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 3 of 6.
“Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition about Bill C-9 . Canadians are concerned about the erosion of religious freedoms, as contained in the legislation. They are also concerned that governments are intruding on faith. These petitioners are calling for the withdrawal of Bill C-9 , and I am pleased to present these views on behalf of the many proud Canadians who signed.”
“Restoring the wharves could create well-paying local jobs, strengthen domestic supply chains and position Port Colborne as a strategic industrial hub while helping protect Canada's economic sovereignty. This project is shovel-ready, the partners are ready and the benefits are clear. It is time to pull the trigger and get the job done.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government is really serious about building faster, it should start with opportunities already in front of it. I have one that is truly shovel-ready: restoring wharves 17 and 18 on the Welland Canal in Port Colborne. For more than 20 years this critical infrastructure has sat broken. During that time the City of Port Colborne, shipping companies, port authorities and private investors have all been ready to move, but they are still waiting on the St. Lawrence Seaway and Transport Canada to act. Federal funding has already been partially committed. The Liberals talked a good story for over 10 years on this project but failed to hit the finish line. In the meantime, we are waiting. Every year of delay costs us real economic opportunity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have come to know my colleague from Windsor West over the last several months, and I want to thank him for his years of service as a police officer, protecting Canadians and our borders. I appreciate his service to our country. My riding is at the opposite end of Lake Erie, and we share similar border issues. We just learned, for example, that the CBSA has eliminated 40% of its capacity for custody of people coming illegally into the country. The government talks about hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers when there is no capacity to actually train 1,000 new people. It has now reduced capacity for the custody of people breaking the law and coming into the country illegally. I wonder if my friend could comment on that in relation to the weaknesses of this bill.”
“Hopefully, in this instance, because it is not manufacturing automobiles, it can pivot. Asahi Kasei is one of the largest manufacturing companies in the world. It manufactures a large number of different products from Japan. I am hopeful that at least this company will be able to pivot in the event that the narrative does not happen and the economy does not support that kind of investment in the sector. During the summer, I had the opportunity to sit down for lunch with the American ambassador to Canada—”
“The EV mandate, while seemingly logical at the time, has turned out to be completely illogical, because not only are Canadians not interested in buying EV vehicles in the capacity that the government had, in its narrative, created, but we do not have the infrastructure to support that EV mandate. (2255) The sooner the government gets rid of that mandate, the better off the narrative in the economy will be because it will give some certainty within the economy for companies to plan, including in the auto sector. That needs to happen. The other plant in my riding is in my hometown of Port Colborne. It is the Asahi Kasei plant, which is an ion battery separator plant. It has been touted as the largest single industrial investment in the Niagara region. It is still under construction, and there is still a lot of uncertainty in the market.”
“It was going to be providing parts that would support the EV side of the Ford F-150 in Canada. However, that plant never opened. It sits about a mile and a half from where I live. It is a beautiful turnkey plant, if anyone is interested in buying it. It is on the market. This is an example of what a Yale professor refers to as narrative economics. The government created an economic environment based on a narrative that did not have a solid foundation under it, which is the danger when governments get into the idea of narrative economics: They create something that does not exist. In this case, the company put up over $1 billion to build a plant on the basis of an economic strategy and narrative that just never materialized. Canada is not in a position today, on any level, to support the EV sector.”
“Today, as I think my colleague for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake said, there are only 700 direct jobs in the auto sector left in Niagara, so we went from 18,000 jobs in Niagara down to about 700 today. The Ford glass plant has disappeared and closed. The GM engine plant is gone, as is the GM foundry. I used to be in the homebuilding business in the 1980s, and I remember building a first house for an individual. It was a brand new house for him. He had just recently retired from the foundry, and had learned before his last day that the foundry was closing forever. I am in a situation today where I have two EV plants in my riding. One was built about two or three years ago. It was for Linamar, which built a plant in Welland to support the Ford F-150.”
