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 4 of 9.
“Madam Speaker, the justice minister promised Canadians that he was going to listen to them and that he was going to embark on consultations. I know, because my inbox is flooded with thousands of emails of concern, that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have written to Liberal MPs right across the country asking them to back off on supporting the removal of the religious defence. The Liberals are refusing to listen to Canadians, pure and simple.”
“Madam Speaker, for all those who have a fond recollection of some great comedy movies from the 1970s and 1980s, the simple answer to my colleague's question is “zero point zero”, which is a reference to Dean Wormer in Animal House . We heard from numerous witnesses. Not one Liberal committee member, including the parliamentary secretary , ever asked one question to support whether the removal of a five-decade-long religious defence was appropriate at this point in time in order to deal with the rising levels of anti-Semitism.”
“They should tell that to the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court trial judge who came to different conclusions. Canadians will not believe the Liberal government. If they do, I have a plot of swampland they can build a dream house on in Florida.”
“Madam Speaker, in typical Liberal hypocritical fashion, they are making the statement that Canadians and faith leaders have nothing to worry about once they remove this religious defence. Although it has been around for 50 years, they are going to take it away from them and then tell people not to worry because their charter rights are still protected. Where did we hear that before? We heard it during the invocation of the Emergencies Act. It was charter-compliant. We heard that from the former prime minister and the ministers. We heard it from David Lametti, who very arrogantly told Justice Rouleau that he was not going to provide him with his legal opinion and that he would just have to take his word for it that it was charter-compliant.”
“As I indicated, this was a 50-year-old defence, entrenched in the Criminal Code and brought in by Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself. It has been used sparingly and not successfully, but that in and of itself does not give licence to this hypocritical Liberal government to remove it for political reasons. I will wrap it up here. l look forward to questions and will probably elaborate a little more in my responses.”
“This was, and still is, a direct attack by the Liberal government on freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The Liberals had no business at all making a side, backroom deal in the middle of clause-by-clause consideration to support the Bloc amendment when the clause-by-clause consideration was progressing very well. There was every expectation that we would have come to an agreement, save and except this poisonous amendment by the Bloc Québécois, but no, the Liberal government chose this not because it was in Canada's best interests, not because it was in the best interests of religious leaders across this country, not to stop the rising levels of hatred and not to stop the attacks on the Jewish communities. It did this for purely selfish political reasons.”
“I don't understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible, though there are other religious texts that say the same thing. How do we somehow constitute this as being said in good faith? Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke...or be a defence. Here is the real interesting commentary by the minister and former chair: “There should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.” The moment that minister uttered those words at the justice committee, we received a flood of concerns right across this country, because those words sent a chill down the spine of every religious leader in this country and those who practise their faith.”
“Some amendments brought forward by Conservatives were even adopted by the committee as a whole. It is also important to understand how the government handled that process. Three scheduled committee meetings on the bill were cancelled without explanation. At least two meetings were gavelled out early, again without explanation. The reality is that this committee was engaged in active debate on the bill on the implications of removing the religious defence. In fact, during committee hearings, Liberal ministers even raised questions about religious texts and the scope of the defence. The current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture , when he was the chair of the committee, stated the following: I want to dig a bit into the concept of good faith.... In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred....”
“Then the chair would put every remaining question immediately without debate. Debate in the House would also be restricted. There would be only one sitting day at report stage and one sitting day at third reading. Votes are to be forced immediately after further debate. Now, let me have this next phrase really sink in. I know that the parliamentary secretary did not like my choice of words, but I am going to reference it again: The Liberal government is censoring debate on Bill C-9 , its own censorship bill. Clause-by-clause consideration of the bill began on November 27, 2025. However, the study of the bill began earlier, on October 9 of that same year. Since that time, the committee held eight meetings on Bill C-9 . Amendments were debated. Amendments were adopted.”
