Larry Brock · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

2026-06-03

“I want to talk a lot about the good things we added to this criminal law bill. Then I want to complain about the one part that makes all the minimum penalties optional. Judges shouldn't be able to go below the minimum just because they think it's a special case. That weakens everything. Conservatives tried to limit the worst parts but the government said no to all of it. Mandatory should mean mandatory, so I'm moving to delete the part that makes them all optional.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the fine residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I sincerely thank them every opportunity I get for the trust they have placed in me as their representative for two consecutive elections. Let me start my remarks today by stressing, and I cannot stress this enough, that there are significant positive measures contained within Bill C-16. It is a position that we have maintained from the outset. Conservatives have worked constructively at committee and successfully improved the bill in several important respects. For example, we strengthened protections for children by improving provisions relating to child sexual offences. We successfully increased penalties where intimate images are knowingly created during or immediately following an aggravated sexual assault. We also successfully expanded the definition of intimate images to include AI-generated deepfakes or nearly nude images. We also required courts to order the deletion of illicit intimate image material within 48 hours. Our amendment to strengthen victims' rights by expanding access to information under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights also passed, which is a particular measure, I might add, that has been called for by victim groups and victims themselves for a number of years. These were all meaningful Conservative amendments that were accepted by the government and, in my respectful opinion, have improved Bill C-16. All of them were worthwhile reforms. These reforms would better protect victims. These are reforms that, most assuredly, would better protect children, and these are reforms that Conservatives were proud to support. Unfortunately, it is time to talk about the elephant in the room. It is a very large elephant, and it was a red line that we, as Conservatives, continually pushed back and tried our best to move the government to relent on because of its dangerous implications. That provision is clause 63 of the bill, which is the so-called safety valve. The government describes this as a modest safeguard, but in practical terms, it renders virtually every mandatory minimum penalty in the Criminal Code optional. What is important to realize here is that there are dozens of mandatory minimum penalties currently within the Criminal Code that have withstood charter scrutiny and were upheld as charter compliant. The so-called safety valve, which would apply to all of those mandatory minimum penalties in the code, would weaken the Criminal Code, weaken sentencing regimes and weaken protection for victims. It would render virtually every mandatory minimum penalty optional. If they can be simply ignored, they are no longer mandatory. They merely become suggestions. Parliament created MMPs for the most serious offences because Canadians expect certain crimes to carry certain consequences. Parliament determined that some conduct is so serious that it warrants minimum periods of imprisonment. It made that determination after consultation and hearing directly from victims, communities and the public. Bill C-16 would undermine that. Under the bill, judges would be empowered to bypass those MMPs for some of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code. This would include human trafficking, extortion involving firearms, weapons trafficking, serious firearm offences, drive-by shootings and restricted or prohibited firearms. These are serious crimes that are devastating lives, families and communities every single day. Human trafficking victims suffer unimaginable exploitation. Victims of aggravated sexual assault carry lifelong trauma. Communities terrorized by armed extortion deserve protections. Families affected by gang violence deserve protections. Canadians simply deserve more from the weak Liberal government. Parliament established mandatory minimum penalties for these crimes because Parliament had long recognized their gravity. The government now asks us to maintain the words while removing the substance. We ought not to be fooled by that approach. Mandatory should mean mandatory, full stop. If the government truly believes mandatory minimum penalties remain necessary, then they should remain mandatory. If it does not believe they are necessary, let us be honest with Canadians and repeal them outright. Instead, the Liberals have chosen the worst of both worlds. They are claiming to preserve MMPs while simultaneously creating a legal mechanism to avoid them. We tried our best as Conservatives to improve this provision at committee. We proposed reasonable guardrails. We proposed limiting access to the safety valve to offenders with no prior criminal record. That was defeated. We proposed ensuring offenders could not receive less than one half of the mandatory minimum sentence. That, too, was defeated. We proposed excluding aggravated sexual assault. It was defeated. Excluding extortion offences was defeated. Excluding serious child sexual offences was defeated. Excluding major trafficking offences was defeated. I do not know what is so funny about what I was indicating there, but the Liberals are laughing at my speech. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Larry Brock: The fact of the matter is that the truth hurts, Madam Secretary of State. Mr. Speaker, we proposed excluding the most serious offences that Parliament had already identified as deserving MMPs. Every one was rejected. The government rejected every safeguard and every limit. It rejected every attempt to narrow the scope of the safety valve. The result now is that the floodgates would be completely open. Let the litigation begin, and let the charter applications begin. All of those applicants will declare, “Oh, Your Honour, I can't have a mandatory minimum penalty because that would be cruel and unusual punishment.” That would happen each and every time. My question is simple: If the government trusted its own proposal, why did it refuse every safeguard the Conservatives proposed? If it believed the mechanism would only be used in exceptional cases, why refuse to define exceptional cases? The government's justification rests largely on concerns arising from constitutional litigation surrounding MMPs, yet the Supreme Court itself remains divided on that issue. In the recent Senneville decision, the dissenting judge, Chief Justice Wagner, emphasized that courts must be cautious when relying on hypothetical scenarios to invalidate legislation. The Supreme Court warned against hypothetical scenarios that are fanciful, unrealistic, speculative, extreme or remotely connected to the actual facts before the court. It reminded us all that there are limits to what can properly be considered as reasonable hypotheticals. We proposed an amendment that would have required courts to focus on the actual offender before them, rather than hypotheticals. Again, Liberals voted against that amendment. Dissenting judges also reminded us that child sexual offences require strong denunciation and deterrence. They reminded us that society's condemnation of offences against children must be reflected consistently and rigorously in sentencing. Parliament determined that denunciation and deterrence matters. It has determined that public safety matters and that victims matter. The Liberals are now asking Parliament to walk away from these decisions. Conservatives will not do that. It is for that reason that at this time I move an amendment, standing in my name, to delete clause 63 of Bill C-16, the provision that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum penalty in the Criminal Code. This is to be seconded by the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Justice

