Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas GLOBE COP27 Legislators Summit, Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, November 6-18, 2022; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas 7th Gathering of ParlAmericas Open Parliament Network, Santiago, Chile, April 20-22, 2023; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas 7th Gathering of the ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network on Climate Change and the 15th Gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network Gender Equality, Mexico City, Mexico, September 27-29, 2023; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas Bilateral Visit to Costa Rica and Dominican Republic, San José, Costa Rica, and Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, March 11-15, 2024; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas 8th Gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network on Climate Change and Sustainability and 16th Gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network for Gender Equality, San José, Costa Rica, October 23-25, 2024; and, finally, a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas Bilateral Mission, Guatemala City, Guatemala, November 13-15, 2024.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this evening on behalf of the citizens of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, at third reading. Across the country, we are facing a stark reality. In my home province of Quebec, there have been 10 femicides since January. A woman is killed in Canada every 48 hours. Bad actors are taking advantage of rapidly changing technologies such as AI and deepfakes to victimize Canadians. That is completely unacceptable. As legislators, we have a responsibility to act, to make real change when Canadians are asking us to do so. This is the job Canadians sent us to the House to do. With Bill C-16, we would put into place concrete measures that would make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. Behind every one of these numbers is a person, a family and a community left to grieve. We owe those families more than our sympathy. We owe them action, so let me outline a few of the key changes that Bill C-16 would bring. First, we would create a new Criminal Code offence that captures the coercive and controlling conduct of an intimate partner. One may ask, what is the significance of criminalizing such a behaviour in the face of fatal violence against women? The answer is that coercive control is so often the warning sign of the harm we can see before the harm we cannot undo. By criminalizing coercive control, we would give the criminal justice system an opportunity to intervene before relationships become violent, and before violence becomes deadly. This is a measure with the potential to save lives in this country. Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes tells us that this type of violence, which so often goes unseen, is one of the main determinants of femicide. Criminalizing it would help us detect high-risk situations sooner and strengthen prevention. Next, through Bill C-16, we would automatically recognize femicide as first-degree murder. This would ensure that anyone who murders a woman in situations involving control, hate, sexual violence or exploitation faces the harshest penalty: life imprisonment. Even in situations of manslaughter, under the circumstances I have raised, courts would be directed to consider imposing a life sentence, with a period of parole ineligibility of between 10 and 25 years, the same penalty that applies to second-degree murder. Treating these murders as the Criminal Code's most serious forms of homicide speaks directly to the gravity of these offences and to the seriousness with which the government is moving to address them. I would like to dwell for a moment on the term I am using here, “femicide”, and the importance of naming it as such. With Bill C-16, we would be including the term “femicide” in the Criminal Code for the very first time. By putting a name to this insidious crime, we recognize its gravity and have put forward tangible measures to address it, measures that would lead to better protection of women in particular, as well as of children and other members of society. Next I would like to address how the bill would protect children from predators, strengthening Canada's response to child sexual exploitation both online and off-line. Most significantly, Bill C-16 would strengthen mandatory minimum penalties for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation material, including restoring more than 12 mandatory minimum penalties for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by the courts. It would do so by introducing a safety valve to ensure that these sentences, and other existing mandatory minimum penalties that would have otherwise been at risk, remain constitutionally valid. We are also seeking to expand the definition of distributing child sexual exploitation and abuse material so that it would now include the threat of distributing such materials. Children rely on the adults around them to keep them safe, to care for them and to protect their well-being. When someone exploits that trust and vulnerability for sexual purposes, it is profoundly wrong. It is conduct that every member of the House and every Canadian should condemn without hesitation. In a world of ever-changing technology, where explicit images and videos can be shared in an instant and where Canadians are accessing these platforms at a younger age, we must also hold accountable the people on whose platforms this content exists. Bill C‑16 would bolster mandatory reporting and data preservation obligations for online service providers so law enforcement can find and charge these offenders faster. Finally, Bill C‑16 would truly provide help to victims and give them a louder voice in the system. Some of them are part of cases that include complex trials in the justice system, and with that complexity comes the element of time. The time periods outlined in the Jordan decision can be restrictive, turning a measure meant to bring justice into one that can take it away. When a stay of proceedings is automatically demanded, victims lose their chance to be heard, and they feel that justice has been denied to them. With Bill C‑16, we would require the courts to consider remedies other than a stay of proceedings should the Jordan period elapse. We would also be clarifying for the courts which more complex cases deserve a longer period of time before they run into such an issue. Every victim should have the chance to be heard, and we would make sure of that. We would also be putting more information into the hands of victims by providing them with information about available resources proactively, without requiring a formal request. We would be expanding access to testimonial aids for victims of offences committed by an intimate partner and clarifying victims' rights to present impact statements at the sentencing, parole and correction stages. We would also be enhancing the disclosure of information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so victims can have the full scope of the status and location of their offender. While I have highlighted but a few of the essential measures the protecting victims act would introduce, the issues of gender-based violence and sexual exploitation impact us all. Whether it be a family member, a friend, a colleague or a neighbour, someone in our lives has needed or will need these remedies one day, and it is important that we step up to provide them. Bill C‑16 has been supported by law enforcement, by victim advocates and by Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and I implore all members of the House, of all political stripes, to stand with victims and lend their support to Bill C‑16.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague sits with me at the justice committee, and we have done tremendous work on various bills, including Bill C‑16, through hearing testimony from experts, going through clause-by-clause and making amendments, so I want to thank him for his collaboration on the committee. The purpose of this specific bill is to protect victims and children. That is the focus of Bill C‑16. The bill would bring in measures so victims can finally get the protections that they need. We would establish a measure, in terms of the mandatory minimum penalties, in Bill C‑16, the safety valve, so that when an accused receives a sentence or a penalty, the measure would make sure the sentence will not be struck down.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague also sits on the justice committee and has contributed to the study of Bill C‑16 and many other important pieces of legislation. This bill, Bill C‑16, has been waiting to be brought forward for many years. Women's groups have come forward and have told governments and politicians to enact, finally, a piece of legislation that would protect them. It would also protect children who are being abused with sextortion online. We see it, we hear it and we read it in the papers. This is a relief, not only for today, but for many generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas, I was proud to welcome last week, here in Ottawa, more than 80 parliamentarians from 25 countries from across Latin America and the Caribbean, alongside indigenous leaders and youth, for the 10th gathering of the Open Parliament Network. ParlAmericas has become the leading interparliamentary organization of the western hemisphere, connecting and engaging national legislatures to strengthen democracy, co-operation and collective action on trade, innovation, security and sustainability. Through Canada's leadership on AI, security, climate action, food security and democratic governance, Canada is helping set the frameworks others will follow. We also witnessed the signing of an MOU between the United Nations' development program and ParlAmericas, reaffirming the commitment to collaborative legislative action and strengthening co-operation throughout the Americas and the Caribbean. Muchas gracias to the participating parliamentarians who made the gathering possible, memorable and successful.

