Sean Fraser
Central Nova, Nova Scotia · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity, for the first time, to formally congratulate my recently elected colleague on her presence in the House of Commons. This institution is better for her efforts.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Canada, when the government disagrees with the decision of a court, the opportunity we have to do something about it is to appeal that decision. We made an appeal on this particular case because we disagree with the superior court's assessment.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing that I think all members of the House will agree upon is that when a dangerous person commits a serious crime, they should face serious penalties. When that includes someone who has a temporary status, they could be rendered inadmissible in this country and should face deportation where appropriate.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with a public safety agenda that is designed to ensure that dangerous people are put behind bars, it is not lost on us that we also need to do everything we can to combat the deadly opioid crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague not only for his hard work, but also for his relentless pursuit of a stronger Canada and a safer Hamilton. As a result of his advocacy, this House has adopted laws to completely renovate the bail system and to lead to stiffer sentences for violent repeat offenders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge all the work done by my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, as chair of the women's caucus. Our government is working hard to prevent gender-based violence before it even happens.”
The complete record
Every one of 382 lines we hold for Sean Fraser, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, I see I have been missed by my friends opposite. I have good news on the subject that grounds the member's question. This is one where I think we can collaborate in a non-partisan way. The government has just tabled legislation, Bill C-14 , that includes protections for first responders by adding aggravating factors to the sentences, which would result in harder penalties for those who commit assaults against our first responders. If we are going to count on first responders to keep our communities safe, the least we can do is offer the protection of Canada's criminal law. I will work across party lines with that member and with Conservatives in the Senate to adopt measures that would protect first responders as soon as possible.”
“When there are nearly unanimous perspectives on certain changes posing very real problems in communities, it is incumbent upon me to listen to those who have the responsibility to deliver on the words included in the Criminal Code. To the extent that we can launch an initiative to better collect and share data in a disaggregated way about offenders who may pose risks, I would be more than willing to entertain a conversation as to what role the federal government may play in collaboration with provinces, which have the primary responsibility in this space.”
“Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands is right that there is a paucity of data when it comes to the administration of bail in Canada. Part of the reason is that we have different provincial systems with different challenges. We have challenges not only as to when a person may be released on bail and how often they may receive bail, but also as to the reasons behind those decisions. This issue will require collaboration among the provinces to develop common standards and collect the data we need going forward, but at the same time, in the absence of a perfect dataset, we have the opportunity to work directly with the governments that administer the system and the law enforcement officials who work within the system day to day.”
“To the extent that we can support those working to keep our communities safe, it is an idea, whether Liberal, Conservative or otherwise, that I support not only philosophically but in practice as well.”
“Madam Speaker, before I address the question directly, I want to thank the hon. member, because I had the opportunity to work with him a number of years ago when he put forward Bill C-211 in our first Parliament, which addressed the need to better support first responders and their mental health in particular. I know he has been a champion for first responders, as I have been, from the day we were first elected. This is an important component of the bill, but quite frankly, I do not care who gets the credit. I want to see protection afforded to our first responders. We can have a conversation, perhaps after the debate concludes today, on the best way to make that happen the most quickly.”
“If we extend the logic of the fear I have heard, which is very real, from people who have raised similar points, we would end up concluding that the right solution to process challenges is to weaken Canada's criminal laws. I disagree with that approach, but I invite a healthy conversation during committee proceedings about what resources should be in place and which levels of government have such responsibilities. That will ensure we do not just have strong laws on paper; we have a system that has the capacity to implement them.”
“Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague and the Bloc Québécois for their position on this bill. It is very important that we work together to implement the changes it proposes. I will continue in English in order to be more clear. [ English ] My colleague has raised a very real concern about the number of people in Canada facing pretrial detention. The right answer, in my view, insists that we implement a framework designed to protect the public's safety. This will engage conversations, particularly at provincial levels, about the resources necessary to deal with bail hearings expeditiously and to make sure there are enough police on the ground, enough prosecutors, enough judges to make bail decisions and enough administrative support for the courts to do their jobs.”
