Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that we introduced a bill to combat serious crime in our communities and to make the criminal justice system tougher on those who commit offences. We have not only put forward laws that are going to do more to keep violent offenders behind bars. We have also included stronger supports for participants and families when it comes to their role, when it comes to understanding the impact on those families and victims at parole hearings and transfers between different levels of security systems. We will work with victims to understand their concerns, and we will advance policies on the advice of experts and police to help keep communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, the member cannot be serious. The member had the opportunity not just to take action but even to offer his thoughts when it came to the bills that we put forward to help protect communities. What did he actually do? He voted against the measures to strengthen security in this country, and his entire caucus sought to delay the implementation of the very bills they have been calling for for years. We need some honesty in this House. We need some integrity in this House. We need words to match actions. On this side of the House, we will not only tell the story of how we are going to protect victims, but we will adopt the laws that will do so. If the Conservatives want to talk a big game on crime, the least they can do is vote for the measures to protect—

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a direct question: When are we going to adopt laws to get tough on car thefts? The answer is June of this past year. We developed these laws not in isolation behind closed doors but by meeting with police. They have garnered the support of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Police Association of Ontario. Even the cops in his own community are supporting the bail measures that we put in place. After we put these laws in place, we are starting to see statistics of crime coming down, specifically including auto thefts and home invasions in his province. He tries to block progress every step of the way. With or without his help, we will build a stronger and safer Canada.

Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting experiences I had when we were putting together the measures that were included in the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act was meeting with police leadership in Peel. They set out a list of items that we could implement that would have the predictable result of bringing the crime rate down. We listened to the police in Peel. We listened to the police in Ontario. We listened to the police in every part of this country. We adopted the most comprehensive suite of reforms that this country has seen in criminal justice over the course of a generation. If the member wants to take a look at the numbers nationally, he will see that since 2023, the numbers came down 16% with respect to car thefts in 2024 and another 16% in 2025. He should at least know—

Mr. Speaker, let me first condemn the behaviour of anyone who takes part in the trade or trafficking of fentanyl or other dangerous drugs that have the potential to take the lives of Canadians. For our part, we have advanced a series of major legal reforms to ensure that criminals who commit serious crimes that pose a danger to the public find themselves behind bars. We also believe that the judicial system in Canada should retain its independence to be able to consider a multitude of factors to ensure that the punishment fits the crime in a given set of circumstances. We are happy to continue to look for ways in which we can strengthen the criminal justice system to protect Canadians and ensure justice for those who commit serious offences.

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, when a person with a temporary or non-permanent immigration status commits a serious crime, they should face the full range of the consequences permissible under the law. Oftentimes, that includes deportation, but the Supreme Court of Canada actually rendered judgment on this issue in 2013, indicating that courts retained the jurisdiction to hear a range of different factors to ensure that there is a fit sentence. What is fascinating is that, at the time, the member who posed the question was actually sitting at the federal cabinet table, was aware of the decision and chose to do absolutely nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague not only for his hard work, but also for his relentless pursuit of a stronger Canada and a safer Hamilton. As a result of his advocacy, this House has adopted laws to completely renovate the bail system and to lead to stiffer sentences for violent repeat offenders. He has also lent his support to new laws to combat hate crimes and to attack the scourge of intimate partner violence in this country. We are the party that is going to work with law enforcement to advance a law and order agenda, and most importantly, to keep Canadians safe.

