So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22

Nov/24/22 2:48:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our justice minister is tone deaf. Despite their arbitrary bans and complicated buyback program, gun crime has gone up steadily every year since the Liberals were elected. Gun smugglers, drug traffickers, drive-by shooters and kidnappers can thank the Liberal government, because now they can serve their sentence in the comfort of their own homes. Once again, will the Liberals stop their soft-on-crime policy and focus on making our streets safer?

75 words

Context: House Hansard - 104 - Sep/28/22

Nov/24/22 2:47:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are terrified. Last year we witnessed the largest number of murders in Canadian history. Fifteen Canadians are being murdered every single week. Since the Prime Minister took office, gang-related killings have doubled. Instead of fighting crime with tougher punishments, the Liberals are making it easier for criminals to get back on our streets to reoffend. Will the Liberal government stop its soft-on-crime agenda?

69 words

Sep/28/22 3:11:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals formed government, serious violent crime has substantially increased. Homicides alone are up 30%. This is a direct result of the government's soft-on-crime agenda and lack of empathy toward victims. Now, thanks to Bill C-5, weapons trafficking, robbery with a firearm, drive-by shootings, fentanyl trafficking and kidnapping will no longer be punishable by mandatory sentences. Why does the government continue to advocate for criminals while recklessly neglecting the rights of victims?

80 words

Jun/9/22 1:02:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, again,what we are continually hearing from the NDP and the Greens is very frustrating. They want to change the story and turn the page on what Bill C-5 is all about. Bill C-5, for the last time, is not about simple possession. This is a news release to the House: It is not. I am not going to respond—

65 words

Jun/9/22 1:00:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, perhaps it was lost in translation, but that particular statement in my speech was a rhetorical question put to the government because that is the type of language the government is using. The focus of my speech was not on those who are struggling with drug addiction. Our entire focus as a Conservative caucus, even in our platform in the last election, is all about taking steps to address rehabilitation. The focus of my speech and the focus of our opposition is on traffickers who are encouraging these individuals to continue their addictions, and that is where our focus ought to be.

104 words

Jun/9/22 12:58:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I reflect on this often, and I often hear from government members, NDP members and Green members that we Conservative members can all calm down because the bill would keep communities safe. They say we can trust our judges to always do the right thing. However, judges come from various backgrounds, which is why we have a myriad of different judgements from across this country, from coast to coast to coast. There is no consistency in sentencing. In answer to the question, as a former prosecutor over the last two decades and previous to that as a defence counsel, I have repeatedly seen abuses by defence counsel who were properly retained with illegal funds from trafficking, etc., who shop for a judge, as there are judges who are more lenient than others. Bill C-5—

