvement. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' safety, their privacy and their fundamental freedoms. We will scrutinize the legislation carefully. We will insist on the right balance, one that protects public safety while safeguarding the privacy and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians, because Canadians should never have to choose between being safe and being free. I want to highlight some of the stakeholder reactions that I have been able to access so far with respect to Bill C-22. Law enforcement clearly welcomes Bill C-22 as a needed change to the legal frameworks for warrants and searches in Canada, for timely information gathering. The legal profession is skeptical of the bill. While they welcome the amendments from Bill C-2, they are doubtful of its efficacy and of the charter compliance contained in part 2. The business community acknowledges the need for modern law enforcement but is wary of higher regulatory burdens and the impact on innovation and encryption. Civil liberty groups strongly oppose the bill. This is by no means an exhaustive list. Some examples of groups that support the bill would be the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the BC Association of Chiefs of Police, and the B.C. public safety minister, Nina Krieger. Those who have mixed opinions on the bill and who seek amendment include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Dr. Michael Geist, the Canadian Bar Association and Dr. Robert Diab, professor of law at Thompson Rivers University. Those who flat out oppose this piece of legislation include the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and the Yanik Guillemette technology and entrepreneurship industry. I will give members a flavour of some of the comments from these three groups. A passage from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which opposes the bill, reads, “This legislation presents one of the greatest threats to privacy in Canada of the past two decades.” The changes from Bill C-2 to Bill C-22 do not go “far enough” in addressing the charter compliance concerns with Bill C-2. Bill C-22 adds a “data retention provision...that raises...additional privacy concerns.” Those who support the bill include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which sees this legislation as “intended to modernize Canada's lawful access regime” and improve its “ability to investigate crime and protect the public in the digital age.” It continues: ...investigators often rely on digital evidence to identify suspects, locate victims, and prevent further harm. Today, many of these crimes are...committed using digital platforms or encrypted communications. Canada's legal framework governing warrants, searches, and seizures was created [for an analog] world [and] allows offenders to [evade] accountability. ...The results [of Bill C-22] will be more investigations solved in a timely manner, a less cumbersome process, and a strong lawful access framework that maintains the data privacy of Canadians. Those with mixed opinion include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Businesses understand that “Canada needs modern tools to fight crime”, but they recognize that “strong encryption and consumer privacy are fundamental for our economic and national security.” They want to see Bill C-22 provide “surgical, proportionate” tools to law enforcement. Another mixed opinion is from Dr. Michael Geist. He says that Bill C-22 significantly improves the timely access to data and information, which was in part 1 of Bill C-2, while worsening the privacy concerns in part 2 of the new bill, but transforming the way that governments will interact with digital platforms and communication providers. He also says that the new “confirmation of service” demand power in part 1 addresses a long-standing police complaint regarding timely access to information, and part 2 covers “new requirements for communications providers to actively work with law enforcement on their surveillance and monitoring capabilities.... The government will point to increased oversight [through the Intelligence Commissioner], but the concerns regarding surveillance capabilities, security vulnerabilities, secrecy, and cross-border data sharing remain.” A mixed opinion comes from the Canadian Bar Association, which says that while Bill C-22 “narrows the...powers from C-2 and increases some oversight, it also expands international cooperation in law enforcement.” Part 2 of the bill is seen as disastrous in their opinion, opening back doors for CSIS and the police to “get real-time access to their information”. Further, “systematic vulnerabilities are not defined [as specifically] as they are in Australia”, despite the bill including language that requires that the government not introduce “systemic vulnerabilities into these systems”. I see I am almost out of time, so I will end at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Windsor West, for his decades of service in law enforcement. He is absolutely correct. The time has come, in the modern digital age and where we stand as a nation in the 21st century, to recognize that the sharing of information among agencies is crucial. I do not think that Bill C-22 goes far enough. I do not believe I read any specific provision in Bill C-22 that would alleviate the concerns of my colleague. This is an opportunity for us to get the bill to committee to listen to subject matter experts, particularly from the policing field, and to correct this glaring oversight. I thank my colleague for the important observation.

