Larry Brock
Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, that minister and the government have had 11 years to get this right. Last week, Canada suffered a tragic loss when officer Marc Pinizzotto was shot and killed in the line of duty. It has now been revealed that the man responsible for the horrific crime was already out on probation. Then we learned that the U.S.”
“Mr. Speaker, the criminal charged in the Lambton College shooting, which left one person dead, is not surprisingly out on bail. Only under these weak-on-crime Liberals could a man charged with murder and attempted murder be back on the streets before justice is served.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can inform the parliamentary secretary that the Conservatives will never support the government's position in supporting the Senate amendment. I reject the premise of her entire speech, with all due respect.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Senate amendment that the government supports, my understanding was that the focus was to provide some special consideration for indigenous offenders in remote areas who may not have the resources and the swath of friends and family to act as sureties.”
“Sadly, only 13% of dangerous offenders in Canada are currently housed in maximum-security prisons. In 2023, of the 736 classified dangerous offenders in our country, 580 of them were classified to medium-security environments. Nearly 90% of dangerous offenders are currently housed in minimum-security or medium-security prisons.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to debate an absolutely crucial piece of legislation that seeks to restore justice to Canada's correctional services system. It would ensure the most dangerous offenders and mass murderers receive the punishment they absolutely deserve.”
The complete record
Every one of 439 lines we hold for Larry Brock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are still getting hammered at the pump and these Liberals are making it worse. They know Canadians are struggling and they are still taxing more. Instead of real relief, they offer a gimmick, a third of the relief for a third of the year. Meanwhile, families are paying more for everything because Liberal taxes are driving up the cost of living. This is the reality: Higher fuel costs mean higher grocery bills. Every truck, every delivery, every shelf price goes up and Canadians are the ones paying the price. When Conservatives put forward a plan to scrap all federal fuel taxes for the year, cutting costs by 25¢ per litre and saving families over $1,200, these Liberals voted to keep those taxes in place. This was a choice by the Liberals to keep taking more from Canadians when they can least afford it.”
“In closing, let us remember that justice is not an abstract concept. It is carried out by real people with real lives, who step forward when called upon to serve. They do so quietly, they do so diligently and they do so without expectation of recognition. It is high time we change that. Let us give the jurors the recognition they deserve.”
“Originally introduced in the Senate and now before the House, the bill reflects years of advocacy and a growing recognition that jurors deserve greater acknowledgement. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a regional issue. It is a national issue, one that touches every province, every territory and every Canadian who may one day be called to serve. As members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to uphold the institutions that underpin our democracy. Those include our courts, our laws and the citizens who bring them to life. Passing this bill would be a small but meaningful step in that direction. It would send a clear message that Canada values its jurors, that we recognize their sacrifices and that we are committed to supporting them not only in words but in spirit.”
“Jury service is one of the most direct ways citizens participate in governance. It is democracy in action. It is a reminder that justice is not imposed from above, but delivered by the people. In an era where trust in our institutions is fragile, reinforcing this connection between citizens and the justice system is more important than ever. The bill does exactly that. It affirms that jurors are not peripheral actors. They are central to the administration of justice. It acknowledges that their service is not only necessary but honourable, and it invites all Canadians to reflect on the value of this civic duty. I would also like to recognize the efforts of those who brought the bill forward.”
“The preamble notes that designating a week of appreciation would help educate citizens, organizations and governments about the issues involved in fulfilling this duty. Many Canadians have a limited understanding of how juries work, what juries experience and why their role is so essential. The week could serve as a catalyst for public education through schools, community organizations and media, helping to demystify the process and strengthen public confidence in our justice system. Confidence matters. A justice system is only as strong as the trust people place in it. When Canadians understand and respect the role of jurors, they are more likely to view the system as fair, transparent and legitimate. We must also consider the broader democratic principle at stake.”
“We designate days and weeks not because they solve problems overnight, but because they focus our collective attention. They educate. They inspire dialogue. They affirm shared values. Let us think of the many observations we already recognize. These observations shape public consciousness. They remind us of who we are and what we value as a nation. Jury duty appreciation week would do the same. It would shine a light on a civic responsibility that is often misunderstood or undervalued. It would encourage Canadians to see jury service not as an inconvenience, but as a meaningful contribution to justice. It would signal to those who have served that their efforts are seen, respected and appreciated. There is also an educational dimension to the bill.”
