Tamara Kronis
Nanaimo—Ladysmith, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, here is the thing: The Cowichan Tribe decision introduced uncertainty around how aboriginal title interacts with private property in B.C. While the Supreme Court declined an appeal in Wolastoqey, a refusal of leave is not a decision on the merits and does not create binding national precedent.”
“In Parliament, members and senators have brought forward several health-related bills on rare disease access, forced and coerced sterilization, heart failure, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, food allergies, women's health, brain injuries, ADHD, medical assistance in dying, natural health products, living organ donors, supervised consumpt…”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard a variety of arguments from this side of the House as to why cutting debate off on this bill is short-sighted, but perhaps one of the most important reasons is because, as my hon. colleague explained, it does not just cut off debate in the House; it also means this bill will never go to committee.”
“The framework would cover training for health care professionals, a national research network and registry, evidence-based national standards, universal neonatal screening, public awareness, blood donation promotion, analysis of a possible tax credit, inclusion in existing disability benefits, and an analysis of whether treatments should…”
“I will be the last speaker on the bill, not because members of Parliament have nothing left to say, not because the concerns of the groups that have come to the committee to meet with members of Parliament have had their concerns answered and not because the communities that are so worried that they will be affected by the bill have been…”
“We support practical steps that help patients and families, especially when those steps are shaped by evidence and by the people most affected. At the same time, Parliament has a duty to get the details right. As we know, health care delivery is provincial.”
The complete record
Every one of 572 lines we hold for Tamara Kronis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 12.
“Above all, let us commit across party lines that never again will the men and women who serve Canada have to wonder whether their own government will stand up for them when they need it most.”
“Our allies are increasing their defence commitments. The global security environment is becoming more dangerous. We will ask more of our military in the years ahead. Leadership begins with integrity at home. Before we can ask our soldiers to defend Canada's values overseas, we must prove that those values govern our own institutions. The rule of law, equality and justice must not be words in a report, but living principles in every part of our justice system. For the sake of our soldiers, sailors and aviators serving in Canada and abroad, let us get it right. The time for excuses has long passed. Fix the criminal system, or get out of the way and let us do it. Let us ensure that the civilian courts have the capacity to deliver justice quickly and fairly.”
“Our men and women in uniform deserve a military where justice is not only done but is seen to be done and is done expeditiously. The integrity of our justice system, civilian and military, depends on consistency. The Liberals cannot claim to stand for victims in uniform if they turn their back on victims in our communities. They cannot say that they believe in accountability for the forces if they do not demand it in our courts. The government has to move beyond symbolism and performative legislation. It must demonstrate through action and results that it understands the gravity of the trust that it has broken and the responsibility it carries to restore it. If we fail to get this right, then we fail not only today's soldiers, sailors and aviators, but also those we hope will serve tomorrow. Canada is vulnerable.”
“While we are speaking about justice, let us talk about the need to reform Liberal bail. Just this afternoon, the Liberal government voted down a Conservative private member's bill that would have tightened bail provisions for repeat violent offenders, including sexual offences. These are people who, under the current government's lax laws, have been released time and time again and have shown a staggering ability to reoffend. The Liberals talk about protecting victims, but when they had the chance to take common-sense steps to keep dangerous criminals off our streets, they said no to reform and yes to Liberal bail, which would apply to these cases under Bill C-11 the same way it applies to other cases in our justice system. Canadians deserve a government that takes justice seriously.”
“The principle makes sense: Justice must be independent. However, modernization is not just a word; it is a commitment to follow through. It means resourcing reforms properly. It means ensuring civilian authorities are ready to handle the additional caseloads. Right now, our civilian court system is in crisis. Court backlogs are staggering. Serious criminal cases have been stayed or dismissed because of delays. Victims of assault, including sexual assault, are waiting years for their day in court. Therefore, when the government says it will hand military cases to the civilian system, we have to ask how the civilian system would cope. What additional resources would be provided to the provinces along with this downloading to ensure these cases and others do not end up stayed for delay?”
