Andrew Lawton
Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“They will claim full coverage, as we see across southwestern Ontario in particular, when everyone who lives there knows that is just a joke. I thank my colleague across the aisle from Compton—Stanstead for introducing this very important discussion. I have actually spent some time in her riding in the past, and I know it is very rural.”
“I want to see us identify ways to ensure accuracy in telecom coverage maps in rural Canada, but I also want to see us fix and expand those areas where we know the coverage is not there.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is a particular privilege to speak to a bill such as this one, which speaks directly to one of the most persistent concerns I hear from people in the rural communities in my riding, scattered across Elgin County…”
“We still have the same problem, which is that we have people looking to a new technology, but that not solving the problem, which is applicable to not just the farmers in my riding, but all the people who live in these rural communities who want to work in these communities, want to study in these communities and, as my colleague for Aval…”
“As technology evolves, we see farmers incorporating more and more technology into their work that requires cellular connectivity, especially if they are out in the field, far from the Wi-Fi routers they may have in their homes or, increasingly, in their barns.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. It is with great pride and pleasure that I present a petition on behalf of representatives of the Elgin County Drowning Prevention Coalition, including Briar McCaw, Linda King and Nathan MacIntyre of the RIP Current Information Project.”
The complete record
Every one of 676 lines we hold for Andrew Lawton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 14.
“It is not for the state to discern, let alone prosecute, hate that may exist in one's heart; the law is to punish action, and the existing laws already do this. I would be remiss not to point out that the Liberals get tough on crime only when they are talking about thought criminals. These are the only people that the Liberals want to put behind bars. Let us look at some of the real hate crimes across the country. According to Juno News, 130-some churches have been vandalized or victimized by arson since 2021. Synagogues in Canada have been firebombed and vandalized. Jewish schools have been shot at. If the Liberals were serious about real hate crimes, they would be seeking mandatory 10-year prison sentences for these heinous assaults on places of worship. Again, the law should punish bad behaviour and not bad feelings.”
“In her Keegstra dissent, she wrote: If the guarantee of free expression is to be meaningful, it must protect expression which challenges even the very basic conceptions about our society. A true commitment to freedom of expression demands nothing less. We do not need to look far to see what happens when the threshold for hate is lowered. In the United Kingdom, police are not even rarely knocking on doors and arresting people over mean tweets, because the same desire that we are seeing behind some of the negative and concerning impulses in Bill C-9 is criminalizing hate based on the grounds that words are violence. Censors justify their limitations on freedom of expression by elevating speech to violence.”
“In the last two Parliaments, under the auspices of tackling so-called online harms, the Liberal government has introduced sweeping censorship bills that have been decried by voices on the left and the right. The Liberals have told us, as recently as last week, that this is coming back. The online harms bill is still very much a live issue, so we cannot look at Bill C-9 in isolation. We cannot disentangle it from the Liberal government's stated attitudes about freedom of expression and, quite frankly, the contempt in which they hold free expression and open debate. I am going to quote someone for whom I believe the Liberals have a great affinity, and that is former Canadian chief justice Beverley McLachlin.”
“The Liberals have had all summer to work on it, and they have had I do not know how many stakeholders, staffers, bureaucrats, lawmakers and lawyers go over every clause, I imagine, with a fine-tooth comb. Omitting an operative, very key word in a very key section of this bill is no accident. The government is, to use a legal term, wilfully lowering the threshold on what constitutes hate and, by extension, expanding the state's power and lowering the threshold of what can be regarded as free expression in this country. (1730) The reason this is so important to me and to the Canadians who have been speaking out about Bill C-9 to this point is that the government has been, to its credit, very transparent on where it wants to go on free expression.”
“The government is codifying a new definition of hate. Bill C-9 describes hatred as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. The government has said this is adapted from the Keegstra Supreme Court decision, a seminal free expression case in Canada, but it actually changes something very key. In Keegstra, the court held that hatred “connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.” This was expanded upon in the Whatcott decision, which says that hatred is “extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words 'detestation' and 'vilification'.” The word “extreme” does not appear in Bill C-9 . The government is very proud of this bill.”
