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 3 of 9.
“For serious sentences, those exceeding two years to life, the court may order that full parole eligibility be delayed until half the sentence has been served, or 10 years, whichever is less. Importantly, that order can be revisited if the offender chooses to co-operate. This would create something that does not currently exist: a meaningful incentive to do the right thing, to tell the truth, to provide answers and to allow families to grieve. The bill would also strengthen the role of the Parole Board. It would make clear that ongoing refusal to disclose the location of remains can be grounds to deny parole.”
“While the McCann case is a powerful and tragic example, it is certainly not an isolated one. Across this country, there have been multiple cases where families have been left without answers, and where offenders, even after conviction, refused to disclose the location of remains. In each of these cases, the pain does not end with the trial or sentencing. It continues indefinitely, because the truth is being deliberately withheld. The bill recognizes that this is not a one-off injustice but a recurring gap in our legal system that demands a legislative response. Let me be very clear about what the legislation would do. At sentencing, a judge would be required to consider an offender's refusal to disclose the location as an aggravating factor. If the judge chooses not to consider it, they must explain why.”
“It continues every single day that a family is denied answers and every single day that a parent, a child or a sibling is left wondering, “Where are they?” We need only to look at the case that inspired the bill. In 2010, Lyle and Marie McCann were brutally murdered. Their son, Bret, has lived with unimaginable grief, but that grief has been compounded and even intensified because the animal responsible has refused to say where their bodies are. To this day, the McCann family has had no grave to visit, no proper funeral and no true closure. As Bret McCann himself said, by withholding that information, the offender continues to revictimize the family. That is exactly right. That is not silence; it is ongoing harm, yet under our current system, there is no explicit requirement for judges or parole boards to consider that refusal.”
“It would do so in a targeted, thoughtful and charter-compliant way. It would not remove judicial discretion or impose automatic penalties, and it would not upend the principles of our justice system. Instead, the bill would do something both simple and profoundly important. It would ensure that when an offender refuses to disclose the location of a victim's remains, that refusal would be treated as a serious and relevant factor in sentencing, at parole and in conditional release decisions. The bill recognizes ongoing harm, because the truth is this: When an offender withholds the location of a victim's remains, the crime does not end at conviction; it continues.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill C-236 , introduced by my colleague and friend the hon. member for Parkland . It is a bill that speaks to something fundamental, not just in our justice system but also in our shared humanity. It is about dignity and accountability, and above all it is about justice for victims and their families. For most Canadians, when a loved one passes, there is a process. There is mourning, a funeral and a place to visit, to remember and to grieve, but for far too many families, that process is stolen from them. It is stolen by individuals who commit the most horrific crimes imaginable and then choose to withhold the very information that would allow families to lay their loved ones to rest. Bill C-236 seeks to address this very injustice.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. This country is rooted in faith. We have faith communities and faith organizations right across this country, and they do not accept for one minute this Liberal narrative. Liberals say Canadians and faith communities have nothing to worry about and that they are still protected by the charter. It is that same false, erroneous argument they sold to Canadians when they invoked the Emergencies Act. They had their hands slapped twice because they breached a number of constitutional rights. I suspect that even if the Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear this case, they are going to get their hands slapped again. Canadians do not trust the Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, sadly, and she is probably not surprised by this, I certainly do not agree with anything my colleague had to say. The justice committee did not debate this particular amendment in good faith. There were no witnesses called. There were no expressions by any of the Liberal members to support the Bloc amendment. The only person who raised it was the Bloc representative on the justice committee. He did not call any witnesses to justify why Canada was ready to remove a five-decade-old offence. That is the question that needs to be answered: Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, through all that bluster and noise, I thought I had opened up the door for any member of the Liberal government to stand up and speak directly to the millions of Canadians who would be impacted and are concerned about the position the Liberal government is taking. Why was the bill never drafted to include the removal of a 56-year-old defence? What were the circumstances that caused the government to have a backroom deal with the Bloc Québécois to now remove that defence? Why can the member not justify that reason?”