2026-06-01

“I want the government to put more people in jail and keep them there. I don't like that some criminals can serve sentences at home. I want to make that impossible. My party is tough on crime! We need even more mandatory minimum sentences!”

Oral Questions

Justice

2026-05-25

“The other party is bad. Crime is high and everyone is scared. The government isn't tough enough on crime. We need tougher laws and longer jail times.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“The Prime Minister and minister say they acted swiftly. Did they really? If not, maybe they don't think this is important.”

Statements by Members

Fuel Taxes

2026-04-30

“Canadians pay too much for gasoline because of high taxes. I don't like the Liberals' temporary gimmick. Conservatives proposed eliminating the federal fuel tax for a year. That would save people 25 cents per litre. Liberals voted to keep high fuel taxes. High fuel taxes make groceries and deliveries cost more too. Conservatives would actually reduce the burden. People shouldn't have to choose between driving and eating.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are still getting hammered at the pump and these Liberals are making it worse. They know Canadians are struggling and they are still taxing more. Instead of real relief, they offer a gimmick, a third of the relief for a third of the year. Meanwhile, families are paying more for everything because Liberal taxes are driving up the cost of living. This is the reality: Higher fuel costs mean higher grocery bills. Every truck, every delivery, every shelf price goes up and Canadians are the ones paying the price. When Conservatives put forward a plan to scrap all federal fuel taxes for the year, cutting costs by 25¢ per litre and saving families over $1,200, these Liberals voted to keep those taxes in place. This was a choice by the Liberals to keep taking more from Canadians when they can least afford it. Conservatives are offering real relief, a full plan for a full tank. Canadians should not have to choose between filling up their car and feeding their family.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act