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, when the government disagrees with the decision of a court, the opportunity we have to do something about it is to appeal that decision. We made an appeal on this particular case because we disagree with the superior court's assessment. Since that time, we have seen the New Brunswick Court of Appeal go through the Wolastoqey case, as the member indicates, and the Supreme Court has refused leave. In addition, throughout this piece of litigation, we have been asking the court to notify private property owners so they may participate in litigation and are in fact presently supporting the Montrose application of private property owners in the region. Private property rights are important in this country, so is reconciliation. We can pursue both at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge all the work done by my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, as chair of the women's caucus. Our government is working hard to prevent gender-based violence before it even happens. Bill C‑16 makes important reforms to the Criminal Code, particularly by creating new offences for femicide and coercive or controlling conduct. Together, these reforms will result in a justice system that responds earlier and faster and provides greater protection to victims of gender-based violence.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I think all members of the House will agree upon is that when a dangerous person commits a serious crime, they should face serious penalties. When that includes someone who has a temporary status, they could be rendered inadmissible in this country and should face deportation where appropriate. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that immigration consequences could be factored into decisions, but at the end of the day, the courts must maintain discretion to ensure that there is a fit penalty for the crime. With the legislation we have put on the table, violent repeat offenders would face stiffer penalties in this country, and I hope all members can agree that is a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity, for the first time, to formally congratulate my recently elected colleague on her presence in the House of Commons. This institution is better for her efforts. Through her advocacy, we have moved forward with reforms that are designed to tackle the scourge of intimate partner violence that is impacting women across this country. We know, when it comes to coercive control, that we have the opportunity to put rules in place that allow the legal system to intervene before a relationship becomes violent and before violence becomes fatal. We have worked with people who have dedicated their life and their career to understanding the predictive factors of what can lead to violence against women. With this codification of coercive control, we can make—

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with a public safety agenda that is designed to ensure that dangerous people are put behind bars, it is not lost on us that we also need to do everything we can to combat the deadly opioid crisis. I look forward to working with all members of the House as we promote policies that would lead to better public health outcomes, and at the same time pursue policies that would contribute to better public safety outcomes. I look forward to working with the member and with all members of the House in order to build safer communities right across this country.

Mr. Speaker, when my Conservative colleagues see a vulnerable Canadian, they see a political opportunity to exploit. We see people who we want to help. This question has been asked and answered. It has been fascinating to me, over the last number of weeks, how the Conservatives have completely dropped their focus on public safety in this country. Let me tell the House why. We have a legislative agenda that is going into effect. The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act is now law in Canada. Later today, we are going to vote on the combatting hate act, and by the end of the week, we are going to adopt the protecting victims act. We can balance the economic interests of the country, the needs of families and public safety at the same time. Let us not just focus on political opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague says he will take no lessons from the government. Will he take lessons from the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who told me that he has been working on lawful access for more than 30 years in this country? He said it is the number one tool that he needs to combat extortion in this country, to combat the scourge of child sexual exploitation and abuse material and to tackle organized crime. The hon. member also mentioned bail. I would point out to him that as of two nights ago, Canada has new laws. We have reformed the bail system. We are reforming the sentencing system. We are implementing a public safety agenda that has not been seen in generations.

Mr. Speaker, these kinds of heinous behaviours have no place in Canada, and the Government of Canada has an opportunity to do something about it. I am pleased to share that we expect, this week, we will have changes to Canada's Criminal Code. These include changes that will make it impossible for conditional sentencing orders to be tied to charges impacting crimes such as sexual crimes against children. In addition, last week the House voted on the protecting victims act, which would put in place a number of measures designed specifically to combat child sexual exploitation and child sexual exploitation and abuse material. My hope is that these measures will become law expeditiously, so communities benefit from these protections.

Mr. Speaker, the political motivation behind the member's question is obvious, based on the way he phrased it, but if he would like some validation, the bail and sentencing reform act we have put forward in the House is supported by those who work on the front lines. I would invite him to talk to the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I would invite him to talk to the head of the Ontario Provincial Police or of the Police Association of Ontario. The legislation we put forward has been informed by leaders in the police movement. It has been informed by provinces and premiers demanding the expeditious adoption of the bail and sentencing reform act. It has been informed by engagement with cities. We will do everything we can to listen to those expert voices to keep Canadians safe.

moved: That, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments 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, I am not certain I heard a question in the intervention; however, I am happy to address the issue the member put forward. It is very clear, given the limited nature of the amendments, that there is no need for a multi-day, months-long debate that would extend into the fall the measures that every premier in this country is demanding the House take action on, that members of all parties in the House are asking us to expedite and that have been studied in depth at the committee. There are a small number of simple amendments that are easy to deal with. We have an opportunity to do something to promote public safety and to do it today. I hope we will not waste this particular moment in time because as the House very well knows, given the remaining sitting calendar of the House, the consequences of delaying further the consideration of this bill would delay its implementation for many months, which Canadians and communities across this country cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, I agree. The recent amendments made by the Senate are, indeed, fairly easy to deal with. It is my view that we can ill afford to risk the potential consequences of delays now. Even one or two days of delay in this chamber could lead to a months-long delay on the measures when it comes to violent repeat offenders. We just heard a petition read out in this regard. We have an opportunity to make a difference. The only choice that we have before us, given the seeming collaboration of different parties, is whether we are going to make the difference today, this week, or we are going to kick the can down the road and delay the implementation of the protections that Canadian communities are asking for and that every premier in this country has forcefully argued must be implemented right away.

