Cathay Wagantall
Yorkton—Melville, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I will move on to this. I move: Amendment That the motion be amended: (a) by adding after the words “be disposed of as follows:” the following: “(a) the bill shall be divided into two bills: (i) Bill C-22A, An Act respecting timely access to data and information, which shall be composed of clauses 2 to 40 of Bill C-22, (ii) B…”
“(1705) Nobody recognized me. They had phones outside the door here, over there and downstairs. They were trying to find me. They could not find me, because in every campaign, I look a little different. I said, “You have to do a better job of this.”
“I wonder if she will get it done. I then had one on protecting pregnant women. A lot of women came and talked to me and said they wanted access to abortion. I said, “Fine.” The truth is that 84% of Canadians want access to abortion. I said that there was a DART & Maru/BLUE poll that was done.”
“I could not do my job without my staff who are in my riding and, certainly, those here on the Hill as well. I am so grateful for every one of them who has been a part of my team. I want to thank the pages and all the folks who help us out in the lobby and put up with us on a daily basis. They are remarkable.”
“I will stop there, but his heart is what drives him, as does his love for being a servant leader and caring about people. When my mom passed away, he phoned me. When this happens to anyone in our caucus, he makes that call, and no one ever feels rushed when he is talking with them.”
“Many members get their name pulled out of that hat, but never get the opportunity because they are too far down the list. My predecessor was here for 22 years, and I do not believe ever had that opportunity. My passion is caring about violence against women.”
The complete record
Every one of 262 lines we hold for Cathay Wagantall, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, the budget is promising $13 billion for factory-built homes, which the Prime Minister foreshadowed on April 8, seven months ago, when as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, he said, “prefabricated and modular housing are the future”. During the election campaign, he told young Canadians to their faces that he would build homes they can afford. Does the member think factory-built homes will be awarded to a modular company purchased by Brookfield for $5 billion in 2021? Does he believe the open sentence he gave with the promise to build means the government will build homes young people can afford to rent or buy? Who will have the investment in their homes? Will it be young Canadians or Brookfield and the Prime Minister ?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's costly credit card budget loads today's reckless spending on tomorrow's taxpayers, while Canadians are having to put nearly 50% more of their expenses on their credit cards, fearing the potential loss of their homes and businesses and facing the threat of bankruptcy. If only the government was concerned. The warnings from Fitch and the parliamentary fiscal watchdog are ringing alarm bells. Abandoning one fiscal anchor and replacing it with another is already failing to build investor confidence in Canada. How many more fiscal watchdog reports will it take for the Prime Minister to rein in his costly credit card spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, well, 20 seconds to say this is easy. The reason we are talking about bail reform is because these people did a terrible job of bringing in legislation, which has caused incredible angst across this country and increased crime. That is unconscionable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I represent Saskatchewan. I think the member knows how absolutely ridiculous that last statement was. There is no question, across this country, that what the people of Canada want is for the government to finally step up and do the right thing. If the member can assure me they will include amendments that remove Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 from legislation, I will gladly support their bill. They are not representing Canadians. They are not supporting Canadians. They are not answering the call of Canadians for protection and lowered crime in this country, which they basically caused the impetus for with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I concur with the member and all the things he just said. This individual seems to want to convince Canadians that the Liberals are on the right track, when they have been in the House hearing this side of the floor, over and over and over, talk about the issues with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , which have caused the rampant, high levels of crime across our nation. People in Canada are calling on the government to do the right thing, not just to do a little bit of something rather than remove all the things that are causing the greatest angst in this country that I have seen in the 10 years I have been here.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a tiny bit of truth in some words in there. Canadians are desperate to have the government do the right thing. The bill has some good in it, but it is not responding to those very people he is saying are calling on the government to do the right thing, which is to shut down the legislation in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 . This is what they want. They want an outright repeal of the principle of restraint, and they want restoration of mandatory minimums.”
