Roman Baber
York Centre, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, part 2 of Bill C‑22 would force providers to retain the metadata of all Canadians. Liberals say the data is no different than the phone book, but the phone book did not log every phone call in every location of every Canadian for the last 12 months.”
“They are heckling me because they cannot handle what they are doing here. I welcome their heckling. I wear it as a badge of honour. The only thing the Liberals would do is eliminate the religious defence to an allegation of hate speech, and it is all because the Bloc says a guy named Charkaoui was not charged for calling for the extermina…”
“The Liberals wanted to eliminate the Attorney General's ability to consent to prosecutions. They realized how bad an idea it was and rolled it back. They wanted to redefine the term “hatred”. It is a definition that the Supreme Court used for 40 years. I am proud of this.”
“For example, people could violate the digital safety act or the human rights code, and that may attract criminal prosecution. The Liberals are turning our democracy into a banana republic. (1155) Earlier, I heard the member for Whitby ask my colleague why she is opposed to a new hate-motivated offence.”
“It does not excuse incitement to violence. A religious defence does not apply to statements that are not spoken in good faith. Calling for the extermination of people is not good faith. This is a charade. The main operation of the bill is predicated on a lie.”
“This would be a Liberal government appointee reigning over what we do on the Internet, with unlimited powers over how we communicate and how the world's most innovative companies do business. Surely by coincidence, the same thing is now happening in England this week, and it just happened in Australia. I was trained in the common law.”
The complete record
Every one of 260 lines we hold for Roman Baber, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“Nonetheless, the seizure would still happen. That brings me to my last point: security. It is very clear. According to The Globe and Mail, we are not prepared. We do not have the systems in place to order this sort of metadata catch-all and to create back doors. The article says, “experts are warning that the lawful access regime could allow hackers to exploit architecture inserted into electronic systems”. That is exactly what happened to the United States. The Salt Typhoon hackers out of China, who allegedly have been working for the Chinese state, exploited lawful intercept infrastructure that the U.S. telecoms were required by law to build. They were actually able to breach the White House. Their systems are considerably more advanced than Canadian systems.”
“We need to think about this very carefully. I think I have made a prima facie case that this would violate the charter. It is important to distinguish this from Snowden. I want to talk about Snowden a little bit. He blew the lid off this in 2013 and said that the government was collecting all sorts of metadata. It was collecting all of it. In order to collect that metadata, one had to go to the FISA court. Even though there are some questions about the FISA court and its efficacy, there was still a court. According to the bill, there would be no court. We would just seize it all. In fairness to my friends the Liberals, the government would not be able to see the information seized without a court order, without a warrant. The Internet service provider would hold on to all this stuff. If the government wants it, it would get a court order.”
“That engages an interesting question about section 8, on arbitrary search and seizure, because the Internet service provider would be ordered by the minister, not by the court, to keep all our data for 365 days, without a warrant. A person may not have committed any offence, but the minister would want the Internet service provider to keep the data in the event that they have committed an offence. That is not how our legal system works. People will say that it would not be the government seizing the data. That does not matter. If the government were to order another institution, in this case an Internet service provider, to seize it, that Internet service provider would become an agent of the government. The effect is the same, which is a breach of section 8 in that it would be an arbitrary seizure.”
“I am sure that even members on the other side of the aisle who lean to the left agree that we have to set some reasonable limits, that we cannot be coming to a law firm and saying that a minister, without a court order, would secretly order them to create a retention system and a back door to look at their clients, with no court order, no judge and no right of appeal. Please, let us be very careful with this. That brings me to the final point on what is difficult about the bill, and that is the fact that the public safety minister would order the retention of metadata, of all the data, essentially, that goes through an electronic service provider's infrastructure, and they would be mandated to keep it for 365 days.”
“According to the legislation, an electronic service provider “means a person that, individually or as part of a group, provides an electronic service, including for the purpose of enabling communications, and that...provides the service to persons in Canada [and] carries on...its business...in Canada.” If it is Telus, Sprint and Rogers, I understand, but I say to my friend from Winnipeg and to my friend from Mount Royal , who just spoke to this, that I would like to understand very clearly whether this could this also apply to a law firm. Could it apply to an accounting firm? Could it apply to an educational institution? All these folks meet the definition of an electronic service provider as presently articulated by the legislation. That is a concern on my part. I ask that we study it very carefully at committee.”