Mr. Speaker, I am finding it fascinating that the position the Conservatives have adopted in this debate is to delay the implementation of the bail and sentencing reform act. This is something for which they have been asking for many months now. It is something that premiers of all parties, including conservative parties across the country, are saying in public must be implemented right away. There is widespread consensus among many members of the House that the measures included in this bill would lead to a greater degree of public safety for Canadians. Communities are asking for this bill. I have no appetite to delay further after many months of filibustering at the justice committee. We have an opportunity to make a difference, and we cannot let this narrow window of time before the House rises for the summer months prevent the protections for Canadians from coming into place expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, let me be specific in response to the member's question, the spirit of which I agree with wholeheartedly. Over the past few days, we have seen repeated dilatory motions put forward in the House to adjourn the debate or adjourn the House for the day, knowing the limited amount of time that must take place before a piece of legislation can move forward. In particular, the protecting victims act was delayed by an entire day in going to the Senate, which further jeopardized the possibility that those protections would be in place before the House rises for the summer. We cannot, on the one hand, have the Conservative Party demanding that we take action, that we move more quickly, and, on the other hand, accept sincerely its position in this debate that we need to further delay the implementation of these measures. The Conservatives' argument has become self-defeating. What is most important, though, is not the procedural tactics at play. It is delivering protections to Canadians to make communities safer.

Mr. Speaker, the reason is that there is a heightened degree of anxiety on my part, given the procedural tactics we have seen play out in this chamber over the past number of days. I just cited an example, in response to the last questioner, of a very specific series of motions that in fact delayed the advancement of criminal justice reforms to the Senate in hopes that we can adopt them before the end of this sitting. I do think there is risk, depending on the level of collaboration that we see or do not see with other parties, but it is a risk that we can ill afford to take. There is no world in which I would feel good going home in the summer knowing that we did not do everything we could to ensure that we advance measures that protect against the harms from violent repeat offenders. The kinds of things we are talking about are harms to first responders and tougher bail rules. I see I am running out of time, but I think the member gets the spirit of the response.

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my friend from the opposite coast of this country. We have many issues of common concern. I am glad he recognizes the importance of the bill, but just as a matter of fact, I do need to correct the record. He suggested that the amendments are simply being dismissed. With respect to the amendment on the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, that is an amendment that we are accepting. With the proposed amendments impacting the role of sureties, that is something we are willing to accept. When it comes to doing a better job of collecting and reporting on bail data, we are not just accepting the amendment, but we are actually going to be funding provincial governments, which are the custodians of that data. Given the widespread agreement among members of the House, and given the work that we have done in collaboration with the Senate, there is not a significant need to debate endlessly the narrow set of reforms that have been proposed. We need to move and we need to move quickly if we are going to ensure that this bill becomes law expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, let me signal, as a sign of good faith, that it is not a partisan issue when we are dealing with something as heinous as sexual crimes committed against children. Though this bill is focused more squarely on bail and sentencing, I would point the member to changes that would be made in this act when it comes to conditional sentencing orders for sexual offences, including sexual offences against children, which would no longer be available should this bill pass. In addition to the issue that squarely addresses the member's concern, in this bill we are proposing a series of changes that would make it more difficult for violent and repeat offenders to receive bail and would result in harsher sentences. The spirit of his question is reflected in the text of the bill. I hope we can use that as motivation to quickly implement the measures so families and survivors, as he has referenced, have the protections that this bill would provide.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her continued advocacy on behalf of public safety in the community she represents. She has been a tremendous advocate, saying that we need to ensure the bail provisions in the Criminal Code and the sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes she has witnessed in her own community, with a view to improving public safety. Very specifically, we have an opportunity to ensure the Criminal Code treats more seriously violent and repeat offenders and gives courts the tools they need to ensure that when public safety is at risk, there are stronger grounds to detain a person so that we do not pass the risk on to the general public. Whether we are dealing with home invasions, auto theft, violent extortion or crimes committed against our first responders, there is a very clear need to ensure that we strengthen the criminal law reform as part of the public safety strategy, which would also include more support for the front line and upstream investments to end violent crime in the long term.