Mr. Speaker, our government will always protect the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will always defend them. We are not going to speak on that at this stage. We will wait for the results to come in and see what happens in Alberta. However, the Prime Minister has been very clear. The rules are clear. A majority is 50% of the votes plus one. There are laws on that and they have to be upheld.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her leadership. Violence driven by control and fear leaves deep and lasting harm, and far too many women and children are living with those consequences. That is why we introduced Bill C-16, one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. It would criminalize coercive control before violence turns lethal and would strengthen protections against sexual exploitation, including AI deepfakes. Every day we delay in passing this bill, we are delaying protecting victims. I urge all members to support Bill C-16.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas' bilateral mission in Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico, from March 2 to 6, 2026, and a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas respecting the 17th gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network for Gender Equality in Brasilia, Brazil, from September 25 to 26, 2026.

Mr. Speaker, it an honour for me to take the floor today and to speak on behalf of Bill C-22. I rise as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, in support of our government's bill on lawful access. The legislation is really about one simple thing: keeping Canadians safe in a digital world that criminals are increasingly exploiting. Let us be clear about the reality we are facing. In 2024 alone, police reported more than 16 cases of child pornography, exploitation and abuse. In 94% of those cases, they could not identify a suspect or gather enough evidence to proceed. Right now, criminals hide behind anonymous usernames, burner phones and IP addresses. Meanwhile, our police are stuck navigating systems that were never designed for today's digital threats. By the time officers get the information they need, it is often too late, evidence is gone and victims are left without justice. Police need modern tools to properly investigate crimes and keep Canadians safe, and that is exactly why our new Liberal government has introduced Bill C-22. In the Spencer case, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the police need some type of legal authority, such as a legislative authority or prior judicial authorization, to obtain subscriber information linked to specific online activity. Bill C-22 would provide the police not just with the authority they need in order to address a particular criminal activity considered in the Spencer decision regarding accessing and storing child sexual exploitation and abuse material but also with a broader way in circumstances where law enforcement needs to quickly identify suspects but does not have the necessary legal tools to do so. To borrow the words of the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and commissioner of the OPP, Thomas Carrique, “From Internet child exploitation to extortions, to home invasions, to carjackings, to drive-by shootings, to hate motivated crime, to extremism, lawful access is absolutely required and it's required now.” We know that current trends in crimes like fraud, extortion and auto theft are increasingly linked to sophisticated global crime networks. Organized crime is a multi-billion-dollar business that is taking full advantage of digital technologies, which is why it is imperative that we give police services the measures they need to stop these crimes. When criminals target our most vulnerable people online by stealing their identity and using digital tools to hide their tracks, Canadians expect the law to give police the tools they need to respond quickly, lawfully and with respect for the privacy of Canadians. Bill C-22 would do just that. Among other things, the bill would provide timely access to data and information to support the investigation of crime in the digital age. The bill also focuses on modernizing the Criminal Code to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to investigate crime and protect Canadians in 2026. One of these proposed new tools is confirmation of service demand. The new confirmation of service demand tool would provide a new lawful authority to enable police to confirm with a telecommunications service provider, such as Bell or Rogers, whether or not they provide telecommunications services to a specific subscriber, client, account or identifier, like an IP address or a phone number. This new tool would typically be used to help police identify which provider provides services to a phone number or an IP address. I will explain in plain language: This would allow police to ask the simple question to a telecom provider such Bell or Rogers, “Do you service this phone number or IP address, yes or no?” That is it. There would be no content and no personal details, just basic confirmation to help investigators take the next step and seek proper judicial authorization when and where required. The objective of the tool is to assist police in determining which telecommunications service provider has in their possession or control data relevant to an investigation and may be served with a production order to compel the production of this data. Law enforcement would be authorized to make this demand only if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been or will be committed, and that the confirmation of service would assist in the investigation of the offence. As a safeguard against inappropriate use, the service provider would be able to challenge the demand in a court with no obligation to provide the information or confirmation until a final decision is made by the court. The bill also proposes to clarify in the Criminal Code that law enforcement would continue to be permitted to ask a telecommunications service provider or anyone else, including other types of service providers such as banks, hotels or car rental companies, to provide information voluntarily, including the confirmation of service I referenced earlier. This clarification is very important to preserve the ability of police to engage in online policing activities, such as asking questions to seek basic information that does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy. Our government believes that Canadians should be safe online and that police should have the tools they need to act quickly when people are in danger. The legislation would make something very clear in the law: If information is voluntarily provided to police, such as an IP address from a victim's complaint, a tip from a member of the public or information shared by trusted international partners such as the U.S. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, law enforcement would be able to receive that information and act on it without having to first seek a court order. It would also clarify that police would be able to rely on the information that is readily and publicly available, and that they would not be required to issue a formal demand if a service provider chooses to provide that information voluntarily. Bill C-22 would also address an important gap when it comes to urgent situations. These circumstances are rare, but they do occur. Every minute matters. In cases where there is an immediate threat to someone's life or safety, or where critical evidence could disappear, police may need to act quickly to obtain basic subscriber information linked to an IP address. Think about situations where officers are trying to locate a child who has been abducted, using their cellphone signal to trace the source of a credible threat of imminent violence or to determine where a livestream of child sexual abuse is taking place, so they can rescue the victim and stop the abuse. In those moments, speed can mean the difference between life and death. Our laws already recognize that in true emergencies police may act without prior judicial authorization, as long as the legal grounds for doing so exist. The bill would simply provide clarity so officers would be able to respond quickly to protect victims while respecting the rule of law. Bill C-22 is about ensuring that when Canadians are in danger, the law would give police the clarity and the tools they need in order to help, stop the crime and keep people safe. The bill would make it crystal clear that this exception for urgent circumstances would apply to the seizure of subscriber information by amending the existing “exigent circumstances” provided in the Criminal Code. Particularly in the context of global crime networks, equipping police services with these capabilities is critical in placing Canada in line with our Five Eyes partners, and it would respond to the recommendations made in the “Special Report on the Lawful Access to Communications by Security and Intelligence Organizations” by the non-partisan members of the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP, which I had the honour of serving on and chairing. Other meaningful purposes in the bill would better equip police to deal with situations involving organized crime tools, such as temporary phones, burner phones and vehicle switches, as ways of avoiding police surveillance and detection. It would also provide a new search warrant framework to govern the unique nature of computer searches so police would be able to properly examine digital devices and data in a manner that is compliant with Supreme Court rulings. The proposed tools and modernization amendments included in the bill are critically needed, and these amendments would have a concrete impact on victims and on the safety of our communities. I encourage members from across the floor and across the aisle to join us in heeding the call of police organizations across the country to support this much-needed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak to Bill C-2, but I am taking the opportunity this morning, as the member opposite rightly pointed out, to state that I am in total favour of Bill C-22. Although we work through legislation in the House, nothing is perfect. No bill is perfect in its format nor sometimes even in its content, and that is why we have committees, where members from across the aisle from all parties have an opportunity to weigh in, as well as to hear from experts and stakeholders. This is an important piece of legislation. I do hope that Bill C-22 will be adopted so we can send it to the public safety committee and members will have the opportunity to delve into the details that may require fine tuning.