138 words

Jun/9/22 12:48:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-5 at report stage. I am profoundly disappointed as a parliamentarian and deeply ashamed as a former Crown attorney that this seriously flawed, reckless and dangerous bill has made it this far in the process. I left behind a proud and rewarding legal career as a public servant for the Province of Ontario, a career defined by holding criminals accountable for their actions, which ranged from mischief all the way through to and including first degree murder. It was a career further defined by advocating for victims' rights, which is a concept that is completely alien to this virtue-signalling government. Neither this bill nor Bill C-21 makes any reference to the rights and protection of victims. I was frustrated as a Crown attorney that the judicial system was out of balance. The proverbial pendulum over my career was significantly shifting in favour of the accused at the expense of protecting victims of crime. There must be a balance. The government will repeatedly make statements in the House that it cares deeply for victims and that their rights matter, but it is simply talk with no action. An example of this lip service is the fact the government has not replaced the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, a position left vacant since last October 1. It is shameful. It is time to dispel the myths and misinformation coming from the government whenever its members speak about this bill. Number one, this is not legislation targeted at low-risk offenders. Use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a firearm with ammunition, weapons trafficking, importing and exporting of firearms, discharging a firearm with intent, reckless discharge of a firearm and robbery with a firearm are indeed extremely serious violent offences for which judges across this country routinely impose significant jail sentences and often prison on the offenders. These are not the types of people described by our Attorney General when the bill was introduced. We all remember that story: We are to imagine a young man who has too many pops on a Saturday night and decides to pick up a loaded gun and shoot into a barn. According to our Attorney General, we should feel sorry for this individual, as it would be a cruel and unusual punishment to impose a mandatory minimum penalty. Number two, this is not legislation that would reverse former PM Harper's Safe Streets and Communities Act. Several of the charges outlined in Bill C-5 include mandatory minimum penalties that were introduced by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1977 and Jean Chrétien in 1995, two Liberal majority governments. Third, according to the government and supported by its NDP partners and Green Party members, mandatory minimums are ineffective in reducing crime or keeping our communities safe. The simple fact is that if they actually believed this, instead of virtue signalling to Canadians, they would table legislation to remove all mandatory minimums. There are 53 offences that would remain in the Criminal Code if this bill passes. This includes impaired operation of a vehicle. Apparently it is important to hold drunk drivers accountable while allowing criminals and thugs to terrorize our communities by shooting up our streets. The fourth point is that according to the government, courts from across this country, including appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada, are striking down mandatory minimum penalties as being contrary to the charter. For reasons previously described, mandatory minimums introduced by previous Liberal governments have been upheld by various courts for over 40 years. Five, this is not legislation targeting people charged with simple possession. Bill C-5 would eliminate six mandatory minimums under the CDSA, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These include the very serious offences of trafficking, importing, exporting and production of controlled substances. Drugs such as fentanyl and carfentanil are the most deadly and lethal form of street drugs, and an amount the size of a grain of salt is capable of killing an elephant. These drugs are not serious enough for the government. These are the same drugs that are causing an opioid crisis that results in daily overdoses and deaths. Do these killer criminals deserve mercy from the Liberal government? What has this country become? Finally, this legislation is supposed to address racism and reduce the over-incarceration of Black Canadians and indigenous offenders. The Alberta minister of justice, Kaycee Madu, a Black Canadian, noted: While Ottawa’s new justice bill...contains some reasonable measures, I am deeply concerned about the decision to gut tough sentencing provisions for gun crimes... Removing tough, mandatory penalties for actual gun crimes undermines the very minority communities that are so often victimized by brazen gun violence. I also find it disingenuous for Ottawa to exploit a genuine issue like systemic racism to push through their soft-on-crime bills. I have prosecuted in the trenches for close two decades, unlike the Attorney General and members of the Liberal government. I can state on authority that the overriding sentencing consideration associated with the crimes relating to Bill C-5 are denunciation, deterrence and separation from society. In other words, it does not matter one's gender, ethnicity or race. Upon conviction, criminals are going to jail, period. It is time for the government to be honest with Canadians and accept that Bill C-5 will not substantially address the over-incarceration issue. Throughout the entire time this bill has been debated, I and other colleagues, most notably the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, have argued that there is a compromise for the government to consider. A constitutional exemption to all the charges outlined in the bill would give trial judges the legal authority to exempt criminals from a mandatory minimum penalty if they belong to a vulnerable population that is overrepresented in the criminal justice system and who are disadvantaged with regard to sentencing. This exemption would preserve the mandatory minimum penalties, but give judges the flexibility to craft an appropriate sentence. My amendment to this bill at committee was summarily dismissed by the Liberal chair as outside the scope of the study, which is shameful. Brantford police chief Rob Davis, the only indigenous leader of a municipal police service in Ontario, testified at committee: “With Bill C-5 and the proposed changes now, we are going to see sentencing become a joke”. He continued, “With...turning sentences into conditional sentences...the justice system is being brought into disrepute. People will operate with impunity and the victims' rights are going to be given away [for] the rights of the criminal.” Chief Davis also said, “Victims of communities will live in fear of gun violence and fearful of retaliation by armed criminals, and people will continue to overdose”. The committee also heard from Chief Darren Montour from the Six Nations Police Service, whose testimony was clear. He stated: ...proposed conditional sentences for violent offences will not deter offenders from committing further crimes. We are not in a position to continuously monitor sentenced offenders to ensure their compliance with...restrictions handed down by the courts. Police services across the country, and especially those within indigenous communities, are significantly understaffed. We are continuously asked to do more with less, and we cannot sustain this workload. He also stated that he can appreciate the statistics regarding the over-incarceration issue, “but along with the rights of offenders, victims and victims' families deserve rights as well.” Hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast signed the petition on my website, which I recently presented in the House. They called on the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-5. Here is a news release for the Liberal government: Canadians are terrified at the prospect that criminals convicted of sex assault and kidnapping will also enjoy serving that sentence in the comfort of their homes, the very same homes in which they committed their crimes. It is deeply shameful. The number one priority for the federal government is to keep Canadians safe. The government has been derelict in its responsibility. I, together with my Conservative caucus members, will always stand on the side of victims and keeping our communities safe by holding criminals accountable for their actions. I will be very strongly voting against this bill, and I encourage all members in the House to do the same.