“What is important is that those companies would not be asked by virtue of a court warrant, because a crime has been committed, to say that they now need to create a system. (1710) It would be done by a ministerial order, signed off by the commissioner of intelligence pre-emptively. In other words, while we would not be alleging that any crime has been committed, the minister would now come to the private sector and say that they want it to create a system. That is fine, but even if that were to happen, the problem is the definition of an electronic service provider, because this order may be very wide.”
“If a police officer says that they reasonably suspect a crime has occurred, then that would be enough to satisfy the conditions of the warrant and disclose Jane Smith's additional information. We will think about this at committee, and I will want to hear some testimony, but I am not sure that it is prudent to be lowering the threshold of search and seizure, so this is a very problematic provision. Second, the Liberals are asking Internet service providers to co-operate with them in creating various systems that will help them prosecute crime and find offenders. I do not disagree that that is a noble and necessary goal. They are asking Internet service providers to create systems for the retention of data, back doors where the government would be able to enter encrypted communications and other means to help law enforcement.”
“Telus or Rogers knows that Jane Smith is a customer, and the police want to seize additional records on Jane Smith, some basic information such as IP address, location, etc. Now we are talking about personal information contained within the records of the company. Like my friend from Winnipeg North says, they are going to go see a judge, hallelujah. The problem is that, to obtain a warrant, typically a police officer would have to swear to a reasonable belief that criminal activity may have occurred. “Reasonable belief” is an important technical term because it commits the police officer to an affidavit, to a subjective belief that he must swear to. However, in this bill, the Liberals are proposing to lower that threshold to reasonable suspicion.”
“At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will always continue to stand for individual freedom, privacy and safety. Let us begin by talking about some laws. The Liberals want to know if Jane Doe is a customer of Telus. They want law enforcement to have the right to call up an Internet service provider and simply ask if Jane Smith is its customer, without a warrant. I must say that I do not object to that. It is probably public information, and in the interest of security, providers could probably move their privacy policy in a direction where that would be allowable. I see that my friend from Winnipeg North agrees. I am happy. I would like to put another proposition to him.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee . To the viewers at home, the Liberals are coming to regulate the Internet. This is a very serious moment. The Liberals have introduced a piece of legislation that looks to police activity on the Internet and prosecute crime using the Internet. Obviously, this is going to give rise to a lot of questions about privacy, law and execution. I propose to have a professional discussion about how the Liberals are going to police the Internet while preserving basic charter rights, because we all agree that we must preserve charter rights. Conservatives support giving law enforcement the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals should tell that to the one in 10 Torontonians lining up at food banks. MNP found that almost half of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency. How is it that, in a country that is so rich in natural resources, more than one in five children go hungry? It is because of the Liberal tax-and-spend policies. It is because the Liberals suffocate our oil and gas and give away our money to their friends and to foreigners. Why do they not steal another Conservative idea and cut all federal taxes on gas so Canadians can afford to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, one in four Canadians is skipping meals. MNP says that one in three Canadians cannot pay their bills. The Conservatives offered a real solution: cut all federal gas taxes to give Canadians a break at the pumps. It would cost about a third of what the Liberals spend on foreign aid. However, now the Liberals claim to be fiscally prudent. The Prime Minister offered us a lesson on deficits. That is after doubling Trudeau's deficit to almost $80 billion. Why do the Liberals not admit that Canadians are suffering and axe the GST and the clean fuel regulations on gasoline?”
“Mr. Speaker, we recognize the necessity of protecting children online, especially from predators who access unlawful and criminal material. I am wondering if my friend could tell me why she believes the Liberals refused to adopt the Conservative suggestion and, in response to the Senneville decision that struck down mandatory minimum sentencing for access and possession to materials that violate children, the Liberals decided they will have none of it.”
“Olivia wants to turn Jane and Wilson into Keele and Wilson using federal money, but we do not want Olivia's shelter harming our children and we do not want the Liberal government to fund the construction of these drug dens that bring crime and chaos to Toronto streets. Downsview residents do not consent to this shelter, and we will fight it tooth and nail.”
