“We need mandatory minimum prison sentences for people who commit crimes. I think our Supreme Court judges are too weak on this, and I want to know if the member thinks we can hold them accountable.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, whom I have worked with. I appreciate victim services, after being in the RCMP for 35 years. I am thankful for what she has done. My question goes back to the issue of mandatory minimum penalties for individuals who commit crimes. Do you think there is enough accountability in our Supreme Court justices? Can we hold them to account so they will actually put people in jail who need to go there for those minimum penalties? I think we are a little bit weak on that. I just wonder if the hon. member, whom I loved working with, could answer that question, please.”

“The Liberals say this bill's exception will be used only rarely. If that is true, I want to know why they did not rule out serious crimes like sexual assault, extortion, and child sex crimes.”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep telling Canadians that their safety valve measure in the bill, or, more accurately, a poison pill, a get-out-of-jail-free card, will be used only in rare and exceptional cases. If that is true, why were they unwilling to exclude serious offences such as aggravated sexual assault, extortion, and child sexual offences? If it is truly meant to be narrow, why is it written so broadly?”

“Our justice system already gives police and prosecutors enough flexibility. This bill lets judges ignore mandatory minimum prison sentences for almost every crime. It allows courts to override decisions made by Parliament. Why is the government doing this?”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberals tell us that the judicial safety valve is necessary to ensure flexibility. However, the criminal justice system already has safety valves in it. Police officers exercise discretion and lay charges, and the prosecutor has discretion on how they are going to handle a case and what that will look like for them. To me, the judicial safety valve would create an additional layer of discretion that would allow courts to effectively override Parliament’s decision. However, Parliament is supposed to be the one that makes these decisions. We know that clause 63 in the bill would go much further by allowing judges to completely disregard mandatory minimums, except for treason and murder. Why is that?”

“I do not support this bill in its current form. While parts of it try to protect victims, it lets judges ignore mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes like child abuse, gun violence, and human trafficking. We need strict minimum sentences to protect victims and punish criminals.”

“Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to be able to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan, and to be able to do so here in the month of June. We know June is the graduation season for all of the kids in elementary school who are moving up to high school. The kids who are in high school and have the whole world in front of them are graduating and looking to either start their first job or go on to university, or whatever the next step of their life is. June is an exciting time for them. There are a lot of exciting things happening in their lives. We also know that generation of people is, for many of us here in the House of Commons, why we are here and why we do what we do. I think this is also very relevant when we talk about Bill C-16, the victims bill. I want to start with a couple of things. There is a bit of a scourge happening in society. There are many people who are victims of sexual assault and violence. It is getting out of hand. I am sure that my colleague from Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, whom I am going to split my time with, is going to be able to elaborate on that a bit more. I look forward to hearing what he has to say. Saskatchewan, in particular, has some of the highest rates of domestic violence in the country per capita, for example. We know this is a scourge on society, so I applaud the government’s attempts to try to take a few steps and measures that would rein some of this in and get things under control. However, at the same time, we see with this bill that the government has put forward a measure around the inclusion of clause 63, which would essentially allow mandatory minimums to be ignored. I find that to be very egregious. Here is why. I am going to read these out. I have to google them really quickly. I typed in “man caught with child sexual exploitation and assault material” and a plethora of headlines come up. Here is one from today. This one is from 47 minutes ago. It reads, “Man Arrested in Sexual Assault Investigation”. This one is from six hours ago. It reads, “Niagara Falls man accused of breaching order to stay away from children”. This one reads, “Markham Man Arrested for Using Social Media to Sexually Lure and Extort Youth”. That is from five hours ago. This one is from one day ago. It reads, “Male Arrested Following Child Luring and Sexual Exploitation Investigation in Whitby”. It goes on and on and on. An Alberta man, for example, was recently caught with over 500,000 images of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. In Quebec, 23 men had over four million files of sexual exploitation and abuse material of children. This is disgusting. It is ridiculous. The fact is that there is now a provision that would allow somebody to escape a mandatory minimum. Let me be clear. Part of the reason why the bill came forward is that the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum for child sexual abuse and exploitation material. It is absolutely disgusting that this happened as well. When we see in the news the number of files that are out there and just how many people continue to access them, and when we see that there is the ability for a soft-on-crime approach to be taken because of this clause, it is just absolutely disgusting. If we want to try to signal to people that we actually care about victims and that we are going to prioritize the needs of victims, taking some of these very heinous crimes seriously, establishing a floor and making sure that nobody, under any circumstance, will serve below that minimum would be acceptable. In the court case that was referenced with the bill, a hypothetical case was presented. That is why the mandatory minimum I am referring to was struck down. It was completely made up. It was not a story based on any evidence. It was not even the case that should have been referenced, which was very different from what was used to determine why they should strike down the mandatory minimum. If we are going to take things seriously in this country, we need to value our citizens. We need to value people who have been victimized. Allowing people to get off easy is not how we are going to deal with this. There are many other examples of this. I pulled up examples of people who were let off. Here is another one. It reads, “Calgary man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl gets reduced sentence”. I am sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. We do not want to see them anymore. Establishing mandatory minimums and having them in place shows that we take these kinds of crimes very seriously. The prosecution and the judges have discretion and can use leniency. They can increase a sentence if they want to, or they can go with the minimum, but establishing those minimum sentences shows that we take these things very seriously. There are many other charges that people can get away with very easily, and I am going to highlight a few more. For example, another one says a scam victim says Canadian sentences are a joke after a fraudster got house arrest. That is another one of these issues. Seniors are being victimized over and over again. In fact, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre says between 17,000 or even 20,000 direct fraud and financial abuse reports come in regularly in Canada. Also, 7.8% of the Canadian population aged 15 and over has experienced fraud in some shape or form. We know seniors are targeted. I think it comes to about $137 million annually. Seniors are being victimized when it comes to fraud. This is the kind of thing for which a person is able to get only house arrest. In the case that I referenced, this person was sentenced to only 18 months of house arrest, but there were exceptions. They were allowed to leave the house multiple times a week to go to the gym and, after six months, the conditions required them to be home only between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. If someone who is actively defrauding people is given house arrest, that means they can continue to carry out the very crimes they were committing in the comfort of their own home. Those kinds of people should be in jail. They are preying on the people who are the most vulnerable. Going back to seniors, my wife’s grandpa was a victim of fraud. He sincerely thought somebody in tech support was helping him out, but they were not. He was defrauded out of thousands of dollars. He was targeted because he is a senior, and seniors generally tend to be far more trusting and tend to believe something like that, as in that particular case. Fortunately, he was able to eventually get his money back, but this happens over and over again. When these people are caught, they are given house arrest. These are the kinds of things we are seeing, and we do not want to see them happening any longer. Let me take another look at some of the other areas where mandatory minimums would be allowed to be circumvented. There is aggravated sexual assault with a gun. It is bad enough that people accessing, selling, recording and making child sexual abuse and exploitation material would be able to avoid a mandatory minimum. Aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings are the kinds of things for which mandatory minimums would be looked over and discarded because of clause 63. If we are going to have a serious discussion about dealing with the issue of crime and the fact that so many people end up with bail instead of jail, establishing and re-establishing some basic mandatory minimums in this bill would have been great. Not including a clause that would allow mandatory minimums to be completely disregarded would have been great as well. That shows we are not taking victims’ concerns seriously. I get lots of emails to my constituency office and my Hill office from people wanting a tough-on-crime approach. People want to see mandatory minimums become a thing because they set the tone. They let the criminals know we take these crimes seriously and there will be a punishment if they are caught. When they find out they can get just house arrest or a reduced sentence, they are going to keep doing what they are doing. There was a case in my home community at the local courthouse, where a person’s charges were stayed for fentanyl trafficking. They had enough fentanyl in their possession to kill hundreds and thousands of people. Their charges were stayed and they were released. This is ridiculous. This is the kind of stuff people are sick and tired of seeing. They do not want clause 63, which would allow mandatory minimums to be skirted, to be included. There are some good pieces in this bill that I wish the Liberals were serious about. I wish they would deal with the good parts of the bill. If they had accepted our amendments to put even some safeguards around clause 63, it would have been helpful, but they voted against every single measure proposed by the Conservatives at committee to protect victims, which is shameful.”

“That was a dumb question. If the Liberals cared about victims, they would not let criminals avoid mandatory minimum sentences. They also voted against our ideas to protect victims and put criminals in jail.”

“Madam Speaker, the member says all kinds of ridiculous things. Referring to yesterday and the language the Speaker let him use, that was a dumb question from the member. The Speaker allowed him to use that word, so I am going to use it. That was a dumb question, and this is why. If the Liberals actually truly cared about crime and if they truly cared about victims, they would not allow people to have mandatory minimums be circumvented by clause 63. That should not have been allowed to happen. At the very least, the member should have said he supported some of the safeguards we are proposing to make sure that victims would be respected and that criminals would go to jail, but that did not happen. The Liberals voted them down.”

“This bill should bring back mandatory minimum prison sentences for possessing and sharing child sexual abuse material. People who commit these crimes belong in jail, not back on the streets.”

“Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that in my speech, I referenced the fact that there were 23 men in Quebec who were in possession of over four million files of child sexual assault and exploitation material. One of the reasons Bill C‑16 is here is that the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory minimum for the possession and distribution of this type of material. If the Liberals were serious about restoring mandatory minimums, they would have restored that mandatory minimum to make sure that our children are protected. The last thing I want to see is those 23 men in Quebec being put back out on the street next week so that they can continue to create, distribute and monetize child sexual abuse and exploitation material. I do not want to see those kinds of people on the streets ever again. They belong in jail.”

• 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 agree that we should oppose this bill. When judges strike down mandatory minimum sentences, it is our job as members of Parliament to push back. Canadians want mandatory minimum sentences for these crimes.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for opposing this bill for valid and right reasons. I have a question. I agree with him and want to ask him if he can shed more light on this. He quoted a few recent decisions where the courts have turned down the minimum mandatory sentences. Is it not the duty of the parliamentarians sitting on this side of the House and on the government side of the House, when judges do wrong, to tell them this is not what people at large want or what Canadians want? The real desire of the people is to impose minimum mandatory—”

“I oppose this bill because it lets people serve house arrest for gun crimes like extortion. Violent criminals should face strict mandatory minimum prison sentences, not light punishments.”