“They closed the plant in St. Catharines early in his career, but every day, a group of people from St. Catharines and the Niagara region would take a bus from Niagara to Oshawa, so that they could finish their career and have a solid pension. It was a hardship for them to do that, but they did it, and he says that he is forever grateful for the job and the opportunity he had to work for that company. However, those jobs have disappeared over the years. For a little perspective, as I said earlier, Niagara was a hub for the automotive sector. In 1969, 47% of all the jobs in Niagara were in the auto sector. Almost one in two jobs in Niagara was in the auto sector. In 2008, that number was reduced to 4,000. By 2014, it further decreased to about 2,900 but still represented about $2.5 billion of economic impact for the Niagara region.”
“Mr. Chair, I am honoured to wrap this debate up tonight. Coming from the Niagara region, which was literally built on the auto sector, I am grateful that my friend from Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake is here tonight to contribute to this debate. As I mentioned earlier, he worked at GM while he was going to university, as did many of my friends and many of my colleagues. I grew up in the small town of Port Colborne, and the ambition of a lot of people who grew up in my town was to get a job at GM or Ford, because it was a well-paid job with good benefits, a future and stability that would enable them to raise their family and enjoy their life. A friend of mine, Alan Davis, who will probably be upset with me for saying this, recently said to me in Port Colborne that he was so grateful to have had the job he had for so many years.”
“Mr. Chair, I would just like to follow up quickly with the hon. member. It seems we are in this sort of economic purgatory right now with the government. I wonder what his thoughts are on the lack of a national industrial strategy. We have seen so much stuff in this budget, so much money being wasted, so much money being spent. I wonder what the member sees as the core issues facing Canada today in this sector.”
“Mr. Chair, a few minutes ago, one of the members opposite asked my colleague here if he had mentioned to the auto workers who have lost their jobs that the government has set aside some money for them and if he had mentioned to them that the government has extended EI in response to the 3,000 lost jobs. It seems to me that the Liberal government's response to everything is to spend more money, throw money at a problem instead of looking at the core issues. I wonder if my colleague might comment on that.”
“Mr. Chair, after billions of taxpayer dollars and countless promises, 3,000 jobs at Stellantis were lost, leaving workers out of work. The Prime Minister said he was the man with the plan. I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on what he thinks that plan actually might be.”
“Mr. Chair, I have many friends who, growing up in Niagara, worked at GM at the engine plant or worked at Ford at the glass plant. My colleague from Niagara Falls will remember that, as he worked in one of the plants when he was a teenager. All of that has disappeared. I am just wondering, as all of these companies and all of these jobs have—”
“Mr. Chair, the hon. member said, as the Prime Minister said, we can only control what we control, but what that is actually saying is that they control nothing. There is nothing in this economic situation today, particularly in the auto sector, where they have any control. We have seen thousands of jobs leave for the south to the U.S. Contracts are being broken. Auto sector jobs are disappearing day over day, and industrial sector jobs are disappearing as well. I wonder how that member can actually stand in the House with a straight face to say that they can only control what they can control. What does that mean?”
“Mr. Chair, once again, I am listening to a member opposite rifle through all the Liberal talking points. We are here to talk about the auto sector, not about other issues to deflect from the main topic. My region of Niagara, in the 20th century, was the hub for manufacturing. In 1969, 47% of all jobs in the Niagara area were in the auto sector. In 2008, there were 4,000 direct jobs. In 2014, that number shrunk to 2,900. Today, there are only 1,400 people employed in the auto sector. Can the hon. member explain how the Liberals' plan for the auto sector has any value? Can they look our auto workers in the eye in Niagara and say they have a plan?”
“Mr. Chair, I found it fascinating to listen to the member and her Liberal talking points because she really did not touch much on the crisis we are having in the auto sector today. In my region of Niagara, the auto sector has played a pivotal role over history. It is literally responsible for the creation of our industrial core in Niagara. I wonder if the hon. member might tell me, given the billions of dollars that the government has risked in the EV sector, what happens if it all falls apart? What is her answer for the billions of dollars that may be lost and the jobs that may be lost? What is the pivot if the EV sector actually fails?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to take that a step further. Not only are we over-regulated, overtaxed and disincentivized regarding investment coming into Canada, but the upfront costs of getting access to capital in this country are enormous. Companies are fleeing to the U.S. because there are incentive programs there, especially in California in the technology sector. They can get funding in innovation centres in California far faster than they can in Canada. It is a burden here. We need to deregulate and get rid of red tape. Just building an industrial building in this country right now can take years before shovels are put in the ground. The cost of development charges, fees and regulation is outrageous. We have painted ourselves into a corner over the last 20 years and it needs to stop. The Conservative Party will put a stop to it.”