1415 words

All Topics

Jun/9/22 12:19:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague referenced Bill C-5 and how it would impact the trafficking of very serious drugs like fentanyl, carfentanil, cocaine and crystal meth. Bill C-5 would take away the mandatory minimum penalties, and it would also open up the possibility for conditional sentence considerations and house arrest. Knowing what we know about drug traffickers plying their deadly trade in the comfort of their own homes, how do you feel the government's narrative with respect to community safety is now being compromised?

87 words

Context: House Hansard - 82 - Jun/6/22

Jun/9/22 11:14:34 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it is time to dispel a myth that has been percolating in the House for some time now, particularly from the Liberal government and supported by the NDP. It is this notion that conditional sentences are going to substantially decrease the overincarceration of marginalized offenders, particularly Black Canadians and indigenous offenders. We heard at committee from two police chiefs. One was Chief Robert Davis, who is an indigenous police chief and the only indigenous police chief of a municipal police service. The other was Chief Darren Montour, who is an indigenous police chief on the Six Nations of the Grand River, which is the largest reservation in Canada. Both individuals, who have significant decades of policing, confirmed that conditional sentences do not work. They do not have the resources to monitor compliance. Working in the trenches, they are seeing prosecution after prosecution of offenders who continually repeat breaches of their conditional sentence orders. How can the government indicate now that this is somehow going to decrease the overincarceration rate? We have empirical evidence, particularly in my riding but as well as from across the country, that it does not work.

192 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 82 - Jun/6/22

Jun/6/22 3:27:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the residents of my riding and many across the country are rightly concerned about the dangers that Bill C-5 would cause to our communities. As we know, the bill would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum penalties for significant, serious, violent gun offences and drug offences. It would also eliminate mandatory minimums for dangerous fentanyl dealers. Canadians are afraid that those who commit criminal harassment, sex assault, kidnapping and human trafficking will be under house arrest instead of traditional jail time, meaning they will be back in our neighbourhoods. Sharing their concerns, I am presenting a petition that calls on the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-5 and stop favouring criminals at the expense of law-abiding Canadians.

122 words

Context: House Hansard - 82 - Jun/6/22

Jun/6/22 2:44:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, those are more words and no action. Contrary to the government's claim, Bill C-21 is not about getting tough on crime and it is not targeted at the gang members who are shooting up our streets. On the one hand, the Liberals try to increase the maximum penalty, yet they push eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for a number of serious gun crimes under Bill C-5. Also, let us not forget that last year they voted down the Conservatives' bill that proposed making the punishment harder for criminals using smuggled guns. It is shameful. When will the Prime Minister put the rights of victims first and commit to ending his soft-on-crime agenda?