Mr. Speaker, it is a failure of logic to assume the same rule can be applied across a very different set of facts in every instance and result in the same outcome. One of the reasons we are forced to move forward with time allocation ties back to the issue that I raised months ago when the member's Conservative colleagues were filibustering for months at the justice committee. I warned them at the time that was going to delay the potential implementation of the bail and sentencing reform act and the protecting victims act. Despite the fact that there is widespread agreement on many of the measures included in both of those bills, the filibuster continued for months. We saw on the video clips members talking about their preference for puppies or kittens rather than how we can strengthen the criminal law response. I would dare argue in this House that as a result of those delays, we have a limited choice. Do we want to move forward expeditiously using the procedural tools to implement these reforms this week or do we want to simply throw our hands up and say this can wait several months down the road? Canadians are telling us they cannot wait, and I agree.

Mr. Speaker, there was not a question that I could observe in the member's statement, but he did cite that he has an obligation as a member of the opposition. I would ask him to talk to his colleagues on the justice committee, who, in my view, have failed to live up to that obligation. He says they should raise issues to improve the strength of the bill when they spent months filibustering, again talking about their preference for puppies or kittens, knowing they were going to delay the implementation of these measures. We have an opportunity to move forward with the measures the Conservative Party says it supports, but yet delays the implementation of them. We should get beyond the political back-and-forth and realize where we have widespread consensus, supported by law enforcement, provincial governments, cities and parliamentarians in the House and in the Senate from a wide range of regions and political affiliations. I suggest we should take the opportunity before us to implement these measures today.

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the potential adjournment date the House may be looking at, but I do know that the sitting schedule, as broadcasted publicly, is set to expire at the end of next week. I have a responsibility, in my view, to make good on the commitments that I have made and to respect the feedback I have received from premiers, mayors and law enforcement leaders across this country, to implement the criminal law reforms that I believe will contribute to public safety. This is a key piece of the puzzle. We also need to support those on the front line, both police and community organizations, and make upstream investments in mental health and addictions, affordable housing and programs that support at-risk youth. However, I do not think we can afford to delay, potentially months, the implementation of the measures that I know our counterparts from different walks of life across this country are screaming for and demanding that this House take action on expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, let us just draw into focus what is at stake. We asked law enforcement leaders, community leaders and elected officials what the priorities are in their communities when it comes to public safety. They said, “We want you to do more when it comes to auto theft. We want you to do more when it comes to home invasions. We want you to do more when it comes to violent extortion and when it comes to sexual assaults. We want you to address specifically the challenges in the bail system and the challenges when it comes to sentencing for these horrific crimes.” We have listened to that feedback. This process has been a model of collaboration with provincial governments, with police leaders and with advocates for public safety. We have an opportunity to directly implement the solutions that we know communities are calling for. The only question we have, as a House, is whether we want to take advantage of the opportunity to do that now, or whether we can kick the can down the road for several months. In my view, when we have an opportunity to make a difference that is going to serve the interests of Canadians, reduce crime in this country and promote public safety, we should take it at the first opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to the member's question, she drew into focus the importance of dealing with survivors who are faced with gender-based violence and sexual crimes. We need to move. However, it is hypocrisy in the extreme when the member yesterday voted against the protecting victims act, which deals specifically with the issues that she has just raised. The kind of action that she is asking for in her question is represented in the bill that she is now seeking to delay. We do not need to wait to implement the solutions that are widely agreed upon in this House; they come directly from police leaders, community organizations, mayors and premiers. It is extraordinary to me that the Conservatives have adopted the position, months after this debate has started, that we need to delay action on bail reform. I disagree.

