Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2026

Protecting Victims Act

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-16 today. It is timely for me and relevant to my constituency, which has recently been hit with more than our share of sexual assaults and child sexual assaults. I meet regularly with survivors of these crimes, and their stories are heartbreaking. They have informed me, educated me and inspired me. They have shared not just their insights and their tears of disappointment but tears of hope as well, hope that we can change the Criminal Code. I am humbled and proud to be their voice today in the House.

I have learned that, more often than not, perpetrators remain in the community, silently hiding, often repeating their crimes, only to be released again into the community. I have met survivors who move from place to place out of fear for themselves and for their own children. These survivors hide their identities, cannot trust people they do not know, and find it difficult to have relationships with and trust people they do know.

This is not theoretical. Survivors of child sexual abuse often live with trauma for decades, struggling with mental health, relationships, job security and trust. When repeat offenders are allowed back into communities too quickly or inconsistently, the justice system sends a devastating message to victims that their suffering is secondary to the comfort of the offender. Mandatory minimum sentences reverse that message. They say, clearly and unequivocally, that protecting children comes first.

People in the House know that I have risen countless times to talk about the horrendous assault of a three-year-old toddler in Welland, in my riding of Niagara South. The sexual assault of this little girl was an unspeakable act of cruelty that violates the most basic moral and human boundaries. What makes this crime worse is that the perpetrator had been released early from prison, after serving just one year in jail for raping a 12-year-old boy. Within just a few short weeks, this abhorrent excuse for a human being attacked little E in her own home, where she should have been safe from harm but was left for dead with horrifying and horrendous injuries. Such crimes demand not only our collective outrage but an unwavering commitment to protect children and hold offenders fully accountable.

I am not a lawyer, but my father was a Crown attorney and most of my preceding family members were police officers. My son Conrad is a first responder in Welland with the Welland Fire and Emergency Services. My entire family has witnessed atrocities from repeat offenders, and the images are forever etched in their minds and memory.

I had the opportunity to welcome my son's colleagues here on the floor of the House, shortly after the assault on this little girl in Welland. I believe it was cathartic for the firefighters, two of whom had been first on the scene of this appalling assault. We spent time in the chamber and talked about the magnitude of the tasks we undertake here. We spent over an hour talking about when legislation could be introduced to fix the system of repeat offenders being continually released.

They asked one fundamental question: Why did we tolerate a soft-on-crime approach for so long? We talked about ensuring that time in jail must be commensurate with the gravity of the crime. We talked about the relentless rise in violent crime that first responders endure while still stepping forward every day to protect and serve our communities. The emotions were high and the expectations even higher, but I fear that we have failed them yet again with Bill C-16. The legislation goes only halfway and does not provide certainty in minimum sentences for serious crimes.

There are few responsibilities more fundamental to a society than protecting its children. Children depend on adults, not only for care and guidance but for safety, especially from those who would exploit their vulnerability. When that trust is violated, the harm is profound, lifelong and often irreversible. That is why mandatory minimum sentences for repeat child sex offenders are not only justified but necessary. Little E deserves this. We owe it to her and to so many others.

Sadly, we had another arrest in my hometown of Port Colborne a few weeks ago, where the repeat offender was arrested on historic assault charges. This repeat offender actually played Santa Claus in my community and was well known as an entertainer.

Minimum sentences are not about vengeance. They are about protection, accountability and prevention. First, we must confront the hard truth that repeat child sex offenders have already demonstrated that previous punishment, supervision or rehabilitation efforts were not sufficient to stop their behaviour. The first conviction may involve some uncertainty, with questions about rehabilitation, treatment or the possibility of change. However, a second or third offence removes that uncertainty. It shows a pattern, and when a pattern involves the repeat sexual abuse of children, society has a moral obligation to respond deliberately and decisively.

Mandatory minimum sentences provide that decisive response. Subjective wiggle room in Bill C-16 is not decisive. Instead, it creates uncertainty where clarity is required and discretion where firmness is needed. Research consistently shows that repeat offenders pose a significantly higher risk of re-offending.

Second, mandatory minimums promote consistency and fairness in sentencing. Without them, sentencing outcomes can vary widely depending on the jurisdiction, the judge and the ability to have counsel who may have a more dynamic set of legal skills. It is conceivable that offenders with nearly identical records can receive drastically different sentences. That inconsistency undermines public trust in the justice system and leaves victims feeling that justice is arbitrary.

