“Since 2015, human trafficking has gone up 84%, sexual assaults are up 76%, and violent crime is up 55%. I want the member to apologize for his role in passing the laws that caused this.”

“Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. member, in response to a question from our side, very clearly distance himself from the 10 years of government that he was a part of. Here are some facts on those 10 years. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%, sexual assaults increased by 76% and violent crime increased by 55%. I wonder if the hon. member might want to take this opportunity to express his regret for the role he played in passing laws that led to those horrific results.”

“I support the parts of this bill that protect victims of partner abuse and child exploitation. But I am voting against this bill because it lets judges ignore mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious crimes.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. The name of this bill sets a high standard. Protecting victims is the single most important part of any justice system. Canadians rightfully expect a system that supports those who have been harmed, protects the vulnerable and holds offenders accountable for their actions. Bill C-16 attempts to address a number of serious issues, including intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation, sexual violence, victims’ rights and delays in our justice system. That expectation has not always been met in our justice system. Too often, victims feel like an afterthought. Too often, families are left waiting for justice. Too often, Canadians are left to wonder whether our justice system is putting the rights of offenders ahead of the safety of communities. Many Canadians saw that in a recent case in Kitchener, where a former neurologist was acquitted on 48 sexual assault charges. Dozens of victims gathered the courage to come forward and share their stories, and the justice system left them feeling unheard and brushed aside. We can agree in this place that it takes a tremendous amount of courage for a victim to come forward with their experience. When they do, it is important that we treat them with dignity, listen to their concerns and ensure that their voices are heard. That is why, when legislation like this comes forward, we must hold it to a high standard. There are parts of this bill that would be steps in the right direction. One of the biggest changes would be the creation of a new offence relating to coercive and controlling behaviours in intimate partner relationships. Many people think that the abuse begins when someone is physically assaulted, but it often starts long before that. It starts with manipulation, isolation and threats. It starts with controlling where a person goes, who they see, who they spend their time with, what they spend their money on or how they live their daily lives. These behaviours slowly chip away at one’s independence and leave people feeling trapped in dangerous situations. By the time physical violence occurs, the warning signs may have been there for months, sometimes even years. Recognizing those warning signs in law is an important step. If interventions can come earlier, lives may be protected and future violence may be prevented. Another story from my riding is of a woman who was strangled by her husband in front of their daughter. Today, she and her daughter are living in a domestic violence shelter, trying to rebuild their lives and find safety, yet despite a guilty plea, the man responsible remains here in Canada illegally. When victims and their families are left in situations like this, they are left asking simple questions: Where is the accountability? That is why getting legislation like Bill C-16 is incredibly important. Victims need more than words. They need to know that the justice system will protect them, support them and hold offenders accountable for the harm that they have caused. This bill also includes measures aimed at combatting child exploitation. This, especially, is an area where Parliament should be united. Technology has created incredible opportunities but also real dangers. For all the parents in this place, we can agree that we are raising children in a world that looks very different from the one we grew up in. Predators can reach children so easily through social media, phones, computers and gaming platforms. These threats are real and our children need to be protected. This bill would also update the law surrounding intimate images and digitally altered sexual images. Whether an image is captured with a camera or generated with AI, the impact to victims is devastating. Reputations can be destroyed. Careers can be damaged. Mental health can suffer, and relationships can be affected. Victims deserve protection regardless of how that image was created. For many victims, navigating the justice system can be overwhelming while they are already dealing with the trauma that it has caused. They may not understand what is happening with their case or how decisions are being made. They may feel lost in a process that can seem focused on everyone except the victim. That needs to change. Victims deserve information and respect, and they deserve to know that they matter. The Conservatives have worked constructively on this bill. We supported measures that would better protect victims, address cohesive control, combat child exploitation and strengthen victims’ rights. However, despite these positive measures, the bill also includes a major change to sentencing that deserves attention. The government says this change is about flexibility and discretion, but Canadians deserve to understand what it would actually do. This bill would allow a judge to bypass every mandatory minimum sentence in the Criminal Code, with a few exceptions. In other words, it would make mandatory sentences optional, and “mandatory” is not supposed to be optional. Why does this matter? It matters because mandatory minimum sentences exist for the most serious crimes. They represent the basis that certain crimes are so serious that there must be a minimum consequence when someone is convicted. It cannot be a suggestion. If a crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence, Canadians expect that to mean consistency and accountability across the board. There is no room for victims to wonder if the punishment will fit the crime. If mandatory sentences become optional, confidence in our justice system would be weakened even further. That is why the issue deserves serious attention. Our justice system already contains flexibility. Police officers use discretion when determining whether or not charges should be laid. Crown prosecutors exercise discretion when determining how cases should proceed. Prosecutors make decisions every day about what charges to pursue and what position to take before the court. When Parliament created a mandatory minimum sentence, it did so because Canadians expect a certain level of accountability for a serious crime, and we did not do that by accident. Canadians may disagree on what that line should be, but they understand that there should be a line. What they do not understand is why Parliament would establish a line and then create a way around it. I hear a lot of frustration from people in Kitchener Centre, and, frankly, from people across the country, about what feels like a growing gap between what the justice system says and what it actually does. People hear that a crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence, but then they find out that the sentence might not actually be mandatory. They hear that victims are the priority, but then they watch victims spend years navigating a system that feels confusing and overwhelming. They hear that public safety comes first, but then they read stories about repeat offenders just cycling through the justice system again and again. Whether those perceptions are fair or not, they are real, and public confidence matters. Our justice system depends on trust. People need to believe that the rules are applied fairly, that serious crimes are treated seriously and that victims matter, full stop. That is especially important when we are talking about crimes that leave lasting scars on victims, families and entire communities. The effects of violence do not end when a court case concludes. Victims carry those experiences for years. Children carry them for a lifetime. Families carry them for a lifetime. Anyone who has sat across from a victim of violence knows that the impact reaches far beyond the courtroom. Accountability matters, not because accountability can undo the harm it caused. It cannot. Accountability matters because it tells victims that society recognizes the seriousness of what happened to them, and it tells them their suffering matters. Canadians are increasingly concerned about public safety. Repeat offenders cycle through the system, and victims struggle to get justice, so why would we yet again weaken the consequences for offenders, while victims try to rebuild their life? Let us think about that. While victims are left traumatized, Parliament would create another pathway for offenders to avoid consequence. That is not what Canadians think of when they hear the words “protecting victims act”. Canadians want accountability. They want consequences. They want confidence that when Parliament says a sentence is mandatory, it actually means that it is mandatory. We want a justice system that protects victims while holding offenders accountable. I would like my community to know that I am not voting against protecting victims of intimate partner violence. I am not voting against protecting victims of child exploitation. I am not voting against victims of sexual violence. I am not voting against protecting victims’ rights within delays in the justice system. What I am voting against is making mandatory minimums optional: clause 63. When it is eventually spun that I voted against protecting victims, please remember that I voted to ensure that victims are actually protected by ensuring that mandatory minimums remain, not as an option.”

