卡尼在议会否决波利耶夫推动美式保释法的提案

卡尼在议会否决波利耶夫推动美式保释法的提案

今日加拿大 2025年10月3日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ore3DwSb9a8

总理马克·卡尼与反对党领袖皮埃尔·波利耶夫就加拿大保释改革问题发生激烈冲突，下议院再次爆发激烈辩论。波利耶夫指责自由党政府维持“自由保释”制度，指责其释放惯犯，并援引悲剧案例要求改革。

但卡尼予以强烈反击，明确表示政府正在推行全面的保释改革——该改革是与各省、地区和执法部门协商后制定的。最重要的是，卡尼在辩论中说出了关键的一句话：“这不是基于复制粘贴的美国保释法。这是一部行之有效的加拿大法律。”

这场激烈的交锋揭示了人们对加拿大司法体系截然不同的看法。波利耶夫的立场倾向于美国式的“严厉打击犯罪”政策，而卡尼则坚持加拿大自主研发的、以证据为基础的改革，在安全与权利之间取得平衡。

在本视频中，《今日加拿大》将为您带来完整的对话和深入分析。这会是加拿大司法辩论的转折点吗？还是议会持续不断的口水战中又一次爆发？

敬请关注并订阅《今日加拿大》，获取更多突发政治分析和塑造加拿大未来的故事。

总理马克·卡尼与皮埃尔·波利耶夫在下议院就加拿大保释改革展开激烈辩论，卡尼因否决美国式保释法和所谓的“特朗普式司法”而成为头条新闻。在质询环节，波利耶夫抨击自由党的保释政策，声称这些政策让惯犯逍遥法外，而卡尼则为其基于证据、磋商和加拿大法律的全面保释改革计划辩护。卡尼强调加拿大不需要照搬美国的解决方案，并坚称加拿大司法系统必须保持公正、严厉打击犯罪并保障人权。这场激烈的政治冲突凸显了卡尼的领导地位与波利耶夫的批评立场之间的巨大分歧，为加拿大2025政治决战埋下了伏笔。
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
议会昨天再次爆发冲突。这次的争论并非因为赤字，也不是因为就业，而是因为犯罪和保释改革。
皮埃尔·波利亚夫猛烈抨击马克·卡尼和自由党政府，用他所谓的“自由保释”制度将危险罪犯囚禁在街头。他将此描述为一场国家危机，并援引一些悲惨的新闻头条，要求卡尼彻底废除该制度。但接下来发生的事情却颠覆了剧本。卡尼不仅捍卫了他的改革，还发出了尖锐的谴责，明确表示加拿大的司法系统不会受制于美国。
卡尼宣称，这并非基于美国保释法的复制粘贴。这是一部
行之有效的加拿大法律。这条界线或许将成为决定性时刻。为什么？
因为它将两种截然不同的愿景划清界限。卡尼提出的加拿大优先、基于证据的改革方案，与波利亚夫借鉴美国的复制粘贴方案。议长先生，犯罪受害者并不希望总理同情他们。他们想知道他为何违背了
承诺。他们想知道为什么自由派保释制度仍然存在，允许
同一批惯犯一次又一次地犯罪。过去几天，在魁北克省圣杰罗姆，
一具女子的尸体被发现，被她的伴侣杀害，而她的伴侣此前曾被捕30次，
但最终以自由派保释制度获释。
难以置信。总理最终会废除
自由派保释制度吗？或者更好的是，他应该走开，让我们自己来处理这些事情？
尊敬的总理。
议长先生，本届政府正在推进
全面的保释改革。这项
全面的保释改革基于
与各省和地区的广泛磋商。它基于
与执法部门的广泛讨论。它基于证据。它
并非基于复制粘贴的美国保释法。这是一部行之有效的保释法。
我们严厉打击犯罪，并坚定维护加拿大人的权利。
要理解为何这场对话如此重要，
我们必须先回顾一下。几个月来，PolyAV
一直在强调保释问题，认为
惯犯逍遥法外，犯罪率
不断上升，加拿大人的安全感下降。
这是一个强有力的论点，因为它指向了真实的悲剧。
但如果你仔细观察，就会发现他的解决方案
并非真正的加拿大式方案。它们只是效仿了
美国严厉的犯罪法律。
讽刺之处在于此。美国的保释制度
是世界上最受诟病的制度之一。它带有惩罚性，导致监狱里挤满了那些根本付不起保释金的低风险罪犯。
而且，它对贫困和边缘群体的惩罚过重，却没有让社区变得更安全。这些正是加拿大几十年来一直试图避免的问题。卡尼在拒绝这种模式时，很清楚自己在做什么。他大肆批判美国保释法的照搬，揭露了保守党的方案是“外来政策”。