Mr. Speaker, I question the relevance of the member's question on a debate about time allocation for the bail and sentencing reform act. I have not been at the committee to which he refers, but it is important to recognize that we use a tool where it is appropriate for a particular job. The member suggested that I decried the use of this tool in other circumstances. If members check the record, I did no such thing. However, I recognize that sometimes people have to realize that a scalpel and a sledgehammer are appropriate for different items. When it comes to this particular use of time allocation, we are responding to the urgent call for action from premiers, mayors, law enforcement and concerned Canadians who care about public safety. The Conservative position that we should delay action on bail and sentencing in the face of these calls for action from the parties I just listed is bizarre to me. They have been demanding that I take action, that I implement the very reforms they have an opportunity to vote for, which they supported in the past, and now they are saying we should kick the can down the road. This is a failure of logic in the extreme.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the hon. member that with her vote yesterday, she placed her objection to one narrow portion of the bill, which only deals with situations where there would be a grossly disproportionate outcome. She said with her vote yesterday that it was more important than dealing with AI deepfakes when it comes to non-consensual intimate images, more important than protecting the victims of child sexual exploitation, more important than the child-luring provisions, more important than the criminal harassment provisions, more important than the femicide provisions and more important than the coercive control provisions. Members may come to realize, as they spend more time in this place, that there is a range of different perspectives and that sometimes perfection can be the enemy of the good. We are not always going to agree on everything, but she should not colour the historical record and say she voted for something when she voted—

Mr. Speaker, the private member's bill to which the hon. member refers did have some shortcomings, some provisions that I questioned as to whether they would actually promote public safety, other provisions that I questioned about their constitutional validity. However, where there were common ideas that we could collaborate on, we can actually see some of those ideas that came from Conservative members in this bill, one of which is the subject of a further amendment from the Senate committee involving a more restrictive use of sureties for people who have an indictment on their criminal record within the previous 10 years. There are other ideas that were of mutual concern that were reflected in both of our parties' platforms. However, the measures proposed in this bill are far more reaching, more extensive and more clearly reflect the feedback of the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Police Association, even in my own community, the New Glasgow Regional Police. We can look at communities across Canada, we can look at provincial governments across Canada, and see ideas from Liberal, NDP and Conservative Party members alike that found their way into this bill. This has been a model of collaboration through the process. I thank Conservative members for their contribution. I find it objectionable that they seek to now delay some of the advice they provided to me, in terms of the content of this bill that should be implemented.

Mr. Speaker, if we go back to the timeline the hon. member is citing, I raised with colleagues in different parties in the House my concern about the shenanigans being played out at justice committee that were preventing the advancement of this bill and the protecting victims act. We are now in a position that reflects precisely the advice we provided to the opposition at the time, which was that we would potentially see months-long delays in the implementation of these bills, which they claim to support. We have an opportunity to take action today to combat extortion, home invasions, auto theft and sexual assault. The only question is whether we are going to act today or months down the road. That kind of delay is senseless and would not offer an ounce of contribution to public safety. We are moving forward. I would ask that all members recognize the urgency with which communities are calling for these measures so we can implement them in law before Parliament rises for the summer.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is characterizing amendments from the Senate as loopholes. One of the amendments proposes that we do a better job of collecting and reporting data on bail. We are not just reporting and collecting; we are going to contribute financially to provinces' exercises to do that. Another loophole would be the delayed implementation of certain measures on the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and that comes as a direct request from the Conservative government in Ontario because it has to make sure its system is ready to handle changes to the law. Another proposed amendment is being rejected on the basis of its redundancy. To the extent the member is pointing to loopholes, I would ask him to identify them, because simply, I do not see them.

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 Senate amendments to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing. 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, respectfully, I find that I have enjoyed a productive working relationship with members of the opposition, including, specifically, the hon. member as the critic of this portfolio. We have accepted a number of amendments from different parties, including from the Conservative Party. This has come to embody the work we did in government before and after the moment it became a majority. I would note, in particular, the collaboration my office and I have undertaken with the public safety critic, a Conservative member of Parliament, specifically with respect to his work to advance Bailey's Law, Bill C-225. We built relationships with the family to ensure that important protections, including some that are similar to those in Bill C-16, were baked into law to honour the memory of their beloved and departed relative. We have the opportunity to take good ideas from different members of the House of Commons from different parties. In the present instance, the reason we wish to move quickly is that there are protections that could be afforded to people very soon, or they could delivered months from now. This comes at a time when, in my home province, in just these past few days, we are seeing news stories about the rampant increase of AI deepfakes depicting people, without their consent, in intimate scenarios against their will. We have an opportunity to nip in the bud growing social problems that are disproportionately having a negative impact on women in the country and are promoting cultures of violence and discrimination, and I think we can do our part to help advance protections as quickly as possible. I would invite collaboration from all members of the House. Hopefully, the points in debate will be on substantive concerns, rather than a mirage of false claims that we are not being collaborative.