“Ensuring public and community safety is the governing principle of courts across our lands. We must restore mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences, sexual offences, repeat violent offences and drug offences. Conditional sentence eligibility must exclude robbery, firearms trafficking and offences by chronic offenders. It is not too late for the government to adopt the full Conservative plan to stop their decade of turning a blind eye to the rampant chaos, crime and disorder that Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have encouraged. Bill C-14 must be the beginning of a full restoration of this country's promise of safety and prosperity for Canadians, wherever they live.”
“Three months earlier, he had been charged with assault with a weapon and mischief. A Winnipeg court released him just four days later with these conditions: a curfew, no alcohol or drugs, no weapons and, heartbreakingly, no contact with his sister. He violated every one of those conditions. He returned to Marina's home and took her life. The law did not adequately protect Marina or the people of Hollow Water First Nation, James Smith Cree Nation or the village of Weldon. The Liberal system designed for restraint and lighter sentences has not served public safety. The government needs to remove Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 and strengthen Bill C-14 , to repair the damage, in memory of those who have lost their lives and those left behind with horrific memories. This House must replace restraint with a public safety primacy clause.”
“He had 59 previous criminal convictions, including for assault with a weapon, robbery and threats. He had been granted statutory release in August 2021 after serving a sentence, but by May 2022 he was unlawfully at large after failing to keep in touch with his parole officer. In the wake of this tragedy, many questions surrounded the decisions of the court, the parole board and Corrections Canada. What rationale validates repeatedly releasing this violent criminal from custody despite his dozens of convictions? Another tragedy unfolded this September at the Hollow Water First Nation, where 26-year-old Tyrone Simard, known to police and our courts, went on a horrifying rampage. He stabbed eight people across two homes in Hollow Water, killing his own 18-year-old sister, Marina, and injuring seven others. Why was he out on bail?”
“That is a sad and regrettable reflection on the ability of the Liberal government to inspire confidence in its system of justice, but it is well deserved. The Liberals have consistently ignored police, municipalities, business owners and, above all, law-abiding Canadians in standing by policies that fail to keep us safe. Members should note that I said they “consistently ignored”, not that they failed to see or grasp the increased breadth of violent crime erupting across Canada over the last decade of their Liberal rule. Unfortunately for residents of the James Smith Cree Nation in my home province, this reality is beyond real. On September 4, 2022, a mass stabbing spree unfolded across 13 locations in the Cree Nation and the nearby village of Weldon. Myles Sanderson killed 11 people and wounded 17.”
“Concern is highest among young people aged 35 to 54, a group that is most likely to have families and own homes. A striking 87% of Canadians believe they have the right to use reasonable force against an intruder, a number that climbs to 92% in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and among those 55 years and older. Leger executive vice-president Andrew Enns notes that this sentiment is long-standing but significant, warning that widespread distrust in the justice system can erode respect for the law. Certainly, criminals do not respect or fear these laws, whereas innocent Canadians are living in fear and facing consequences. Overall, 54% believe that the justice system works against law-abiding citizens, while only 29% think it protects Canadians.”
“While consecutive sentences and aggravating factors are useful, they are still left to judicial discretion when applying them. Why does it matter that we get the bill right? All major urban centres have seen an increase in violent crime, but so have our smaller cities and rural communities across Manitoba, Alberta and my home province of Saskatchewan. (1130) There is simply no more time to waste. Canadians no longer feel safe in their communities. Every day that passes without a return to a common-sense approach to crime puts more innocent Canadians at risk. A Postmedia-Leger poll shows growing concern among Canadians about personal safety and the effectiveness of their justice system: 51% say they worry about safety in their neighbourhoods, including the risk of a home invasion.”
“The purpose of sentencing has been refocused on the protection of the Canadian public, at least to some degree, rather than solely on the rehabilitation of the offender. When sentencing, a judge must consider a new aggravating factor involving repeat violent behaviour over the last five years. The bill would also partially reverse Bill C-5 's expansion of house arrest eligibility. Yes, there are many beams of light in the bill that attempt to break through the stormy skies of the last six years of a soft-on-crime agenda. However, it comes up short. The fact is that dangerous elements of the Liberal ideology on crime and punishment remain. Bill C-14 is not an outright repeal of the principle of restraint, and it would not restore mandatory minimums. It is truly a missed opportunity to toughen up penalties for serious violent offences.”