卡尼在议会否决波利耶夫推动美式保释法的提案

今日加拿大 2025年10月3日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ore3DwSb9a8

总理马克·卡尼与反对党领袖皮埃尔·波利耶夫就加拿大保释改革问题发生激烈冲突，下议院再次爆发激烈辩论。波利耶夫指责自由党政府维持“自由保释”制度，指责其释放惯犯，并援引悲剧案例要求改革。

但卡尼予以强烈反击，明确表示政府正在推行全面的保释改革——该改革是与各省、地区和执法部门协商后制定的。最重要的是，卡尼在辩论中说出了关键的一句话：“这不是基于复制粘贴的美国保释法。这是一部行之有效的加拿大法律。”

这场激烈的交锋揭示了人们对加拿大司法体系截然不同的看法。波利耶夫的立场倾向于美国式的“严厉打击犯罪”政策，而卡尼则坚持加拿大自主研发的、以证据为基础的改革，在安全与权利之间取得平衡。

在本视频中，《今日加拿大》将为您带来完整的对话和深入分析。这会是加拿大司法辩论的转折点吗？还是议会持续不断的口水战中又一次爆发？

敬请关注并订阅《今日加拿大》，获取更多突发政治分析和塑造加拿大未来的故事。

总理马克·卡尼与皮埃尔·波利耶夫在下议院就加拿大保释改革展开激烈辩论，卡尼因否决美国式保释法和所谓的“特朗普式司法”而成为头条新闻。在质询环节，波利耶夫抨击自由党的保释政策，声称这些政策让惯犯逍遥法外，而卡尼则为其基于证据、磋商和加拿大法律的全面保释改革计划辩护。卡尼强调加拿大不需要照搬美国的解决方案，并坚称加拿大司法系统必须保持公正、严厉打击犯罪并保障人权。这场激烈的政治冲突凸显了卡尼的领导地位与波利耶夫的批评立场之间的巨大分歧，为加拿大2025政治决战埋下了伏笔。
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
议会昨天再次爆发冲突。这次的争论并非因为赤字，也不是因为就业，而是因为犯罪和保释改革。
皮埃尔·波利亚夫猛烈抨击马克·卡尼和自由党政府，用他所谓的“自由保释”制度将危险罪犯囚禁在街头。他将此描述为一场国家危机，并援引一些悲惨的新闻头条，要求卡尼彻底废除该制度。但接下来发生的事情却颠覆了剧本。卡尼不仅捍卫了他的改革，还发出了尖锐的谴责，明确表示加拿大的司法系统不会受制于美国。
卡尼宣称，这并非基于美国保释法的复制粘贴。这是一部
行之有效的加拿大法律。这条界线或许将成为决定性时刻。为什么？
因为它将两种截然不同的愿景划清界限。卡尼提出的加拿大优先、基于证据的改革方案，与波利亚夫借鉴美国的复制粘贴方案。议长先生，犯罪受害者并不希望总理同情他们。他们想知道他为何违背了
承诺。他们想知道为什么自由派保释制度仍然存在，允许
同一批惯犯一次又一次地犯罪。过去几天，在魁北克省圣杰罗姆，
一具女子的尸体被发现，被她的伴侣杀害，而她的伴侣此前曾被捕30次，
但最终以自由派保释制度获释。
难以置信。总理最终会废除
自由派保释制度吗？或者更好的是，他应该走开，让我们自己来处理这些事情？
尊敬的总理。
议长先生，本届政府正在推进
全面的保释改革。这项
全面的保释改革基于
与各省和地区的广泛磋商。它基于
与执法部门的广泛讨论。它基于证据。它
并非基于复制粘贴的美国保释法。这是一部行之有效的保释法。
我们严厉打击犯罪，并坚定维护加拿大人的权利。
要理解为何这场对话如此重要，
我们必须先回顾一下。几个月来，PolyAV
一直在强调保释问题，认为
惯犯逍遥法外，犯罪率
不断上升，加拿大人的安全感下降。
这是一个强有力的论点，因为它指向了真实的悲剧。
但如果你仔细观察，就会发现他的解决方案
并非真正的加拿大式方案。它们只是效仿了
美国严厉的犯罪法律。
讽刺之处在于此。美国的保释制度
是世界上最受诟病的制度之一。它带有惩罚性，导致监狱里挤满了那些根本付不起保释金的低风险罪犯。
而且，它对贫困和边缘群体的惩罚过重，却没有让社区变得更安全。这些正是加拿大几十年来一直试图避免的问题。卡尼在拒绝这种模式时，很清楚自己在做什么。他大肆批判美国保释法的照搬，揭露了保守党的方案是“外来政策”。

