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 8 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister 's number one job is to keep Canadians safe. Instead he is blowing taxpayer dollars on a gun buyback program he knows will fail. The Toronto Police Association has slammed it as useless, and it is right. Almost every gun used in Toronto crime last year was smuggled. The overwhelming majority were from the U.S., yet the minister is attacking law-abiding Canadians, knowing full well that his program will not work. The minister has failed to do his job. Will the Prime Minister fire the incompetent minister?”
“Madam Speaker, last Tuesday, a video was shot in a vacant committee room. I was involved in the video, as were my colleagues from the justice committee who are from the Conservative Party. In that video, we drew attention to the fact that although this was a regular day to hold a justice committee meeting, there were no Liberals present at this particular meeting and no member from the Bloc Québécois. The truth of the matter is that opposition members do not set the schedule for the justice committee. It is done by the Liberal Party. The video had unintended consequences for the Bloc Québécois and, in particular, my colleague and friend, the member for Rivière-du-Nord , for which I apologize. The fact of the matter is that they control the agenda.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals really wanted to crack down on crime, they would not cling to their catch-and-release laws that let repeat violent offenders back on our streets. For years, premiers, police chiefs and mayors across the country have been pleading with the government, while it defends laws that let criminals back on our streets. Enough is enough. Our motion is clear: after three violent convictions, no bail, no parole and no house arrest. Will the Liberals stop obstructing Parliament and pass “jail, not bail” this Monday, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of passing catch-and-release laws that turn criminals loose on our streets, the Liberals are now obstructing “jail, not bail” laws. In Nova Scotia, a man sexually assaulted more than 300 children and within hours was released on bail. This is outrageous. The same violent criminals are cycling through the system again and again. That is why our Conservative motion would bring a “three strikes and you're out” law, with no bail after three serious convictions. On Monday, will the Liberals stop obstructing Parliament and pass it?”
“Madam Speaker, that is a fantastic question. It is very simple: The entire philosophy of the Liberal government for the last 50 years has been to put the needs of criminals before the needs of victims and community safety. It is an ideology that is wack.”
“Madam Speaker, when I classify victims, I highlight that women across this country have long felt that there is absolutely no justice to our system. They view it as a legal system, because for 10-plus years, they have been abandoned in the process. The sentencing guidelines do not reflect the true gravity of intimate partner violence. To answer my colleague's question, absolutely we will prioritize victims, particularly women of intimate partner violence, to ensure that their offenders are sanctioned appropriately and meaningfully so that there is not only a denunciation impact, but a deterrent impact.”
“Madam Speaker, our current Prime Minister , this particular member, all previous members of the Justin Trudeau government and even the new members of this Liberal government have obstructed every opportunity for us to advance common-sense solutions to deal with the criminal justice system. For the last 10 years, the member has continually prioritized the needs and the comfort of criminals at the expense of community safety and victims. The Prime Minister has had over five months to introduce this legislation. Why are we waiting so long? Community safety is not a partisan issue right across this country. I keep repeating that. Why have the Liberals waited as long as they have, when over the last four years, every major stakeholder has said, “Do your job”?”
“They want seniors to feel safe in their homes. They want women to know that their abusers will not be back on their doorstep the very next day. They want law-abiding citizens put before repeat violent offenders. The Conservatives are bringing forward this motion because Canadians deserve more than excuses. They deserve more than obstructionist ways. They deserve safety, first and foremost.”
“After three serious violent crimes, someone has shown society they cannot be trusted to walk free. They would serve real time, not living-room sentences. That is how we effectively protect communities, restore faith in the justice system and finally put victims ahead of repeat violent offenders. Canadians are tired of Liberal governments that coddle criminals and abandon victims. The motion says that enough is enough. It would end the failed approach of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 . It responds to the pleas of police, premiers and mayors. It would give Crown attorneys and judges the tools they need to keep dangerous offenders where they belong: behind bars. Most importantly, it would restore the fundamental duty of any federal government, and that is to keep Canadians safe. Canadians want their children to walk to school without fear.”
“Here is what that means in practice. When someone has been convicted of three serious violent offences, they would no longer be able to serve their time at home or walk out with probation. There would be no more conditional sentences and no more house arrests. Instead, they would face a mandatory minimum period of incarceration of 10 years, with the possibility of life in prison depending on the severity of their crimes. They would be designated as dangerous offenders, which means they would not be released until they can prove they are no longer a threat to the public. If they ever wanted to earn back their freedom, they would have to show it. That means spotless behaviour, clean drug tests and real steps toward rehabilitation. The principle is simple.”
“Consider the Saskatchewan tragedy in 2022. Myles Sanderson was already out on statutory release after 59 convictions. Let that sink in. He went on a rampage, killing 11 people and injuring 17 more. If he had been kept in jail, as common sense dictates, those families would still have their loved ones today. In Peel Region, police arrested 18 individuals tied to home invasions, armed robberies and carjackings. Shockingly, half of them were out on release at the time. In Vancouver, police reported that just 40 prolific repeat offenders were arrested more than 6,000 times in a single year. That, by definition, is the revolving-door justice system. That is why, if the Liberal government were truly serious about tackling violent crime, it would adopt the Conservative plan for a “three strikes and you're out” law.”
“The Toronto Police Association repeatedly warned of the dangers of letting repeat violent offenders back on the streets. Mayors in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Toronto have all publicly pressed for real reform because their citizens are living with the consequences every single day. All 13 premiers from across party lines signed joint letters for the federal government demanding immediate action, yet the government continued its obstructionist ways. It dug in, defended its failed laws and ignored voices from the very same stakeholders it should have been listening to. What has been the result? The numbers do not lie. Since 2015, crime has exploded across all categories. Extortion alone has had a 300% increase. These are not just statistics. They represent real Canadians whose lives have been shattered by violence.”
“We heard the public safety minister , who was the justice minister at the time, say that the bail system is sound. We saw Liberal ministers and the Prime Minister blaming provinces, telling premiers to “step up” while refusing to fix the failed Criminal Code policies that they themselves broke. Canadians do not want a blame game; they want a justice system that works and is fair. (1030) It is not just Conservatives sounding the alarm. For years, police chiefs, premiers and mayors from across the country have been begging the Liberal government to fix the mess. The Liberals have been obstructionist ever since. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said that changes were “urgently needed” to stop repeat violent offenders from cycling through communities.”
“It meant making conditional sentences possible for serious offences like sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, even fentanyl trafficking, and robbery with violence. These are not small crimes; they are violent, scarring, life-altering offences. Imagine telling a victim of kidnapping that their attacker can now serve a sentence from the comfort of their own living room. That is the reality Bill C-5 created. When the public backlash grew, the Liberals tried to save face with Bill C-48 . The then justice minister, Arif Virani, promised it would make Canadians safer, but then he admitted in his own words that he cannot measure what exactly that would look like. That is not a plan; that is simply a press release. When those reforms failed, Liberal ministers tried to pass the buck.”
“Among other things, it legislated a principle of restraint that pushes release at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive terms. That may sound tidy in a briefing note, but in real life it tilted the system away from public safety. The Department of Justice itself describes the bill's goal as timely release with the least onerous conditions. Then came the notorious Bill C-5 in 2022. This law repealed mandatory minimum penalties for dozens of serious offences that were constitutionally upheld, and brought back conditional sentence orders, what most Canadians now call house arrest. At the time, Liberal justice minister David Lametti said the Liberals were “turning the page on a failed Conservative criminal justice policy”, but what did that really mean?”
“The practical effect of this Liberal philosophy was clear: The faint hope of rehabilitating an offender was elevated over denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring crime or protecting society. The result has been a revolving door of hardened criminals being arrested and released and then reoffending, leaving victims to suffer the consequences. That is why the Conservative government of Stephen Harper worked to restore balance to our justice system, re-establishing the importance of denunciation, deterrence and the protection of society. However, the Liberals have spent the past decade undoing that progress, scrapping mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes, making bail even easier to obtain and carrying on the soft-on-crime legacy. This became crystal clear in 2019 when the Liberals passed Bill C-75 .”
“Over those years, the offenders I saw grew more dangerous and more emboldened because the system kept signalling that the consequences were optional. This soft-on-crime philosophy did not begin with the current Liberals. Its roots stretch back more than 50 years, when Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government openly declared its intent to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society, even if it involved community risk. Canadians have been paying the price for those risks ever since. The Young Offenders Act dramatically reduced sentences, even for those convicted of murder. Statutory release shortened jail time by a third, and parole policies make a mockery of sentences pronounced in court. Today, full parole can come as early as one-third of a sentence, and unescorted temporary absences as early as one-sixth.”
“I rise today in strong support of our Conservative motion calling on the government to end the failed experiment of leniency and to adopt a common-sense “three strikes and you're out” law so that the worst repeat violent offenders serve real time, not living-room sentences, and communities are finally safe again. For 10 long years, the Liberal government has put the interests of criminals ahead of the safety and dignity of victims. It has prioritized the rights of repeat offenders over the safety of law-abiding Canadians. I say this as someone who served nearly two decades as a Crown attorney. I have looked victims in the eye. I have sat with families shattered by repeat offenders who should never have been back on the street.”
“moved: Motion That, given that the Liberal government has changed the law to allow for house arrest for serious offenders and lets repeat criminals go free within hours of their arrest, which has resulted in a 50% increase in violent crime, the House call on the Liberal government to replace these changes with a "Three-Strikes-And-You're-Out" law that will stop criminals convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest and keep violent criminals in jail for at least 10 years. He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles . It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the great citizens of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to that for five months: empty promises, empty words. Last year, 256 people were charged with homicide while on release. That is, 256 Canadians would be alive today if these violent criminals had been behind bars. If Conservatives' “three strikes and you're out” law were in place, these repeat offenders would have been in jail and not destroying families. Nearly five months after taking office, the Prime Minister has failed to act. If he truly wants to crack down on violent crime, he will back our common-sense Conservative law to keep criminals in jail and to restore safe streets. Will he do that?”
“Mr. Speaker, crime, chaos and fear are ravaging communities right across Canada after 10 years of the Liberals' prioritizing soft-on-crime laws. In Saskatchewan, a man out on release after 59 prior convictions murdered 11 people. In Peel Region, half the suspects in a violent carjacking ring were out on bail. In Vancouver, just 40 repeat offenders were arrested 6,000 times, yet the government takes no action. Why are the Liberals clinging to laws that let dangerous criminals back on the streets instead of keeping Canadians safe?”
“Mr. Speaker, after a decade of the Liberal government, serious violent crime has soared, but so has leniency. A mother is dead, and the so-called harm reduction worker who helped the accused killer gets to serve her sentence from home and enjoy her gym membership. What kind of justice system does the Prime Minister believe in, one that protects victims or one that rewards criminals? To correct what the crime minister had to say, there is no mandatory minimum for extortion, because she and her government voted in favour of Bill C-5 . Will the Liberals finally take responsibility for their soft-on-crime agenda?”
“Mr. Speaker, a so-called safe injection site, backed by the Liberal government, became the scene of a broad daylight drug shootout. A mother walking by was killed, yet the staff member at the site who helped the shooters escape, shockingly, will not serve a single day behind bars. This was not about harm reduction. It was chaos, violence and death in a residential neighbourhood. Will the Liberal government finally accept responsibility for these sites becoming crime magnets, and end the dangerous policies putting Canadians at risk?”
“Mr. Chair, the answer is zero. As the new President of the Treasury Board of this so-called new government, will the minister do the honourable thing and apologize to Canadians for not exercising prudent care over their tax dollars?”
“Mr. Chair, over three years ago, Kristian Firth, under oath, admitted to deliberately falsifying résumés to secure government contracts. This is the classic definition of fraud. Why did the government not make a referral to the RCMP at that time?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister's government said in the House numerous times today that the government has taken GC Strategies to court. A lawsuit does exist. A statement of claim exists. Will the minister table the statement of claim today in the House, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard nothing all day today about any steps the government plans on taking for getting the money back. We have heard nothing but comments about gamesmanship or that we should be looking at other issues. Government members seem to forget that the official opposition has a constitutional mandate to hold the government to account. In light of the explosive AG report released on Tuesday, a damning indictment against this particular government, perhaps my colleague can better explain why it was important to bring this particular motion forward today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the member is new to the chamber, but perhaps he needs to reflect on the last 10 years of waste, corruption and scandal that he is now a part of. He talks about welcoming the Auditor General's report into the arrive scam issue, but he also needs to remember that, with regard to the first report that she gave, they opposed the inquest by the Auditor General in her report. The question is very simple. We have heard all kinds of mixed messages about the status of litigation against GC Strategies. If the government has taken GC Strategies to court to recover monies on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, when was the suit filed, how much is it for and where was it filed?”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about how this particular scandal would be dealt with in the private sector. We know that in 2015, Justin Trudeau promised Canadians that he would be open by default and that if the Liberals made a mistake, they would own up to it and apologize. Can my colleague identify any particular minister or deputy minister who has accepted responsibility for the boondoggle?”
“Mr. Speaker, in light of the mixed messaging on efforts to recoup the money from GC Strategies, the member for Peterborough indicated that PSPC has taken GC Strategies to court. Will the member or her government table the statement of claim in the House today?”
“Mr. Speaker, unlike the members from the same old Liberal government, he may be a new face, but he has inherited a corrupt, rotten-at-its-core government with the same values and same beliefs. What I am doing differently is that, unlike this member, I stand up for my constituents and I make sure they get value for their tax dollars.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. As I indicated in my speech, one would only hope that there would be unanimous approval for this motion, if all of us live true to our responsibilities to our constituents, which are to ensure that we are delivering value to them. This has been clearly demonstrated over the last 10 years. GC Strategies is but one contractor, 0.37% of all the money that was spent on outside consultants, which was $64 million. According to Ms. Hogan, it would be naive for us to think that this is only applicable to this one contractor. We are talking about literally billions of dollars. With that being said, every member should stand for their constituents and ensure transparency and accountability and a plan to pay the money back.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very thoughtful question from the member for Waterloo. I do not think she is going to like the answer, and I am not going to take credit for this answer. I am actually going to give credit to a journalist from the National Post who reported today on an interesting story about all the items that I spoke to, but the heading, to answer my friend's question, is this: “Job one for Canada in this scary new world is to stop being stupid”. The answer is to stop being stupid and follow the damn rules. It is simple. It is common sense.”
“— in 21% of the contracts examined, federal departments lacked documentation showing...security clearances for contractors working on government networks containing sensitive information. Alarmingly, those department agencies where security clearances were not obtained included National Defence, Global Affairs and the Department of Justice, three of the most important ministries that have an obligation to secure sensitive data. In essence, the Auditor General concluded that, ultimately, no recommendations were being made, because they need to follow the basic rules, which have been allowed to be not followed for literally the last 10 years, and that, simply, Canadians did not receive value for their money. In essence, I am asking every member to rise, to stand up for their constituents and ensure accountability is here.”
“I have been involved in it for literally three years. The article continues with some of the key findings: — in 58% of the contracts examined that were awarded without tendering, federal departments failed to assess whether doing so would have resulted in lower costs to taxpayers. — in more than 80% of the contracts examined that were awarded without competition or with only one valid bid, government departments failed to verify that the fees paid did not exceed market rates. — in almost 50% of the contracts examined, federal departments couldn’t show the work was delivered, even though payments were made. — in 33% of the contracts examined, federal departments couldn’t show the firms contracted were capable of completing the work.”
“The article reads: Federal auditor general Karen Hogan on Tuesday reported widespread incompetence in the awarding of government contracts by the public service, resulting in billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money being wasted. What’s even more alarming is that everyone in the system knows it and no one is doing anything about it. Given that, what is the point of having an auditor general if every time she exposes incompetence and waste, the government pays lip service to implementing her recommendations and then goes back to doing the same things that led to the issue being investigated by the auditor general in the first place? In her latest report, this concern arises from Hogan’s deep dive into federal contracts awarded to...GCStrategies.... That was supposed to cost $80,000. I could literally speak for an hour on this.”
“The official testified before a committee that when the government is frauded, they “have the ability to recover the funds from the suppliers, and it's in [their] regular practice to do so.” This should telegraph to all of my Liberal colleagues that they should stand in support of this ability to ensure taxpayers get their money back. I have since looked at a number of news articles, notwithstanding the member for Winnipeg North 's comments that no one is talking about it. Certainly, ripped from the headlines are a number of interesting stories. First, by Lorrie Goldstein, the heading is, “Ignoring contracting rules costs taxpayers billions: auditor general”.”
“Karen Hogan said, “Overall, this audit shows a glaring disregard for basic management and contracting practices throughout ArriveCAN’s development and implementation.” She further said, “I don't believe that an emergency is a reason that all the rules are thrown out the window.” She proudly concluded that the government paid way too much for that particular app. The issue is such that the Liberal government has a responsibility, has the legal ability and, according to a government department official responsible for contracting and outsourcing, has the power to get taxpayers their money back.”
