Ziad Aboultaif
Edmonton Manning, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the minister is promising 500,000 homes every year. According to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 homes. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even though houses will be built, the new Liberal agency Build Canada Homes will add only 5,000 homes per year.”
“We know that such things should not be allowed to happen again, but there is nothing in our laws to ensure that. Bill S-228 would fix that. It proposes to clarify one section of the Criminal Code to bring an end to a legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism that disproportionately, but not exclusively, affects indigenous…”
“In the early part of the 20th century, a movement arose that had a flawed concept of human dignity and what it meant to be authentically human. The idea was that we should strive to create perfect people, which meant those who were considered to be imperfect should not be allowed to have children.”
“It is a simple change, but an important one if we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We want to make sure that there are no misunderstandings.”
“Additionally, section 45 of the Criminal Code of Canada protects individuals from criminal responsibility for performing a surgical operation if it “is performed with reasonable care and skill” and is reasonable based on the person's state of health and other circumstances.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize from the outset. This is not a speech that will soar to oratorical heights, castigating the government for its many failures and its apparent inability to understand the needs of the country. There is a time for that, but it is not now because this is not a partisan issue.”
The complete record
Every one of 285 lines we hold for Ziad Aboultaif, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, the history of business is filled with scandals and scams as companies cooked the books to hide financial disaster. The Lehman Brothers global financial services firm hid more than $50 billion in loans disguised as sales. Bernie Madoff conducted the largest Ponzi scheme in history, defrauding investors of almost $65 billion. Enron, the energy company, kept huge debts off the balance sheet, costing shareholders $74 billion. The new Liberal budget reminds me of those scandals. The Liberals want to increase the national debt by $321 billion, with a $78-billion deficit this year alone. They changed the accounting method and hid the true debt by calling it “investment”. Canadians are not fooled. They know they are once again being asked to pay the bill for Liberal mismanagement.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government wants to borrow $321 billion over the next four years, borrowing $78 billion in this year alone. That represents $8,000 per Canadian. Where is the prosperity in the budget? Where are the benefits to Canadians in the budget? It would put an additional $8,000 on the shoulders of each and every single Canadian.”
“Madam Speaker, we hear a lot in the news everywhere about how many crimes are committed every day, and the majority of them are committed by repeat offenders, people released from prison within 15 days who go out on the streets again and start attacking people. I hear about it in Edmonton every day. Toronto is also a great example.”
“Madam Speaker, if anyone should accept any amendments, it should be the government, not the Conservatives. When it comes to the bill going to committee, it is very important for any bill of this importance to go to committee to be examined by all parties. This is the way we do things. I hope the committee will be able to study this bill well to make sure we can present to Canadians, once and for all, a strong justice system that will really protect them, their families and our streets.”
“Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows well that we need Canadians to be safe, first and foremost. In order for Canadians to be safe, the government cannot be light on criminals, as it has been through Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 . I said in my speech that this bill, Bill C-14 , is a good start. The Conservatives want it to be stronger. We want criminals to understand they cannot just get a freebie every time they do something stupid like attack or kill someone or commit any criminal offence against any Canadian. This is the Conservative Party's aim. We need strong legislation to make sure criminals stay behind bars and are not set free on the streets to recommit crimes again and again.”
“Spending three-quarters of $1 billion on a gun confiscation program is a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. However, given the government spent $54 million on the ArriveCAN app, which should have cost $80,000, I guess money does not matter to it. Violent gun crime is on the rise because of the catch-and-release bail system the Liberals created with Bill C-75 , but also because they reduced penalties for at least nine gun crimes through Bill C-5 . When will they realize that? Bill C-14 , which we are considering today, is a good start, but only a half measure. If they were serious about reforming our justice system and ending their catch-and-release bail policies, they would repeal Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 .”
“The government has failed to fix the border disorder that lets in almost all of the illegal firearms used in gun crimes. Violent gun crime has increased 116% since 2015. On May 1, 2020, Justin Trudeau announced a ban on assault-style firearms and promised to “implement a buy-back program as soon as possible to safely remove these firearms and to introduce legislation as early as possible”. We all know how that has worked out. It has been five years since that announcement, and all the government has managed to do is a pilot project. Planning to spend $750 million on confiscating legally acquired and owned firearms will not reduce gun crime. Just so my friends opposite know, criminals do not register their guns. Banning hunting rifles or target-shooting pistols does nothing to reduce crime and is virtue signalling at its best.”
