Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, we have strengthened our Criminal Code of Canada over the last year. We made over 80 different changes with the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act and over 90 different changes with the Protecting Victims Act. We are seeing results across the country. Crime stats are coming down, and there has been the biggest drop in homicides since 1986. We are result-focused, and we are seeing the results.

Mr. Speaker, we have been working aggressively and diligently to reform the Criminal Code of Canada over the last 15 months. However, we are very careful in making sure that we pass legislation in this House that will stand up to our Constitution and to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Conservatives believe in creating laws in this House, and confusing Canadians with laws, that are never going to withstand a charter challenge. We are open to making reforms, but we will make the reforms that are right for our country and for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, although I respect the sentiment, this is not Liberal parole. We have not made changes under this government. People do not get parole every single time. For instance, in this case, the assailant has not gotten parole. Therefore, I think a lot of what is being said by the Conservatives is not factual. They are trying to politicize this matter. As I have said before, we are open to amendments that are appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, that is completely incorrect. It has not been the Conservatives' role in the current Parliament to keep Canadians safe. That is the job of the government, and that is the job we have been doing. All they have done all along is delay. They delayed lawful access. They voted against Bill C-16, the protecting victims' rights bill. They also voted against strengthening hate crime laws in this country. They are not for public safety. They are for letting criminals go free.

Mr. Speaker, on the day of his funeral, I ask all members to join me in honouring OPP Constable Tarun Bali, who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, and in extending our heartfelt condolences to his loved ones and fellow officers. We are seeing media reporting in Canada and elsewhere that these shooters were paid for hire, and reports also suggesting that they were paid for by foreign actors. I want to make it clear that my comments were aimed to echo what is being reported on by media and what Toronto Police Chief Demkiw has said and believes is the case.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have questions, victims have questions and the police chiefs have questions as to why it has taken so long for Bill C-22, which was originally Bill C-2, to get through the legislative process. Every day that we wait, more and more victims are created in Canada. Take, for example, the shootings at the synagogues that have just happened recently. Those shooters were paid and hired by a foreign entity, in our country, online. Had we been able to find those shooters sooner, there would have been fewer victims.

Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, I have heard the Conservatives make reference to, “Why do we need this bill at all? We already have existing laws.” It is really surprising to me, hearing that come from the Conservatives, considering they claim to be tough on crime and want longer sentences. In this bill, a simple assault committed due to hate would go from five years to 10 years in prison. Sexual assault with a weapon causing bodily harm would go from 14 years to life in prison. This bill would provide for longer, appropriate sentences and appropriate punishment for those who commit crimes involving hate. I want to know what the parliamentary secretary thinks about that. Are the Conservatives even tough on crime anymore?

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about underlying crimes that are in the code already, such as assault or mischief. This bill would take the penalties for those crimes and double them for people who would dare prevent somebody from going into their synagogue. I know the community is supportive of this bill, because it would give longer and more meaningful, substantial penalties for those who commit hate crimes in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this Conservative opposition is not about scrutinizing bills. We are up for scrutiny. We have amended many of our bills, including Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is a bill that we in Parliament have tried to bring many times because, as I know the Conservatives recognize, we need modern tools to fight terrorism and to fight organized crime, but these Conservatives do not really care. They will oppose anything. Just last week, they opposed harsher sentences for child predators. Who are these people?

Mr. Speaker, I think the members of the business council should also be informed that the Conservative Party of Canada did nothing to assist in our bail and sentencing reform bill. If anything, it has impeded our ability to progress in making changes to the Criminal Code of Canada to make sentences harder and to make sure we give police the tools they need through Bill C-22. They have been blocking it for months now, and they need to help law enforcement so its members can arrest and charge criminals.

moved: That, in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of the Senate amendment to the Bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the said stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has had an unprecedented number of hours of debate, whether in the House or at committee. Like I said previously, it was tabled in the House September 19. Let me be clear, because there is a lot of misinformation about the bill. I too have been receiving a lot of calls, but I have been trying to correct the narrative, because many people misunderstand and have misinterpreted the bill. The intimidation and obstruction offence in the bill would not criminalize expression or peaceful assembly, including lawful protests or other forms of public communication.