Carney SHUTS DOWN Poilievre’s Push for U.S.-Style Law in Parliament

Canada Today 2025年10月3日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ore3DwSb9a8 

Another heated debate shook the House of Commons as Prime Minister Mark Carney clashed with Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre over Canada’s bail reform. Poilievre accused the Liberal government of keeping “liberal bail” in place, blaming it for releasing repeat offenders and citing tragic cases to demand change.

But Carney hit back hard, making it clear that the government is bringing comprehensive bail reform—crafted in consultation with provinces, territories, and law enforcement. Most importantly, Carney delivered the defining line of the debate: “This is not based on cut-and-paste American bail laws. This is a Canadian law that works.”

This fiery exchange revealed two very different visions for Canada’s justice system. Poilievre’s approach leans toward U.S.-style “tough on crime” policies, while Carney insists on Canadian-made, evidence-based reforms that balance safety with rights.

In this video, Canada Today brings you the full exchange and our in-depth analysis. Is this the turning point in Canada’s justice debate? Or just another clash in Parliament’s ongoing war of words?

Stay tuned and subscribe to Canada Today for more breaking political analysis and the stories shaping Canada’s future.

Prime Minister Mark Carney clashed with Pierre Poilievre in a fiery House of Commons debate over Canadian bail reform, with Carney making headlines by rejecting U.S. style bail laws and so-called Trump style justice. During Question Period, Poilievre attacked Liberal bail policies, claiming they let repeat offenders walk free, but Carney defended his plan for comprehensive bail reform based on evidence, consultations, and Canadian law. Emphasizing that Canada does not need copy-paste American solutions, Carney insisted that the Canadian justice system must remain fair, tough on crime, and protective of rights. This dramatic political clash highlighted the sharp divide between Carney’s leadership and Poilievre’s criticism, setting the stage for a defining Canada 2025 politics showdown.
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Parliament exploded again yesterday.
This time not over deficits, not over
jobs, but over crime and bail reform.
Pierre Polyav came out swinging,
accusing Mark Carney and the Liberal
government of keeping dangerous
offenders on the streets with what he
calls liberal bail. He framed it as a
national crisis, citing tragic headlines
and demanding that Carney scrap the
system entirely. But what happened next
flipped the script. Carney didn't just
defend his reforms. He delivered a sharp
rebuke, making it crystal clear that
Canada's justice system would not be
dictated by American imports. This is
not based on cut and paste American bail
laws, Carney declared. This is a
Canadian law that works. That one line
may go down as a defining moment. Why?
because it draws a line between two very
different visions.
Carney's Canada first evidence-based
reforms versus Polyav's copy and paste
approach that borrows from the United
States. Mr. Speaker, crime victims don't
want the prime minister's sympathy. They
want to know why he's broken his
promise. They want to know why liberal
bail remains in place, allowing for the
same repeat offenders to to offend again
and again. The body of a woman was found
in the last few days in St. Jerome,
Quebec, killed by her partner who had
been arrested 30 times before but
released on liberal bail.
Unbelievable.
Will the prime minister finally scrap
Liberal bail? Or better yet, get out of
the way so that we can do the jobs
ourselves?
The right honorable prime minister.
Mr. Speaker, this government is bringing
forward comprehensive bail reform. This
comprehensive bail reform is based on
extensive consultations with the
provinces and territories. It's based on
expenses extensive discussions with law
enforcement. It is based on evidence. It
is not based on cut and paste American
bail laws. It's a bail law that works.
We are tough on crime and firm on the
rights of Canadians.
To understand why this exchange matters,
we have to step back. For months, PolyAV
has hammered on bail, arguing that
repeat offenders are walking free, crime
is rising, and Canadians are less safe.
It's a powerful argument emotionally
because it points to real tragedies.
But when you look closer, his solutions
aren't truly Canadian. They're modeled
after America's tough on crime laws. And
here's the irony. America's bail system
is one of the most criticized in the
world. It's punitive. It clogs jails
with low-risk offenders who simply can't
afford bail. And it disproportionately