118 words

Context: House Hansard - 67 - May/9/22

Jun/6/22 2:43:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today marks the one-year anniversary of a deadly attack on a Muslim family in London. Four members of the Afzaal family were deliberately hit and killed by a truck during an innocent evening walk. A spokesperson for the family rightly criticized the federal government for its lack of action and hollow promises to prevent similar attacks in the future. This is a serious offence. Will the Prime Minister ensure that this murderer receives a serious sentence?

79 words

Context: House Hansard - 18 - Dec/15/21

May/9/22 2:18:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, recently the justice committee heard the testimony from Robert Davis, Chief of the Brantford Police Service. During his testimony, and I am quoting from the blues, Chief Davis said, “With Bill C-5 and the proposed changes now we are going to see sentencing become a joke”. He then continued, “with...turning sentences into conditional sentences...the justice system...is being brought into disrepute. People will operate with impunity, the victims' rights are going to be given away for the rights of the criminal.” He also said, “Victims of communities will live in fear of gun violence, fearful of retaliation by armed criminals and people will continue to overdose”. Chief Davis is a proud Mohawk from the Six Nations of the Grand River territory in my riding of Brantford—Brant. He has been policing since 1990 and is the only indigenous leader on a municipal police service in Ontario. His first-hand experience debunks the ideologically driven narrative the Liberal members are selling. Despite this, sadly and dangerously, the NDP-Liberal government does not want to listen to the warnings of Chief Davis. My message is simple: The Minister of Justice must withdraw this soft-on-crime bill now.

208 words

Dec/15/21 4:57:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, following up on my friend's latter comments, does he think that those convicted of sexual assault, criminal harassment, trafficking of minors or abduction of minors deserve to be punished by way of a denunciatory sentence, which could include jail?

42 words

Dec/14/21 3:44:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend a couple of questions. First, does the Bloc Québécois stand for the proposition that all mandatory minimums under the Criminal Code and CDSA ought to be eliminated? If her response is yes, I would ask her this. Because she feels that judges are best equipped to render appropriate sentences, does she feel all judges across this great country all think alike and will all deliver sentencing to appropriately deal with all of the sentencing principles with respect to gun offences, such as denunciation and deterrence?

99 words

All Topics

Dec/14/21 3:17:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague personally for the elevation of my past career. I was not a judge of the Ontario provincial court or Superior Court. Rather, I was a Crown attorney. To address the important issue the member raised, there already exists a regime that vests federal prosecutors, as it does with provincial prosecutors, in exercising their discretion appropriately to deal with individuals struggling with substance abuse, and to be very creative in how they wish to prosecute or what sort of representations they make to a justice to deal with the rehabilitation issue.

99 words

All Topics

Dec/14/21 3:14:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. In my respectful opinion, everything in Bill C-5 concerned with removing those offences, which are currently delineated under section 742, the conditional sentence regime, all relate to serious violent offences. To the member's point, kidnapping, sexual assault, criminal harassment and abduction are all serious personal injury offences. In my speech, I was trying to indicate that there are absolutely zero references to amending section 742 to highlight that those offences the bill is delineating can still be substantiated by way of a conditional sentence. A condition precedent to section 742 is that justice must be satisfied that an offender serving that sentence in the community does not pose a risk. Those offenders convicted of a sexual assault, criminal harassment or kidnapping most definitely pose a community risk. Moreover, section 752 of the Criminal Code talks about excluding any offences where there is a serious personal injury offence. Kidnapping certainly qualifies for this, as do sexual assault, criminal harassment and abduction.

170 words

Dec/14/21 3:13:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had actually listened to my speech, he would know that at no point in time did I indicate that we, as the Conservative caucus, have no faith in judicial discretion in levelling appropriate sentences. As a Crown attorney for the last 18 years, I was in front of judges every single day. My point was that sufficient tools already exist within the Criminal Code for judges to exercise that discretion. They certainly do not need any further assistance from the Liberal government.

