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 6 of 9.
“That is a very important distinction that the Bloc never repeats and that the Liberal government has never cited. There was no indication for the prosecution service that the religious defence was an impediment to prosecute or that it was even considered. Logically speaking, it is also true that anyone who thinks Charkaoui was not charged because of the religious defence must also believe that his speech was given in good faith and, therefore, was reasonable and delivered without malicious intent.”
“She continued: Those comments were rightly condemned. They are grotesque. Complaints about them were investigated, and the RCMP prepared a report. It was reviewed by three Crown prosecutors, who concluded that no charges were warranted. As Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions put it, “The evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the words spoken constitute incitement to hatred against an identifiable group” under Sec. 3 19 of the Criminal Code. One may argue that “Zionist” was just code for “Jews.” One may also believe that praying for death is morally abhorrent. But the decision not to charge Charkaoui turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence [under section 319].”
“As I will explain further in my speech, ultimately, the prosecution service in the province of Quebec declined to proceed. (1110) Today, in the National Post, I read a very interesting article from Christine Van Geyn, one of the top constitutional lawyers in this country, part of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. The title of the article is “Changes to Bill C-9 aren't combatting hate—they're criminalizing faith”. She wrote, “To secure Bloc Québécois support for its censorious Bill C-9, the Liberals have reportedly agreed to a troubling trade: removing the long-standing religious defence from Canada's hate-speech laws. This would be a mistake...Throughout the justice committee's hearings, Bloc MPs fixated on this defence. Their central example, repeated to nearly every witness, was” the example of the imam that I just referred to.”
“I, too, am receiving a lot of feedback expressing concerns about what the Liberal government is prepared to do. They abruptly adjourned, so I can only surmise that there is a lot of internal conflict between the justice committee and direction from the PMO on this particular issue. At the heart of the Bloc Québécois amendment is something its members tried to pass through a couple of years ago that did not make it past first reading. They referred to an incident of a radical imam from Quebec, in October 2023, giving a speech at a pro-Palestinian rally. He said: Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don’t spare any of them. That is what they are relying upon.”
“At no time did the Liberal government ever project any intention of removing that religious exemption. Behind closed doors over the past weekend, they approached the Bloc Québécois member who has been steadfast in his position that this particular exemption needs to be removed. They worked out a deal that they would support this particular amendment, largely, if the Bloc Québécois would continue to support the eventual passage of Bill C-9 . This is very dangerous, and hypocrisy at its finest. We have experienced, as my colleague indicated, abrupt cancellations of meetings. We have had abrupt endings of meetings. We had allocated resources to go to midnight this past Tuesday, but the meeting abruptly ended at 5:30 p.m. as a result of religious leaders following this not only locally but also right across Canada.”
“Clearly, it was a question posed to the secretary of state , who responded, in turn, by saying: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been clear that they want stronger protections in the face of rising hate and that they want meaningful bail reform. After weeks of Conservative delay tactics and stalling in committee, I am really happy to see that they might move forward on the combatting hate crime legislation on Thursday. Much to my surprise, and to the surprise of all my colleagues, I got to the office this morning at 8.30 a.m., looked at my P9 inbox and saw a message from the clerk of the justice committee announcing that today's important meeting was cancelled by the Liberal chair. It is probably as a result of the absolute split in the Liberal caucus over how to properly deal with this particular religious exemption defence.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I, too, share many of the concerns of my colleague who just spoke. We have seen first-hand, in my respectful opinion, a master class of Liberal hypocrisy. On full display yesterday, during question period, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle , who is a sitting Liberal member of the committee, said: Mr. Speaker...after weeks of Conservative delays, the justice committee finally resumed its work on the combatting hate act, and we will continue that work on Thursday [meaning today]. Will the Conservatives make sure bail reform is passed before Christmas? Could the minister speak to the importance of keeping this work moving so Canadians can have these important justice reforms take place?”
“If the Liberals truly cared about ending the crime crisis they created, they would repeal the principle of restraint, restore mandatory minimums and support Conservatives' jail not bail act. Anything less is a choice to either stand with the criminals or prioritize community safety.”
