Patricia Lattanzio
Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“Treating these murders as the Criminal Code's most serious forms of homicide speaks directly to the gravity of these offences and to the seriousness with which the government is moving to address them. I would like to dwell for a moment on the term I am using here, “femicide”, and the importance of naming it as such.”
“Behind every one of these numbers is a person, a family and a community left to grieve. We owe those families more than our sympathy. We owe them action, so let me outline a few of the key changes that Bill C-16 would bring.”
“Most significantly, Bill C-16 would strengthen mandatory minimum penalties for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation material, including restoring more than 12 mandatory minimum penalties for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by the courts.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this evening on behalf of the citizens of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel to speak to Bill C-16 , the protecting victims act, at third reading. Across the country, we are facing a stark reality. In my home province of Quebec, there have been 10 femicides since January.”
“Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes tells us that this type of violence, which so often goes unseen, is one of the main determinants of femicide. Criminalizing it would help us detect high-risk situations sooner and strengthen prevention.”
“We would also be putting more information into the hands of victims by providing them with information about available resources proactively, without requiring a formal request.”
The complete record
Every one of 233 lines we hold for Patricia Lattanzio, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“To respond to audit findings, the CRA's quality assurance program is refocusing its evaluation criteria to emphasize the accuracy and completeness of information shared with callers. Evaluations will more effectively inform improvements, including updated training materials, revised procedures and individualized coaching. Canadians trust the CRA. They trust it to handle sensitive personal and financial information and to provide accurate and timely advice. We are reinforcing that trust through our 100-day plan.”
“The GenAI chatbot on Canada.ca will soon be able to answer a broader range of questions by drawing from a vastly larger pool of CRA resources. When combined, these measures are streamlining operations and making the CRA more nimble and efficient in responding to Canadians. The CRA is also improving the accuracy of responses provided by contact centres. During the last fiscal year, the agency evaluated over 100,000 calls as part of the quality assurance program. Of these, 80% were related to specific taxpayer files. According to our results, these calls achieved an accuracy rate of 94%. We do, however, agree with the Auditor General's findings, and the agency fully acknowledges, that the remaining 20% of calls, which are related to general inquiries, still require improvement.”
“First, the CRA has reallocated the number of call centre and contact centre representatives available, and as a result, the percentage of calls answered has exceeded the plan's target of 70%. Second, the agency is enhancing its self-service digital options, including optimizing its website, adding features to the My Account function and expanding Al-based chat support. Additionally, live chat support through My Account is now available from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. eastern standard time. Users with locked accounts can now regain access by re-registering, thus eliminating the need to call. Taxpayers with debts of $1,000 or more can now set up payment arrangements directly through My Account, bypassing the need to talk to a collections officer.”
“With nearly 200 million service transactions annually, service delivery is central to the agency's mandate. While CRA agents do exemplary work, it has become increasingly clear that service delivery is an issue facing many Canadians in their dealings with the agency. That is why the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and the Secretary of State for the CRA and Financial Institutions tasked the CRA with a 100-day plan to examine existing gaps and flaws and develop common-sense solutions to improve service delivery. This process began on September 2 and will run until December 11. The plan encompasses improvements in both the short and long term, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to share with the House the measures currently under way at the agency, as well as the results achieved to date under the 100-day plan.”
“Mr. Speaker, following the interventions by the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley , I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to speak about the CRA's actions in response to the Auditor General's audit of its contact centres. First and foremost, let me say that the government accepts the findings of the Auditor General and thanks her for her invaluable audit published on October 21, 2025. It is my understanding that the report is currently being studied at the PACP committee. As a matter of fact, both the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for the CRA and Financial Institutions have pre-emptively volunteered to appear at committee to discuss the report and the important steps that our government has already taken to improve service delivery at the CRA.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are not telling Canadians the truth about the principle of restraint. Whether it is in the Criminal Code or not, it exists in common law, so their attacks on Supreme Court precedents are nothing but political theatrics. First, we respect the rule of law and will never use the notwithstanding clause to override Supreme Court decisions. Second, we do not go online to attack Crown prosecutors or call the brave men and women of the RCMP, who protect our country and Canadians, “despicable”. Third, unlike the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, we do not present petitions calling for Canada to withdraw from the United Nations and the World Health Organization, which shows just how extreme Conservatives are willing to be.”
