Fred Davies
Niagara South, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, there is no rhetoric or bluster here, as the minister does his fancy dance over there. The price of used cars has more than doubled over the last several years as a result of the government's inflationary policies. Taxing a vehicle twice is wrong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill S‑210 to designate September as Ukrainian heritage month in Canada, not merely as a matter of multicultural courtesy but an act of moral clarity, historical justice and national affirmation. This bill is not symbolic in the diminishing sense of the word.”
“Over 1.3 million Canadians today identify as having Ukraine heritage. Four Governors General have been of Ukrainian descent. Ukrainian Canadians have served in our military, on our supreme courts and in our legislatures, shaped by culture that prizes resilience, community and a ferocious attachment to freedom.”
“When this Parliament debates Ukrainian heritage month, we are debating it against the backdrop of Mariupol, Bucha and Kherson, while Ukrainian families in Canada carry the grief of relatives killed under Russian occupation. To pass this bill is to say the culture Russia is trying to destroy is a culture Canada honours.”
“She called it what it was, which was “political posturing”, saying, “It does not affect our way forward in any way whatsoever”. This is the Canadian answer to Russian intimidation: not retreat, not appeasement, but moving forward. Sentinel is cut from the same cloth as those prairie settlers.”
“Given the current war and Russia's documented attempts to suppress Ukrainian cultural expression, ban the Ukrainian language in occupied territories, destroy cultural monuments and abduct children, the designation of Ukrainian heritage month is an act of cultural solidarity. It says that, what they are burning, we are keeping alive.”
The complete record
Every one of 273 lines we hold for Fred Davies, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is getting her information, because this side of the House has been meeting with auto workers and unions for several years. They understand our plan and support our plan. I do not know what the plan of the government is. I wish the Liberals would explain it beyond just criticizing our plan, which is based on a historic and successful tradition of trade between Canada and the United States. Let me remind the government that the border between Canada and the United States is never going to disappear. The trade routes and the supply chains that have been developed over generations cannot simply be replaced or ignored. The government seems to think that pivoting to China is an alternative to developing a new, stronger relationship with the United States.”
“It is to restore Canadian auto production to two million vehicles a year. We would remove the GST on Canadian-made vehicles and make it easier for Canadians to buy Canadian. We would end subsidies for foreign-made vehicles. We would bring production home. We would introduce a simple and fair rule that for every vehicle a company sells in Canada, it must produce one in Canada to earn duty-free access. It would be a one-to-one system: build here and sell here. Let us be clear about what is at stake. It is not just about cars. It is about jobs. It is about our communities. It is about whether Canada remains an industrial nation or continues to slide in productivity while ceding more of its economic future to countries like China and Italy. That is not an option.”
“Plants are not being retooled here, but in the United States. I may be an MP, but I am also a business person, and I see the tragic outflow of capital every day. The best and brightest are going south, to where capital, commercialization and scale exist. Capital investment happening here is highly leveraged against tax dollars. It is happening in my riding, where two EV plants exist. One never opened and one has been delayed by years because the market collapsed. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars were committed to these projects that are now stuck in EV purgatory. Conservatives are putting forward a serious, practical strategy to rebuild Canada's auto sector and restore our economic strength. It is a plan rooted in reality, a plan grounded in results and a plan designed to bring our industry back to life. Our goal is clear.”
“It is because we cannot afford to watch this industry slowly slip further away. This plan is grounded in a principle Canadians understand: fairness. If someone wants to sell cars to Canadians, they should be building cars with Canadian workers. The plan would restore tariff-free trade with the United States, but with a clear expectation that production in Canada must match access to our market. That is how we bring investment back, that is how we secure jobs and that is how we rebuild confidence in our industrial future. If we get this right, Niagara will not just be part of our industrial past, but it will be central to our industrial future, because every day tariffs remain in place, Canadian manufacturers are losing ground. Billions of dollars are flowing south. Investment is leaving.”