Mr. Speaker, I will give my answer in English this time because I am more familiar with the English terminology. We already have in the Criminal Code the threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect”. It can be found in several sections of the Criminal Code, including section 487.017. This already exists in the Criminal Code. We also think that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is higher than the threshold of mere suspicion.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all Canadians want this bill to be sent quickly to the Standing Committee on National Security so that it can be studied there and then passed. In light of the debates that took place in the House this week on this fine bill, I see that there is goodwill on the part of members, who want to discuss it and address this issue. I appreciate that. It is a very important bill. For too long now, police officers have lacked the tools they need to access the information necessary to prevent crime. I am therefore eager for this bill to pass and I am confident that members will vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to answer the question from my colleague, the member opposite, whom I have had the privilege and delight to work with on NSICOP, as a former member and former chair of that very same committee. I want to highlight just how seriously the government takes the work of NSICOP. During my time as chair and as a member, the committee submitted a special report on lawful access to communication by security and intelligence organizations, which was tabled in Parliament, as the member opposite mentioned, in September 2025. One of the key recommendations of the report is that the government should develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to address Canada's lawful access challenges, drawing from the committee's review and findings. The government has acted decisively through the introduction of Bill C-22, the lawful access act. I sincerely hope that the member opposite will support it. I want to reiterate the important work that is done by each and every member of the committee. I am fully aware that the mandate of the committee has been up for review since October 2022. The government is fully cognizant of this. I know and believe that this will be done in due time. I know that the member opposite asked the minister this very same question again in question period today, and the minister will report back to the House on this very same issue as soon as an answer can be given.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to rise as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to speak about and be in strong support of the government's combatting hate bill, strong and decisive measures in Bill C-9 that would protect Canadians from hate, intimidation and violence, while fully respecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which makes our beautiful country a beacon of democracy and inclusion. The bill is very measured, targeted legislation. It would address some gaps in the Criminal Code that leave communities vulnerable to harassment and threats simply because of who they are, how they worship or the spaces they gather in. Let me share the perspective of those on the front lines. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which sees these actions first-hand, said the following: “FCM welcomes federal efforts to strengthen Canada's legislative framework to protect communities from hate, including hate speech and symbols. Local leaders see first-hand how they can threaten safety, trust and community well-being.” Our party platform, at page 19, made it crystal clear, a clear commitment to Canadians during the last elections, that we promised to criminalize intimidation and obstruction targeting people who simply want to access their community centres and places of worship. We promised to strengthen protections for communities facing hate-motivated crimes. I will remind the House that Canadians, including the very brave people in the riding of Carleton, made their choice clear at the ballot box and want the House to implement the commitments made in the election platform. That is exactly what Bill C-9 would do. Voting against the bill would literally be voting against the very same things that Canadians voted for on April 28, 2025. Here is what Bill C-9 would actually do. The bill would protect access to community spaces and religious buildings. It would create offences for obstructing access to buildings used primarily for religious worship or by identifiable groups, including schools, community centres, seniors residences and cultural spaces. It would also criminalize behaviour intended to intimidate individuals trying to access these very same spaces. This would ensure that Canadians can attend religious services, drop their children off at school or participate in community activities without fear. The bill would create a new stand-alone hate crime offence. Whether it is assault, mischief or other criminal conduct, if it is motivated by hatred towards a protected group based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or other characteristics, law enforcement and courts would now have the tools to treat this hate as an integral part of the crime itself. This is about clarity, consistency and justice for victims. The bill would also codify the Supreme Court's definition of hatred to ensure that hate-motivated conduct is addressed decisively, while at the same time ensuring that the mere criticism, offence or disagreement is not criminalized. It would require showing proof of an emotion of an intense and extreme nature clearly associated with vilification and detestation. Finally, the bill would criminalize the wilful public display of symbols associated with hate or terrorist entities, such as the Nazi hakenkreuz. The intent to promote hatred would have to be present, meaning that the mere display alone would not be a crime. This would modernize the law and protect communities from intimidation, while fully respecting freedom of expression. The need for this legislation was once unanimously recognized by the House. Many elements of the bill originate from the 2024 justice committee report on fighting anti-Semitism that Conservatives supported at the time. They believed in codifying the definition of hatred. They believed in establishing a stand-alone hate crime offence, and they once believed in safeguarding access to religious and community spaces, yet today, in 2026, the same Conservative Party has turned its back on these very same issues. The Conservatives are clearly divided and inconsistent on the issue. That is why Quebec Conservative members are not standing up to speak to the legislation. They support it, but their leader is barring them from speaking. That is why no progressive Conservative members on that side of the House have spoken out on the bill. They are being told not to. Who actually emerged as the Conservative champion on the opposition to Bill C-9? It is not their shadow justice minister. It is actually the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is the member who previously dismissed the Polytechnique massacre as a “fake holiday”. It is the same member who defended Holocaust deniers on the radio by suggesting that denying the Holocaust is just free speech. It is still the same member who stood up for PEGIDA, a white supremacist organization, following the 2017 Quebec City mosque attack that left six innocent men dead. They were fathers, sons and husbands who were murdered while praying. This is the level of moral bankruptcy guiding the Conservative opposition. It speaks volumes. Statistics Canada reports 4,777 incidents in 2023, which is a 32% increase from 2022. Religion-based hate rose 67%, while sexual orientation-based hate rose 69% and race or ethnically-based hate continues to grow. These numbers represent real Canadians living under real threat. They are parents, seniors, students and community members targeted simply for who they are. Conservatives do not want to acknowledge that hate crimes are real. They do not want to protect the most vulnerable communities. It is completely shameful. I have the privilege of sitting at the justice committee where government members worked constructively with opposition and stakeholders to strengthen protection and clarify the law where it is needed. A “for greater certainty” clause was added to explicitly state that religious speech and practice is not captured by the legislation before us. The definition of hatred was even amended to include the word “extreme”, ensuring alignment with the Supreme Court rulings. Despite these careful measures, the Conservative Party continues to mislead Canadians. Its members have tried to frame this bill as an attack on religion, claiming that preaching or teaching scripture could be criminalized. That is categorically false. Courts have long held that four existing hate propaganda offences require proof of wilful intent to target an identifiable group, which is a very high legal threshold that peaceful religious expression has never met and never will under this bill. Instead of supporting practical protections for Canadians, Conservative members have resorted to filibusters, procedural delays, fearmongering and misinformation to block the bill's process. It is politics over people and partisan games over the safety of Canadians who face harassment and intimidation simply for living their lives. The evidence is clear. Religious communities, LGBTQ Canadians and racialized groups have faced dramatic increases in hate crimes. Police and municipalities report that they lack sufficient tools to respond effectively under the Criminal Code. The bill before us would fix that. This is a moment for action, not delay. The Conservative Party has the choice to continue spreading fear and misinformation or to stand with Canadians who deserve to live, worship and gather in safety. We are a government that acts decisively. This bill denounces hate and would protect communities and strengthen the law. It would do so while fully respecting the freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression, the right to protest, and while giving law enforcement the clarity and the tools they need to protect Canadians. It is time to put partisanship aside and support the proposed combatting hate act. It is time to reject fearmongering and misinformation. It is time to stand with Canadians who deserve to live, worship and gather safely. Our communities are counting on us. Let us act. Let us pass the combatting hate act.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important question because there has been a lot of fearmongering and misinformation being put out by the Conservative Party, and Canadians have responded in emails. They are fretting, asking about what is contained in Bill C-9. Bill C-9 is there to protect Canadians. As for the rise in hate, I have enumerated stats from Stats Canada, and there are very serious percentages of hate that are rising in our daily lives. Bill C-9 would come in and protect Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, that is precisely what is addressed in the bill we will have the opportunity to vote on this evening. I hope this bill will pass unanimously, as its sole purpose is to protect Canadians so that they feel safe. A very specific provision has been included in Bill C-9 to make it clear that a person who recites the Bible or the Torah in the proper manner and in good faith will not be penalized.