“Madam Speaker, again, we are seeing so many different types of crimes becoming more and more prominent in our communities and on our streets. One that I referenced in my speech, for example, is extortion with a firearm. This is the kind of thing that a person can serve house arrest for, and the mandatory minimum can be circumvented because of this bill and clause 63. People who are terrorizing our streets should not be allowed to serve house arrest. They should not be given lenient sentences. A mandatory minimum with a high threshold would make sure that those people, and their victims, get justice.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support most of this bill. It protects women and children by punishing people who create fake nude images, commit sextortion, or kill their intimate partners. But I oppose a section that lets judges give shorter sentences for serious crimes. I move that the House adjourn for the day.”

“Madam Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge the strength of my colleague from the riding whose name is too long to mention tonight. Everyone knows who I am talking about. He is recovering from the cardiac issues he had this morning. The entire House stands behind him. I have received numerous messages from all parties, and I want to let him know that. He is a good person who deserves all our respect. I think we absolutely must send him positive vibes tonight. I saw him just two weeks ago, working out with my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix. He had been going strong for 20 minutes. He is usually bursting with energy, but one never knows. No one ever knows what is going on inside, when things might take a turn. I urge all men to be careful and to pay attention to the warning signs of these terrible heart diseases. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all of my colleges who reached out to me over the past few days about the matter I discussed with the media, a personal matter that happened back in 2025. Without repeating it here tonight, I simply want to thank all my colleagues from all the parties. I want to thank everyone who is going to support Bill C‑231 for David’s friends. I also want to thank all the people in their homes who agreed to tell me how things are for them now. We do not talk about it enough, or talk about it a lot. If I was able to bring certain people a little peace of mind by talking about it, then I will keep doing so. Members of the House certainly share the same desire to help and to do something for people in these kinds of situations, where drug use far exceeds our capacity as parents, or our capacity as young people, to cope with all the problems it can cause. That brings me to Bill C-16, which is a bill that we could have almost introduced ourselves. However, I want to stress the word “almost”. This bill aligns with many of the Conservative Party’s objectives, including protecting victims and putting criminals behind bars. It seeks to ensure that victims are properly recognized by the courts. It seeks to prohibit things that did not exist before but that came to be because of new technologies, including the much-discussed deepfakes. This week, we saw in Quebec newspapers that it takes only 10 minutes to create a deepfake nude image of a young girl. That is absolutely appalling. We have to put an end to these new technologies and, more importantly, stop those who are misusing them to cause harm to others. The ban on deepfakes, particularly when they target intimate partners, seeks to protect Canadians, particularly women, from the creation and distribution of non-consensual intimate images. It is very serious to create or distribute these kinds of photos of young girls without their consent. I hope people understand that. We are also pleased that the government picked up the proposal by my Conservative colleague contained in Bill C‑216. Some of that bill’s provisions seeking to introduce mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material were also incorporated into Bill C‑16, which will help better protect our children from the most heinous crimes. So far, all of my colleagues agree with these measures. We are also delighted that the calls of our justice critic to automatically have the murder of an intimate partner deemed a first-degree murder have been heard. This is important. This bill has made progress. We have succeeded in getting essential measures included in it. Finally, of course, we had a discussions and not all of the Conservatives’ proposals were picked up, even despite the government’s tendency to legislate on Conservative policy ideas since taking office, but that is another story that I will leave for the Liberals to debate among themselves. Although the government unfortunately rejected the proposal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for all types of extortion, the inclusion of an aggravating factor in sextortion cases is a step in the right direction, albeit insufficient. For the benefit of people watching at home, “sextortion” consists of using intimate images or intimate knowledge of a person to blackmail them, make them talk or make them do anything else. We absolutely must put a stop to it, and Bill C‑16 does just that. Unfortunately, the Liberals are the Liberals. There had to be something in the bill to prevent us from passing it unanimously in the House. What is it this time? It is clause 63. Clause 63 allows judges to avoid imposing minimum sentences and to exercise their discretion in cases of violent and serious crimes. This runs completely counter to everything I have just said. Judges will now be able to decide, based on their own discretion, experience or the circumstances, that a minimum sentence of five years, for example, will be reduced to just two or three years. As a result, certain people who should remain in prison will be released more quickly. I urge my Liberal colleagues to think about that. I think that we are very close to an agreement and that we could get something done that is good, together. We could pass Bill C‑16 if the Liberals got rid of that section. We would all agree. We all agree on the measures in Bill C‑16, but we do not want the Liberals to do what they have been doing for 11 years, that is, making life easier for criminals and making these crimes even more common. It is not that there are more criminals; it is that criminals are committing an increasing number of crimes because they are increasingly unafraid of justice. That is a fact. To give the Liberals time to reflect on this issue, to give them time to think about it and perhaps come back tomorrow with a clear proposal, I move: That the House do now adjourn.”