Bill C-16 allows a situation where similar crimes can end with drastically different consequences, creating uncertainty for both victims and those charged with enforcing the law. Mandatory minimums establish a clear baseline. They do not eliminate judicial discretion entirely, but they ensure that repeat offences are met with serious, predictable consequences.

Third, mandatory minimums serve as a powerful deterrent. While no law can stop every crime, the certainty of severe consequences does influence behaviour. Critics argue that mandatory minimums remove flexibility and emphasize punishment over rehabilitation. That points to the flaw in this legislation. For example, it states:

When imposing a sentence for an offence that has a minimum punishment of a specified term of imprisonment, a court shall impose a shorter term of imprisonment than the specified term if, in the circumstances, the minimum punishment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender.

In other words, if Parliament's baseline jail term for any particular crime feels too extreme, a judge can simply decide on a new minimum. The rules for what counts as cruel punishment are murky at best, and make no mistake, this will be the first argument in every trial going forward.

Finally, minimum sentences must reflect our values as a society. Laws are not just rules; they are statements of what we prioritize. When we impose minimum mandatory sentences for repeat child sex offenders, we are saying that children's safety outweighs convenience, cost or discomfort. A society is judged on how it protects those who cannot protect themselves. On this issue, we must choose clarity over hesitation, safety over leniency, and justice over excuses.

I mentioned the survivors I meet with regularly in my office in Welland. These inspirational and brave women will be coming to Ottawa on May 26 to talk to us, tell us their stories and urge further movement to ensure stricter sentencing, the removal of easy bail procedures and the necessity of minimum sentences. Most importantly, they will urge us to release the national sex offender registry as a measure to protect victims. I am looking forward to welcoming Alicia, Melissa, Liz, Tammy, Alysa, Ashley and other brave women who have survived sexual assault and who have shown extraordinary strength in their healing, resilience and willingness to stand in community with one another.

To sum up these remarks, minimum sentencing is necessary to ensure accountability and communicate that these crimes are taken seriously by the justice system. That is how we protect victims. Conservatives will continue to be the advocate for survivors like these brave women from my riding, and we will not stop until repeat offenders actually get a sentence commensurate with the crime, and the registry is made public.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important for all members of all political parties to realize that when we talk about the issue of crime, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians in an election platform, and we have substantial legislation before us.

We can talk about Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-14 or Bill C-16, the debate that we are having today. Bill C-14 is bail reform legislation. Bill C-16 reinstates mandatory minimums. All of these are important pieces of legislation, and the Conservative Party, for whatever reason, continues to not allow that legislation, as a package, to pass. The Conservatives want to filibuster it. If the member is genuinely concerned about fighting crime in Canada, why are Conservatives filibustering this important legislation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

The hon. member for Niagara South.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could have anticipated that question before I stood up.

We are not filibustering anything. I am a new member of Parliament. I have a right to stand in this House. I am not on the justice committee, which this bill would be referred to. We are only putting up four speakers today on this bill. As a new member of Parliament, and with these crimes committed in my riding, I have a right to stand here and speak on behalf of my constituents.

The member should be ashamed of himself for suggesting I should not be standing up and talking about this on behalf of the victims in my riding. It is a shameful question, and he should be ashamed of himself.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a lot of issues related to the Criminal Code.

However, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this because it once again raises the issue of the fiscal imbalance. We can pass all the bills we want, but the bottom line is that Quebec and the provinces are the ones responsible for the administration of justice. It is important for the House to pass legislation, but it is also important to recognize that we then need to transfer funds to Quebec and the provinces so that they are able to administer their justice systems. As my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord rightly said, it is all well and good for us to pass this bill, but if the fiscal imbalance continues, then Quebec and the provinces may not have the means to implement all the laws.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point, but I would again point out that one of the issues in this legislation, the wiggle room in Bill C-16 with respect to judicial discretion on changing sentences on mandatory minimums, creates a greater imbalance.

Someone can have a very talented lawyer who knows the system better than others but may be less fortunate and not able to have adequate representation. To me, that is the bigger flaw in the system and in this bill. I hope that at committee, my colleagues on all sides will discuss this in depth because it is a serious question. If we provide counsel with wiggle room because of lawyers not being able to argue strenuously, I think we have a bigger problem.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a little indulgence first. I want to inform the House and all Canadians that Canada's most famous weather prognosticator for 70 years, Wiarton Willie, predicted an early spring this morning.