Mr. Speaker, I fondly remember our past careers. I would usually take an opportunity to invite my colleague, who worked for a Hamilton news agency, because there was a lack of resources in my community. One of the frustrating aspects of my job as a prosecutor was how I was going to telegraph a message to the community by way of general deterrence if the press was not picking up on the stories. I always welcomed the opportunity for my friend and colleague to come to Brantford to report on them. The member is absolutely correct. Policing generally has to rely upon tools to gather the necessary information. As I have indicated, one of the criticisms of the bill is that we are lagging behind in terms of providing the police with the necessary tools. All our laws right now have been built around an analog society. We are no longer in an analog society. We are in a digital society, so we need to find the right balance that gives the police the authority to obtain information while still maintaining the privacy rights of Canadians. We have to get that balance right.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the work my Bloc colleague and I do together on the justice committee. He raises a very important point. It is emblematic of the approach the Liberal government usually takes, most recently with any criminal justice policy, which is that there is a very select focus on whom it receives information from. There is not broad consideration, which there should be. My colleague raises the point that a lot of other groups, a lot of other entities, that have a stake in this discussion were never consulted. We will ensure that, when the bill gets to the justice committee, we provide the necessary window of opportunity for those stakeholders to provide their necessary input to strengthen the bill, while still providing the necessary oversights and ensuring that the privacy rights of Canadians are always protected.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague from the government side listened to my entire speech. I was talking generally about the approach the Liberal government has taken toward justice and public safety bills. In my view, it tends to be rushed. It tends to be only after the fact, after there is an outpouring of concern. A case in point is the whole issue regarding bail. I have been addressing this ever since I became an elected member for my riding. I know that my colleague from British Columbia has done the same. In fact, pretty much every member of the Conservative Party has been raising issues surrounding public safety and bail. It was only after there was an outpouring of concern from premiers, police chiefs, presidents of police associations, and victim advocacy groups that the government walked back its approach. Its approach was that there was nothing wrong with public safety in this country and that it was all an illusion in our mind. That was from the former attorney general, Arif Virani, literally minutes after being sworn in as our Attorney General. I use that as a framework to describe how the government is always reactive as opposed to being proactive. On the issue of Bill C-22, it is all about finding the right balance, and that was the theme of my speech.

Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely excellent question, because it shows the hypocrisy of the government when it claims it is exercising its number one responsibility, which is to keep Canadians safe. Its members routinely turn a blind eye, or they vote down every common-sense justice initiative because it comes from the Conservative bench. A case in point is the abysmal, absolutely disgusting vote results of two weeks ago for common-sense justice bills, private members' bills presented to the House to be voted on, which would have made a fundamental impact in the lives of victims and the way criminals are dealt with in this country. Every member of the failed Liberal government voted them down. Every member of the government continually said that bail is not an issue. Again, they said that it was in our minds or that it had never been their responsibility. Although they are responsible for the creation of the Criminal Code of Canada, they say that it is the province's fault, the judge's fault or law enforcement's fault. It literally took major stakeholders' kicking and screaming at the government for it to wake up and realize that it is the author of the misfortune in which we find ourselves in this nation: 11 years of significant rising crime. The Liberals have themselves to blame for that.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill C-236, introduced by my colleague and friend the hon. member for Parkland. It is a bill that speaks to something fundamental, not just in our justice system but also in our shared humanity. It is about dignity and accountability, and above all it is about justice for victims and their families. For most Canadians, when a loved one passes, there is a process. There is mourning, a funeral and a place to visit, to remember and to grieve, but for far too many families, that process is stolen from them. It is stolen by individuals who commit the most horrific crimes imaginable and then choose to withhold the very information that would allow families to lay their loved ones to rest. Bill C-236 seeks to address this very injustice. It would do so in a targeted, thoughtful and charter-compliant way. It would not remove judicial discretion or impose automatic penalties, and it would not upend the principles of our justice system. Instead, the bill would do something both simple and profoundly important. It would ensure that when an offender refuses to disclose the location of a victim's remains, that refusal would be treated as a serious and relevant factor in sentencing, at parole and in conditional release decisions. The bill recognizes ongoing harm, because the truth is this: When an offender withholds the location of a victim's remains, the crime does not end at conviction; it continues. It continues every single day that a family is denied answers and every single day that a parent, a child or a sibling is left wondering, “Where are they?” We need only to look at the case that inspired the bill. In 2010, Lyle and Marie McCann were brutally murdered. Their son, Bret, has lived with unimaginable grief, but that grief has been compounded and even intensified