“Amendment Therefore, I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clause 4 with the view to amend the Bill so as to restore paragraph 319(3)(b) and paragraph 319(3.1)(b) of the Act, in order to preserve longstanding safeguards for good faith religious expression, address concerns raised by a broad range of religious communities across Canada, and protect freedom of expression and religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“Will it listen to the millions of Canadians who have spoken out, or will it continue down a path of rushed legislation, limited debate and unnecessary division? Conservatives will always proudly stand for freedom of expression and freedom of religion, full stop. Today we are giving the Liberal government one final opportunity to stand with us to restore these protections, to respect the concerns of Canadians and to ensure that our Criminal Code reflects both justice and freedom.”
“Through our motion, we are asking that Bill C-9 be sent back to committee for one simple purpose: to restore the religious defence in section 319 of the code, which are protections that have long safeguarded good-faith religious expression in Canada. That is a reasonable, targeted fix that would respond directly to the concerns raised by the broad range of religious communities and civil liberty advocates across this country. It would preserve the ability to combat hate while maintaining the constitutional balance that has guided Canadian law for decades. The question now is simple: Will the Liberal government listen? Will it listen to the legal experts who have raised constitutional concerns?”
“It is not whether hate should be condemned, as it should be, and not whether Canadians should be safe, as they must be, but whether Parliament is prepared to remove a long-standing defence for freedom of expression and freedom of religion without clear justification, without proper debate and in the face of widespread concern from Canadians. This is exactly what this bill would do. It would remove the safeguard that has existed for more than 50 years. It would do so after limiting the very debate meant to test such a change. Today, Conservatives are offering the Liberal government one more opportunity to get this right.”
“As Van Geyn wrote, “religious expression is messy, symbolic and deeply human.... These are precisely the areas where the criminal law must not tread.” That is a line we are now being asked to cross, and once crossed, it is not easily redrawn. This is not about protecting hate. It is about protecting the boundary between the state and the conscience of the individual. It is about ensuring that in Canada, the government does not become the arbiter of theology. This debate ultimately comes down to a question of principle.”
“(1720) This is legislation that would affect the Criminal Code, the most serious law we have, and it was rushed through without the scrutiny it demands, for political reasons only. This raises a deeper question. If the government is confident in this change, why not defend it? Why not allow it to be debated? Why not hear from Canadians and test the arguments openly? Instead, what we have seen is a government that has chosen speed over scrutiny, process over principle and politics over clarity. We also need to be clear about what this change would actually do. Calls to violence and incitement of hatred are already illegal in Canada and have been so for decades. They are not protected by the religious defence. They never have been. What this defence does is protect good-faith religious expression.”
“She notes that the court viewed these defences as essential to ensuring that the law minimally impairs freedom of expression. If we remove that safeguard, we do not simply change the law. We risk undermining the very basis on which it was upheld. That is not a theoretical concern. That is a constitutional reality, yet, despite these warnings, these concerns and the clear need for careful study, what did the government do? It shut down debate. Through its programming motion, the government forced this bill through committee. Clause-by-clause consideration resumed under conditions where no further debate was permitted, no amendments could be meaningfully examined, and even the reading of the amendments themselves was curtailed.”
“She wrote that removing the religious defence would gut the defence that protects good-faith religious opinion or speech rooted in religious texts, and cautioned that the Liberals do not have justification for dismantling a safeguard that protects millions of Canadians from state intrusion into matters of faith. That is the core issue. Parliament does not legislate for the most extreme example. It legislates for the millions of ordinary Canadians whose rights depend on the clarity and balance of our laws. Van Geyn also pointed to something even more significant: the constitutional foundation of the law itself. In the Supreme Court's decision of Keegstra, the hate propaganda provisions were upheld because of the statutory defences, including the religious defence.”
“As was noted at committee and in submissions, Canadians hold a wide range of beliefs that some may not agree with, but in a free society, disagreement is not grounds for criminalization. That is the principle that has guided our law for decades, yet the government is now proposing to remove one of the key safeguards that protects that principle. Christine Van Geyn of the Canadian Constitution Foundation put it clearly in her analysis of this bill. She warned that what is being proposed here is not simply a technical adjustment but rather a fundamental shift.”
