Iqwinder Gaheer

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Bill C-22 was referred to committee. This is important legislation in our digital age. It gives law enforcement exactly the tools it has asked for. Our government's work is closely aligned with many child protection organizations, like Peel Children's Aid Society in my very own riding. Can the Minister of Public Safety please elaborate on what the movement of this bill means for keeping our communities safe?

Mr. Speaker, when Hindu Brahmins from the Kashmir Valley faced persecution from Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, they sought refuge with the ninth Sikh guru, Tegh Bahadur, whose name means “brave with a sword”. Aurangzeb had offered them a cruel choice: abandon their faith or offer a great sacrifice. On hearing this, a young Gobind Rai, who would go on to become the 10th Sikh guru and who was the son of Tegh Bahadur, looked to his father and asked, “Father, what sacrifice could be greater than your own?” With those words echoing in his heart and mind, Guru Tegh Bahadur set out for Delhi, with the faithful standing firm at his side. They accepted torture and death, but they did not bend and they did not yield. They stood unbroken in their own faith, and in so doing, they protected the faith of another. It is in memory of this that I rise today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to address an issue that goes to the very heart of Canadians' confidence in their justice system: bail reform. This is not a matter of legal procedure. It is about the safety of our communities, and it is directly tied to the responsibility that we bear as parliamentarians to uphold both justice and fairness. Across the country, Canadians are seeing the impacts of more sophisticated criminal networks, of repeat violent offenders and of organized crime-driven offences. They are asking us a very simple question: Are we doing enough to keep them safe? That question carries immense weight because when public trust in the justice system erodes, the very fabric of our democracy is weakened. With the introduction of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, we strengthen this fabric. The bill sets out a clear, responsible path forward, one that protects public safety and upholds the rights enshrined in the charter. The purpose of our bail law is straightforward. It is to ensure that individuals awaiting trial are managed in a way that reduces risk, that supports accountability and that maintains the presumption of innocence. Let me be clear. The conversation about safety is not theoretical. It is not happening in law school lecture halls or legal symposiums. It is happening in living rooms, in small businesses and in community safety meetings. In Mississauga—Malton, I have heard from families, from workers and from local leaders who see the consequences of repeat violent offending and organized crime first-hand. That is why our response, guided by experts throughout the justice system, introduces stronger and smarter tools for courts to assess risk and impose meaningful conditions. Let me be clear. We do not abandon restraint. We honour it, but restraint cannot mean complacency. Restraint cannot mean turning a blind eye. Restraint cannot come at the expense of public safety. We know the stakes. We are not debating abstract principles. We are debating whether a survivor of violence feels safe coming forward, whether a neighbourhood struggling with auto theft sees justice done and whether families feel secure walking home at night, knowing that dangerous repeat offenders are not slipping through the cracks. This legislation recognizes the urgency of that reality. Firstly, we are expanding the reverse onus provision so that individuals charged with some of the most serious offences, from human trafficking to violent extortion and organized crime-related auto theft, must demonstrate why they should be released. That is a balanced approach, one that puts public safety first while safeguarding constitutional rights. Secondly, we strengthen bail conditions, ensuring that courts consider real, concrete restrictions, including curfews, geographic limits and prohibitions on weapons or break-in tools. Thirdly, we give judges more information. We extend the look-back period for prior convictions from five to 10 years, because courts should see the full pattern of behaviour and not just a fragment of it. We also reinforce the critical principle that Canadians have been championing: that victims and communities deserve to feel safe. Let me say this clearly, because the stakes demand clarity. These reforms are not about abandoning the presumption of innocence. These changes are not designed to punish those who pose no risk at all. They are about ensuring that when someone poses a demonstrable risk, such as a repeat violent offender, a member of a criminal organization or an individual with a pattern of dangerous conduct, our justice system has the tools to respond firmly and responsibly. That balance is a cornerstone of a democratic society where, by protecting rights, we protect people. Bill C-14 speaks to the kind of country we want to be in, a country where our justice system is not feared but trusted. In my riding, many people work late hours in logistics, transportation, airport services and hospitality. Many are newcomers who walk home at night alone or who rely on public transit at unconventional hours. These are the people who stand to benefit the most from a justice system that takes repeat violent offenders seriously. These are the people to whom I am accountable when I stand in the chamber. Our laws must evolve to respond to the challenges that we face right now. We must hold close to something else: Justice cannot simply be punitive, because justice without hope is not justice, accountability without rehabilitation is not progress, and punishment without possibility leads to dangerous cycles that we have seen before. We must hold dear the belief that we can make ourselves into better people even after we have wronged, and in fact especially after we have wronged. The justice system should be a part of that rehabilitation. We need to make sure that the policies we bring forward work in criminal law terms, that they have a positive effect on recidivism and that we are not simply punishing people who should be helped through other channels. We have to keep in mind that in sentencing less-serious crimes, imprisonment is often ineffective and unduly punitive, and leads people down a path from which they may not return. We must remain a country that is vigilant about equity. We shamefully know that indigenous, Black and marginalized Canadians are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. That is why the implementation of the bill would be accompanied by clear data, careful oversight and continued collaboration with provinces and territories, because safety and fairness are not opposing forces; they are dual pillars of a society committed to justice. The debate on bail reform is not simply about legislation; it is about the protection of Canadians, the strength of our democracy and the trust people place in their justice system every single day. Our government's reforms strike the right balance: firm where firmness is required, fair where fairness is essential, and grounded in the belief that public safety is inseparable from justice. I urge all members of the House to support the legislation, stand for safer communities and stand for a justice system worthy of the people we serve, not for political gain but for the families, workers and small business owners in their riding and in all ridings across this country who simply want to feel safe in the place they call home.