I want to thank my colleague for sharing the personal stories of victims across Canada, but also in his riding, who have been victimized as a result of the Liberal soft-on-bail regime over the last decade.

I do want to recognize that this bill would fix certain things and that our party has committed to working with the government. Unfortunately, the government has put in a poison pill.

Does the member think that when this bill gets to committee the government will listen to the other parties, including the Conservative side, to split the bill so that we can address those shortfalls in the legislation?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is saying we are filibustering and not co-operating.

[An hon. member]

You are.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

That is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, splitting a bill so that we can get important pieces of a bill through, so it becomes law, is not an unreasonable suggestion. We have already done it in this session. We are not filibustering or delaying. We are here to co-operate on good pieces of legislation. As my colleague said, there are good parts of this legislation, but I am hoping the committee will bring forward some amendments to make it a better bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will get a chance to speak to Bill C-16. I was initially concerned that the government had created a weakening and was going back to mandatory minimums.

If one does research on mandatory minimums, one finds that far from being effective at reducing crime rates, they are completely ineffective. We find that mandatory minimums increase disproportionate treatment within prisons. It is one of the reasons the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended we get rid of them. If we look at every report from the Department of Justice or the Parliamentary Centre, they find that mandatory minimums do not work, so I am worried about Bill C-16.

I am going to close here and ask if the hon. member has looked at the research that says mandatory minimums are simply ineffective.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tell that to the little girl's family, that when Daniel Senecal was released after serving one year for raping a 12-year-old boy, that one-year sentence was adequate. Tell that to the community that is hurting. We have to have mandatory minimums for serious repeat offenders. There is just no question about it. I do not care what the stats say. When we get down to repeat child sex offenders, there must be a mandatory minimum.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-16. It is an important bill, and it is quite disturbing to hear the Liberal parliamentary secretary saying we are filibustering. We are putting up four speakers, a one-hour debate, and he is saying we are trying to push back. We are doing our job. We are here to say where things are good and where there needs to be improvement. That is our job. The Liberals would just prefer that we do not do our job on behalf of Canada. I just wanted to begin with that.

We believe that job one for the federal government is public safety and security. Historically, Canada has been known as a peaceful and safe place to live. As a matter of fact, in the 1867 Constitution Act, the words are “Peace, Order, and good Government”. That is what Canadians should expect from the federal government: peace, for public safety; order, for rule of law; and good government, as in competent.

Canada has been known for a number of symbols internationally. The one that is probably most famous is the maple leaf. It is on our flags, everywhere. The second one that would probably be most known internationally would be the RCMP with his red serge, or her red serge, and possibly on one of the horses.

I remember the first time I visited Ottawa. This was in 1973. I came on a school trip from Chibougamau, Quebec. I was very impressed with the buildings and the city. I never dreamed of one day being able to represent the Canadian people as a member of Parliament, specifically the residents of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and Mission, whom I thank for having re-elected me for a third term. I remember in 1973, when I was here, actually getting a coin, a 25¢ coin, and it was the centennial of the formation of the RCMP, which was originally the North-West Mounted Police.

The reason I bring this up is that the North-West Mounted Police, which later became the RCMP, came and brought order in the west of Canada. There was one fort that members may be aware of, Fort Whoop-Up, where whisky traders from the United States were making a mockery of justice in that part of Canada, so the NWMP was establishing order.

Canada has been known as a peaceful place and a safe place, but this has changed dramatically under the Liberals. I have many interesting conversations with Uber drivers, including late last night. I got in, and the fellow was an immigrant; he told me he was from Brazil. I asked him why he moved here. He said he moved here about nine years ago. He said a big thing for him was safety and security; that was the first thing. I said, “Oh, really?” However, he said things have changed, things are changing here in Canada. He says he sees the crime going up, people going to stores, grabbing things, and the police do not seem to be doing anything.

It was very disappointing to hear this. Canadians are not just making this up. They are not misinformed. Let us look at Statistics Canada since 2015. I choose 2015 because that is the year the Liberals came into power. Human trafficking is up 80%. Sexual assault is up 74%. Violent crime is up more than 50%. I can roll off mathematical percentages, but those stats represent thousands, hundreds of thousands, of victims in our country.