“Offences of intimidation and obstruction at places of worship are already criminalized under sections 423, 431 and 434.1 of the Criminal Code, as well as under the laws pertaining to threats in section 264.1. What we are left with when we strip away these three things, which are already covered by existing laws, are two things. Bill C-9 really does two things. Number one, it would remove the requirement for the Attorney General to consent. This has been viewed by activists and advocates on the left and the right in this country as a necessary safeguard against overzealous and political prosecutions by law enforcement or by Crown attorneys who simply do not understand this because it is a rarely applied provision of the law. The next part is the most egregious part, where I will spend the remainder of my time.”
“It targets the incitement of hatred, and the courts have been very broad in their interpretation of how that communication must take place. Symbols are a part of that. I can give an example from my own riding, where someone was charged, just within the last two weeks, in Central Elgin, Ontario, with a hate charge under subsection 319(2) after mowing a swastika into their front lawn. The display of a hate symbol led to a hate charge under the existing law. Creating a hate offence is also redundant because hate motivation is already an aggravating factor under section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, and it has consistently been applied by the courts.”
“Bill C-9 would do five things: “repeal the requirement that the Attorney General consent” to proceedings for hate charges, “create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place”, “create a hate crime offence of committing an offence...that is motivated by hatred”, “create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship” and “create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.” Of these five things, three are already covered by existing laws, such as creating an offence of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying a symbol. Subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code already targets the wilful promotion of hatred.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-9 , although I have grave concerns, not with the objective, but with the manner in which the Liberals have gone about trying to achieve it. From the outset, let me say that I am grateful the Liberals have finally recognized there is a wave of hate sweeping this country. I am glad they have realized what the Jewish community in this country, among others, has been crying out for for years, which is a government that will listen to these concerns and understand the very real threats that are targeting them on a regular basis. However, just as the Liberals have done with Bill C-2 and the firearms file, they take a legitimate issue and offer a remedy that attacks the rights of citizens and expands the state’s power, often without the checks and balances necessary.”
“Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the hon. member was making some pretty baseless smears about Conservatives in general, and I am wondering if this is in keeping with how the Liberals view free speech and how they want to weaponize the process against people who—”
“Madam Speaker, I do not know if the parliamentary secretary has a copy of the Criminal Code handy, but I know she is a lawyer, and I want to ask her whether she agrees that hate symbols are already covered under subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code, which pertains to the wilful promotion of hatred, by virtue of the list enumerated in subsection 319(7) of the Criminal Code, which talks about communicating “statements”, which have been interpreted by the courts as very broad and including symbols. Would the parliamentary secretary acknowledge that?”
“Mr. Speaker, every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians because of higher Liberal taxes and inflation. The Prime Minister said that we should judge him based on the prices at the grocery store. Well, let us. Food inflation in Canada is rising 50% faster than in the United States. Food bank usage is at record highs and rising. The St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank will have to feed 30,000 mouths this year, the third straight year of record highs. The Prime Minister said he would turn the economy around because he is a brilliant banker. Why did he not tell Canadians that, on his watch, more than ever we would need a food banker?”
“It is disgraceful that when confronted with the evidence, the parliamentary secretary and his Liberal colleagues do the same thing every time, which is to say it is someone else's fault and point their fingers at the provinces instead of looking in the mirror. When will they stop doing that?”
“Madam Speaker, it is very important to talk about the causes of recidivism, notably the largest cause, which is the Liberal government and the bail laws that have allowed this to run so rampant. No more than two hours ago, I heard from a police witness at the justice committee who said Bill C-48 did nothing to improve public safety. The government likes to lean on its record while ignoring the consequences of its record, according to the experts tasked with enforcing and upholding the law. I came with solutions. I am proud to support the bill from the hon. member for Oxford , the Conservatives' jail not bail bill, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety will do so as well instead of obstructing the real solutions that are before the House right now.”