“Madam Speaker, to the extent that we can adopt this bill quickly, we expect to see the positive implications it will have on communities more quickly. What is important, to the member's question, is that I would prefer to do that in a way that is collaborative, not just with members in the House but with different levels of the government and policing associations. The fact that this bill has attracted such extraordinary support from the people who enforce our laws and manage the justice systems in the provinces speaks to the buy-in from people across the spectrum of political ideologies, across geographies and across partisanship. I hope the spirit we implemented in the bill's development will also carry through when it comes time to cast our votes in the House.”
“Members can see the measures we put in place to address that, which deal with violent repeat offenders and address the number of crimes that are outstanding, but I was not satisfied that we had appropriate penalties in place for those who would openly defy orders of the court. It is important to me that we not only have penalties associated with the criminal activity that takes place in communities, but that we have a regime that will protect the integrity of the court's processes if all other offences are going to be treated with respect by Canadians writ large.”
“Madam Speaker, before I address the member's question directly, I want to thank him for the conversations we have had and for his advocacy in advancing some of the specific reforms that are included in this bill. This bill was not necessarily intended to revisit the penalties associated with every offence that exists in the Criminal Code. Of course, serious offences deserve serious penalties, but it was important for me to address the issue of contempt of court, because frankly, one of the themes carried throughout the text of this bill is the underlying culture of a lack of respect for the law.”
“Of course, there are organizations like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. We can take violent repeat offenders more seriously. We can strengthen our laws, but I would much prefer to do it in a non-partisan way that attracts the support of all members of this House. Let us do the jobs we have been entrusted to do to help keep Canadians safe, and let us cast our vote in support of this important legislation.”
“It is no coincidence that this bill has gained significant support from law enforcement, including the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario, the Toronto Police Association and the New Glasgow Regional Police in my own community and others. It has attracted the support of provinces from different partisan affiliations, including the Conservatives in Ontario and Nova Scotia and the NDP in Manitoba and British Columbia. It has attracted the support of municipalities, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; local governments in places like Brampton, London and Winnipeg; and the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. The list goes on.”
“The best way to stop crime is not simply to punish it after it happens, but to stop it in the first place. I am confident that if we back these three pillars with the resources necessary to deliver on the plan, we will see a reduction in crime and violent crime in this country. [ Translation ] This bill is part of a broader strategy to keep our communities safe. Yes, we need tougher laws, but we also need more support for first responders and more investments in prevention, mental health and housing, so that more can be done sooner. [ English ] In conclusion, we have a chance to promote a safer country.”
“Specifically, they would include generational investments in affordable housing and supportive housing through the new Build Canada Homes entity to ensure that people have a roof over their head, can escape poverty and have access to supportive housing when they would otherwise potentially be at risk of recidivism or at risk of becoming a criminal in the first place. This pillar also involves our continued support for mental health and addictions, which will certainly engage conversations with provincial governments. We know that we need to do more to help address mental health challenges in this country if we want to reduce crime overall. We also intend to make the investments necessary to target at-risk youth to potentially turn them away from a life of crime before it begins.”
“It includes resources to the Canada Border Services Agency to add 1,000 new officers at the border to help prevent illegal guns and drugs from coming into our country. It also includes additional resources for the Public Prosecution Service to ensure that we have the ability not only to investigate crime but also to prosecute crime on the back end. It is important that we put these tools in place so law enforcement can do its job to prevent crime, but we know we need to do more if we are going to have long-term prevention and long-term reductions in crime, violent crime in particular. That is why the third pillar of our strategy involves upstream investments aimed at prevention.”
“These would better protect Canadians against intimate partner violence and against sexual offences, to offer additional protections for children who are being exploited online, to ensure that victims have a significant role to play in the criminal trial process, and, importantly, to deal with delays in the justice system that are leading to sometimes serious charges' being thrown out of court. In addition to these laws, though, we know we have to take a whole-of-society approach to addressing public safety. The second pillar of the strategy involves investing in the front line to ensure that the people who keep communities safe have the tools and resources they need to do their job. In the short term, this includes investments in the RCMP to add 1,000 new personnel.”