As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I see violent crime is, again, up 50% to 85,000 incidences. Sexual assaults are up 97% to 4,396 incidences. Extortion is up 482%, almost 500%, or 2,885 cases in one year. This is under the Liberals. Government makes a difference. Brenda Locke, the mayor of Surrey, asked the government to invoke the Emergencies Act because the police are overwhelmed. People are fleeing the country. There are killings. We had never heard of this sort of thing beforehand. What is going on?

In B.C., again, sexual violations against children are up 294% since the Liberals have been in power, to 2,581 cases. Luring children on a computer has gone up 18 times, to 1,406 incidents. Distributing child pornography is up 776%. This is insane. These are Statistics Canada's numbers. People are afraid on transit, in their neighbourhoods, in their homes and the downtown core. Crime did not rise on its own. It rose because of deliberate Liberal choices and legislation. The deliberate Liberal laws have undermined public safety.

What sort of things have they done to undermine it? They say we have Bill C-16, and they are all about safety, order and criminal justice. Well, they have a track record. Under catch-and-release bail, they let criminals go under the least onerous conditions. One-third of homicides in Canada are committed by criminals out on bail. The partner of Bailey McCourt from Kelowna was charged with domestic violence and released on bail. He found the young mother of two in a parking lot and killed her in cold blood two hours later. We have talked about this at different times. The Conservatives brought forward Bailey's law. There are stories across Canada. I talked to the grandmother, who lives in my riding. She told me that she was with Bailey when she took her first breath and she was with her when she took the last breath of life. She is grieving.

The Liberals also deliberately repealed mandatory minimum sentences. They have claimed that mandatory minimums violate the charter, and the Supreme Court upheld it. There are over 100 mandatory minimums, and they are constitutional. There are weak consequences for violent offenders. There have been 50,000 apprehensions of 40 people in Vancouver in one year. It is a cycle. Police ask me: What is the use? That is under the Liberals' watch. They cannot just wave around Bill C-16 and tell Canadians that everything is good now. They have the wrong criminal justice priorities.

There is the gun buyback program. Conservatives believe in keeping Canadians safe from criminals, and the Liberals believe in keeping turkeys safe from hunters. One frontline police officer wrote me and said, “As a police officer, I don't get to voice my opinion publicly. I was hired to enforce the law, not comment on politics.” He felt compelled to email me. He said the Liberal firearm buyback program is a political distraction, a waste of resources and a danger to public safety. Those were his comments as a frontline professional. Meanwhile, those smuggling guns, repeat offenders and violent criminals walk free. That is not public safety; that is optics.

Now the Liberals wonder why Canadians have lost trust. Bill C-16 needs to be judged in this context. It does not exist in a vacuum. There is every sign of the Liberals calling a snap election, including comments by the member who said Conservatives are filibustering. They are trying to develop a line. They have their trump card, their ace card. It is like they are battering a door in an arena with a flag, getting people riled up. The thing is, though, that they realize they have some vulnerabilities, and one of their biggest vulnerabilities is that they know Canadians are very concerned about public safety.

Conservatives support some of the language, some of the things the bill has brought forward, because they are actually Conservative. However, the Liberals have a poison pill. If I had another 20 minutes, I could show how they could very well make things a lot worse for Canadians with this bill. It needs to be changed and to be split. I hope the Liberals will take our advice. We are going to pass Bill C-16 on to committee stage. I very much hope they will take the Conservative recommendations to split the bill and debate our meaningful amendments.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's mentioning the RCMP. My father-in-law, Mike Renchko, is a very proud retired RCMP member.

Of course, the protecting victims act we are debating today is about protecting people against gender-based violence and intimate partner violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims' rights and addressing court delays. If there is anything before the House that the members opposite should support, it is this.

However, with our anti-crime bills, strengthening sentencing, bail reform, the anti-hate act, and protecting women and children, when these bills go to committee, they are actively blocked over and over again by the members opposite. Why is that? It is so the members opposite can stand up in the House and continue to grandstand and to fundraise off their actions.

When will the members opposite stop the excuses and support the anti-crime legislation that is before the House right now?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like everything the Liberals do, this is about optics and about words. When we dig into it, we see that it is fake, like we are seeing with a lot of their projects. They have said that something is going to happen, but nothing is happening. The Conservatives are very concerned about this.

It is not about the language being used, because we agree with many of the concerns being brought forward. The language sounds great until we get deeper into the bill and read what is said, buried in the provisions. There is a provision that would allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums if they decide that the sentence would be cruel and unusual. That may sound compassionate, but it is not. It would invite endless litigation and a steady erosion of sentencing law.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that Ottawa writes the Criminal Code, but the provinces are the ones that administer justice. If we really want justice for victims, then we need a justice system that works. That takes courthouses, courtrooms, stenographers and bailiffs. It takes resources.