“Bill C-14 , the bill we are debating today, makes a start at addressing the serious implications of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 . It clarifies that the principle of restraint would not require an offender's outright release. It also directs courts to take into account the number and gravity of charges facing the accused when determining bail. With Bill C-14 , there is an incentive for those who have abused our justice system and grown accustomed to getting away with multiple serious crimes with little or no repercussions to think twice. There are other encouraging elements of the bill, such as requiring consecutive sentences for repeat auto theft, breaking and entering, extortion and arson offences.”
“While it is a step in the right direction of the Conservative approach to bail and sentencing, it does not repeal the principle of restraint or restore mandatory minimum sentences. What drove the government to finally introduce Bill C-14 ? Bill C-75 , in 2019, codified the principle of restraint, requiring law enforcement and courts to release accused individuals at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. This effectively created a catch-and-release system, subjecting communities to dangerous offenders while they awaited trial. Bill C-5 , in 2022, went further, scrapping several mandatory minimum sentences and liberalizing the use of house arrest for serious offences such as sexual assault.”
“It has been an era defined by lenient bail, soft-on-crime persecution and police resources stretched way too thin. As stated in the report: ...the latest evidence suggests that the problem is broader and more entrenched than many realize. Policymakers can no longer rely on temporary explanations or regional anomalies. The challenge now is to restore public confidence and measurable accountability in how we protect our cities. What logical government would stand by the policies that have resulted in a prolonged nationwide crime wave? Sadly, obstruction and inaction have been the Liberal approach for the better part of a decade. However, bills like Bill C-14 prove that determined and principled opposition can be effective in spurring change. This bill is a rare Liberal admission that the Liberals' criminal justice reforms have failed.”
“It meant we had a federal government that protected families from these harms through the strictest possible laws while ensuring they were enforced in our courts. After 10 years of the Liberal government, the reality is much different. Terrible legislation, like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , demonstrates that the consequences of reckless ideological Liberal policies are real. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearms crime is up 130%, extortion has exploded 330%, sexual assaults have risen 76% and homicides are up 29%. In fact, a new report just released by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute analyzed crime data from 20 metropolitan areas representing nearly two-thirds of Canada's population. It found that Canada's violent crime rate has climbed steadily since the middle of the last decade.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today realizing the gravity of this debate for millions of Canadians. For those who are new to the country, which at some point most of us were or our ancestors were, Canada was once a safe harbour with a reasonable guarantee that someone could live out life free from harassment, harm or extortion. That meant peaceful communities where front doors were often left unlocked, and people had little fear of having their car stolen while they slept. It meant they could enjoy Canada's vibrant city life knowing that streets were safe and that stopping illegal drugs and firearms was a priority. It meant the most dangerous criminals were kept behind bars, where they belonged, not continually passing through a revolving door, going from our courts to back out on the streets.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments my colleague made on the condition of this bill and on the recommendations. I am sure, as he has been listening, that he has heard a member across the way constantly ask if we are ready to do this because we are in a crisis. Having been here for a decade now, I can tell members that what the government does is delay and deny, until finally Canadians have had enough and it starts to act. We are now finally acting, to some degree, on these terrible bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 . What does he think the government has done in lieu of doing the work it should have been doing to get this bill in front of the House over five years ago?”
“Madam Speaker, I am speaking today on behalf of the Resort Village of Tobin Lake, in my riding, where 401 individuals have expressed the concern that they do not have a unique postal code. They get their mail in other places. They did not get to vote for me, because they do not have a postal code where they live. This has resulted in frequent mail and parcel delivery issues, confusion by emergency response services, complications with alarm monitoring of home security systems, and difficulties in business operations and address verifications. They have a need for more accurate and efficient address verification, so they are calling on the Government of Canada and the Canada Post Corporation to assign a dedicated and unique postal code to the Resort Village of Tobin Lake, knowing that this is an issue right across our country.”
“Through its silence, this government says that it cares more about the charter rights of perverts and pedophiles than those of precious children. A Conservative government would use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling. We would fight for the strongest laws against child exploitation. Our children deserve nothing less.”
“Mr. Speaker, a good government has a moral and legal duty to safeguard children from all harms. The Supreme Court of Canada has failed to uphold that duty. Its decision to strike down a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for child sexual abuse material offences is sickening. Let us examine how the scales of justice balance out in this case. On one side of the equation, two individuals made conscious decisions to contribute to and benefit from the torment and torture of hundreds of children. Instead of receiving a punishment that fits their crimes, they may very well walk free after less than a year in prison. On the other side, their innocent child victims are burdened for life with the scars of violent sexual abuse. They will never recover.”
“Mr. Speaker, giving a sentence that is worthy of the crime is something the government just does not understand. The reason for the growth in extreme violent crime is that criminals see the opportunities and are quite happy to go to jail and be let out again immediately. Again, the government is not meeting the—”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe in both. I want to thank the federal government for bringing attention to this issue and raising the viewership of Northern Perspective. I encourage more people to watch the interview and listen to the full statement that was made. Northern Perspective did a great job of rebuttal on this issue. I am very proud of the RCMP and the individuals who work so hard in my riding. Conservatives will do all we can to improve their service.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hear the member and appreciate her question. At committee, these are the things we will have the opportunity to discuss and consider for amendments. My personal feeling is that a year is an extensive amount of time. What Canada needs to do is get back in control of our immigration environment, and that may very well be part of the challenge. We have to do things in a timely manner. The government does not know how to do that, but Conservatives will.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, the issues around fentanyl are Canadian made. The government has allowed the precursors to this drug to come into this country for years without any oversight, knowing full well that this was going to mean we would have gangs and drug producers in this country making this situation far worse. This government has to take responsibility for its behaviour, and as far as that question about the mail, Canadians are still very concerned about those other issues, and they are watching, because I have assured them that they should not feel comfortable and that there is a good possibility that the government is still going to try to take away their rights and freedoms.”
“I am blaming the government for creating the environment that we have today that has added the violence that is taking place with firearms and attacks on people to this form of violence, which has basically caused multiple Canadians across this country to die from the use of fentanyl and caused their families to be in deep distress because of the condition of our country.”
“At 4 a.m., I am hearing the machines that come down the streets and the sidewalks to wash them, because one of the businesses that was there had to finally move, and it was one of the first in the city of Ottawa, because every morning, as I walk to work, they would be out with big pails of disinfectant cleaning the area in front of their business. I hear more sirens from police and fire trucks every night, and there are nights when the loudness is so unbelievable, because it travels up through the buildings, that people cannot sleep. I am not blaming the people who are struggling.”
“I have to say that on this last part, I feel like I am living in that environment. I moved to Ottawa so that I could do my work, and the place I chose was in a good location. Then they introduced the legalization of drugs and put two safe consumption sites in that area, which is close to a school. Every morning now, as I walk to work, what I see on the streets has multiplied extensively, so this is not due to something that was in place before this happened. There are people on the street who cannot stand up. They are bent over from the use of these drugs. They sleep on the grates to stay warm. They are sleeping in the little crannies between small businesses, and now there is a regular group that comes and picks up the garbage every morning.”
“Unfortunately, this bill is weak. It would make no commitments to enforcement, take no action on catch-and-release for those who traffic in fentanyl and firearms, and add no new mandatory prison times for fentanyl traffickers or for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes or who use our porous border to victimize Canadians. Instead of focusing on them, these Liberals are trying to confiscate legal gun owners' firearms, and they are having a bit of trouble accomplishing that, from what I understand. House arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offences. Safe consumption sites still do not provide addicts with the encouragement and support to move to treatment, and the Liberals continue to put children in danger with no move to shut down fentanyl consumption sites that are near schools and day cares.”
“I feel like I should have a moment of silence after mentioning each of these violent crimes that are taking place in larger and larger numbers across our nation: homicide, gang-related killings, sexual assaults, firearm offences, extortion, auto theft, horrific violence against children, forced confinement, kidnapping, indecent and harassing communications, human trafficking, and we do not have the numbers yet for 2024-25. This is not the Canada that Canadians have grown up in, and it is not the Canada immigrants who took the proper paths expected to be part of when they came here. (1545) This is in response to the government’s failed bail reforms and the removal of mandatory minimum sentences in Bill C-75 , Bill C-5 's legalization of the possession of drugs and an open season for drug trafficking and fentanyl production in Canada.”
“This was all orchestrated by Justin Trudeau and the current Prime Minister , who was the instigator as Trudeau’s economic adviser and as the guy ready to finish his art of the deal with values that leave wealth in his hands and nothing for Canada. The exhaustion, attrition, depression and hopelessness felt within our police services, our Canadian Armed Forces, our first responders and our medical professionals are off the charts. The simple reason, the indisputable answer, is that total violent crimes have increased by 50% since 2015 and through to 2023.”
“It has tried, time after time, to usurp the rights and freedoms of Canadians, bully and divide, water down and destroy the very fabric of Canadian identity and quality of life. The government continues to show its true colours as it holds fast to its efforts to make Canada the first postnational state. It holds fast to ravaging our economy with roadblocks and walls that continue to deter private investment in everything from mining to manufacturing and agriculture. The Liberal government is responsible for what Canadians see today. There is poor border security because of the Liberals. There is continued unsustainable immigration because of the leader . There is also an unprecedented financial burden of generational proportions it has orchestrated. All of this is impacting next generations.”
“The Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the Liberals did not even consult him when they were trying to grant themselves sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers, like banks and telecoms, without a warrant, although they kept saying there would be a warrant. I am the member of Parliament for the wonderful people, who call the beautiful riding of Yorkton—Melville home, and as of October 15 this month, I have been here for a decade and have risen in this place to speak and intervene on their behalf. Over this tumultuous decade, the people of Canada, especially our younger generations, have become wary of the intentions of the Liberal government.”
“It instructed banks to freeze everyday Canadians' bank accounts because it did not like that they were supporting people who needed gas for their vehicles, food and, hopefully, to find a hotel if there was one left downtown that the government had not bought out so they could not sleep in a warm place. The Liberals also called Canadians all kinds of names, which I would like to see them apologize for, calling us misogynist, racist, extremist. These are the reasons Canadians made the choices they made to stand up against this bill. They do not trust the Liberals. Because of the pressure they and so many stakeholders have applied, we were able to force the Liberals to back down, split the bill and introduce Bill C-12 .”
“It could compel electronic service providers to re-engineer their platforms to help CSIS and the police access information, and it would have allowed the government to supply financial institutions with personal information if the info were to be used for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes. It it interesting to me why people are against this. It is their lack of trust in the government to ever consider allowing it to do these things. We certainly saw that when the government chose to invoke an illegal use of the Emergencies Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today to Bill C-12 , a broad omnibus bill that, in its current form, seeks to make changes on a number of issues related to the border, immigration and crime prevention. I am thankful to my many constituents, and those throughout Canada, who added their voices of disapproval to its predecessor, Bill C-2 . They raised their voices against the infringements it sought to place on individual freedoms and privacy. That bill, Bill C-2 , wanted to allow Canada Post to open any mail, including letters, without a warrant, ban cash payments Canadians use and ban the donations over $10,000 that our charitable organizations need. It wanted to allow warrantless access to personal information.”
“Mr. Speaker, parents are struggling to secure healthy food for their families because of the Liberal government's out-of-control spending. Skyrocketing food inflation is up again to 4%. Liberal food taxes and regulations do not show up on their receipts, but Canadians feel them every time they shop for groceries. The Prime Minister said he would be judged by the prices Canadians pay at the grocery store. If he is truly the astute economist he claims he is, why is he not getting his inflationary deficits and hidden grocery taxes under control so Canadians can afford to feed their families?”
“People are living on the street and in the corners of retail spaces in the area where I walk to and from work. Can the member expand more on how this is even allowed? It is incomprehensible when we think about the value of our children and families.”