Mr. Speaker, I think the colleague should revert to his party and see within his ranks because therein lies the division on this bill, which is only coming in to be able to protect Canadians. On this side of the House, we are all united and we are all for the adoption of protecting the people and individuals who are subject to hate every day. On this side of the House, we are unanimous. The division lies on the other side, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, for three long weeks in early 2022, our national capital region was not merely disrupted; it was shaken to the core. Illegal blockades seized our streets, paralyzed our capital and choked off critical trade corridors. Law-abiding Canadians were trapped in their own neighbourhoods, while workers feared for their livelihoods, and families feared for their safety. At a time when our country was still recovering from the devastating impacts of COVID-19, a pandemic that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Canadians, including grandparents, parents, spouses, siblings, sons and daughters, and whose very reality, by the way, the member opposite posing this question has astonishingly continued to cast doubt upon, these actions struck at the very heart of our economic and social stability. We have of course taken note of the decisions of the lower courts, and Canada has now sought leave for the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in. As the member opposite knows very well, given that this matter may soon be before the court, it would be inappropriate to comment further. On this side of the House, we respect our institutions, with legal arguments before the courts and not on the floor of the House of Commons, but if the member opposite is truly concerned about the rights and freedoms of Canadians, I have to ask why he wasted valuable time filibustering at the justice committee, talking about cats and dogs, just to run out the clock, instead of focusing on protecting those very same rights and freedoms. Let me be clear that we are the party of the charter. We are the ones who enshrined these rights and freedoms, and I, along with my colleagues, will always stand proudly to defend the rights and freedoms that Canadians have relied upon for over 43 years. Our government is taking concrete action. Through the combatting hate act, we would strengthen protections for Canadians' fundamental freedoms, especially the freedom of religion and the right to live safely and be who they are. The bill would make it a criminal offence to obstruct lawful access to places of worship. If individuals attempt to block the entrance to a synagogue, a mosque, a church or any other place of worship, law enforcement would have the clear authority to intervene, remove anyone obstructing access and ensure that Canadians can gather and pray in safety and dignity. The bill would also introduce a new stand-alone hate crime offence. This means that when a crime is motivated by hatred, whether based on someone's religion, race, sexual orientation or identity, that hate would be recognized directly in the offence itself, with longer and tougher penalties, and yet the very member who claims to stand for charter rights and freedoms just voted against that legislation. My goodness. Canadians are paying attention. Canadians know for a fact that there is no greater freedom than the freedom to be who we are, to love whom we love, to practise our faith and to live without fear of being targeted because of our identity, full stop.