“This government is also investing in federal policing, including the hiring of 1,000 new RCMP personnel and expanded resources to combat financial crime, organized criminal networks and online exploitation. These investments reflect a broader strategy, one that combines enforcement with prevention and recognizes that community safety depends not only on strong laws, but also on strong institutions.”
“They deserve careful, evidence-based policies grounded in Canadian law and not in imported ideas. What do I mean by “imported ideas”? It is striking to see the types of proposals that the Conservatives continue to push, whether it is the provision of their bail bill, Bill C-242 , the shoot-first policy or a three-strikes law. These measures have all failed in every jurisdiction where they have been tried in the United States. If the Conservatives had been paying attention to the last election they lost, they would know that Canadians want laws made here in Canada, in consultation with provinces and territories, that actually work in our communities.”
“When we called them out, they suddenly shifted and said that they only wanted to remove the principle of restraint from former Bill C-75 , and now their own justice critic publicly states on social media that he is open to amending the principle of restraint. That is three different positions over the last six months. It is hard to take them seriously. They clearly have no plan, no consistency and no idea what they are doing. Meanwhile, on this side of the House, the Minister of Justice has spent months working in consultation with law enforcement, provincial and territorial partners, constitutional experts and victim advocacy groups building a consensus on how to keep violent offenders off our streets and accountable to the public, and protect individuals and victims. Canadians want solutions, not slogans.”
“The law has always been clear: No one should be released on bail if doing so would compromise public safety or undermine confidence in the administration of justice. That is clearly established under subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code. In fact, the argument presented is self-defeating. The member suggests that repealing former Bill C-75 would improve public safety. In reality, repealing Bill C-75 would actually make it easier for some individuals, like those previously convicted of intimate partner violence, to obtain bail. Let us be clear about the Conservatives' position over the last six months. First, they campaigned on repealing all of Bill C-75 , including protections for victims of intimate partner violence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to rise and debate this important issue. I also want to thank my colleague opposite for raising a concern that we actually share: the safety of Canadians and keeping violent repeat offenders off our streets. First, we must recognize the tragic murder of 29-year-old Constable Greg Pierzchala. Our thoughts are with his family, colleagues and the Haldimand—Norfolk community. No family should endure such a loss. Such tragedies remind us that keeping Canadians safe is our solemn duty. It is important to clarify a persistent misunderstanding about former Bill C-75 . Contrary to some claims, Bill C-75 did not alter the fundamental law of bail in Canada. What it did was codify key principles already established by the Supreme Court of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may have missed what frontline law enforcement had to say about the Prime Minister 's announcement last week on our upcoming bail and sentencing reform legislation, which will be introduced by the Minister of Justice this week. Allow me to share with him the news. The Toronto Police Association called our plan “a step in the right direction”. The Canadian Police Association, the association for police across the country, said that this “should be a moment for collaboration, not division”, urging all parties to pass the legislation quickly to strengthen public safety and rebuild confidence in our justice system. What does the hon. member opposite know that police officers do not know?”
“In April, Canadians clearly rejected the failed Conservative divisive agenda at the ballot box, and they continue to do so today. Our reforms are tough but fair, rooted in evidence and developed in collaboration with the provinces and territories, which are responsible for the administration of justice. We are not chasing headlines; we are building a safer, stronger Canada grounded in the rule of law. The new government is laser-focused on keeping Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, safe.”
“That is dangerous and puts in question our rule of law. Even a top aide to Stephen Harper called the attacks made by the Conservative leader reckless and “Trumpian”. It is time for the Conservatives to take bail reform seriously and rise above the politics of division. Instead of smearing institutions that keep Canadians safe, the Conservatives should join us in strengthening them. Conservatives like to talk tough on crime, but their record tells a different story. Let me remind the House that when they were in power, they introduced more than half a dozen crime bills, and every single one of them has been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The most recent, the Hills decision in 2023 made it clear that their approach was not only unconstitutional but ineffective.”