“[ English ] It is important we understand that the changes we would be making are part of the broader strategy I alluded to at the outset of my remarks. Certainly the first pillar of the strategy is to adopt stronger laws to promote safer communities. This includes not only these important and sweeping reforms to the bail and sentencing regimes that exist inside the Criminal Code but also the act to combat hate that we tabled in Parliament earlier in the fall, as well as legislation I will be tabling before the House rises for the Christmas holidays.”
“The fact that people may cause such grievous harm to others and nevertheless be entitled to get behind the wheel is not something I am comfortable with. It is not something the government is comfortable with. Through this change, we would be able to save countless lives going forward and to ensure once again that there are serious consequences for serious crimes. (1555) [ Translation ] Sentences must reflect the seriousness of the crime. We are adding aggravating factors for those who assault first responders, participate in organized theft or threaten critical infrastructure. We are ending house arrest for serious crimes like sexual assault and crimes against children. Finally, courts will once again be able to prohibit driving in cases of negligence causing death or serious bodily harm.”
“The restriction on house arrest for sexual assault and sexual crimes against kids would ensure that people who commit such violent and heinous crimes would actually spend time being incarcerated, to demonstrate there are in fact very serious consequences for their activities. We would also be making changes to the remedies available for certain kinds of crimes. I want to draw the attention of members to one in particular. For people who are convicted of criminal negligence causing death involving a motor vehicle, we would restore the ability of courts to implement a prohibition on driving. If someone makes the decision to become intoxicated, to drive drunk, and they kill someone, we want to empower the courts to revoke their ability to get behind the wheel again. Driving in this country is a privilege.”
“When it comes to the changes to our sentencing laws, we would also be imposing restrictions on the ability of the court in certain circumstances to impose what are known as conditional sentencing orders. These changes would restrict access to house arrest for people who commit serious sexual assault or sexual crimes against children. When I speak to survivors of sexual assault, the prospect that the perpetrator of such horrific violence could serve their sentence at home in the same community where their victim lives does not feel like justice to the people who have been through such a horrific experience.”
“We believe that if someone is convicted of two crimes, one that carries a sentence of four years and another that carries a sentence of two years, they should serve both sentences, for a total of six years. The changes we would be making have the opportunity to bring that vision into a reality. In addition to these changes to aggravating factors and consecutive sentencing, we would also direct the court, when it comes to violent home invasion and auto theft in particular, to make denunciation and deterrence primary considerations. It is important that we not only ensure that there are consequences for the actions of individuals but that we also send a signal, to others in the future who may be thinking about committing crimes, that this behaviour will not be tolerated.”
“(1550) In addition, we would be adding certain changes to the consecutive sentencing regime in this country. For people who may not be familiar with the way things normally operate, I will say that sometimes someone can be sentenced to different crimes that carry different sentences. Oftentimes, depending on the circumstances, courts may decide to allow a person to serve multiple sentences concurrently, not necessarily capturing the severity of the penalties associated with particular offences in the Criminal Code. The change we are proposing would empower the courts to impose consecutive sentencing for repeat violent offenders and for people who commit home invasions and auto theft.”
“Oftentimes, people who steal copper wire are charged with a fairly small offence, theft under $5,000, but the damages that result from those crimes can cost millions and in fact create very serious challenges in our communities, whether it is power outages or communications systems' going down. We would also be adding aggravating factors when it comes to organized retail crime, people who are stealing in a systematic way from businesses, often small businesses, in our communities, in order to promote profiteering for themselves and potentially for criminal organizations. People who commit crimes against the people who protect us, the systems that power us or the businesses that serve us should expect harsher sentences as a result of these proposed changes to Canada's criminal laws.”
“We need to ensure that the people who are putting out fires, stopping heart attacks and defending our communities against criminal activity are not themselves subjected to assaults in the street. It is not reasonable to ask people in the line of duty to defend themselves when they are trying to defend us, and it makes it difficult for them to recruit more members into the profession when people face these inherent dangers of the job. The stiffer penalties would serve not only as protection in the moment but also as a deterrent for would-be criminals who may be thinking of committing crimes against first responders. In addition, we would be adding aggravating factors for crimes that impact our essential infrastructure, the systems that deliver power to our communities, or our telecommunications networks.”