“I want to protect victims of partner abuse, but I cannot vote for this bill. It lets judges decide not to send abusers to jail. The government would not work with us to fix this problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, the spin has already begun. I am not voting against protecting victims of intimate partner violence. I am absolutely not. What we cannot stand behind is making mandatory minimums optional so the judge can decide whether the perpetrator of the offence gets any time at all. That is just not what we can stand behind. I am saying here today that I would vote in favour of the victims of intimate partner violence. We worked hard with the government to ensure that we could get these corrections made so the mandatory minimums would be taken out, but the government refused to work with us on this. That is the truth.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 94 of 100

  Of this reply, 95% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I support most of this bill, but I cannot vote for it because it removes mandatory minimum sentences.”

“Mr. Speaker, the bill is not moving in the right direction, because it has a piece, clause 63, which would remove mandatory minimums and make it optional to put them in place. This is not a step in the right direction. Every other piece of the bill, 99% of the legislation, is a step in the right direction, but that 1% is a step backward, and that is what we cannot support.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “It is a step in the right direction.”

  Said 8 times by 8 members since May 1.

  Every time it was said →

“Conservatives are not playing games. We work for victims of crime and for public safety. I want to know why the Liberal government got rid of mandatory minimum prison sentences, letting guilty criminals get off with just one day in jail.”