“House arrest would still be a possibility for those convicted of robbery, drug trafficking and firearms offences, not that the Liberals understand anything about who is committing firearms offences. One would think that, having realized the Conservatives were right about how disastrous Liberal justice system reforms have been, they would come to understand the problems with their firearms policies. They need to admit that law-abiding gun owners are not criminals and stop persecuting them. Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Liberal Prime Minister is repeating his predecessor’s mistake and taking hunting rifles and shotguns from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people. After 10 years of Liberal mismanagement, it has never been easier for violent criminals to obtain a gun.”
“The bill would add new aggravating factors, would mandate certain consecutive sentences, would restrict house arrest for sexual offences and would strengthen youth custody and disclosure powers. While the bill moves closer to the Conservative approach on bail and sentencing, it would not repeal the principle of restraint or restore mandatory minimum sentences. It is essentially a half-hearted effort that the Liberals are offering, hoping that Canadians will be happy with at least some improvements to the justice system without admitting that the need for change is due to Liberal mismanagement. Consecutive sentences and aggravating factors are useful but are still subject to judicial discretion. As Bill C-14 does not reinstate mandatory minimums, outcomes would remain uneven and uncertain.”
“Conservatives warned everyone about the consequences of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 for years. Bill C-14 , the bill we are dealing with today, is a clear vindication of Conservative criticisms, but it does not go far enough. The legislation amends the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act and National Defence Act to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release, particularly in cases in which detention is necessary to protect the public, victims or witnesses and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. (1215) It would expand reverse onus offences such as violent auto theft, break and enter, human trafficking and extortion, and would direct courts to weigh the number and gravity of outstanding charges when determining bail.”
“No, he took the opportunity to go on a crime spree That is not the first time this sort of incident took place. In 2023, an Edmonton public transit rider was attacked and killed by a man with a history of violence who was on bail at the time, supposedly under house arrest and subject to a court order to stay away from transit property. A life was snuffed out by someone who should have been in custody. A loving father was taken from his family because of a misguided belief that violent offenders could be trusted not to reoffend. By bringing forth this legislation, the Liberals are admitting that their criminal justice reforms have failed. Since 2014, there has been a 41% rise in the violent crime severity index, along with increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences.”
“That has been the problem: People accused of violent crimes are turned loose to reoffend. I think every member here understands that this is a problem. In my home city of Edmonton, time and time again, we hear stories about people arrested for violent crimes who are released on bail and immediately reoffend. For example, on July 17, Edmonton police arrested a man and charged him with attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of stolen property, two counts of driving while prohibited, breach of release order, possession of a weapon dangerous to the public, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, failure to stop after an accident and theft of a motor vehicle. The accused criminal had been previously arrested for other crimes and released on bail on July 4. Did he learn from the lenient bail conditions?”
“For years, Conservatives have been calling on the Liberal government to repeal Bill C-75 , which passed in 2019. The legislation created a catch-and-release system in which repeat and violent offenders are routinely freed pending trial. To make matters worse, in 2022, Bill C-5 further weakened deterrence and denunciation by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences and repermitting house arrest for serious offences, including sexual assault. In 2023, when they realized that they had maybe gone too far, the Liberals introduced Bill C-48 , but this was insufficient in terms of dealing with the problem they had created. The bill included only a handful of new offences to be considered in a reverse onus position. It did not do anything to make it harder for repeat offenders to get bail.”
“Madam Speaker, after a decade of passing laws to make life easier for criminals, the Liberal government has suddenly realized it created a problem. From its rare attempt to face reality, we have Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act. Conservatives have been pointing out for years that the Liberal approach to crime has the opposite effect of what the Liberals intended. Criminals did not realize the error of their ways. Instead of being thankful for generous bail and sentencing reforms that returned them to the street, they took their unexpected freedom as an opportunity to commit another crime or more crimes. Liberal bail reforms brought more crime, not less, and many Canadians began to live in fear as the Liberal revolving-door policies put criminals back on the streets to reoffend, no matter how serious the alleged crime.”