“These aggravating factors would certainly apply to violent repeat crimes, no matter where they take place in Canada, but we have also decided to add aggravating factors for certain offences where the harm is felt not simply by the individual victim but also reverberates more broadly throughout the community. In particular I want to draw attention to some of the changes that we are making, including adding an aggravating factor when a crime is committed against a first responder in the line of duty who is seeking to keep our communities safe. When people put their life on the line to help protect our communities, the very least we can offer is protection for the people who protect us.”
“By making it harder for people to be released on bail when they have been charged with these crimes, we can both promote public safety and potentially cut revenue streams from criminal organizations, which would further enhance the safety of the Canadian public. The second theme in the bill, beyond the changes to the bail regime that would make it harder for violent repeat offenders to be released into our communities, is that we would be making serious changes to the sentencing regime that exists within the Criminal Code. There are a number of different changes that I am happy to walk everyone through now. The first would be adding aggravating factors to the Criminal Code, which would lead to harsher penalties when certain kinds of crimes are committed and a person has been convicted.”
“We would shift this analysis for several key offences, including violent home invasion, auto theft, human trafficking and human smuggling, violent extortion, assault and sexual assault where there is choking or strangulation involved. We would also be responding to very real circumstances that have led to tragedies in this country involving people who have been released after they have been convicted of a crime but before they have been sentenced. With these changes, we not only expect to promote public safety in our communities. One of the common threads that binds these unique offences together is that they often are conducted by criminal organizations.”
“In addition to the changes to the principle of restraint, the new factors we wish to have the court consider, we also going forward with changes to reverse onus within the Criminal Code. Before I describe the specific offences, I will say that the reverse onus regime would change the way bail applications would be heard for certain offences where we believe there is a risk to the Canadian public. Normally at a bail hearing, the Crown bears the obligation to demonstrate why a person ought to be detained, often on the basis of their risk to public safety. A reverse onus changes that analysis and requires the person who has been accused of a crime to demonstrate why they should be released on bail.”
“In order to respond to this pressing need, in addition to considering the seriousness of the charges a person may be facing, we will be looking to have the court consider the number of outstanding charges, and where the number of charges a person is facing would cause public confidence in the administration of justice to be jeopardized, we would use that to give the court grounds to detain a person in order to prevent that outcome. We also want to respond to the feedback we have heard specifically about acts of random violence that take place in our communities that cause people not to feel safe when they experience life in different parts of this country.”
“If public safety is at risk, then the courts will have the tools to order detention. [ English ] In addition to the significant change to the principle of restraint, we are advancing new factors for the courts to consider, to ensure that when hearing a bail application, they consider the seriousness of the charges that a person will face, in order to determine whether it would undermine public confidence in the justice system should that person be released. We are also taking another step, which is a direct response to the feedback we have heard from provinces, municipalities and the business community. There are certain individuals, though they represent a small minority of the population in a given community, who represent a significant majority of the criminal activity that may take place in a given community.”
“For that reason, we are going to move forward with significant changes to the Criminal Code that would clarify precisely that the principle of restraint is not a “get out of jail free” card. In fact we are going to be, more specifically, clarifying that the court must be satisfied that it has the ability to protect public safety, before deciding to release someone into the community. If it does not have the ability to manage the public safety imperative, it will have grounds to detain that person. If a person is to be released, the court must be satisfied that it can place conditions on their release that will protect public safety. [ Translation ] Release on bail is not a free pass. The principle of restraint must be applied with judgment. Our new bill makes it clear that public safety must always come first.”
“The first is bail. The second is sentencing. Let us spend a moment looking at some of the changes we are proposing to bail. The bill includes more than 80 specific measures, sweeping reforms that are designed to help keep communities safe. In the limited time I have, I am going to focus on a few key portions. The first, when it comes to the system of bail, is on the issue of the principle of restraint. This is not a principle that was created by any particular government; it is a principle that was advanced and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. After the principle was embedded into Canadian law through a previous piece of legislation in a previous Parliament, I have been hearing stories, from when I engage with law enforcement, about its misapplication in certain circumstances.”