“Madam Speaker, I understand that, at the health committee, one of our colleagues called on the Liberals to shut down fentanyl consumption sites next to areas with children. However, the Liberal health minister refused to rule out approving more consumption sites next to schools and day cares, despite acknowledging the fentanyl usage in the area. I live in an area where there is a school downtown and I watch parents walk with their children in the morning out of apprehension. At 4:00 in the morning, there are cleaners out washing the streets because of the dynamics around two consumption sites in my community and near a school. What would the member say in response to the fact that this is an issue related to families, children and safety in our communities? Police sirens and ambulances are heard night and day.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague, the member for Whitby , stood up and said the government would be spending less to invest more and referred to the operating budget. Could she share with the House and Canadians what the cuts will be to the public service?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to respond to something her colleague from Whitby said. He said the government will spend less so it can invest more, and he referred to the operating budget, which means it will have to lower expenditures on the operations side to have the funds to spend on more development. Would she know what the cuts will be to the public service and programs the government will introduce so that it is spending less?”
“Mr. Speaker, there was a point of misinformation from the other side of the floor. Every opportunity the Liberals get, they discuss the shutting down of veterans offices. The truth of the matter on that is that those offices were not shut down; they were moved— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Cathay Wagantall: Quiet. Mr. Speaker, they were moved so they could serve veterans without the overhead of the offices. The call to have those offices removed came from the bureaucrats who responded across the government to the fact that we needed to remove some funding—”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated hearing the comments with regard to sovereignty. I would like the member to provide the House and Canadians with a definition of what the government means by Canada being a postnational state. I think he is capable of doing this. Could he please define that?”
“Mr. Speaker, those of us who have to run our own budgets know that it is never wise to invest borrowed or printed money to dig ourselves out of bad debt. As to the capital expenditures the government is speaking of, where is that money coming from? The Liberals talk about direct private investment. The wealth that has already been removed from the country by the government will not be offset by what the government is attempting to do. Will this budget indicate clearly, with those capital investments, how much of the investment is dwindling tax dollars, how much is borrowed money and how much is printed money?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member said that the government is committed to strict measures against violent offenders, yet it continues to fuel violent crime by refusing to repeal Bill C-75 . The Liberals complain about Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Conservatives bringing in minimum sentences that they claim hampered judges' independence, but they were proven to reduce the number of incarcerations. By comparison, their bail reform law, Bill C-75 , forces judges to release offenders at the earliest possible opportunity under the least onerous conditions. It has emboldened violent criminals to offend again and again. Does the member not see an increase in violent crime today as a result of the impact of these repeat offenders taking advantage of their new freedom to terrorize Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, what the member on the other side of the floor observed was very astute, which is that the Liberals come up with bills that always have something of value in them, but there are always poison pills that make it impossible to support them. That was the case for the Conservatives with Bill C-75 . Over and over, today in the House, the Liberals said they are committed to strict measures against violent offenders. That means that every example given on this side of the floor of the horrific things that have been done by individuals who have been out on bail are not violent offences to the Liberals, and that is very disturbing. I would like to know from the member whether, if the Liberal government supported our motion for jail not bail, his communities would once again be far safer places to live and to raise a family.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have committed to strict measures against violent offenders, yet they continue to fuel violent crime by refusing to repeal Bill C-75 . The bill is forcing judges to release offenders at the earliest possible opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. Violent criminals have been emboldened and are taking advantage of their new freedom to terrorize Canadians because of it. If the Liberal government were to support our motion, the jail not bail act, today, would Richmond Hill once again be a far safer place to live and raise families?”
“Mr. Speaker, I heard the member claim that the government is committed to strict measures against violent offenders, yet it continues to fuel violent crime in Canada by forcing judges to release offenders at the earliest possible opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. Canadians are owed an apology from the government for its failure to keep them safe by releasing repeat violent offenders.”
“Mr. Speaker, the whole premise of this does not relate to other bills that may come forward. It is the need to scrap this bail non-reform bill. It is not just us speaking about this. The premiers and attorneys general for Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the member's province of B.C. have called for the removal of this particular bill. It is from across the country. What does the member think about that perspective in light of the support to scrap Bill C-75 ?”