“Madam Speaker, if the question is how many Conservative members voted for the budget, the answer is zero. We all voted against the budget. I voted against the budget. This is a generational disaster of debt for Canadians. When I said the amount of deficit we are going to accrue this year would make Justin Trudeau blush, I meant that this is a generational catastrophe that my grandchildren are going to pay for. I will vote against the budget again, vote against all of the enabling legislation and be proud to do it.”
“Madam Speaker, that was the most delusional question I have heard since I was elected. The Prime Minister has been on 28 trips around the world for photo ops, handshakes and MOUs that are non-binding. Not a dollar has set foot in Canada yet. I would like the hon. member to give me the name of a specific company that has moved capital into Canada. Right now, capital is leaving Canada at record rates to the U.S. That is where we need to focus our attention, not on the fictitious view that letters of intent and memorandums of understanding have any meaning at all. It is all photo ops and gaslighting.”
“My life's work has been dedicated to creating value for Canadians, jobs for Canadians and growth in my region. My small grandchildren will pay the price for this, and only Conservatives will bring sanity and solid fiscal policy back to our country and put Canada first.”
“If we could provide this kind of incentive to support Canadian start-ups, we could build a more diversified economy where Canadian companies and capital stay here and grow here. This is the real nation-building effort, one company at a time. It will create confidence and enthusiasm and bring massive private capital reserves back into our economy. Canada is over-regulated, overtaxed, disincentivized and uncompetitive, with the worst productivity rate in the G7. The government says it wants new ideas. I just threw several at it, all validated by past best practices and all cancelled by the Liberals. The Liberals talk a good game, but talk is cheap. The “we believe in Canada” ad nauseam is offensive to me. It suggests that only Liberals believe in Canada. I also believe in Canada.”
“To be clear, this is not a tax break for the rich; this is an incentive for people who are willing to take risk on Canadian companies. Make no mistake: The risk is high. The two out of 10 that actually make it to market need years of mentoring and support, with multiple rounds of investment. Unless we are prepared to support this ecosystem, we will continue to tilt at windmills, watch our best and brightest move south and continue to weaken our domestic innovation ecosystem. My leader is onto something. He is really onto something when he talks about eliminating capital gains taxes, provided that the gains are invested in Canadian companies. People understand this at the ground level.”
“Eight out of 10 start-ups ultimately fail. Angel investors, angel funds and venture capital funding vehicles are familiar with this risk, but as we navigate this uncertain time, as I said earlier, capital is staying on the sidelines. Fifteen years ago, it was easier for us to attract early-stage investment because it was the policy priority of the federal and provincial governments. Accredited investors organized and went on a tear of investing in Canadian companies. It was a beautiful thing, but investing fatigue has now set in because deal flow is weak and confidence is low. The incentives for investing in start-ups today in Canada are non-existent. That is the barrier to investment. That is the tragedy of where we missed the chance over the last 10 years to provide incentives for investment.”
“Regional development agencies could have been the platform for this, but are basically acting as bailout agencies instead of a network of strategic investment for Canadian start-ups. I have seen dozens of companies leave for the U.S. simply because they could not obtain funding in Canada. The U.S. offered the solutions to risk-averse Canadians to provide a runway of support to these companies that wanted to stay here but simply could not turn down the opportunities south of the border. This should be low-hanging fruit for us. If the government is intent on nosediving our nation into debt, how about we first take a look at how we fund our brightest and best in this country and try to fix the gap between capital and ideas. We need to incentivize Canadian capital to actually invest and stay here in Canada.”
“BlackBerry is literally responsible for the creation of the Waterloo innovation machine that paved the way for Canadian entrepreneurs to chase their dreams. The Harper government launched an incredibly helpful program to enhance the innovation sector through support to the angel investing community. It was inexpensive yet enormously successful, and it bridged the gap between ideas and capital. Angel investor groups popped up across Canada and aggregated substantial amounts of capital to support Canadian companies. Sadly, the Trudeau government cancelled this program. Over the past 10 years, we have missed the boat in establishing an access-to-capital platform to support companies beyond the early stage phase.”