Madam Speaker, first of all, my hon. colleague has done admirable work advancing Bailey's law. I support it fully. I urge senators to adopt it expeditiously to deliver some of the protections. The member has been working with family members who have been working with me and my team. We owe it to those who continue to advocate on Bailey's behalf to get that bill implemented to become law in Canada to protect victims of intimate partner violence. I want to thank him specifically for his collaboration in honour of the loss of Bailey's life and to prove that it was not in vain. In addition, my colleague raised his concerns about his words being misconstrued. Thankfully, there is a record of the words spoken in this place. I would note that he tried to distinguish his argument on the basis that his comments previously were about child sexual exploitation and abuse material. That, in fact, was very specifically at issue in the Senneville decision, which motivated the use of the safety valve in this particular case. I have been curious if he was going to participate in the debate on this issue of the safety valve. I would be happy to dig out the video evidence of his position on the matter, or the Hansard record, whichever manner would demonstrate that, in fact, he previously made the case very strongly, imploring even his colleagues within his own party to adopt a safety valve approach so we can restore, very specifically, mandatory minimum penalties. I would be happy to provide that record to the member or to the House, as it would satisfy those listening to the debate.

Madam Speaker, the measures included in this bill have the potential to save the lives of victims who are facing violence. To be accused of wanting to go on vacation when I am willing to sit through the entirety of the summer to get this done, if necessary, is absolutely ludicrous. I see people in my own community and in my own province facing 79 charges of using AI to create deepfakes of intimate images depicting people in heinous sexual acts without their consent. Shame on me for wanting to take action. There have been six meetings at the justice committee. After months of the Conservatives' filibustering and denying the progress of this bill, we have an opportunity to deliver protections for people who are facing violence. To be accused of wanting to go on vacation is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, we are here to work. I would suggest all members of Parliament, regardless of party, are here to work, but let us stop the charade of pretending there has not been an ample debate on this issue. Let us move forward with the protections that victims so richly deserve.

