Alex Ruff
Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the family-run Tyson Downs Association for donating a new AED SaveStation at Harrison Park in Owen Sound. Tyson Downs was an exceptional 18-year-old athlete and lacrosse player who passed away suddenly in 2023 as the result of cardiac arrest.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for getting to the crux of the challenges with bail reform and the fact that, when this bill went through the House, it was supported completely. The issue around sureties was discussed and an amendment was unanimously agreed to by all parties in this chamber before it went to the Senate.”
“Mr. Speaker, the NSICOP Act mandates that it must be reviewed before October 6, 2022. Unlike in his response on January 29, could the House leader please provide the date the government intends to initiate the long-overdue review of the act?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. They are calling upon the Liberal government to stop its cuts to Canada Post rural delivery.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to build on the two questions my hon. colleague was already asked, because in my opinion, when people are breaking the law or they are avoiding taxes, it is all about transparency and accountability. In particular, I want to ask him what he thinks the end result will be.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I spent 25 and a half years in uniform serving our great nation. I want to get back to the answer to my previous question.”
The complete record
Every one of 179 lines we hold for Alex Ruff, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands said he was listening to the debate. One of my colleagues asked the Liberal parliamentary secretary about why the budget includes $100 million to Huawei. She did not answer the question, so I am going to give the member the opportunity to explain why the old Liberal government banned Huawei from being used in our 5G security systems but now the current government is actually choosing to give $100 million to a company tied to the Chinese Communist regime.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concern me about this budget is the sheer amount of additional debt it is going to put on Canadians and future generations. The comment I have for my colleague is this: Right now, Canadian taxpayers are paying approximately $55 billion in interest on the current national debt. Now there is an additional $80 billion being added to that. More money goes, on an annual basis, to pay the interest than it does to health care for our provinces and territories. Could the member comment on the challenge we have when we are paying more in interest than we are sending to support health care for our provinces and territories?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of many Canadians who are calling upon the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to call for an end to the persecution of the Falun Gong in China, to take stronger measures to combat the Chinese Communist Party's transnational repression here in Canada and basically to just take stronger actions against the Communist regime.”
“Will he commit to the program staying open so that Veterans Affairs can provide as many wreaths as every MP needs across this country, regardless of whether it is inconsistent or different from riding to riding?”
“Mr. Speaker, the question very much related to Veterans Affairs Canada and the support for our veterans. I want to acknowledge that the parliamentary secretary provided some greater clarity on the wreath program. I appreciate having that history. He did not really answer my two questions, so I am going to leave the final minute of speaking to them. This is not about where the money is coming from. I will easily pay for all 25 wreaths that go to the 25 cenotaphs in my riding. I represent a big riding that has more than done its share of supplying veterans across the country. Does the parliamentary secretary not think Veterans Affairs Canada can at least put one wreath at every cenotaph across Canada?”
“People at the Royal Canadian Legion and veterans right across this country are confused. Even today, the Legion spokespeople just put out a press release that they are “hearing concerns and confusion.... Without clear details and simple explanations, many Veterans are in the dark...about what it all means for their benefits”. Could the parliamentary secretary please clarify the impact this would have on the backlog in disability benefit applications; cannabis access and research; calculation of long-term care costs, which is more about a lawsuit than actually taking care of our veterans; confusion over the index of pension calculations; and any legislative amendments that would have an impact on the RCMP?”
“As a follow-up question, considering that the Liberal policy of trying to limit the number of wreaths provided by VAC keeps being brought forward every few years, will the government confirm that it will not try to have this limiting policy ever again? I am now going to go on to something else. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs is very up to speed on stuff with this year's budget and the impact it would have on Veterans Affairs. Considering that the second-largest cut in this Liberal budget, of $4.4 billion, is to Veterans Affairs Canada and that the government is claiming that spending less on cannabis will somehow result in these savings, but last year only spent $245 million, how is the government going to do that?”
“I have never had a single Legion member ever approach me asking me to purchase a wreath through the Legion. In fact, Legion members come to me asking to get a wreath from the government in order to recognize the over 100,000 Canadians who have made the supreme sacrifice in service to this nation. My question on this issue to the Liberal government is pretty straightforward: Does the Liberal government think that having Veterans Affairs Canada provide a wreath at every single cenotaph for the over 100,000 Canadians who have made the supreme sacrifice in service to Canada is too much to ask of the government?”