“The bill speaks directly to that issue. It highlights the well-being and mental health of jurors who are paramount to the proper functioning of our justice system. A justice system that relies on jurors must also support them. Recognition is not a substitute for reform, but it is a necessary step. By establishing jury duty appreciation week, we would create an opportunity to raise awareness about the realities of jury service, to encourage conversation about juror supports and to remind Canadians that this civic duty deserves respect and attention. (1355) Some may argue that a commemorative week is merely symbolic, and that it does not change policy, funding or programs. While it is true that the bill would not create new financial supports or legal mechanisms, it is, at its heart, an act of recognition. Symbolism matters in a democracy.”
“Its preamble clearly states that jury duty is a vital component of our justice system and our democracy. That is not symbolic language. It is a statement of fact. Yet, despite this critical role, jurors often serve in relative anonymity. They are rarely publicly acknowledged. Their contributions are seldom celebrated. Too often, the challenges they face, particularly those related to mental health and financial strain, are not completely addressed. We must be honest about the burdens of jury service. Serving on a jury can mean time away from work, lost income and disruptions to family life. In some cases, jurors are exposed to traumatic evidence, graphic details, distressing images and heartbreaking testimony. These experiences do not simply disappear when a trial ends. For many jurors, the psychological impact lingers.”
“They are citizens, ordinary individuals, entrusted with an extraordinary responsibility to weigh evidence, to assess credibility and ultimately determine the fate of another human being within our criminal justice system. That responsibility is immense. Jurors are often asked to listen, sometimes for weeks or months, to testimony that can be disturbing, emotional and deeply challenging. They set aside personal biases, they follow strict legal instructions and they deliberate with fairness and integrity. In doing so, they safeguard one of the most fundamental principles of our legal system: the right to trial by a jury of one's peers. Without jurors, our justice system simply cannot function as intended. This bill recognizes that reality.”
“At its core, Bill S-226 would designate the second week of May each year as jury duty appreciation week across Canada. Some may ask why such a recognition matters. Why designate a week for something that has long existed as a civic obligation? The answer, is simple: Jury service is not just a duty, it is a cornerstone of justice in a free and democratic society and, like many cornerstones, it is often overlooked until we pause to reflect on its importance. Every year, thousands of Canadians are called upon to serve as jurors. They come from all walks of life; they are teachers, tradespeople, parents, students and retirees. They are not legal experts. They are not politicians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the good residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for placing their trust in me to be their voice. This particular speech has some special significance to me. As a former justice participant, I probably participated in close to 50 jury trials. I personally know the importance, the sacrifices and all the consequences that flow from serving on a jury. It could be a couple of days, it could be several weeks or it could be several months, depending on the circumstances. I could not be prouder as a representative of the House of Commons, given my background, to support this particular bill. The bill itself may appear modest in scope, but carries profound meaning for our justice system, our democracy and the everyday Canadians who uphold both.”
“Mr. Speaker, hot air and no results, more of the same is exactly what Canadians are getting: reckless spending that never stops, billions on consultants, billions on their failed gun grab, billions on high-speed rail and more waste, inflation and pressure on Canadians. When the Prime Minister says that affordability has never been better, is that what he calls record prices and the worst food inflation in the G7? Will the Prime Minister cut the waste and bring down his out-of-control spending or is he just another Liberal?”
“Mr. Speaker, with these Liberals, it is more spending, more debt, more inflation and more of the same. They tell Canadians that things are under control, but this Prime Minister doubled Trudeau's deficit, adding $90 billion in net new spending. Now debt interest costs Canadians $55 billion a year, more than we spend on health transfers. The C.D. Howe Institute says, “Fiscal excess has...undermined economic growth and living standards.” Translation: Reckless Liberal spending is making Canadians poor. Next week, this government tables its fiscal update. Will it doom Canadians to more of the same?”
“Mr. Speaker, here she goes again, talking tough and delivering nothing. The Liberals had the chance to protect victims and restore public safety, but voted against our jail not bail act, the consecutive sentences act and the one law for all to finally jail criminals. Liberal soft-on-crime laws continue to let violent repeat offenders roam free, handing out judicial discounts while Canadians pay the price. These Liberals keep recycling the same empty promises and the same illusions. How many more Canadians have to suffer before these Liberals admit their failure and stop giving criminals a judicial discount?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stood in the House and promised to keep violent repeat offenders off our street, but it turns out that was just another speech, just another illusion. Violent crime is up 55%, and Canadians are watching violent offenders walk free with judicial discounts instead of real consequences. Speech after speech, the Liberals talk tough but deliver nothing. How many more empty speeches will it take before these Liberals stop the illusions and finally deliver justice for victims?”