“I hope the Liberals will collaborate with Conservatives on these issues and others raised by my colleagues and that they will be ironed out as the bill progresses through our parliamentary system. (1740) Beyond the wording of the bill, however, we cannot ignore the context in which this debate takes place. The government has promised to grow the Canadian Armed Forces to meet our NATO obligations. It has pledged to recruit and retain thousands of new members in the coming years. That will require trust that every person who joins our forces will serve in an institution that protects them, upholds the law and embodies the values that we defend abroad. That brings me to a very serious concern. The government is proposing to transfer all sexual offence cases from the military justice system to civilian courts.”
“The director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services would serve seven-year terms with no reappointment, but the provost marshal, on the other hand, serves for four years and can be reappointed. There seems to be no clear rationale for these differences. Similarly, giving the Minister of National Defence the power to issue prosecutorial guidelines in specific cases and giving the Governor in Council authority over appointments and removals, which is cabinet, opens the door, intentionally or not, to political interference. The minister's involvement in reviewing inquiries and authorizing acting appointments could compromise independence and Bill C-11 does not fully clarify how offences outside of Canada would be handled.”
“We can fairly say that without the sustained efforts and tenacity of victims, Bill C-66 , which still died on the Order Paper when the Liberal government prorogued last time, and now Bill C-11 may never have been introduced. The Liberals will now claim credit for these reforms, but it is Conservative MPs who ensured that the voices of victims were not forgotten and that meaningful change could not be avoided. The fact that we are still here 10 years after the Deschamps report debating the same issues with the same victims still waiting for change is a damning indictment of the Liberal government's ability to deliver results. Even with all of this to work with, Bill C-11 still includes some very strange inconsistencies. Term lengths and reappointment rules differ across positions.”
“Justice Deschamps called the Liberal government out for its failure to act in this regard. The next report came in 2021. It was done by former Supreme Court of Canada justice Morris Fish. It gave the Liberal government another failing grade and made 107 recommendations. In 2022, former Supreme Court of Canada justice Louise Arbour delivered yet another comprehensive external review, this time with 48 recommendations, again emphasizing broken trust and calling for action. Three former Supreme Court of Canada justices laid out a road map for reform, and yet, as the Liberals hesitated, as progress stalled, as survivors were left waiting, it was Conservative pressure through parliamentary questions, committee hearings and public advocacy that forced this issue back onto the national stage again and again.”
“It is about the culture, credibility and future of the Canadian Armed Forces because of the way that Bill C-11 now intersects with our criminal justice system. It is also about the way we prosecute crime, in general, in Canada. It has been more than a decade since the 2015 report of former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps rocked Canada with her findings on sexual misconduct in our armed forces. She made 10 recommendations. Operation Honour followed and was supposed to change both culture and outcomes, but years later, the Auditor General reported that Operation Honour had little measurable success. Investigations were still slow, accountability was still weak and the culture in some parts of the military continued to allow perpetrators to avoid serious consequences.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians hold deep pride in the men and women who wear the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces. They serve in dangerous places with courage to defend the values and freedoms we hold dear. We ask them to put country before self, to risk their lives so that we can continue to live in safety and freedom. For far too long, too many of those who have served have had to fight another battle, the battle to be heard, to be believed and to be treated with dignity when they come forward as victims of sexual assault or misconduct within the very institution that demands the highest standards of honour and integrity. That is why today's debate on Bill C-11 , the government's new military justice reform bill, matters. Our conversation today is not just about amending sections of the National Defence Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member defended the Liberal record on bail reform, yet he acknowledges that serious violent crime is on the rise. We have certainly heard member after member tell tragic stories of situations that occurred in our ridings with people out on bail. The Conservative bill we are debating today talks about protection of the public. I am wondering how the hon. member believes that could be unconstitutional.”