“Bill C-9 , if it were law today, would not have prevented the attacks that the GTA saw over the past weekend. Canadians need real leadership against anti-Semitism, not rushed legislation designed for political headlines. We recall the government House leader saying “put up or shut up” when we returned to start our 2026 legislative calendar. I believe that phrase perfectly captures the government's approach to Parliament. Instead of answering legitimate questions about the bill or listening to concerns raised in committee, the government has chosen to shut down debate through this motion. (1225) This motion would force the justice committee to immediately resume clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, whereupon all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved.”
“The article made it abundantly clear that Jewish Canadians and members of all religious denominations and faiths who are facing intimidation and attacks do not want hollow words from their political leaders. They want action. Jewish Canadians, in particular, have wanted action for almost two and a half years, while the Liberals sat in their seats and did not address this rising level of anti-Semitism in a fashion worthy of a federal government. These attacks are not the result of a missing clause in the Criminal Code. They are a symptom of the rising anti-Semitism that the Liberal government has failed to confront with clarity and strength. Let me be abundantly clear again, as I wish to be on the record to correct this parliamentary record.”
“In at least one incident, people were inside the synagogue at the time of the shooting. Jewish Canadians are increasingly feeling that their communities are under siege. There were a number of newspaper articles, and I am merely drawing attention to a few that I read yesterday and today. Today's headlines in the Toronto Sun are “Jews 'Under Attack'” and “Antisemitism out of control”. I am aware, as well, of a social media post by B'nai Brith, “Synagogues under attack. Enough words. Government must act now!” There was another article that I read in the Toronto Sun that talked about the typical responses from all political leaders, particularly the Liberal government, that anti-Semitism has no place in Canada.”
“Canadians of every faith must be able to gather and worship without fear from terrorists, from those individuals who would wish to intimidate and, more importantly, from the Liberal government. Today's debate is not about protecting places of worship, as the parliamentary secretary wishes to frame this. This debate is about a Liberal censorship motion designed to unequivocally shut down all forms of debate and ram through a controversial change to the Criminal Code. It is very clear that Canada has been witness to a deeply troubling surge in anti-Semitism, heightened by the October 7, 2023, events, and targeted violence against Jewish communities from coast to coast to coast. In recent days, sadly, there have been targeted shootings at Jewish places of worship in the GTA.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always an absolute pleasure to rise on behalf of the exceptional residents of my riding and Canadian faith leaders, as well as Canadians coast to coast to coast, from whom we have heard, through emails, telephone calls, town halls and stakeholder meetings, a whole litany of pieces of communication, that they are extremely disappointed with the Liberals and their attempt to challenge and stifle freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Let me make something abundantly clear. Unlike the parliamentary secretary , who wanted to frame a very false narrative to support what the Liberal government is doing with this closure debate, Conservatives will always support, unequivocally, churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and cultural centres from all forms of intimidation, obstruction and violence.”
“Madam Speaker, I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the parliamentary secretary. Early in her intervention, she indicated that she had confidence that every member of the Conservative Party of Canada would support the swift passage of Bill C-9 . While that may be true in principle, we do not support the method by which they wish Bill C-9 to move through the process. We do not support their ability to censor debate, and it is rather ironic that the member speaks about censoring debate on a censorship bill. I am also aware that there are some deep divisions within the Liberal Party itself. Is there an expectation that the party will whip the vote, or will the party allow a free vote for those members who voice their displeasure with removing this religious defence?”
“Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague across the room, and something that struck me was rather unique. She talked about how, when the Bloc introduced this motion to remove a 50-year-old-plus defence in the Criminal Code, the Liberals listened, the government listened, and she and other Liberal committee members listened. I am going to ask her now whether she can identify which witnesses were called to the committee on Bill C-9 by the Liberal government to support the removal of the religious defence? It is a very simple question, and I would like a simple answer.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week, Peel police charged four men with sex trafficking girls as young as 11 years of age, yet within 24 hours, these disgusting criminals were released on Liberal bail. Let that sink in. Grown men charged with exploiting young girls are now walking free. This is an absolute disgrace. This is what a broken justice system looks like. Enough is enough. When will the government stop coddling the worst criminals in our society and finally stand on the side of innocent children?”