88 words

Dec/14/21 1:49:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on Bill C-5, a seriously flawed and dangerous piece of proposed legislation. My commentary and opinion on this are shaped by my experience as a lawyer for almost 30 years, the last 18 years as a Crown attorney for the Province of Ontario. A week ago today, members in the House stood in solidarity to honour and remember the victims of the Montreal massacre. Fourteen women were murdered, and 10 women and four men were injured. That day was an opportunity for the House, and especially the Prime Minister and his government, to stand strong against all forms of gun violence and to inform Canadians in very clear terms that they would take immediate steps to curb the ever-increasing tide of this criminal behaviour. What is most disturbing is that, less than 24 hours removed from this commemoration, the justice minister introduced Bill C-5, which was a tone-deaf and ill-timed response from this government. The Prime Minister in the last election promised peace, order and good government. He said that Canada needs leadership that would not back down in the face of rising extremism and that he would take action to put an end to gun violence in our communities. Bill C-5 is the complete opposite of this pledge and proves to be another example of virtue signalling to all Canadians. Bill C-5 is identical to Bill C-22, which was first introduced in the last Parliament. That bill never made it past the second reading before the unnecessary federal election was called. The bill would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties for 14 of the 67 offences in the code, 13 for firearm offences and one for a tobacco offence. Notwithstanding what we have heard over the last week by the justice minister and his government, this dangerous bill is not targeted at less serious gun crime. As an example, let us take a look at section 244(1) of the code, which reads: Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person I would ask any member of the House to somehow convince me that that would constitute a less serious gun offence. The bill would also eliminate all six mandatory minimums for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These include the very serious offences of trafficking, importing and exporting, and the production of controlled substances. I invite members to think about that for a moment. This soft-on-crime, ideologically driven Liberal government believes that those who traffic and produce fentanyl, the most deadly and lethal form of street drug, which is being sold to millions of addicts, is causing an opioid crisis, and results in daily overdoses and deaths, should not expect to receive a minimum period of incarceration. It is utterly shameful and dangerous. As a rookie member and political aficionado in Ottawa, I have repeatedly heard a false narrative from the Prime Minister and his government that Prime Minister Harper is to blame for everything that has gone wrong in this country. Perhaps it is about time for this government to engage in some self-reflection. Contrary to the justice minister's talking points about the government “turning the page on a failed Conservative criminal justice policy”, the fact remains that it is keeping the other 53 mandatory minimums in the code intact and keeping most of the ones introduced by the Conservative Party. The justice minister needs to be reminded that it was former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1977 and prime minister Jean Chrétien in 1995 who introduced several mandatory minimums for firearm offences. These penalties have been rooted in our criminal justice system since the early 1890s. Legislators, over the decades that followed, have relied upon mandatory sentencing tools to mitigate inconsistencies in the exercise of judicial discretion. A key feature of our system of government is that Parliament constantly reviews all legislation and passes new legislation to ensure its laws, including sentencing laws, properly align with the demands of justice. Those demands of justice speak very clearly that there is a tremendous increase in gun violence across this country. Conservatives believe that serious violent offences committed with firearms deserve mandatory prison time. If government members will not take our word on this subject, then perhaps they will listen and reflect on what eloquent jurists have said about gun violence in our communities. Firearm use and possession is not a momentary lapse in judgment. Heavy regulation of firearms and ammunition mean that those who possess them had to make a concerted effort to do so. A person does not stumble upon an illegal handgun. There is a process of purchasing from a trafficker and secreting the handgun to avoid detection and prosecution. There is a high degree of deliberation and contemplation. Loaded firearms, especially in public, add a dimension of heightened risk. Hear the words of Justice D. E. Harris: A person with a gun in their hands has a god-like power over life and death. Virtually all that is necessary is to point at another person and to apply a few pounds of pressure on the trigger in order to end a human life.... The ease of killing with a gun...is an exigent danger to us all. He said, “Such immense power with so little reason must be opposed with everything at our