“I encourage players, coaches and staff to keep their sticks on the ice, keep grinding and keep bringing the heat to the eastern conference finals. Brantford is behind them all the way, and we are ready to see that J. Ross Robertson Cup come home. Go, Bulldogs!”
“Mr. Speaker, the Brantford Bulldogs are off to the eastern conference finals tomorrow after eight straight playoff wins. They have had a historic season, leading the eastern conference into the playoffs with an impressive 106 points and 48 wins, finishing atop the league. Shift after shift, this team is working, skating and playing hard. They are winning battles, lighting the lamp and locking it down in their end. Back home in Brantford, we can feel it: the buzz in the arena, the roar of the crowd and a community rallying behind every goal, hit and save. This is playoff hockey at its best, and the Bulldogs are leading the charge. As a lifelong Brantford resident, I am proud to be a long-time supporter of the team that brings our community together.”
“Our plan would eliminate all federal taxes on fuel until the end of the year, which would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ and save families over $1,200. Canadians do not need half measures and Liberal headlines. They need real relief, and only Conservatives are fighting to deliver it.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberal government has proven it is out of touch and out of ideas. While Canadians struggle to afford essentials, the Prime Minister has failed to listen, instead borrowing Conservative solutions without delivering full benefits. Across the country, Canadians are paying 51¢ more on gas and 75¢ more on diesel, which is almost 20% more than Americans. Producers are raising the alarm about the impact this will have on food prices. Canadian farmers say they will face extremely high grocery prices, which will be going up 25% to 50%. Canada already has the highest food inflation in the G7. That is why Conservatives have brought forward a plan to respond to Canadian needs and deliver on affordability when people need it most.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is another illusion that the Prime Minister cares about affordability. For four months, just over four months, he is going to drop taxes by 10¢ on gas and four cents per litre on diesel. Will the member support a common-sense solution that delivers real, tangible results to Canadians and support our motion to provide an extra 25¢ of relief for the rest of 2026? Will she do that?”
“Again, they said that it was in our minds or that it had never been their responsibility. Although they are responsible for the creation of the Criminal Code of Canada, they say that it is the province's fault, the judge's fault or law enforcement's fault. It literally took major stakeholders' kicking and screaming at the government for it to wake up and realize that it is the author of the misfortune in which we find ourselves in this nation: 11 years of significant rising crime. The Liberals have themselves to blame for that.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely excellent question, because it shows the hypocrisy of the government when it claims it is exercising its number one responsibility, which is to keep Canadians safe. Its members routinely turn a blind eye, or they vote down every common-sense justice initiative because it comes from the Conservative bench. A case in point is the abysmal, absolutely disgusting vote results of two weeks ago for common-sense justice bills, private members' bills presented to the House to be voted on, which would have made a fundamental impact in the lives of victims and the way criminals are dealt with in this country. Every member of the failed Liberal government voted them down. Every member of the government continually said that bail is not an issue.”
“Its approach was that there was nothing wrong with public safety in this country and that it was all an illusion in our mind. That was from the former attorney general, Arif Virani, literally minutes after being sworn in as our Attorney General. I use that as a framework to describe how the government is always reactive as opposed to being proactive. On the issue of Bill C-22 , it is all about finding the right balance, and that was the theme of my speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague from the government side listened to my entire speech. I was talking generally about the approach the Liberal government has taken toward justice and public safety bills. In my view, it tends to be rushed. It tends to be only after the fact, after there is an outpouring of concern. A case in point is the whole issue regarding bail. I have been addressing this ever since I became an elected member for my riding. I know that my colleague from British Columbia has done the same. In fact, pretty much every member of the Conservative Party has been raising issues surrounding public safety and bail. It was only after there was an outpouring of concern from premiers, police chiefs, presidents of police associations, and victim advocacy groups that the government walked back its approach.”
“Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the work my Bloc colleague and I do together on the justice committee. He raises a very important point. It is emblematic of the approach the Liberal government usually takes, most recently with any criminal justice policy, which is that there is a very select focus on whom it receives information from. There is not broad consideration, which there should be. My colleague raises the point that a lot of other groups, a lot of other entities, that have a stake in this discussion were never consulted. We will ensure that, when the bill gets to the justice committee, we provide the necessary window of opportunity for those stakeholders to provide their necessary input to strengthen the bill, while still providing the necessary oversights and ensuring that the privacy rights of Canadians are always protected.”