“What we have heard instead are shifting justifications, vague references, and an inability to articulate why a long-standing defence, one that has formed part of the legal balance in Canada's hate speech laws since 1970, should suddenly be removed. Meanwhile, outside this chamber, Canadians have been speaking, and they have been speaking so loudly. Civil liberties organizations, legal experts and faith communities across this country have all raised concerns. We are not talking about a narrow group or a fringe issue. We are talking about millions of Canadians, constituting Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and others, who have spoken out against this change and directly written to every single Liberal MP on the other side of the House.”
“It is a bill that has been altered mid-debate in a way that raises serious legal, constitutional and moral concerns, and we have a government that still refuses to explain why. The central issue before the House is the removal of the religious defence from section 319 of the Criminal Code, a protection that has existed for 56 years. The government did not campaign on removing it, nor was it in the original bill or even introduced after broad consultation. It appeared late in the process through an amendment supported by the Liberals and the Bloc, and since that moment, Canadians have been asking one simple question: Why? To this day, not one member of the Liberal Party has been able to give a clear answer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the second time this week to speak to Bill C-9 , after the Liberals rammed it through committee and this House and are censoring debate on their own censorship bill. At third reading, we are no longer deliberating intentions. We are deciding consequences. The consequence of Bill C-9, as it now stands, is clear: a fundamental change to Canada's Criminal Code that the Liberals have never been able to properly justify, even today. Let us be clear at the outset: Conservatives believe that hate is real. We believe that Canadians of every faith deserve to be safe in their communities and free from intimidation, violence and harassment. However, what we are dealing with today is not simply a bill about protecting communities.”
“In fact, in a previous Parliament, members of the Liberal Party supported the legislation. This should never be a partisan issue. This is about doing what is right. This is about listening to victims, and this is about making a targeted, thoughtful improvement to our justice system. At its core, Bill C-235 asks a simple question: When someone commits the most horrific combination of crimes, abduction, sexual assault and murder, should families be forced to relive that trauma every two years after 25 years have been served, or can we, as legislators, take a measured step to provide them with some degree of peace? I believe that answer is abundantly clear, and I believe Canadians expect us to act. Let us stand with victims. Let us stand with families, and let us pass Bill C-235 .”
“There have been cases across the country that have shaken communities, cases that have devastated families and remind us, time after time, why this legislation is so important, and cases where the brutality of the crime defies comprehension and where families are left not only grieving but navigating a system that seems to prioritize process over humanity. While each case is unique, the pattern is the same: unimaginable loss followed by years, sometimes decades, of forced engagement with the criminal responsible. Bill C-235 offers a different path, a path that still respects due process and judicial discretion and a path that better reflects the reality faced by victims' families. I also want to note that this is not a new idea. Previous versions of the bill have received strong support in the past.”
“The financial impact on Correctional Service Canada would be minimal, but the impact on families and on victims would be significant. This is a small change in law, but a profound change in lived experience. It is consistent with the principle that Conservatives have always stood for: holding offenders accountable, while showing compassion and respect for victims. We believe that when crimes reach this level of brutality, the justice system must respond accordingly. We believe that protecting victims from further harm is not optional; it is actually essential. We believe that anything we can do to hold offenders more accountable for these heinous crimes is a step in the right direction.”
“They speak about a system that forces them into a never-ending cycle, one where they are just about to begin to rebuild their lives when they are pulled back into a process to reopen wounds that never truly heal. They speak about the emotional toll, the financial burden, the anxiety, the fear and the lack of closure. (1835) Bill C-235 responds directly to all those concerns. It acknowledges that justice is not only about the offender. It is also about the lasting impact on those left behind. It takes a meaningful step to reduce that burden. We also know that this bill is limited in scope. Fewer than 10 cases per year would meet this threshold. These individuals are already serving life sentences, and in most cases they will never be released.”