because the animal responsible has refused to say where their bodies are. To this day, the McCann family has had no grave to visit, no proper funeral and no true closure. As Bret McCann himself said, by withholding that information, the offender continues to revictimize the family. That is exactly right. That is not silence; it is ongoing harm, yet under our current system, there is no explicit requirement for judges or parole boards to consider that refusal. While the McCann case is a powerful and tragic example, it is certainly not an isolated one. Across this country, there have been multiple cases where families have been left without answers, and where offenders, even after conviction, refused to disclose the location of remains. In each of these cases, the pain does not end with the trial or sentencing. It continues indefinitely, because the truth is being deliberately withheld. The bill recognizes that this is not a one-off injustice but a recurring gap in our legal system that demands a legislative response. Let me be very clear about what the legislation would do. At sentencing, a judge would be required to consider an offender's refusal to disclose the location as an aggravating factor. If the judge chooses not to consider it, they must explain why. For serious sentences, those exceeding two years to life, the court may order that full parole eligibility be delayed until half the sentence has been served, or 10 years, whichever is less. Importantly, that order can be revisited if the offender chooses to co-operate. This would create something that does not currently exist: a meaningful incentive to do the right thing, to tell the truth, to provide answers and to allow families to grieve. The bill would also strengthen the role of the Parole Board. It would make clear that ongoing refusal to disclose the location of remains can be grounds to deny parole. It would apply as well to temporary absences, including unescorted absences and even certain humanitarian requests, because it is entirely reasonable to ask, “If an offender continues to withhold critical information about a victim, have they truly demonstrated rehabilitation, and have they truly accepted responsibility?” The bill seeks to recognize the consequences of continued deliberate non-cooperation, and it would ensure that our justice system is equipped to respond to that reality. Some may argue that these factors are already considered informally, but if that is the case, then there should be no hesitation in codifying them. If we already believe this matters, then we should say so clearly in law. The bill has been carefully drafted to respect the charter. It would preserve discretion and avoid automatic penalties, and it would fit squarely within existing legal principles. This is not a sweeping reform. It is not a broad overhaul of sentencing law. It is a targeted, measured response to a very specific and very real problem, and yes, it might apply to only a small number of cases each year, but for those families, those parents, those children and those loved ones, it would mean everything. Conservatives often speak in this House about putting victims first. We hear that from time to time from the Liberals. This is an opportunity for all of us to do exactly that, to acknowledge victims' pain, validate their experience and take a concrete step to support them. I would urge all members of the House to look beyond politics on this issue, to consider the families who are still waiting for answers, to consider the dignity of those who have been lost, and to consider the very clear message we send if we fail to act. Justice is not only about what happens in a courtroom. It is about whether families are able to move forward with dignity, with answers, and most importantly, with the truth. When an offender chooses to withhold a location, they are not simply remaining silent. They are prolonging the suffering, and they are extending the harm of their crime day after day, year after year. The bill would ensure that our justice system recognizes that reality. It is measured, it is charter-compliant, and it is rooted in a simple principle: that victims and their families matter. We have an opportunity to correct a clear and painful gap in our legal system. I urge all members of the House, on all sides, to stand with victims' families, to stand for accountability and to support Bill C-236.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the second time this week to speak to Bill C-9, after the Liberals rammed it through committee and this House and are censoring debate on their own censorship bill. At third reading, we are no longer deliberating intentions. We are deciding consequences. The consequence of Bill C-9, as it now stands, is clear: a fundamental change to Canada's Criminal Code that the Liberals have never been able to properly justify, even today. Let us be clear at the outset: Conservatives believe that hate is real. We believe that Canadians of every faith deserve to be safe in their communities and free from intimidation, violence and harassment. However, what we are dealing with today is not simply a bill about protecting communities. It is a bill that has been altered mid-debate in a way that raises serious legal, constitutional and moral concerns, and we have a government that still refuses to explain why. The central issue before the House is the removal of the religious defence from section 319 of the Criminal Code, a protection that has existed for 56 years. The government did not campaign on removing it, nor was it in the original bill or even introduced after broad consultation. It appeared late in the process through an amendment supported by the Liberals and the Bloc, and since that moment, Canadians have been asking one simple question: Why? To this day, not one member of the Liberal Party has been able to give a clear answer. What we have heard instead are shifting justifications, vague references, and an inability to articulate why a long-standing defence, one that has formed part of the legal balance in Canada's hate speech laws since 1970, should suddenly be removed. Meanwhile, outside this chamber, Canadians have been speaking, and they have been speaking so loudly. Civil liberties organizations, legal experts and faith communities across this country have all raised concerns. We are not talking about a narrow group or a