Ned Kuruc

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 11 wordsI would like to thank my colleague for sharing her time.Procedure Claims · 101 wordsBefore I get into Bill C-16, I would like to acknowledge that last weekend the great people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek commemorated the 213th anniversary of the Battle of Stoney Creek, one of the most important victories in Canadian history.¹ In June 1813, a determined force of British soldiers, local militia and loyal settlers faced a much larger American army and won in what served as the Stalingrad of the War of 1812.² Their courage helped turn the tide in the defence of Upper Canada and demonstrated that the people of this land would not be intimidated by a larger neighbour. Reasoning · 29 wordsMore than two centuries later, the Battle of Stoney Creek remains a powerful reminder of the Canadian spirit: resilient, independent and determined to stand up for our national interests. Claims · 22 wordsAs Canadians continue to face economic uncertainty and challenges beyond our borders, the lessons of Stoney Creek remain as relevant as ever. Reasoning · 33 wordsOur strength has always come from our unity, our perseverance and our confidence in Canada. May we always honour those who defended this country and continue building a free, proud and sovereign Canada.Off point Procedure · 23 wordsI rise today also to speak about Bill C-16 and against a major flaw hidden inside it, specifically clause 63, the safety valve.Procedure Claims · 101 wordsFirst, it is a fact that after 11 years of Liberal government, Canadians are less safe.Unearned certainty Violent crime is up 55%, ³and extortion is up 330% across Canada.⁴ Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%.⁵ Sexual assaults are up almost 76%, ⁶and Canadians can see this. They see other Canadians feeling scared and threatened. They see crime becoming more common. They see repeat offenders arrested one day and back on the streets the next. In a country that used to feel safe, this is completely out of the ordinary. Canadians are desperate for change. They want to feel safe again. Positioning · 14 wordsAfter all that, what is the Liberal answer? It is more of the same.Positioning Claims · 196 wordsThe Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe he is tough on crime, but Bill C-16 proves otherwise. While Liberals are trying to sell the bill as a crackdown on criminals, buried inside is a loophole that would allow judges to bypass almost every mandatory minimum sentence left in the Criminal Code. Bill C-16 would amend the general sentencing principles that require courts to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum, ⁷where applying the minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. This would apply to all mandatory minimum penalties currently in the Criminal Code, with the only exceptions being murder and high treason.⁸ What it actually means is that the mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory. A custodial sentence would still be required, but the length of the imprisonment would be up to the judge’s judgment. The Liberals spent the last 11 years slowly eroding the laws that are keeping Canadians safe from criminals by keeping them behind bars. Now they want judges to ignore many of the ones that remain. Hidden inside a bill called the “protecting victims act” is a proposed get-out-of-jail-free card that claims it would protect victims. Positioning · 13 wordsThat is not getting tough on crime. That is getting softer on criminals.Positioning Claims · 99 wordsThe Liberals voted against the following Conservative bills that would have created stricter bail laws and tougher penalties for violent and repeat offenders. Bill C-381 would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion, ⁹but the Liberals voted against it.¹⁰ Bill C-220 would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences, ¹¹but the Liberals voted against it.¹² Bill C-246 would have required criminals convicted of multiple sexual offences to serve consecutive sentences, ¹³but the Liberals voted against it.¹⁴ The Liberals also weakened bail laws through Bill C-75.¹⁵ Police chiefs, premiers, and Conservatives warned them, but the Liberals ignored everybody. Positioning · 4 wordsWhat was the result?Positioning Claims · 196 wordsIt was the principle of restraint: letting criminals out at the earliest reasonable opportunity on the least onerous conditions, a catch-and-release justice system where violent repeat offenders cycle through our courts and back into our communities. In 2022, the Liberals’ Bill C-5 struck down 14 mandatory minimums, including on possession and discharging of weapons and firearms.¹⁶ As a direct result of these Liberal laws, there have been multiple examples of firearms smugglers, gun traffickers and violent criminals receiving no jail time for crimes that should have put them behind bars. In Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, police have repeatedly laid firearms charges against individuals who are already on probation, under release conditions or subject to firearms probation.¹⁷ Canadians are asking why people who have already demonstrated that they will ignore court orders continue finding themselves back with the police on new charges. Canadians are losing confidence in a justice system that seems more focused on giving offenders another chance than giving victims peace of mind. When someone is arrested for a serious firearms offence while already under a court order, Canadians do not see that as a mistake. They see a system that is failing to protect them, Positioning · 5 wordswhich the Liberals have created.Positioning Claims · 106 wordsEvery time a violent repeat offender is released only to commit another crime, another family, business owner or community pays the price. The consequences and the fear are real, and the frustration Canadians feel is completely justified. It is no surprise that under the Liberal government, crime is increasing at alarming rates. Now the Liberals are making the same mistake again. Canadians want to feel safe. Criminals are becoming more aggressive. They are targeting businesses and using intimidation and violence. The Liberal response is a bill that could allow offenders convicted of extortion with a prohibited firearm to receive a sentence below the current mandatory minimum.¹⁸ Positioning · 4 wordsThat makes no sense.Positioning Claims · 35 wordsIf someone uses a gun to terrorize a business owner, Canadians expect serious consequences, not loopholes and leniency. They certainly do not expect the Liberal government to make it easier for criminals to avoid punishment. Positioning · 6 wordsIt does not make any sense.Positioning Reasoning · 68 wordsWe have a mandatory duty as elected officials to make our communities and Canada at large safer. This is not optional. Conservatives believe the justice system should stand with victims, not criminals; that mandatory minimum sentences should actually be mandatory; and that organized criminals, repeat violent offenders and sexual offenders should stay behind bars where they belong, not be treated like they are entitled to endless second chances. The ask · 13 wordsThat is why Conservatives are calling on the government to fix this bill. Claims · 69 wordsThe Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for the following: aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with a restricted, prohibited firearm.¹⁹ Parliament set mandatory minimums for these heinous crimes for a reason. If the Liberals allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums, there will be nothing mandatory about them, full stop. Positioning · 12 wordsMandatory is not optional, and that is what Conservatives are fighting for.Positioning Claims · 139 wordsWe are happy with the positive changes in the bill. Banning deepfakes of intimate partners and bringing in mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse material would help Canadians and would keep our kids safe.²⁰ Despite these changes, Bill C‑16 still fails to reverse the dangerous soft-on-crime agenda that the Liberals have spent the last 11 years enacting. Conservatives were defeated or ruled out of scope on 30 amendments that would have tightened or restored mandatory minimums for violent and serious crimes and repeat violent offenders.²¹ Those amendments would have kept our streets safer by removing the safety valve from crimes including extortion, aggravated assault and child sexual offences, and they would have kept criminals who commit these heinous acts behind bars, where they belong. The safety valve would be a dangerous clause to include in this otherwise positive bill. Positioning · 8 wordsThis is another example of Liberal half measures.Positioning Claims · 31 wordsWe have come this far with a good bill that would protect Canadians from serious crimes, but keeping the safety valve provision would completely contradict the principles of keeping victims safe. The ask · 22 wordsThe Liberals should simply split this provision off so that Parliament can work to make this bill better to keep victims safe.