“Mr. Speaker, every dollar the Liberal government wastes means higher taxes hidden in Canadian grocery bills. The Prime Minister has not even spared our morning coffee. Since he took office, the price of coffee is up 23%, and sugar is up 20%. Liberals refuse to scrap the industrial carbon tax, the packaging tax and the fuel standard tax. The sweet things in life should not come at a bitter price. When will the Liberals finally axe their hidden taxes on food?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that is a really important point. One of the real struggles, particularly in the last couple of years, has been for people who are experiencing extreme examples of hatred and violence in their communities and on the streets. We have had a lot of instances where people stand on one side of the street and yell at people on the other side of the street with law enforcement in between. One of the real challenges in all of this is that it is hard to lay charges in public prosecutions. It is very difficult in the moment to find witnesses and be able to ascertain what actually happened, especially with people shrieking. There are often allegations on both sides and lots of cellphone video footage. I think it is going to be chaos.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that is a good question. Part of the challenge with this legislation is that it leads to legislative whack-a-mole when we start talking about different locations. I fear that it really will drive people back into residential neighbourhoods. Then we will be constantly trying to chase these protests around to different locations. We have had these protests in so many different locations. I think we need to focus on the activities as opposed to the places.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the hon. member for everything he has done to support his community and our communities. He has really shown care. I am personally grateful for that. When it comes down to whether or not we need new laws, we are only going to find that out when we make a sincere effort to enforce the ones we already have. Yes, that will involve working with our provincial counterparts. I think there is a lot of work to do with respect to signal and tone from the government in that. If it truly wants to protect Canadians, it is going to need to focus on resources for police, support for victims and a consistent application of the Criminal Code. There is a lot the federal government can do to support our law enforcement.”
“If the government wants to protect Canadians, it should start by enforcing the strong laws we already have. Make sure threats, assaults and property crimes motivated by hate are investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the Criminal Code. Give police the resources they need. Support victims, but do not lightly hand the state new powers to decide which ideas may be expressed.”
“That is where Parliament's attention should be: on stronger enforcement, on swifter prosecutions and on support for victims. Unamended, this bill risks punishing the unpopular while the truly dangerous slip through. While I agree wholeheartedly that rising hate crimes demand action, this bill feels more like a Liberal press release than it does like real protection. Conservatives believe in limited government, in the rule of law and in freedom of expression, even for speech we find offensive. We believe that what is illegal must be clear and tied to real harm, not to subjective feelings of detestation or vilification, however painful they may be to hear. The right response to hateful ideas is not more censorship. It is more debate, more truth and more courage from citizens willing to challenge hate in the open.”
“Safety comes from making sure that when someone assaults another person, threatens a synagogue or vandalizes a mosque, the police investigate and make arrests and the court holds a fair trial and enforces the sentence. The bill removes the Attorney General's oversight before a hate propaganda charge proceeds. That step has provided an important safeguard against politicization and misuse, especially in the case of private prosecutions. Eliminating it without providing another way to prevent vexatious prosecutions leaves the door wide open to the weaponization of this bill. Right now, our biggest problem is that enforcement is not consistent. Bail is virtually automatic, and charges are often dropped. Serious charges are plead down.”
“I fear that the bill, as drafted, will become more fodder for accusations on social media, vexatious complaints to police and aggression between groups. History warns us about where lowering the standard for hate speech can lead. Laws meant to stop hatred have been turned against political dissenters and minority voices. We should not give the state broader powers to police thought or symbolism without first trying to make our existing tools against hatred more effective. Like all hon. members in the House, I reject hate in all its forms. Every Canadian deserves to feel safe at home, in their place of worship and on the street, but safety will not come solely from criminalizing symbols or speech.”
“That is a confusing mouthful. The minister himself has admitted that the application of this law will be fact-dependent. That means that both law enforcement and ordinary Canadians will have to do some guessing in the moment as to what might be interpreted as a crime. Detestation and vilification are crimes, but disdain and dislike are a part of free speech. One thing I think all of us in the House know is that one person's disdain is another person's detestation, and one person's dislike certainly feels like vilification to others. In the case law, the standard was higher, requiring the emotion of hatred to be intense and extreme in nature, the extreme manifestation of the sentiment of hate, and far beyond dislike, disdain and simple offensiveness.”