“Let us be clear: Canada's economy has evolved over the past 50 years through technological change and the realization that trade liberalization was the only pathway to improving the Canadian standard of living. Money flows to the path of least resistance balanced against return. Policy drives the creation of that path. However, as we developed our north-south trade strategy, we abdicated our responsibility in supporting a national manufacturing strategy and, most importantly, a national access to capital strategy. (1100) I know this because I have spent the past 20 years helping Canadian start-ups commercialize their ideas against strong and sometimes insurmountable barriers against capital access. There were incredible successes in the Canadian start-up ecosystem, like Shopify and Hootsuite, among many others.”
“To suggest otherwise ignores facts, history and the natural political, geographic, economic and basic integration of our economies. The north-south network of supply chains, transportation and logistics, built over decades in relationships and confidence and trust in financial linkages, is not something that our manufacturing and service sector can abandon or miraculously recreate in other jurisdictions just because the Prime Minister says so. It took 100 years for our economy to evolve to ensure the efficient movement of goods and capital and ensure stable supply chains. Saying that we are going to double trade with Europe is fine, but it is not going to fix our problems before CUSMA comes up for review.”
“Perhaps the strategy is just to wait him out and hope for the best. When Trump opens up CUSMA, which he most certainly will, Canada's economic stability is literally on the table. The idea that we are going to supplant our trade with the U.S. with trade in other jurisdictions may appear to be an opportunity, but it is at best a long-term objective. If we ask anyone who has built a successful SME in Canada, they will tell us that it takes decades to develop the relationships and supply chains needed to provide solid predictability in our export markets. Some 75% of Canada's exports go to the U.S. That may fluctuate, and it has over time, but fundamentally our relationship with the U.S. is never going to change in our lifetime.”
“We have the same CUSMA deal we had before the election, with a pile of new tariffs on everything outside that agreement. That is an abject failure. Maybe he does not care because he is hoping that Trump loses his court cases or perhaps loses control of Congress in the midterms, or that the U.S. economy finally feels the inevitable pain of tariffs, with job losses and inflation. Silence and saying “Who cares?” are dangerous, misguided, irresponsible and frankly lazy. We are in a trade vacuum with a case of George Costanza's elbows-down shrinkage factor. Everyone knows it is a precarious game negotiating with Trump and his sycophant team of validators. Trump is a bit like Biff Tannen in Back to the Future Part II , where the bully controls the dystopian town and the people around him.”
“I have listened intently to my colleagues on the Liberal side of the House talk about this budget, and it left me wondering how so many people have suddenly come down with a case of “sometimers”. Perhaps it is a form of political amnesia, because it seems that those on the front bench of this so-called new government have forgotten that they paved the way for this massive dive into new generational debt. While the Prime Minister says his words were poorly chosen when he said “Who cares?” about dealing with Trump, what is said in jest often holds an element of truth. His “Who cares?” comment tells us a couple of things. Perhaps he is just going through the motions with the U.S., and CUSMA is the backstop, at least for now. He loves to say that Canada has the best deal right now. Well, frankly, that is a crock.”