Mr. Speaker, many community groups have been asking for the government to take action, as we have seen a rise in hate crimes against many people of different ethnic backgrounds, religions and races. This is important. The LGBTQ community has also faced a rise in hate in this country. This is part of a larger set of initiatives that we as a government are taking. There is the Canada community security program, which we have heavily invested in. There is Canada's action plan on combatting hate. We are doing work to collect data. However, it is important to also deter and punish those who take part in hate crimes. Those who commit them will face harsher penalties after the bill is passed.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been considered in the House. It has been considered in the other place. Amendments have been made in both Houses of Parliament, and the bill has come back for genuine debate. I know the Conservative Party of Canada has been busy for many months spreading a misinformation campaign, so we have been getting a lot of calls from people thinking stuff is in the bill that is not. It is a short bill. It is very targeted, and it is in compliance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would not limit anyone's ability to practise their faith in this country.

Mr. Speaker, through the committee process, a lot of good ideas came forward. In this bill, we have a clear definition of what hatred means. It was taken from Supreme Court precedents and those from other levels of court as well. The definition of “hatred” has been well established in this country, so it is very clear. Considering the fact that the Attorney General's consent would also be required in this bill, there would be an additional safeguard provided. Work has been done on the bill, and I thank all parties for contributing, but it is time to get this passed so we can protect Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, protesting is a fundamental right in this country, and this bill would not limit the right of peaceful protest, but it should be recognized that under section 1 of the charter, rights and freedoms may be subject to reasonable limits if those limits are prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Those who are not wilfully participating in hate would not end up being charged under any provision of the bill. There has been a lot of misinformation. I want to reassure Canadians that the bill was brought forward with good intentions after lots of consultation and demand from communities, because we have seen these acts of violence increase in this country and we want to make sure that the government sets the precedent that we will not tolerate hate in our country.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought forward after listening to the concerns of Canadians. The fear, intimidation and hate that they have been facing are why we have brought forward the bill. It is in order to protect Canadians and to protect the rights of freedom of expression. There are many Canadians who do not feel that it is safe to be able to practise their faith in this country, so the bill is about protecting religion in Canada and making sure that everyone understands that people have a right to their beliefs. That is what the bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, I have had many conversations in which people state and read out Conservative talking points, exact emails that were sent out by the Conservative Party of Canada. I want to reassure Canadians today that the proposed intimidation and obstruction offences in the bill have been carefully designed to target criminal conduct while respecting charter rights on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The government is confident that the legislation is consistent with the protections of the charter and, if challenged, it can be defended before the courts.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of reasons. Sometimes world events are a reason. Sometimes it is people's hatred because of the polarization that has happened online over the last little while. Canadians are more isolated than they used to be. They are more staunch in their opinions. In the past, thousands of Black North Americans were lynched. There have been many acts of hate in the past as well. This government did not do that. The government is taking action. All the Conservatives have been doing is trying to obstruct. They do not want us to protect Canadians. The Conservatives reached an all-time low last week when they voted against longer sentences for child predators.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, much time has been given to debate on this matter in the House and in the other place as well. The Senate came back with one amendment; it was the addition of a hate symbol, the noose, because of the anti-Black racism that we have seen throughout North America, and I would say throughout western countries around the world. That is the issue right now. That was the amendment that was brought forward by the Senate, but it does not seem like anyone has questions on that. I am sad to say that even when debate on this was occurring at the House of Commons committee, a lot of time was wasted talking about frivolous and irrelevant things. I do not believe the opposition party has been acting in good faith.

Mr. Speaker, we are acting. We are changing the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence of mischief that the member is talking about has very low penalties and is added at the sentencing portion of a crime. This is a stand-alone hate crime. This bill would also create a crime of intimidation and of obstruction. We have seen many Canadians not be able to go to their day camps, their religious schools or their places of worship. It is really important that we make sure that all Canadians feel safe living in Canada. This bill is essential. Canadians have asked us to make amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, and we have done so. We have done so in this bill and in several other bills, because we are a government that believes in protecting Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative argument is so disingenuous. In the hate crime or the shooting that happened at the U.S. consulate, the RCMP and local law enforcement investigated that incident. There were actors who belonged to a terrorist organization. It has been reported and alleged that they were working out of the United States of America and were plotting events here in Canada and in Europe. Our law agencies were investigating and were on top of it, and so I give them a lot of credit for the investigation that they have done. However, they could also use more investigative tools, like those in Bill C-22 respecting lawful access, but the Conservatives have been standing in their way. How many more victims are the Conservatives going to create by their obstruction?