fringe issue. We are talking about millions of Canadians, constituting Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and others, who have spoken out against this change and directly written to every single Liberal MP on the other side of the House. As was noted at committee and in submissions, Canadians hold a wide range of beliefs that some may not agree with, but in a free society, disagreement is not grounds for criminalization. That is the principle that has guided our law for decades, yet the government is now proposing to remove one of the key safeguards that protects that principle. Christine Van Geyn of the Canadian Constitution Foundation put it clearly in her analysis of this bill. She warned that what is being proposed here is not simply a technical adjustment but rather a fundamental shift. She wrote that removing the religious defence would gut the defence that protects good-faith religious opinion or speech rooted in religious texts, and cautioned that the Liberals do not have justification for dismantling a safeguard that protects millions of Canadians from state intrusion into matters of faith. That is the core issue. Parliament does not legislate for the most extreme example. It legislates for the millions of ordinary Canadians whose rights depend on the clarity and balance of our laws. Van Geyn also pointed to something even more significant: the constitutional foundation of the law itself. In the Supreme Court's decision of Keegstra, the hate propaganda provisions were upheld because of the statutory defences, including the religious defence. She notes that the court viewed these defences as essential to ensuring that the law minimally impairs freedom of expression. If we remove that safeguard, we do not simply change the law. We risk undermining the very basis on which it was upheld. That is not a theoretical concern. That is a constitutional reality, yet, despite these warnings, these concerns and the clear need for careful study, what did the government do? It shut down debate. Through its programming motion, the government forced this bill through committee. Clause-by-clause consideration resumed under conditions where no further debate was permitted, no amendments could be meaningfully examined, and even the reading of the amendments themselves was curtailed. This is legislation that would affect the Criminal Code, the most serious law we have, and it was rushed through without the scrutiny it demands, for political reasons only. This raises a deeper question. If the government is confident in this change, why not defend it? Why not allow it to be debated? Why not hear from Canadians and test the arguments openly? Instead, what we have seen is a government that has chosen speed over scrutiny, process over principle and politics over clarity. We also need to be clear about what this change would actually do. Calls to violence and incitement of hatred are already illegal in Canada and have been so for decades. They are not protected by the religious defence. They never have been. What this defence does is protect good-faith religious expression. As Van Geyn wrote, “religious expression is messy, symbolic and deeply human.... These are precisely the areas where the criminal law must not tread.” That is a line we are now being asked to cross, and once crossed, it is not easily redrawn. This is not about protecting hate. It is about protecting the boundary between the state and the conscience of the individual. It is about ensuring that in Canada, the government does not become the arbiter of theology. This debate ultimately comes down to a question of principle. It is not whether hate should be condemned, as it should be, and not whether Canadians should be safe, as they must be, but whether Parliament is prepared to remove a long-standing defence for freedom of expression and freedom of religion without clear justification, without proper debate and in the face of widespread concern from Canadians. This is exactly what this bill would do. It would remove the safeguard that has existed for more than 50 years. It would do so after limiting the very debate meant to test such a change. Today, Conservatives are offering the Liberal government one more opportunity to get this right. Through our motion, we are asking that Bill C-9 be sent back to committee for one simple purpose: to restore the religious defence in section 319 of the code, which are protections that have long safeguarded good-faith religious expression in Canada. That is a reasonable, targeted fix that would respond directly to the concerns raised by the broad range of religious communities and civil liberty advocates across this country. It would preserve the ability to combat hate while maintaining the constitutional balance that has guided Canadian law for decades. The question now is simple: Will the Liberal government listen? Will it listen to the legal experts who have raised constitutional concerns? Will it listen to the millions of Canadians who have spoken out, or will it continue down a path of rushed legislation, limited debate and unnecessary division? Conservatives will always proudly stand for freedom of expression and freedom of religion, full stop. Today we are giving the Liberal government one final opportunity to stand with us to restore these protections, to respect the concerns of Canadians and to ensure that our Criminal Code reflects both justice and freedom. Therefore, I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clause 4 with the view to amend the Bill so as to restore paragraph 319(3)(b) and paragraph 319(3.1)(b) of the Act, in order to preserve longstanding safeguards for good faith religious expression, address concerns raised by a broad range of religious communities across Canada, and protect freedom of expression and religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, through all that bluster and noise, I thought I had opened up the door for any member of the Liberal government to stand up and speak directly to the millions of Canadians who would be impacted and are concerned about the position the Liberal government is taking. Why was the bill never drafted to include the removal of a 56-year-old defence? What were the circumstances that caused the government to have a backroom deal with the Bloc Québécois to now remove that defence? Why can the member not justify that reason?