Mr. Speaker, let me be crystal clear. It is inappropriate to comment any further on this issue. On this side of the House, as I have mentioned before, we respect our institutions. Legal arguments belong to the courts and not on the floor of the House of Commons. It is rich that some of these comments and questions are coming from the member whose intervention, I find, denotes a certain character. He referred to the memorial for the École Polytechnique massacre as a fake feminazi holiday. He went on live radio and suggested that denying the Holocaust is simply a matter of free speech. In 2017, in the wake of the Quebec City mosque shooting, in which six men were murdered because of their faith, he stood with Pegida, a far-right extremist movement linked to the ideology that inspired the attacker. That record speaks for itself. I have a simple question for the member: Is this a—

Madam Speaker, partisan politics is failing our most vulnerable communities. Partisan politics is failing our response to hate-motivated crimes and violence in this country, and when it prevents Parliament from acting to protect Canadians, then partisan politics is failing Canada itself. The motion before us today is a response to that failure. Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, was introduced by the Minister of Justice on September 19, 2025, and was referred to the justice committee on October 1, 2025. Today is March 9, 2026. Nearly six months have passed since the bill's introduction. Since then, the House has debated the bill and the justice committee has studied it. Well over 30 witnesses have appeared and testified. Communities have spoken, both in person and via briefs, and amendments have been discussed among committee members. Parliament has done its job of scrutinizing this eight-page bill, but there comes a moment when scrutiny must lead to a decision. After half a year of debate and study, the time has come for Parliament to act. The time has come to bring the combatting hate act to a vote, yet the bill remains stalled, not because Canadians are uncertain about confronting hate but because today's Conservative Party of Canada is divided on this issue. I say this with sincerity. When this bill finally comes to a vote, I believe many Conservative members will stand with us and support it. I believe that because many of them understand something fundamental, which is that Parliament has a duty to confront a specific form of violence that is rising in our communities: hate-motivated violence. Bill C-9 is not a complicated piece of legislation. In fact, it is only eight pages long. However, those eight pages carry an important message: that in Canada, hatred and intimidation have no place in our public lives. The bill does three straightforward things: First, it creates offences to stop people from blocking or intimidating others who are trying to enter places such as synagogues, mosques, churches, schools or community centres. Second, it creates a stand-alone hate-motivated offence so that when someone commits a crime of hatred toward a person's identity, the law recognizes it right from the start. Third, it addresses the wilful promotion of hatred through the public display of hate or terrorist symbols used to target and intimidate vulnerable communities. I know many Conservatives support these measures because they themselves called for them. In fact, in December 2024, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released its report on fighting anti-Semitism in Canada. That report, which was supported by the Conservatives, recommended measures that are now reflected in Bill C-9: defining hate more clearly, creating a stand-alone hate crime offence and criminalizing intimidation directed at religious communities. That is why it is difficult for Canadians to understand what has happened since then. The Conservatives of 2024 called on Parliament to act. The Conservatives of 2026 are delaying the very measures they once supported. Canadians are left asking a simple question: Which position reflects the Conservative Party's true position on the issue of hate crimes? More importantly, this debate is not only about parliamentary process but about Canadians themselves. In the last federal election, our party made a clear commitment to confront the rise of hate-motivated crime, which appears on page 19 of the 2025 Liberal platform. I will remind Conservatives that Canadians, including the people of Carleton, supported our platform to address hate crimes at the ballot box. They asked us to act. Bill C-9 is part of fulfilling that promise. I have a great respect for the role of the opposition. Opposition parties play a vital role in strengthening legislation. Their job is to challenge, question and even improve bills through committee work, but not to paralyze Parliament simply because a bill creates internal divisions within their own caucus. Unfortunately, this is what Canadians have been witnessing. For example, the Conservative member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South spent hours in committee speaking about issues that had absolutely nothing to do with the bill, including his admiration for cats and dogs, while witnesses endured countless hours of filibustering and patiently waited to discuss this legislation designed to confront hate. The Conservative member for York Centre used valuable committee time talking about sandwiches he had for lunch instead of debating how Parliament should respond to threats that Jewish communities are facing in his own riding. This is not serious parliamentary work. Canadians expect so much better from all of us. Let me be clear. The government has made every effort to constructively work with colleagues across the aisle. When concerns were raised that Bloc Québécois amendments proposed in committee might create uncertainty around the freedom of religion, we listened. We worked with colleagues to introduce a “for greater certainty” clause, making it absolutely clear that preaching, teaching one's faith, reading scripture, delivering sermons, praying and discussing religious texts in good faith would never be criminalized by this legislation. Religious organizations from across the country welcomed that clarification. Groups such as the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian Hindu Alliance and the Christian Legal Fellowship, pretty much all religious groups, expressed their satisfaction with this additional clause to Bill C-9 and are now waiting for it to move forward. In other words, when legitimate concerns were raised, we addressed them. This is how Parliament is supposed to work, but even after that collaborative effort, the obstruction has continued. Parliament has already spent more than 35 hours debating and studying this bill. Witnesses have testified, amendments have been examined and every clause has been reviewed. For a bill of eight pages, that is thorough scrutiny, by any reasonable standard. At some point, debate must give way to decision. Democracy does not function if legislation can be delayed indefinitely. The communities affected by hate cannot wait forever while Parliament argues about procedure. That is why the motion before us is necessary. It would simply ensure that the committee can complete its work and that the House can finally vote on Bill C-9. Let the legislation come to a vote. Let every member of this House make their position clear to Canadians. Those who support confronting hatred will stand up and vote for it. Those who oppose it will have to explain their choices to the communities that are asking for protection. Here is what is at play. Across this country, people at synagogues have been shot at. Those at mosques have been threatened. Churches have been burned, people at temples have been harassed and children have arrived at school with hateful or terrorist symbols waved outside their school gates. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a troubling pattern that communities across Canada are experiencing. Law enforcement, community leaders and human rights organizations have told Parliament clearly that the measures in Bill C-9 would give them stronger tools to address these threats. After six months of delay, it is time for Parliament to move forward. It is time to rise above partisan politics. It is time to listen to the voices of Canadians and send a clear message that hatred and intimidation will never define our country.

Madam Speaker, we have seen a rise in incidents of anti-Semitism, including two shootings at synagogues just last week. It is literally a reminder that Bill C-9 needs to pass, and to pass quickly, to send a strong message to Canadians that hate crimes are heinous and must be denounced. That is why we are acting on Bill C-9, to make it illegal to block or impede someone's access to their community or religious centre, and to create a new stand-alone hate offence so that these crimes are treated seriously.