“Charges are dropped or pleaded down, trials are delayed and sentences are inconsistent. This bill would do nothing to change that. While the government keeps promising that reform to bail and sentencing is coming, we have yet to see it in this House. People deserve to feel safe in their homes, and they will not without enforcement of the laws currently on the books. New offences are only meaningful if they are clear, enforceable and consistently applied. This bill needs work to pass that test. (1810) While the government claims that the definition of hatred in this legislation simply codifies the language from case law, in fact the definition as articulated sets a materially lower standard. Hatred is defined in the bill as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”.”
“When offenders avoid meaningful consequences, they are emboldened to push boundaries, disrupt the peace and exploit loopholes, and that is what I fear will happen with this legislation. For example, this legislation refers to places of worship but makes no mention of the predominantly ethnic neighbourhoods, hospitals and other settings that have also been settings for protests. They hold significant risk of leading to violence with hateful things being said. There is a significant risk that with this bill, protesting mobs would simply move back into residential neighbourhoods, where they invite escalation and confrontation and instill real fear in families, seniors and children. Our justice system remains a revolving door thanks to Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 .”
“The problem is that police are too often instructed to just keep the peace instead of enforcing the law. When hate crimes are poorly enforced, victims and witnesses often feel like reporting these incidents is futile. If authorities fail to investigate thoroughly, prosecute offenders or take clear action, people lose faith in the system. This lack of accountability leaves victims feeling isolated, unsafe and skeptical that their experiences will be taken seriously. Over time, communities become less willing to come forward, allowing bias-motivated behaviour to persist unchecked. Weak enforcement therefore not only undermines justice for individual victims but erodes public confidence in the rule of law.”
“I agree with the minister that the government must act, but we must separate the goal from the method. Legislating against hate is welcome if it minimally impairs free speech and actually makes our communities safer. However, legislation without enforcement is like a lock without a key. It has potential to be useful, but it is far from effective. I share the minister 's concern for the deterioration of civil discourse in our society and for the victims of hate-motivated crime. The Criminal Code already makes it illegal to utter threats, incite violence or harass someone because of who they are. It contains offences related to mischief, to blocking infrastructure and to property damage. These provisions are clear, court-tested and strong.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in a country where everyone can speak freely, worship freely and live without fear. I believe that all hon. members of the House agree that no one should face threats because of their race, their faith or who they love, yet today, Canadians are confronting an alarming reality. The police tell us that hate crimes have risen sharply since the Liberals came to power, up 258% nationwide since 2015. Within that increase, anti-Semitic hate crimes have jumped 416%, and hate crimes against South Asians are up 377%. Last year alone, police reported a staggering 4,882 hate crimes across Canada, and the number of police-reported hate crimes have increased for six years in a row. These numbers are real and are deeply troubling.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his remarks. I particularly appreciate the depth of the historical references and the research he has done. Turning to the situation and the serious challenges that we are facing today, including things like failure to get a trade deal, mounting federal debt, runaway costs and serious crime in our communities, I wonder if the hon. member agrees that the Prime Minister 's decision to intervene here really risks creating a constitutional distraction at the very moment when we most need the federal government to be focused on more urgent day-to-day concerns.”
“Mr. Speaker, Alberta's prevention sites were meant to be temporary, but the Liberal government just extended its legal exemption by a year without consulting local governments or residents. Nanaimo's city council debated spending $412,000 of taxpayers' money to fence off City Hall because of issues tied to our downtown overdose prevention site, and it still has a deferred motion on the books calling for the site's closure. Will the minister admit that bypassing communities was wrong and commit to real consultation, treatment and recovery?”
“Mr. Speaker, more than 52,000 Canadians have died since the addictions crisis was declared a public health emergency in 2016. Over 16,000 of those deaths were in B.C., including heartbreaking losses in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, yet the Liberal government has quietly extended overdose prevention site exemptions by a year while failing to expand treatment and recovery. Why are the Liberals doubling down on temporary measures while leaving us waiting for the treatment and recovery beds we desperately need?”
