Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government's parole regime, a murderer can ask for freedom again and again. Each hearing forces grieving families to relive the worst trauma of their lives. Paul Bernardo's fourth chance at parole is approaching. Once again, the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy are being forced to relive this nightmare. Victims' families and police are calling for parole reform. Conservatives proposed legislation to make it happen. The Liberals voted no. Why are the Liberals protecting repeat parole hearings for killers instead of protecting victims' families?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to provide some brief remarks on the dissenting opinion put forward by the Conservative Party of Canada, as His Majesty's loyal opposition, on this important study conducted by the science and research committee. First, I want to acknowledge that this report contains contradicting opinions and recommendations, and our dissenting opinion not only points this out, but also provides the Conservative position on several of the recommendations. In short, our position emphasizes the need for the Government of Canada, its federal research agencies and our academic institutions to return to merit-based research funding and hiring practices. Simply put, merit matters, and decisions based on merit and on the quality of the research topic and the individual researcher doing the work should be paramount. The report also highlights the decline in viewpoint diversity, as well as the rise and concern of anti-Semitism being spread and fostered in Canadian universities. This report contains and captures excellent witness testimony, and I encourage everyone to review the expressions that were shared with the committee.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 gives the Liberal Minister of Finance a blank cheque to spend $1.7 billion with no guarantees of results, targets or accountability to build homes. In fact, the word “housing” is in this bill only twice. My hon. colleague mentioned the rebate program, the program that was signed with the Province of Ontario, yet there is no specific program put in place through regulation on how that rebate will work. That is my understanding. I have had developers call me as late as last week. They cannot find out from the Ontario government how the rebate works. When they are told by the province to go to the CRA, the CRA is telling them it does not know how this program works. Perhaps the member can tell us how this rebate program will work.

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks about the Liberal commitment to bail reform, justice reform and listening to police and constituents. Would he not agree that we are here today because of Liberal policies that are soft on crime? We are here today because of Bill C‑75, the principle of restraint and bail reform; Bill C‑5 on mandatory minimums; and Bill C‑83, the “least restrictive environment”, which allows Paul Bernardo to be in a medium-security institution. The Liberal backbench voted against my legislation, Bill C‑232, so Paul Bernardo is allowed to stay in medium security. The Liberals talk a good game, but we know, truly, who they are. Why is the member here today dictating to us about this concern when they are actually fixing the problems they created?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the chamber today to share some final thoughts on my private member's bill, Bill C-232, before we conclude second reading debate and proceed to an eventual vote. When I first introduced this bill in the 44th Parliament as Bill C-342, I made a promise to my constituents to see what I could do to help correct a bad policy decision made by the Liberal government in 2019, when it passed C-83. Reintroducing this bill in this Parliament is evidence of my continued commitment to fulfill that promise to my constituents. If passed, Bill C-232 would require inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first-degree murder to be assigned a security classification of “maximum” and confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary. This legislation should be seen as non-partisan and a common-sense legislative response to the concerns expressed by many of our constituents. This is about doing what is right by ensuring that criminal monsters, such as Paul Bernardo, Mark Smich, Dellen Millard and Luka Magnotta, are returned to serve their sentences in a maximum-security penitentiary where they rightly belong. Earlier in this debate, my Bloc colleague expressed concerns that the bill targets only a single case. It does not, as I demonstrated by the list of notorious criminal names I have just read into this record. My Bloc colleague also expressed concerns about CSC's judgment and that sometimes the justice system makes mistakes. I agree with this. In fact, that is the very reason why this bill is being debated today. It was a mistake by the CSC to transfer Paul Bernardo from maximum to medium security. That needs to be corrected. Downgrading the security classification of these criminal monsters is not justice. It is an injustice to victims and their loved ones. The victims in these cases had their lives stolen, and their surviving loved ones have no choice but to endure a lifetime of pain and hurt. I also wish to take a moment to address some of the things we heard and did not hear from the Liberal members taking part in this debate. Earlier in this debate, my Liberal colleagues spent a lot of time talking about rehabilitation. I would like the Liberals to clarify if they think criminal monsters like Paul Bernardo can be rehabilitated. Let us not forget that former CSC commissioner Anne Kelly, when she appeared before the public safety committee, called Paul Bernardo a “psychopath”. This bill clearly targets the worst of the worst dangerous offenders in Canada. Do the Liberals truly believe Paul Bernardo should be or deserves to be rehabilitated? Sadly, too often in this splendid place we hear why things cannot be done and why we cannot make this type of change. Instead, let us muster our political will, courage and leadership to bring about this important change. My constituent, Marcia Penner, a victims' rights advocate and friend of Kristen French, supports this change. She said, “As someone whose life has been forever impacted by violent crime, I know firsthand that victims and their families carry the consequences of these horrific acts every day. Canadians expect the most dangerous offenders to remain in maximum-security institutions, and Bill C-232 helps restore that common-sense principle while respecting the voices of victims.” Alicia Googoo, the founder of the victims' rights organization Our Heart on Our Sleeve, had this to say about Bill C-232. She said, “As a survivor, I understand the lasting fear and trauma that violent offenders can leave behind. I know the dangers that can exist when society fails to take the risks posed by the most dangerous offenders seriously. Bill C-232 sends a clear message that public safety matters and that the protection of Canadians must remain a priority.” I sincerely hope my colleagues across party lines will strongly consider, and reconsider, their positions and vote in favour of Bill C-232 so that this important legislative move can be brought forward for study at committee.

Mr. Speaker, I was at the same meeting the member referred to, the heart-on-our-sleeve meeting with victims. I heard their gut-wrenching stories and witnessed their bravery in sharing their stories, so I wanted to ask this question: Why did the government vote against excluding child sexual offences from the safety valve? If mandatory minimum penalties can be ignored, what exactly is mandatory about them?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her description of the excellence, the talent and the workforce that have been created. I had the pleasure of working for the Ontario government in 1995 when we came forward with the Ontario film and tax credit. We have generous tax credits provincially and federally, which have allowed the excellence of that industry to grow. However, does the member not think that the ruling from the CRTC, the penalizing of the revenues up to 15% and the tax that will flow because of it, lead to penalizing the industry and to the loss of jobs and expertise? It is a competitive business. Production companies are being told to go to the United States. Would we lose because of this move?

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. Does he think that the tripling of this tax by the CRTC will not hurt the cultural industries and artists we seek to support? I worked for the provincial government back in 1996 when the Ontario government passed the Ontario film and television tax credit. Back then it was Mike Harris's government, and the industry thrived. It grew tremendously. We are putting that at risk, making the industry more uncompetitive, by tripling a tax on them, so companies will not reinvest in Canada. They will make the decision to invest in productions in the United States, not here in Canada, supporting Canadian industries, supporting Canadian artists and telling Canadian stories.

Mr. Speaker, in the short time I have available to me, I want to say how pleased I am to speak on our Conservative motion that “the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC's streaming tax increase and eliminate the streaming tax.” For the Canadians who are watching, the Liberal-appointed CRTC recently ordered online streaming services to pay 15% of their annual Canadian revenues to the government. That is up from the current 5%. There are three basic reasons why we are advocating for that to be rolled back and eliminated. First, it is an affordability issue. At a time when families are struggling to afford food, gas and housing, another tax hike makes no sense, particularly now. Second, it hinders investment. It does not do anything to enhance the competitive nature of our cultural industries in Canada. In fact, it will only hinder our cultural industries. It works against what we are trying to do. Earlier, when I was talking to a colleague, I said that in 1996, the Conservative government in the province of Ontario, the government of Mike Harris, introduced an Ontario film and television tax credit, which allowed the industry to grow and thrive and supported the cultural industries and artists. That is being put at risk by an increased tax burden that will only drive those investments away.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister falsely claimed to Canadians that “affordability's the best it's [ever] been in over a decade”. We are 11 years into the Liberal government, and one in four Canadians is living in a food-insecure household. Two million Canadians are visiting a food bank each month, and over 13,000 residents in Niagara Falls need the services of our food bank, Project Share. Conservatives have a real plan to give Canadians relief from Liberal inflation by removing all federal fuel taxes for the rest of the year. On what date will these Liberals adopt it?

Mr. Speaker, Pete Townsend of The Who wrote the song Won't Get Fooled Again, which has these lines: Meet the new boss Same as the old boss This costly credit card budget confirms that. Can members believe that the man who claims to be the smartest person in the room has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit? The Liberals are spending more on their servicing of the debt than they are on health care. These debt-servicing costs will be borne by our children and grandchildren, and they are going to bankers instead of being invested into the health care system to support Canadians from coast to coast. For all the Liberals' new spending, there was no mention of Niagara, no mention of previously promised funding for the Shaw Festival, nor was there an extension of the critically important wine sector support program. The self-proclaimed new Liberal government is just more of the same. It spends more and taxes more while Canadians get less and ultimately are simply left holding the bill. Canadians deserve so much better.

Mr. Speaker, this week our local food bank held a volunteer appreciation day to thank its supporters for the role they play in helping to address and solve issues of affordability within our community. Project Share has been providing emergency food and support services to residents of Niagara Falls for more than 30 years. Sadly, more than ever, food banks in Niagara and across this country are being stretched beyond their limits by an affordability crisis caused by the Liberals. The PM likes to remind himself, and anyone who will listen, that he is the smartest person in the room, yet he doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit and only added inflationary pressures to the economic hardship Canadians face today. On March 25, the PM told Canadians, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade”, but the more the Liberals spend, the worse inflation gets and the more Canadians struggle just to get by. If it is the best in over a decade, he should tell that to the two million Canadians who visit a food bank every month and to the 13,000 residents in Niagara Falls who have to—

Mr. Speaker, 2.6 million Canadians depend on trade with the United States for their livelihoods. Niagara is home to 641 businesses that generated $6.6 billion in exports to the United States. Trade with the U.S. is not a weakness, as the Liberal Prime Minister suggests. It is our daily reality. Mexico and the U.S. are talking trade right now. Meanwhile, Canada has not had serious talks with our largest trading partner in five months. Why is the Liberal government dragging its feet?