“They have benefited from extraordinary collaboration with provincial governments in different parts of the country and of different partisan persuasions. They have benefited from the advice of law enforcement, the people who actually work within the system. They have benefited from the advice of municipalities, which see the impacts of crime first-hand; of community organizations that promote the rights of victims; and of business associations that wanted to share their frustration with the level of crime and its impact on local economies. [ Translation ] We must not develop these measures behind closed doors. They must come from working together with the provinces and territories, cities, community organizations, business associations and, of course, the police. (1545) [ English ] The bill really focuses on two key areas.”
“We see, too often, people installing cameras on their doorbells. Instead of simply seeing deliveries arrive at their home, they are actually seeing people break into their neighbour's homes and cars being stolen from their driveways. We do not have to accept this as a reality, not in Canada, certainly. [ Translation ] Crime is a real concern throughout the country. Canadians are frustrated to see repeat violent offenders being released from prison. They are concerned about their safety. We see it every day: Car thefts and break-ins in the middle of the night are being caught on camera. People simply want to know that the system puts their safety first. [ English ] What I have some faith in is that the lessons we have learned that have been embedded in the bill were not developed behind closed doors on Parliament Hill.”
“Madam Speaker, it is important that we actually make space for all parties to be heard and to have a conversation. It is essential that we take action to ensure that people who are violent, who commit serious crimes, who are dangerous and who pose a risk to public safety do not continue to find themselves released into our communities if they pose a public safety threat to Canadians. This is going to take changes to our criminal law in both bail and sentencing. I remember, as a kid, the last time we saw the Blue Jays in the World Series. My pals and I would ride bikes and play ball hockey in our community until we lost daylight. We never feared for our safety, and neither did our parents. Sadly, today, a lot of people do not enjoy that same level of comfort, the peace and security we enjoyed.”
“We understand that Canadians have the desire to see the criminal law keep up with the experience in their communities. We do not think it is acceptable that repeat violent offenders would be routinely released after having their bail hearings. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Sean Fraser: Madam Speaker, it is difficult. There are members of the opposition who are seeking to heckle and interrupt. I would very much prefer to have your assistance in keeping this debate civil on matters of such importance.”
“This strategy rests on three key pillars: first, stronger laws to help protect people; second, investments in the front line to ensure that law enforcement has the ability to do its job and our border officials have the ability to keep the country safe; and third, upstream investments to ensure that we do not just seek to punish crime after it takes place but do what we can to prevent crime, both in the short and long term. Before we get too deep into this conversation, it is important that we acknowledge where we are as a country. We understand that crime is a very real problem in different parts of the country. We know that we have to do more to protect Canadians against criminal activity that exists in different regions. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“moved that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-14. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to commence debate on an important bill that would help reinforce and strengthen Canada's criminal laws and promote public safety in communities in every part of the country. This bill is about stronger laws and safer communities. It is about keeping people safe in the places they love and the places they live. Importantly, although this particular piece of legislation focuses on bail and sentencing, it is part of a broader strategy to promote public safety across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his very important question. Our government is taking action to keep Canadians safe. The bill will have tougher consequences for repeat violent and sex offenders and will end house arrest for sex offenders. The bill also strengthens bail rules to ensure that detention is the default for repeat violent offenders. That would protect victims and our communities. I have worked with the provinces, territories and police forces and I urge all members to pass this bill quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is not a less credible voice when it comes to criminal justice reform than the Leader of the Opposition . In the past few weeks, he has called the RCMP “despicable”. He has attacked Crown prosecutors, and he has suggested his political opponents should be jailed. The legislation we tabled today will make it harder to get bail for violent repeat offenders and will strengthen sentencing for serious criminals. Criminal justice reform demands a conversation that would engage the adults in the room. The Conservatives have a leadership review coming up; I invite them to choose one.”