Mr. Speaker, we have seen many incidents. We have seen 2SLGBTQI+ groups be discriminated against and an extreme rise in violence against them and the transgender community here in Canada. It is important to protect all communities. Whether it is a member of a faith group, a student on campus who wishes to go to a prayer room, or a young kid trying to attend a religious camp or a Jewish school, it is important for them to be able to live their lives. Canada is a place where all people should be free to practise their faith and to go to school without fear and intimidation. That is what the law is all about. Bill C-9 is about giving Canadians the safety they deserve while being who they are.

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the misinformation that I have been speaking about tonight. That is not what the bill does. I would say that I think Canadians would mistrust the current Conservative Party of Canada right now because Conservatives talk about being tough on crime and they talk about making Canada safe, but their actions have not been showing it. Just last week, they voted against making femicide a first-degree murder charge. They voted against longer sentences for child predators. They voted against minimum penalties. Who are these Conservatives and why are they against safety and protecting Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the bill has gone through all the steps of the legislative process. Through those steps, amendments have been made. Witnesses were able to come forward at committee. Members were able to give their opinions. There was an amendment made by the House. Therefore, after that amendment, the bill maintains the requirement of Attorney General consent for all offences in the bill. What is the member talking about? Police will not even be able to lay charges on their own. This is exactly the misinformation that I keep saying the Conservatives have been spreading. My message to Canadians is this. We are the government and we are the party that is here to act and to keep Canadians safe.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the fact that the member just mentioned that the noose has a different definition here in Canada. I would like to know what the member thinks the noose symbolizes here in Canada that is different from the United States. Just a few years ago, in order to intimidate the Black community, nooses were found on several construction sites in Toronto. Do you think that the noose was placed there for a friendly purpose?

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendment to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Madam Speaker, it is really rich to hear the Conservatives talking about the Supreme Court and upholding a Supreme Court decision because generally what I have heard in debate over the last several months is, “Just don't listen to the Supreme Court. Do everything to oppose their decisions in the past.” I would also like to say that many of the members get up and ask about organized crime in question period every day. The only way to fight organized crime is to make sure we give police the tools so that they can get evidence. Criminal organizations are using modern tools. They are using technology. Why have the Conservatives been supporting the big tech companies instead of supporting Canadians and their public safety?

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Durham police, Peel police and many police forces around this country that are working very hard, day in and day out, to crack down on organized crime. They have laid many arrests and many charges, and the criminal justice system will be dealing with these criminals. These are organized international crime groups. Many countries are suffering from their coordinated efforts, but Canada is cracking down and will punish these criminals.

Mr. Speaker, do members know what victims in my community ask me? They ask me how long investigations will take. In order to speed up investigations and provide further tools to law enforcement, they need Bill C-22 to pass. However, the Conservatives in this House have been delaying that bill and have been on the side of social media giants, instead of on the side of Canadians so that public safety can be served.

Mr. Speaker, these crime groups are linked to many countries around the world, and law enforcement is finding that these criminals are operating not just from within Canada, but from many different countries. Do members know what would help? It would help to be able to investigate these crimes within Canada and be able to pass Bill C-22. We are one of the only western countries that does not have a legal access framework. When will the Conservatives become tough on crime? The government is ready to do the work.

Mr. Speaker, I am tired of hearing the exaggeration throughout the debate on this bill. The bill would be tougher on crime overall, because without a safety valve, mandatory minimum penalties would often get struck down. What we would do through the bill is keep minimum penalties in place. We could actually make sure that people serve a sentence when they commit a heinous crime. Really, the Conservatives are fake tough on crime, because what they have achieved is the cancellation of all these minimum sentences through charter challenges. What we would do in this bill is make them mandatory, and therefore make them tougher.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the member uses the words “poison pill” over and over again makes me wonder whether the Conservatives plan on voting against the bill. They prolonged the amount of time the bill took to get studied. There were some good improvements made. I think the members of the committee eventually worked well together. Victims are looking for relief. They want mandatory minimum penalties, of course, and we have restored 12 mandatory minimum penalties in this bill. The bill protects victims. It respects the Charter. It helps keep mandatory minimum penalties on the books rather than having them struck down by courts, with victims out of luck. We are there to protect victims. We are protecting children with the bill. I hope the Conservatives can find it within themselves to support this, because I am starting to really wonder who they are here for.