“We are no longer in an analog society. We are in a digital society, so we need to find the right balance that gives the police the authority to obtain information while still maintaining the privacy rights of Canadians. We have to get that balance right.”
“Mr. Speaker, I fondly remember our past careers. I would usually take an opportunity to invite my colleague, who worked for a Hamilton news agency, because there was a lack of resources in my community. One of the frustrating aspects of my job as a prosecutor was how I was going to telegraph a message to the community by way of general deterrence if the press was not picking up on the stories. I always welcomed the opportunity for my friend and colleague to come to Brantford to report on them. The member is absolutely correct. Policing generally has to rely upon tools to gather the necessary information. As I have indicated, one of the criticisms of the bill is that we are lagging behind in terms of providing the police with the necessary tools. All our laws right now have been built around an analog society.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Windsor West, for his decades of service in law enforcement. He is absolutely correct. The time has come, in the modern digital age and where we stand as a nation in the 21st century, to recognize that the sharing of information among agencies is crucial. I do not think that Bill C-22 goes far enough. I do not believe I read any specific provision in Bill C-22 that would alleviate the concerns of my colleague. This is an opportunity for us to get the bill to committee to listen to subject matter experts, particularly from the policing field, and to correct this glaring oversight. I thank my colleague for the important observation.”
“The government will point to increased oversight [through the Intelligence Commissioner], but the concerns regarding surveillance capabilities, security vulnerabilities, secrecy, and cross-border data sharing remain.” A mixed opinion comes from the Canadian Bar Association, which says that while Bill C-22 “narrows the...powers from C-2 and increases some oversight, it also expands international cooperation in law enforcement.” Part 2 of the bill is seen as disastrous in their opinion, opening back doors for CSIS and the police to “get real-time access to their information”. Further, “systematic vulnerabilities are not defined [as specifically] as they are in Australia”, despite the bill including language that requires that the government not introduce “systemic vulnerabilities into these systems”.”
“He says that Bill C-22 significantly improves the timely access to data and information, which was in part 1 of Bill C-2 , while worsening the privacy concerns in part 2 of the new bill, but transforming the way that governments will interact with digital platforms and communication providers. He also says that the new “confirmation of service” demand power in part 1 addresses a long-standing police complaint regarding timely access to information, and part 2 covers “new requirements for communications providers to actively work with law enforcement on their surveillance and monitoring capabilities....”
“...The results [of Bill C-22 ] will be more investigations solved in a timely manner, a less cumbersome process, and a strong lawful access framework that maintains the data privacy of Canadians. Those with mixed opinion include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Businesses understand that “Canada needs modern tools to fight crime”, but they recognize that “strong encryption and consumer privacy are fundamental for our economic and national security.” They want to see Bill C-22 provide “surgical, proportionate” tools to law enforcement. Another mixed opinion is from Dr. Michael Geist.”
“Bill C-22 adds a “data retention provision...that raises...additional privacy concerns.” Those who support the bill include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which sees this legislation as “intended to modernize Canada's lawful access regime” and improve its “ability to investigate crime and protect the public in the digital age.” It continues: ...investigators often rely on digital evidence to identify suspects, locate victims, and prevent further harm. Today, many of these crimes are...committed using digital platforms or encrypted communications. Canada's legal framework governing warrants, searches, and seizures was created [for an analog] world [and] allows offenders to [evade] accountability.”
“I will give members a flavour of some of the comments from these three groups. A passage from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which opposes the bill, reads, “This legislation presents one of the greatest threats to privacy in Canada of the past two decades.” The changes from Bill C-2 to Bill C-22 do not go “far enough” in addressing the charter compliance concerns with Bill C-2.”
“Civil liberty groups strongly oppose the bill. This is by no means an exhaustive list. Some examples of groups that support the bill would be the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the BC Association of Chiefs of Police, and the B.C. public safety minister, Nina Krieger. Those who have mixed opinions on the bill and who seek amendment include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Dr. Michael Geist, the Canadian Bar Association and Dr. Robert Diab, professor of law at Thompson Rivers University. (1625) Those who flat out oppose this piece of legislation include the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and the Yanik Guillemette technology and entrepreneurship industry.”