“Mr. Speaker, Olivia Chow and Toronto city council are building an injection site between a day care and a middle school in our beautiful neighbourhood of Downsview. It will be another Toronto homeless shelter that hands out pipes and needles. It will have a safe room where non-residents can get in, get a needle, inject themselves, leave and roam the neighbourhood. Toronto's homeless shelters have morphed into drug injection sites. Now Olivia Chow wants $700 million from the Liberal government to pay for the construction of 20 more of these shelters all around Toronto. Join me for a visit at Jane and Wilson near the Toronto Plaza shelter. It is an epicentre for drugs, crime and chaos. There are needles everywhere, drug trade and solicitation. The intersection is dead.”
“Mr. Speaker, shooting at synagogues is already illegal. Just like the Prime Minister , the justice minister is all talk and no action. Now an Iranian dissident is missing, and police fear that he has been murdered. Meanwhile, some Canadians actually recognized an Iranian official at the gym. The Conservatives are asking the Liberals to table a plan within a week to re-evaluate Canada's terrorism threat level, to identify gaps in our national security and to rid our country of the IRGC. When will the Liberal government start protecting Canadians and finally deport those who are connected to the Iranian regime?”
“Mr. Speaker, last week, three synagogues were shot at in Toronto. The war abroad is spilling onto our streets, while hundreds of Iranian agents are operating in Canada. The Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to table a plan within a week to enforce the deportation of Iranian officials, to disrupt Iranian efforts to launder money and to re-evaluate Canada's terrorism threat level. Will the Liberals stop the Iranian regime here at home, or will Canada remain a playground for the revolutionary guard?”
“Madam Speaker, I have just articulated a sensible legal argument in response to the legislation. Anybody who does not agree with the member is, apparently, far right. Normal people, middle-of-the-line centrists, are now far right according to the Liberal Party. I am proud of my time in the Ford government. I wear my time in the Ford government and the provincial legislature as a badge of honour.”
“If it is hate motivated, it will be caught in sentencing, but what the bill's hate-motivated offence would do is criminalize hatred with respect to any civil offence contrary to any act of Parliament. They would make non-criminal conduct criminal. This would be a huge error.”
“Madam Speaker, I actually want to specify that, specifically with respect to the Jewish community, since the election of the Liberal government 10 years ago, hate crimes against the Jewish community have more than quadrupled. Shame on them for that. With respect to the specific question that the member is asking, I would like to clarify for the benefit of the House that this is not politics; this is law. We had Mark Sandler saying that the bill would do nothing new with respect to intimidation and obstruction. If someone intimidates me from entering a synagogue or an educational institution, that is intimidation contrary to section 423. If someone is obstructing my entrance physically, that is an assault. This is all common sense. With respect to the hate-motivated offence, in sentencing, the hate-motivated offence is already factored in.”
“It is illegal to call for intifada, which is a violent revolt, and it is illegal to intimidate Jewish businesses. Do something about it.”
“Madam Speaker, I do not know what the secretary of state is talking about. I was at the press conference at Shaarei Shomayim three days ago, next to the public safety minister , who was not able to say anything. With respect to concrete solutions, if the secretary of state had listened to my speech, I proposed three concrete solutions at the very least. Number one is to get the RCMP involved. We have a special unit within the RCMP to deal with this. It is now beyond local police. Number two, we have 700 IRGC-connected individuals in Canada, and maybe 450 individuals connected to Hamas according to Global News. How about we investigate those networks and expel those individuals? Number three, why do you not do something and call for law enforcement of existing laws? It is illegal to call for incitement to violence.”
“Shame on the Liberals for Bill C-9 . Shame on the Liberals for using the Jewish community as a prop. Shame on you for this motion closing debate.”
“We have RCMP units called integrated national security enforcement teams, which work with the CBSA and local police to counter terrorism. One needs to be empowered locally to protect the Jewish community. Second, there are about 700 IRGC agents in Canada, and according to Global News, there are 450 members linked to Hamas. Why are the Liberals allowing this? Let us investigate these networks and expel these individuals from Canada. Third is to put political pressure on mayors and police to stop the Jew hatred on our streets that is already criminal. Stop the calls for intifada, which is incitement to violence and is already illegal and criminalized in the U.K. End the intimidation of Jewish-owned businesses. Conservatives will defend the Jewish community, but Bill C-9 is a Trojan horse to limit free speech.”