“Canada's trading relationship with the United States is structural, not discretionary. To suggest anything different is not only foolish, but delusional and, ultimately, destructive. As such, we must renegotiate CUSMA and leverage our strategic advantages to secure a durable trade deal. We have the resources, the critical minerals and the raw materials that can finally bring more homegrown value added to our products, rather than simply shipping raw materials and buying them back at market prices. However, most of those strategic opportunities are solidly stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire. Whether it is approving a pipeline or LNG terminals, or eliminating interprovincial barriers, it has been like watching the government push rope uphill. That is why my leader is calling out for a new auto pact.”
“(1350) The Prime Minister continues to talk about balance, pivoting toward China as if geography were a suggestion, rather than a fact. At the same time, we are using Canadian taxpayers' dollars to subsidize the purchase of vehicles that are not even made in Canada. Think about that. We are taxing Canadians to help buy foreign-made cars while Canadian workers are losing their jobs. That is not industrial policy. That is surrender, and the cost of that surrender is enormous. Geography is destiny. Geography is gravity. Canada shares the longest undefended border in the world with the United States, and 75% of our exports go south. Markets follow scale, infrastructure, proximity and legal certainty. We cannot close the gap of distance to other markets. Business grows to where capital flows.”
“As the government talks about pivoting away from the United States in what seems on the surface like a reasonable strategy, we need to recognize some fundamental facts, particularly with respect to the auto sector. The government is asking Canadians to believe that we can replace the U.S. market, where over 95% of our vehicles are sold, with exports to Europe and overseas. That is not a strategy. That is an illusion. As I listen to the answers to the questions in this House, the government's focus is on saying, “We believe in Canada.” The Minister of Finance says that ad nauseam. He is a bit of a master of righteous indignation. Frankly, it is nothing more than a deflection from inaction, a slogan without substance and abdication instead of action.”
“Like it or not, the United States has, overall, seen significantly stronger productivity growth than Canada has over the past decade. The U.S. capital investment per worker is substantially higher. Business creation and job creation have been stronger. In fact, Canadians started more businesses in the United States in 2024 than they did in Canada. Let that sink in. Canadians started more corporate entities in the United States than they did in Canada in 2024. If that is not a testament to failure, I cannot imagine what is. Energy production in the U.S. is surging, but ours is not so much. Do members remember when there was no business case for LNG? Manufacturing investment is reshoring at scale in the U.S.”
“Remember, “the budget will balance itself.” Exacerbating all of this is that Canada created a bureaucratic behemoth whereby our system is mired in red tape, leading to capital flight and underinvestment. We have allowed declining productivity, chronic underinvestment, bureaucratic gridlock and the lack of an industrial strategy. Our largest source of new jobs in Canada has been in building redundant bureaucracies. That is the national disgrace and a fiscal disaster. We may want to blame Donald Trump for the shockwaves in the global markets, but the signals have been here for a very long time. Trump's rhetoric may offend us. It offends me for sure. We can denounce him from the rooftops as reckless, dangerous and destabilizing. It gives us a fleeting sense of moral satisfaction, but it accomplishes nothing.”
“It is no longer the sprawling, multiplant, labour-intensive industrial engine it once was. While it remains critical and highly specialized in our economy today, it is in a bit of precarity. The sector remains vulnerable. In the last year alone, production has dropped 7.8%. Thousands of skilled, dedicated Canadian workers are now out of a job, and this did not happen by accident. It happened because of decisions that caused the slow but constant export of manufacturing to everywhere but Canada. Canada's complacency was not imposed on us. It was chosen through neglect by abdicating our industrial strategy through economic hibernation and by focusing on social constructs, virtue signalling, postnationalism and open borders.”