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians hold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms very dear in their hearts. During the election and during periods when the Leader of the Opposition campaigns, he has consistently referred to the “three strikes and you're out” rule. That law would be unconstitutional from the very foundation of where it comes from. It is not the type of law and society Canadians want. They want laws that work synchronously with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I think the question is unfounded, because if my colleague were to listen to my speech and actually read the bill, he would know that we would be strengthening bail laws so bail would be harder to get in a case exactly like the one the member mentioned. If he supports the rights of victims, and the victims whom I have spoken to support the bill, I hope my colleagues from the other side can get on board as well.

Mr. Speaker, the ultimate responsibility for deciding bail and for deciding what the sentence eventually will be would always lie with the judge; the judge would have that latitude to play with. When we talk about the reverse onus brought in specifically for auto theft, it is violent auto theft for which the reverse onus would be activated. When we are talking about just auto theft, the principles of justice would be maintained, and bail is actually guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so that principle would always be applied.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadian law and the Constitution of Canada are a living tree, so I think it makes sense to look at other jurisdictions and their laws. When we look at the charter, we see that it will always apply to legislation we bring forward, so I suggest that all colleagues support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to the motion adopted on October 23, 2023, regarding the growing problem of car thefts in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to the supplementary estimates (B), 2024-2025.

Mr. Speaker, very recently we have seen acts of unlawfulness and indecency at the Hindu Sabha Mandir in Brampton and the Sri Guru Singh Sabha in Malton. The vast majority of Canadians are peace-loving and believe that every Canadian should have the right to practise their faith freely and safely. We have also heard from the RCMP that foreign elements are seeking to destabilize the harmony in our communities to provide evidence for their own rhetoric. These actions must be condemned. Can the minister please comment on these incidents and tell Canadians what the government is doing to keep them safe?

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to share that an all-girls team from Darcel Avenue Sr. Public School, located in Malton, has won first place at the World Robot Olympiad in Italy. Known as the “Forest Guardians”, Chathak, Melanie, Chitra and Rubanya created the Blaze-Bot, designed to sense wildfires in their early stages and alert local fire stations before it is too late. Under the coaching of their French immersion teacher, Priya Parekh, and the support of their librarian, Lidia Marcelli, the fantastic Forest Guardians made history as the first-ever Canadian team to take the top spot at this competition. When I look at their faces, I know, with deep conviction, that their futures will help determine no less than the destiny that the nation will fulfill. It is clear to me that the future of Mississauga—Malton is bright and promising. I invite all parliamentarians to join me in congratulating them and celebrating their significant achievement.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the RCMP's alarming statement revealing it has gathered credible evidence that agents of the Indian government are involved in serious criminal activity in Canada, including coercion, extortion and homicides, many Canadians are understandably shaken and concerned for their safety. Trust in our institutions is being tested, and the sense of security that Canadians should feel has been deeply affected, particularly within the Sikh and South Asian communities. Despite this unsettling news, we must recognize and thank our law enforcement agencies for their tireless work in uncovering these serious threats and taking decisive action to protect our communities. Their work is critical to ensuring the safety of every Canadian, and we stand firmly behind them as they continue these investigations. Together we will hold those responsible to account.