“Madam Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate today, and it will come as no surprise that I will say up front that I will vote against the bill. The Minister of Finance loves to yell in the House that this is a generational budget. What is clearly and unequivocally true is that this is a budget imposing massive, crushing and unforgivable generational debt. I cannot help but point out that our deficit is now just under $80 billion, a number that would make even Justin Trudeau blush. Canada's productivity has slipped badly among G7 nations. Why? Capital is staying on the sidelines as confidence lags. Investments in equipment, new innovation and business efficiencies are on hold because of basic economic uncertainty. That is the essence of productivity. The last thing our economy needs right now is uncertainty, yet here we are.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has circled the globe four times, meeting with world leaders for photo ops, meaningless letters of intent and zero investments. He has returned with nothing, and after 28 trips, Canadians are fed up. After meeting with China, China imposed more tariffs. After meeting with India, India imposed more tariffs. When he went to the U.K., there were crickets. He went to Washington and Trump imposed more tariffs. Why is it that whenever the Prime Minister hops on a plane for another photo op, Canadian families get stuck with higher tariffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment. I agree that without permanent membership on committees, there is limited access, at least for me as a member of the committee, to hear the perspectives of people who are in a non-party situation. However, we worked through so many amendments, which took a long time and a lot of work, only to come back here and have them all wiped out with one vote. Not one single amendment—”
“Mr. Speaker, this legislation is urgently needed to fix the problems of the individual I spoke about being released early. The urgency is to ensure that repeat offenders do not get the opportunity to reoffend and that violent offenders, particularly with offences against children, do not see the light of day. Under the current legislation, my guess is that Daniel Senecal will be released in about seven years, if he is convicted. There is urgency to fix the problem, but we need time to debate the bill adequately in the House so Canadians can hear our perspective, see our point of view and understand why there are issues with this bill. If we debate it reasonably in this House, we will come to a good solution for all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I am fully committed to ensuring that bail reform is strengthened in this country, but this bill does not do it. We will take it to committee. We will refine it. We will introduce amendments. I would caution the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that the reason all of the amendments were reversed on the immigration bill was that the Liberals relied on a few members of the NDP who did not sit in committee and did not have the benefit of the debate we had. When this bill goes to committee, I would encourage all members of the House to take our amendments seriously and accept them.”
“It saddens me that in my small town of Port Colborne, crime is at a fearful level for the business community. We have never seen the number of security cameras we see today at our homes, at businesses, at commercial buildings and on our streets in our communities and municipalities. We rely on them now for policing and to help police catch criminals roaming our streets. In conclusion, I really hope the government will take up our suggestions at committee when the bill goes to committee and will help us improve it. Let me be clear. I will continue to rise in this House day after day on this issue until criminals like Daniel Senecal spend the rest of their lives in jail and until he never gets another chance to assault a little toddler, as he did in Welland such a short time ago.”
“Second, we have a serious problem of morale at the CBSA and a very high level of suicide. The morale level is bad, and the government needs to dig into that to make improvements at the CBSA so it becomes a profession that people would like to join. Interestingly, the CBSA recently reduced its detention capacity across Canada. We are talking about jail and not bail, and the CBSA has actually reduced by over 40% the detention capacity across Canada. How is this reality reflected in the legislation we are talking about today? There is lots more I could speak about. I would like to take some time to talk about the extortion problem in this country and the crime issues. In my community, I have several businesses that I still manage, and I see that the level of crime in our streets has gone up substantially over the last number of years.”
“I request that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader commit today to taking our amendments seriously and not just throwing them out when it comes to report stage. I hope he will accommodate that request today. I want to move on to a couple of things in this proposed act about the CBSA. I am going to refer to it as the CBSA facade. We heard the minister say that he wants to hire 1,000 new recruits at the RCMP and 1,000 new recruits at the CBSA. That sounds interesting and sounds like a lot, but once we take into account retirements, attrition and people who leave the profession, it amounts to a drop in the bucket of what the CBSA actually needs to protect Canadians today. There is not enough training capacity to train 1,000 new officers for the CBSA right now. This is the first problem.”
“I understand the government would rather us not talk about that here on the floor of the House of Commons, because it raises too many of the issues that are inherent in this bill, too many of the shortcomings, but we will take it to committee eventually and we will propose amendments. I guarantee that when those amendments come back to this House, the government will reverse everything we would like to do to improve this legislation. That is a travesty. When we talk about co-operation, the government likes to say that this is a minority Parliament and that we should co-operate. I say to prove it, because we have tried and members have voted us down. We will try again with this legislation.”
“(1300) Daniel Senecal, the guy who raped and beat a three-year-old toddler, was out early, reoffended and is now in jail awaiting trial. Under this legislation, he would get out again in probably about seven years, if he is convicted. We are waiting for that trial. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asks over and over again why we do not just let this bill go to committee, where we can do the work and make amendments. Well, we did that with Bill C-3 at the immigration committee. We did a lot of work, as my colleague will attest to. We did months of work and made lots of positive amendments to the legislation, but once we brought it back to the House, the government wiped it out in a single vote.”