“In Fort Erie, a place where the battles of war and conflict literally led to the creation of Canada, the majestic Peace Bridge transits the vehicles of commerce across the border to the United States and beyond. At the heart of that Niagara legacy stands the auto sector, one of the most important pillars of Niagara's industrial base. It used to be a pillar, but it is not so much anymore. What we are seeing today is further disintegration of our once dominant auto sector shrinking into a small semblance of its former glory as one of Niagara's and Canada's anchors of economic strength. A decade ago, Canada produced over two million vehicles a year. Today, that number has fallen to just over 1.2 million. The value of auto manufacturing in Niagara has changed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to bring the temperature down just a touch, get a little decorum and speak a little more calmly, but I am happy to participate in this debate today on the auto sector. I am also happy to let the House know that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the great member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake . As my friend from Niagara Falls knows all too well, as a former summer student at GM in Niagara, the Niagara region was central to the development of our country, from making steel, refining critical minerals and shipping the world its grain through the Welland Canal, to harnessing the immense power of Niagara Falls to electrify a growing nation. We also made great cars. Generations of workers and communities in Niagara did not just support the national economy, but powered it.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's auto exports fell to their lowest level in years this January. More than 5,000 auto workers have already lost their jobs. In Niagara alone, there are two EV plants that have either not opened or been delayed because of a declining EV market, yet the Liberals are subsidizing foreign-made electric vehicles. It makes no sense at all. Will the Liberals finally adopt our strategy to protect Canadian workers in the auto sector, or will they continue to push ahead with their disastrous plan to subsidize foreign-made electric vehicles?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's immigration system is broken, and the Liberal immigration minister is treating this critical file like a game of hide-and-seek. She is not very good at hiding, but the Liberals are very good at deflecting. Even her own Liberal colleagues have called out her abject incompetence. As the minister tries to hide, Canadians are left witnessing a youth unemployment crisis and three million temporary resident visas expiring in 2026. Will this minister stop playing games and start taking responsibility for the mess that she and the Liberals have created?”
“The last thing I want to make mention of is that the public safety minister yesterday made reference to the new cohort of graduates for CBSA guards. This 1,000-person cohort does not even keep up with the replacement requirements at CBSA on a yearly basis. The cohort is simply keeping pace with the departmental turnover. The intake process is seriously flawed. I know of several highly qualified candidates, one of whom worked for CBSA as a student with outstanding performance reviews, who cannot get through the bureaucratic process to even get an interview. With all the academic and direct job experience, this outstanding Canadian cannot get beyond the keyboard to talk to a real human being at CBSA. I am running out of time. I just wanted to get those comments on the record because I think this is important for the people in my community.”
“People are rallying to pressure the government to step up and recognize the responsibility it has to provide community-based hospitals and emergency and complex care. Interestingly, I have been trying to obtain information about the new health infrastructure fund that the government announced in the budget. It is supposed to provide capital for improvements to rural and remote hospitals, for smaller hospitals and communities. I cannot get answers. I have reached out to virtually everyone from the minister 's office to the policy people in the department. I cannot get a response to anything about when the funding will be rolled out and how it will be administered, whether it will be done by the province or the federal government. It is another example of the failure of the government to respond to serious crises in our communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I had a lot of ground to cover today on the immigration question, but I think I am going to focus on a couple of health care issues that I need to get on the record with respect to my riding. Canada's health care system is under some serious pressure. The wait times are long, access to primary care is in crisis and hospital systems are in debt. In my riding of Niagara South, we are in the middle of an unfair and catastrophic reconfiguration of our community hospitals. In Fort Erie and Port Colborne, Niagara Health is slated to close two vital urgent care centres that were built by our fathers, our grandfathers and our aunts and uncles. Workers actually had deductions from their paycheques in order to build these institutions.”
“Mr. Speaker, too many people in Niagara cannot find a family doctor. Right now, taxpayers are being charged up to five times the provincial rates to provide health care to rejected asylum claimants. Families have waited long enough and our failed asylum system is making them wait even longer. Conservatives have proposed common-sense solutions to address this horrible situation. It is time for the government to remove benefits for bogus claimants. Will the government support our motion and ensure that non-citizens and non-permanent residents do not get health care superior to that of Canadians?”
