“I want to know if the member will support passing Bailey's law right away. It protects intimate partners from homicide, and I want it to become law by July 4.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I listened with great attention to my colleague’s speech, as the person who wrote the bill along and ushered the bill through to change the name of “child pornography“ to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.” As somebody who prosecuted Internet luring and offences against children, I took a great deal of interest. One of the things the member spoke about was homicide of intimates, which was also addressed in Bill C-225, also known as Bailey’s law. Bailey’s law is at the Senate right now, and it was studied and amended substantially in the House at the request of the government. I wonder if that member would be prepared to provide an endorsement to state that Bailey’s law should be passed forthwith. Bailey McCourt, for whom the bill is named, was tragically killed in a similar situation to the Henderson murder the member spoke about. Her death happened on July 4 last year. Would the member support this bill coming into effect by July 4 this year?”

“I oppose this bill. Violent crime is up, and this bill makes sentences for serious criminals too weak. It lets judges ignore mandatory minimum prison times. We need stricter punishments to keep dangerous criminals in jail.”

“Mr. Speaker, remember how good life used to be a decade ago, before the Liberal government? We had the wealthiest middle class. Now the middle class is poor, and Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. However, the best thing we had was how safe our country used to be. My city, the beautiful city of Toronto, anywhere, anytime, day or night, any neighbourhood, was safe. After a decade of Liberals, violent crime is out of control. Residents are no longer safe. Parents are afraid for their kids to take the transit. There are robberies on the street, home invasions and extortion. It seems like every day I wake up and a person has been shot in my North York riding. Last week, there was a murder at Sheppard and Magellan, in the beautiful community of Downsview. Three men shot a man to death outside his house. What is happening? What is happening is Liberal bail and sentencing laws. Every police officer will say that. We need to close the revolving door in the courts. First, we got the Liberal failure of Bill C‑14. That was for bail. Now we are here on Bill C‑16, to deal with sentencing. Again, we have a Liberal failure. Instead of increasing mandatory minimum sentences, the Liberals do the opposite. They create what they refer to as a “safety valve”, which would allow judges to disregard mandatory minimum sentences. Under the Criminal Code, mandatory minimum penalties apply to a range of serious offences. These mandatory minimums are designed to set a sentencing floor, a minimum term of imprisonment that Parliament deemed necessary for denunciation, deterrence and public safety for specific categories of crime. In recent years, courts have been striking down mandatory minimum penalties under section 12 of the charter as cruel and unusual punishment. That, of course, includes the Supreme Court. The Liberals frame the safety valve as a response to this jurisprudence of striking down mandatory sentences. They point to recent decisions like Senneville, where the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum penalty for possession and distribution of child pornography. I will come back to this decision. What would they do with a safety valve? The valve would allow courts to impose seLiberalsntences below the mandatory minimum if a judge thinks that applying the mandatory minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment. The Liberals ironically say they would strengthen mandatory minimum sentences, but instead they do the opposite. They make them non-mandatory. Effectively, the valve would allow a judge to disregard mandatory minimum penalties, so a minimum penalty is no longer a mandatory minimum penalty. Jail time would still be required, but a judge would be free to sentence the convicted person to one day in prison. If they feel that this House, Parliament, has prescribed a sentence that is too extreme, they can just disregard what we say. This is crazy. It would result in lighter sentences for serious repeat offenders. The Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what is required. In effect, what previously required a constitutional argument would be an automatic argument every time at sentencing, that something