“The bill would also provide consecutive sentences for multiple offences committed by repeat offenders. Canadians can count on us. We are delivering on our commitments by taking strong actions to keep violent and repeat offenders off our streets. Our government is assuming a responsible leadership, one where it listens to law enforcement, victims, survivors and provinces before drafting laws. While our government is working in collaboration with police, prosecutors, survivors and families of victims to develop serious bail reforms, what is the Conservative leader doing? He attacks our brave men and women who put their lives at risk to protect them and all Canadians. Last week, the Conservative leader called the RCMP “despicable” and accused it of covering up supposed crimes committed by a former prime minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns about public safety in our justice system. Canadians expect the government to act decisively to keep communities safe, and that is exactly what the Liberal government is doing. After a productive summer and after working closely with provinces, territories and frontline law enforcement, the Prime Minister announced last week that our government will be introducing new bail and sentencing reform legislation this week. The bill would aim to end conditional sentences for sexual assault offenders and introduce a tough reverse-onus bail provision for major violent crimes. This means that repeat violent offenders would now have to prove in court why they are not a risk to public safety and are worthy of obtaining a release, rather than have the Crown prove the contrary.”
“I offer my hand to my colleagues across the aisle and hope they will support our upcoming legislation that would, in the House, address these issues. To all women, I say that the government has their back. We prioritize their safety. We listen to survivors. We work hand in hand with law enforcement. We invest in programs and legislation that prevent and respond to intimate partner violence, and the Minister of Justice is actively working with survivors, families and law enforcement to crack down on IPV offenders. The government will continue to strengthen protection. We will enforce accountability, and we will modernize our criminal laws, because every woman and girl in Canada deserves to live free from fear. We will get this right.”
“This approach risks penalizing victims instead of focusing on the culpability of abusers, overriding decades of jurisprudence that recognizes the cumulative effects of abuse. That is why we need laws that make practical sense, not measures that merely sound tough in name. This is serious. Our laws must protect victims, not punish them. The government's approach is deliberate and evidence-driven. We recognize that IPV is complex and cannot be solved with isolated legal tweaks. Our criminal law must reflect the full spectrum of IPV, including coercive control, assault and strangulation. That is why our upcoming reforms, developed in collaboration with provinces, territories, survivors, families of victims, legal experts and frontline organizations, are carefully targeted to protect survivors and to hold offenders accountable.”
“These organizations told me that the rhetoric around IPV must be less toxic, and they have asked us to work together in the House, as Parliament, to get it right. As a woman, I am particularly concerned about Bill C-225 's proposal to automatically classify all IPV-related killings as first-degree murder. Let me explain. The proposal means that a charge of first-degree murder, under Bill C-225, would also apply to women who, as victims, have endured IPV abuse, including possible coercive control, and who in turn have killed their abuser. While Conservatives may argue that self-defence would still be available for these victims, they know full well that in IPV cases where women have not reported prior abuse to police, self-defence becomes complex. Bill C-225 would penalize abused women who kill their aggressors, with 25 years of jail.”
“They gutted essential women's and gender-equality programs, leaving vulnerable women at risk. They opposed the national action plan to end gender-based violence, a plan that is now delivering $539.3 million in crucial funding to women's organizations across the country, including $1.2 million in the riding of the sponsor of the bill, the riding of the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola . I know that the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola cares deeply about his community, and I respect him for that. However, when it comes to voting for the safety of women in his riding, he has consistently voted against these measures, following the instructions of his leader . I also want to highlight the voices of survivors and of frontline organizations. Last month I met with women's shelters across Quebec. I was deeply moved.”
“Coroner's inquest commissions, including the Renfrew county inquest and the Mass Casualty Commission, have recommended having new offences on coercive control, modernizing criminal harassment and addressing femicide. These recommendations are all being carefully considered for comprehensive reforms. [ Translation ] As a woman and a mother of two daughters, I am proud to say that I understand the personal responsibility that we have to protect women and girls in this country. I would remind the House that our women's caucus is the largest in Canada's history. Each of the women in this caucus works tirelessly, every day, to advance laws that protect women and girls. [ English ] In stark contrast, the Conservatives have consistently voted against measures that protect women.”