Does my colleague agree that the federal government is not doing enough to fund the justice system and to help the provinces better fund the justice system? Until Ottawa provides more funding to help the provinces better administer their justice systems, victims will be the ones who suffer, regardless of what legislation we pass and how good it may be.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

This demonstrates the importance of the economy and how the federal government manages the economy. It has been completely flat for the past ten years under the Liberals. We do not have the resources to do what we should be doing and to invest more, perhaps, in health, security, transportation and all that.

What are they doing? They are running ever-larger deficits and the debt is growing. This is terrible for Canadians.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I want to dispel the canard that is coming from the Liberal side. The Liberals say the Conservatives want to filibuster bills. However, when the Liberals were debating Bill C-9 in committee, a highly divisive bill, the Conservatives said no fewer than 20 times that we wanted to talk about bail. The Liberals have the audacity to stand up in the House and say that we are filibustering crime legislation, when we begged them to talk about crime legislation, not just in December in committee but for the last 10 years.

When will the hypocrisy end? What does my friend think?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point from my colleague. We warned the Liberals during the debate on Bill C-5 that repealing mandatory minimums would increase crime and undermine trust, but we were mocked by them four years ago.

Since then, crime is up and fear is up, and Bill C-16 would not correct the course; it would accelerate it. There are some changes, but the bill could be a lot better if the Liberals would take some of our amendments and apply them, and Canadians would be better off because of that.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. This is my first time rising substantially in the House since the winter break, so before I begin, I do want to recognize a number of people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I want to recognize a life well lived by Rocco Russo, who recently passed. He was a member of my Italian cultural centre, known colloquially as the Colombo Lodge. Left to mourn him are his wife, Cheryl; his children, Christopher, Michael and Robert; and his siblings Sam, Aldo and Sylvia. Rocco gave a great deal to the Colombo Lodge and to the community. He was beloved in the community. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I also learned that, regrettably, Ms. Helen Barnett passed away over the Christmas break. Helen was somebody I got to know when I worked at my first law firm after articling, where I worked with her husband, Francis. Helen gave a tremendous amount to the city of Kamloops, sitting on council and school boards, and working with all sorts of community organizations. She had a vivacious personality, and I am so grateful to have known her. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I was saddened to learn over the holidays of the death of Antonio Spada at 97 years old. Antonio leaves behind to mourn him his wife, Serafina; his children, Joseph and Angie; and his sister Felicia. I have gotten to know the Spada family through the Potestio family, and I can say that Antonio leaves behind a tremendous legacy. If legacy is demonstrated based on what we see following someone's death, following a tremendous life well lived, then we can say that Antonio lived a tremendous life and will be missed. I extend my deepest condolences to Antonio's family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I was saddened to learn over the holidays that Alice Desmond passed away. The Desmond family members were pillars of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. In fact in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola there is a street called Desmond Street. I actually worked as a prosecutor with one of Alice's children, Lynett, before she was elevated to the bench. She is now Judge Jung. The family legacy of Alice and her late husband, Pat, cannot be overstated.

Alice leaves to mourn her sisters Evelyn, Edith and Brenda; and her daughters Nola, Tannis, Lynett and Shannon and their families. In fact my best man was named Desmond Sanesh after Alice Desmond and the Desmond family. May perpetual light shine upon her. I extend my deepest condolences to her family.

I was deeply saddened to learn of the death of “Dar” Hastings in the 100 Mile House area. She was 83 years old. She gave so much work to the public and to democracy, and she was a great help. She delivered on what she believed, standing up for her values in so many ways. I cannot overstate all that she did. I had the opportunity to visit her in hospital some time ago, which I am grateful for. She really contributed to the life and vitality of the 100 Mile House area, which was part of my riding when I was first elected. She leaves behind her partner, Al Smith; her children, Paige and Tom, as well as Wade and Brian; and her sisters Candice and Jane. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I have a lot to say. Far be it from me to have a lot to say; I am sure a lot of people do, and I often do have a lot to say here.

So much of what the government is doing comes down to trust. I was reflecting on trust in criminal justice, and I do not have a lot of trust in the government when it comes to justice. I do not have a lot of trust in the government, period, and I will give the following example.