Madam Speaker, there has been hour after hour of filibustering in committee. We see that the Conservative members are divided. Some support the bill, which is a good piece of legislation, while others do not. Unfortunately, Canadians are the ones who are paying the price because we must address the reprehensible acts that we are seeing. We need to take action. We need to go ahead and pass this bill, which will protect Canadians. That is why we had to proceed in this fashion. We hope that the House will adopt this motion so that the committee members can continue their work.

Madam Speaker, what is unacceptable are the hours and hours of filibustering and obstruction by the members of the justice committee to not move forward with the bill. It is also a shame to hear the member opposite talk about the combatting hate act as a censorship bill. What does the member opposite call censorship? Does he think it is okay to target synagogues? Does he think it is okay to threaten LGBTQ+ people because of who they love? Does he think that it is okay to wilfully call for the extermination of women and racialized Canadians while waving a Nazi flag in public? Which form of hate is the member opposite trying to protect?

Madam Speaker, we witnessed a committee meeting that lasted from 4:30 p.m. to about two o'clock in the morning and that was one long filibuster. It was a fine example of reading whatever passage inspired members but had absolutely nothing to do with the bill. This is a tactic used to prevent the bill from moving forward. It is therefore essential that the House adopt the motion so that we can move forward and protect Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, our new Liberal Prime Minister was given a clear mandate by Canadians to tighten bail, strengthen sentences and keep repeat violent offenders in jail, where they belong. After months and months of obstruction by the Conservatives at committee, holding Bill C-14 hostage and running down the clock by talking about cats and dogs, they finally relented last week and allowed the bill to move forward. Today, as the bill reaches its final stage at third reading, I urge the Conservatives to support this important piece of legislation that would help keep our communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Conservative motion presented today on public safety, extortion and our immigration system. While this is an important conversation, I have been following the language used by the Conservative members very closely. Unfortunately, it is based on flawed assumptions, misinformation and political posturing, rather than a thoughtful, evidence-based approach to justice in Canada. Let me be clear: Our government is committed to a justice system that protects victims, punishes repeat violent offenders and is rooted in evidence, not political ideology or fearmongering. In the face of partisan attacks, we are going to set the record straight. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I will specifically focus on parts (c) and (d) of this motion. First, let us talk about part (c) of the motion, which seeks to bar judges from considering some collateral consequences at the sentencing stage. For those unfamiliar with our sentencing framework, judges can consider a wide range of collateral consequences when imposing a sentence. These include impacts on employment; travel restrictions; loss of professional licences; mental health; housing; firearm rights; inclusion in the sex offender registry; family responsibilities, such as care for sick relatives; and immigration status. Here is the question: Why are the Conservatives complaining only about judges' considering immigration status when deciding a sentence? Why are they not raising the same concern when judges consider the loss of a firearm licence, even in cases involving firearm-related offences? If their goal is truly to remove one type of collateral consequence from judicial consideration, then logically they should be advocating to remove all of them. This includes the very ones, like the loss of a firearm licence, that directly affect public safety. However, the Conservatives focus solely on immigration status. This tells Canadians everything they need to know. Rather than addressing collateral consequences that impact public safety directly, the Conservatives are choosing to stigmatize immigrants. The reality is clear: Judicial discretion considers all relative factors, and selectively targeting immigration status is both misleading and dangerous. This is not the Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney, who worked to ensure that we did not stigmatize immigrants or portray them as criminals. This is not even the Conservative Party of former prime minister Harper. In fact, the practice of judges considering immigration status as collateral damage and consequence actually started under former prime minister Harper's government. In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Pham ruled that judges could consider immigration status only if so doing ensures that the sentence remains proportionate to the crime committed. Former prime minister Harper was fine with that, because it allowed judges the necessary discretion to evaluate all relevant factors. Even the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who were in cabinet at the time, said nothing. I suspect they knew it was not a problem then and know it is still not a problem today. However, they are now exploiting the issue to scare Canadians, score political points, cater to the far right base and portray all immigrants as criminals. This is shameful, and anyone who supports the motion should be equally ashamed. The Conservatives are once again pushing for a failed approach that undermines judicial independence and ignores binding Supreme Court precedent. Rather than interfering with judicial discretion, let us focus on the facts. The courts are not misapplying sentencing guidelines or reducing sentences inappropriately. If the Crown believes a sentence is too lenient, it has the right to appeal. It is just that simple. I dare the members opposite to point to a single case in which the Crown has appealed a sentence for a non-citizen based on immigration status. They will not find one. Now let us turn our attention to part (d) of the motion, which calls for the repeal of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. These bills were critical reforms designed to modernize the criminal justice system, protect victims and address the realities of today's world. Let us take Bill C-75. This bill strengthened protection for victims of intimate partner violence, which is something every member of the chamber should be concerned with. Under Bill C-75, we defined “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code to include ex-partners for all Criminal Code-related purposes, and we created a reverse onus for repeat offenders of violence between intimate partners, making it harder for them to get bail. Repeat offenders, the ones who are the most likely to reoffend, are being targeted. However, the Conservatives are so blinded by their obsession with headlines that they refuse to see the facts. They claim that Bill C-75 weakened public safety, but the president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association has made it quite clear that this claim is a false narrative. Let us talk about Bill C-5. The Conservatives have tried to make it sound like we were somehow soft on crime, but that could not be farther from the truth. They have raised concerns about house arrest for extortionists, but what they fail to say is that conditional sentences are not available for serious crimes like extortion when the sentence is two years or more, or when the offender poses a threat to public safety. Therefore, Bill C-5 did not give criminals a free pass. We actually maintained mandatory jail time for extortion involving illegal firearms or criminal organizations, the kinds of crimes that concern Canadians most. While the Conservatives play politics, our government has a comprehensive agenda to combat organized crime. Bill C-14, for example, would introduce over 80 targeted Criminal Code reforms aimed at tackling violent offenders and organized crime, including extortion, yet what did the Conservatives do? They blocked the bill at committee. Their members wasted valuable time at the committee. They are on record talking about their love of cats and puppies, instead of focusing on bail reform, sentencing reform, gender-based violence and extortion. Let us not forget Bill C-16, which tackles the growing menace of sextortion, a horrific form of online exploitation. The Conservatives have done nothing but block it. They are even asking the government to split the bill. While the Conservatives stand in the way of very important public safety reforms, we are pushing forward with real solutions. We have introduced targeted reforms, including lawful access, which would, with Bill C-2, give law enforcement the tools it needs to catch the extortionists before they even commit the crime. With Bill C-14, we would create new reverse onus provisions for people accused of extortion involving violence, making it harder for them to get bail. We would require that a sentence for extortion be served consecutively to a sentence imposed for arson, not concurrently. We would prohibit weapons at the bail stage for people accused of extortion and organized crime. We would even strengthen bail conditions for extortionists in organized crime, such as geographic limitations. What are the Conservatives doing? They are obstructing. Let us be clear: Our new Liberal government is committed to protecting victims. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have chosen to play politics with the safety of Canadians. They have obstructed every meaningful reform we have tried to pass, and now they are using partisan rhetoric to undermine our justice system. Canadians deserve better; they deserve a justice system that works for everyone, not just for the politicians who want to score political points. Let us pass Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16. Law enforcement and Canadians are waiting for this critical legislation to secure our borders, our streets and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the same talking points from the Conservatives on Bill C-5, saying we somehow removed mandatory jail time for extortion. Let me set the record straight, because Canadians deserve to hear this clearly and not just hear slogans. I have a news flash: Bill C-5 did not eliminate mandatory jail time for serious extortion offences. In fact we deliberately maintained mandatory minimum penalties for extortion involving restricted or prohibited firearms, and for extortion connected to criminal organizations. Those are precisely the types of violent, organized crimes and extortion cases that are causing the greatest harm in our communities today. Since the member opposite seems unfamiliar with the law they are criticizing, I would encourage them—