is cruel and unusual. The safety valve is a major concession to judicial activism. It would undermine the role of this Parliament. We are the ones who set sentencing policy. Worse, the principle of deterrence is lost. I listened to some comments a short time ago from folks saying that there are empirical studies that state mandatory minimum sentences do not work. They do work, because someone cannot commit a crime if they are in prison. Many of these violent offenders who offend repeatedly, again and again, should be left in jail, away from the community that they seek to terrorize again. Therefore, we need to do the opposite. This is especially in response to the Supreme Court striking down the mandatory minimum sentence on distribution and access to child pornography. At the justice committee, I moved a motion to invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect mandatory minimum sentences on possession and distribution of child pornography, but the Liberals voted it down. Again, they failed to protect children. This is not just about kids who have already been abused and exploited in these pictures and videos. It is about kids in the future who, God forbid, could be raped because the courts have failed to punish these perverts and deter future perverts. We had to go hard here so that we could kill this awful industry, but the Liberals refused. Why? They say, “All we heard from the Attorney General was that it is a sunset clause, and in five years we would have to do this again.” Well, fine, let us do it again. What was the point of the notwithstanding clause? It was to prevent absurdity. Attorney General Jean Chrétien used the clause to seal the deal on the charter, and he specifically used an example for absurdity that the Supreme Court could potentially come up with. It was a hypothetical that Chrétien used: that the Supreme Court would find possession of child pornography protected by freedom of expression. I think everyone in this room, even the Liberals, would agree that such a finding would be absurd. Now, that is not the scenario we had in Senneville, but pretty close. Senneville pleaded guilty to possession and access to over 300 images of children, mostly girls between the ages of three and six, being sexually exploited. The co-appellant, Mathieu Naud, pleaded guilty to possessing over 500 images and almost 300 videos, most of which were of children ages five to 10, in many cases being subjected to rape and sodomy. This is disgusting. Striking down a mandatory one-year sentence for each of those two counts is precisely the type of absurdity that Attorney General Jean Chrétien had in mind. This is precisely why section 33 was explicitly inserted in the charter. We said to the Liberals at the justice committee, instead of narrowing down and diluting the mandatory minimum sentences, let us preserve the mandatory minimum sentences for the worst of the worst, and this is one of them, but the Liberals refused the amendment. I am proud of the Leader of the Opposition and my Conservative colleagues. We will invoke section 33 to protect children from these monsters and to prevent this absurdity that the Supreme Court arrived at. The Attorney General is refusing to invoke the clause, refusing to do his job, refusing to protect children and safeguard the law. Instead, the Liberals weaken sentencing laws with a safety valve. It is a shame, and it is regrettable. I spoke to a police officer in my riding. I do not want to name them, and I do not even want to name the division. He said to me, not too long ago, “Roman, you know how upsetting it is when we arrest a guy again and again. We had a situation where an officer got injured during the arrest of a guy he arrested again and again, and a couple of days later the same offender was out on bail again.” We tried to deal with bail, but the Liberals refused to remove the ladder principle, and still the courts are required to release at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive terms. We dealt with sentencing and with activist courts that refuse to impose the mandatory minimums that the House prescribed. Instead of preserving mandatory minimums, what did the Liberals do? They did what Liberals do: They weakened mandatory minimum sentences. They now tell judges to go ahead and disregard the mandatory minimum if they think the mandatory minimum is disproportional. I do not understand what it is we are doing here with Bill C-16. We need to do the opposite. We need to protect Canadians. We need to take a bite out of crime and not let criminals loose, as this bill would do.”