Mr Speaker, seven years ago, the Hon. Rob Nicholson announced his retirement after a distinguished 24 years in public service representing the communities of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie. Having worked for Rob, I considered him my political mentor and viewed his dedication, integrity and character in public office as the embodiment of what is good in politics. This past fall, the City of Niagara Falls renamed a community trail after him. During his remarks, he said, “Public service has been one of the greatest privileges of my life. Every step of the journey was meaningful because of the people I had the chance to represent”. These incredible words demonstrate Rob's commitment to service above self, an attribute all members in this place should carry and exercise when representing and serving their constituents. At the end of the month, Rob will celebrate his 74th birthday. I wish Rob a happy birthday. He is a great friend. Our community was lucky to have him serve as its federal representative.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in my place today to participate in the debate on our opposition motion, which calls on the federal government to support the Conservative plan to double automotive production through a tariff-free auto pact. This bold new policy offers a fresh take on a similar policy, embodied by the old auto pact rules that resulted in Canada's auto manufacturing growing from 700,000 units a year to three million by 1999. This Conservative plan makes our goal clear. We seek to double auto production to two million vehicles a year, which are the same levels we had before the Liberal government took office 10 years ago. The viewers at home heard that right. Since the Liberals took office in 2015, auto production in Canada has been halved. In 2016, Canada built 2.3 million vehicles. Last year, that auto production was only 1.2 million. In only one year since the Prime Minister took office, Canada has lost 7.8% of its auto production. As output falls, jobs vanish. In 2015, Canada's passenger vehicle and light truck assembly plants employed 32,700 people. By 2024, that number had dropped to 23,732. In the last year alone, since the Prime Minister took office, Canadians have watched in utter disbelief as 5,000 great-paying auto jobs disappeared and moved to the United States. Under the federal Liberal government, Canada's auto industry has been in decline for 10 years and it is slipping away, with potentially irreparable damage being done to Canada's economy if no immediate federal action is taken. We are seeing this decline in the Niagara region as the local GM powertrain facility in St. Catharines faces great uncertainty because it produces only one line of engines in a facility that is almost two million square feet in size. I am GM proud. I drive a GM vehicle, whose very engine was made in St. Catharines by Canadian GM workers. GM has been in business in St. Catharines since 1929. That is close to 100 years. I also worked at our local GM plant as a student during my university years. At that time, GM in St. Catharines had three plants, employing close to 10,000 workers with great-paying jobs. Today, our local GM footprint has been reduced to just one plant and a much smaller workforce of Unifor Local 199 members. There are roughly 450 active workers at the plant, with 200 laid off. As a Niagara area MP and as the member of Parliament for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, I have a responsibility to represent the current and former GM workers who reside in the communities in my riding. Last April, the Prime Minister ran a campaign promising an elbows-up approach to Canada-U.S. trade relations. He promised to protect the auto sector. He committed to tabling a plan that would persuade the Americans to remove tariffs on Canadian goods. He promised to get tariffs removed by July 21, 2025, but this was all an illusion, as 246 days after July 21, 2025, American tariffs remain and Canada's auto manufacturers have been forced to pay Donald Trump close to $2 billion. One year since the Liberals' election promises were made, they have been broken, while Canadian auto production continues its decline and Canadian auto job losses are piling up. Rather than doing what he said he was going to do, the Liberal Prime Minister has decided to accept that American tariffs are permanent and he has declared a deep rupture with our largest trading partner, neighbour and ally. Worse, he has introduced a new EV policy and rebate that use Canadian tax dollars to subsidize the purchase of foreign-made automobiles. He is also allowing the import of 49,000 Chinese EV spy cars into this country after declaring a new world order with countries like China, the nation he said was our biggest security threat during the last federal election. Canadian auto workers deserve stronger federal leadership. The last thing they want is imported Chinese EVs taking their jobs away even faster, or the federal government doubling down on a fantasy EV industry that does not exist without the demand, affordability or sufficient charging infrastructure in place. That is why our Conservative leader is stepping up to take initiative and demonstrate leadership. While the Liberals have decided to accept that American tariffs are permanent and declare a deep rupture with our largest trading partner, Conservatives are proposing policy ideas to make it easier to build and buy Canadian by: ...removing the GST on all Canadian-made vehicles, ending counterproductive Liberal EV mandates and [subsidies], and harmonizing tailpipe emissions reductions with our North American partners; ...bringing home production...by implementing a rule where for every car produced in Canada, the same manufacturer would get to sell a car in Canada, duty-free, from a CUSMA partner, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, similar to the 1965 Canada-US Auto Pact; [and] ...protecting North American supply chains by maintaining the minimum 75% North American content and existing CUSMA rules on origin.... Conservatives believe it is possible to get a North American free trade agreement for the auto sector. The Liberals have given up and think that somehow, when it has never happened before, European and Asian EV sales will materialize and make up for the decline that will happen because of the U.S. tariffs. What the Liberal government is proposing is a fallacy. The Liberals' plan includes exporting EVs to Europe. Simply put, more vehicles were stolen in Canada last year, including the the justice minister's vehicle, than were exported to countries in Europe. We have a plan to get tariff-free access to the United States. It would boost auto production. It is supported by Unifor Local 222, which said, “Finally, a common sense plan” to restore auto production. Why can the Liberal government not get on board with us and support our common-sense proposals? Our policy approach would restore manufacturing balance for both Canada and the U.S., thus making a duty-free agreement not only possible, but also beneficial for both countries. For Canada, that would mean increased production of 500,000 to 800,000 units to get North American duty-free access. In addition to this, removal of the GST, a 5% pricing cut, adds up to $30,000 new sales a year, which increases demand and production by the same amount. We forecast that the current production will rise from 1.2 million to two million within a decade. Just today, I met with Unifor representatives who told me that buying Canadian, along with sell here, build here policies, are very important to them. That is what this policy encourages. It is a common-sense plan to protect the livelihoods of thousands of hard-working Ontario auto workers. The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association saw the benefit of our policy proposal when it stated, “North American integration has underpinned Canada’s auto industry for over 60 years”. This plan recognizes that reality. Conservatives will not sit idly by as our proud Canadian auto industry is hollowed out and lost due to Liberal inaction. We are stepping up, demonstrating federal leadership and offering real solutions to save the jobs of our great Canadian auto workers. They deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, what we do not support is the Liberals' failed EV policy, which they are implementing. They fail to realize that 90% of the autos that are produced in this country are shipped to the United States. The success of the auto industry in Canada was based on the regulatory harmony that existed with our largest trading partner and customer for Canadian-made autos, the United States. The fantasy and the fallacy that the Liberals continue to promote about producing EVs will simply not work. Do members know that, just this year alone, GM had an EV writeoff of $7.6 billion, Honda wrote off $15.7 billion, Ford wrote off $19.5 billion and Stellantis wrote off $27 billion? That is almost $70 billion. The EV policy they are promoting is only going to hurt Canadian auto workers.

Mr. Speaker, there is the notion that Stellantis's failure is partly to be blamed on the government and its failed EV policies. Again, Stellantis has written off $27 billion because of this fallacy of an EV mandate that the Liberals have put in place instead of recognizing that the market should determine what the sales levels in autos should be. Why not go back? We met with Unifor today, and the members I met with are talking about buy Canadian, and sell here, build here policies, which we need to promote and encourage. That is what our auto pact plan would do. It would say that, if someone wants to sell a vehicle here, they have to build it here, and that would return jobs to Canadian auto workers all throughout southern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, through our policy on this Canadian auto pact, we are talking about a policy to buy Canadian, sell here and build here. It only makes sense. We want to encourage those who want to produce, such as the big three automakers. General Motors has been in my community since 1929. They have invested and grown with this community. They have been in this community for almost 100 years. I want to ensure, through the policy we are promoting, that General Motors can be in our community for another 100 years, employing Canadians and providing good-paying jobs.

moved that Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this chamber to debate this important legislation that would help restore Canadians' trust and confidence in our criminal justice system and in federal institutions like Correctional Service Canada. Bill C-232, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, is being debated today because I was inspired to bring this legislation forward after being approached by the loved ones of victims who were shocked and appalled to receive a phone call from CSC on May 29, 2023, about the transfer of serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security prison at Millhaven Institution in Ontario to a medium-security prison at La Macaza in Quebec. This terrible decision by CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly not only shocked the country but appalled and revictimized the victims' families, friends and the communities I represent in Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. Bill C-232 is about doing what is right. It is about addressing and resolving a serious flaw in our criminal justice and corrections system that permits criminal monsters like Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta, among others, to benefit and be allowed to transfer from a maximum-security institution to medium security. This bill proposes to require that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum-security classification and confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary. It would also repeal the Liberals' least restrictive environment standard for assigning inmates to prison. This standard was adopted in 2018 under the Justin Trudeau government in Bill C-83. In addition to repealing this weak policy, it would strengthen and restore the language of “only the necessary restrictions” that the previous Conservative government put in place when it passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012. In fact, that legislation, known as Bill C-10, was spearheaded by my predecessor, the Hon. Rob Nicholson, who proudly represented Niagara Falls for 24 years prior to his deserved retirement in 2019. Mr. Nicholson was the minister of justice and attorney general of Canada at the time. Paul Bernardo is serving a life sentence as a dangerous offender for the horrific abduction, sexual assaults and murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. Bernardo was convicted in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years for stealing and ending the lives of two teenage girls who had their whole bright futures ahead of them. When he committed these atrocities, he also ruined the lives of their loved ones and sentenced them to a lifetime of inescapable pain, trauma and suffering. So far, Bernardo has applied for parole three times, in 2018, 2021 and 2024. He has rightfully been denied each time. In his most recent parole hearing in November of 2024, Bernardo sought day parole at a halfway house or, at a minimum, escorted absences from prison so that he could attend a community program for sex offenders. He was denied both. According to a CBC article, Tanya Nouwens, one of the members of a two-member parole panel, told Bernardo, “Although you have made progress, we are still placing a lot of weight on the clinical assessments, a lot of weight on the seriousness of your criminal behaviour. And for that reason, the board has determined today your risk would be undue”. While it was the right outcome, this quote is still concerning because it raises the question of progress. I have to ask: Progress toward what end? Paul Bernardo is the worst of the worst. Let me be frank. He should never be granted parole, but after 10 years under the Liberal government's watch, Canada's justice and corrections system has been eroded and lost its balance. It has become far more one-sided and empathetic toward the offender and the consideration of the offender's care than the impacts on victims and victims' families and how law-abiding Canadians see, perceive and make sense of that system. In fact, in a CBC article from June 2023, Benjamin Roebuck, the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, said the corrections system strikes the wrong balance between victims' rights and prisoners' privacy rights. In a quote from that article, he says, “The entire system is imbalanced...the victims are the ones who are most directly affected, who continue to suffer from the consequences”. Mr. Roebuck further reinforced this view when he testified at the public safety committee in November 2023, in a study on the rights of victims of crime, reclassification and transfer of federal offenders. Mr. Roebuck informed committee members that: We need supporting legislation and comparable resources.... We know that victims are not put first, and I'm not sure that people understand the importance of information to victims of crime. The fact that these terrible criminals are judged to be progressing through Canada's corrections system while the voices of victims of crime are somehow sidelined and, in a way, silenced is concerning and should be shocking to us all. This is a non-partisan issue. It is about doing what is right. Keeping dangerous offenders, serial killers and mass murderers like Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta in a maximum-security prison is common sense. Simply put, there should have been no way that any of these criminals were ever downgraded and transferred from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, yet on May 29, 2023, this is exactly what happened to Paul Bernardo. The CSC decision to transfer Bernardo to a medium-security prison was met with immediate and harsh public outrage on a national scale. Locally, both the cities of St. Catharines and Thorold passed municipal resolutions requesting that Correctional Service Canada and the Liberal government act. In the motion adopted by the City of St. Catharines, it states: ...City Council request[s] that the