Mr. Speaker, sadly, and she is probably not surprised by this, I certainly do not agree with anything my colleague had to say. The justice committee did not debate this particular amendment in good faith. There were no witnesses called. There were no expressions by any of the Liberal members to support the Bloc amendment. The only person who raised it was the Bloc representative on the justice committee. He did not call any witnesses to justify why Canada was ready to remove a five-decade-old offence. That is the question that needs to be answered: Why?

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. This country is rooted in faith. We have faith communities and faith organizations right across this country, and they do not accept for one minute this Liberal narrative. Liberals say Canadians and faith communities have nothing to worry about and that they are still protected by the charter. It is that same false, erroneous argument they sold to Canadians when they invoked the Emergencies Act. They had their hands slapped twice because they breached a number of constitutional rights. I suspect that even if the Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear this case, they are going to get their hands slapped again. Canadians do not trust the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this particular bill, Bill C-235, introduced by my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. This is a bill rooted in something very simple yet too often overlooked in our justice system, which is respect for victims and their families. For far too many Canadians, justice does not end at sentencing. For the families of victims who have endured the unimaginable in the form of the abduction, sex assault and murder of a loved one, the trauma does not fade with time. In many cases, it is forced back into their lives again and again, through a system that compels them to relive their worst nightmare every day. Under current law, offenders convicted of first-degree murder are eligible for parole after 25 years. What does that actually mean in practice? It means that after 25 years, families are drawn back into the system, often every two years thereafter, to attend parole hearings, hearings where they feel obligated to be present, hearings where they must prepare statements, hearings where they must again confront the individual responsible for the destruction of their family. We know that in these most heinous cases, parole is almost never granted. We are not talking about individuals who are realistically going to be released. We are talking about individuals the likes of Paul Bernardo, like Clifford Olson, individuals who have used these hearings not as a step toward rehabilitation but as an opportunity to reassert control, to retraumatize families and to force them to relive unspeakable acts. That is the reality. That is why Bill C-235 matters. The legislation proposes a targeted, reasonable and proportionate reform. It would allow judges, after hearing from a jury, to extend parole eligibility from 25 years up to 40 years, not in every case, not broadly, but only in the most egregious of circumstances, where three elements are present: the abduction, sex assault and murder of the same victim as part of the same event or series of events. These are not ordinary crimes. These are the most depraved, calculated and devastating offences imaginable, and Canadians understand that. Families understand that. They understand that when someone commits all three of these acts against a single victim, the harm is not just irreparable. It is enduring. It is generational and often permanent, so when we talk about increasing parole ineligibility, we are not talking about punishment for the sake of punishment. We are talking about accountability. Equally important, we are talking about peace, peace for families who should not have to structure their lives around parole hearings every two years, peace for parents who should not have to relive the loss of their child every two years, and peace for loved ones who should not be forced to hear again and again the details of crimes that shattered their world. Bill C-235 strikes the right balance. It would not impose a mandatory extension. It would not remove judicial discretion. Instead, it would actually empower judges, after considering the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and, importantly, the recommendation from the jury, to determine whether a longer period of parole ineligibility is appropriate. That is a careful, measured approach. It respects the role of the courts and, most importantly, it respects the charter. It respects the voices of Canadians, through the jury system, who may wish to weigh in on what justice looks like in these most serious cases. This is not about being extreme. This is about being fair: fair to victims, fair to families and fair to a public that expects our justice system to reflect the severity of the crimes being committed. We have heard from victims' families across the country. We have heard their frustrations, their exhaustion and their pain. They speak about a system that forces them into a never-ending cycle, one where they are just about to begin to rebuild their lives when they are pulled back into a process to reopen wounds that never truly heal. They speak about the emotional toll, the financial burden, the anxiety, the fear and the lack of closure. Bill C-235 responds directly to all those concerns. It acknowledges that justice is not only about the offender. It is also about the lasting impact