“We will insist on the right balance, one that protects public safety while safeguarding the privacy and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians, because Canadians should never have to choose between being safe and being free. I want to highlight some of the stakeholder reactions that I have been able to access so far with respect to Bill C-22 . Law enforcement clearly welcomes Bill C-22 as a needed change to the legal frameworks for warrants and searches in Canada, for timely information gathering. The legal profession is skeptical of the bill. While they welcome the amendments from Bill C-2 , they are doubtful of its efficacy and of the charter compliance contained in part 2. The business community acknowledges the need for modern law enforcement but is wary of higher regulatory burdens and the impact on innovation and encryption.”
“We will hear from law enforcement and consider the views of civil liberty organizations. We will do the work necessary to ensure that any final legislation reflects the interests of Canadians, not the political priorities of the Liberal government. Canadians deserve to be safe. They deserve a justice system that works, and they deserve a government that gets it right the first time. Unfortunately, that has not been the trademark of the Liberal government. That is why it falls to this House to do the necessary hard work of scrutiny, accountability and improvement. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' safety, their privacy and their fundamental freedoms. We will scrutinize the legislation carefully.”
“We have all read and seen reports that the RCMP has struggled to recruit enough officers to meet operational needs. We have seen gaps in resources, coordination and leadership. Therefore, when the government brings forward legislation like Bill C-22 , Canadians are right to ask if this is part of a coherent plan to improve public safety or if it is another isolated measure that fails to address the root problems. Tools alone are not enough. We need the people, the resources and the leadership to make those tools effective. Conservatives believe in giving police the tools they need, but we also believe in accountability. We believe in getting that balance right, and we believe that any legislation must be clear, targeted and respectful of Canadian rights. That is why we will be carefully reviewing the bill. We will listen to experts.”
“While the government argues that this is necessary to modernize our investigative framework, we must ensure that we are not creating a system that overreaches or lacks sufficient accountability. At the same time, we simply cannot ignore the broader context. Public safety and, I would add, trust in our federal institutions and in our democracy have been deteriorating. (1620) Canadians are seeing rising violent crime, repeat offenders cycling through the system and a growing sense that the justice system is not working for them. In fact, many victims do not even refer anymore to “the Canadian justice system”. They do not see it as justice for them, as they have been ignored for over 11 years. They see it simply as a legal system. At the same time, we have seen failures in basic areas of law enforcement capacity.”
“We must ensure that data retention requirements, particularly those that apply broadly, are necessary, proportionate and consistent with the charter. We also must ensure that any obligations placed on service providers are clear and reasonable and do not create any unintended consequences for innovation or privacy. This is especially important given the scope of this bill, which creates a new framework governing how electronic service providers must support lawful access. These provisions raise complex legal and technical questions. They involve requirements for data retention, technical capabilities and compliance mechanisms that could have far-reaching implications.”
“In fact, the Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the government did not even consult his office before attempting to grant itself these sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers like banks and telecommunications companies without a warrant. Conservatives stood up, pushed back and forced the Liberals to retreat. Now, with Bill C-22 , Canadians are right to be cautious. Any expansion of state power, whether through lower legal thresholds, new data demands or broad retention requirements, must be tightly limited, clearly justified and subject to real oversight. We will never accept a repeat of the same overreach simply dressed up in new language. We must ensure that any lowering of legal thresholds does not come at the expense of Canadians' fundamental rights.”
“We have seen measures that go either too far, risking Canadians' rights, or simply not far enough, failing to deliver real public safety concerns. Bill C-22 reintroduces elements from Bill C-2 , and that alone demands careful scrutiny. Conservatives will not simply take the government at its word. We will examine the details, test the assumptions and ensure that any new powers are justified, targeted and subject to proper oversight, because Canadians have already seen what happens when the Liberal government rushes ahead without regard for Canadians' privacy. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is but one example. In Bill C-2 , the Liberals tried to give themselves sweeping, unjustified access to personal information without the appropriate safeguards and without respect for the fundamental rights of law-abiding Canadians.”
“We know that delays in accessing basic subscriber information will often stall investigations. Quite often that is the difference between making an arrest and not. We know that gaps in international co-operation can allow serious offenders to evade accountability. We know that technological limitations can prevent police from acting on leads that protect victims. (1615) These are the real challenges, and they deserve real solutions. The question before us is not whether action is needed. The question is whether the Liberal government can be trusted to get it right, because over the last 11 years its track record suggests otherwise. As I have indicated, we have seen legislation that is rushed, overly broad and insufficiently thought through.”