“Mr. Speaker, as Pierre Elliott Trudeau said, “The past is to be respected and acknowledged, but not worshipped; it is our future in which we will find greatness.” Our constitution is a living tree, and I have confidence that this motion, which has been carefully considered, would pass muster at the Supreme Court of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think what is important to remember is that we are talking here about serious, violent, repeat offenders. The motion is not targeted toward people who are serving short sentences in the community.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am always so sad and distressed when I hear of a police officer being harmed while on duty. What is really important about this motion is that when violent repeat offenders are released on bail and are present in the community, it provides an additional form of retraumatization for our officers and our first responders, who know who these people are, and who end up being retraumatized by their presence in the community. It is a situation that hurts us all, and I hope that the members opposite are listening and will support the motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the hon. member across is enthusiastic about the legislation that will be coming forward later this fall. I would love to see it, and if the legislation contains the kinds of provisions that we are calling for and would make Canadians safer, then I would be delighted to support it. In the meantime, I would ask him, as a show of good faith, to support our motion so that we can move forward together.”
“It supports law enforcement and reaffirms the fundamental principle that the safety of Canadians must come first. This motion calls for those convicted of three serious violent offences to be denied bail, probation, parole and house arrest and to remain in prison for at least 10 years. It will help restore public confidence in our justice system, give families of victims a genuine respite and chance to heal, and deny repeat violent offenders parts of the platform they crave to sensationalize their crimes. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to support this motion. Let us act together to protect Canadians, to stand with victims and their families and to ensure that those who repeatedly choose violence can no longer terrorize our communities.”
“Police officers and first responders, people who dedicate their lives to keeping us safe, tell me they are demoralized by our current system. The revolving door of justice does not distinguish adequately between minor offences and the kinds of violent, predatory crimes I speak of today. The current situation is not merely frustrating; it puts the public at risk and erodes faith in the rule of law. We act not out of contempt for criminals but out of compassion for victims. The measure we propose through this motion is a carefully targeted tool for the most serious cases. It is a balanced proposal that seeks to spare families some of the pain of repeated parole hearings and the constant fear of an offender's next application, by lessening the frequency of those events without eliminating the offender's right to have them.”
“Protecting citizens from repeat violent offenders should not be a partisan issue. It is a core responsibility of the federal government to keep us safe. However, this government has weakened bail conditions, expanded house arrest and ignored warnings from police chiefs, premiers and mayors across the country. We can respect the charter while protecting the public. We can uphold fairness and mercy while ensuring that repeat violent offenders face real consequences. These goals need not be in conflict. As a Conservative and as a Canadian, I believe in fairness, in the rule of law and in the possibility of rehabilitation, but I also believe in responsibility and in the right of every parent to feel safe with their children sleeping in a room downstairs and letting them walk to school.”
“When individuals repeatedly choose violence, society has a right to extrapolate and take action to protect our society. The victims of violent crimes and their families have rights too, rights to safety, dignity and freedom from repeated trauma. Third, community matters. Public safety is the foundation on which opportunity and prosperity are built. When people are afraid to walk to work, when parents are anxious every time their children leave the house and when seniors feel unsafe in their own homes, the very fabric of our community starts to unravel. People in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith know this instinctively. Whether a young renter in downtown Nanaimo, a parent in Ladysmith or a senior in the south end, we all want a justice system that offers hope to those who can be helped and firm boundaries for those who will not change.”
“Our democratic principles rightly demand restraint before we take away liberty, but when a pattern of serious violence is established, when the record shows a person is unwilling to stop, society must act. (1755) A balanced Conservative approach rests on three truths. First, compassion matters. We must continue to invest in rehabilitation and social services that address the roots of crime. No one is suggesting that prevention and rehabilitation be abandoned with this motion. However, we must also have compassion for victims and their families. We cannot eliminate the trauma of having to provide victim impact statements and prepare for parole hearings entirely, but we can space them out in circumstances like these, to take steps to mitigate it. Second, consequences matter.”
“It is because Canadians believe in redemption. Everyone deserves a chance to turn their life around, and that is why rehabilitation and diversion programs exist. Some people want to change, and our justice system rightly tries to leave space for that no matter how difficult it can be, but when someone repeatedly chooses violence despite every opportunity to change, the calculation should shift. After a first, second and third conviction for serious violent offences, the government's primary duty should no longer be to offer another chance. It should be to protect the public. This is not about vengeance or filling prisons. It is about balance and the gravity of these crimes.”