“The truth remains that it was an app that was poorly designed, notwithstanding its price tag, that always broke down and that created countless misery and heartache for Canadians. I would dare say that not one Canadian was saved by the Liberal bureaucratic and administrative boondoggle. (1235) The government's very limited defence involves the plea that the app was developed in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic, that time was of the essence. We heard that numerous times. However, the unique circumstances and demands of the moment scarcely offer a fig leaf to cover what the Auditor General laid bare in that report.”
“This was not the first time, as I indicated, that the Auditor General had released a report on GC Strategies. The app was designed to cost Canadians $80,000; that is what the same old Liberal government parroted in the House on numerous occasions. In her first report, the Auditor General made it clear that the cost estimate was well beyond $80,000, and in fact was approaching $60 million, but she could not be accurate. Why is that? It is because the paperwork and the shoddy accounting practices of the CBSA were such that she could not examine all pertinent documents. The Liberals defended the cost of the app in the House numerous times, and quite proudly, but now erroneously have stated that it saved thousands of lives.”
“It is important to note at this point that the Liberal government, the same so-called new government with the same old players who are now saying, through the Prime Minister , that they totally accept the findings of the Auditor General, was the one that opposed the Auditor General's looking into the ArriveCAN scandal, what we call the arrive scam scandal, right from the earliest opportunity. The messaging is very clear in this. The ongoing Liberal arrive scam saga continues. It is the bad Liberal gift that just keeps on giving. Currently, the Auditor General has released a scathing audit on the top arrive scam contractor, GC Strategies. The two-person, basement-dwelling company, not a brick-and-mortar one, now under RCMP investigation for fraud, received a jaw-dropping $64 million from the Liberals since they took office.”
“I know that the member for Winnipeg North claims that no one in his riding spoke about ArriveCAN, but I am sure they talked about accountability, transparency and proper prudence in terms of the government's exercising prudence over taxpayer money. He will not talk about that, but that is exactly what the motion is about. If this is a déjà vu moment, and it feels like a déjà vu moment for me, it is because approximately 15 months ago I stood before your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, who was in the chair, and I gave a speech on a similar motion. It was not worded in the same fashion, but the intent was there to give the government 100 days to inform the House as to what steps it would take to get taxpayers their money back. That was a result of the Auditor General's releasing a number of damning reports.”
“Today we are debating our Conservative motion that, given that the Auditor General found that the ArriveCAN contractor, GC Strategies, was paid $64 million and that in many cases there is no proof that any work was completed, the House calls on the government to, one, get taxpayers their money back within 100 days of the adoption of this motion; and two, impose a lifetime contracting ban on GC Strategies, on its subsidiaries, more importantly on its founders and principal partners, Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony, and on any other entities with which those individuals are affiliated. The simple message is that Canadians want their taxpayer money back.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish to state at the outset that it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the great residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I also want to telegraph that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix .”
“Mr. Speaker, shockingly, the very same Liberal ministers who had their fingerprints all over the arrive scam are still in cabinet today: namely, the jobs minister , the U.S. trade minister and the foreign affairs minister . Their lack of ministerial responsibility is both negligent and inexcusable. The fraudulent payment of $64 million is not just about reckless spending; it is a total waste of taxpayer dollars and a betrayal of Canadians, who are living through a cost of living crisis. I ask the Prime Minister again, when will taxpayers get their money back?”
“Mr. Speaker, today the Auditor General released a scathing audit on the top arrive scam fraudster, GC Strategies. This two-person, basement-dwelling company feasted on 64 million taxpayer dollars. This was a direct gift from the Liberal government, which allowed basic procurement rules to be completely ignored over the last 10 years. Canadians still do not know who did the work, what was done, if they were qualified or if they had security clearances. This is complete government incompetence. The ask is simple: When will taxpayers get their money back?”
“Mr. Chair, the government has kept in place mandatory minimum penalties for auto thefts, yet eliminated them for trafficking, production, importation and exportation of fentanyl, a deadly poison that has killed 50,000 Canadians since the minister's election. Are you proud of that?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister and his crime czar are saying they are getting tough on violent crime. Why did the minister vote to eliminate mandatory jail time for gun and repeat violent offences in Bill C-5 ?”
“Mr. Chair, on the same day as his swearing in, former minister Virani said that Canadians do not feel unsafe in their communities, that the perception of crime is largely in their heads and that an increase in crime is “empirically...unlikely”. Does the minister agree with that statement?”
“Mr. Chair, former justice minister Virani said at committee that he was proud of the fact that he and his government delivered bail reform through the passage of Bill C-48 . Does the minister still hold that same belief?”