“It has decided that confiscating firearms from law-abiding gun owners is more important than bail. It has announced it is going full steam ahead on that despite the public safety minister , not knowing he was being recorded, actually defending our arguments about this program's uselessness. My question for the government is, how dare it claim to be tough on crime when it has been ignoring the pleas from virtually everyone else in the country to get serious about bail reform, to do it urgently, to do it imminently and, once and for all, to put the rights of victims first?”
“When we have NDP leaders, Conservative leaders, provincial Liberal leaders who have broken ranks with their feckless, easy-on-crime and easy-on-criminals, hug-a-thug federal counterparts across the aisle here, they have all been in agreement that this is not a tough-on-crime government. This is instead a government that is tough on victims, a government that puts the rights of offenders above the rights of victims. We get a strong sense of what the government has prioritized, despite claiming some bail legislation is coming at some point, maybe after the budget. Who knows? This is a government that has found it high enough on its agenda to propose a ban on large cash transactions. It has decided that banning people from buying a used car worth more than $10,000 is more important than bail reform.”
“This is important because I asked the Minister of Public Safety about it, using an example from St. Thomas, Ontario, of a repeat offender, a homeless man, who was released on bail with the condition that he be home by 10 p.m., despite not having a home. This is an impossible bail condition that the police have no ability to enforce. That matters because the public safety minister 's representative, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime , had the audacity to say that the government is “tough on crime”. She said that with a straight face, that the government is tough on crime, the government that has been the only stakeholder in the country not to acknowledge the bail crisis.”
“The government has continued to allude to some sort of bail reform the members say is coming, but they have been shockingly scant on any of the details of what that bail reform will entail and, more importantly, whether it will involve repealing the principle of restraint. That is the section of the Criminal Code the Liberal bail law, Bill C-75 , put in place compelling judges to release offenders under the least onerous conditions and at the earliest possible opportunity. For all the systematic issues that we have been flagging as a party, that Canadians have been flagging, such as violent offenders being released and people being arrested for serious offences while out on bail, the case has been made. We can draw a direct line between this and the principle of restraint in Bill C-75 .”
“Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to rise in this chamber not long ago and ask the Minister of Public Safety about the scourge of crime on streets in my own community back home and across the country. So much of this problem of rampant criminality is a direct consequence of Liberal government catch-and-release bail policies. These policies put repeat, often violent, offenders back on the streets, sometimes hours after they were arrested and charged and then released. Police officers have been incredibly frustrated by this. We have been calling for action, as have provinces, municipalities, police agencies, victims' rights groups and businesses. Everyone has been calling for the government to act.”
“Therefore, I wonder why the Liberal government members have decided to engage in this distraction, engaging in division and generating a national unity crisis bordering on a constitutional crisis instead of tackling the issues Canadians are truly seeking them to act on.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtful engagement of my hon. colleague opposite with respect to this issue. However, I have to point out a glaring question. I have spoken to thousands and thousands of constituents, and not one single person has raised this issue as being their top priority. The number of people who have said they are fed up with the way that crime has run rampant after the last 10 years of Liberal government is astronomical, as are the numbers of people who say they cannot afford the cost of groceries and they want the government to get serious about that and people who talk about the need to get serious about immigration and to rein in what has become a reckless and dangerous approach to public policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, the first job of the public safety minister is to keep Canadians safe. The public safety minister admitted to not knowing what a firearms licence is. He said he does not know what the classifications of firearms are, and he could not even defend his own Liberal government's gun confiscation scheme to his tenant on the most basic questions. This is the minister responsible for Canada's gun laws. The public safety minister oversees national security and terrorism. What else does he not know about his own file? His incompetence puts Canadian lives at risk. When will the Prime Minister fire him?”