Madam Speaker, it was a little over a year ago when I rose in this very chamber and called on all Canadians to unite. It was earlier that week when the Prime Minister stood in this House to tell all Canadians that our security agencies had been actively pursuing allegations of a link between agents of the Government of India and the killing of a Canadian citizen. Since that time, much has taken place. I wish now to speak to all Canadians once more. Last week the RCMP announced that it had indeed found evidence that agents of the Government of India are actively involved in a network of criminal activity here in Canada, including homicide, extortion, organized crime and interference in our democratic process, a network of crime that could even mean the involvement of some of India's highest-ranking diplomats. In the RCMP's own words, an “extraordinary situation” compelled the RCMP to speak about an ongoing investigation. Despite law enforcement action over the past year, harm has continued to emanate from agents of the Government of India, so much so that the RCMP reached a pivotal point at which it had to confront that government and inform the public here of its very serious findings. Let me be clear: The security of Canadians is our top priority. Our justice system will be relentless in holding accountable those persons who seek to harm any Canadian, regardless of their position or proximity to power, because the stakes could not be higher. It is clear that what occurred last year was not an isolated incident, and we continue to learn about the extent of the interference still. It is a culture of intimidation, endangering those in our communities. It is stunningly brazen interference in our democratic process, and in the worst of cases, it has manifested itself, as we have learned, in the deaths of fellow citizens. The allegations levied against the Indian government, backed by evidence, demonstrate that we will not tolerate acts of violence. We will not tolerate efforts to retaliate against Canadians for simply exercising their constitutionally protected rights. These acts are a great example of the increased violent transnational repression that is targeting diaspora communities in Canada. The core of the message that I seek to deliver today is the same that I delivered last September. It is our sovereignty, plain and simple, that is at stake, and defending it wholeheartedly requires all of us to set aside our differences. Now, more than ever, is the time to stand by our law enforcement. I want to express my deep gratitude to those in the RCMP and across security agencies who have been working tirelessly to not only protect Canadians across this country but who have also been at the vanguard in the fight to defend Canadian sovereignty in doing so. I want to be clear in the House that in this age, we condemn violence and terrorism as political tools. Canadian citizens, regardless of where they come from, must never be prevented from the free and peaceful expression of their opinions and concerns. It does not matter what those opinions and concerns are; that is freedom of expression, an idea so foundational to our democracy that it finds itself enshrined in our Constitution, not just as words on parchment but in the ideals we live by. Any democracy can and must defend the rights of its people to gather, to speak and to protest, through peaceful means, within the laws of the land. That is the fundamental liberty of our people. I ask this of the chorus of cynics who stand ready to point fingers: If not this, then what? In any other system, those in power would only repress those on the periphery. Those in the centre would keep those on the sidelines at the sidelines, as has happened for centuries. In the House, we must recognize the role we play as parliamentarians and as Canadians. Whether it is confronting difficult truths or challenging our long-held beliefs, defending our sovereignty deserves nothing less than our full commitment. It is unconscionable that any member of the House would willingly wear a blindfold rather than do right by Canadians. That is shameful. We, the citizens of this country, through our Constitution, have the right to hold whatever views we wish, to think what we want and to say what we think. Our fundamental liberties are the core tenets of our Canadian experience. They have guided us from the earliest days of our nation's founding, and they will guide us to brighter days ahead. I am sure of this. A year ago, I called on all Canadians to unite, saying that, although our heritage could vary, our destiny would be common. I once again call on Canadians to close rank. Our democracy will only endure when we have set aside our differences in service of a greater purpose: to protect the sacred right to hold an opinion, to say what we want and to do it without reprisal. That is foundational to our highest creed, and we can only endure when this creed endures.

Madam Speaker, in fact, that is a conversation I have had with my own family, in terms of what this means. Many deep-seated fears were realized when, last year, the Prime Minister stood in this very House, not too far from where I am standing now, and declared that there is evidence to show that agents of the Government of India have done some very bad things in this country to repress Canadians. It is even more shameful that the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get security clearance so that he can know the names of the individuals in his own party who are compromised and remove those people. He has full liberty to do so. That is exactly what I hope to see from the Leader of the Opposition.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work and advocacy on this file, as well as for the question he just posed. Immediately after the Prime Minister stood in the House last year and again when he stood last week to indicate the news about the agents of the Government of India, we saw deflection and denial from Indian state media and, in fact, all Indian media. It is so coordinated. One cannot call it misinformation; it is disinformation. The fact is that they are denying and deflecting, and they are not treating credible allegations seriously. I implore the Indian government and its officials to go over the evidence. India is also a “rule of law” country and has a legal system that is very similar to ours. I implore them to look at the evidence, and I implore the Indian media to paint a fair picture of it.

Madam Speaker, my colleague is very quick to react to the past nine years, but I implore him to look at the years in which he was in government, when he was a minister. Then, there was a lack of investment in our police service and in our security agencies. It is our Prime Minister—

Madam Speaker, when the member was a minister, there was a severe lack of funding for security agencies and for police agencies in this country. It is our Prime Minister who set up NSIRA and NSICOP. He has stood in the House and declared that he was for Canada, for Canadians and for protecting their fundamental freedoms. That is our Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I both represent the Peel region, a region that has a large South Asian diaspora. He and I have had conversations with residents who are rightly concerned based on the allegations put forward by the RCMP. What conversations has he had with residents, and how does he reassure residents that the RCMP has the backs of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague for his thoughts on the misinformation and disinformation campaign that seems to be emanating from the Government of India. It is very coordinated. I am sure he has seen an uptick in bots on Twitter as well, and I wanted to get his thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her consistent work on human rights. The leader of the NDP has top secret security clearance, and he has done a fine job speaking on this issue. What are her thoughts on the fact that the leader of the official opposition claims he will be silenced if he receives top secret security clearance?