“Conservatives did our job. We pushed back, and we forced the government to reconsider that flawed piece of legislation. We successfully blocked provisions that would have infringed on the rights of law-abiding Canadians. Now, with Bill C-22 , we are once again being asked to consider a lawful access framework. Let me be abundantly clear that there is a real issue here. As someone who has spent close to two decades in the legal system, I understand first-hand how critical timely access to digital evidence is in modern investigations. Today's criminals do not operate in the same world as they did 20 or 30 years ago. They are always several steps ahead of law enforcement. As a result, our law enforcement agencies must have the appropriate tools they need to keep pace.”
“We have always stood for measures that keep Canadians safe while respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms that are enshrined in our charter and define our country. I know that Liberals often talk about being the only party that stands on behalf of the charter, but that is not the case. For nearly a decade now, we have been urging the government to get this balance right. Unfortunately, what Canadians have seen instead is a pattern of failure, a pattern where the government lags behind evolving threats, introduces flawed legislation, and then expects Parliament to clean up its mess. We saw that just last fall when it introduced Bill C-2 . That piece of legislation fell well short of protecting Canadians, while at the same time it overreached into areas that raise serious concerns about individual freedoms and privacy.”
“We know that crime is evolving, technology is advancing and law enforcement is facing new challenges in accessing the evidence it needs to investigate serious offences. No one in the House disputes that reality, but Canadians also expect that, when governments respond to those challenges, they do so carefully and not in a rushed manner. They will do it responsibly and with a clear understanding of the consequences. Unfortunately, that has not been the standard approach of the government. Time and again over the last 11 years, we have seen legislation from the Liberal government that is rushed, is poorly thought out and ultimately fails to strike the right balance between public safety and individual liberties. Conservatives have always believed, and will always believe, in law and order.”
“Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege and honour to speak on behalf of the great citizens of my riding, particularly on an important bill such as this. As a former member of the justice system, I know the great difficulty that law enforcement has had. Unfortunately, Canada has been an outlier in how efficiently law enforcement can gain access to information. Ultimately, the bill is a step in the right direction, but certainly much improvement is required. I will start off with the general notion that Canadians expect their government to do two things well. Canadians expect it to, number one, keep them safe and, number two, protect their fundamental rights and freedoms. In today's world, that balance is becoming increasingly complex.”
“We have an opportunity to correct a clear and painful gap in our legal system. I urge all members of the House, on all sides, to stand with victims' families, to stand for accountability and to support Bill C-236 .”
“I would urge all members of the House to look beyond politics on this issue, to consider the families who are still waiting for answers, to consider the dignity of those who have been lost, and to consider the very clear message we send if we fail to act. Justice is not only about what happens in a courtroom. It is about whether families are able to move forward with dignity, with answers, and most importantly, with the truth. When an offender chooses to withhold a location, they are not simply remaining silent. They are prolonging the suffering, and they are extending the harm of their crime day after day, year after year. The bill would ensure that our justice system recognizes that reality. It is measured, it is charter-compliant, and it is rooted in a simple principle: that victims and their families matter.”
“It would preserve discretion and avoid automatic penalties, and it would fit squarely within existing legal principles. This is not a sweeping reform. It is not a broad overhaul of sentencing law. It is a targeted, measured response to a very specific and very real problem, and yes, it might apply to only a small number of cases each year, but for those families, those parents, those children and those loved ones, it would mean everything. Conservatives often speak in this House about putting victims first. We hear that from time to time from the Liberals. This is an opportunity for all of us to do exactly that, to acknowledge victims' pain, validate their experience and take a concrete step to support them.”
“(1635) It would apply as well to temporary absences, including unescorted absences and even certain humanitarian requests, because it is entirely reasonable to ask, “If an offender continues to withhold critical information about a victim, have they truly demonstrated rehabilitation, and have they truly accepted responsibility?” The bill seeks to recognize the consequences of continued deliberate non-cooperation, and it would ensure that our justice system is equipped to respond to that reality. Some may argue that these factors are already considered informally, but if that is the case, then there should be no hesitation in codifying them. If we already believe this matters, then we should say so clearly in law. The bill has been carefully drafted to respect the charter.”