disposal.” Listen to these chilling words from Justice Molloy in the decision of Ferrigon: A person who loads a handgun with bullets and then carries that handgun, concealed on his person, into a public place is by definition a dangerous person. Handguns are used to shoot people. A person who carries a loaded handgun in public has demonstrated his willingness to shoot another human being with it. Otherwise there would be no need to have loaded it. That person is dangerous. He is dangerous to those with whom he associates; he is dangerous to the police and other law enforcement personnel; he is dangerous to the members of his community; he is dangerous to innocent bystanders, including children, who may be killed or maimed by stray bullets. According to Public Safety Canada, violent crime involving firearms is a growing threat to public safety in our communities. Gun violence is on the rise: an 81% increase in violent offences involving guns since 2009; one in three homicides in Canada are firearm related; and 47% of Canadians feel gun violence is a threat to their community. Gun violence impacts people and communities across Canada. It happens in urban, suburban and rural communities across every province and territory, in all age and socio-economic groups and, last, among those who own guns and those who do not. This is a moment in time to strengthen our gun laws to emphasize the principles of denunciation and deterrence. This is not the time to advance a soft-on-crime bill that puts communities and victims at risk. Mandatory minimum sentences are an important tool for ensuring, not inhibiting, justice in sentencing. Rather than eliminating a judge's ability to assess a proportionate sentence, mandatory minimums set a stable sentencing range for an offence, permitting citizens to understand in advance the severity of the consequences that attend the commission of that offence. The justice minister stressed that Bill C-5 was not aimed at hardened criminals but at first-time low-risk offenders. He was quoted on December 8, stating: Think about your own kids. Perhaps they got into trouble at some point with the law. I bet you would want to give them the benefit of the doubt or a second chance if they messed up. Well, it is a lot harder to get a second chance the way things are now... That is such a disturbing message from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. I cannot think of any other example of being tone deaf to the obvious. We are indeed focusing on serious violent offenders and not misguided, mischievous youthful first offenders. The Liberal government claims the bill is to address racism in Canada's criminal justice system. As noted by the Alberta minister for justice, Kaycee Madu: While Ottawa’s new justice bill...contains some reasonable measures, I am deeply concerned about the decision to gut tough sentencing provisions for gun crimes....Removing tough, mandatory penalties for actual gun crimes undermines the very minority communities that are so often victimized by brazen gun violence. I also find it disingenuous for Ottawa to exploit a genuine issue like systemic racism to push through their soft-on-crime bills. As a former Crown attorney, I am very much aware and wholeheartedly accept that there is a disproportionally higher rate of incarcerated indigenous and Black Canadians. We as parliamentarians have the tools necessary to put into place measures to address this problem. We already have principles that mandate jurists to consider the background of indigenous offenders. The Liberal government last year committed $6.6 million to produce better informed sentencing decisions based on an understanding of the adversities and systemic inequalities that Black Canadians and members of other racialized groups faced. Furthermore, Parliament has an opportunity to put into place a safety valve known as a constitutional exemption that would allow judges to exempt outliers for whom the mandatory minimum would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. This flawed and dangerous bill would also substantially alter the conditional sentence regime, which would now allow such a sentence to be imposed for sex assaults, criminal harassment, kidnapping, human trafficking, arson and abduction. What I found most ironic is that yesterday we heard from the justice minister that this legislation would reduce a significant amount of charter challenges and speed up the disposition of criminal cases. What he failed to address was how the changes to the conditional sentence regime would result in a plethora of increased litigation as the proposed amendments were lawfully unavailable. A condition precedent to the availability of the conditional sentence is that a justice must be satisfied that serving a sentence at home would not endanger the safety of the community. Offenders convicted of sexual assault, criminal harassment, kidnapping and abduction are indeed dangerous. Furthermore, section 752 defines the above offences as a serious personal injury offence, which the provincial appellate courts have consistently excluded from conditional sentence consideration. The number one priority for the federal government is to keep Canadians safe. The Liberal government has been derelict in its responsibility. This soft-on-crime, ideologically driven bill needs to be defeated.

1796 words

All Topics