“Therefore, I questioned the minister on October 3 and asked why, with many ridings having dozens of cenotaphs, the Liberals are telling Canadians and telling members of Parliament that the government will now pay for only two. The minister responded as such, and I am grateful for the response, to a point. She said: Proposed changes for the Wreaths for Parliamentarians program were made with the understanding that MPs would work directly with the Royal Canadian Legion, with proceeds supporting their local branches. I am learning that the changes could be significantly disruptive to Remembrance Day. I have instructed my department to revert to the previous format for this year. I have been a member of the Royal Canadian Legion since 1993. I have 25 cenotaphs in my riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad and proud to be here tonight, not just on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound but also on behalf of all veterans across Canada and their families. I asked a question a while back with respect to the Liberal government's policy. I will read the actual policy that my question was about, which said, “Veterans Affairs Canada is pleased to supply, upon request, two commemorative wreaths to members of Parliament who will be representing the Government of Canada at Remembrance Day ceremonies”. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. That was not this year's Liberal government policy; that was the Liberal government policy for October 2017. Therefore, needless to say, I was shocked that, after the Liberals backtracked and did the right thing back in 2017, in 2025, they basically brought back the same policy again.”
“Mr. Speaker, the question I have for my Bloc colleague is with respect to the question of privilege the Bloc raised earlier about the budget with the annexes only being presented in a digital format. Within that, there is reference to about 75 legislative changes that would impact different demographics in Canada, particularly seniors. One of the things it is bringing back, which is currently in Bill C-2 , is this restriction on $10,000 in cash. I just want to know if the member has similar concerns around seniors. There are minority communities, like the Amish and Old Order Mennonites, who do not use phones or Internet and do not have access to technology. I have this concern about, basically, bringing things in through an omnibus bill and the impact it would have on seniors.”
“Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his service in the Canadian Armed Forces, as we are coming up on Remembrance Day. I have a huge concern about the amount of the annual deficit the Liberal government has been running for the last 10 years. It is over $54 billion or $55 billion, more money than the federal government transfers to the provinces for health care. It is putting enormous stress on future generations. Does my hon. colleague share the same concerns?”
“Madam Speaker, my question for the hon. Leader of the Opposition is about the future and youth. I have a 12-year-old daughter and I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition has young children, and I am scared of the state our nation will be in in future years with the incredibly large deficits and the national debt that the Liberal government is putting on to our future generations. I would like the hon. Leader of the Opposition to comment on the impact that this is going to have not only on his children and my daughter, but on youth around the country. What else is he hearing from young people from across Canada with respect to the state of the country?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was actually a little surprised by a few of those comments from the parliamentary secretary. It was not where I expected it to go, but I did not get an answer to my question. I did not need a synopsis of Bill C-14 . We are tracking that. The minister indicated in debate today that he is open to amendments to the bill. The debate today did not shy away from the fact that these are much-needed changes that we require. Again, I will ask the parliamentary secretary this: Is the government open to enacting the key things in Bill C-242 with the principle of restraint, in Bill C-246 from the member for Lethbridge with consecutive sentencing, and in Bill C-225 with intimate partner violence?”
“Finally, there are a couple aspects of Bill C-225 , by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , which would force an offender convicted of intimate partner violence within the preceding five years to be released only by a judge. Can the parliamentary secretary assure me that Bill C-14 will address all the concerns in those three private member's bills?”
“Bill C-242 also proposes a new major offences category, with reverse onus bail conditions on charges involving firearms, sexual acts, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault. Bill C-14 would address a lot of the reverse onus aspects, but it would also strengthen bail laws by mandating that judges consider an accused's full criminal history when they are making a decision. It would also prohibit anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor. This is something I want to focus on as well. We have Bill C-246 from the member for Lethbridge , which focuses on consecutive sentences and being able to do that, and I would ask whether Bill C-14 is able to address that.”