“Bill C-233 also provided an opportunity for judges to further their education on coercive control and IPV, thus ensuring that the judiciary understands the complexities that so many survivors experience. [ Translation ] Similarly, the government's Bill C-48 broadened the reverse onus for bail to target repeat IPV offenders, in direct response to victims' concerns that they were at ongoing risk when repeat offenders were released on bail. [ English ] Our government takes this issue seriously. The safety of women and girls is a top priority. Studies and inquiries, from those of Statistics Canada to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, show that IPV and gender-based violence remain pervasive.”
“Bill C-75 also imposed higher maximum penalties for repeat offenders, emphasized denunciation and deterrence, and ensured consistent sentencing for abuse against spouses, former spouses, dating partners and family members. It is therefore very concerning that the Conservatives have said in this House, time and time again, that they want to repeal this critical piece of legislation. A former bill, Bill C-233 , was introduced in 2023 by my friend and colleague, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle . It brought in critical tools, such as the electronic monitoring of IPV offenders, ensuring that courts could impose conditions to actively prevent repeat IPV.”
“Although these proposals may seem well intentioned, they require thoughtful, evidence-based measures to truly protect victims, rather than ill-conceived changes that could negatively affect them. [ English ] Over the past several years, this government has taken bold and decisive action to protect victims of IPV and hold offenders accountable. In 2019, through Bill C-75 , we strengthened the Criminal Code by defining “intimate partner” for all purposes, including ex-spouses; creating a reverse onus at bail for accused with prior IPV convictions; requiring courts to consider those prior convictions; and clarifying that strangulation is an elevated form of assault.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today in response to Bill C-225 , a private member's bill introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , to speak about intimate partner violence. I want to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill for bringing it forward and to note that addressing intimate partner violence is a priority for this government and a key commitment in our platform. [ Translation ] Bill C-225 proposes three sets of reforms to address intimate partner violence. First, it will create new offences and sanctions specific to domestic violence. Second, it will amend the Criminal Code with regard to the detention of seized property. Third, it will make changes to the bail process for cases involving intimate partner violence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have risen already on the issue before, and the members opposite say to let them do the work. Should we let them do the work? The Conservatives adopted six crime bills during their time in government, and every single one of them was struck down by the Supreme Court, including the most recent one in 2023 in the Hills decision. The member opposite should do his homework and get informed. Let me assure the House that on this side of the House, we are working on serious bail reform in collaboration with the provinces, the territories and law enforcement. It will be fully constitutional on repeat violent offenders. This is the kind of leadership—”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for a quick criminal law lesson for the member opposite. As the Conservatives know, Canada follows the rules of common law, so the principle of restraint they keep citing was already law way before Bill C-75 , as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Antic in 2017. In our laws, it is clear that an accused person may be denied bail when detention is necessary for the protection of the safety of the public. That is section 515, paragraph 10 of the Criminal Code. I do not have my code with me here today, but I will be happy to email the article to my colleague.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. We agree on that. Our government will crack down on repeat violent offenders with new legislation to strengthen the bail system, sentencing and the efficiency of our courts. We are working closely with the provinces and territories to reform bail and sentencing in order to give police and Crown prosecutors more substantive tools to keep violent offenders off our streets.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have said it time and time again: The Minister of Justice will be introducing bail reform legislation this fall. We hope that if the Conservatives are really serious about doing the work, they will support this new legislation. Let me remind the member opposite that the reality is this: In former Bill C-75 , we strengthened Canada's response by defining “intimate partner violence” in the Criminal Code and created a reverse onus for repeat IPV offenders. Canadians deserve a debate based on the facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a bill that makes it harder for IPV offenders to get bail, they should do so and face the backlash from Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have said it time and time again: Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. Our government is cracking down on repeat violent offenders with new legislation to strengthen bail, sentencing and court efficiency. We are working closely with provinces and territories to reform bail and sentencing and address delays, giving police and prosecutors stronger tools to keep violent offenders off our streets. This is what Canadians elected us to do: improve public safety, restore confidence in the justice system and ensure violent offenders face real consequences. We are ready to do the work and we will do it.”