Mr. Speaker, with every speech I hear, I am starting to feel more and more worried that the Conservatives may vote against one of the most ambitious changes in criminal reform when it comes to protecting victims in this country. This bill would create incredible changes. It would account for new technology. It would implement 12 mandatory minimum penalties. The Conservatives are fixated on making sure that it is all or nothing, so that victims do not get heard in court, so that perpetrators get away with their crime. We do not want them to get away. What we want is for them to have to serve mandatory minimum penalties. This is why the lesson from the Senneville case is not that Parliament should abandon this but that Parliament—

Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the bill that I also find very interesting, and that victims groups have been advocating for, was the court delays issue and the fact that so many cases are getting dismissed from our provincial courts right now because of the delays. This also provides an exception when cases are complex so that these cases do not get dismissed and so that victims get their day in court and get justice. This bill is about protecting victims' rights. What is the member's opinion on that?

Mr. Speaker, I have met many victims across this country and families who have lost loved ones to femicide, and they are very eager to see this bill go forward. There has been a lot of co-operation at the committee level, as well as amendments that have been accepted. Some were outside of the scope, however. I really wanted to know whether the Conservatives will be supporting this bill, which would be a large change and protect women's rights and the rights of children.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member cares deeply about this issue, especially when it comes to protecting children from predators. The member is right that we should not have to talk about child sextortion, but many children in this country have committed suicide because they were victims of sextortion. The bill would broaden the number of offences under this type of crime. I think this is a really important step to take, because this is where the ball is going, unfortunately. These are the types of crimes that are being reported. It saddens me to hear that the Conservatives would not support protecting children the way that this is being proposed in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, an essential and comprehensive piece of legislation situated on a broader strategy to keep communities safe. The last time the bill was in the House, our hon. colleagues voted to send it to committee so it could be studied, tested and improved. I am pleased to report that this is precisely what has happened. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has done serious and careful work. Members on all sides heard from witnesses, asked hard questions, proposed amendments and engaged with the substance of the bill in a way that Canadians expect their Parliament to. The legislation has returned to the chamber today and is stronger for that work. I want to begin by thanking every member of the committee on every side of the aisle for the seriousness they brought to it. Over several months, the committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received over 60 briefs from survivors of violence, advocates working to end gender-based violence, law enforcement, legal experts, child protection organizations and the provincial and territorial partners that administer justice every day. What was striking was not the disagreement but the breadth of the consensus that something must be done and that the bill would do a great deal of it. While the bill may have changed in the process, the seriousness of the issue has not. In Canada, a woman is killed every 48 hours. There have been femicides in every part of this country, and behind each one is a family that grieves. I have met many of these families and heard from them first-hand as to the impact it has left on their lives. These are not statistics. They are people who shared our hallways at school, who sat beside us at work, and who were loved. The protecting victims act would respond to that reality by moving forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge in cases of femicide. It would ensure a first-degree murder charge where murder is committed in an intimate partner setting; where it takes place in the context of a sexual offence; where it is motivated by hatred, including hatred of a person because she is a woman; and where it is preceded by a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. As the Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes put it, the automatic requalification of these homicides as first-degree murder would put an end to the inconsistencies in the current law and finally recognize these killings for what they are: femicides that exist within a continuum of domination. That is the language of people who have studied this violence for decades, and we should listen to them. We know through extensive engagement with experts and survivors that the pattern of using violence and intimidation to control every aspect of a person's life is one of the strongest predictors that a relationship may turn deadly. By naming this conduct and criminalizing it in its own right, we would give the justice system the ability to intervene before a relationship becomes violent and before violence becomes fatal. This provision would have the power to save lives. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the members of the status of women committee who have urged action on this for years. The world does not stand still, and neither can our laws. The protecting victims act would modernize a range of offences to keep pace with the way harm is now inflicted. We would be modernizing the events of criminal harassment to recognize that a person can now be stalked through technology, including the tracking of someone's location through their phone. We are also confronting the rapid spread of artificial intelligence used to create deepfakes. There is a gap in our law today, and the bill would narrow it by expanding the definition of an intimate image to include images created through artificial intelligence. We would also be criminalizing the threats of distributing sexual explicit images, a tactic regularly used to humiliate and control victims. That same principle of confronting threats before they become tragedies runs through the child protection measure in the bill. The protecting victims act would expand the definition of a list of offences that threaten our children and would increase maximum penalties for a range of those offences. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has been unequivocal about the stakes. It has told us that online sexual violence against Canadian children, including online luring, has reached unprecedented levels, and that confronting it is not optional. I would ask every member of the House to sit with the word “unprecedented”. We would be legislating not against a hypothetical but against an epidemic of the most reprehensible acts, which is unfolding on devices in the hands of children right now. I now want to turn to two of the more technical but no less consequential parts of the protecting victims act: mandatory minimum penalties, and delays in our justice system. These are the areas where the committee's scrutiny was most searching, and the bill is better for it. With respect to mandatory minimums, a series of Supreme Court decisions, including the Senneville decision, left real gaps in our law concerning child sexual exploitation and abuse material, among other serious crimes, but the courts also offered guidance on how these gaps could be remedied. The bill would establish a carefully bounded safety valve, allowing a court, in the rare case where a minimum would be grossly disproportionate, to impose a different penalty that still results in incarceration. It would not simply restore the minimums that were struck down. It would shore up those on our books today that are constitutionally vulnerable. It is a measure that has received support from several parties in the House. With respect to delays, nearly 10,000 cases in this country have been thrown out for the sole reason that they took too long, thrown out not because an accused was acquitted but because the clock ran out. There is no version of that outcome that feels like justice to a victim who must live in the same community as the person who harmed them. The bill would require the courts to consider remedies other than a stay when the Jordan timelines are at risk, give clearer guidance on which complex cases warrant more time, and streamline the introduction of evidence at trial. Our law enforcement partners feel this too. The Canadian Police Association described how demoralizing it is for officers to build a complex case over months or years, only to watch it collapse on a timeline divorced from the realities of modern policing. They have called the bill a meaningful step toward restoring confidence in our justice system. Finally, the protecting victims act would do more to recognize the rights of victims throughout the criminal process. Too often, people who, through no fault of their own, are drawn into a long and difficult proceeding feel lost within it. The bill would build on the Victims Bill of Rights to ensure that victims have the information they are entitled to. Building the voices of victims into this process is essential if we want them to have faith in it. I would ask the House to hold in mind the words of Kelly Favro of Beyond the Verdict, a survivor advocate who said something during this process that I have not been able to set down. She said that survivors do not have the luxury of waiting until the theatrics in the chamber come to an end. She is right. While we debate, the violence does not pause. A woman is still killed every 48 hours. A child is still being targeted online tonight. The cost of delay in this file is not measured in sitting days. It is measured in lives. The legislation has earned the support of survivors, advocates, child protection organizations, police associations and provinces. It has been studied, it has been tested, and it has been strengthened. My ask of the House at report stage is simple: Let us not be the reason it waits any longer. Let us adopt the bill at report stage and send it to third reading so we can give Canadians the protections they have asked us for and that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to talk to Crown counsel, advocates and members of the bar. However, this government has a mandate to protect Canadians, and we are trying to pursue that mandate as quickly as possible. There are other areas where we are investing, but it is crucial that we update our laws quickly and not stall anymore. Lives are on the line. We heard it from the testimony that witnesses delivered before committee. In my personal opinion, we should not be waiting anymore.