Government of Canada review and consider legislation changes to ensure transparency in the corrections and parole system and examine the guidelines around moving dangerous offenders and sadistic psychopaths who have not exhibited any remorse, empathy or insight into their crimes into medium security prisons.... The mayor of Thorold also wrote and expressed this: The gravity of Mr. Bernardo's crimes, and the devastating impact they had on the lives of innocent individuals and their families, cannot be understated. Our community, along with the wider Niagara region, continues to bear the scars left by these reprehensible actions. It is of utmost importance that we prioritize public safety and ensure that those who pose a significant risk to society are appropriately confined and monitored. I could not agree more. Decades since these heinous crimes were committed, the nightmares and scars from the terror still linger in the communities they impacted in St. Catharines, as well as in the Niagara communities that I represent in Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. The Liberal government must answer these questions. Why are these prison transfers happening? Why are they benefiting Canada's most evil criminals and to what end? Is it the desire of the Liberal government to continue the progression of these dangerous offenders, serial killers and mass murderers until they are transferred to minimum-security prison or until they are granted parole or lesser conditions? Surely the Liberal government does not believe that the likes of Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta should continue to be downgraded until they are out of the corrections system, or does it? The Canadian justice and corrections system must be rebalanced to support law-abiding Canadians and victims of crime. That needs to be the goal, and Bill C-232 will help restore this balance, as well as the confidence of Canadians in their federal institutions. These CSC decisions to transfer dangerous offenders and mass murderers from maximum-security prison to medium-security prison undermines public confidence, erodes public trust and raises serious questions and debate about who the justice system serves and prioritizes: the victims, as it should, or the criminal. Canadians know something is wrong when even CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly, the person responsible for these transfers, conceded this about Bernardo. She said, “The fact that he is at a medium-security institution does not negate the fact that he is a psychopath, and that he committed horrific and unspeakable crimes”. There is also the former public safety minister's own reaction to the news about Bernardo's transfer. He was quoted by CBC as saying, “as a former federal prosecutor and as a Canadian...I was profoundly concerned and again shocked by this decision”. This was a quote from the former minister who was in charge. It does not come as a surprise then that shortly after this national debacle, Minister Mendicino was dropped by Justin Trudeau from cabinet. Canadians are in disbelief about this whole thing. These comments are from the people who hold authority. They are the ones Canadians expect to run and competently manage Canada's corrections system and institutions like CSC to ensure and uphold public safety. Despite their own acknowledgements of how bad Paul Bernardo is, they carried on and moved forward as if nothing had happened and continue to allow these types of transfers to occur. The new Liberal Minister of Public Safety has failed to take any action, and the same CSC commissioner has failed to reverse her decisions. Last week, the government announced she is leaving her role and will be replaced. Canadians will be watching closely to see what actions the new commissioner takes, or fails to take, in their new role. The person who first contacted me and asked that I get involved to help on this issue was a close friend of one of Paul Bernardo's victims. Her name is Marcia Penner. In a letter she wrote to CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly, and I think she speaks for all Canadians, she stated: Please help me understand how someone such as Paul Bernardo can be housed in a facility such as this. One of Canada’s most notorious killers. A psychopathic serial rapist. A designated DANGEROUS OFFENDER. Does any of this mean anything? I can only imagine the prisoners remaining in maximum security penitentiaries must be asking the same question. If someone who commits the worst of the worst crimes doesn’t qualify for the harshest conditions, then who does? Marcia is right, and Bill C-232 is the solution to fix this major problem and do what is ultimately right. Bill C-232 also complements a larger Conservative effort, through several private members' bills, to combat the out-of-control crime wave Canadians are facing after a decade of bad Liberal policies that weakened our federal institutions like the CSC. The Liberal government now talks about implementing needed justice reforms. Sadly, these reforms are required to fix the problems the Liberals created when they weakened provisions of previous Conservative legislation through bills such as Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and Bill C-83. There is hope. Two of my colleagues' bills, Bill C-243 and Bill C-242, resume their second reading debates soon. I am encouraged to see that both Bill C-225 and Bill C-221 have passed second reading and have been referred to committee for further study and consideration by parliamentarians. I am hopeful that Bill C-232 will follow suit and receive the widespread support of my hon. colleagues to reach committee as well. Enough is enough. It is time we start rebalancing the corrections system to weigh victims' considerations more strongly, restore Canadians' trust and confidence in our federal institutions and return dangerous offenders and mass murderers like Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta to maximum-security prisons where they rightly belong. With the support of colleagues in the House, we can make this happen. We can respond to the calls from our constituents, communities and, more importantly, the families of those victims of crime. I stand in my place today because I made a promise to see what I could do to help correct a horribly wrong decision made by the government. I ask my colleagues to support this effort. Working together, we can accomplish great things and do so in memory of those so tragically lost.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this place because I am responding to the concerns that were expressed to me by the families and friends of the victims in my community. They asked that we take steps to fix the flawed legislation from Bill C-83; to make the changes found in my legislation, Bill C-232; and to restore wording of the previous legislation, which the government removed and added the wording “least restrictive environment” when it comes to prison selection. We are going to go back to the previous wording that worked in the Conservative legislation: “only the necessary restrictions”. That change needs to be made. We also need to designate dangerous offenders and murderers who murder multiple people as receiving a maximum-security classification and designation.