2026-04-24

“I want Canadians to thank jurors more. I hope that makes jurors feel better. It won't change much else.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the good residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for placing their trust in me to be their voice. This particular speech has some special significance to me. As a former justice participant, I probably participated in close to 50 jury trials. I personally know the importance, the sacrifices and all the consequences that flow from serving on a jury. It could be a couple of days, it could be several weeks or it could be several months, depending on the circumstances. I could not be prouder as a representative of the House of Commons, given my background, to support this particular bill. The bill itself may appear modest in scope, but carries profound meaning for our justice system, our democracy and the everyday Canadians who uphold both. At its core, Bill S-226 would designate the second week of May each year as jury duty appreciation week across Canada. Some may ask why such a recognition matters. Why designate a week for something that has long existed as a civic obligation? The answer, is simple: Jury service is not just a duty, it is a cornerstone of justice in a free and democratic society and, like many cornerstones, it is often overlooked until we pause to reflect on its importance. Every year, thousands of Canadians are called upon to serve as jurors. They come from all walks of life; they are teachers, tradespeople, parents, students and retirees. They are not legal experts. They are not politicians. They are citizens, ordinary individuals, entrusted with an extraordinary responsibility to weigh evidence, to assess credibility and ultimately determine the fate of another human being within our criminal justice system. That responsibility is immense. Jurors are often asked to listen, sometimes for weeks or months, to testimony that can be disturbing, emotional and deeply challenging. They set aside personal biases, they follow strict legal instructions and they deliberate with fairness and integrity. In doing so, they safeguard one of the most fundamental principles of our legal system: the right to trial by a jury of one's peers. Without jurors, our justice system simply cannot function as intended. This bill recognizes that reality. Its preamble clearly states that jury duty is a vital component of our justice system and our democracy. That is not symbolic language. It is a statement of fact. Yet, despite this critical role, jurors often serve in relative anonymity. They are rarely publicly acknowledged. Their contributions are seldom celebrated. Too often, the challenges they face, particularly those related to mental health and financial strain, are not completely addressed. We must be honest about the burdens of jury service. Serving on a jury can mean time away from work, lost income and disruptions to family life. In some cases, jurors are exposed to traumatic evidence, graphic details, distressing images and heartbreaking testimony. These experiences do not simply disappear when a trial ends. For many jurors, the psychological impact lingers. The bill speaks directly to that issue. It highlights the well-being and mental health of jurors who are paramount to the proper functioning of our justice system. A justice system that relies on jurors must also support them. Recognition is not a substitute for reform, but it is a necessary step. By establishing jury duty appreciation week, we would create an opportunity to raise awareness about the realities of jury service, to encourage conversation about juror supports and to remind Canadians that this civic duty deserves respect and attention. Some may argue that a commemorative week is merely symbolic, and that it does not change policy, funding or programs. While it is true that the bill would not create new financial supports or legal mechanisms, it is, at its heart, an act of recognition. Symbolism matters in a democracy. We designate days and weeks not because they solve problems overnight, but because they focus our collective attention. They educate. They inspire dialogue. They affirm shared values. Let us think of the many observations we already recognize. These observations shape public consciousness. They remind us of who we are and what we value as a nation. Jury duty appreciation week would do the same. It would shine a light on a civic responsibility that is often misunderstood or undervalued. It would encourage Canadians to see jury service not as an inconvenience, but as a meaningful contribution to justice. It would signal to those who have served that their efforts are seen, respected and appreciated. There is also an educational dimension to the bill. The preamble notes that designating a week of appreciation would help educate citizens, organizations and governments about the issues involved in fulfilling this duty. Many Canadians have a limited understanding of how juries work, what juries experience and why their role is so essential. The week could serve as a catalyst for public education through schools, community organizations and media, helping to demystify the process and strengthen public confidence in our justice system. Confidence matters. A justice system is only as strong as the trust people place in it. When Canadians understand and respect the role of jurors, they are more likely to view the system as fair, transparent and legitimate. We must also consider the broader democratic principle at stake. Jury service is one of the most direct ways citizens participate in governance. It is democracy in action. It is a reminder that justice is not imposed from above, but delivered by the people. In an era where trust in our institutions is fragile, reinforcing this connection between citizens and the justice system is more important than ever. The bill does exactly that. It affirms that jurors are not peripheral actors. They are central to the administration of justice. It acknowledges that their service is not only necessary but honourable, and it invites all Canadians to reflect on the value of this civic duty. I would also like to recognize the efforts of those who brought the bill forward. Originally introduced in the Senate and now before the House, the bill reflects years of advocacy and a growing recognition that jurors deserve greater acknowledgement. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a regional issue. It is a national issue, one that touches every province, every territory and every Canadian who may one day be called to serve. As members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to uphold the institutions that underpin our democracy. Those include our courts, our laws and the citizens who bring them to life. Passing this bill would be a small but meaningful step in that direction. It would send a clear message that Canada values its jurors, that we recognize their sacrifices and that we are committed to supporting them not only in words but in spirit. In closing, let us remember that justice is not an abstract concept. It is carried out by real people with real lives, who step forward when called upon to serve. They do so quietly, they do so diligently and they do so without expectation of recognition. It is high time we change that. Let us give the jurors the recognition they deserve.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-04-24

“Government spends too much. Inflation is high. I want the Prime Minister to spend less.”

“The government spends too much. It makes debt and inflation. The Prime Minister spends a lot. He doubles Trudeau's deficit. He adds billions in new spending. Then debt costs us billions every year. More than health transfers! A big institute says spending too much hurts our economy. I think spending too much makes Canadians poor. I want the government to stop reckless spending. Will next week's fiscal update doom Canadians to more of the same?”