Mr. Speaker, since being elected last year in this new government, we have had a very ambitious agenda on that front. We have put forward approximately nine pieces of legislation that deal with different aspects of crime. That is the most ambitious that any government has been in this Parliament. We are changing and updating the Criminal Code so that it keeps up with the issues that we are seeing in our communities, the issues that police are confronted with and the issues that victims are speaking out about. We are making sure that we are doing our part at the federal level. However, this issue is complex because it deals with different levels of government. As I stated in my speech as well, it is crucial to have provincial and territorial partners at the table and to make sure that they, too, are doing their part. I know that this issue is important to all of them because the premiers have raised it, so it will also be very, very important to make sure that cases are not dismissed, that Crown counsel pursues charges that are laid and that the necessary resources are provided at the provincial level in order for us to really see the results that Canadians expect.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for me to correct the record. The member's speech was extremely sensational. I know the Conservatives are trying to get a rise out of people and tell them that somehow there are going to be no penalties for anyone in any case. There are minimum penalties that are in our Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-16 also still maintains a minimum penalty. That is what, technically, the bill would do. In the Senneville decision, there were some questions left, and we addressed those gaps and questions through the bill. That decision did not hold that all minimum sentences are unconstitutional, but it gave some examples of where they may be in violation of section 12. It was really important for us to make sure we address that so we do not risk other minimum—

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours to the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of said bill.