“If an offence is motivated by hate, that is an aggravating factor upon sentencing. However, the new hate-motivated offence in Bill C-9 would not just criminalize criminal conduct. It would also criminalize any hate offence that is tacked onto a civil offence, so non-criminal conduct could now become criminal. This is very dangerous, and the threshold to convict for hatred would be lowered from a good test established by the Supreme Court 40 years ago. I am telling the Jewish community that Bill C-9 would do nothing to protect us. In fact, I believe that Bill C-9 would be weaponized against us. However, this is what we can do to protect Canada's Jewish community. First, no one is talking about law enforcement. This is now beyond a local police problem. We need the RCMP in North York. We need the RCMP in Thornhill.”
“With respect to the bill, the Liberals flaunt the new obstruction and intimidation offence, but it is already criminal to obstruct someone from entering a synagogue. It is called assault. It is already criminal to intimidate someone from doing something they have a lawful right to do. That is intimidation and contrary to section 423 of the Criminal Code. However, do not listen to me. Listen to Mark Sandler, a lawyer who understands this better than anyone in the country and who was invited to testify at the justice committee by both me and the Liberals. He said, “proposed intimidation or obstruction sections don't make criminal conduct that is not already criminal.” There is nothing new here. With respect to the new hate-motivated offence, it already effectively exists through sentencing.”
“When the Prime Minister recognized the Palestinian state, he rewarded the brutality of Hamas, and he did so on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. We will never forget that. Why do the Liberals not call for the enforcement of existing laws? Masked thugs chant for intifada every Sunday at Sheppard and Bathurst. Did anyone say, “Stop. It is incitement to violence so arrest them”? When they march on residential streets frightening neighbours, did anyone say, “What is wrong with you, Olivia Chow?” Did anyone say, “What is wrong with you, Chief of Police Demkiw? It is mischief so arrest them”? Please save your tweets and platitudes. Three synagogues were shot at last week in the city of Toronto. Bill C-9 would do nothing to stop that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am Jewish and I represent one of the largest Jewish communities in Canada. I am disgusted by the Liberal government and how it pretends that the Jewish community wants Bill C-9 passed, which is nonsense. The Liberals are saying that while adding fuel to the fire of Jew hatred in Canada. When the Prime Minister says on the campaign trail that he knows there is genocide in Gaza, he fuels Jew hatred. When Liberals engage in the greatest blood libel of the 21st century, that the Jewish state is using starvation as a weapon of war, they fuel Jew hatred. When they sanction Israel to stop the Gaza war for Hamas to survive, they encourage terrorists in the Middle East and here at home to keep up the jihad.”
“He testified before our committee at the invitation of the Liberals and said that the “proposed intimidation or obstruction sections don't make criminal conduct that is not already criminal.” Why is the minister representing that the new intimidation and obstruction offence will do anything, when in reality such conduct is already contrary to the Criminal Code?”
“Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Jewish community, from one of the largest Jewish communities in the country, I do not believe that Bill C-9 will do anything to accomplish the protection of the Jewish community, but I would like to ask the minister a professional, legal question. The Liberals flaunt the new obstruction and intimidation offence, but it is already criminal to obstruct someone from entering a synagogue or a school. It is called assault. It is already criminal to intimidate someone from doing something they have a lawful right to do, because that is contrary to the Criminal Code section 423. It is called intimidation. The minister does not have to listen to me. He should listen to Mark Sandler, a lawyer who understands this better than anyone.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the same recycled housing approach that the Liberals have had for the last decade, but I have a very serious and concrete question for the member. We already have the ministry of housing. We already have Canada Lands. We already have CMHC. Why do the Liberals require a fourth bureaucracy to not build homes?”
“That is because Liberal immigration minister after Liberal immigration minister fails to protect our borders, and Liberal public safety minister after Liberal public safety minister fails to deport them. When will this Liberal government start protecting Canadians and finally deport those who are connected to the Iranian regime?”
“Mr. Speaker, last week three different synagogues were shot at in the Toronto area. There was always conflict abroad, but it never spilled onto Canada's streets like it has under this Liberal government. The Liberals politicize the Middle East; add to that their soft-on-crime agenda, and it is no longer safe for Canada's Jewish community. They can, please, save the tweets, the empty platitudes and Bill C-9 , which will do nothing for the Jewish community, and instead deal with the terrorists in our streets and enforce existing laws. Now an Iranian activist is missing, and police fear that he was murdered. Hundreds of IRGC agents safely reside in Canada.”