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I would like to take this opportunity to tell him that I also enjoy working with him and my Conservative Party colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Our government has introduced several bills to keep Canadians safe. I know that Bill C‑14 has passed, and I hope that we will be able to study Bill C‑9 at committee tomorrow. I very much look forward to continuing to work with my colleague on this and other bills that will come before the committee, including Bill C‑16.

Mr. Speaker, in fact and in reality, the government has been very ambitious in bringing forward a crime package to ensure the security of Canadians. We have heard time and time again of what is happening on the streets, and so we have been very bold in our approach, bringing forward Bill C-5, Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and soon Bill C-16. We are very much looking forward to the Conservatives' co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are right to expect that when the government engages abroad, it is to bring home opportunities, more secure jobs, more resilient supply chains and more diversified markets. That is exactly what the government has been doing, helping Canadians navigate economic headwinds, opening new opportunities in fast-growing regions and defending Canadians against unfair trade measures. The pressures faced by Canadian workers and producers across the country are real and deserve acknowledgement from the House. From farmers navigating sudden tariff announcements to auto workers facing disrupted North American supply chains to steelworkers dealing with unfair trade measures, Canadians in sectors across the country feel the impact of global economic turbulence. In a world of rising protectionism, Canada cannot retreat behind its borders. We must face these challenges head-on. Canada has traditionally depended on a narrow set of markets, particularly the United States, for the bulk of our exports. That closeness remains a strength, but overreliance has left Canada vulnerable to sudden shifts in the trade policy of our southern neighbour. That is why trade diversification is at the forefront of our economic strategy. Modern agreements expanded economic diplomacy and targeted trade missions that create new opportunities for Canadian goods and services. These efforts include ambitious targets like doubling non-U.S. exports over the next decade. At the leadership level, that engagement includes the Prime Minister's recent visit to China, which focused on stabilizing the bilateral relationship, addressing trade irritants affecting Canadian exporters and reopening channels for Canadian agri-food businesses. When countries impose tariffs on Canadian products such as lumber, steel and aluminum, canola or autos, this government does not back down. Instead, it addresses unfair measures with calibrated responses to protect Canadian industries while working intensively to remove barriers through negotiation. That is what responsible governance looks like: standing up for our industries, being honest with Canadians, working toward negotiated solutions and supporting impacted sectors and workers. To answer the member's question directly, the Prime Minister will continue to showcase the best of Canada in order to open new markets, secure new jobs and reduce the leverage any single market can ever yield over Canadian livelihoods.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South's question is deeply misleading. That member asserts that the Liberals rejected not about 20 but 17 attempts to advance critical bail reforms. That is simply not true. What we rejected were Conservative attempts to derail and kill the combatting hate act. That bill would make it illegal to publicly display hate symbols when the goal is to promote hatred against a group of people, treat crimes motivated by hate more seriously by creating specific hate crime offence when someone commits a crime because they hate a group of people, and make it a crime to intimidate or obstruct people's lawful access to places like churches, synagogues, mosques or other spaces used by identifiable communities. These are not new ideas. They were direct recommendations from the House of Commons' fighting anti-Semitism report, a report that Conservative members supported. When the member talks about attacks on religious freedom, let us be honest: We are the party of the charter, the very same party that literally wrote freedom of expression and religion into the Constitution. What Conservatives are doing is simply running around telling church and mosque leaders that freedom of religion is under attack and then passing the hat to fundraise off a claim they know is false. They are not defending faith. They are using faith communities as ATMs. On bail reform and Bill C-14, I must correct the record again. The reality is that, out of those so-called 17 attempts, I was the first to move a motion to fast-track Bill C-14 and send it back to the House, and the Conservatives voted against it. If anyone listens carefully to that broadcast, they can literally hear them voting no and saying they need more time to study. We have been studying bail reform since September at the justice committee. Police chiefs, police associations, municipalities and the premiers of Alberta, B.C. and Ontario have all called for the passage of Bill C-14, yet Conservatives once again said they needed more time. There is no more time to study. It is time to act and pass Bill C-14. Let me remind the House that all last fall Conservatives refused to pass Bill C-14, our bail and sentencing reform act to keep violent offenders off our streets. Even after police chiefs across the country called on them to act, they said no. Now suddenly they support fast-tracking the bill. We do welcome that change, but let us be clear that this urgency was missing when it mattered the most. It is better late than never, I guess, but let us not rewrite history. This government is serious about crime, about victims and about real solutions. We will protect communities from violent offenders, and we will protect Canadians from hate and intimidation at the same time. Let us stop the misinformation, stop the obstruction and get to work on keeping our communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about bail reform, so I would hope that the member opposite would stay on topic. After the Conservatives' refusal to pass Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, before Christmas, I welcome the members opposite's recent support of a Liberal motion to study Bill C-14 in three days and move it forward. Canadians will be watching the justice committee this Wednesday when Bill C-14 goes to its final clause-by-clause stage. Conservatives say they deeply care about bail reform. If that is true, then let us see them pass it on Wednesday and report it back to the House for a third reading. I really hope the member opposite does not once again spend hours in committee talking about cats and dogs just to run out the clock. This bill is way too important, and I hope the Conservatives will support us in fast-tracking it.