“Mr. Speaker, that tragic case is a direct result of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 's laws that weaken bail, water down consequences and fuel the revolving door for violent crime. Conservatives have repeatedly fought to strengthen bail and early release provisions and to keep violent offenders behind bars. We have offered to work with the government, yet the Liberals vote down tougher laws that Conservatives propose, choosing ideology over public safety. How many more Canadians have to be violently attacked before the government admits its laws are failing?”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberal revolving-door policies strike again. Today in Toronto, a criminal who, while out on bail and convicted of stabbing a male seven times on the subway, caused life-altering injuries and permanent trauma, is now walking free. The judge called him a high risk to reoffend, and now his victim fears for his life. How many more innocent Canadians have to be stabbed, shot or terrorized before the government stops propping up a broken system and actually starts protecting victims?”
“We desperately want to get to Bill C-16 because that is what stakeholders want us to do. We will work diligently to ensure its passage.”
“Mr. Speaker, I share the same sentiment as my colleague from the Bloc. It has always been a pleasure working with him. I certainly enjoy all of his interventions and his contributions to the justice committee. I think our party made it abundantly clear where we stand on Bill C-14 . We wanted to prioritize Bill C-14. We tried desperately at least 19 times before Christmas to prioritize it. Unfortunately, the government chose not to agree with us. On Bill C-9 , there are still some issues that need to be hammered out. There are still some fundamental philosophical differences with respect to the Bloc amendment. We are going to work in earnest to try to overcome those differences. I have reached out to the government, offering some solutions, and I am waiting to hear back from the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am at a complete loss. The Liberals have known for well over a year that violent crime was on the rise, but particularly extortion, at over 330%. On the highest level of any criminal act in this country, they sat silent. If anything, they could have sent a very clear signal to law enforcement, to victims and to those who prey on and victimize individuals using extortionary tactics that they are not going to tolerate it anymore. They failed in Bill C-14 , and now they are failing in Bill C-16 .”
“Mr. Speaker, perhaps the secretary of state needs to look herself in the mirror and ask why she has failed Canadians, why she has failed victims and why she has allowed such criminality to be so pervasive throughout this country. She had a choice. She could have said no to the passage of Bill C-5 , which eliminated mandatory minimum penalties. She voted yes. She had a choice in passing Bill C-75 , which opened up the floodgates to catch-and-release. It is really rich for her to claim now that they are taking it seriously when they were the cause of the problem in the first place.”
“Canada is a compassionate country, but compassion without accountability is negligence. We can welcome newcomers, protect refugees and still enforce the law. Today, the House has a choice. We can continue with excuses, half measures and delayed action, or we can send a clear message: Canada will not be a safe haven for extortionists, violent offenders or those who abuse our asylum system. I urge all members to support the motion, stand for once with victims and restore confidence in Canada's justice and immigration systems. Canadians are watching. Are Liberals listening?”
“The motion before us today is clear and reasonable. It calls on the government to bar non-citizens convicted of crimes from making refugee claims, to bar those with active proceedings for serious crimes from doing the same, to end leniency in sentencing designed to avoid deportation and to repeal Liberal laws that create a catch-and-release system. None of this undermines genuine refugees. None of this targets law-abiding newcomers. In fact, it protects them because immigrant communities are often the first victims of extortion. Ask the small business owners in Surrey. Ask the families in Brampton. Ask the shopkeepers who are paying protection money, not because they want to but because they are afraid. They are begging and urging the government to act.”