“Bill C-14. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing) . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the federal government defend our charters, defend human rights and protect the Constitution. This case is before the Supreme Court of Canada. It is the federal government's responsibility to intervene to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. There are no circumstances under which the federal government would not intervene. It is very important to protect the rights of Canadians now and into the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for her question and for her work on the justice file. A hate crime is targeted not at an individual but at an entire community. With this bill, we are creating a specific offence for hate crimes. We are adding the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of “hatred” to the Criminal Code. Once passed, the law will help condemn hate, punish the perpetrators and protect our communities. Our Liberal government keeps its promises. Hate has no place in Canada. Canadians deserve to feel safe. I sincerely hope that all parties in the House of Commons will support this very important bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, when a member chooses to misinterpret a quote for his political position, it is clear he believes his own argument is very weak. The positions that we have advanced in the Supreme Court of Canada are that the notwithstanding clause does not allow governments, federal or provincial, to permanently damage the rights of Canadians, and that it does not permit governments to silence the courts when governments violate the rights of Canadians. The provinces may have a different point of view. I invite them to participate in the court proceedings; that is a healthy way in a democracy to challenge ideas one may not like.”
“Mr. Speaker, the federal government did not initiate these proceedings, but we are going to participate in the case before the Supreme Court of Canada. It is very important that the federal government defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and defend human rights. After several years, the case has made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is unimaginable to think that the federal government would not weigh in on the issue. We will be participating in the court proceedings. We will defend the charter now and into the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's argument is self-defeating. He suggests that one of the laws to blame when it comes to bail should be repealed when in fact that would make it easier for someone charged with intimate partner violence to be released on bail. If someone is going to be critical of a piece of legislation on the floor of the House of Commons, it is a good idea to read it first. We have spent months engaging with law enforcement, with provincial and territorial counterparts, with constitutional experts and with those who advocate on behalf of victims to ensure we are moving forward with policies that are going to keep Canada safe. People want solutions, not slogans, and that is what we will deliver.”
“Mr. Speaker, we need to change Canada's laws to strengthen the bail system. At the same time, we know that the bill before the House today has many flaws. (1500) [ English ] As we go forward, we are not going to take a bill that is completely deficient and does not scratch the surface of what law enforcement, provinces and territories and experts have informed us on over the last few months. Our job is not to pander with slogans but to advance solutions to help keep Canadians safe. That is what the government legislation is going to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my hon. colleague, we have one point of agreement, which is that we need to take action and change Canada's laws to make it harder for violent offenders to be released into our communities. The good news is that the legislation we are putting forward will do exactly that. What I cannot accept is a half-baked idea from the Conservative Party, which seems to have taken something it copied and pasted off an American bumper sticker to adopt laws in this country. In the last federal election, sovereignty was at the core of the electoral choice that Canadians made. I can tell members that constituents in my riding, as I expect in those of the members opposite, want Canadian laws to be made in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, listening to the member's question, it is clear that there are several deficiencies with the approach that he has put forward. First, Bill C-75 actually made it harder for offenders who have been charged with intimate partner violence to be released on bail. He would make it easier for them to get out into our communities. Second, he claims to have engaged with law enforcement in the formation of the bill. When we look at the measures they are proposing to put forward, they barely scratch the surface of what law enforcement has told us in the first few minutes of conversations. We have a comprehensive set of reforms coming to the bail system that will be designed to make communities safer. I hope that in the next number of weeks, when the bill comes forward, Conservatives will finally do something—”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously when such violent circumstances arise in communities across the country, it is incumbent upon members of Parliament on both sides of the aisle to condemn them unreservedly. I would remind my hon. colleague that some of the laws he points to in his many promises, including ones pertaining to self-defence, were in fact put into Canada's laws when the Conservatives last held power, while Stephen Harper was prime minister and the Leader of the Opposition was in his cabinet. Moving forward, Conservatives, Liberals and others will see some of the strongest reforms being put in place when it comes to changing the bail system in this country and when it comes to adopting stiffer sentences for serious crimes.”