“Mr. Speaker, will we let them do the work? We will take no lessons from the Conservatives' outrageous record on crime legislation. In 2008, the tackling violent crime with firearms act was struck down in the Nur case. In 2009, the Truth in Sentencing Act was struck down in the Safarzadeh-Markhali case. In 2011, the ending sentence discounts for multiple murders act was overturned in Bissonnette. The list goes on and on. Let me assure the House that we are working on a serious bail reform bill that is fully constitutional and strong against repeat violent offenders. This is the kind of—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see there is an alignment between the Conservative opposition and this newly elected Liberal government when it comes to improving public safety, including through the adoption of stronger laws to build safer communities. I have good news for my colleagues. The Minister of Justice will be introducing new legislation this parliamentary session to strengthen bail reform in this country and have harsher sanctions for violent repeat offenders to make sure that we have the support to help keep communities safe and make direct investments in law enforcement. They want to do the work. We want their support.”
“Mr. Speaker, we recognize the seriousness of intimate partner violence. Addressing it requires tough laws and thoughtful laws developed with survivors, communities and all levels of government to achieve real solutions. With Bill C-75 , we strengthened Canada's response to IPV by defining an intimate partner in the Criminal Code, creating a reverse onus for repeat offenders and ensuring that judges consider prior convictions. Penalties are higher for repeat IPV, and it is shameful the Conservatives want to repeal this progress.”
“Mr. Speaker, we travelled around this summer meeting with Crown prosecutors and police associations to discuss the right way to implement bail reform. We do not wish to pass any old law and have it be challenged before the Supreme Court and possibly struck down. On this side of the House, we take the time we need to do things right.”
“Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member asks about repealing Bill C-75 , I strongly suggest that she take the time to read the whole thing first. She does not seem to understand that this bill actually makes it harder for people charged with intimate partner violence to get bail. We are prepared to work in good faith with members of all parties to strengthen the bail system.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that, in former Bill C-75 , we strengthened Canada's response to intimate partner violence by defining the term “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code and creating a reverse onus for repeat offenders of intimate partner violence. Canadians deserve a debate based on facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a bill that makes it harder for perpetrators of intimate partner violence to get bail, they should be clear about that with Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. Our government is cracking down on repeat violent offenders, with new legislation that will be forthcoming to strengthen bail, sentencing and court deficiencies. We are working closely with provinces and territories to reform bail and sentencing and address delays, giving police and prosecutors stronger tools to keep violent offenders off our streets. This is what Canadians want. This is what they elected us to do, and that is exactly what we will do.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives stand here and lecture us about criminal justice, but Canadians remember their record. Time and time again, they imposed unconstitutional mandatory minimums, piled on cruel punishments and tied the hands of judges, only to have the Supreme Court strike down each decision. Now they claim that we are not acting on bail reform. It is a bit rich. The truth is, since we made our commitment, the minister has been working with provinces and territories and consulting with police chiefs, police associations and frontline stakeholders to get this right. We want to—”
“Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member poses a question about repealing Bill C-75 , I would suggest it would be a good idea for him to read it in its entirety. He does not seem to understand that the bill actually makes it harder for people who are charged with intimate partner violence to receive bail. Now, we are willing to work in good faith with members of any party to strengthen the bail system, have harsher penalties for serious crimes and, most importantly, keep Canadians safe. The only question I have is whether the Conservatives will support the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, as mentioned earlier, Canadians deserve a debate on the facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a bill that made it harder for IPV offenders to get bail, then they should do so directly and face the backlash from Canadians with regard to that issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, the appointment of superior court judges is the government's responsibility, and Quebec is already involved in the process. We are holding discussions in good faith, but we are not obligated to reach an agreement. Minister Fraser is in contact with his Quebec counterpart—”
“Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's question, I would invite her to read Bill C-75 at length. She would realize that the reality is this: Because of Canada's response by defining “intimate partner violence” in the Criminal Code and creating a reverse onus for repeat intimate partner violence offenders, judges must now consider prior intimate partner convictions. Penalties are higher for repeat offenders. Canadians deserve a debate on the facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a bill that makes it harder for intimate partner violence offenders to get bail, they should do so directly and then face the backlash from Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will simply say to my colleague that, over the summer, the minister and I toured the province of Quebec. The minister also went to other provinces. We held consultations with partners, law enforcement, Crown prosecutors and victims to learn more about the challenges that the new bill will need to bring forward and address, so that Canadians feel safe after this new bill is passed.”