In pre-budget consultations, I sent the Minister of Finance nine letters about Sun Peaks, a community in my riding that has tremendous housing issues. I sent the minister a letter about the housing. In fact, I have sent three emails to the Minister of Housing. This was in private email; for the people at home, I will explain that we have a back channel for private emails, which members communicate with but we do not make public. However, not once has he even given the courtesy of a reply. In fact, I asked him whether he even got my emails, to which he gave what I would call a lame excuse.

How do we trust a government on criminal justice, when we cannot trust them on the basics like housing? The people of Sun Peaks are wondering when they will get their answer.

What about the people of Merritt? Again, we talk about trust in the government, and the Liberals say to trust them on justice, but they would not respond to my letter about Merritt, which experienced tremendous, catastrophic, flooding prior to becoming part of my riding. The provincial government pledged well over $100 million. The then prime minister and a number of ministers here, some of whom are ministers from Justin Trudeau's government, went there and told the people of Merritt that they would have their back.

How much have the Liberals contributed? It is $5 million; that is it. They were going to have their back for the photo op, but when it came to giving money, they were nowhere to be seen. That is why, when we think about examples of the government and trust, there is an erosion of trust.

I want to turn to something that has been mentioned in the House: the notion of filibustering the bill. In my view, this is the worst kind of politics, because it is actively misleading the public, and here is why. We as Conservatives have been accused of filibustering this and other crime legislation—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member just said that I have been. Let us talk about that.

Where was the member on Bill C-14 when we were at committee studying Bill C-9, which is a highly contentious bill that I bet the government does not have the guts to bring forward again? It was so contentious and so divisive that we, as Conservatives, asked to shelve Bill C-9 so we could move to Bill C-14, a bail bill. We actually asked the government to move forward on that bill. What did the Liberals do? They stuck with Bill C-9. How are we filibustering bills, when we are asking them to bring forward bills?

I am the last of four speakers today. We are debating the bill. Last time I checked, in the House of Commons, we debate. We could put up more speakers, because I bet no one else is going to rise to debate it, so again, why is there a narrative about filibustering? At the end of the day, we are actually saying that Bill C-16 has elements we are agreeable to and elements that we do not necessarily agree with.

However, in a democratic society, it is so important to debate these ideas, such as mandatory minimum sentences, which I have been quoted on. It was quite complimentary to hear that, and I would love to further debate the idea of a mandatory minimum sentence with a safety valve for cruel and unusual punishment, and what that means.

Would we adopt the common law definition of “cruel and unusual”? Would Parliament itself legislate something about cruel and unusual punishment, to do exactly what we need to do, which is to say that mandatory minimums should apply 99.99% of the time, and this is what the other 0.01% of the time looks like? That is what we want to do. That is why the bill would go to committee.

I really hope the Liberals stop with their rhetoric, because it is wrong and it is incorrect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged, to a certain degree, because it takes a lot of bravery for the member to go against what his leader is saying. He believes that a safety valve is an effective tool. That is what he has said on the record. I can appreciate that his leader and the entire Conservative caucus disagree.

On the issue of filibustering, let us be very clear that we would have bail legislation today, had it not been for the filibustering the Conservative Party has done on Bill C-14. There are four substantial pieces of legislation dealing with the crime file, which is important to the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of the House. Canadians are also concerned about getting crime bills passed.

The Conservative Party continues to filibuster. Why?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Just because somebody says it, and says it loudly, that does not make it true, Mr. Speaker.

At the end of the day, there is a minority government. Its job is to put legislation forward that makes sense. God forbid that we in this place debate legislation. It is our job to debate legislation. What the member calls filibustering, I call the democratic process. How dare the Liberals accuse us of filibustering when we are doing our job?

They think we should walk in here and give them their agenda without question. That is what the NDP did with Bill C-5, and look where that got us.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Jordan decision, when the Supreme Court determined what constituted a reasonable time frame in which to try an accused, criminals who have committed serious crimes have been released into the community due to a lack of judicial resources. This is unacceptable.

Under the bill, relaxed criteria would allow judges to reassess the reasonable time frame issue. Ultimately, we need to understand that the provinces lack the financial resources to build more courtrooms, hire more prosecutors, hire more clerks, hire more stenographers and have more resources. This bill is not a permanent solution to the problem, but it is a good temporary step.

Does my colleague agree that the federal government needs to do more since it is responsible for the Criminal Code, but the provinces have to pay for the administration of justice?