“One cannot hide behind the religious defence when one is inciting violence as incitement is not protected. I read a statement at committee from the Quebec prosecutors that said that they did not lay charges against Charkaoui not because of the religious defence, but because the “enemies of Gaza” was not an identifiable group of people. Apparently, one can call for their extermination, according to the Quebec prosecution, but this had nothing to do with the amendment or the religious defence. The Bloc knows this. The Liberals know this. This is a charade. I will be splitting my time.”
“However, the amendment that the Bloc passed with its Liberal friends is predicated on false pretenses. By moving this amendment, the Bloc is saying that people should not be able to hide behind a religious exemption to hate speech. As we know, it is because an imam in Montreal named Charkaoui called for the extermination of the enemies of Gaza. The Bloc is saying that because he was not prosecuted, we need to remove this religious exemption. That is just not true. To avail oneself of the religious exemption, the words one utters need to be in good faith. When one calls for the extermination of people, that is not in good faith. If we look at the law, the religious defence does not apply to incitement. It applies to the second category of hate speech, which is the wilful promotion of hatred.”
“We were working in good faith. I worked with my Liberal colleague from Mount Royal . We agreed to fix the definition of “hate speech”. My concern with respect to the removal of the consent of the Attorney General was also dealt with. Even better, I was surprised to see in the proposed amendments that my private member's bill, Bill C-257 , against the wilful promotion of terrorism, in one form or another, made it into the proposed amendments by the Liberals. That was one of the best days of my career. We could have potentially fixed this bill. Then I learned about the Bloc's amendment from the news media. The Liberals did not have the courage to tell us what they were doing. They had agreed to the Bloc's amendment to remove the religious defence to hate speech from the Criminal Code. The entire exercise had been a fiasco.”
“We were supposed to hear from B’nai Brith and Simon Wiesenthal. They were scheduled to testify, but the former head of the committee suspended witness hearings before they were able to testify and ordered the committee to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration. I had witnesses calling me personally. Canadian Women Against Antisemitism called me. I had Imam Tawhidi call me to ask why he was not permitted to testify on this piece of legislation. The former committee chair, the same committee chair who asked how certain scriptures could not be hate speech, is the same committee chair who refused to hear from multiple witnesses who wanted to make submissions on this piece of legislation even before the amendments. We proceeded to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 . I was there and had a front row seat for all of it.”
“Madam Speaker, the “guillotine” or the “hammer” is generally how these motions are referred to when the government shuts down debate. It is shutting down speech, ironically, on a bill that deals with speech and the issue of free speech. The Liberals are saying there has been enough debate on Bill C-9 . Yes, there has been a lot of talk between politicians on it, but the Liberals are refusing to hear from witnesses and from Canadians. I want to tell Canadians not just about Bill C-9 , but about what the Liberals did to shove this terrible piece of legislation down our throats to the point that today they have to drop a nuclear bomb to stop me from doing my job at the justice committee. We have heard from a handful of witnesses on one of the most consequential pieces of legislation this Parliament will take up.”
“Instead of building another government agency, the Liberals can adopt our Conservative plan to take the GST off all new construction and for all new homebuyers, so Canadians can afford to buy a home.”
“Mr. Speaker, Toronto-area home builders reported the worst January on record since 1981. Last month, only 269 new homes were sold in the city of Toronto. The slump in new-home sales has lasted longer than the downturn of the 1990s. Because of these Liberals, the dream of home ownership is gone for many Canadians. We already know that the Liberal housing plan is dead on arrival. That is because, according to CMHC, new housing starts will drop every year for the next three years. However, instead of getting government out of the way to build new homes, the Liberals are building a fourth government housing agency. Count them: the Department of Housing, CMHC, Canada Lands Company, and now Build Canada Homes, a fourth bureaucracy to employ Liberal cronies.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was thoughtful. I certainly agree on the fact that choices and the free economy, not government, are what builds homes. However, what I do not really understand about the bill is why we need a fourth bureaucracy. We already have the ministry of housing, which can do what the new agency would seek to do. We have CMHC. We have the Canada Lands Company, headquartered in the great riding of York Centre. Therefore, I do not understand, but perhaps the hon. member has an idea, why the Liberals require yet a fourth bureaucracy to do what any of the three previous bureaucracies can do.”