“Madam Speaker, Edmonton's Food Bank is serving more people now than at any time in its 43-year history. Requests for food hampers have gone up 42% in the last 30 months. Food Banks Canada reports record use, with 2.2 million visits in a single month. It took decades to hit one million but only six years under the Liberals to double it to two million. When will the Prime Minister finally give Canadians an affordable budget for an affordable life?”
“Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague had a very thoughtful speech. The last part of his speech was about transparency. The government is bringing forward a huge bill to make a huge change to something that is very important, which is citizenship, without any idea about the number of people who would qualify for that nor what the cost would be. The government is introducing a budget on November 4. Why was the government not transparent and straightforward with Canadians about the major change they are making to the Citizenship Act?”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill would still allow serious offenders, including those guilty of robbery, trafficking and firearms-related crimes, to serve time at home under house arrest. This is a loophole in the bill. Can the hon. member tell us why the government left this loophole in Bill C-14 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, the obvious thing is that this is a government that made a disaster of the immigration policies in Canada. In the last 10 years, it brought in millions of people. It made slavery, a housing crisis, a health crisis and an education crisis. There are crises across the board because of its policies. Now, it has the face to come to Canadians to ask for more citizenships to be granted without any background checks or criminal checks. It has made a disaster out of Canadian society because of its policies, and now, it is still coming forward to present more disasters to Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, it is the oldest trick of the Liberals. Every time we question them about something they do, they turn it into trying to divide Canadians further, calling us names and trying to narrow the conversation to their level of non-transparency. Unfortunately, that is what they have done here. This is what they have been doing all along. We cannot reject the premises of their questions and their argument because, first and foremost, they have to be transparent and come to Canadians clearly before they can expect anyone to co-operate with them.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is very funny and unfortunate that the government asks us to be transparent, but it is not transparent itself. It is bringing forward a bill without giving any information to Canadians. It is as though no accountability and transparency is needed. Before it asks the question of us, it needs to remind itself about what it has done and what it has included in the bill. After that, we will have a conversation.”
“We are facing a fiscal crisis and the Liberal response is to pretend it is not happening and to spend more money. Bill C-3 is a reminder of that. Conservatives believe in strong, fair and meaningful Canadian citizenship. We will continue to oppose giveaways and stand up for integrity, security and a responsible immigration policy for Canada.”
“We already know that the Liberals have changed the bookkeeping procedures in an effort to confuse Canadians and hide what is sure to be a record deficit. In 2024, the then minister of finance resigned rather than present a fiscally irresponsible statement to the House featuring an astronomical deficit. Given the Liberals' spending since then, this year's deficit may make last year's numbers fiscally prudent, which may explain why they have shown no interest in figuring out how much this bill would cost Canadians. The government has not done a cost analysis as its own officials told MPs during the technical briefing. The government has not told Canadians how many new citizens this bill would create or the cost to taxpayers, especially in health care and in pensions.”
“It should be taking part in the life of the community. I believe that, with rights, we should also have responsibilities. Bill C-3 does not acknowledge that. It would allow parents to pass citizenship on to their children, for generation after generation, as long as one parent spent 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada prior to the birth of the child. There are no criminal checks, which is required for immigrants. This is a multi-generational flow-through citizenship for people who did not live nor are required to live in Canada. No real ties to Canada would be required for citizenship if this legislation were to pass. The vague substantial connection test allows multi-generational foreign residents to claim citizenship with minimal presence in Canada. Is that what we want? We all are anxiously awaiting the federal budget next month.”
“We know that $94 million is a lot of money. In 2009, the government, led by former prime minister Stephen Harper, addressed concerns about Canadians of convenience, those who hold Canadian citizenship but live abroad and do not participate in Canadian society. This led to the enactment of Bill C-37 , which amended the Citizenship Act to restrict the transmission of Canadian citizenship to only one generation born outside Canada. Since then, a Canadian citizen born outside of Canada could pass citizenship on to their children who were born abroad, but the grandchildren, if also born abroad, would not automatically inherit Canadian citizenship unless their parents were abroad in service to the Crown. To me, that makes sense. I value my citizenship. Being a Canadian should be more than holding just a passport.”