“Mr. Speaker, earlier tonight, the parliamentary secretary said that we Conservatives play games. That is so far from the truth. On his side of the House, he can play tic-tack-toe or Scrabble. That is his business. Conservatives are here for the victims of crime. We work long hours on behalf of Canadians for public safety and for the justice system. As I said earlier, the parliamentary secretary accused us of playing games. Why is it that the Liberal government would remove mandatory minimums and judges could use time served or just give a criminal who is found guilty a one-day sentence? The point I am getting at is, why is the Liberal government—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 42 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 →

“The law needs to set clear rules for prison sentences. A judge cut a drug dealer's prison time in half so he would not get deported. He should have served his full sentence and then been removed from Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about some of the consequences of not defining what sentencing should be. Because of Bill C-5, there is a drug smuggler, caught with 55 grams of cocaine while on bail, awaiting sentencing for previous gun offences. He received a sentence of only 12 months, half of what the judge said his crimes deserved, partially because of his immigration status. The Ontario judge cut the sentence in half for the offender, who was facing the significant likelihood of deportation because he was already serving a six-year prison sentence in Canada for trafficking fentanyl and for gun-related offences. The judge wrote in their decision, “Mr. Rush is not a Canadian citizen and he is likely to be deported as a result of these offences. This is a significant collateral consequence.” It is. The consequence should have been served, and he should have been removed.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support parts of this bill, but I oppose the part that lets judges give sentences below mandatory minimums. This is a loophole that goes easy on violent criminals. The government should remove this loophole so criminals stay in prison.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing her time. Before 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. 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. 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. More 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. As Canadians continue to face economic uncertainty and challenges beyond our borders, the lessons of Stoney Creek remain as relevant as ever. Our 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. I rise today also to speak about Bill C-16 and against a major flaw hidden inside it, specifically clause 63, the safety valve. First, it is a fact that after 11 years of Liberal government, Canadians are less safe. Violent crime is up 55%, and extortion is up 330% across Canada. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%. Sexual assaults are up almost 76%, and 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. After all that, what is the Liberal answer? It is more of the same. The 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, where 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. 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. That is not getting tough on crime. That is getting softer on criminals. The 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, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-220 would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-246 would have required criminals convicted of multiple sexual offences to serve consecutive sentences, but the Liberals voted against it. The Liberals also weakened bail laws through Bill C-75. Police chiefs, premiers, and Conservatives warned them, but the Liberals ignored everybody. What was the result? It 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. 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. 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, which the Liberals have created. Every 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. That makes no sense. If 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. It does not make any sense. We 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. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to fix this bill. The 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. 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. Mandatory is not optional, and that is what Conservatives are fighting for. We 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. 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. 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. This is another example of Liberal half measures. We 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 Liberals should simply split this provision off so that Parliament can work to make this bill better to keep victims safe.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking.”

  Said 4 times by 3 members since June 3.

  Every time it was said →

“This bill has good parts, but it lets judges avoid mandatory prison sentences. I want the Liberals to work with us and accept our changes to make Canada safer.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it very concerning that I am up here speaking to a bill to keep Canadians safe, a bill I have said is very positive in a sense but that has a release valve in it that would allow judges to not enact mandatory minimums, and the member does not even want to talk about it. He just wants to deflect. Let us get serious here for a second. Canadians want a safer Canada, and the sooner the Liberals realize that and work with us and look at our amendments, the sooner we can keep Canadians safe.”

“I want this bill to include mandatory minimum prison sentences for people who attack women or abuse children. Judges should not be allowed to give lesser sentences for these crimes.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, but I want to be clear. Conservatives want mandatory minimums for heinous crimes. For criminals who attack women and children, we do not want a “get out of jail free” card. We are tough on crime. That is what I believe in. It is why I was elected and why I wanted to become a politician. I wanted to make change. I also want to make sure that when criminals get to court, they get a mandatory minimum for sexually abusing children and for violence against women. We should not have a clause that would allow the judge to see otherwise. That is what Conservatives want, and if the Liberals could just work with us on this, this would be a good bill.”

• 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 →

“We need mandatory minimum prison sentences for criminals. Without them, judges have loopholes to let criminals off too easily.”

“Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we can all come into the House, talk about it and feel good about ourselves, but unless we get strict on mandatory minimums, it is all for nothing. That is the real truth. If we leave a loophole in there where a judge can let criminals go, like the Supreme Court did in a child-sensitive material or child pornography case, all is lost. Mandatory minimums are needed, full stop. That is what the Conservatives believe in.”

“The Liberals want to let judges ignore mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious crimes like human trafficking and sexual assault with a gun. If judges can ignore these rules, they are not mandatory. I want the member to explain what she thinks the word 'mandatory' means.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated this speech and all the things the member said about violence against women. Woman to woman, I have to understand here a couple of things about the word “mandatory”. The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for aggravated sexual assault with a gun, where victims are primarily women; human trafficking, where victims are primarily women; and multiple firearms offences. As an educator, I have to look up the word “mandatory”, which says very clearly that it is required or commanded by a law, rule or authority. If judges are allowed to ignore so-called mandatory sentences, and this bill claims it is strengthening mandatory minimum sentences, can the member maybe describe for me what she thinks the word “mandatory” means?”

“Parts of this bill are good. But it sets lowest possible prison sentences and then lets judges ignore them. Who should victims blame when offenders get weaker sentences?”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the compassionate words from the member opposite, and I acknowledge that much of the bill is going in the right direction and, indeed, is good. However, in one part, the bill promises to restore mandatory minimums, but then later it hands judges a clause to sentence below mandatory minimums. My question is simple: When a victim’s offender walks out below the mandatory minimum sentence under the bill, who will the member opposite tell the victim to blame: the court or the bill that was written to let this happen?”