“Madam Speaker, I ask colleagues to look at what, essentially, this bill is doing. It would create a fourth housing bureaucracy. We already have a ministry of housing, the CMHC and the Canada Lands Company, which is based in the great riding of York Centre. Now the Liberal government is saying that we need another layer, a fourth layer of bureaucracy, to build homes in Canada, which is the primary purpose of the legislation we are debating. I am wondering where the Bloc stands on that. Will the Bloc support the Conservative suggestion that we do not need a fourth housing bureaucracy to build homes?”
“Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Liberals are building is a fourth housing agency, more desk jobs for Liberal insiders and more Liberal waste. CMHC is telling the Liberals that their housing plan is dead on arrival. New housing starts will fall every year for the next three years. Builders are laying off workers. BILD is warning that 100,000 construction jobs are now at risk. Instead of building a fourth government agency, why will the Liberals not adopt our Conservative plan and remove the GST on all new construction so that young people can afford to buy a home?”
“Mr. Speaker, because of the Liberals, the dream of home ownership is fading for young Canadians. According to CMHC, new housing starts will drop every year for the next three years. Nearly half of Canadians say they have to move out of the community they grew up in, because they cannot afford a home. Instead of incentivizing new construction, the Liberals are building a fourth housing bureaucracy called Build Canada Homes. For what? Why will the Liberals not adopt our Conservative plan, remove the GST on all new homes and get construction going in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, my North York riding is home to thousands of Canadian Kurds. I and my Conservative colleagues are gravely concerned about recent reports of attacks by Syrian forces against civilians in Aleppo. The attacks target the Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh neighbourhoods, which are home to half a million Syrians, mainly Kurds but also Christians, Yazidis and Druze. Innocent civilians, including women and children, are reported to be targeted. These attacks against the Kurds may escalate into mass atrocities. The Kurdish people and other civilian religious minorities in Syria endured decades of displacement and unspeakable violence. These are clear violations of international law. I condemn any attacks against Kurdish civilians and call on Canada's government to stand up in defence of human rights of Syrian Kurds.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is almost a year since the election. The Prime Minister should be judged not by his words but by his actions. He did not get a trade deal. He doubled the deficit. No new pipelines have been approved. Interprovincial trade barriers remain. We have the highest rate of food inflation in the G7 with 2.2 million Canadians at food banks. We need to start building pipelines and sell Canadian energy. Will the Prime Minister work with us to repeal Liberal anti-development laws, or will Canadians continue to suffer a Liberal economy that is on life support?”
“Mr. Speaker, new research from Rosenberg says Canada's economy is on life support. Per capita GDP is falling. Construction is flat, and the economy may shrink by half a per cent. Food inflation is out of control, and billions of dollars are fleeing south. Because of these Liberals, Canada is now on a recession watch. Conservatives are ready to work with the government to repeal anti-development laws to get our economy going. Will the Prime Minister work with us to build big and build quickly, or will his legacy be one of the worst economies in recent history?”
“Mr. Speaker, today is the first day of debate on the bill. It was introduced during the last week of the sitting of the current Parliament in 2025. There are some good elements to the bill, but Conservatives have serious reservations with respect to the safety valve and the effective elimination of mandatory minimum sentences. Right now, if someone wants to challenge a law as cruel and unusual, they bring a constitutional charter application. The bill would do that automatically and dilute the mandatory minimum sentence. Let us have a thoughtful discussion about what we want to do here.”
“Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree with the member, and I agree with the Conservative justice critic. I hope that the members opposite were here for the majority of my remarks. There are quite a few good elements of the bill, many of them incorporated from previous proposals by various Conservative members on this side of the aisle. Canadians voted for a minority government. They voted for us to have good parliamentary process to arrive at the right balance. We already had good precedents for this. Conservatives took a principled opposition to Bill C-2 , which infringed on constitutional freedoms and gave us a lot of cause for concern. The House leaders got together, and the Liberals agreed to separate the bill. The bill before us should probably follow the same course, which would help us get it through faster or let us fix the bill quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was a safety valve, not a safety clause. I would recommend that the member study his own legislation. Second of all, I would ask that he respect all members of the House and give them due respect by not taking their own words out of context. Here what is clear about the safety valve: It would completely dilute the mandatory minimum sentencing regime, it would grant judges discretion and it would codify the ability of judges to ignore the mandatory minimum. This is not what Canadians are looking for. This is not what the Conservative Party stands for.”