“The next generation, though, if also born outside Canada, would not automatically be citizens. That system worked well, balancing the granting of citizenship with a true connection to the country. I do not see a need to change that. Perhaps we in this House need a history lesson to help us understand why we have the citizenship rules we have today. (1715) In the mid-2000s, the crisis in Lebanon caused many Lebanese Canadians to pass citizenship on to their children for the purpose of relocating to Canada, even though these individuals have little to no connection to Canada. Then, in 2006, the Canadian government spent $94 million on the evacuation of 15,000 Lebanese Canadians. These people who benefited from Canadian citizenship with minimal connection to Canada became known as “Canadians of convenience”.”
“That is not the case in a number of countries, which expect children born in their territory to be citizens of whatever country their parents are from. Whether one system is better than another is a matter of preference, but the fact remains that countries have to make choices and establish laws surrounding who is and who is not a citizen. Do we want to grant citizenship generation after generation to those who have no real connection to this country and for whom a Canadian passport is a matter of convenience? This legislation would allow that. We would have Canadian citizens who have never set foot in Canada. Is that what we want? In 2009, Canada established a first-generation limit on citizenship. Those born abroad to Canadian citizens would automatically be granted citizenship.”
“Like many members of this House, I have been present at ceremonies when new citizens have pledged their allegiance to Canada. It is always an exciting occasion, one filled with smiles and joy. I am always reminded of the time, decades ago, when I was taking the oath. I am a proud Canadian. I chose to come here. I chose to become a Canadian citizen and embrace Canadian values. I have no regrets. It is a privilege to be a citizen of the greatest country in the world. It is a privilege to have been asked by the people of Edmonton Manning to represent them in this House. For most of those not born here, Canadian citizenship is not a right, nor should it be. When it comes to citizenship, each country makes its own rules. Canada grants citizenship automatically to anyone born in this country.”
“Specifically, this bill would amend the Citizenship Act to do the following: (a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen; (b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person's birth; (c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen; (d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person's adoption; (e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved; and (f) allow certain persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of this enactment to access a simplified process to renounce their citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, the issue of citizenship is one I have heard about on more than one occasion from constituents concerned with how our laws impact their status. It is one about which we as parliamentarians are called upon to make decisions and establish rules that will, by their nature, exclude some people. Canada, like all countries, has regulations surrounding who is automatically granted citizenship. At present, while citizenship is granted to children born outside Canada to Canadian citizens, those children do not have the right to pass on their citizenship to their children if those children are born outside Canada. This amendment to the Citizenship Act would address that issue.”
“Madam Speaker, every time I meet with constituents, the topic of immigration comes up. The government has left a mess by opening the floodgates to get all kinds of people into Canada, millions and millions of them, without even thinking about the economic impact on Canadians, such as there being no schooling or housing available and no health care or social supports. The Liberals have left this mess, and now we know the impact on Canadians is shown every single day. This is a mess that belongs to the government, and no matter what it does, it is not going to be able to fix it. Bill C-12 is a very small attempt, if the government ever gets serious about doing this.”
“Madam Speaker, I did address the issue of legitimate refugee claims, and we know that Roxham Road has been a devastating story for Quebec and for Canadians in general. We definitely have to deal with the serious issue of fake refugee asylum claims being made in order to come to Canada. I agree that we need to work harder on this, and that is why I mentioned the words “legitimate refugees” in my speech.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to send the member a mirror today, because he and his government need one. They should look into the mirror to see what their former prime minister did and what he called the RCMP. Other members on his side have asked to defund the police. I am not sure why they did that. Maybe a mirror is needed today.”
“Only the Conservatives will deliver tougher sentences for lawbreakers and order at the border and will allow legitimate refugees to find sanctuary here. In conclusion, Canadians deserve secure borders without sacrificing freedoms. I wish there were more Liberal speakers on their own bill. Unfortunately, they refuse to do that.”
“Finally, part 11 would update the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Customs Act, clarifying reporting, allowing physical characteristic records and permitting the CBSA to share travel data with law enforcement to prevent sexual crimes. This would protect vulnerable Canadians, which aligns with Conservative priorities. It is time we start doing more in this House to protect vulnerable Canadians. This bill would cost money, but the real cost has been the Liberals' 10 years of failures: record overdoses, strained immigration systems and eroded public trust. The Conservatives look forward to the committee stage, where we will call for amendments for tougher sentences, real enforcement and protections for legitimate refugees.”