Mr. Speaker, our government has been relentlessly focused on bringing down costs for Canadians. Broadly speaking, we are doing this in two ways. Through budget 2025 we laid the groundwork to unlock generational investments in Canadian businesses, workers and resources to build a stronger and more resilient Canadian economy. While we implement those long-term and strategic initiatives, we are also putting more money in the pockets of Canadians through targeted and common-sense initiatives. By ensuring that Canadian workers and families keep more of their hard-earned money, we are empowering Canadians to better support their families, invest in their communities and build the future they want. Just yesterday, for example, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance announced new measures to make groceries and other essentials more affordable. In order to bring down these costs for Canadians, Canada's new government is introducing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Formerly known as the GST credit, we are increasing its amount by 25% over the next five years, beginning in July 2026. On top of that we are providing a one-time payment equivalent to a 50% increase this year. Combined, this means that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year in the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year for the next four years. I am proud to say that the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit will provide additional significant support for more than 12 million Canadians. What is more, the government is also setting aside $500 million from the strategic response fund to help businesses address the cost of supply chain disruptions without passing those costs on to Canadians at the checkout line. For the same reason, we will create a $150-million food security fund under the existing regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized enterprises and the organizations that support them. Thanks to budget 2025, we are doing so much more to make life more affordable for Canadians. Budget 2025 builds on the many actions we have already taken to support Canadian families at a time of significant economic uncertainty and affordability challenges. Here are some key examples of how we have been delivering for Canadians. Let me begin with the high cost of housing, which has been a focal point of our government's work to restore affordability. Canada is facing a steep housing supply gap, one that threatens affordability, opportunity and the ability for Canadians to build a life and a future here. Put simply, our country needs to build many more homes. We are eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers on homes at or under $1 million and reducing the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. We will build faster and smarter thanks to the launch of Build Canada Homes, a new federal agency that will drive investment and public-private co-operation. Federal dollars invested in Build Canada Homes will be leveraged to attract private capital, investors and builders to expand the housing supply. These measures will make housing attainable, cities more vibrant and communities stronger. We are doing so much more. Let us also look at other major cuts. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax after the government announced lowering the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. The rate reduction, which is currently before Parliament as part of Bill C-4, would apply to taxable income up to—

Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 will spend less on government operations and cut waste so we can invest more in growing our economy and protecting essential programs that make life more affordable for Canadians. For example, once again, the Prime Minister announced the creation of the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will provide additional significant support for more than 12 million Canadians. Our government has been focused on bringing down Canadian costs, and this will remain our top priority.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, the riding I represent. I would like to wish everyone a happy new year, and I hope for a productive year ahead. Speaking of productivity, I rise today to respond to a question raised last fall regarding former Bill C-75. At that time, the Conservatives chose partisanship over collaboration and advanced a misleading claim that the bill required the release of violent offenders. Today, at the start of the new year, I welcome their stated desire to work in good faith and collaboratively, and I hope that the spirit of co-operation extends beyond this week's Conservative convention in Alberta. I am sure the Conservative leader is greatly anticipating it. Let me be absolutely clear. Former Bill C-75 does not require courts to release violent offenders at the earliest opportunity. That claim is simply false and is now acknowledged by police associations across the country. Bill C-75 codified the long-standing principle of restraint affirmed by the Supreme Court, which does not mean automatic release. When an accused is violent, poses a risk to public safety or has a serious criminal history, detention is entirely appropriate. By claiming otherwise, Conservatives are misleading Canadians and undermining the confidence in our justice system for political gain. Let us turn to what is actually before the House today. The Liberal government currently has six major crime bills before Parliament, legislation that police associations across the country have been explicitly asking for. Let us take Bill C-2, for example. It would modernize lawful access and give police the tools they need to catch predators before crimes are committed. Conservatives say they care about public safety, yet they are blocking the very tools police say they need. Let us take Bill C-14, introduced last fall, which directly addresses bail and sentencing. This bill would make it harder for serious and repeat violent offenders to obtain bail. It would strengthen sentences, add new aggravating factors for repeat violent offending and prioritize denunciation and deterrence where communities are being harmed. Importantly, Bill C-14 also clarifies the principle of restraint, making it explicit that restraint does not mean automatic release. Bill C-14 is exactly the kind of targeted, evidence-based reform Canadians are asking for. However, last fall, the Conservatives refused to pass this bill before Christmas. Then we have Bill C-16, which puts victims first. It would strengthen protections for victims of gender-based violence by creating a stand-alone offence for coercive and controlling conduct, and by clearly identifying circumstances in the Criminal Code where a murder constitutes femicide. This legislation reflects our commitment to centring victims and addressing the realities of gender-based violence. This bill would also restore mandatory jail time for Criminal Code offences, including those previously struck down by the Supreme Court. To ensure these mandatory minimums are charter-compliant, the bill includes a narrowly tailored safety valve. It would allow a judge, in rare and exceptional cases, to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum only when applying the mandatory minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Mandatory jail time remains the rule, and we are glad to have the endorsement of the Conservative member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola on the safety valve for MMPs. The government is acting. We are strengthening bail where it needs to be strengthened. We are targeting repeat violent offenders. We are giving police real tools and we are centring—

Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear that the government is taking action and wants to hold criminals responsible, but legislation alone will not fix the problem. The provinces and territories play a critical role in administering justice, conducting bail hearings, supervising individuals on release, ensuring compliance with conditions and investing in programs that will prevent reoffending. The federal government is stepping up with new laws and major investments in policing. We encourage our provincial and territorial partners to lead with us and continue funding their courts, training justices of the peace and expanding community supports.