on those left behind. It takes a meaningful step to reduce that burden. We also know that this bill is limited in scope. Fewer than 10 cases per year would meet this threshold. These individuals are already serving life sentences, and in most cases they will never be released. The financial impact on Correctional Service Canada would be minimal, but the impact on families and on victims would be significant. This is a small change in law, but a profound change in lived experience. It is consistent with the principle that Conservatives have always stood for: holding offenders accountable, while showing compassion and respect for victims. We believe that when crimes reach this level of brutality, the justice system must respond accordingly. We believe that protecting victims from further harm is not optional; it is actually essential. We believe that anything we can do to hold offenders more accountable for these heinous crimes is a step in the right direction. There have been cases across the country that have shaken communities, cases that have devastated families and remind us, time after time, why this legislation is so important, and cases where the brutality of the crime defies comprehension and where families are left not only grieving but navigating a system that seems to prioritize process over humanity. While each case is unique, the pattern is the same: unimaginable loss followed by years, sometimes decades, of forced engagement with the criminal responsible. Bill C-235 offers a different path, a path that still respects due process and judicial discretion and a path that better reflects the reality faced by victims' families. I also want to note that this is not a new idea. Previous versions of the bill have received strong support in the past. In fact, in a previous Parliament, members of the Liberal Party supported the legislation. This should never be a partisan issue. This is about doing what is right. This is about listening to victims, and this is about making a targeted, thoughtful improvement to our justice system. At its core, Bill C-235 asks a simple question: When someone commits the most horrific combination of crimes, abduction, sexual assault and murder, should families be forced to relive that trauma every two years after 25 years have been served, or can we, as legislators, take a measured step to provide them with some degree of peace? I believe that answer is abundantly clear, and I believe Canadians expect us to act. Let us stand with victims. Let us stand with families, and let us pass Bill C-235.

moved: That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting the short title. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this great House to speak to the great residents of my riding. I rise today to speak yet once again to Bill C-9. It is a bill that has many Canadians across all faith communities deeply concerned, and for good reason. The bill was originally presented as a measure to protect places of worship, which is something every member of the House should support. Conservatives certainly do. However, this is not the bill before us today, because in the middle of the legislative process, the Liberal government made a deliberate political decision to fundamentally change its own legislation. At the last minute, the Liberals supported an amendment to remove a long-standing religious defence from the Criminal Code. This is a defence, I might add, that has been in the code for over 50 years. They did so, regrettably and shamelessly, without consulting the faith communities directly impacted. They did so without hearing from civil liberty experts. They did so without calling one witness. They did so without allowing Parliament the time to fully study the consequences of such a significant legal change. When those concerns were raised by religious leaders, legal experts and members of the House, the government members did not pause. They did not engage. Instead, they chose to shut down debate and force the bill through. This is why we are here today. What makes this even more striking is that the very defence they are now trying to remove was originally put in place by their own party under Pierre Trudeau, as part of a careful and deliberate balance in Canadian law. This religious defence was originally introduced in 1970 under the Trudeau Liberal government as part of Bill C-3. The bill created Canada's modern hate propaganda provisions. At the time, Parliament deliberately included several statutory defences, including truth, good-faith religious expression based on religious texts, public interest and lack of intent. These protections ensured that good-faith religious discussion and theological debate would never be criminalized while still addressing hate propaganda. This defence was part of the original legislative balance when Canada created its very own hate speech laws. Removing it would be a profound shift in Canadian criminal law, one that threatens to upset the careful balance between protecting Canadians from harm and protecting their fundamental freedoms. Parliament has occasionally removed or narrowed statutory defences, but these changes occur rarely and only with serious scrutiny. For example, in 1983, the Trudeau government removed a marital exemption that had prevented husbands from being charged with rape. This was a good move. In 1995, Parliament restricted the extreme intoxication defence following the Supreme Court's decision in Regina v. Daviault. This was another good move. In 2015, the Harper government narrowed the provocation defence