“That is something the government has not paid attention to or has totally ignored dealing with or talking about. The bill would also allow FINTRAC to share info with the commissioner of Canada elections. Part 10 would add the FINTRAC director to the financial institutions supervisory committee. These steps intend to combat the financial networks behind organized crime, which have thrived amid Liberal soft-on-crime approaches. Also, let us not forget, and let us make sure Canadians listening understand, that the government's soft-on-crime approach has put a tremendous pressure on Canadians' lives and inflation, because money laundering creates an underground economy, which is known to be happening on Canadian soil.”
“Canada has massive borders and we need to work with like-minded partners to enhance our protections and preserve our sovereignty. Parts 5 through 8 address immigration integrity, a realm where Liberal mismanagement has been catastrophic. In particular, part 7 would extend authorities to cancel or suspend immigration documents in the public interest, and part 8 would introduce a one-year cap on refugee status filings while tweaking the safe third country agreement, the STCA. Parts 9 and 10 target money laundering and terrorist financing. Part 9 would amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to hike penalties, mandate compliance agreements with FINTRAC and expand registration to more entities. Let us not forget that money laundering in Canada is a big problem. It exceeds $100 billion, as reported last year.”
“Still, it is a tool that law enforcement needs, and we believe in giving our first responders the tools they need to save lives. Part 3 would formalize exemptions for law enforcement officers from drug charges during legitimate investigations under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Cannabis Act. This is straightforward common sense. Our officers should not fear prosecution while undercover fighting the very cartels flooding our streets with poison. (1110) In part 4, amendments to the Oceans Act would enable the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and share intelligence with defence and security partners. With increasing threats from smuggling and foreign interference, this would bolster maritime security without the overreach seen in Bill C-2 .”
“Part 2 of the bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a temporary accelerated scheduling pathway for precursor chemicals like those used in fentanyl production. This would fill a critical loophole, but let us be clear that it is long overdue. Fentanyl has devastated Canadian families, with Health Canada data showing that in 2024, fentanyl was responsible for 75% of opioid overdose deaths, a staggering increase of 32% since 2016. Figures from January to March 2025 indicate that 63% of opioid toxicity deaths involved fentanyl, contributing to thousands of preventable tragedies. I must note that Canada will need to do a lot more than pass this bill to fix the problem. While this part would ban precursors, it falls short by ignoring tougher sentencing for dealers, as Conservatives have long demanded.”
“Thanks to Conservative pressure, those poison pills are gone from Bill C-12 , allowing us to focus on real security enhancements. Let us dive into the substance of Bill C-12 , which draws from the supportable elements of its predecessor. Part 1 would amend the Customs Act to empower the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, to use private facilities free of charge for examining exported goods, mirroring its current authority over imports. This is crucial in combatting the export of stolen vehicles and contraband, which has surged under Liberal watch. According to the CBSA's own reports, auto thefts have become a multi-billion dollar industry, fuelling organized crime with thousands of vehicles shipped overseas annually. By extending the CBSA's reach, this provision would ensure that our borders are not a one-way street for criminals.”
“Bill C-12 was born out of the Liberals' bloated Bill C-2 , introduced in June 2025. The original bill included warrantless access to personal information and the forced re-engineering of tech platforms for surveillance, and it even allowed Canada Post to open mail without judicial oversight, measures the Privacy Commissioner himself confirmed were drafted without his consultation. As my colleague said, “Conservatives have successfully blocked the Liberals' infringements on individual freedoms and privacy in Bill C-2 ”, emphasizing, “Law-abiding Canadians shouldn't lose their liberty to pay for the failures of the Liberals on borders and immigration.” If law enforcement suspects something suspicious, they can get a warrant. It is that simple.”
“Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-12 . As a Conservative member of Parliament, I am proud to stand and express my concerns with this legislation. I have heard from my constituents, and they have made it clear to me that the Liberal government is not going far enough to fix the messes it has created at our borders. Conservatives negotiated the split of the original bill, Bill C-2 , ensuring that one of the most egregious infringements on Canadians' privacy and freedoms was sidelined, while advancing measures that strengthen our border security and protect our communities. Bill C-12 is a step in the right direction, but make no mistake: It is only here because Conservatives held the line against Liberal overreach. Let me start with the context.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government has not learned at all after the last 10 years. It is still the same rhetoric, name calling and talking about American politics to somehow convince Canadians otherwise. Liberals have to be serious. They are in government. They have to be serious about these issues and deal with them responsibly. That is what they are not hearing. By the way, I insinuated in my speech that, if the government is serious, the bill could deserve to go to committee in order to enhance it, improve it and make it a better bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. Canadians have seen complete neglect of the justice system in the way of approaching crime and the way of dealing with it. That is why I was hoping they would stand up today, admit to the mistakes of the past and assure us, and Canadians, that they can move forward seriously and honestly to make sure they correct the wrongdoing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the hon. member on the government side would at least recognize the 10 years of misconduct, the 10 years of mismanagement and not taking the issues that happened in the military seriously. He used the podium to praise the current government. He missed my point when I spoke about the last 10 years, the last prime minister and what they have done by filibustering at the committee level to downplay this serious issue. That is what he is missing. I hope that he will admit to those mistakes.”
“Conservatives are proud of and support all men and women in uniform serving Canada. We believe they deserve a workplace free of sexual harassment. Maybe this legislation can be improved at the committee stage. Maybe the Liberals can convince us they are serious about dealing with sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces. This time, let us hope they are actually doing something instead of just telling us there is a serious issue to be dealt with.”
“Does this bill deliver that? The previous Conservative government accepted all recommendations in the Deschamps report to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment from the Canadian Armed Forces. After 10 long years of Liberal government and two more reports from Supreme Court justices, victims of military sexual misconduct are still no closer to having their cases dealt with properly. There are aspects of Bill C-11 that open the door to potential political interference and partisan appointments. Those include giving increased power to the Minister of National Defence to issue guidelines with respect to prosecutions, and having the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal appointed by the Governor in Council.”
“If moving jurisdiction for sexual assault away from military authorities to civilian ones results in an improvement in the way justice is administered in Canada, then, it would seem to me, this bill is worth supporting. However, is there any evidence this is actually the case, or will there still be cover-ups? The Liberal record for the past 10 years is one that has been soft on crime. We have seen violent offenders set free on bail to reoffend as a direct result of the Liberals' policy. Why would their attitude towards sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces be any different? Conservatives believe we must continue to address sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment because all military members deserve a safe and respectful workplace. All victims of military sexual misconduct deserve timely justice.”
“They are not trusted to do what is right when confronted with allegations of a serious crime. No wonder enlistment is down and recruitment efforts are not gaining traction. Who would voluntarily enter what appears to be a toxic work environment? It saddens me to say this, but I have little trust in the Liberal government's ability to bring justice to those who have been sexually assaulted while serving in our armed forces. I sincerely hope this legislation is not just Liberal virtue signalling. I hope to see a change in attitude towards sexual assault and a willingness to see prosecutions proceed swiftly and fairly. Changing the culture to make such crimes unacceptable may take time, but part of that culture change is showing that such behaviour will no longer be tolerated by leadership at every level of the Canadian military.”
“Standing up for victims means helping to ensure that victims have a more effective voice in the justice system and are treated with courtesy, compassion and the respect they deserve at every stage of the criminal justice process. (1015) When a whistle-blower is told there is no place for him in the military while the alleged criminal keeps his job, it looks like the military criminal justice system is about the rights of criminals, not about supporting victims and certainly not about justice. No wonder our military is in crisis. It is not just antiquated and inadequate equipment. It is not just the lack of vision. It is a feeling that those in charge, the Liberal politicians and military leadership, cannot be trusted to do what is right for the men and women serving in our armed forces.”
“Did he act? Obviously, he did not. The Liberals ignored the problem for five years, then asked for another report. Then, just to be sure, they asked for a third report a year later. When will military sexual trauma victims get the justice they deserve? The previous Conservative government took significant steps to protect Canadians and to stand with victims of crime. We understand that the highest priority for any government must be to ensure the safety of its citizens. This is a responsibility that the previous Conservative government took very seriously. Putting the rights of victims back at the heart of the criminal justice system is important to us.”