Tony Baldinelli

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.