“There were several protests in front of courthouses and municipal buildings. These are people who are frustrated with the lack of action after 10 years of catch-and-release. A police officer came to my office a couple of weeks ago, and I asked him, “What is the pattern of catch-and-release, because I hear a lot about it and the Conservatives have been talking about it?” He looked at me and said that I would not believe it, but over the span of about 60 days, he arrested the same guy 30 times. In some cases, it is now a situation where they sit in the back of a cruiser, they do a promise to appear and then they let someone out, only to rearrest them a few hours later. That brings me to the question of release after the shortest possible time under the least onerous conditions.”
“It is becoming almost a habit in my riding on Saturday mornings to meet with people who are survivors of sexual assault or who have children who are survivors of sexual assault. We sit and have coffee on Saturday mornings in my office, and they give me the strength to carry on in this quest. This last Saturday, more people arrived. It seems they know that the only voice they have is their representative on the floor of the House of Commons. They have spoken to municipal councils around southern Ontario to ask municipal governments to help support this effort to get bail reform on the floor of the House of Commons. In a vacuum, people will do anything they can to raise awareness, from the delegations around southern Ontario to municipal councils to the protests that have popped up across Niagara.”
“This repeat offender was recently released after serving just one year after sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy. He served one year for that sexual assault and then was released into the community. Within weeks, he brutally sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl in Welland. While she was in her bed at night, this three-year-old toddler was brutally assaulted and left for dead. I know everybody in this House is familiar with that case, and as I continue to talk over and over again about it, I am grateful to the many people in my community who have supported the petition that I launched and that was tabled in the House about a week ago. Tens of thousands of people have called on the government to change bail laws and initiate bail reform.”
“We have been advocating over the last four years for the scrapping of Liberal bail. One of the things we want to see in this bill changed, enhanced or improved is the adoption of the principle of public and community safety. At its base level, that means eliminating the principle of restraint, presuming detention for major offences and turning Liberal redundancy into mandatory actions from judges. Let me tell members why. I made a promise to a group of people in my riding several months ago after the brutal assault of a three-year-old toddler on a street on which I grew up, at my grandparents' house in Welland. I made the promise that I would stand in this House until bail reform and the justice system were changed for people like Daniel Senecal.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to an issue that is fundamental to what Canadians want from their government: security, safety and the conviction that the law will protect innocent people rather than reward violent criminals. Canadians nationwide are dealing with the fallout from a justice system that puts violent repeat offenders ahead of the security of families and small business owners after 10 arduous years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies. The government has now acknowledged with the introduction of this bill that the catch-and-release strategy has failed. However, it is not enough to ensure that Canadians are safe in their country and that those who commit crimes are jailed and not out on bail. It is good to see that the government has finally responded to the pleas of the Conservative Party.”
“The undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to make bail and early releases more restrictive for repeat violent offenders of sexual offences and sexual offences against children, to protect children and to end the revolving door of justice for crimes targeting the most vulnerable Canadians. On their behalf, I table this petition.”
“Madam Speaker, I have the sad and unfortunate duty today to present a petition on behalf of constituents of Niagara South and throughout the region of Niagara with respect to the brutal rape and beating of a three-year-old toddler in my riding. On August 31, 2025, this little girl was violently assaulted by a 25-year-old man who had been let out early from a sentence of a previous sexual assault and rape of a 12-year-old boy. More than 10,400 people in the first tranche of this petition have asked me to present it on their behalf.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean would comment on what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader told us at second reading. He said to bring the legislation to committee and bring forward legislative changes and amendments that will make the bill better. How many weeks did we spend on it? We spent two months debating the bill, refining it and bringing forward rational, reasonable and acceptable amendments, yet as the parliamentary secretary said, we did not get the NDP onside. The NDP does not sit in committee. It did not make a presentation. We have no idea what its point of view was. We now come back here, and the government has thrown out all that work and is saying we are going back to the beginning. I wonder how the hon. member feels about that.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. We worked well together on the committee, and I always appreciated that we had an opportunity to talk substantially about the amendments we wanted to bring forward to make this piece of legislation better. I said earlier in my speech that my education as a new MP was unfortunate. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said to bring amendments to the committee; that is when we will make the bill better. Well, we did that. We made amendments and made the legislation better. Perhaps we would have had an opportunity to make it the law of the land, but all that time was wasted. Now we are back to where we started, and we will not vote in favour of the legislation as a result.”