punishes the poor and marginalized
without making communities safer. These
are the very problems Canada has tried
to avoid for decades.
Carney knew exactly what he was doing
when he rejected that model. By calling
out cut and paste American bail laws, he
was exposing the conservative plan as
imported politics, slogans, not
solutions. He was saying Canadians don't
need US- style fixes. They need reforms
that work here in our communities for
our justice system. And the government's
approach reflects that. Carney laid it
out. Comprehensive bail reform built on
consultations with provinces,
territories, and law enforcement. Not
quick headlines, but months of
negotiation and research. a system tough
on repeat offenders, but also fair and
evidence-driven.
To fully grasp why Carney's not cut and
paste American law line is so
significant, we need to look at Canada's
justice tradition. Unlike the United
States, Canada has long tried to balance
punishment with rehabilitation,
enforcement with rights, and safety with
fairness. Our Charter of Rights and
Freedoms enshrines protections that make
sure the justice system doesn't just
punish, it also safeguards civil
liberties. That doesn't mean Canada
hasn't struggled.
Previous governments, both liberal and
conservative, have wrestled with bail
reform. For decades, courts and
communities have debated how to keep
violent offenders off the streets while
avoiding a system that criminalizes
poverty or overloads prisons with
low-risk individuals.
But what makes Carney's approach
different is the insistence that reforms
must be Canadianmade,
tailored to our legal framework, our
social fabric, and our values.
PolyAV, by contrast, leans into the
American playbook. Harsher bail
conditions, less judicial discretion,
more pre-trial detention. It sounds
tough, but the results in the US speak
for themselves. Mass incarceration,
systemic inequities, and soaring costs
that don't actually deliver safer
communities.
Carney is reminding Canadians that
safety doesn't come from mimicry. It
comes from solutions designed for us,
not imported from elsewhere. And that's
the heart of the clash. On one side, you
have a vision of justice shaped by
evidence, consultation, and Canadian
values. On the other, you have slogans
drawn from a US model that has already
proven deeply flawed. This clash also
reveals something deeper about Canada's
political divide. Polyav thrives on
outrage. His strategy is to amplify fear
and frustration, painting every policy
as broken, every institution as failing,
and every liberal move as reckless. It's
effective politics because anger grabs
attention, but it's not the same as
governing. Carney, on the other hand, is
positioning himself as the grown-up in
the room. His background as an
economist, a former central banker, and
now prime minister gives him credibility
as a problem-solver.
When he says reforms are based on
evidence, he's leaning into that
identity. Not a populist, not a showman,
but a builder of systems.
And here's why the American law angle
matters so much. For years,
conservatives have looked south for
inspiration. whether it's on crime,
taxes, or trade. But Carney is
challenging that reflex, saying Canada
doesn't need to be a mirror image of the
United States. At a time when US
politics is more polarized than ever,
that contrast is politically powerful.
So what we witnessed wasn't just another
parliamentary skirmish. It was a bigger
fight over identity and direction. Do
Canadians want justice policies written
for us by us, evidence-based,
collaborative, Canadianmade,
or do we want Americanstyle politics
dressed up as solutions? Carney's line,
not cut and paste American bail laws,
resonates because it speaks to something
beyond crime. It speaks to sovereignty.
It says Canada can shape its own path
without blindly copying others. And
that's why Polyav looked rattled. His
critique was sharp. But when pressed for
a real alternative, the Conservative
plan looked like what Carney called it,
a US import, not a Canadian solution. At
the heart of this clash is a choice.
Pierre Polyav offers endless criticism,
dramatic language, and solutions
borrowed from America. Mark Carney
offers Canadian reforms crafted with
provinces guided by law enforcement and
rooted in evidence. This is the battle
Canadians are watching unfold in
Parliament. Slogans versus solutions,
imports versus independence, anger
versus action. And here at Canada Today,
we'll keep bringing you the sharpest
analysis of these debates because these
moments aren't just political theater.
They're shaping the future of the
country. Don't miss what happens next.
Subscribe to Canada Today for more
breaking analysis, deep dives, and the
stories behind the sound bites.