Madam Speaker, my colleague makes an excellent point. I wish I could say that this is a surprise. Realistically, when we had members of the justice committee filibuster for months a study on a previous piece of legislation that had been adopted by the House, we warned them. We told them that their antics were going to delay the implementation of protections that would be embedded in Canada's criminal law, and that it would delay for victims the beneficial impact of the laws that we are putting forward in the House. Did the Conservatives listen? No, they did no. They continued to filibuster for hours upon hours, talking out the clock and preventing the work of the justice committee from advancing. We are now exactly where we said we would be because of that delay. We have been forced to move forward, despite the fact that there has been a robust study, by the way. This is the question that is central to this debate: Do we think it is acceptable to wait a few months to implement the protections that victims are demanding we put in place, that judges are calling for from the bench and that law enforcement are demanding, or do we want to implement them today? The Liberal Party of Canada wants to implement them today. It is a shame the Conservatives want to kick it down the road to the fall.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a thoughtful intervention, which is very important if our goal is to not only penalize bad actors after they have committed a crime but also prevent violence in the first place. Each time I have introduced a bill to reform Canada's criminal law in the House and spoke about it publicly, I begin by laying out the public safety strategy that the Government of Canada is moving forward with. The first pillar is to strengthen Canada's criminal laws, but we recognize that, largely, this has an impact after a crime has taken place. We also want to give tools to law enforcement and community organizations on the front line to support victims and to investigate and prosecute crime, but the most important pillar of our strategy is those upstream investments. They may be outside the scope of this bill, but they are moving forward in parallel. This includes investments through Build Canada Homes to build assisted, supportive and affordable housing for people at risk in Canada. This includes working with the Minister of Health and provincial governments to advance services and treatments for mental health and addictions. It also includes long-term investments, particularly in at-risk youth, including through the youth employment and skills strategy, as well as investments in infrastructure that builds safer and stronger communities. If we want to end violent crime in the long term, we need to take a holistic view of how we build safe communities and healthy people. Part of that equation also demands reforms to the criminal law. The protections contained in this bill, though penalizing crime after the fact, can in fact have some preventative nature. I mentioned coercive control and intervening before violence becomes deadly. However, we should not delay the important work in this bill until the work around affordable housing, mental health and addictions and the at-risk youth prevention programs is done, because that work is going to continue in perpetuity for many many years. We have an opportunity to take action today to strengthen Canada's criminal laws to offer protections. I think we should avail ourselves of the opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I do not agree. The facts in this situation are very different from what my colleague is describing. For example, a few months ago, the Conservative Party prolonged the debate at the Standing Committee on Justice. The Conservatives were talking about a preference between puppies and kittens, wasting time for the sake of wasting time, and carrying on meaningless debates outside the scope of the criminal laws that we are seeking to implement. There was an opportunity to advance these protections in a timely way with full debate. I would point out to the member the fact that we are seeing people from across Canada calling for these actions, and there was a debate at the justice committee. We have had an opportunity to debate this bill in the House. The Senate will have an opportunity to debate it. In all honesty, we have judges from the bench crying for some of the protections that this bill would afford to Canadians. We see femicides taking place at an ungodly rate in this country, and we have an opportunity to help prevent those with stiffer penalties, and importantly, upstream investments as well. I do not see this process as being a function of democracy breaking. I view the inappropriate behaviour to stop the work of the justice committee previously demands that democracy be allowed to work and that the House adopt the important reforms included in the bill.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brampton Centre for her advocacy on this issue. She is right to point out the magnitude of this issue. It is 16,000 people from her part of the country, so 16,000 lives changed forever. We have an opportunity to have the legal system intervene more forcefully and with a greater effect. In addition to some of the new infractions and more serious penalties that we put in place, we are also making significant changes to how courts deal with some of these changes. Let us think about the fact that nearly 10,000 cases have been thrown out of courts for delay, including many sexual assault cases. When the complainant is forced to live in the same community as a perpetrator who is walking free in their community, not because they have defeated the charges but because time ran out, that does not feel like justice. We have an opportunity to correct things. This bill provides that opportunity. Let us vote for it today.

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a clearer example of a straw man argument. He is making allegations about my position in this argument that I did not suggest. My criticism of the Conservatives in this debate was about their behaviour at the justice committee, not for decisions taken under previous governments during different parliaments. It is ironic that the Conservatives are arguing that there has not been enough time to debate this bill, but the questions they have on this debate are not even talking about this bill. The member is talking about bills that were adopted a number of years ago in previous parliaments, which, by the way, he is objecting to despite the fact that it made it harder for people to get bail when charged with intimate partner violence complaints or made house arrest ineligible for people charged with advocating genocide or attempted murder or torture in this country. My own view is that we have an opportunity to offer protections to victims. It seems the Conservative Party has made a decision for political reasons that they wish to delay the implementation of these protections. I find that disappointing in the extreme. I hope that they will put their money where their mouth is and actually place their vote behind this bill to accelerate its expeditious adoption into Canada's laws to offer protections for communities.

Mr. Speaker, I hope, regardless of political affiliation, we can refrain from accusing one another of hating democracy. I think each person, regardless of their community, the language they speak, the community they represent or the party to which they belong, is a defender of democracy. I hope they would align themselves with the protections of the institutions that uphold that democracy, including the rule of law. We have the opportunity to move forward with protections. It is clear that Conservatives have moved on from making substantive arguments and debates. They clearly just want to label the government with accusations that I do not think are grounded in reality, instead of actually advancing the protections in the bill. We will do this with them or without them. It would be my preference to have them with us.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to take seriously charges of not taking crime seriously with harms falling to victims from a member who, just a few hours ago, was opposing efforts to speed up the adoption of the protecting victims act. We have launched one of the most ambitious agendas when it comes to criminal law reform, when it comes to bail reform, when it comes to strengthening sentencing, and when it comes to protecting victims and combatting hate. With respect to the issue that the member mentioned, he knows there is no rule that requires sentences to be adjusted for immigration status. We support the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and trust the judiciary to implement the law with fit sentences, independent of politics.