“That means individuals charged with extortion, even repeat offenders tied to organized intimidation campaigns, can still be released while awaiting trial unless another qualifying charge happens to apply. At a time when extortion is one of the fastest-growing violent crimes in the country, the government chose not to treat it with the seriousness it demands. Even subsequent Liberal criminal justice bills failed to correct this mistake. Bill C-16 does not restore mandatory minimum sentences for extortion or reverse the damage done by Bill C-5 . While the government speaks about balance and modernization, extortionists continue to face weaker penalties today than they did before 2015, despite the crime being more prevalent, more organized and more violent than ever. This is not coincidence. This is a policy choice by the Liberals.”
“They are the predictable result we warned the government about, numerous times, of the passage of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , which instruct judges to prioritize restraint, minimize incarceration and consider collateral consequences for offenders. The results are devastating. Victims see offenders walk free. Communities lose faith and trust in the justice system. Criminals learn that Canada is a place where consequences are negotiable and extortionists take note. The government may point to Bill C-14 and claim it fixed the bail problem; however, it did not. They had an opportunity to create a reverse onus provision for extortion as a serious offence in its own right, and they failed to do so.”
“He arrived at the location and was arrested by an undercover officer. At sentencing, the court imposed a reduced sentence specifically to avoid affecting his immigration status. That is disgusting. In Whitby, Ontario, Manpreet Gill caused a deadly wrong-way crash on Highway 401. A family died. He was also guilty of breaching a probation order, yet the court imposed a five-and-a-half-month sentence citing potential immigration consequences. That is a travesty. In Calgary, a 25-year-old non-citizen assaulted an 18-year-old in a nightclub. He was found guilty but, again, he received a lighter sentence to avoid deportation. What a dangerous signal our courts are telegraphing to the public. These are not isolated incidents.”
“This is why the Conservatives proposed amendments to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims and to bar those with active judicial proceedings for serious crimes from doing so as well. These were narrow, targeted and reasonable amendments. Again, the Liberals voted against them. Canadians are right to ask why the government continues to preserve a loophole that allows criminals to weaponize our asylum system against public safety. (1655) Even when non-citizens are convicted of serious crimes, judges are increasingly encouraged by Liberal legislation to impose lighter sentences in order to explicitly avoid immigration consequences. Let me give the House just a few examples. In 2023, a foreign national attempted to purchase sex from an underage girl.”
“When Conservatives proposed the very changes the Premier is now calling for, the Liberals voted it down. That contradiction sits at the heart of today's debate. One of the most alarming features of the extortion crisis is how Canada's asylum system is being abused to block legal consequences. In December, for example, Surrey police arrested 15 foreign nationals suspected of extortion-related crimes. Surprisingly, all 15 claimed refugee status, not one, not two, but all 15. Those claims, regardless of their eventual outcome, halted removal proceedings and delayed consequences. That message only sends one clear signal that they can commit a serious crime, claim asylum and evade the law. That is not a failure of frontline officers; it is a failure of federal law, and these Liberals know it.”
“That bill offered a direct targeted response to the crisis we are debating today. Again, the government voted it down. On extortion, the signal from the Liberals has been clear. Organized criminals have learned that Canada's justice and asylum systems are slow, fragmented and forgiving. Extortion in Canada today is organized, violent and increasingly tied to transnational gangs. It is being fuelled by a system that criminals have learned how to exploit. Nowhere is this more evident than in British Columbia. In Surrey alone, police tracked 36 extortion attacks in one single month. Shots were fired into businesses. Homes were targeted. Even media outlets were attacked. The NDP Premier of British Columbia called this situation “ludicrous”. He called for changes to federal law. In response from the government, we had crickets.”
“One reason extortion has exploded is that the government deliberately removed consequences. Bill C-5 repealed mandatory jail sentences for serious crimes, including extortion with a firearm. This was not a technical adjustment; it was a policy choice that lowered the cost of committing violent organized crime. Every law the House passes sends a signal. Sometimes it is a signal that help is coming for victims. Other times, more often, it is a signal to criminals that the system can be bent, delayed or avoided altogether. In response, my Conservative colleague, the member for Edmonton Gateway , introduced Bill C-381 to restore mandatory jail time for extortion, strengthen penalties when firearms or organized crime are involved and recognize arson as an aggravating feature.”