to prevent misuse in honour killing cases, for a change that was much needed. Changes to statutory defences are major legal decisions that occur infrequently and only after careful and serious debate, yet the Liberal government now wants to rush through the removal of a 50-year-old defence while simultaneously shutting down all debate. The removal of the religious defence occurred without meaningful stakeholder consultation. Religious communities across all faiths and backgrounds have raised concerns. Civil liberty organizations have raised concerns. Canadians did not ask for this amendment. Faith communities did not request this change. This was solely a political decision by the Liberal government, not a response to any demand from Canadians or stakeholders. This amendment was not driven by Canadians, requested by faith communities or the result of calls from civil liberty organizations. In fact, the opposite is true. We have heard directly from Canadians across this country, including faith leaders, community organizations and civil liberty groups, who are deeply concerned about the direction the government is taking. Hundreds of organizations have spoken out against Bill C-9, most notably about the removal of the religious defence. Over 350 Muslim community organizations have warned that Bill C-9, as currently drafted, would present serious harms to the civil liberties of all Canadian Muslims. They specifically pointed to the removal of the good-faith religious defence and warned that it would send a chilling effect through religious communities. More than 500 churches and Christian organizations have called on Parliament to restore explicit protections for the good-faith expression of sincerely held religious beliefs within the Criminal Code. In the greater Toronto area, 44 rabbis issued an open letter to the government, warning that removing this defence could expose faith leaders, educators and religious individuals to potential criminal liability simply for reading, teaching or discussing passages from religious texts. This is not a narrow concern coming from one group or one perspective. We have been speaking to faith communities across this country, and there is a clear and broad consensus that this defence must be maintained. I am sure that every member of the Liberal government and party have heard loud and clear the opposition in their own communities. Despite all of this push-back, the government has chosen to double down and not listen. We even proposed a simple and responsible solution of splitting Bill C-9. It has been done in the past when we have taken out a poisonous pill. We could immediately pass the provisions dealing with protection of places of worship, protection of cultural centres and offences dealing with obstruction and intimidation, and then study squarely the removal of the religious defence. This approach would have allowed protections for religious communities to pass immediately, yet the government refused and instead chose to ram through its controversial amendment. The Liberals now claim that the Conservatives are obstructing, but the reality is the opposite. Committee work was already under way before the backroom deal was brokered by the justice minister and the Bloc Québécois. Amendments were being debated, and a path existed to pass protections for places of worship immediately. Instead of working with Parliament, the government chose to shut down debate and ram the bill through Parliament. The Liberals are now censoring debate on their very own censorship bill. The Criminal Code is the most serious law Parliament writes. It governs the most serious offences and carries the most serious consequences for Canadians. Changes to it must be approached with care, scrutiny and full parliamentary debate. Bill C-9 now contains a controversial amendment that would remove a 50-year-old statutory defence, which was originally brought forth by a Liberal government, to balance the rights to protect Canadians from hate while still safeguarding legitimate expression of religious belief. Instead of allowing Parliament to fully examine that change and allowing members of the House to debate the consequences, the Liberals have chosen to ram the amendment through to silence the debate. They even told the opposition to “put up or shut up”. Now they are shutting down debate altogether. This is not how responsible criminal law is made or how democratic institutions are supposed to function, and it is certainly not how Parliament should be asked to amend the code. Canadians expect their Parliament to debate serious legal changes openly and transparently, legislation to be studied carefully and representatives to be allowed to do their job. Conservatives will always stand on the side of freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the country. We will not accept a government that shuts down debate to avoid accountability. We will defend open debate, proper scrutiny of the code and the fundamental principle that Parliament must never be silenced when it comes to laws that govern Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, to the people who are heckling me now and to the member for Winnipeg North, we heard from people from Winnipeg, we heard from faith leaders in Winnipeg, and they are absolutely disgusted with the antics of the Liberal government in choosing to ram through a piece of legislation without proper consideration or proper debate. This was for political reasons, not through evidentiary issues or proper debate in the House of Commons. It is disgusting.