“Madam Speaker, right now, there is a wave of unity across the country. Canadians of all stripes from all regions have realized that the Liberal government has failed in reining in crime and has failed by allowing immigration to run rampant in a reckless way. Canadians are also in agreement about the many problems the government has caused on affordability. When so many Canadians agree about the very real crises that Canada faces, why is the Liberal government trying to create division and a national unity crisis?”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail laws have broken the system beyond parody. In St. Thomas, a repeat offender was arrested for breaking and entering and released on bail with a curfew. He had to be in his home by 10 p.m. every night, but there is an issue: He is homeless. He does not have a home. The Liberals have made it so ridiculous that people are getting released on bail with a curfew to nowhere. Violent offenders are getting out after being arrested. The Liberals are doing nothing about it. If the Liberals are not going to stand up and commit to supporting our “three strikes and you're out” motion now, how many strikes do they think are enough to lock up a repeat offender?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member expects us to just trust him and the government that they are going to be taking all the concerns about bail seriously. He says there is going to be some bill coming this fall. Will the government, in the bill, be repealing the principle of restraint, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just said “if the legislation materializes”, so even he does not know if it is real. I would encourage him to leave this chamber for even an hour or two from time to time, look at what is happening on the streets and realize that Canadians are calling for real action. We are prepared to deliver it, even though the Liberal government is not.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an important question. I have a lot of small communities in my riding where these are very real issues. Very known people continue to retraumatize communities and victims. By the way, the probation and parole process also continues to retraumatize people, as they are forced to see even serious multiple murderers, who continue to bring victims and the families of victims back to retraumatize them over and over again. We are the only party that is providing real solutions to this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that people in Quebec are just as affected by these crime and justice issues as people across the country. We need people who are going to champion solutions, and I admire and respect my colleague for actually coming forward with a tangible solution, which the Liberal government has not done, except to say there is a mythical bail bill that we will eventually see, while obstructing the real, tangible proposals that we are putting forward. I look forward to working with my hon. colleague on resolutions that are real and will make our streets and communities safer.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a bizarre question. I think the Liberals have broken so many things that it will take several different stages to undo this damage. I would ask a more important question: Where is the Liberal legislation that they keep promising, the contents of which they have never provided even an iota of detail on? That is the real question the government should be answering, not wondering why we should be doing more. We would be happy to take over this entire file if the Liberal government would let us.”
“Since the government is claiming that it cares about bail reform, I am asking it to commit to real bail reform and to put the rights of victims and the rights of people who do not feel safe in their own communities ahead of the rights of offenders. This is not a radical or partisan proposal. It is the bare minimum for a country to keep its citizens safe, to keep its communities safe. I sent a letter to my constituents a few weeks ago on this issue, and my office has been overwhelmed by the response, including from people who say they have always been a Liberal. They cannot abide by what the Liberal government has done in abandoning and abdicating its duty to preserve and protect public safety. I am asking the Liberal government to commit to supporting our motion and providing real bail reform rather than obstruction.”
“It blames everyone else, and we see everything other than the introspection to look at what everyone else in the country sees, which is that Bill C-75 , among the many things it did that we do not contest as a party, through the principle of restraint, has made bail easier to get for serious offenders and has made the conditions of bail that repeat offenders are getting less onerous. This has resulted in police officers not even being able to enforce bail conditions, because the sheer volume of offenders out on bail at any given moment is so large that scarce resources have to be deployed to clean up after the failures of the Liberal government.”
“The government's own messaging recognizes the significant harms that recidivism causes, yet the government has not provided real action. Its members keep alluding to this future bail reform bill that may or may not exist and that we do not know the contents of, but they expect us to get behind it. Well, we are providing, through today's motion, a very real, very tangible solution that hits directly at the concerns that have been raised by concerned citizens across this country. We also have the bill from the hon. member for Oxford , which is forthcoming and would provide real, tangible solutions. Whenever this issue comes up, we hear from the government “blame the provinces”.”
“That is why the motion we are putting forward, as I said at the beginning, is one that I wish was not necessary in Canada. However, it is necessary, and it is tremendously important. I will provide a couple of other examples here, because I like to lean on what the experts are saying. I like to lean on victims' rights groups, attorneys general in the various provinces of the country, police chiefs and frontline police officers. I will read one line that I think is incredibly relevant to the discussion at hand: “Recidivism, or repeat offending, impacts public safety and the victims affected by those new crimes”. The quote continues with this later on: “reducing recidivism can generate additional substantial benefits to society by reducing criminal justice costs and preventing new victimization.” This comes from Public Safety Canada.”