“This is important because, as I said in my question back in June, in my riding alone and in just the city of Owen Sound, the annual police report stated that violent crimes were up another 14.6%. I have addressed concerns about the fact that the delay specifically tied to decisions around the Jordan's limit is taking away justice for the victims. Let us get to the three private member's bills I want to talk to the parliamentary secretary about. The first is Bill C-242 , the jail not bail act by the great member of Parliament for Oxford . It is focused on a few things that I hope the parliamentary secretary can address. That is, it would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint that came out in Bill C-75 , stating that instead, public safety and public protection have to be the primary consideration.”
“I did not get a specific answer last month, but I am happy to report that today, we are finally debating a recently tabled bill, Bill C-14 , which addresses many of the reversals needed around the previous Liberal bills, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 . As I assume the parliamentary secretary of justice is going to reply to me, out of all the Liberals present, I want to focus the remainder of my time tonight on giving her the opportunity to just focus in on some of the private member's bills we have already tabled in the House and ask her opinion. Can she reassure me that Bill C-14 is going to address these? If not, will she actually support these private member's bills?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to follow up on a question I asked the justice minister in June on when we could expect the much-needed bail changes to reverse the Liberal bail system we have in place. As I noted when I followed this up last month during Adjournment Proceedings and could not get an answer from the parliamentary secretary at that time on the specifics of it, this is not actually a new question. This is a question I have actually been bringing up in this chamber since 2022 about the urgent need for massive reversal around the Liberal bail system. I point out, as well, that this is actually something the Liberal government voted against in early 2023, when we called for those changes here in this chamber.”
“Would the member agree that if we can get this through, we are at least getting something done that Bill C-14 would partially address, but that the bill from the Senate that the member formerly brought forward as a private member's bill is important for first responders?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to follow up with my hon. colleague in the same vein of questioning. The member had the opportunity to ask the justice minister , and he very correctly stated that he is not worried about who gets credit. In his speech, the member brought up the concerns about getting this through all stages quickly, not only because it would to send the message for next week but also because it is possible that this Parliament may not even exist three weeks from now, based on the posturing by the Liberal government. The Liberals may be indicating that they want to call an election.”
“The following are the more recent veterans: Warrant Officer Allan Johnson of the RCR, with tours in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and Chief Warrant Officer Chris Pawliw from the Grey and Simcoe Foresters, with tours in Croatia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. Our veterans are incredible men and women who have served our country and deserve to be remembered for their sacrifices and their contributions to Canada. Pro patria. Lest we forget.”
“Mr. Speaker, this weekend the Billy Bishop Museum hosted the 25th annual Honouring Our Local Veterans ceremony. To date, 230 local veterans have been honoured. This year, 11 brave men and women were recognized for their service and their sacrifice. The following are from World War I: Private Percy James Barber, wounded at Vimy Ridge, and Lance Corporal Arthur Simpson Martin, MM, with the RCD. The following are those from World War II who were killed in action: Private Benjamin Roy Ashkewe, Sergeant Howard Arnold Jones, Lieutenant James Russel Martin, Private Leslie McGregor and Flying Officer Howard Weaver. The following are those who served but returned home: Corporal Margaret Ruth Ellis, in the RCAF Women's Division, and Sergeant Major William Alexander Spears of the Perth Regiment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing up just what the Liberal government has done to our immigration system. It was globally recognized as likely one of the best economic and immigration systems around the globe for decades. There is one thing I was not really surprised by, but I would be interested in getting the member's feedback on it. Has he heard from first-generation Canadians and people who have immigrated to Canada who are very frustrated with what the Liberals have done? As the member indicated, they have been basically undercutting the value of Canadian citizenship in our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a tough question for me to answer. Again, I do not profess to know every paragraph or clause of the legislation yet. Political interference is something we all have to watch out for at all times. I think that in this case, our leadership needs to be reviewed, but at the same time, we cannot make decisions hastily on false accusations either. Whether the bill would fully solve that or not, I am not sure, but ultimately it is something we should all be cautious of.”