Mr. Speaker, there are two provisions. The bill is about changing the wording with regard to “least restrictive environment” and going back to the previous Conservative wording. It also would designate people who are dangerous offenders and those who commit multiple murders as having a maximum-security classification so they serve their time in maximum security rather than medium security. It is about designating the worst of the worst, the people who have committed the most heinous of crimes, and ensuring that they serve their sentence in a maximum-security institution, where they belong.

Mr. Speaker, rejected asylum claimants should not be receiving better health care than Canadians who have paid into a system their entire lives. It makes common sense. At a time when six million Canadians cannot afford a family doctor and are waiting for care, it is unacceptable that bogus asylum seekers are receiving better health care than Canadians. When over 13,000 residents in Niagara Falls are forced to use a food bank, and when our homeless shelter, the Coronation Centre, is bursting at the seams, why is the government providing better health care services to non-Canadians than to citizens who are desperately in need? Conservatives discovered this health care mess, and we proposed solutions, including removing federal benefits from ineligible claimants, except for emergency health care. Conservatives will make sure that there are enough jobs, houses and health care for Canadians before bringing in new immigrants, and we will restore compassion and fairness to Canada's broken and abused asylum system.

Mr. Speaker, I recently met with the Niagara Home Builders' Association, and its members indicated to us that bureaucracy will not build homes. One builder has laid off 60% of their staff. They used to build 300 homes but are now building only 30. Their one solution to the housing crisis, and they told us this, was to adopt the Conservative plan of removing the GST on all new homes, not just for first-time homebuyers. Can the member explain to us why the Liberal government will not simply adopt that idea?

Mr. Speaker, the government's new EV strategy fails to put Canadian workers and automakers first. How is allowing 49,000 Chinese-made EVs into Canada and subsidizing the purchase of American-made EVs going to help the workers who were laid off from GM in St. Catharines? They are worried about the future of their engine plant. GM has been in St. Catharines since 1929. Will the Liberals support our motion to stop forcing Canadian workers to subsidize foreign-made vehicles and remove the GST on Canadian-made vehicles?

Mr. Speaker, that member is not talking to the Unifor members in St. Catharines, who had an EV battery engine plant, but GM moved it out because there were no sales. The Government of Canada should not be subsidizing American-made EVs using Canadian taxpayers' money, especially when U.S. actions have already cost 5,000 Canadian auto worker jobs. Will the Liberals simply join us, finally put Canadians first and support our Conservative motion to remove the GST on Canadian-made vehicles?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the regulatory harmony that existed between Canada and the United States, which led to the growth of the North American auto sector. With this shift in the EV mandate, the government has moved over to a rebate system. With the regulatory environmental standards that the Liberals are now putting in place, would the member not agree that this will do more harm to the Canadian auto sector and not help it?

Today, Mr. Speaker, just in media monitoring clips, there is a story from CTV News: “A new province-wide survey suggests more than half of British Columbians don’t feel safe in their communities, with respondents citing ongoing concerns about crime and violence.” CityNews Vancouver says, “Abbotsford Police calling for justice system changes amid growing extortion”. Those are just stories that are appearing today. I wonder if my hon. colleague could speak to the concerns that his residents are facing and why the government is not taking steps to answer those concerns.

Mr. Speaker, the government's decision to scrap its EV mandate confirms what Conservatives have said all along, which is that a forced 100% EV sales target was unrealistic and only created uncertainty. Bringing back EV rebates now offers little to Canada's auto workers, including those in St. Catharines, when up to $2.3 billion in taxpayer incentives will be subsidizing U.S. auto production and when the U.S. is putting U.S. tariffs on Canadian-made vehicles. Canada's auto sector supports hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs. Decisions affecting it should put Canadian workers who are working in domestic production first. That is what our workers deserve, yet Canadian auto workers are now left asking what their future will be when over 95% of the EVs the Liberal government will be promoting will come from outside of Canada. Sadly, under the Liberal government, no job is safe. The Liberals promised the Canada-U.S. trade deal to protect Canadian jobs, but instead, they are supporting foreign manufacturers. Donald Trump is smiling—