“Conservatives believe in one simple, non-negotiable principle: Canadian dollars are for Canadian jobs, full stop. They are not to bankroll foreign factories, not to ship opportunity across the border and certainly not to export our paycheques, our plants or our prosperity.”
“Mr. Speaker, American protectionism is hammering our auto sector, yet the Liberal government has announced a $2.3-billion EV subsidy for vehicles built in the United States. That is not leadership; it is economic capitulation. Donald Trump has been clear: He wants every Canadian auto job moved south. Under the Liberals, 5,000 Canadian auto workers have already lost their jobs. Plants are idle, and families are hurting, yet the government is prepared to let Canadian tax dollars subsidize American factories during the economic fight of our life. In Niagara, a brand new EV plant was completed but never opened because the market never materialized. Another major EV battery facility is being built right now in a precariously murky market.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a strange sense of déjà vu, because the last time I stood up in the House, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asked me the same question. He is effectively saying he wants us to just roll over and pass all this legislation without adequate debate. I have a right to stand up in the House and represent the interests of my constituents, and those interests include crime, crime prevention and penalties for offenders. I take exception to this repeated question. He does this over and over, ad nauseam. He has asked the same question every day. I have a right to stand here. I will continue to do so.”
“I ask the House plainly, do members believe that individuals who commit crimes like these, crimes against children, should ever be rewarded with the privilege of Canadian citizenship, or do we finally draw a clear line and say that protecting the most vulnerable must come before protecting the status of criminals? I urge all members of the House to support this motion, not for partisan reasons but for the safety of the communities we represent and the trust Canadians place in us to get this right.”
“He was arrested, and yet when it came time for sentencing, the court imposed a lighter sentence, not because the crime was minor but because the harsher penalty might have affected his immigration status. Canadians need to ask themselves how that makes any sense. We have seen where this kind of failure leads. In Welland, Daniel Senecal committed one of the most horrific crimes imaginable: the sexual assault of a three-year-old child. It is a crime that shatters families and leaves lifelong scars. These are not technical violations. These are serious violent offences.”
“What message do we send to Niagara police officers when their work is undone by laws that favour release over responsibility? Leadership is about choices. The Liberals have chosen leniency over accountability. They have chosen delay over action. They have chosen ideology over evidence. Today, the House can choose differently. We can stand with victims instead of criminals. We can protect the integrity of our immigration system. We can restore confidence in our justice system. We can send a clear message that extortion, organized crime and repeat offending will not be tolerated in Niagara or anywhere else in Canada. In 2023, a foreign national attempted to purchase sex from who he believed was an underage girl. When he arrived at the location, he was met not by a child but by an undercover police officer.”
“The people who pay the price are law-abiding Canadians, including families and small business owners across Niagara, who simply want to feel safe in their own communities. Let me be clear. This motion is designed to protect Canadians and those who dream about becoming Canadian. Niagara was built by immigrants. Niagara thrives because of newcomers, over generations. This motion protects them. It is pro-victim, pro-law and pro-common sense. Canada can be compassionate without being naive. We can welcome newcomers while still being firm with those who abuse our generosity. I ask members of the House, what message do we send to the Niagara business owner who has been extorted when an offender is released within hours? What message do we send when criminals exploit refugee processes faster than the government can close loopholes?”
“(1350) Finally, the motion calls on the government to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , legislation that has weakened sentencing, expanded bail and contributed directly to the rise in repeat violent and organized crime, including extortion. Police officers in Niagara have been clear. They are arresting the same offenders over and over again. Crown prosecutors are frustrated, victims are ignored, and small business owners feel abandoned, yet the government continues to defend policies that prioritize ideology over public safety. Extortion thrives where consequences are uncertain and enforcement is inconsistent. Criminal organizations are rational actors. They assess risk. When sentences are lighter, bail is automatic and deportation is delayed, crime becomes a business model. It is like an episode of The Sopranos .”