“Somewhere in Canada today, a small business owner is checking their phone, before they unlock their front door, to see whether there is another message, another demand, another threat. This is what Canada looks like in 2026. It begins with fear, and that fear has spread because the Liberal government has allowed criminals to learn, adapt and exploit the system faster than Parliament has been willing to fix it. Since these Liberals took office, extortion has risen by 330% across Canada. That figure alone would have triggered emergency action. Instead, what we have seen is the Liberals voting down common-sense Conservative proposals, weakening sentencing laws, preserving loopholes in the asylum system and maintaining a revolving-door justice system that only emboldens criminals and abandons victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I rise today to speak to this excellent Conservative motion, which we brought forward after countless meetings across the country with small business owners, families and community leaders, where Canadians have expressed deep concern and genuine fear about the rising extortion issue now facing Canada. The House has been warned by police, premiers and victims of the consequences of inaction on extortion. Those warnings were followed by amendments, private members' bills and motions from our party that would have addressed the problem directly. Each time, the government chose not to act.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague, as deputy leader, can provide some final clarity to the House, because I have heard nothing but exaggerated statements and mistruths in the Liberal Party's explanation about our party's being obstructionist. Can the member provide context as to how many times the justice committee tried to prioritize Bill C-14 before Christmas and how many times the justice committee tried to prioritize Bill C-16 after Christmas?”
“Given that the mandatory minimum was taken away, which sent a very clear message to extortionists that there are not significant consequences for committing the crime, why did the government not use the opportunity in Bill C-14 to bring back a reverse onus or even bring back the mandatory minimum penalty in Bill C-16 , given the substantial increase in extortion in this country?”
“Mr. Speaker, leaving aside the very controversial decision my friend referred to in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Pham, which still does not provide any sort of framework by which judges are to apply a discount, if any, I want to focus on the Bill C-5 implications for extortion. I believe I heard my colleague indicate that Bill C-5 did not take away a mandatory minimum penalty for extortion. I remind her to review that again because quite clearly the Liberals removed the four-year to five-year mandatory minimum penalty for extortion with a firearm. My question is very simple.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the member's 10-minute diatribe, I heard very few relevant talking points to support the government's position. In fact all I heard repeatedly, was reference to a non-binding motion, that it is our solution, that we do not have any talking points and that we are not creating any opportunities for the government to pass legislation. Perhaps the member needs a little bit of a history lesson. In the 44th Parliament, the Conservative Party of Canada tabled 22 criminal justice PMBs that the member voted against every time in the House, and nine in the Senate. In the 45th Parliament, there were 14 criminal justice PMBs in the House and five in the Senate. When they were brought to a vote, the member voted against them. We are talking about obstructionists.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again. The member talked about bringing mandatory minimum penalties back in Bill C-16 , but that does not happen at all. In fact, there are no mandatory minimum penalties brought in for specific offences in Bill C-16. What the government did was bring in a safety valve. Again, if the member is that serious about extortion, why did he vote in favour of removing the mandatory minimum penalty for extortion when he voted in favour of Bill C-5 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member and the entire Liberal government talk really tough on crime, particularly on extortion, when the national average is over 330%, and in B.C. alone, it is over 500%. If the Liberals were truly genuine in their words about being tough on crime, why did they gut the mandatory minimum penalty in Bill C-5 ? Why did they not bring back a reverse onus in Bill C-14 or even bring back the mandatory minimum penalty in Bill C-16 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend opposite how she could be so proud of her government's abysmal track record for the last 10 years when she herself voted in favour of Bill C-75 , in favour of Bill C-5 and in favour of Bill C-48 , which created the problems we are facing right now with extortion. It is fine to say they are taking it seriously now, but where was she 10 years ago?”