• Echo ×104

  A repeated line

  “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

  Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

  Every time it was said →

“The member should focus on protecting children. The Liberals think keeping mandatory minimum prison sentences is extreme. Conservatives support mandatory minimum sentences, and we will keep them when we form government.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member should stop yelling and start protecting children instead. The member believes that preserving mandatory minimum sentences is far right. The Liberal Party has gone so completely insane to the left that anybody who disagrees with it on anything is deemed to be of the far right. I am proud of the fact that the Conservative Party wants to preserve mandatory minimum sentences, and we will do so when we form Conservative government.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 27 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Even the Liberals tried to change their own bill many times because it has so many problems. I want my colleague to explain what happened when we tried to add changes that would keep criminals in jail.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also on the justice committee, and I was hoping he could elaborate on the problems that emerged during our committee study, because we actually put forward a lot of amendments. It was shocking how many amendments the Liberal government put forward to its own bill, which I think reinforces the point that even the Liberals saw the flaws in this. We were prepared to work across party lines to protect victims, but can my colleague answer what happened when we tried to put forward concrete amendments that would keep offenders behind bars, where they belong?”

“The justice committee chair wrongly blocked our changes to bring back and strengthen mandatory minimum prison sentences. This bill is supposed to do that, but we were overruled again and again.”

“Mr. Speaker, repeatedly, the chair of the justice committee called our amendments to reintroduce and strengthen mandatory minimum sentences out of order. This is despite the fact that this is precisely what the bill seeks to do, which is supposedly to strengthen mandatory minimum sentences. Why the chair of the justice committee called them out of order and out of scope, I do not know, but ironically, something interesting happened during that process. In one specific instance, which had to do with the use of a firearm during extortion, the chair of the justice committee initially called the proposed amendment in order, contrary to the fact that every other amendment was out of order. I do not believe that the ruling was correct. We were overruled again and again.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose letting the government force private companies to keep people's data without a warrant or a suspected crime. The government must follow the law and protect our rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is the party of law and order, and the key to the rule of law is that the government is also under the law. This means that, when the government comes along and says it wants a sweep, it wants the private sector to hold all metadata, all of it, without a warrant, without any suspicion of a crime being committed, that would be a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the party of law and order, we will defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the reason.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 14 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Weakening mandatory minimum prison sentences will make Canadians worse off.”

“Mr. Speaker, what is patently clear is that, by winding down, nullifying and watering down mandatory minimum sentences, Canadians are going to be considerably worse off.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 49 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Criminals are recruiting young people, and serious youth crime like murder is going up. I want to ask my colleague why he thinks the government has not taken this problem seriously.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. During committee proceedings, he spoke with several witnesses about the issue of criminals recruiting young people. In Canada, we are seeing an increasing number of cases of youth crime, including serious offences such as murder. I would like to ask him why, in his view, the government has not taken this problem seriously.”