Mr. Chair, Canada has a proud history of being an auto manufacturing nation. In fact, Canada's auto industry contributes $14 billion to our nation's GDP. In Niagara, General Motors has been in St. Catharines since 1929, nearly 100 years. However, whether GM will be open for business in St. Catharines to celebrate its century milestone has been cast in a nervous uncertainty, thanks to President Trump's tariff war against Canada, which is targeting auto manufacturing amongst other key sectors of our economy. I am GM proud. I drive a GM vehicle whose very engine was made in St. Catharines at our local GM plant by Canadian workers. In fact, I worked at that GM plant during my university years as a student. At that time, GM in St. Catharines had three plants employing close to 10,000 GM Canadian workers. Today, our local GM footprint has been reduced to just one plant and a much smaller workforce, roughly 700 Unifor Local 199 members. As a Niagara area MP and the member of Parliament for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, I have a responsibility to represent the current and former GM workers who reside in my riding. Those proud GM workers were disgusted with the Prime Minister's reaction to a recent question he faced during the G20 summit in Johannesburg earlier this month, when he said, “Who cares?” and that he does not “have a burning issue to speak with the president about right now”. I can tell members that Canadian auto workers and their families care and so too do all my Conservative colleagues. Just this fall, Stellantis announced that 3,000 Canadian jobs will be heading south to Illinois. A week later, GM announced that they are ending electric van production at the CAMI assembly plant in Ingersoll, making 1,200 auto workers jobless. GM also announced the elimination of its third shift in Oshawa, impacting roughly 1,000 workers. According to the Center for Automotive Research, every job in the automotive assembly plant supports nine additional jobs. That is the highest external benefit multiplier of any sector in Canada. According to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, auto manufacturing accounts for more than 105,000 direct jobs in Canada, with the majority of these jobs located in Ontario. In total, the auto industry is responsible for over 603,000 direct and indirect jobs across the country. When we lose auto manufacturing jobs at assembly plants, the ripple effect it has on the supply chains across our economy is massive. Last May, GM announced that it will invest $888 million into its Tonawanda propulsion plant, which is located just miles away from St. Catharines and across the river in New York state. That is investment that is not flowing to St. Catharines. That investment is benefiting our American neighbours in New York state. This is in addition to the $4 billion already announced by General Motors this summer. The American strategy is clear. It was echoed by the U.S. commerce secretary when he stated boldly that the U.S. wants auto assembly done in the U.S., period. After eight months, the Prime Minister has gone from “elbows up” to “who cares” when it comes to trade issues with the United States. What is it it going to take for the Prime Minister and these Liberals to care? Harmful Liberal policies like the growth-killing EV mandate and the industrial carbon tax have added even more pressure on those trying to invest in building Canada in the face of unjustified tariffs. It is the decisions being made by the government that are making the Canadian automobile sector less competitive. Unless the government takes action to reduce policies such as the industrial carbon tax and its EV mandate, which, to my colleague's point, only enriches people like Elon Musk at the expense of Canadian automakers, and if they do not take steps to correct that, it will not create the certainty so that automakers want to invest in Canada.

Mr. Chair, my colleague said it best earlier: It is 10 years of failed Liberal policies. We have the tariff issue to contend with, but the success of the auto sector in this country was based on the regulatory harmony that existed between Canada and the United States since the implementation of the auto pact in the 1960s. What has happened since the tariffs have been put in place? Well, guess what. In terms of regulatory harmony, there is no industrial carbon tax in the United States, and there is no EV mandate in the United States. Why are we punishing our auto sector even further? You are driving them into the United States. You are making it less competitive for them to be in Canada. They want to stay. The GM plant in my community has been there since 1929 and the one in my colleague's riding since 1918. Why is the Liberal government so determined to end that?

Mr. Chair, there is a sense of pride among auto workers in the quality of the products that they produce. In fact, in St. Catharines we do make the V8 engines that go into the Silverado in Oshawa. There is a reason the auto workers call themselves brothers and sisters as members of locals there. I have local 199 in St. Catharines. That is being put at risk by the policies of the government not to support the auto sector. Not only did the Liberals promise to get a deal done with the Americans by July 21 and fail at that, but they promised elbows up and again have succumbed to that. Now, it is, “Who cares?” Then they put in place policies like the industrial carbon tax and the EV mandate, which are helping to drive investment out of Canada. That is a shame for those dedicated workers who want good-paying jobs and want them here in Canada.

Mr. Chair, I would like to welcome my colleague to the House. He has just come here, and he will probably work with his Liberal colleagues to build on that 10-year record of failure. That is why we voted against these budgets. For 10 years, we have voted against budgets that let the price of housing double. The price of mortgages has doubled and the price of rent has doubled, all during their periods of government, and then the Liberals wonder why we vote against their policies. Their policies have led to the economic demise that Canadians face.

Mr. Chair, the member indicated in his remarks that $220 million had gone to Stellantis and $400 million had gone to Algoma, and no guardrails were put in place for those dollars to flow. What does the member think are their main concerns? Why has the government been unable to get an agreement with the United States? It has been 10 years with regard to softwood lumber. Why is the government failing so badly in its negotiations with the United States?

Mr. Chair, would the hon. member not agree that there could possibly be other policies implemented by the government that have caused crises in the auto sector, for example, the lack of an industrial carbon tax in the United States and the lack of an EV mandate in the United States? The sector is telling all politicians here in the House that no one is going to be able to meet those EV targets and mandates. Why does the government continue to foist this on them, which is only going to make them less competitive? Does the hon. member think there are steps the government can take to assist the auto sector now as well as with the tariff relief that it seeks?

Mr. Speaker, after eight months, the Prime Minister has gone from elbows up to “Who cares?” when it comes to trade issues with the United States. These comments spark concern in my community, particularly with the thousands of current and former GM workers in St. Catharines who worry about the future of their auto plant. GM has been in St. Catharines since 1929. I can say that Conservatives care, Canadians care and the workers at these plants who depend on these jobs care. What is it going to take? Does Brookfield have to buy General Motors for the Liberal Prime Minister to finally care?

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada is hosting its annual Tourism Congress in Gatineau. This year's theme is “Tourism Builds Canada”. Tourism definitely powers my communities of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. In fact, Niagara is home to more than 40,000 tourism workers. Across Canada, one in 10 Canadian jobs is in tourism, an industry that generates $130 billion in economic activity, but it could be so much more if not for bad Liberal policies. Under the Liberal government, tourism is simply not a priority. According to the TIAC, cuts to the international convention attraction fund, the tourism growth program and Destination Canada's core funding, and the exclusion of tourism from the capital cost allowance, undermine the sector's potential. In a country where so much is broken after 10 years of the Liberal government, leave it to the Liberals to cut programs that actually work. Tourism builds Canada. Unfortunately, the Liberal budget fails to unleash its full potential.