“Mr. Speaker, extortion is a national crisis, exploding 330% since the Liberals took office. In Surrey, Calgary, Brampton and across Canada, Canadians are being threatened, shot at and firebombed, while criminal gangs and violent non-citizens extort families, all thanks to Liberal inaction. Will the Prime Minister support our plan, supported even by the NDP premier of B.C., to bar extortionists and serious criminals from exploiting refugee claims, or will he continue shielding criminals while Canadians pay the price, often with their lives?”
“Mr. Speaker, this dangerous release happened for only one reason. Liberal soft-on-crime laws are still on the books, and the government refuses to repeal them. Time after time, Liberal laws put repeat violent offenders back on the street, ignore police warnings and put Canadians in harm's way. Conservatives, on the other hand, are ready to work with anyone in the House to put public safety first and end these dangerous policies. Will the Prime Minister finally get serious about public safety and work with us to repeal these laws, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This time, in Guelph, police warned the community that a high-risk offender with a history of violence and breaching court orders was released after pleading guilty to breaching probation. Police said he posed a danger, especially to women, and less than two hours later, he was arrested again. This is weak Liberal bail law in action. Once again, the Liberals' principle of restraint put a dangerous offender back on the street. Will the Prime Minister finally take public safety seriously and repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 ?”
“Madam Speaker, clearly, my colleague opposite did not listen to a word I had to say, because I indicated that the vast majority of the provisions that deal with trial delays and victims are going to be supportable by the Conservative Party of Canada. Where we differ, and I would beg to differ with her, is with respect to the position of law enforcement. They want meaningful sentences. They do not want activist judges or clever defence counsel now arguing without the appropriate guardrails or any instruction from Parliament as to what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. At the very least, they should define it in Bill C-16 . They have not done that.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question because it is important that legislation reflect not only the will of the public but also a rigorous debate in the House of Commons. My friend commented on the rising level of gun crime and the outrageous extortion numbers, particularly in British Columbia. I was out there recently, giving a press conference. I was shocked to learn that there were 30 cases of extortion involving firearm usage in 21 days. There was nary a word from the Prime Minister , nary a word from the justice minister and, particularly, nary a word at all from the Liberal MPs from Surrey. Yes, this is an invitation. It is a wake-up call. The justice minister said that he is listening to Canadians. Canadians want tougher penalties and want them now.”
“There would be an argument that the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty could lead to cruel and unusual punishment. That is the test. That is what Bill C-16 would do. It would invite more litigation. It would slow the process, which is still trying to catch up from the aftermath of the pandemic. We do not need more litigation. We need clarity from Parliament. That is why we hope Bill C-16 will be studied as soon as possible at the justice committee, in order to make it better.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear about something. Bill C-16 would make available the possibility that all the mandatory minimum penalties that were ruled unconstitutional by appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, get reopened. This would include the most recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Senneville, which was on the possession of child sexual abuse material. This bill would bring back all the mandatory minimum penalties that were ruled unconstitutional but not removed from the Criminal Code. That would provide an overly broad safety valve to any judge, without any instruction from Parliament. There would be no guardrails for a justice on their own or when hearing from the accused offender at sentencing, or from the defence counsel.”
“I read the justice minister 's end-of-term report to a national reporter saying that he is listening to Canadians. It is absolutely about time. As Conservative Party members, including me and my former colleague who is a Crown prosecutor, we have been pushing and advocating for sentencing and justice reforms to reflect what the Canadian public wants. I have invited—”
“Madam Speaker, I can answer the question very affirmatively. It is yes. Ideally, we want this bill to be split in order to focus in on those areas that have been long overdue for 10 years. Victims, law agencies and victim advocacy groups have all been asking for additional reforms to prioritize the needs of victims, to recalibrate the focus on bail and to take a look at community safety, while at the same time upholding the constitutional rights of the accused. Where was the Liberal government? The government would say it was all in our minds. In fact, Arif Virani, literally minutes after his swearing-in at Rideau Hall, answered a number of press reporters by simply indicating that the whole concept of Canada being a dangerous place was all fictitious and was all in the minds of Canadians.”