“My question is, what would it take for the government to acknowledge that there is a problem, first off, and then acknowledge that it caused the problem? Remember that when the Liberal government continues to tell us that it is championing bail reform, its members leave out the part that the so-called reforms that have caused this problem were also pitched to us by the Liberal government as bail reform. These are their changes that have led to the problem we are now trying to seek a real resolution for. My colleague, the hon. member for Oxford , has put forward a significant bail reform bill that would go forward with actual action. However, instead, we have the Liberal government obstructing the efforts we have been making to advance this issue and push forward real solutions.”
“This is what the system is doing on a regular basis. (1315) In another case, a 12-year-old boy was charged with attempted murder in a shooting in Toronto. The fact that we are talking about 12-year-olds being involved in this level of criminality is bad enough, but it is even worse when we consider that the 12-year-old was out on bail. This is what the system is. In Edmonton, on August 30, Priscilla McGreer was shot to death outside her home by her cousin, who had been charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and breach of probation. He had an extensive history with the courts, including a homicide charge from 2018. There are more of these cases than I could read in the time this chamber has.”
“Thomas, where a historic building, 140-plus years old, was burned down by a repeat offender who was out on bail and had been previously convicted of arson. This is not the way the country is supposed to be. This is not the way things used to be, and it is certainly not the way things would be if the Liberal government would agree to provide real bail reform. This is beyond parody now, these heart-breaking stories from across the country of repeat, rampant criminality and prolific offenders, as police will call them. However, evidently, since the Liberal government has dug in its heels on this, I need to give a few stories. There is one from Langley, where a man was charged with violently beating a woman on June 1, a complete stranger in downtown Langley, British Columbia. It was his 37th court appearance in three years.”
“The Minister of Justice got up in the House a few days ago and accused Conservatives of not having read the law. I have read it many times, as have the police officers I speak to on a regular basis and the provincial governments that have been calling for this to be repealed. It says very clearly that judges must release offenders under the least onerous conditions at the earliest opportunity. It is very rare that we can draw a direct line from a social problem on Canadian streets to a policy, but everyone involved in this space, everyone except the Liberal government, by the way, has done exactly that, because they have seen a night and day difference between before Bill C-75 and after Bill C-75. I have shared, in a few interviews and online, a story that happened in my riding this summer in St.”
“This is not just vandalism or property crime, although I will firmly say that property crime is real crime because we know that it is a precursor to crimes that target individuals and that are often violent. It is all sorts of criminality that is causing injury, that is causing the degradation of communities, that is causing a serious and real public safety threat. I have talked to experts on this, police chiefs in my riding, like the chiefs of the police services in London, St. Thomas, and Aylmer, Ontario. When we look at the messaging that has been put out by police associations and frontline officers, they all draw a direct line to Bill C-75 , which introduced a suite of changes, among them the introduction of something called the principle of restraint.”
“Canadians know that they used to be able to walk down streets at any hour of the day or night and feel safe and secure, but they can no longer do that. Business owners, not just in large cities but also in small communities like those across my riding, are replacing windows over and over again that are getting broken into. We have a government that has, through its policy, through legislation that it has continued to defend, told victims of crime that they do not matter, that they have no rights, that the rights of offenders matter more. A small number of offenders, relatively speaking, are being arrested and released over and over again. It is not uncommon to hear a police department say that it has a list of 100 or 150 people who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of their calls.”
“Mr. Speaker, the motion that we put forward today is a motion that I am quite ashamed has to exist in this country. We are calling for the House and the Liberal government to acknowledge the gravity of repeat and rampant criminality in Canada, in communities of all sizes across the country, and to replace the Liberal approach to bail with a “three strikes and you're out” law, one that will stop criminals convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, parole, probation or house arrest. It would keep violent criminals behind bars for at least 10 years. If we were to talk to Canadians, a lot of them would be shocked that this is not already law, but Canadians know that the system is broken.”