“I do not support this bill. It lets judges ignore mandatory prison sentences for serious violent crimes, including gun crimes and human trafficking. Liberal laws have made crime worse over the last ten years, and this bill makes things even weaker.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this evening with colleagues debating this important issue. That is what we do in the House. We debate, we discuss important issues for Canadians and we have some great discussions. One thing, though, that is really not debatable, if we believe at all in evidence, is that the Liberals have had a failed justice policy, and the last decade has been one where Canadians have demonstrably suffered when it comes to justice. As a former member of the justice committee, I will never forget when a witness, who was a victim of crime herself, appeared and said that in Canada now we have a legal system, but we do not have a justice system. I was very impacted by those words and determined, like many of my colleagues on this side, to listen to those voices and make a better, truly just system that Canadians could be proud of and that would make them feel safe. I know if I asked my constituents, and I do, and if many here asked their constituents if they felt safer than they did 10 years ago, they would say that things have changed. Do they feel safe to send their kids to the mall or to walk to school? Do they feel safe when they leave their home? Do they feel safe to leave their vehicle? In the community I live in, my whole life, we did not lock our car doors. Many people did not lock their houses; they just left them unlocked. That was the kind of neighbourhood and community it was. That has now changed, and it has changed because of a failed Liberal justice system. I heard some of the commentary this evening about mandatory minimum penalties, etc. However, where there is no debate and no doubt is that the Liberals do not know what they are doing when it comes to Canada’s justice system. Some of the statistics are absolutely staggering. Since 2015, which is when the Liberals formed government, human trafficking in Canada has increased 84%, sexual assaults are up 76% and violent crime is up 55%. In just the first nine years after forming government, total homicides are up 28% and violent firearms offences are up 117%. This is nine consecutive years of increases. Extortion is up almost 400%, auto theft is up 50% and sexual violations against children are up over 100%. Forcible confinement or kidnapping, indecent harassing and communications and trafficking in persons are up almost 100%. When we speak of these things, they are not just statistics. Each one of those represents a victim, a victim’s family and a community that feels less safe than it did before. The cumulative effect of terrible pieces of legislation is the statistics and the heartbreak that has flowed from them over this last decade. What are some of these terrible pieces of legislation? Did this happen by accident? Was it things, as the Liberal government members like to say, outside of their control? No, these were things that were very much within the control of the government, and it took active steps that made the situation demonstrably worse. What am I talking about? There is Bill C‑75, which fundamentally changed our bail system and introduced a so-called principle of restraint that meant judges were forced to use the least onerous provisions possible when it came to decisions around bail. It led to absolutely outrageous and ludicrous situations like the one we heard about at the justice committee. The Toronto Police Service testified that individuals who had already received bail for a previous gun crime were being let out on bail again for gun crimes. They had committed a firearms offence, received bail, were then arrested again for a serious firearms offence, received bail again and had then been arrested a third time. They were out on bail both previous times. That was not an uncommon situation. Bill C‑75 changed the rules around bail, police forces and victims groups throughout our country. Provincial attorneys general have all commented and beseeched us to address the soft-on-crime bail that the government has introduced. The other bill that comes to mind is Bill C-5. We have heard some discussion this evening about mandatory jail times. Conservatives believe that for serious offences, there should be mandatory jail time. Some of these Liberal members who are speaking positively about tougher sentencing were, just a few years ago, defending Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory jail time for importing, exporting and producing serious drugs, schedule I drugs. It eliminated mandatory jail time for offences like arson, drive-by shootings and serious firearms offences. It not only eliminated the mandatory penalties but allowed for house arrest. Someone could burn down a person’s house but serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home, playing video games, etc., as one can imagine. Individuals could commit serious violent offences, and people would be forced to see the perpetrators still in the community, even after having been sentenced, because they were sentenced to house arrest for the type of offence where someone should not get house arrest. That brings us here to this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-16. Bill C-16 has another “get out of jail free” card. The Liberals cannot help themselves. There are many mandatory minimum penalties, mandatory sentences for crimes that Parliament deems to be serious. Even though there are many of them in the Criminal Code that have been upheld constitutionally, many of them that are sound, that are in our code and that are effective, the bill would create a release valve whereby a judge can decide not to apply the mandatory penalty, even for offences where the mandatory penalty has been upheld. Some of the offences for which Bill C-16 would allow judges to ignore the mandatory prison time that this Parliament and previous Parliaments have seen fit to introduce include aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with restricted or prohibited firearms. Canadians have had enough. They have had enough of violent crime and extortion. They have had enough with the assaults, sexual assaults and property crime. This bill would undermine our justice system by allowing judges to ignore the mandatory penalties that Parliament saw fit to put in place. Parliament put those penalties in place to protect the Canadians who are so deserving of that protection. It speaks to that witness who appeared at our justice committee and said we need to have not just a legal system but a justice system. That witness implored us to take steps to ensure that we have a justice system. Well, I can assure my colleagues that allowing for the elimination of all mandatory minimum penalties, as this legislation would, is not what this individual had in mind. I want to recognize a couple of my colleagues, our justice shadow minister, the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations; our public safety shadow minister, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola; and indeed our entire team on this side. For the last decade, in areas around auto theft, drugs, extortion, violent crime and crimes against children, every area where we could protect individuals in our communities, Conservative members of Parliament have been standing up and putting forward private members’ bills. One that I put forward would restore the mandatory penalties for trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine and for those who are running meth labs. These are the mandatory penalties the Liberal government, in its wisdom, decided to remove. If we were to ask whether the drug crime and drug abuse situation in Canada is better today, under the Liberal policies, than it was 10 years ago, there is not a person in this room, in this chamber, who would say things have gotten better. Unless they are willing to deny the evidence that comes to us from Stats Canada, there is not a person in this chamber who would say that the situation when it comes to violent crime, property crime, crimes against women and crimes against children is getting better. When we look at solutions, we need to look at solutions that are going to be effective, not half measures. What this piece of legislation would do, and this is a provision I certainly cannot support, is allow judges to ignore mandatory minimum penalties that have been constitutionally upheld, that exist in the Criminal Code and that were put in there for a reason, because they recognize the seriousness of the offences that are covered. I often hear in this place that the number one thing, the most important thing we can do, is to protect our fellow Canadians. I take that challenge very seriously. For a number of people I know in this chamber, colleagues I have talked to, improving our criminal justice system is one of the principal drivers of why they got involved in politics and why they were eventually elected as members of Parliament. We need to ensure that we are doing our very best. Some mandatory minimums have been struck down, but to allow judges to ignore those that have been upheld in the past would be a major fault. We must stand up for the victims of crime.”