“Individuals facing serious charges use refugee claims to delay proceedings and complicate removals. They remain in Canada longer than they should. This is not fairness; this is dysfunction. Third, the motion calls on the government to end the practice of leniency that allows non-citizens convicted of serious crimes to avoid deportation. Canadians believe in due process. People in Niagara believe in fairness, but they also believe in consequences. If someone who is not a citizen commits a serious crime, serves their sentence, and then uses legal technicalities to remain in Canada indefinitely, the system has failed the victims, the community and the public trust. Deportation in these cases is not extreme; it is responsible.”
“First, it calls on the government to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims. Canada's refugee system exists to protect people fleeing persecution, not to shield criminals from accountability. In Niagara and elsewhere, where many of the newcomers follow the rules and contribute positively to their communities, this distinction matters deeply. When criminals abuse the refugee system, it undermines trust and unfairly stigmatizes law-abiding immigrants who are doing everything right. Second, the motion calls on the government to bar non-citizens with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims. This loophole is being exploited, and regions and communities like Niagara feel the impact.”
“They voted against closing loopholes that allow false refugee claimants, including those tied to serious criminal activity, to exploit Canada's asylum system. They voted against Bill C-381 , which would have imposed tougher sentences on extortionists. They continue to refuse to repeal Bills C-5 and Bill C-75 , legislation that has fuelled a revolving-door justice system, where repeat offenders are released again and again, including in regions like Niagara, and police officers are forced to rearrest the same individuals, repeatedly. Laws are not compassionate if they abandon victims. They are not humane if they embolden criminals. They are not effective if they leave communities like Niagara less safe than they were before. The motion before the House is clear, targeted and reasonable.”
“There are newcomers who came to Canada seeking safety, opportunity and a better life, only to be targeted by organized criminal networks that exploit their fear and silence. Niagara is a gateway region. We are home to an international border, four border crossings, major transportation routes and a vibrant but fragile tourism and industrial economy. We depend on trade and the safe movement of goods across our borders. Those strengths should be protected, but instead, criminals are exploiting them. They are doing so because they know the risks are low. Time and time again, when Conservatives have brought forward common-sense solutions to confront this crisis, the Liberals have voted no.”
“This is not a statistical anomaly or a coincidence; it is a systemic failure, one that is being felt in real ways by real people, including small business owners, families and newcomers across Niagara in my communities of Welland, Fort Erie, Thorold and Port Colborne, and throughout the region. Extortion is not a victimless crime. It is the restaurant owner near our tourism and commercial corridors who receives threats and knows that a single incident could ruin their livelihood and indeed their lives. It is the family living in fear due to gangs that hide in the dark, shooting at houses in once-safe neighbourhoods. Canadians are scared. Retaliation is certain if they speak out.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today because Canadians are asking simple but deeply troubling questions. They ask why our justice system seems to work harder for criminals than for victims, and why law-abiding Canadians feel increasingly vulnerable while repeat offenders appear increasingly confident. Nowhere is that question more urgent than in the alarming rise of extortion across this country, including in my own region of Niagara. Let us begin with the facts, because facts do actually matter. Since the Liberals took office, extortion has risen by 330% in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bloomberg reports that Canada's economy is on life support. Canada's GDP growth was zero in November. Productivity continues to fall, and the Bank of Canada expects just 1% growth next year, with business investments being postponed. How bad is it? Homebuilders in Niagara have laid off 60% of their framers due to stalled residential construction. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet growth has stalled. Will the Prime Minister please adopt Conservative ideas that remove barriers so Canadians can actually build and grow again?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the contents of Bill C-9 and its assault on religious freedom. Their fear is that Christians and other religious individuals who believe in the Bible will be told they are engaging in criminal activity. On behalf of these citizens, I urge the government to withdraw Bill C-9 and protect religious freedom in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, tell that to the little girl's family, that when Daniel Senecal was released after serving one year for raping a 12-year-old boy, that one-year sentence was adequate. Tell that to the community that is hurting. We have to have mandatory minimums for serious repeat offenders. There is just no question about it. I do not care what the stats say. When we get down to repeat child sex offenders, there must be a mandatory minimum.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is saying we are filibustering and not co-operating. An hon. member: You are. Fred Davies: That is ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, splitting a bill so that we can get important pieces of a bill through, so it becomes law, is not an unreasonable suggestion. We have already done it in this session. We are not filibustering or delaying. We are here to co-operate on good pieces of legislation. As my colleague said, there are good parts of this legislation, but I am hoping the committee will bring forward some amendments to make it a better bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point, but I would again point out that one of the issues in this legislation, the wiggle room in Bill C-16 with respect to judicial discretion on changing sentences on mandatory minimums, creates a greater imbalance. Someone can have a very talented lawyer who knows the system better than others but may be less fortunate and not able to have adequate representation. To me, that is the bigger flaw in the system and in this bill. I hope that at committee, my colleagues on all sides will discuss this in depth because it is a serious question. If we provide counsel with wiggle room because of lawyers not being able to argue strenuously, I think we have a bigger problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, I could have anticipated that question before I stood up. We are not filibustering anything. I am a new member of Parliament. I have a right to stand in this House. I am not on the justice committee, which this bill would be referred to. We are only putting up four speakers today on this bill. As a new member of Parliament, and with these crimes committed in my riding, I have a right to stand here and speak on behalf of my constituents. The member should be ashamed of himself for suggesting I should not be standing up and talking about this on behalf of the victims in my riding. It is a shameful question, and he should be ashamed of himself.”
“Conservatives will continue to be the advocate for survivors like these brave women from my riding, and we will not stop until repeat offenders actually get a sentence commensurate with the crime, and the registry is made public.”
“These inspirational and brave women will be coming to Ottawa on May 26 to talk to us, tell us their stories and urge further movement to ensure stricter sentencing, the removal of easy bail procedures and the necessity of minimum sentences. Most importantly, they will urge us to release the national sex offender registry as a measure to protect victims. I am looking forward to welcoming Alicia, Melissa, Liz, Tammy, Alysa, Ashley and other brave women who have survived sexual assault and who have shown extraordinary strength in their healing, resilience and willingness to stand in community with one another. To sum up these remarks, minimum sentencing is necessary to ensure accountability and communicate that these crimes are taken seriously by the justice system. That is how we protect victims.”
“The rules for what counts as cruel punishment are murky at best, and make no mistake, this will be the first argument in every trial going forward. Finally, minimum sentences must reflect our values as a society. Laws are not just rules; they are statements of what we prioritize. When we impose minimum mandatory sentences for repeat child sex offenders, we are saying that children's safety outweighs convenience, cost or discomfort. A society is judged on how it protects those who cannot protect themselves. On this issue, we must choose clarity over hesitation, safety over leniency, and justice over excuses. I mentioned the survivors I meet with regularly in my office in Welland.”
“While no law can stop every crime, the certainty of severe consequences does influence behaviour. Critics argue that mandatory minimums remove flexibility and emphasize punishment over rehabilitation. That points to the flaw in this legislation. For example, it states: When imposing a sentence for an offence that has a minimum punishment of a specified term of imprisonment, a court shall impose a shorter term of imprisonment than the specified term if, in the circumstances, the minimum punishment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender. In other words, if Parliament's baseline jail term for any particular crime feels too extreme, a judge can simply decide on a new minimum.”
“Without them, sentencing outcomes can vary widely depending on the jurisdiction, the judge and the ability to have counsel who may have a more dynamic set of legal skills. It is conceivable that offenders with nearly identical records can receive drastically different sentences. That inconsistency undermines public trust in the justice system and leaves victims feeling that justice is arbitrary. Bill C-16 allows a situation where similar crimes can end with drastically different consequences, creating uncertainty for both victims and those charged with enforcing the law. Mandatory minimums establish a clear baseline. They do not eliminate judicial discretion entirely, but they ensure that repeat offences are met with serious, predictable consequences. Third, mandatory minimums serve as a powerful deterrent.”
“The first conviction may involve some uncertainty, with questions about rehabilitation, treatment or the possibility of change. However, a second or third offence removes that uncertainty. It shows a pattern, and when a pattern involves the repeat sexual abuse of children, society has a moral obligation to respond deliberately and decisively. Mandatory minimum sentences provide that decisive response. Subjective wiggle room in Bill C-16 is not decisive. Instead, it creates uncertainty where clarity is required and discretion where firmness is needed. Research consistently shows that repeat offenders pose a significantly higher risk of re-offending. Second, mandatory minimums promote consistency and fairness in sentencing.”
“When that trust is violated, the harm is profound, lifelong and often irreversible. That is why mandatory minimum sentences for repeat child sex offenders are not only justified but necessary. Little E deserves this. We owe it to her and to so many others. Sadly, we had another arrest in my hometown of Port Colborne a few weeks ago, where the repeat offender was arrested on historic assault charges. This repeat offender actually played Santa Claus in my community and was well known as an entertainer. (1220) Minimum sentences are not about vengeance. They are about protection, accountability and prevention. First, we must confront the hard truth that repeat child sex offenders have already demonstrated that previous punishment, supervision or rehabilitation efforts were not sufficient to stop their behaviour.”
“They asked one fundamental question: Why did we tolerate a soft-on-crime approach for so long? We talked about ensuring that time in jail must be commensurate with the gravity of the crime. We talked about the relentless rise in violent crime that first responders endure while still stepping forward every day to protect and serve our communities. The emotions were high and the expectations even higher, but I fear that we have failed them yet again with Bill C-16 . The legislation goes only halfway and does not provide certainty in minimum sentences for serious crimes. There are few responsibilities more fundamental to a society than protecting its children. Children depend on adults, not only for care and guidance but for safety, especially from those who would exploit their vulnerability.”
“I am not a lawyer, but my father was a Crown attorney and most of my preceding family members were police officers. My son Conrad is a first responder in Welland with the Welland Fire and Emergency Services. My entire family has witnessed atrocities from repeat offenders, and the images are forever etched in their minds and memory. I had the opportunity to welcome my son's colleagues here on the floor of the House, shortly after the assault on this little girl in Welland. I believe it was cathartic for the firefighters, two of whom had been first on the scene of this appalling assault. We spent time in the chamber and talked about the magnitude of the tasks we undertake here. We spent over an hour talking about when legislation could be introduced to fix the system of repeat offenders being continually released.”
“People in the House know that I have risen countless times to talk about the horrendous assault of a three-year-old toddler in Welland, in my riding of Niagara South. The sexual assault of this little girl was an unspeakable act of cruelty that violates the most basic moral and human boundaries. What makes this crime worse is that the perpetrator had been released early from prison, after serving just one year in jail for raping a 12-year-old boy. Within just a few short weeks, this abhorrent excuse for a human being attacked little E in her own home, where she should have been safe from harm but was left for dead with horrifying and horrendous injuries. Such crimes demand not only our collective outrage but an unwavering commitment to protect children and hold offenders fully accountable.”
“I have met survivors who move from place to place out of fear for themselves and for their own children. These survivors hide their identities, cannot trust people they do not know, and find it difficult to have relationships with and trust people they do know. This is not theoretical. Survivors of child sexual abuse often live with trauma for decades, struggling with mental health, relationships, job security and trust. When repeat offenders are allowed back into communities too quickly or inconsistently, the justice system sends a devastating message to victims that their suffering is secondary to the comfort of the offender. Mandatory minimum sentences reverse that message. They say, clearly and unequivocally, that protecting children comes first.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-16 today. It is timely for me and relevant to my constituency, which has recently been hit with more than our share of sexual assaults and child sexual assaults. I meet regularly with survivors of these crimes, and their stories are heartbreaking. They have informed me, educated me and inspired me. They have shared not just their insights and their tears of disappointment but tears of hope as well, hope that we can change the Criminal Code. I am humbled and proud to be their voice today in the House. I have learned that, more often than not, perpetrators remain in the community, silently hiding, often repeating their crimes, only to be released again into the community.”