“She founded the Golden Society and has raised over $725,000 for CHEO and cancer research in memory of her brave son Griffin, who she lost to cancer last year at age six. At 7 p.m. this evening, Parliament Hill will shine gold for Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. I hope all members will join me in honouring the courageous children and families affected by childhood cancer.”
“Mr. Speaker, September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, the time to honour the children and their families facing cancer. MPs today are wearing gold pins to emphasize the importance of awareness, hope and research for childhood cancer, the leading cause of death by disease for Canadian children. Dave and Maureen Jenkins from Belmont, Ontario, provided these pins in memory of their daughter Maggie, who passed away at just 12 years old. I am grateful for Childcan in London, an invaluable resource for families across southwestern Ontario grappling with childhood cancer, whether it is by lending a supportive ear or covering unexpected expenses. I would like to recognize Tamy Bell here on the Hill today.”
“Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has, as all Conservatives have, spent time engaging with police chiefs and police officers in his riding and across his province. Has any police chief said that the pressing crime issue they need to deal with is people using cash? The bill goes far beyond what the Liberal government says it will. It would prohibit otherwise law-abiding citizens from buying a used vehicle in cash. Have any members of law enforcement said they want this right?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have noticed a trend with the Liberal government, where they identify a legitimate problem, but its solution only targets the people who are not perpetuating that problem. An example is money laundering. There is no argument from us that this is the real issue, but banning law-abiding citizens from transacting in cash is not the answer. Gun crime is a huge issue, in fact even bigger after 10 years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies, but going after law-abiding gun owners is the Liberal's resolution. I would like my hon. colleague to expand on why only the law-abiding seem to be in the crosshairs of the Liberal government on firearms, cash and many other things.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising the alarming civil liberties violations that the Liberal government is trying to sneak in under the auspices of this border bill. Much of the response we get from the government effectively boils down to “just trust us”. Do Canadians have any reason to trust the government that it will not abuse the broad latitude it is trying to give itself with Bill C-2 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Canadians alarmed by the House of Commons finance committee's recommendations in its pre-budget report: recommendation 429, which proposes revoking the charitable status of pro-life organizations; and recommendation 430, which proposes removing “advancement of religion” as a recognized charitable purpose under the Income Tax Act. I have received from houses of worship across this country so much concern, reflected in this petition, that these recommendations are fundamentally anti-free speech and anti-religious freedom. The petitioners, and I on their behalf, advocate for the complete protection of charitable status regardless of these ideological litmus tests.”
“Will the Liberal government commit to repealing the principle of restraint that is putting criminals out on the street, sometimes hours after they are arrested?”
“Mr. Speaker, there may have been a misunderstanding here. I do not have a question about my taxes. I do not have a question about the lack of a budget from the Liberal government. I do not know why a question about bail reform was met with a response by the parliamentary secretary for finance and national revenue. Evidently, addressing bail reform is not a priority for the justice minister or even his parliamentary secretary. I will be very clear on something: When the parliamentary secretary says that laws are not responsible for this, he is ignoring what police, provinces and municipalities across this country have said, which is that the Liberal government's bill, Bill C-75 , has directly caused there to be more of a revolving door, putting serious, sometimes violent offenders back out on the street.”
“Thomas said, “The current bail approach continues to allow high-risk individuals to reoffend once released.” My question for the Minister of Justice is very simple. When will the Liberal government accept the failure of Bill C-75 and introduce real bail reform that puts the rights of victims first?”
“There has been a series of legislative changes that have made bail easier to get and have resulted in more criminals out on the streets. This is a government that likes to say it listens to the experts. I would like to highlight some of the thoughts that have been shared by police chiefs in my riding of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. One comes from the police chief in London, Ontario. Chief Thai Truong says, “This kind of violence, and the total disregard for public safety, is a symptom of a larger issue”, and he said that issue is “the criminal justice system.” Chief Kyle Johnstone of Aylmer said, “We are seeing a troubling pattern where individuals with a demonstrated history of criminal behaviour are being released back into the community, only to reoffend within days”. Chief Marc Roskamp of St.”