“Instead, it would actually empower judges, after considering the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and, importantly, the recommendation from the jury, to determine whether a longer period of parole ineligibility is appropriate. That is a careful, measured approach. It respects the role of the courts and, most importantly, it respects the charter. It respects the voices of Canadians, through the jury system, who may wish to weigh in on what justice looks like in these most serious cases. This is not about being extreme. This is about being fair: fair to victims, fair to families and fair to a public that expects our justice system to reflect the severity of the crimes being committed. We have heard from victims' families across the country. We have heard their frustrations, their exhaustion and their pain.”
“It is generational and often permanent, so when we talk about increasing parole ineligibility, we are not talking about punishment for the sake of punishment. We are talking about accountability. Equally important, we are talking about peace, peace for families who should not have to structure their lives around parole hearings every two years, peace for parents who should not have to relive the loss of their child every two years, and peace for loved ones who should not be forced to hear again and again the details of crimes that shattered their world. Bill C-235 strikes the right balance. It would not impose a mandatory extension. It would not remove judicial discretion.”
“The legislation proposes a targeted, reasonable and proportionate reform. It would allow judges, after hearing from a jury, to extend parole eligibility from 25 years up to 40 years, not in every case, not broadly, but only in the most egregious of circumstances, where three elements are present: the abduction, sex assault and murder of the same victim as part of the same event or series of events. These are not ordinary crimes. These are the most depraved, calculated and devastating offences imaginable, and Canadians understand that. Families understand that. They understand that when someone commits all three of these acts against a single victim, the harm is not just irreparable. It is enduring.”
“It means that after 25 years, families are drawn back into the system, often every two years thereafter, to attend parole hearings, hearings where they feel obligated to be present, hearings where they must prepare statements, hearings where they must again confront the individual responsible for the destruction of their family. We know that in these most heinous cases, parole is almost never granted. We are not talking about individuals who are realistically going to be released. We are talking about individuals the likes of Paul Bernardo, like Clifford Olson, individuals who have used these hearings not as a step toward rehabilitation but as an opportunity to reassert control, to retraumatize families and to force them to relive unspeakable acts. That is the reality. That is why Bill C-235 matters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this particular bill, Bill C-235 , introduced by my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford . This is a bill rooted in something very simple yet too often overlooked in our justice system, which is respect for victims and their families. For far too many Canadians, justice does not end at sentencing. For the families of victims who have endured the unimaginable in the form of the abduction, sex assault and murder of a loved one, the trauma does not fade with time. In many cases, it is forced back into their lives again and again, through a system that compels them to relive their worst nightmare every day. Under current law, offenders convicted of first-degree murder are eligible for parole after 25 years. What does that actually mean in practice?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent. I have been here most of the day, listening to a number of interventions by the Liberals, particularly the member for Winnipeg North . He sounds like a broken record. He has been able to identify one lawyer in Toronto who actually supports the removal of the religious defence. I have listened to the member over a number of days, and that is the only example he can cite. Given that this was never the intention of the Liberal government when it introduced Bill C-9 in Parliament and that it was clearly done in the middle of a review of Bill C-9, what does the member think about why now the government is unable to articulate the real reason it is supporting the Bloc amendment?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. As I indicated in my speech, I am sure that the Liberal Party is a deeply divided caucus when it comes to Bill C-9 . Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Larry Brock: Mr. Speaker, to the people who are heckling me now and to the member for Winnipeg North , we heard from people from Winnipeg, we heard from faith leaders in Winnipeg, and they are absolutely disgusted with the antics of the Liberal government in choosing to ram through a piece of legislation without proper consideration or proper debate. This was for political reasons, not through evidentiary issues or proper debate in the House of Commons. It is disgusting.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. That is the problem. The government chose not to call any evidence whatsoever to support the Bloc amendment that would remove this 56-year-old religious defence. We asked for more meetings, something that was denied by the Liberal Party. In fact, it was even denied by the member from the Bloc Québécois who sits on the justice committee. We asked for a proper and vigorous study on this defence. We were turned down. We could have focused on the real issues that Canadians are facing, such as the rising crime levels based on 11 years of a soft-on-crime agenda. We wanted to get to Bill C-14 . In fact, we raised the issue before Christmas on 16 occasions. The government chose, every time, to stifle our ability to prioritize community safety instead of going after—”
“Mr. Speaker, what an absolutely ridiculous preamble and a ridiculous question. It is the same approach the Liberal government took for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The Liberals said to Canadians, “You have nothing to worry about. Your charter rights are temporarily suspended, but the balance of those charter rights will be upheld.” Now we have had two decisions from the Federal Court, and the Liberals waited until the very last day to file their appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Canadians do not believe a word they have to say on not having to worry about any infringement on freedom of expression or freedom of religion. They cannot be trusted.”
“Canadians expect their Parliament to debate serious legal changes openly and transparently, legislation to be studied carefully and representatives to be allowed to do their job. Conservatives will always stand on the side of freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the country. We will not accept a government that shuts down debate to avoid accountability. We will defend open debate, proper scrutiny of the code and the fundamental principle that Parliament must never be silenced when it comes to laws that govern Canadians.”
“Bill C-9 now contains a controversial amendment that would remove a 50-year-old statutory defence, which was originally brought forth by a Liberal government, to balance the rights to protect Canadians from hate while still safeguarding legitimate expression of religious belief. Instead of allowing Parliament to fully examine that change and allowing members of the House to debate the consequences, the Liberals have chosen to ram the amendment through to silence the debate. They even told the opposition to “put up or shut up”. Now they are shutting down debate altogether. This is not how responsible criminal law is made or how democratic institutions are supposed to function, and it is certainly not how Parliament should be asked to amend the code.”
“Committee work was already under way before the backroom deal was brokered by the justice minister and the Bloc Québécois. Amendments were being debated, and a path existed to pass protections for places of worship immediately. Instead of working with Parliament, the government chose to shut down debate and ram the bill through Parliament. The Liberals are now censoring debate on their very own censorship bill. The Criminal Code is the most serious law Parliament writes. It governs the most serious offences and carries the most serious consequences for Canadians. Changes to it must be approached with care, scrutiny and full parliamentary debate.”
“Despite all of this push-back, the government has chosen to double down and not listen. We even proposed a simple and responsible solution of splitting Bill C-9 . It has been done in the past when we have taken out a poisonous pill. We could immediately pass the provisions dealing with protection of places of worship, protection of cultural centres and offences dealing with obstruction and intimidation, and then study squarely the removal of the religious defence. This approach would have allowed protections for religious communities to pass immediately, yet the government refused and instead chose to ram through its controversial amendment. The Liberals now claim that the Conservatives are obstructing, but the reality is the opposite.”
“More than 500 churches and Christian organizations have called on Parliament to restore explicit protections for the good-faith expression of sincerely held religious beliefs within the Criminal Code. In the greater Toronto area, 44 rabbis issued an open letter to the government, warning that removing this defence could expose faith leaders, educators and religious individuals to potential criminal liability simply for reading, teaching or discussing passages from religious texts. This is not a narrow concern coming from one group or one perspective. We have been speaking to faith communities across this country, and there is a clear and broad consensus that this defence must be maintained. I am sure that every member of the Liberal government and party have heard loud and clear the opposition in their own communities.”
“In fact, the opposite is true. We have heard directly from Canadians across this country, including faith leaders, community organizations and civil liberty groups, who are deeply concerned about the direction the government is taking. Hundreds of organizations have spoken out against Bill C-9 , most notably about the removal of the religious defence. Over 350 Muslim community organizations have warned that Bill C-9, as currently drafted, would present serious harms to the civil liberties of all Canadian Muslims. They specifically pointed to the removal of the good-faith religious defence and warned that it would send a chilling effect through religious communities.”
“Changes to statutory defences are major legal decisions that occur infrequently and only after careful and serious debate, yet the Liberal government now wants to rush through the removal of a 50-year-old defence while simultaneously shutting down all debate. The removal of the religious defence occurred without meaningful stakeholder consultation. Religious communities across all faiths and backgrounds have raised concerns. Civil liberty organizations have raised concerns. Canadians did not ask for this amendment. Faith communities did not request this change. This was solely a political decision by the Liberal government, not a response to any demand from Canadians or stakeholders. (1205) This amendment was not driven by Canadians, requested by faith communities or the result of calls from civil liberty organizations.”
“Removing it would be a profound shift in Canadian criminal law, one that threatens to upset the careful balance between protecting Canadians from harm and protecting their fundamental freedoms. Parliament has occasionally removed or narrowed statutory defences, but these changes occur rarely and only with serious scrutiny. For example, in 1983, the Trudeau government removed a marital exemption that had prevented husbands from being charged with rape. This was a good move. In 1995, Parliament restricted the extreme intoxication defence following the Supreme Court's decision in Regina v. Daviault. This was another good move. In 2015, the Harper government narrowed the provocation defence to prevent misuse in honour killing cases, for a change that was much needed.”
“What makes this even more striking is that the very defence they are now trying to remove was originally put in place by their own party under Pierre Trudeau, as part of a careful and deliberate balance in Canadian law. This religious defence was originally introduced in 1970 under the Trudeau Liberal government as part of Bill C-3. The bill created Canada's modern hate propaganda provisions. At the time, Parliament deliberately included several statutory defences, including truth, good-faith religious expression based on religious texts, public interest and lack of intent. These protections ensured that good-faith religious discussion and theological debate would never be criminalized while still addressing hate propaganda. This defence was part of the original legislative balance when Canada created its very own hate speech laws.”
“This is a defence, I might add, that has been in the code for over 50 years. They did so, regrettably and shamelessly, without consulting the faith communities directly impacted. They did so without hearing from civil liberty experts. They did so without calling one witness. They did so without allowing Parliament the time to fully study the consequences of such a significant legal change. When those concerns were raised by religious leaders, legal experts and members of the House, the government members did not pause. They did not engage. Instead, they chose to shut down debate and force the bill through. This is why we are here today.”
“Motion No. 1 moved: That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting the short title. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this great House to speak to the great residents of my riding. I rise today to speak yet once again to Bill C-9 . It is a bill that has many Canadians across all faith communities deeply concerned, and for good reason. The bill was originally presented as a measure to protect places of worship, which is something every member of the House should support. Conservatives certainly do. However, this is not the bill before us today, because in the middle of the legislative process, the Liberal government made a deliberate political decision to fundamentally change its own legislation. At the last minute, the Liberals supported an amendment to remove a long-standing religious defence from the Criminal Code.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal committee members called no evidence whatsoever when witnesses were called to committee to study Bill C-9 . What evidentiary basis does my colleague think the government is relying on to support its justification for the removal of a 50-year-old defence?”
“Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague across the aisle on the justice committee. My question is very targeted and direct. How many times did that particular member and other Liberal members of the justice committee ask questions in support of the removal of this 50-year-old defence?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard this song before: “Trust us that the invocation of the Emergencies Act declaration is charter-compliant. Just trust us.” The then minister of justice, David Lametti, told Justice Rouleau that he could not give him his legal opinion, but just to trust him that it was charter-compliant. We all know now that it was not. Now we are hearing the same song and dance from the Liberal Party: “Trust us, religious groups. Trust us, Canadians. Your charter rights are still protected.” The question is very simple: Why should Canadians believe you now?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to again clear up misleading information from the Liberal Party and the secretary of state for crime, who is the author of that. She was not at committee. I was at committee for each and every meeting. There was not one witness called by the Liberal Party of Canada in support of the removal of this 50-year-old defence. Not one question was put to any witnesses by any Liberal committee members in support of the removal of the defence. Why do the political interests of the Liberal Party of Canada take precedence over Canadians?”
“Why did a political advantage mean more to the Liberal government than the will of the Canadian people and the faith leaders across this country who are adamantly opposed to the removal of this defence?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 , as drafted, did not seek the removal of a 50-plus-year-old legal defence, nor did any witnesses called by the Liberal committee members speak on behalf of the Liberal Party to remove this long-held defence. In fact, no interventions by any Liberal committee members sought clarification on the removal of the defence. We had moved to clause by clause, and we were progressing very well. In fact, there was more in common between the Liberals and the Conservatives on the terms of Bill C-9 than not, but approximately one week into clause-by-clause, all of a sudden a secret weekend backroom deal between the Minister of Justice and the Bloc Québécois took precedence.”