“He is now alleged to have broken into a home and sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl named Eve while her parents slept. She was asleep in her own bed, where she should have been safe. Cases like this demand action because they show the devastating consequences of a system that gives chance after chance to people who have already demonstrated violent intent. That is why I speak today in support of our Conservative motion calling on the Liberal government to institute a “three strikes and you're out” law for serious violent crimes. The proposal is clear and direct. If someone commits three serious violent crimes, crimes like murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery or sexual assault, they should forfeit the privilege of bail, probation, parole and house arrest and serve a minimum sentence of 10 years. Why three strikes?”
“They sit in rooms where the memories are almost unbearable, listening to gruesome details that reopen wounds they have struggled for years to heal. These families describe the weeks leading up to a parole hearing as a living nightmare. They do not sleep. They worry constantly about what the offender might say. They brace themselves for the possibility of release, however remote, or for the performance of false remorse that so many violent offenders are skilled at delivering. When the hearing is over, they know the clock immediately starts up again for the next application. The cycle of trauma and retraumatization is relentless and cruel. Let us consider Daniel Senecal. He sexually assaulted a 12-year-old boy, was sentenced to just two and a half years in jail and was released after 18 months.”
“These are people like Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton and Clifford Olson, predators who sexually assault children, who traffic and exploit women and who murder indigenous girls simply because they believe they can. These are the offenders who revel in cruelty. They exploit every stage of the justice system to amplify their notoriety. Perhaps most disturbingly, they exploit the parole process itself. Every few years, when their eligibility comes up, the families of victims are forced to relive the worst moments in their lives. They prepare impact statements. They gather letters of support. They steel themselves to face the person who shattered their world. They travel long distances at their own expense, often missing work or school.”
“Mr. Speaker, I often rise in this House to speak about crime in my community: street disorder, property theft and the ever-present threat of fires from discarded drug pipes. However, today I rise to address something very different: the crimes of repeat violent offenders. These are not the petty offences of someone down on their luck or struggling with addiction. These are acts of violence committed again and again by people with no moral compass, the predators who prey on the vulnerable, who exploit women and girls and who torment and kill to satisfy their own dark impulses. We know some of the more famous names and the more famous crimes.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member read from a September 9 Winnipeg editorial citing the need for more provincial prosecutors. Does the hon. member understand that it is the Liberal government's revolving door that is keeping prosecutors busy and that scrapping Bill C-75 would free those prosecutors up to focus on other cases?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has spoken eloquently about the impact of these Liberal policies on his riding. One thing I have heard about repeatedly in my riding is the trauma that victims of crime experience and the retraumatization that happens when repeat offenders are present in the community and walk by them on the street or show up in their neighbourhood. I am wondering if my colleague might speak to his experiences in his riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to double housing starts, but they are down 16%. It is no surprise when we see who is in charge. The housing minister oversaw a 150% surge in home prices and doubled rents in Vancouver, while the new $13-billion housing czar helped hike Toronto homebuilding taxes by 700%. When will the Prime Minister admit that all he is doubling are gatekeepers and deficits?”
“Mr. Speaker, regulatory search powers often overlap with law enforcement. This is a question of whether we inspect first and then get a warrant or we get a warrant and then inspect. The law as it stands is fine and clear.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course I support the process that currently exists where law enforcement has to get warrants to search people's property, including their mail. To the extent that those in law enforcement have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed or is going to be committed, they already have the tools to do that in a court of law. I am not sure what the member thinks he is adding through this change.”
“Mr. Speaker, I echo my colleague's sentiments. I am not sure that I have an answer that would disagree with him. With respect to fentanyl, I would like the government to act with a broad array of measures. I ran on a promise to bring our loved ones home drug-free. What I would really like to see the government do is commit to providing the funding that would allow us to provide the treatment and recovery beds we need in our ridings to do that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I live in a community that is deeply affected by the addictions crisis, and I share the government's desire to stop fentanyl in its tracks. We propose to treat fentanyl dealers as murderers. The government proposes to allow all Canadians' mail to be opened in the hope of finding things in it. I will leave it to Canadians watching this debate at home to decide which would be more effective.”