“I have a lot of respect for him because of his time in uniform, his three tours in Afghanistan and his time as a police officer, but I have no time for, and this is partly why we are in this problem in the first place, the failure of leadership within the Canadian Armed Forces to stamp out sexual misconduct internally and, in some cases, a failure with respect to ministerial accountability.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is one of the good things in the bill: It makes reference to certain allegations and complaints having to be dealt with by the minister of national defence. As for the case the member brought up about the appointment, I cannot speak to that. I was serving in uniform in 2015, when the former chief of the defence staff was appointed, so I cannot speak to what was and what was not known or anything like that. I do know, and I spoke to this a couple of Parliaments ago, that when allegations of misconduct against the chief of the defence staff were brought forward to the Liberal minister, he chose not to do anything about it, and we ended up censuring him in Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really do not have a clue. Ultimately, I am sure the member's party follows a similar process that we do. The bill has just been tabled. We will discuss it as a caucus. I know that one of the key jobs of our shadow minister for defence is to determine who wants to speak to the bill. The unique challenge, after a federal election, is that almost 50% of the MPs are brand new in the House. I am a big believer, and I have stood up for this and stated it before, that everybody should be entitled to speak as much as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader speaks in the chamber.”
“The decision has been made; this has gone forward, and we are moving to civilian courts to prosecute any sexual misconduct. Our military justice system, I fully agree, needs to be improved; however, my only concern is, let us not fix the one problem while creating one or two others. I am optimistic that all parties can work together to come up with a way to make sure that the bill is the best bill possible to ensure that everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces, men and women who serve this nation, are properly protected.”
“I am wondering, so it is more of a question the government can take note of because I do not have a response yet, why was there not a similar timeline included for the judge advocate general when the government was updating the military justice system with the bill ? They are mandated to provide an annual report, but there is no timeline on it. The second question I have that is tied to the previous one is this: What is the “so what”? What would be the repercussions if the provost marshal general did not submit a report on time? What would happen to them? Ultimately the military justice system is a system that I believe is crucially needed within the military. It ensures service disciple. However, obviously we need to make sure the victims are taken care of.”
“Their only way to get any coverage back was to sue the government or the Department of National Defence and the chain of command, to be reimbursed through civil litigation, which takes way more time. It is a question I have; I do not know what the right answer is. I am hoping that when the bill gets to committee or goes through the amendment processes, the government considers how it is going to handle that. What I want to talk about in the last bit of my speech is a bit more technical in nature. I have asked the question; I have not gotten a response back from the ministers or the department yet, but it is interesting that the bill would lay out a deadline for the provost marshal general, as it would now be called, to provide an annual report, a deadline of three months.”
“One of the issues, though, that needs to come up as well is that if somebody is alleged to have done something wrong in the military system, they are provided with military defence counsel, but as soon as a case goes into the civilian courts, and if it is one of our soldiers, sailors or air crew who has been alleged to have done something wrong, they are no longer entitled to military defence; they are on their own dime. I have already provided one example, and there are a couple of others I can think of, where the people who have been alleged to have done something wrong went through the process, and rightly so, but when it was determined that they in fact had done nothing wrong, it cost them literally tens of thousands of personal dollars, if not more.”
“I do think there are questions that can be asked in the review process of the bill as to how it would actually change anything internally or externally with the independence. I think it is a little, I do not want to say mythical, but in my experience, and I can speak only from my experience, our military police were very much granted independence for everything they did. It was very much frowned upon and stamped out if somebody in the chain of command tried to interfere with the process going forward. I have had nothing but positive feedback in dealing with our military police, our national investigation service and our judge advocates general in the prosecutions that have taken place. I talked about the importance of the data.”
“My concern is that training has to be really good because why are we saying that our military police, judge advocates general and the military justice system are not good enough to deal with cases here in Canada, but they are good enough when they happen overseas? (1310) Those are the first two points of the bill that would change certain things. Another aspect of the bill is that it would increase the independence of the director of military prosecution, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general by having them appointed by the Governor in Council and report directly to the minister of national defence with term limits. I am not going to get into depth on that.”
“I want to know how many cases are being accepted by the civilian courts. What are the findings? Are any of them being delayed? I am concerned about the Jordan principle, because, again, if justice is delayed, these victims will not get the justice they need. Another aspect to this transfer is that, unfortunately, the cases that occur overseas while our military members are deployed would still be prosecuted by our military police within the Canadian Armed Forces and within our military justice system, with its prosecutors and judge advocates general. This was a question that was brought up during a technical brief. It was asked, and I do not want to say we have been reassured, but the government has been talking about the fact that there is going to be training.”
“I am just bringing that up because it is important that the system works in an impartial way to address the issues. We absolutely have to stamp out any sexual misconduct that occurs anywhere in society, while at the same time making sure that due process is followed. There are about five elements to this bill from a summary perspective. I want to touch on each one of them slightly, except for one. The first one is that it obviously amends the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction of sexual misconduct offences to civilian courts when they take place here in Canada. The parliamentary secretary talked about this in her speech. I asked her how it is working so far, and she is committed to getting the data. This ties into another question that I had already asked. We now have about three-plus years of data.”
“We have to make sure we are looking at this from all angles, both for the victims and the accused. The reason I bring up the accused is that we just have to go back over the last half-dozen years or so to see that some very senior officers had allegations brought up against them that in the end turned out to be unsubstantiated. In some cases, the officers were acquitted. One of my best friends, a still-serving brigadier general, has done a phenomenal job. This goes back to almost 10 years ago. I think it was around 2015 when he was unjustly accused. Fortunately, due to the system finally sorting it out, he has been able to successfully maintain his career in the Canadian Armed Forces. He has been promoted a couple of times since then and currently serves.”
“I was somebody who was an infantry officer, who served in a combat arms unit, which gets a bad rap a lot of the time, and I had never personally witnessed any of these cases. It was shocking when it came out because I had not had feedback shared with me by my former female colleagues in our Canadian Armed Forces. I reached out once that report came out and asked some of them about it. Some of them were senior officers. The horror stories that I heard just absolutely blew me away. Unfortunately, there have been challenges within the Canadian Armed Forces when it comes to sexual misconduct and justice for the victims being delivered. I am sharing this because it is important that we get it right. We cannot just overreact. The military is no different than any other organization. Sometimes a solution creates two other problems.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say this is a tough bill or a tough speech for me to give, but I do have my own unique military background, which includes having spent 25 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I spent a lot of that time as a presiding officer. Fortunately, as a presiding officer, I did not have to oversee sexual misconduct cases. Those would go to court martial and were never in my purview. Let us back up to how we got to where we are today. Reference has been made to Madam Arbour's report, and before that there was Madam Deschamps' report. I want to share with everyone how shocked and disappointed I was when the Deschamps report came out. I was literally flabbergasted. The Canadian Armed Forces is representative of a cross section of Canadian society. We are going to have bad apples and phenomenally good people.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his service in uniform. I know that he, as a former commanding officer, was responsible for discipline and for maintaining the code of service discipline and the National Defence Act within his unit. One of the concerns he addressed in his speech is the fact that these cases have already started going over to civilian courts, but we are seeing such a backlog. Is he concerned about victims actually getting justice in the civilian courts, due to the challenges we are seeing across the country right now with the civilian justice system?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this member's commitment to our veterans and our military, and appreciate her the sacrifices her family has made to serve this country. The member brought up in her speech that the bill would make permanent something that was already brought into effect, I believe in 2021, with respect to the civilian prosecution of sexual misconduct cases. I do not know whether the member has the data on hand, but could she commit to providing, when this bill gets to committee, how many of these cases have been sent to civilian authorities and how many have been denied? Are there any results she could provide?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I am speaking, there is a ceremony going on in Owen Sound paying tribute to Corporal Robert Thomas James Mitchell, who made the supreme sacrifice in Afghanistan 19 years ago today. Over 100,000 Canadians have made the supreme sacrifice in service to Canada. On Remembrance Day in my hometown of Tara, 200 names will be read out. Many ridings have dozens of cenotaphs that request wreaths for Remembrance Day. The Liberals are now telling MPs that VAC will only pay for two. Veterans Affairs uses the tag “Canada Remembers” on social media, so why is the Liberal government now choosing to forget our veterans?”