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal government, Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy of any G7 country. Since the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, the U.S. commerce secretary stated that car assembly is going to be in America and there is nothing Canada can do about it. The Liberal Prime Minister recently promised the President that $1 trillion of new investment will flow into the United States. Are those the jobs of Canadian auto workers, including those at the GM plant in St. Catharines?

Mr. Speaker, the member should talk to the residents in his riding who lost their jobs when GM cut the third shift in Oshawa. This summer, GM announced plans to invest $4 billion in three auto plants. That does not include the $800 million in Tonawanda, New York, just across the border from us, and it is not St. Catharines. As billions of dollars flee Canada for the U.S., Canadian auto workers are watching in dismay. Why does the Prime Minister seem more interested in helping U.S. auto workers than those here at home?

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment levels. If we listen to the U.S. commerce secretary, it is only going to get worse for auto workers, including those at the local GM plant in St. Catharines. In May, GM announced its largest investment ever in an engine plant just across the border from us in Tonawanda, New York. Meanwhile, it was crickets in St. Catharines. Why is the Liberal Prime Minister so hell-bent on selling out our hard-working Canadian auto workers?

Mr. Speaker, General Motors has had a presence in St. Catharines since 1929, nearly 100 years. If the Liberal government does not act, it might not reach the century mark. As billions of dollars flee Canada for the U.S., Canadian auto workers are watching in dismay as their Prime Minister offers up their jobs to the Trump administration, and for what, a free lunch? When will the Liberal Prime Minister stop selling out our Canadian auto workers, or has he already concluded that their jobs are motoring to the United States?

Mr. Speaker, every dollar the Liberals spend comes out of the pockets of Canadians and inflates the price of everything, including food. The Prime Minister told Canadians when he was sworn in that they should judge him by the cost at the grocery store. Well, the results are in after six months in office. Food Banks Canada has given the Prime Minister and his Liberal government a D on poverty and food insecurity after both rose by almost 40%. Sadly, organizations such as the Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto said it expects to exceed four million visits in 2025, twice what it saw two years ago. ln my own community of Niagara Falls, one in seven residents visit our local food bank, Project Share. The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. Conservatives have offered a simple solution, which is to stop the hidden Liberal food taxes on fuel, fertilizer and farm equipment. lnstead, the Liberals voted against our recent Conservative motion. Conservatives will keep fighting for affordability, even when the Prime Minister and the Liberals will not.

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of passing catch-and-release laws that turn criminals loose on our streets, the Liberals are obstructing the passage of common-sense jail-not-bail proposals. Violent crime is up 55%. In Niagara, residents were horrified when they heard the news of Daniel Senecal breaking into a Welland home and sexually assaulting a three-year-old girl while her family slept. On Monday, will the Liberals accept our common-sense proposal on criminal justice reform and pass our Conservative “three strikes and you're out” bill?

Mr. Speaker, the cities of Welland, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls have all indicated that our justice system fails Canadians when repeat violent offenders are allowed back onto our streets. That is why common-sense Conservatives have proposed a jail-not-bail law, a “three strikes and you're out” bill and more. Today, I will introduce a bill that proposes to keep monsters like Paul Bernardo locked up in maximum security where they belong. Will the Liberals support our common-sense justice reforms to restore Canadians' confidence in our criminal justice system?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders). Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. After 10 years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies and reforms, Canadians are now looking to us to restore common sense to our criminal justice system in Canada. My private member's bill would help do exactly that, and it is a response to concerns raised by not only the constituents in my riding of Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, but also those across the Niagara region and across this country. On May 29, 2023, Correctional Service Canada downgraded Paul Bernardo from maximum security prison to medium security. This shocking prison transfer should never have happened. This bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first-degree murder be assigned a security classification of maximum and confined in a maximum security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary. Weak and soft Liberal laws are putting the interest and care of criminals ahead of victims and their loved ones. This must change, and confidence must be restored in Canada's criminal justice and corrections system. My private member's bill is an important part of the solution, and I hope members of all parties can stand together and support this common-sense bill to do what is right. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

With regard to asylum claimants who qualified under the four exception categories to the Safe Third Country Agreement, from 2019 to 2025: (a) how many claimants qualified under each of the following exception categories, broken down by year, including 2025 to date, (i) family member exceptions, (ii) unaccompanied minors, (iii) document holders (valid visa, work permit, study permit, etc.), (iv) public interest exceptions; (b) broken down by each of the exception categories in (a), how many claims (i) were approved, (ii) were denied, (iii) are still under review, (iv) were withdrawn or abandoned; (c) what was the average processing time for claims under each of the exception categories in (a), broken down by year; (d) how many claimants in (a) were from each country of origin, broken down by year; (e) how many claimants in (a) were processed in each province or territory, broken down by exception category and year; and (f) what measures are currently in place to ensure the timely processing of claims under each of the exception categories in (a)?

With regard to asylum claimants who qualified under the over-14-day exemption to the Safe Third Country Agreement, from 2019 to 2025: (a) how many claimants qualified under the over-14-day exemption, in each of the past five calendar years, broken down by year; (b) how many claims from (a), were processed in each province or territory, broken down by year; (c) how many claims from (a), were from each country of origin, broken down by year; (d) how many claims under the over-14-day exemption (i) were approved, (ii) were denied, (iii) are still under review, (iv) were withdrawn or abandoned, broken down by year; (e) what was the average processing time for claims under the over-14-day exemption, broken down by year; and (f) What measures or processes are in place to verify that claimants meet the requirements of the over-14-day exemption?