“Without consistent and comprehensive data from all jurisdictions, it is difficult to assess how bail laws are working, what gaps exist, and what changes are needed. [ English ] Canadians deserve a bail system that protects communities while respecting rights. They deserve a sentencing regime that holds offenders accountable while promoting rehabilitation. They deserve to see all orders of government working together not just to pass laws but to implement them in ways that make a real difference in the lives of all Canadians. The government intends to do just that.”
“This forthcoming legislation will once again be shaped by strong intergovernmental co-operation. This renewed collaboration among the federal, provincial and territorial governments reflects a shared commitment to public safety and a recognition that meaningful change depends on coordinated action across jurisdictions. By working together, our governments can ensure that our bail laws are not only stronger on paper but effective in practice. (1220) [ Translation ] The provinces and territories also play a vital role in collecting and sharing bail data. Leadership in these areas is essential to improving the system as a whole. Bail data collection does not occur at the national level. This responsibility falls to provincial and territorial governments.”
“In 2013, they passed legislation making the victim surcharge mandatory and non-waivable. In R v. Boudreault, the court ruled it “unconstitutional” and “cruel and unusual” for the poorest and most marginalized offenders. Most recently, the mandatory minimum for reckless discharge of a firearm, another Harper-era invention, was struck down in R v. Hills in 2023. The list goes on, but allow me to focus on the real action that the new Liberal government is taking. Most recently, Canadians sent the federal government a clear message. They are concerned about repeat and violent offenders and want to see urgent action. This is why the new Liberal government is firmly committed to introducing a bill this fall that will build on previous legislative reforms to strengthen Canada's bail and sentencing laws.”
“In 2008, the Harper government passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, imposing a mandatary minimum sentence for firearm offences. The Supreme Court struck this down in R v. Nur, calling it “cruel and unusual”. In 2012, they doubled down with the Safe Streets and Communities Act, extending mandatory minimums for drug offences. In R v. Lloyd, again, the Supreme Court struck this down. In 2009, they pushed through the so-called Truth in Sentencing Act, limiting judicial discretion on credit for pre-trial custody. In R v. Safarzadeh-Markhali, it was struck down again for being overbroad. In 2011, they introduced the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. The Supreme Court invalidated it in R v. Bissonnette, ruling that stacked parole ineligibility violated human dignity.”
“They deserve to know why an idea inspired by the far right in the United States, entirely incompatible with Canadian realities and our justice system, was ever even considered acceptable by the same people who claim to prioritize public safety and the public interest. Therefore, I hope, following my remarks, a member of the opposition will rise and offer an explanation and perhaps even an apology to Canadians. Yes, they could offer an apology for even considering such legislation inspired by foreign, far right, extreme models rather than laws designed for Canada and made in Canada, laws that reflect our communities, our values and our justice system. Let us now take a sombre look at the Conservative record when it comes to criminal justice.”
“It seems the Conservatives have finally opened their eyes because they have flip-flopped on the controversial “three strikes” proposal. This kind of rhetoric may score political points, but, in reality, it solves absolutely nothing. Everywhere it has been applied, particularly in the United States, it has failed and has been ineffective at protecting citizens or reducing crime. It seems the Conservatives have finally realized this, as they chose not to include it in their own bill, Bill C-242 . However, this flip-flop raises fundamental questions. The Conservatives owe Canadians an explanation. They need to tell Canadians why they have changed their minds and publicly acknowledge that this proposal was not only misguided but also dangerous. Canadians deserve a clear answer.”
“Our election promise responds to a concern shared by many Canadians that individuals who pose a serious risk to public safety should not be released without rigorous judicial oversight. It also reflects the desire to ensure that the bail system takes into account concerns about reoffending and violent offences that communities across the country have raised. However, while Bill C‑242 aims to overcome fears that individuals who pose a risk to public safety will be released without judicial oversight, the way it is drafted raises serious concerns about whether these measures could actually be effective and whether they comply with the fundamental principles of justice and proportionality. [ English ] There seems to be one crucial element that is clearly missing from this bill. Frankly, I am, at the very least, relieved.”