“Madam Speaker, NSICOP did a study of this, before my time on it. Specifically, it had a number of findings. One of them was that there is inconsistency in the Treasury Board and Shared Services Canada with respect to cyber-defence across all government and federal departments and agencies, including Crown corporations. Can the deputy House leader confirm that Bill C-8 , or that the government writ large, would provide the necessary resources to all these Crown corporations and smaller departments and agencies to uphold these policies, and would Bill C-8 direct every single one of these departments to make sure the processes and tools are in place to protect our government networks right across the country?”
“Madam Speaker, I will remind the government and all Canadians that assault rifles have been banned in Canada since January 1, 1978. The Liberals have since banned some semi-automatics, shotguns and twenty-twos based on the fact that they look scary, not on their functionality. The Liberal government would get unanimous support if it focused on criminals, repeat violent offenders and cracking down on the stem of illegal guns coming across our border. Why is the government so focused on dividing Canadians and going after, statistically, the most law-abiding demographic in Canada, which is legal firearms owners?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to commend the Minister of Public Safety for accidentally telling the truth with respect to the Liberal gun confiscation program. I fully agree that taking legal firearms from trained, vetted and licenced hunters, farmers, sport shooters, military members, veterans and law enforcement is a waste of money. Out of the $742 million allocated for this gun grab, only $250 million is for compensating legal gun owners, while half a billion dollars is allocated to the bureaucracy of this useless program. Why is the government focused on targeting law-abiding firearms owners instead of criminals?”
“Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary failed to answer my question. In fact, he responded with a very similar reply to what I laid out in my earlier speech, which is that we need to work on this and talk about it. He did provide some greater clarity. He said that they are going to have a meeting with the FPT sometime in October. That tells me just that we are not likely to get an answer to this question or see this bail reform until at least the November time frame. He has given me a slight clarification. My point is that this is urgent. It is same thing I brought up in 2022 and 2023. We need this bail reform now. I ask the government to please table it so we can work together to make it the best possible bail reform. We need it for Canada and to make Canadians safe.”
“The parliamentary secretary refused to answer the question. He just said it would be out this fall. All I am looking for is clarity as to when this fall the government will table this urgently needed bail reform legislation. I just want a time frame, as it takes time to get legislation through the parliamentary system. The track record of the Liberal government is not great for getting legislation right the first time, so I am confident it is going to require amendments and improvements so that it works. Can the House expect this bail reform tomorrow, next week or before the end of November, or will the government be tabling it on December 12, the last day of the fall session?”
“The response I got from the Minister of Justice at the time is that he seemed to think it was all “good news”, that the Liberals were going to advance reform policies to “stiffen bail proceedings” and would “adopt more serious sentences for violent repeat offenders”. He said we could expect this later this calendar year. That answer was not good enough. This has been an urgent problem, as I have highlighted. I am just one of many Conservative MPs who have been raising this question over the last four years. It is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed. I followed up with the parliamentary secretary just last week and asked the same question about this “mythical bail reform bill that is going to come out this fall”. I asked whether fall is before December 12 and whether we could nail that down.”
“Over the past seven years...[the Liberal government has] been slowly putting in place legislation that is helping to improve the bail system and the bail regime in Canada.... My apologies. That was a question I asked in February 2023. The actual question I asked in June was this: ...crime has been rising in my riding since the Liberals formed government, and justice is too often delayed for victims. According to the latest Owen Sound Police Service's annual report, violent crimes are up 14.6%. My communities are worried. To make matters worse, more than 10% of the cases are now exceeding the Jordan limit, delaying justice further. When will the Liberal government reverse its soft-on-crime legislation and adopt a common-sense plan to keep violent offenders behind bars and ensure victims and their families get the justice they deserve?”
“I asked this of the government: ...[the government] talked about and highlighted the need for our current bail system to be improved. Changes need to happen. I have just two simple questions for [the government]. Does [the government] agree this is an urgent problem? How much time is realistic to address this urgent problem and make necessary changes to our bail system in Canada? Here is the answer I got from the government: No one piece of legislation is going to fix the issue of bail reform in our country. As I was trying to say, this is a multi-faceted problem. [The government needs] to engage the provincial, territorial and regional governments, and [it needs] to ensure they have the support they need to administer justice.”