“Mr. Speaker, over the last several months, I have travelled across Canada on a “jail not bail” town hall tour listening to thousands of Canadians pour out their fear and frustration. Everywhere I go, Canadians say the same thing: They no longer trust their justice system. Who can blame them? Criminals are laughing at law enforcement, knowing they will be arrested in the morning and back on the street by lunch. There is no deterrence, no consequence and no accountability because the Liberal government took it all away. That is why I launched a national petition to strengthen our laws to keep violent, repeat offenders behind bars. Over 66,000 Canadians responded, demanding safety and real consequences.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for drafting the jail not bail act. Can the member please describe the substantial difference between the approaches in the jail not bail act and Bill C-14 when it comes to repeat violent criminals, and how we create a presumption of detention in his bill?”
“Over 17,000 Canadians have signed this petition calling upon the House of Commons to amend the Divorce Act and to establish a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting, defined as joint decision-making responsibility and equal or maximized practical parenting time in the best interest of the child, except where evidence demonstrates that such an arrangement would not be appropriate due to concerns for the child's safety or well-being.”
“Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to speak to e-petition 6626. Extensive social science research shows that children of separated or divorced parents exercise significantly better physical, emotional, social and academic outcomes when they spend equal or near-equal time with both parents, barring safety concerns. In Canada, public opinion polling since 2007 shows that over 70% of Canadians, across all genders, regions and political affiliations, support legislation that establishes a presumption of equal shared parenting in child custody matters.”
“Do we now really expect it to provide the solution when it had the last 10 years to reverse course on its hug-a-thug mentality to exercising its number one priority, which is the safety of all Canadians? Law enforcement across this country has hailed the jail not bail act as the common-sense solution to keeping communities and victims safe while ensuring repeat violent criminals are kept in jail where they belong. I urge all parliamentarians to set aside their political ideology and make it their priority to pass Bill C-242 , the jail not bail act. As I have said numerous times inside and outside the House, and in town halls right across this country from coast to coast to coast, community and victim safety ought not to be a partisan exercise. Let us get this passed.”
“She was murdered the very same day, and within a few hours, of his being convicted of assault and uttering threats. He was released on bail pending sentencing, with the obvious condition that he not have contact with Bailey. Bill C-242 , the jail not bail act, provides for the expiry of the interim release of an accused upon their conviction of an indictable offence while they await sentencing. The finding of guilt by a justice expunges the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by the charter. This provision in the jail not bail act is simply common sense. This country has long awaited real immediate bail reform. The Liberal government created the mess we find ourselves in.”
““Substantial likelihood” has been defined in case law as a real and significant probability of a particular outcome occurring. This was never viewed as an onerous test from Crown counsel; they often asked the justice to consider the criminal record of the accused and to look for patterns of conviction either for the same offence or a conviction for breaching a court order, such as bail, probation and conditional sentences. The jail not bail act lowers that secondary ground threshold from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonable foreseeability” in assessing risk of reoffending or interference with justice. We have all heard about the tragic yet preventable murder of Bailey McCourt, a young Kelowna mother who was bludgeoned to death by her ex-husband with a hammer in broad daylight.”
“The bill adds surety and non-resident safeguards, which are completely absent in Bill C-14 . It bars naming as surety anyone convicted of an indictable offence within 10 years. It also requires consideration of non-residency and flight risk, and it mandates passport denial for non-residents upon release. Another significant feature of the jail not bail act is an adjustment to the risk threshold analysis under the secondary grounds for detention under section 515 of the Criminal Code. The current test is whether detention is necessary for the protection and safety of the public, including victims or witnesses, or to prevent the commission of a further criminal offence based on the substantial likelihood of such an event occurring.”
“The practical effect would be to end the default to release culture, which has created the bail crisis we have in this country. The priority is the safety of communities and victims, not the release of repeat violent offenders. This is a marked distinguishing feature of Bill C-14 , which would still preserve, to various degrees, the principle of restraint. (1445) The bill also creates a list of major offences that would trigger a presumption of detention, regardless of whether it would be a reverse onus charge. For major offences, peace officer release is unavailable. The bill expands reverse onus to several violent offences, including firearms, sexual offences, kidnapping/trafficking, home invasion, break and enter, robbery, extortion and arson offences.”
“That was on the very same weekend when there were violent home invasions that led to the deaths of homeowners. Canadians and our stakeholders could not wait any longer. A recent Abacus poll conducted this past September showed that 79% of Canadians felt that it is too easy for serious offenders to get bail. That is precisely why my colleague from Oxford introduced the jail not bail act. I would like to take this opportunity to point out, notwithstanding the false narrative from the Liberals, that law enforcement unconditionally endorsed the bill as offering the best opportunity to rebalance the bail system to prioritize community safety over the release of repeat violent offenders. What would the bill do? The principal feature would be to repeal the principle of restraint and replace it with the principle of public and community safety.”
“David Lametti, the former minister of justice, proudly proclaimed that he did deliver bail reform. He was completely oblivious to the crime and chaos happening all around him. Lametti was later fired, and the government appointed Arif Virani. His first comments after his swearing-in were to remind Canadians that it was all in their heads that Canada is less safe. He too reminded Canadians that he delivered bail reform, through the passage of Bill C-48 . In the 45th Parliament, we have heard from the public safety minister that our Canadian bail system is sound and is working as it should. Later we heard from our justice minister , who blamed the provinces for the bail problems we have, and he said that Canada is not the Wild West.”
“A core feature of the bill was to introduce a number of new reverse onus provisions to gun offences and other serious violent offences. The key messaging was that this meant that violent repeat offenders would be detained and that the bill would contribute to the safety of Canadians. The opposite happened; the rising crime state clearly establishes that the bill failed miserably in achieving its goals. Over the course of the last four-plus years, we have heard from premiers of all provinces and territories, police chiefs, presidents of police associations, mayors from across the country, and several victim advocacy groups, pleading for the government to exercise its number one priority: to keep Canadians safe and to implement immediate bail reform. What was the response?”
“This was the origin of catch-and-release, which we now have in this country, where repeat violent criminals circulate through the justice system with regularity, offering up false promises of bail compliance. In 2022, the government weakened the criminal justice system again and exposed Canadians to immense risks with the passage of Bill C-5 . Notwithstanding the long-established position of the Supreme Court that mandatory minimum penalties do not necessarily violate the charter, the Liberal government repealed mandatory minimums for serious gun crimes and violent crimes and expanded house arrest for all drug offences and serious violent crimes. In 2023, after hearing from numerous stakeholders regarding the stolen vehicle crisis, the Liberal government brought in Bill C-48 , its second attempt at bail reform.”
“Contrary to a false Liberal narrative, neither the Supreme Court decision in the Antic case nor its decision in the Zora case instructed the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to add the principle of restraint. From the perspective of a former Crown attorney, the amendment meant that regardless of the nature of the charge committed by the accused and its impact on the community or victim; regardless of the accused's criminal record, which could show a pattern of breaching court orders or being found guilty of the same offence; and, most important, regardless of the number of prior bail orders the accused may already have been subjected to, the government instructed judges and justices to release the accused.”
“Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals formed government in 2015, this country has had a steady and alarming increase in major crime. Violent crime is up 55%, homicides are up 29%, sex assaults are up 76%, firearms offences are up 131% and extortion is up a whopping 330%. The government’s tireless efforts to prioritize the rights and freedoms of the accused at the express expense of victim and community safety is the problem. In 2019, the Liberal government initiated bail reform in this country by amending the Criminal Code to introduce the principle of restraint, which immediately instructed judges and justices of the peace to prioritize the release of the accused at the earliest opportunity and under the least restrictive conditions.”
“Canadians have sacrificed enough. They cannot afford another inflationary Liberal budget. Conservatives will fight for the people who work, pay their bills and build this country, and we will keep working to restore the affordable life Canadians deserve.”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal waste, Canadians hoped for change. Instead, the Prime Minister delivered the costliest budget outside of COVID with a bloated, inflation-fuelling deficit that punishes work, drives up prices and shatters every promise his government made. He vowed discipline, but his budget explodes the deficit to $80 billion, piles on $90 billion in new spending and drives both debt and inflation higher. While the Liberals borrow and spend, investment collapses, unemployment climbs and the cost of living crushes working families. Canadians pay more in interest on Liberal debt than Ottawa transfers for health care. Every dollar does not go to doctors or nurses but rather bankers and bondholders. Ordinary Canadians are paying the price in higher bills, higher taxes and vanishing hope for their kids.”
“Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals, why do the charter rights of pedophiles come before the charter rights of children? Shamefully, every single member of that party, including the Minister of Justice , remains silent. There are crickets. This ruling means pedophiles with hundreds of videos of children being sexually assaulted can escape mandatory jail. They cannot claim to stand for victims while they defend a system that shields the predators. Why will the Prime Minister not call the ruling what it is, disgusting, and commit to restoring mandatory jail time for pedophiles?”
“Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Supreme Court struck down mandatory jail time for predators convicted of possessing child sexual abuse material. That decision is disgusting. These offenders were not caught with a few files; they had hundreds of images and videos of children as young as three being tortured and abused, yet instead of standing up for victims, the Liberal government stays silent. Why is the Prime Minister more interested in protecting pedophiles than protecting Canada's children from monsters?”
“We owe it to Canadians to pursue policies that make communities safer and victims stronger. We should not have more paperwork, longer trials and promises we cannot keep. For all of these reasons, regrettably, I cannot support the bill.”
“It is often faced with uncertainty, lengthy delays and costs, again, trying to squeeze that orange for a drop of juice from an individual who likely has absolutely zero assets and zero means to pay. We need to support first responders and community staff with dedicated mental health funding. These are practical, targeted solutions that deliver results, not rhetoric. The principle behind the bill is sincere, but sincerity alone does not make sound policy. At its core, it is unenforceable and burdensome. It asks courts to do the impossible, and it risks diverting energy and resources away from the very real victims and communities it seeks to help. Justice should be swift, fair and effective. It should focus on outcomes that can be delivered, not aspirations that cannot.”
“These include investing directly in victim services and treatment programs instead of routing support through uncollectible court orders, as well as ensuring stronger enforcement against organized trafficking networks so that the real criminals, the ones profiting from misery, face meaningful sentences. That is often the most difficult aspect of policing. They are always trying to get the larger fish in the pond, those who are organizing the street traffickers. It is always a give-and-take, with law enforcement trying to find those who actually organize the criminal enterprise. We need to modernize restitution enforcement so that when courts do issue orders, they are actually collected. Right now, with a restitution order ordered by the court, victims have a process, but it is through the civil courts.”
“The way to help frontline services is not through theoretical restitution orders. It is through real, predictive funding and effective enforcement against the people who cause the harm in the first place. What is a better approach? Conservatives believe in accountability that works. That also means real consequences. That is why every member on this side of the House voted against the repeal of Bill C-5 . We believe in laws that can be enforced and that deliver real outcomes for victims and communities. If the goal is to strengthen support for frontline organizations, there are better, proven ways to do it.”
“The people waiting for justice would wait even longer, all for restitution orders that, in most cases, will never be collected. The administrative burden does not stop with the courts. Shelters, treatment centres and first-responder agencies would need to track and document every cost tied to specific offences. That means new record-keeping systems, new paperwork and, probably, new staff to manage it. Perhaps the most concerning effect of Bill C-238 is the false expectation it would create. It suggests to communities that offenders will somehow pay back the social costs of crime. That is simply not realistic. We all want accountability, but accountability means consequences that can actually be enforced. It means restitution that can actually be paid. The bill would offer neither. We owe it to Canadians to be honest.”
“These restitution orders would sit, uncollected, symbolic, unenforceable and meaningless to the organizations they were meant to help. It creates the illusion of accountability, justice on paper but not in practice. Our courts are under enormous pressure. Sentencing hearings are complex enough. Judges must weigh aggravating factors, review the evidence and consider pre-sentence reports. The bill would graft a new financial hearing on to that process. Judges would have to review expense records and hear testimony about causation and costs. Prosecutors would have to gather accounting evidence and call witnesses. Defence counsel, of course, would be entitled to challenge every figure and witness. We would end up with longer hearings, more adjournments and a greater backlog.”
“Even if we could, community organizations would have to present detailed financial records, such as expense sheets, invoices, staff hours and supply logs to show that their loss was “readily ascertainable”, which is language in the member's bill. Most shelters and non-profits simply do not have the existing accounting systems to generate that kind of documentation. Instead of helping, the provision would drag them into court, wasting scarce time and resources. Suppose a court somehow gets through all of that and issues an order for tens of thousands of dollars. Then what would happen? The reality is that most offenders in trafficking and drug cases have no money, assets or ability to pay restitution. (1130) Many are already facing lengthy custodial sentences.”
“Victim services offices, police and shelters respond to all of them. The bill draws an arbitrary line that cannot be justified in principle or in policy. If it is fairness we want, this approach would achieve the opposite. Now let us talk about how restitution would actually work in a courtroom. To issue one of the new restitution orders, a judge would need clear proof that a specific organization suffered a measurable loss because of a particular offender. That is an extremely high bar. Let us consider an overdose, for example. Which trafficker's case caused the hospital's expense for treatment or for overtime staffing? These are broad social costs that accumulate across dozens of incidents and multiple offenders; we cannot effectively trace them to one person's conviction.”
“Moreover, if the member for Sudbury were fully concerned about the devastating impacts those two categories of offences have on this country, we would only conclude that she would be equally concerned about prosecuting and sentencing the offenders to real brick-and-mortar jails. She cannot do this, because she and every member of her party voted in favour of Bill C-5 , which repealed mandatory minimum penalties for human trafficking and for all Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences, which now opens up the availability of conditional sentences, also known as house arrest. This is patently absurd, as the majority of those offences are often conducted in the offender's home. Communities also absorb costs from organized theft, from gang violence and from sexual exploitation.”
“Our justice system does not need another procedural loop; it needs the resources and efficiency to use tools it already has. When we start writing duplicate laws for things already covered, we do not make justice stronger; we make it slower and weak. Here is a case in point: Canadian courts are still suffering from lengthy delays suffered as a consequence of the pandemic. The bill would apply only to drug offences and human trafficking offences, but if the principle is that communities deserve restitution for the cost of crime, why single out only those two categories?”
“As we look more closely at Bill C-238 , we have to ask whether it would actually deliver on its promise, or whether it would simply add another layer of process to a justice system already overburdened and under-resourced. Section 738 of the Criminal Code already lets judges order restitution for losses to victims or organizations; the provision is there. It is tested, and it works, though only to a degree, sadly. Restitution has been part of Canada's Criminal Code since the code's inception in 1892, but the reality is that Canadian statistics suggest restitution is rarely ordered. A recent study from Stats Canada confirmed that “a mere 1.6 percent of all cases tried in adult criminal courts that produced a guilty verdict resulted in restitution orders.” Bill C-238 would add process, not capability.”
“Madam Speaker, every member of the chamber has seen the toll that addiction, trafficking and exploitation take on our communities. I have spoken with first responders who arrive at overdoses of the same people night after night. I have met with outreach workers stretched to the breaking point and with volunteers who keep showing up because no one else will. I want to begin by recognizing what the bill is trying to do: help those community frontline services that are carrying the heaviest load in the fight against crime and addiction. That is the goal every member can respect, but good intentions alone do not make good law.”
“Madam Speaker, a general theme running through the member's speech was offender accountability, and I think every member of the House appreciates that principle. However, I say to the member that if she were truly concerned about accountability, she would know that accountability also promotes meaningful consequences for individuals who prey on other humans in order to traffic them and for those individuals who traffic deadly substances that often lead to deadly results. Instead of focusing on providing community supports and restitution, why did the member in fact support and vote for Bill C-5 , which eliminated mandatory minimum penalties for people who traffic in humans and for those who traffic in fentanyl?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. He referenced Bailey McCourt, the tragic, preventable homicide that is still on the books in British Columbia, which was a result of a decision made by a judge to release after conviction pending sentence. Bill C-14 does not close that gap. What would the jail not bail act say in reference to that type of process?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's response to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader about trying to make this bill better. You said it best when you said the government has had six-plus years to get this right. The election is almost seven months removed. Why do you think the government left out such substantive pieces of reform, particularly in the areas of sentencing and bail reform? Why did it purposely leave out significant details when our opposition party has been giving it suggestion after suggestion for the last seven months?”
“Madam Speaker, I have a question with respect to the bill and the clamping down on the availability of conditional sentences. In our respective view, this is a partial admission of the failures of the introduction of Bill C-5 , which allowed for conditional sentences to be served for very serious offences. I recognize that Bill C-14 mentions sexual offences and sexual offences against children, but there is another problem in this country, and that is fentanyl. It is a scourge and there is an opiate crisis in our country. Why did the government choose to not clamp down on the availability of conditional sentences for traffickers of fentanyl? Case law has deemed them to be merchants of death.”
“Madam Speaker, I will highlight how disappointing it was to hear the parliamentary secretary for justice being so partisan in her attacks. I thought we were getting along so well in the spirit of collaboration. Public and community safety are not a partisan issue. They never should be. Our goal is to make this bill as strong as possible, and her attacks were absolutely not appreciated. The title of the act is the bail and sentencing reform act, yet there is only one particular charge in this 80-paragraph bill, some 35 pages long, that would address sentencing reform. It is the question of contempt of court. Despite all the rising crime across this country, why did the parliamentary secretary for justice and the minister see fit to address only contempt of court and raise the penalty from six months to two years less one day?”
“Madam Speaker, I will ask my colleague to reflect on the issue of the principle of restraint. Obviously, it has not been abandoned in Bill C-14 . There have been some attachments and limitations to its application. Why are provisions of the principle of restraint in jail not bail a better approach for the protection of Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, from my review of Bill C-14 , I believe that there is a partial admission by the government that it failed and that it dropped the ball when it introduced Bill C-5 . It actually rolled back some of the conditional sentences, so I want to spend a bit of time talking about that. Given that sex assault is on the rise across this country, why did the member's government see fit to claw back the eligibility of conditional sentences only where the Crown proceeds by indictment versus summary conviction, when the vast majority of sex assault prosecutions in this country are done by summary conviction? Why has the member failed victims?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question and his equally excellent suggestion. It is a particular issue that, for years, we have been advocating for. As I indicated in my speech, in 2019, the creation of the principle of restraint and the amendment to the code was the genesis of the problems we face today. It would be a very easy fix to simply repeal section 493.1, the principle of restraint, in the code and use language that emphasizes the protection of the public when dealing with violent repeat offenders.”
“Madam Speaker, my relationship with our current justice minister is vastly different from those with previous justice ministers. He is open to conversation. We have exchanged our personal cell numbers. I spoke about the bill with him this past weekend. He knows that we are going to be putting forth reasonable amendments. He has indicated a willingness to look at that. In fact, I am even going to suggest that I would pass those on to him even before we get to committee because I think there is an opportunity for the House to work together to make this the best possible bail and sentencing reform that we can produce at this juncture in time.”
“Madam Speaker, it is optimistic for the member to suggest that the bill could be passed by the end of the year. I am hoping, as we consider it as an opposition party, that my friend's party would also consider reasonable amendments to improve the bill. I said that it is good, but it is not the best, and it can be improved. My friend talks about a substantial bail reform package. I would disagree with the use of the word “substantial”. There is some relief here that law enforcement would like. The reality though, in practical terms, is that it would not separate out those offenders who should not be in consideration of getting bail. I encourage the member to read the proposed jail not bail act, which provides great counsel on that issue.”
“There are many avenues for improvement, and I would encourage the government, as it listens to the debate in the House and, ultimately, as it reviews it at committee, to look at the common-sense solutions in the member for Oxford 's jail not bail act. That would provide direct instructions to judges on how to deal with repeat violent criminals. If we start by scrapping the principle of restraint and replacing it with the principle of public safety and protection, that is an instruction that would telegraph to judges that, when they are dealing with a class of individual who has been on a number of releases or who has a criminal record, it shows repeated behaviour of not abiding by conditions, and the priority is on the protection of the community, not the convenience of the accused. I encourage the government to look at that.”