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 7 of 9.
“In fact, when we look at Statistics Canada's statistics over the last 15 years, over the last four or five years of the Stephen Harper government, the crime rate went down significantly. When we look at that same graph, we see a spike the moment Justin Trudeau took government and every year thereafter. I am not saying that Bill C-14 is going to be manna from heaven, because it is not. It is being supported by law enforcement, just like they supported Bill C-48 , because, let us face it, law enforcement is desperate for something. I have spoken to all of the major stakeholders who are now saying in the media that they support Bill C-14. They have made recommendations to the government, and some have been captured, but not all.”
“When I look at Bill C-14 , I see more reverse onus provisions, much like those in Bill C-48 . I cannot say that this bill is Bill C-48 2.0, because it is not. I listened to the justice minister , who wants to provide some confidence to Canadians and victims that the Liberals are finally getting it right, that they are striking the right balance and that community safety is going to be paramount, but there is nothing in Bill C-14 that directs judges not to release in certain circumstances. It makes recommendations that they should not give primary consideration to early release, but it does not mandate that these dangerous repeat criminals should remain in custody. We all know what happens when we lock up the repeat violent criminals. It is that crime rates go down.”
“That is and will always be the origin of catch-and-release. I lived it. I experienced it, and unfortunately, the rest of Canada is still experiencing it. Then the Liberal government made it worse in 2022 when it decided it had to pass Bill C-5 to make it even easier and softer for criminals to get through the criminal justice system. It decided that, for all the most serious gun offences, to take away the mandatory minimum penalties and to give the ability to ask for conditional sentences for very serious offences. We all know the consequences. Then the government started to hear from the stakeholders, and again it promised that it was listening and would make some changes. Hence, it introduced Bill C-48 , which increased reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code. We know that did not have the desired impact.”
“I was asking myself why it has become exceedingly difficult. There would be an obvious case, such as when someone had proven themselves to be unreliable in making promises and to be a menace to not only themselves but also the community, but they were being released. Of course, we would get memos from our superiors in Ontario and Queen's Park, and, lo and behold, I found out that the federal Liberal government had changed the law, changed the direction and changed the trajectory of what bail court is all about. (1615) This also instructed, in my view, all judges and justices of the peace who hear bail applications every single day to prioritize the release of the accused with the principle of restraint, releasing them at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions.”
“I have read those decisions, both in my professional capacity and, again, as a parliamentarian. Specifically, I am referring to the decisions of Antic, Zora and St-Cloud, which never instructed the federal government to do anything and never instructed it to codify any principle in the Criminal Code. How criminal justice is administered in this country is that we follow the Criminal Code. We also bear in mind case law, the decisions of our lower courts, the decisions of our superior courts, the decisions of appellate courts and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is how the administration of justice works. Justin Trudeau and the current Liberal government did not have to do anything, but they did. At the time, and this was 2019, I was in the trenches. I was dealing with bail court.”
“The Trudeau government, this time the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, appointed a solicitor general by the name of Jean-Pierre Goyer, who stood in the House of Commons, not this building but Centre Block, and proudly proclaimed in the House, at that time, his intention to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society. That struck me as a wow moment, as it is the origin of the whacked out hug-a-thug mentality of the Liberal government in making it so much easier for them to conduct their trade. We then heard from Justin Trudeau and his justice ministers, who said to not blame them, that they are simply following what the Supreme Court of Canada literally asked them to do to codify changes in bail with the passage of Bill C-75 .”
“I have embarked on a cross-Canada tour and engaged with all of the stakeholders we can imagine who would have a position on this. All of them were unanimous in what needs to be done. For the last four years, these stakeholders engaged in their own advocacy with the federal government, writing to not only the current justice minister but also former justice minister Virani to affect change. For four years, that was largely ignored. We know how we got to this situation. I often get asked the question as to why the Liberals are so preoccupied with the rights of the accused at the expense of victims and community safety. I have never really had a concrete answer to provide without doing a bit a research, so I did that. Surprisingly, this goes back almost 50 years, to the early 1970s.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George . It is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the fine constituents of my riding, and it is significant for me as a former participant in the criminal justice system for almost two decades. This is an issue that I have been pushing for, and it is an issue for which I have been advocating for change. Really, it is one of the rationales as to why I left the Crown attorney system in Ontario and sought to become a legislator, which was to make and pass laws that would improve community safety. If we take a look at the last 10 years, we see rising crime rates, which is a very serious matter right across the country.”
“Madam Speaker, the bill is some 35 pages long. It would make 80 significant changes to the Criminal Code. In fact, the title of the bill is the bail and sentencing reform act. The question I will put to the minister is regarding sentencing. He spoke very generally about the consecutive sentence aspect of the bill. He spoke about the aggravated features of the bill for sentencing purposes, but he did not mention the one particular clause in this 35-page bill that would increase the sentence for one particular offence. Despite all the serious violent crime that is happening in this country, with extortion alone up 330% in 10 years, I would like to know why this particular Liberal justice minister and his government sought to change the penalty for contempt of court from 90 days to two years less one day.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals blew nearly $1 billion on a gun grab that even their own minister admits does not work. He was caught on tape telling the truth: It is a waste of money. The OPP wants no part of it, and the chief of the only police force they found to enforce their vanity project is related to a Liberal MP. This is not safety; it is political theatre with a $750-million price tag. When will the Prime Minister scrap this farce and go after criminals instead of law-abiding Canadians?”
“With all of the deficiencies that I just presented, which I presented to one of the member's colleagues, what does Bill C-11 do to address them?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to pose the same question to the member that I did to one of his colleagues, because I did not get an answer. The reality is that sex assault victims, whether they be in civilian court or military court, have a complete lack of trust in the system. They call it a system; they do not call it a justice system. There is under-reporting and there are problems with investigations. Some police services believe them; some police services do not. There are difficulties in obtaining additional evidence. There are difficulties with the Crown chosen to prosecute these files. There are issues with the overcrowding in our courts to begin with. We have to apply the Jordan principle. It is no small wonder that in Ontario alone there is an abysmal record of success in prosecuting sex assaults.”
“Mr. Speaker, sex assault victims, whether they be military-based or civilian-based, have an absolute lack of trust in the Canadian legal system. There is significant under-reporting, and inconsistent investigative measures are taken. When a matter does get to court, there are Crown attorneys who either display an interest or a lack of interest. There is revictimization within the trial process itself. How does Bill C-11 address those deficiencies?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look at some examples of government inaction. In Vancouver, police had to arrest the same 40 offenders 6,000 times in one year. In Peel, police arrested 18 suspects for home invasions and carjackings, and half are already released on bail. In Saskatchewan, Myles Sanderson was out on release after 59 convictions when he murdered 11 people. Premiers, police chiefs, mayors and victim groups are all begging the government for action. If the Prime Minister refuses to vote to scrap Liberal bail, will he get out of the way so that Conservatives can do it themselves?”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail laws have unleashed a bloodbath of violent crime across the country. Bill C-75 , the catch-and-release Liberal bail law, is the problem. The Prime Minister has kept Liberal bail in place, causing more bloodshed over his last six months. Conservatives listened to police and victims and drafted a bill to end Liberal bail and restore city streets. The vote is today. Victims and frontline officers are watching the government. Will the Prime Minister stop protecting criminals, put politics aside and vote to scrap Liberal bail?”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been a long six months since the Prime Minister promised bail reform, and nothing has happened. Instead, the Liberals are obstructing the Conservative jail not bail act from passing, keeping soft-on-crime catch-and-release laws on the books. Since the Liberals took office, violent crime is up 55%, sex assaults are up 76% and gun crime has soared by a staggering 130%. Enough is enough. When will the Liberals finally protect Canadians, stop Liberal bail and back the Conservative jail not bail act?”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberal laws have unleashed crime and chaos on our streets, and it is no wonder: Bill C-75 requires courts to release repeat violent offenders at the earliest opportunity with the least restrictive conditions. The results are devastating. In Markham alone, a criminal out on bail for attempted murder shot a man in a home invasion. The Liberals promise bail reform, but it is just another bait and switch. If he is serious, will the Prime Minister scrap Liberal bail or get out of the way and let Conservatives finally do it?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend as he is one of the few Conservative MPs in the Brampton area. The majority of those ridings are dominated by Liberal MPs. My question to the member is simple: What is the community of Brampton saying about the weak, soft-on-crime agenda of the Liberal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the bill would see immediate changes to the safety quotient across the country. There would be a rebalancing of our criminal justice system, where the rights of the accused are balanced with community safety and victim safety. Those repeat violent offenders would find it exceedingly difficult, although not impossible, to obtain bail.”
“Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe in democracy. I absolutely believe in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the charter, we have two fundamental rights that apply to bail matters: the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and the right to reasonable bail. This is bail, not sentencing. Reasonable bail does not mean absolute bail, and that is the consequence, literally, of Bill C-75 . The purpose behind a bail hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence; it is an assessment of risk. When we are dealing with violent repeat offenders, the easy solution is that community outweighs the freedom of the accused—”
“Mr. Speaker, perhaps my friend did not hear me as clearly as I wanted her to hear me. Law enforcement has been pleading with the government for the last four years. They have had regular meetings here in Ottawa and in many parts of this country. They came here to Ottawa for a one-day summit, a one-day summit producing Bill C-48 , which added reverse onus provisions to a number of firearm offences, which did not move the needle one iota on community safety. They are asking her to do her job. We cannot wait. The justice minister has been promising reform for the last six months. Get on board with the jail not bail act and protect Canadians.”
“For the last four years, the government has heard from premiers, mayors, presidents of police associations, police chiefs, victim advocacy groups, to do one thing: change your approach to bail, keep Canadians safe. Here is the Liberal government's opportunity. If you want to clearly distinguish yourself, and remove yourself from the Trudeau legacy, here is your opportunity. Stand in support of the jail not bail act, or abstain from the vote, but please telegraph to your constituents, who I am sure are going to be watching our speeches today, and if they are not, I will certainly share it among all my followers across this country, that you will do your job. Stand up for Canada, stand up for safety, stand up for victims and put violent criminals where they belong, back in jail.”
“Because of Liberal bail laws, sex assault is up 76%. Because of Liberal bail laws, homicide is up 29%. This is why, if the Liberals do not want to exercise their number one responsibility, they should get out of the way and let us bring forth common-sense solutions to protect Canadians. I brought a petition, which I was hoping was going to go viral across the country, this past July, calling for the immediate repeal of the principle of restraint, restoring safe streets and applying the principle of community safety, just like the member for Oxford has done in our jail not bail act. Since the middle of July, 60,000 proud Canadians, Canadians those members in the government represent, have signed my petition.”
“The member for Winnipeg North says that the Prime Minister has a robust agenda he has promised Canadians, but this is a classic bait and switch. We heard these promises during the election; we heard the promises in the throne speech, and we have heard numerous members on that side of the House make promises that this is coming. However, here we are, seven months removed since the Prime Minister became the new prime minister of this country, and we are still waiting. In that time frame, people have died, people are fearful and people are being sexually assaulted or extorted at an alarming rate. (1040) Let us look at the statistics. Because of Liberal bail laws, violent crime is up 55% since 2015. Firearms crime is up 130% because of Liberal bail laws. Because of Liberal bail laws, extortion has skyrocketed 330%.”
“I know the member for Winnipeg North likes to turn everything into a partisan issue. To my colleague from Woodstock, I say that this particular bill and our arguments are not partisan, because community safety is not a partisan issue. Every member in the House represents constituents, and those constituents want to wake up in homes that are still safe, with windows that are still intact, doors that have not been broken in and vehicles that are still in the driveway, where their kids can play safely in the backyard and play street hockey on the streets and not be hit by stray bullets or invaded at night, as we are constantly seeing, day after day. That is what Canadians want, and that is why this is not a partisan issue. The number one responsibility of the Liberal government is to keep Canadians safe.”
“That telegraphed to every judge and justice of the peace hearing bail applications to this day that they “shall”, which is mandatory language, “release...the accused at the earliest...opportunity and on the least [restrictive] conditions”. This was regardless of what the charge was or the carnage the charge had caused to the community or to the victim. It was regardless of the offender's criminal record, which may have shown a pattern of breaching court orders or committing that same offence again. It was also, get this, regardless of the number of outstanding releases that person might be on. This person, according to the Liberal government, was worthy of release. That is the origin of catch-and-release. That is the reason we have the problems that exist today.”
“They introduced the “Principle of restraint” under section 493.1 of the Criminal Code, which said that regardless of the grounds for detention in the Criminal Code, the primary ground for release was whether the person was going to show up for court. The secondary ground was whether there was a protection issue for the public and a presumption that this person was going to incur further charges if released. The tertiary ground was to maintain the confidence of the public, depending on the severity of the charge. Those three grounds worked, but Justin Trudeau and David Lametti decided to introduce the principle of restraint.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government misled Canadians into believing that it was simply codifying language from the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision the Liberals were referring to was Antic, which basically reiterated the principles under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that apply to people who are factually innocent, although charged with a serious crime. Justin Trudeau and his ministers said they were taking the language from Antic and applying it to the Criminal Code, but the decision from Antic never directed the federal government to do anything. It was a reminder about the balance that needed to take place every single day in every single courthouse in this country. Justin Trudeau and his then justice minister, David Lametti, decided to make it one step easier for criminals.”
“We saw more releases and more detention orders, and people had a level of confidence that things were working as they were supposed to. In 2019, the government decided to lie to Canadians. Justin Trudeau and his former ministers deliberately lied to Canadians by saying—”
“Canadians are waking up every single day to read, see and hear about one heartbreaking story after another, usually about someone who has been killed, wounded, maimed or injured; someone who has had their car stolen or their home invaded; or someone who has been subject to sexual assault. Lo and surprise, individuals committing these offences are on numerous releases and are classified by police services as being well known to them, because they are repeat violent offenders. That is the reality Canada is facing. This was not the reality prior to 2019. In 2019, there was a balance in our criminal justice system, in which the constitutional rights of the accused, such as the right to be presumed innocent and the right to reasonable bail, were balanced evenly with community safety and the safety of victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the great citizens of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. It is particularly poignant for me given today's topic and given my prior history in the criminal justice system. I dare say that one of the driving forces for me to leave behind, at that point, almost 28 years in criminal justice to become a legislator was that I saw first-hand, daily, the tragic consequences of the failed, soft-on-crime agenda of the Liberal government. It started in 2015; changes were then made in 2019 with Bill C-75 and Bill C-83 and later, in 2023, with Bill C-5 . The cumulative effect is that Canadians are now living in a state of fear.”
“Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer and a former adjudicator, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on the differing standards of proof. We have the extreme vilification versus the lower standard in Bill C-9 . Knowing that our courts are overburdened with cases right now, with Jordan delays being commonplace across Canada, does she feel this confusing threshold will increase the amount of litigation in our criminal courts?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard from several speakers from the government side that Jewish groups are absolutely supportive and in favour of the full content of Bill C-9 . I would like to find out this from my colleague: As a proud Jewish resident in his community, has he heard from any other Jewish groups that offer a different view?”
“Madam Speaker, the member's speech was excellent. The symbolism section in Bill C-9 specifically prohibits the wilful public display of the Nazi swastika. There are over one million Hindu Canadians in this country, and part of the symbolism associated with that culture and faith is a symbol that closely resembles the swastika. An hon. member: It is the swastika. Larry Brock: Madam Speaker, it is the swastika. Does my friend feel that this is a glaring error on behalf of the drafters that could lead to unintended consequences and could ultimately lead to criminal charges? I would like to hear his thoughts on that.”
“Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my hon. colleague to reflect on the question that was put to me by the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime , that the police services that she has spoken to welcome the removal of Attorney General consent. I would like to know, from the perspective of my colleague, what his impression is in terms of enforcement generally with respect to the existing hate legislation as found in the Criminal Code. In the member's opinion, is it uniformly addressed or are there differences?”
“Madam Speaker, I find Justin Trudeau's comments in this House and outside this House with respect to the burning down of Christian churches to be absolutely repulsive. It was a disgusting statement by the head of a G7 country, and in my view, it is emblematic of how this government has vilified Christianity in the House of Commons. Every time a church was burned, we would bring it up in the House of Commons, trying to elicit a response from this government, and there was nothing but crickets on that side, which is disgusting.”
“The act is currently stating that this particular form of hatred needs to be attached to another offence of any other act of Parliament, so that could include our political opponents under the Canada Elections Act. There could be numerous examples where things that are said under the guise of freedom of expression can be determined by a political opponent to be vilifying or to somehow have a detestation element and therefore they want to proceed with the prosecution. That is why we need Attorney General consent.”
“Madam Speaker, I have several responses. I want to highlight again that obtaining Attorney General consent is not a cumbersome process. There are a number of potential prosecutions and offences currently in the Criminal Code that already require Attorney General consent, so I can lay to rest the issue that it is too time-consuming and would delay a potential prosecution, because it is not reality. The other issue that the member raises is the issue of whether private prosecutions can be overcome by Attorney General consent, and as I indicated in my speech, that raises the spectre of overzealous litigants simply abusing the process.”
“We support ensuring that synagogues, mosques, cultural centres and schools are safe, but we also support protecting civil liberties. I am going to conclude with the following. Canadians deserve protection from hate. They need to feel safe wherever they may be. They deserve to live in a country where freedom of speech and peaceful protests are respected. Bill C-9 , as drafted, does not get that balance right. It is flawed. It is late. It cannot proceed in its current form. We support protecting Canadians from threats, intimidation, obstruction and violence, but we will not rubber-stamp a flawed bill. We will stand up for vulnerable communities and for civil liberties. We will push for a law that truly represents and protects Canadians without undermining the freedoms that define us as a country.”
“On its face, this seems consistent, but by removing the word “extreme” from the definition as defined by learned justices in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government has lowered the legal threshold, enabling police to lay a multitude of charges at a lower level of inspection and investigation, which, in my view, could open up the floodgates for litigation. That is a concern. When they codify, they should be using the exact same words as the Supreme Court of Canada. The risk is that speech that is protected in a free democracy could be swept into a different category as true hate. This is not what Canadians want. It is not what our charter says. Let me be clear. Conservatives support the goal of keeping Canadians safe from hate-motivated crime. We support police and prosecutors having the tools they need to act.”
“More importantly, the requirement for consent would limit and almost completely eliminate overzealous litigants, private litigants, who feel, for whatever reason, that they want to lay a private complaint against another individual for comments that they deem to be offensive in the circumstances. It provides a very important safeguard. The third problem I identify is the definition of hatred, and I have raised this issue already with the minister . Bill C-9 , as drafted, as the government indicates and as the minister just indicated, would codify the definition of hatred found in the Supreme Court of Canada as “detestation or vilification”.”
“As a former member of the attorney general's office in the province of Ontario, I am rather offended by that, because he is indicating that my boss at that time, the provincial attorney general, was highly political, and that his consent or her consent to continuing a prosecution was made depending on what political affiliation he or she belonged to. That is nonsense, absolute nonsense. It is a safety valve that has been in place for some significant time. It is not an onerous requirement and it ensures that legitimate charges are prosecuted as laid by the police.”
“We have heard, by way of questioning of the minister , that there would be removal of Attorney General consent for hate propaganda charges. Police officers and prosecutors I have spoken with view that consent as an important safeguard, a so-called safety valve that ensures that these powerful tools are not misused. In response to a question from my colleague from York Centre , the minister , in my view, minimized the potential consequential impact of removing Attorney General consent from private prosecutions. His response was that they want to remove political influence.”
“This is why Conservatives have been abundantly clear that we support stronger protections, but supporting that objective does not mean rubber-stamping a flawed piece of legislation. What are the problems with Bill C-9 ? The bill, as drafted, is vague and broad. Civil liberty organizations across Canada have already raised the alarm. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has warned that the intimidation and obstruction provisions risk capturing peaceful protest and legitimate dissent. (1630) The BC Civil Liberties Association said the same. The poorly drafted language could criminalize demonstrations even when they are peaceful and lawful. These are independent organizations dedicated to protecting charter rights, and they are telling us loudly that Bill C-9 risks going too far.”
“Now, years late, the government has tabled a bill that, quite frankly, feels more like a political gesture than a serious plan. Make no mistake, the numbers are alarming. Since 2015, police-reported hate crimes in Canada have increased by 258%. Anti-Semitic hate crimes alone are up 416%. Hate crimes against South Asians have risen by almost 380%. In 2024 alone, Canada saw almost 5,000 police-reported hate crimes, the highest number on record. In Toronto alone, hate crime occurrences jumped by 19% in a single year, with assault-related hate crimes rising by 42%. These numbers are not just statistics. They represent real Canadians, our neighbours, our friends, our co-workers and our children, who all deserve confidence in knowing they are safe and secure.”
“Where were the Liberals as Islamophobia rose in Canada, when mosques were threatened and Muslim families felt unsafe simply walking in their neighbourhood? Let us not forget that there is absolutely zero reference to Christianity. Christianity is under attack in this country. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Larry Brock: Madam Speaker, I do not know what was funny about Christianity being under attack, but nevertheless, Christian churches have been burned at an alarming rate. Between May 2021 and December 2023, thirty-three Christian churches were burned in this country, with the vast majority being arson-based. For years, communities cried out for protection. What they got instead from their federal Liberal government was silence.”
“It cannot go ahead as the Liberals have drafted it, and it is my duty today to explain why. First, we need to talk about timing. Where was this legislation almost two years ago? We are about to approach the anniversary of the October 7 massacre in Israel. Where was this government in terms of advancing legislation? Literally overnight, we saw an expansion of hatred directed towards Jewish people. It was not just in large cities; it penetrated the entire country. Jewish Canadians were targeted in their communities. Students were harassed simply for going to school. Synagogues across this country were being shot at and firebombed on a regular basis and had to increase their level of security. Where was the Liberal government to address these criminal acts?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues, and I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix . It is always a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the incredible residents who put me in this incredible position to represent them in the House of Commons. Today, I rise to speak to this government bill, Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act. Let me begin where I think all of us in the House can agree. We support the objective of protecting vulnerable communities from the rising levels of hate and extremism that we see literally daily in this country. We support giving police and prosecutors the tools they need to keep Canadians safe from coast to coast in their homes, in their schools, in their places of worship and in community spaces. However, the bill itself is flawed in its current form.”
“Madam Speaker, the minister talked about the codification of the term “hatred”. I believe his explanation was that it was a codification from the Supreme Court of Canada. I am sure the minister recognizes that the decision we are both talking about is a decision known as Regina v. Keegstra. In Regina v. Keegstra, a leading decision on the definition of hatred from the Supreme Court of Canada, hatred can be defined as extreme detestation and extreme vilification, which is not the language that is used in Bill C-9 . Why did the minister and his department see fit to lower the legal threshold?”
“Mr. Speaker, the truth came out a few days ago. The minister knows the gun grab will fail. He was caught on tape admitting that it will blow the budget and that it would be better to lock up criminals committing the crimes. I am sorry, but the minister's words were not misguided; they were the truth. However, today he is blindly plowing ahead, not to protect Canadians but because the Prime Minister wants a political stunt. If the minister knows it will fail, admits it will waste millions of dollars and says it is all about politics, why is he still in charge of public safety?”