“This bill has some good parts, but it is too weak. The government rejected our changes to add strict, mandatory prison time for extortion and severe sexual violence. We need stronger punishments to protect victims and keep dangerous criminals in jail.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber on behalf of the great people of Brampton West. I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters. As my constituents’ member of Parliament, I have a responsibility to listen, to bring their concerns to the House and to fight for safer communities. When I speak with residents in Brampton West, one issue comes up again and again: extortion. Not once in a while but every single week, business owners come to my office, families send emails, and community leaders call. They are afraid and feel threatened. Extortion is up 330% across Canada, and it has become a national crisis. Criminals are targeting hard-working families and small businesses. Homes and businesses are being shot at, and threatening videos are being sent, demanding money. Families are living in fear. Some people have even left Canada because they no longer feel safe. Think about that. People came here to build a better life, but instead they are being terrorized by criminals. Recently, Peel Regional Police arrested 17 individuals connected to a major extortion network targeting South Asian businesses throughout Peel Region. I commend the officers involved. Their work was outstanding. The investigation revealed a coordinated campaign of intimidation, violence, threats, arson attempts and shootings. There were more than two dozen shootings, hundreds of rounds were fired, and businesses were attacked simply because owners refused to pay criminals. However, those arrests are only one step. The problem and threat remain. Gangs are now sending letters to police, boasting that they have thousands of extortionists ready to commit crimes. That should alarm every member of the House. Criminal organizations are becoming bolder, more organized and more violent, and Canadians are paying the price. This is exactly why Conservatives proposed amendments to strengthen the bill. We wanted stronger consequences, greater protection for victims and to send a message that extortion will not be tolerated in Canada. One amendment would have extended mandatory minimum penalties for extortion committed with a firearm. Another would have ensured that extortion-related mandatory minimums could not be weakened through the Liberal safety valve provisions. The Liberals have voted down all these community safety amendments. They were reasonable amendments that reflected the reality that extortion today often involves guns. Criminals fire bullets into homes and businesses, record it, then send the videos to victims and post the videos online. They use fear as a weapon, yet Liberal members rejected our proposals. When Conservatives tried to strengthen penalties against violent extortionists, Liberals said no. When Conservatives tried to stand with victims, Liberals voted no. That is disappointing because Parliament created mandatory minimum penalties for a reason: to clearly denounce the most serious crimes, establish consequences, protect society and provide certainty in sentencing. Canadians understand that principle. When someone commits murder or kidnaps another person, there are consequences. When someone commits sexual assault, there must be consequences. Let us discuss another major concern with Bill C-16. Conservatives proposed amendments to protect mandatory minimum penalties for some of the most horrific sexual offences in the Criminal Code. One amendment would have preserved mandatory minimum penalties for sexual assault involving a weapon, and particularly in cases involving firearms and involving children. These are not minor offences, and they are not mistakes. They are among the most serious crimes imaginable. When someone sexually assaults a child while using a weapon, society has a duty to respond firmly. The rights of victims matter, and the safety of children matters, yet the Liberals rejected that amendment. Conservatives also proposed protecting mandatory minimum penalties for aggravated sexual assault. These are the worst cases. Cases involving severe violence and devastating harms permanently change the lives of victims. Canadians expect Parliament to speak clearly when it comes to these crimes. They expect us to stand with victims and denounce offenders. Instead, the government voted against those amendments. That sends the wrong message, especially in a bill that claims to strengthen protection for victims. If we truly support victims, we must ensure meaningful consequences for the worst offenders. Words alone are not enough. Victims deserve action. Another important amendment came from my Conservative colleagues at committee, an amendment dealing with reasonable hypotheticals. The principle was simple: The court should focus on facts, not on speculation or hypothetical possibilities. The justice system must rely on facts, evidence and reality. Justice must be based on what actually happened, not on the circumstances that may never occur, yet Bill C-16 would continue to allow courts to consider reasonably foreseeable circumstances. That language is vague. It is subjective and invites inconsistency. Two offenders could commit the same crime under the same circumstances but receive different outcomes because of speculation that undermines confidence, fairness and public trust. Canadians expect equal justice. They expect sentencing decisions based on evidence, not imagination. Conservatives proposed an amendment that would have restored clarity. It would have ensured that courts focus on the actual circumstances of the offender, the actual facts before them, nothing more and nothing less. Again, the Liberals rejected the amendment. That is unfortunate. People must believe that similar crimes receive similar consequences. That principle should not be controversial; it should be common sense. I want to be fair, so let me say that Bill C-16 is not entirely without merit. There are provisions that Conservatives support. Making the justice system more responsive to victims is positive. Reducing unnecessary delays is positive. Addressing coercive and controlling behaviour is positive. Addressing harmful deepfake images is positive. Those measures have value, but good measures alone do not make a complete bill. A justice bill must also prioritize accountability, protect victims, deter crime and ensure that serious offenders face consequences. That is where Bill C-16 falls short. The government had opportunities to improve it by strengthening protections against extortion and sexual violence, by improving consistency in sentencing, and by restoring public confidence. Those opportunities were presented at committee. Conservatives brought forward constructive, practical and reasonable amendments, yet the Liberal government used its majority to reject them. That is disappointing. Canadians are increasingly concerned about crime. They see violence rising and repeat offenders returning to the streets. They want Parliament to act. They want laws that put public safety first and support victims. They want laws that ensure that jail means jail for the worst offenders. Conservatives will continue fighting for those principles. We will continue fighting organized crime and extortion, and we will work to restore confidence in Canada’s justice system. Canadians deserves safe communities. They deserve a justice system that puts victims first. Conservatives stand with victims and law-abiding Canadians. Conservatives stand with the families who simply want to live in peace. Conservatives will continue fighting to ensure that Canada’s justice system puts victims first, protects our communities and keeps dangerous criminals exactly where they belong: behind bars.”

“Brampton has a major problem with extortion, shooting at houses, and organized crime. Conservatives tried to make penalties tougher for extortion with guns, but the Liberals rejected our changes.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite understands that crime is a problem in our communities, in our neighbourhoods and on our streets. Brampton families are living through a real extortion crisis, and that is why I mentioned them. I am really concerned about the safety and security of Brampton residents. Businesses are being threatened, houses are being shot at, and organized criminal networks are growing. Conservatives proposed amendments to strengthen penalties for extortion involving firearms and to prevent those penalties from being weakened. The Liberals rejected those amendments. I would be happy to see—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →