Bill C-75 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) modernize and clarify interim release provisions to simplify the forms of release that may be imposed on an accused, incorporate a principle of restraint and require that particular attention be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal accused and accused from vulnerable populations when making interim release decisions, and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner;
(b) provide for a judicial referral hearing to deal with administration of justice offences involving a failure to comply with conditions of release or failure to appear as required;
(c) abolish peremptory challenges of jurors, modify the process of challenging a juror for cause so that a judge makes the determination of whether a ground of challenge is true, and allow a judge to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;
(d) increase the maximum term of imprisonment for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence and provide that abuse of an intimate partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing;
(e) restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more and strengthen the justice’s powers to limit the issues explored and witnesses to be heard at the inquiry;
(f) hybridize most indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, increase the default maximum penalty to two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months;
(g) remove the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of certain out-of-province warrants and authorizations, expand judicial case management powers, allow receiving routine police evidence in writing, consolidate provisions relating to the powers of the Attorney General and allow increased use of technology to facilitate remote attendance by any person in a proceeding;
(h) re-enact the victim surcharge regime and provide the court with the discretion to waive a victim surcharge if the court is satisfied that the victim surcharge would cause the offender undue hardship or would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the offender; and
(i) remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, repeal section 159 of the Act and provide that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid.
The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to reduce delays within the youth criminal justice system and enhance the effectiveness of that system with respect to administration of justice offences. For those purposes, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) set out principles intended to encourage the use of extrajudicial measures and judicial reviews as alternatives to the laying of charges for administration of justice offences;
(b) set out requirements for imposing conditions on a young person’s release order or as part of a sentence;
(c) limit the circumstances in which a custodial sentence may be imposed for an administration of justice offence;
(d) remove the requirement for the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; and
(e) remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence, as well as the requirement to determine whether to make such an order.
Finally, the enactment amends among other Acts An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) so that certain sections of that Act can come into force on different days and also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

I rise today to speak to this excellent Conservative motion, which we brought forward after countless meetings across the country with small business owners, families and community leaders, where Canadians have expressed deep concern and genuine fear about the rising extortion issue now facing Canada. The House has been warned by police, premiers and victims of the consequences of inaction on extortion. Those warnings were followed by amendments, private members' bills and motions from our party that would have addressed the problem directly. Each time, the government chose not to act.

Somewhere in Canada today, a small business owner is checking their phone, before they unlock their front door, to see whether there is another message, another demand, another threat. This is what Canada looks like in 2026. It begins with fear, and that fear has spread because the Liberal government has allowed criminals to learn, adapt and exploit the system faster than Parliament has been willing to fix it.

Since these Liberals took office, extortion has risen by 330% across Canada. That figure alone would have triggered emergency action. Instead, what we have seen is the Liberals voting down common-sense Conservative proposals, weakening sentencing laws, preserving loopholes in the asylum system and maintaining a revolving-door justice system that only emboldens criminals and abandons victims.

One reason extortion has exploded is that the government deliberately removed consequences. Bill C-5 repealed mandatory jail sentences for serious crimes, including extortion with a firearm. This was not a technical adjustment; it was a policy choice that lowered the cost of committing violent organized crime.

Every law the House passes sends a signal. Sometimes it is a signal that help is coming for victims. Other times, more often, it is a signal to criminals that the system can be bent, delayed or avoided altogether.

In response, my Conservative colleague, the member for Edmonton Gateway, introduced Bill C-381 to restore mandatory jail time for extortion, strengthen penalties when firearms or organized crime are involved and recognize arson as an aggravating feature. That bill offered a direct targeted response to the crisis we are debating today. Again, the government voted it down.

On extortion, the signal from the Liberals has been clear. Organized criminals have learned that Canada's justice and asylum systems are slow, fragmented and forgiving. Extortion in Canada today is organized, violent and increasingly tied to transnational gangs. It is being fuelled by a system that criminals have learned how to exploit.

Nowhere is this more evident than in British Columbia. In Surrey alone, police tracked 36 extortion attacks in one single month. Shots were fired into businesses. Homes were targeted. Even media outlets were attacked.

The NDP Premier of British Columbia called this situation “ludicrous”. He called for changes to federal law. In response from the government, we had crickets. When Conservatives proposed the very changes the Premier is now calling for, the Liberals voted it down. That contradiction sits at the heart of today's debate.

One of the most alarming features of the extortion crisis is how Canada's asylum system is being abused to block legal consequences. In December, for example, Surrey police arrested 15 foreign nationals suspected of extortion-related crimes. Surprisingly, all 15 claimed refugee status, not one, not two, but all 15. Those claims, regardless of their eventual outcome, halted removal proceedings and delayed consequences. That message only sends one clear signal that they can commit a serious crime, claim asylum and evade the law. That is not a failure of frontline officers; it is a failure of federal law, and these Liberals know it.

This is why the Conservatives proposed amendments to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims and to bar those with active judicial proceedings for serious crimes from doing so as well. These were narrow, targeted and reasonable amendments. Again, the Liberals voted against them. Canadians are right to ask why the government continues to preserve a loophole that allows criminals to weaponize our asylum system against public safety.

Even when non-citizens are convicted of serious crimes, judges are increasingly encouraged by Liberal legislation to impose lighter sentences in order to explicitly avoid immigration consequences. Let me give the House just a few examples. In 2023, a foreign national attempted to purchase sex from an underage girl. He arrived at the location and was arrested by an undercover officer. At sentencing, the court imposed a reduced sentence specifically to avoid affecting his immigration status. That is disgusting.

In Whitby, Ontario, Manpreet Gill caused a deadly wrong-way crash on Highway 401. A family died. He was also guilty of breaching a probation order, yet the court imposed a five-and-a-half-month sentence citing potential immigration consequences. That is a travesty. In Calgary, a 25-year-old non-citizen assaulted an 18-year-old in a nightclub. He was found guilty but, again, he received a lighter sentence to avoid deportation.

What a dangerous signal our courts are telegraphing to the public. These are not isolated incidents. They are the predictable result we warned the government about, numerous times, of the passage of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which instruct judges to prioritize restraint, minimize incarceration and consider collateral consequences for offenders.

The results are devastating. Victims see offenders walk free. Communities lose faith and trust in the justice system. Criminals learn that Canada is a place where consequences are negotiable and extortionists take note. The government may point to Bill C-14 and claim it fixed the bail problem; however, it did not. They had an opportunity to create a reverse onus provision for extortion as a serious offence in its own right, and they failed to do so. That means individuals charged with extortion, even repeat offenders tied to organized intimidation campaigns, can still be released while awaiting trial unless another qualifying charge happens to apply.

At a time when extortion is one of the fastest-growing violent crimes in the country, the government chose not to treat it with the seriousness it demands. Even subsequent Liberal criminal justice bills failed to correct this mistake. Bill C-16 does not restore mandatory minimum sentences for extortion or reverse the damage done by Bill C-5. While the government speaks about balance and modernization, extortionists continue to face weaker penalties today than they did before 2015, despite the crime being more prevalent, more organized and more violent than ever. This is not coincidence. This is a policy choice by the Liberals.

The motion before us today is clear and reasonable. It calls on the government to bar non-citizens convicted of crimes from making refugee claims, to bar those with active proceedings for serious crimes from doing the same, to end leniency in sentencing designed to avoid deportation and to repeal Liberal laws that create a catch-and-release system. None of this undermines genuine refugees. None of this targets law-abiding newcomers. In fact, it protects them because immigrant communities are often the first victims of extortion. Ask the small business owners in Surrey. Ask the families in Brampton. Ask the shopkeepers who are paying protection money, not because they want to but because they are afraid. They are begging and urging the government to act.

Canada is a compassionate country, but compassion without accountability is negligence. We can welcome newcomers, protect refugees and still enforce the law. Today, the House has a choice. We can continue with excuses, half measures and delayed action, or we can send a clear message: Canada will not be a safe haven for extortionists, violent offenders or those who abuse our asylum system.

I urge all members to support the motion, stand for once with victims and restore confidence in Canada's justice and immigration systems. Canadians are watching. Are Liberals listening?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on a motion addressing an issue that is deeply affecting communities across the country, which is extortion.

We are debating extortion today in the House for one simple reason: It is a crisis. In just a decade, extortion has increased by 330% nationwide, and in British Columbia alone, it is up more than 500%. These are not abstract statistics; they represent families, small businesses and entire communities living under the threat of a system that has failed to protect them.

Let me set the scene for one second. Surrey, B.C., is the eleventh-largest city in Canada. Let us call it a mid-sized city. In January alone, 31 days, there were 36 reported cases of extortion. That is more than one act of criminal extortion every single day in a mid-sized Canadian city. This is why it is a crisis.

Let us be clear about what extortion looks like. It is bullets through windows of small businesses, gunfire outside family homes in the middle of the night, bystanders caught in the crosshairs and families living in fear, wondering if they are next.

In Brampton, gunshots were fired outside a family's home while they slept. A video was sent to them along with the act, demanding $500,000. This is not petty crime, and it is not first-time offenders; it is organized crime, transnational gangs and hardened repeat violent offenders turning quiet neighbourhoods, cul-de-sacs and suburbs into what feels like a war zone for the families that live there. The Mayor of Surrey has called it a national emergency. The Premier of British Columbia, who I will remind members is not a Conservative, has called it ludicrous. It is hard to disagree, because our laws no longer protect the people they are supposed to protect.

Where is the federal government? The answer is nowhere. The Liberals have watched this unfold and pretended the crisis did not exist until they blamed everyone else for the chaos that they themselves created. They oversaw the chaos, responded with slow, cosmetic half measures, and in their own words, obstructed their own legislation in this place, not just in this session of Parliament but for the 10 years leading up to it.

For nearly 10 years, the Liberals have weakened our justice system with bills such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. I just heard my hon. colleague before this mislead the House on what is in Bill C-5. In it are laws that let repeat violent offenders walk free on bail and terrorize communities. However, from the other side of the aisle, all we hear is laughing, flailing arms and trying to defend what is indefensible. They know that when they go back to the communities, they hear about this first-hand. In fact, it is the reason so many of their colleagues from the York region did not return to the House. At almost every door one goes to there, as they can ask their former colleagues, crime is brought up as the number one issue, and it is not just extortion. It is violent home invasion and gun crime in suburbs where gun crime did not exist before.

Still, from the other side, all day long we have heard mistruths, misinformation, flailing arms and claims of obstruction when they are in the way of their own legislation. They have also broken an immigration system that used to be the very envy of the world with weak screening on the way in and no accountability once the system is abused. What is worse, they have actively blocked reforms that Canadians are demanding.

We brought forward motions for catch-and-release on Liberal bail, and the Liberals voted them down. My colleague from Edmonton Gateway, the co-deputy leader of this party, introduced legislation that would introduce mandatory sentences for extortion, and the Liberals killed it. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill proposed amendments to Bill C-12 to close extortion loopholes, and they rejected that too.

No matter how many times the Liberals stand up in the House and say that those things are not true, the record is clear: They are true. If anybody were to look back on it, they would know that the reason we have had a rise in crime in this country is the Liberals' weak-on-justice crime policy.

All of that comes after years of pleas from victims, from grieving families, from frontline police officers and from Canadians begging for real criminal justice reform. The question is unavoidable: Is this government on the side of law-abiding Canadians, or is it on the side of extortionists? I ask because nobody can explain why the Liberals keep defending a system that protects criminals and continually fails the public.

In a crisis like this, there are two responsibilities, and the government knows this well. One is to sound the alarm bells, and the second is to act decisively. We have been sounding those alarm bells for years in the House, on doorsteps and in packed rooms at stop-the-crime town halls that have been happening right across the country. Ordinary Canadians come to those crime town halls demanding change that they just have not gotten from the Liberals.

What has been missing is action, and while the Liberals delay and deflect, Conservatives are not going to do that. That is why we are going to use our opposition day motion to raise the alarm bells and to finally put forward reforms that need to be placed on the floor of the House of Commons in this motion and in the lives of everyday Canadians.

This motion today would first repeal the catch-and-release laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, so repeat offenders would stay in jail and transnational gangs would stop before they even get started here. Second, the motion would end the abuse of the refugee and immigration systems, whereby criminal gangs file for bogus refugee claims to stay in Canada longer and keep committing crimes. A veteran frontline police officer put it very plainly, saying that criminals know that they can come to Canada, commit crimes, get bail and claim refugee status. It is not even up for contention, he says. Conservatives believe that the refugee system should protect people fleeing violence, but it should not import it.

Finally, the motion would confront one of the most corrosive failures of all: a two-tier justice system. Today, two people can commit the same crime and receive different sentences, simply because one is a citizen and one is not. In one real case, a 30-year-old groomed a 15-year-old online and intended to sexually exploit her. He received no jail time and no permanent criminal record, because the real sentence might interfere with his path to citizenship. In another case, a man on a visitor's permit sexually assaulted an 18-year-old in Calgary. He received a discharge because the conviction would have “devastating immigration consequences”.

Let us be clear that one does not earn the right to be in Canada by breaking the law. Being here as a visitor, as a permanent resident or as a citizen is a privilege, and everybody in this place knows that. If someone commits a serious crime, they forfeit that privilege, period. There is nobody out there who is going to contend with that, and we are not going to take lessons from the Liberals on fearmongering on immigration, when it is about criminals committing crimes in this country they are visiting. There would be no refugee status, no extension and no special treatment; this motion would end deliberate leniency.

At its core, this debate is about fairness for law-abiding Canadians, who deserve to feel safe; fairness for real refugees, who follow the rules; fairness for immigrants, who work hard and respect the law; and most of all, fairness, for once, for the victims of these crimes. Nobody ever talks about that in this place. It is time to end the extortion crisis. It is time to end this mess that the government has created. We have had the same ministers in the same chairs voting for the same policies over the last 10 years, and the end starts right here, right now, by supporting this motion.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

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.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

It is refreshing; that is right.

Mr. Speaker, it is genuine. I really mean that, and the opposition members know that.

Let us deal with the obstructionism, and I will try to put it in its best frame possible. There are a number of pieces of legislation before the House that Canadians want and desperately need, and that are designed in response to widespread consultations with the legal community, the community at large and other political parties.

The problem is that it is tough getting these bills through committee. I will give two examples of this. I will not call it obstruction necessarily, but I will give one example from the justice committee. About a week and a half ago, a member I will call Conservative member B made a very carefully crafted and thoughtful argument and then put a question to one of the officials who was in the room. His point was that we have good laws in place, but that they just needed to be enforced; therefore, we did not need this new law. It was a valid point, perhaps.

The problem is that at the very next meeting, we were debating a different piece of legislation. One of his colleagues on that committee, whom we will call Conservative member L, made what he thought was a very compelling, well-thought-out argument and said that we had laws on the books that were not being enforced, so we needed new laws.

I literally looked at him and said that they needed to get together and coordinate their submissions a little better. How in the face of that can someone say it is a principled approach to dealing with legislation? It is not. It is political, and this is my concern. I like putting policy before politics, but with those types of arguments, it is hard to say that they do because they just do not.

I will give another example. Last year at the justice committee, we were about to deal with a private member's bill that had come through the House. It was the private member's bill of the member for Peace River—Westlock. Shortly before the bill was scheduled to come to the committee, that member went on a podcast of one of my colleagues and made some comments about his own religious beliefs, which he is entitled to do and I respect him for, even if I do not necessarily agree with him.

The result was that his caucus colleagues put him into the Conservative witness protection program and filibustered the committee for two straight weeks. We sat for extended hours, and they were filibustering saying that the sponsor of a private member's bill did not have to come to speak to his own bill. I do not know a member in the House who does not await the opportunity to come to committee to speak about something they are so passionate about. Lo and behold, the Conservatives blocked him from coming because he was speaking about his own religious views.

We now fast-forward to just before Christmas. One of the opposition members was just talking about the filibuster in December at the justice committee. The same member who was prevented from coming to committee because of his religious views came to committee to filibuster, saying that we needed to be free to express our religious opinions. How can that be called a principled approach to developing policy? It is obstruction, period, and I do not know any other way to put it.

We can work together in committees. Just last week, we passed Bill C-14. It took us until 1:15 in the morning, but we did it, and we did it as a result of collaboration between all the parties around the table. I think everybody is quite proud of that accomplishment, as they should be.

However, we are not seeing that on other pieces of legislation. This motion today, like so many opposition day motions, is intended and designed to create an impression in the public. Sometimes, and I believe many times, and others share this view, opposition parties are far more interested in having an issue than finding a solution. It is better to have the issue alive and out there, because then they can take their “clip, snip and post” political approach. They can get sound bites and go out there and use phrases like “soft on crime” and “catch and release,” all of which is total utter nonsense, because as I said at the beginning, everybody in the House believes that criminals should be in prison, that people should be entitled to a fair trial and that society should be able to exist with a feeling of safety.

However, that type of rhetoric, that type of an approach to politics, does not do that. What it does is create a mindset in society that strikes fear into people. They believe something is not really what it is, and we were talking about this earlier.

I really hope, going forward, that I can work with opposition members in the House and out in the corridors and get all of these bills that we have before the House passed, because Canadians want them and Canadians need them. In order to do that, we have to work together and do what we did with Bill C-14.

Sometimes I think it would be far better, and we would get way better outcomes, if we were to conduct committee meetings and proceedings in this chamber without cameras. This is because the conversations I have privately with opposition members, and the conversations I have with opposition members out in the corridors of this place, often are not an accurate reflection of what we see and hear inside committee rooms, which is really unfortunate.

To conclude, Bill C-75 is subject to great criticism, but every time the Conservatives mention Bill C-75, they conveniently leave out the part of the bill dealing with intimate partner violence. If we are going to talk about a bill, then talk about it in its entirety and talk about the constructive steps that were taken as a result of that bill.

I am afraid that people get the impression, and I hold this view myself sometimes, that on the bills we are talking about that are before the House right now, everybody supports them, including mayors, premiers and police associations, except for the Conservative opposition. I am asking the Conservatives to please work with us, to work with the government. Let us get these bills through the House.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents from Abbotsford—South Langley and Canadians who are living in fear, frustration and a deepening loss of trust for the Liberal government. Many feel abandoned and that their safety and their families are being pushed aside. This Conservative motion before the House will help restore confidence in both our justice system and our immigration system. It ensures that the laws of this country protect innocent people and not those who terrorize our communities. This motion recognizes a simple truth: When laws are weakened, when consequences disappear and when loopholes are left open, organized crime does not hesitate to step in, and it is ordinary Canadians who end up paying that price.

Since the Liberals were elected, extortion in Canada has risen 330%, and it is not any better in British Columbia, where I am from. In British Columbia, extortion has risen 482%. In January alone, the Surrey police tracked 36 separate extortion attacks, 36. That is more than the number of days in the month. Those are just the ones that are being reported to the police.

Extortion is not a victimless crime; it is a threat made in the middle of the night, and sometimes in broad daylight. It is intimidation directed at small business owners. It is arson. It is gunfire. It is families being targeted in their own homes. It is people being forced to choose between their safety and their livelihood.

I can speak personally to the impact of this violence. I know and speak to many victims and their families regularly, more regularly than I would like. These are people in our Lower Mainland communities, who live in fear every single day. Families who have reached out to me in my community choose to sleep in their basement with their children, because they are scared of bullets flying through their bedroom windows at night. People are scared to go to their own place of work, businesses they own, because they do not know if they are going to return home that night to their families.

As a federal representative, I get phone calls and concerns about these shootings more than I would ever think I could. Mr. Satwinder Sharma was shot in broad daylight. His family is still grieving his loss every single day. Mr. Baljinder Garcha's death took Surrey by shock. Until this day, many questions are left unanswered. Mr. Darshan Singh Sahsi, a father, a husband, a son and a dear friend of mine, was someone who was recklessly killed in an extortion attack in front of his own home. Every statistic is a real person, a grieving family and a community left asking why more was not done to stop this reckless violence.

Today, many Canadians are afraid to report crimes because they fear retaliation, and others are left wondering whether anyone in authority is truly listening to them. From Abbotsford—South Langley to Brampton, Surrey, Vancouver, Calgary, throughout the Lower Mainland and across our nation, people are continuing to live in fear.

This brings us to Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, two pieces of Liberal legislation that sit at the heart of this crisis. Bill C-5 repealed mandatory jail time for serious violent offences, including extortion with a firearm, and the Liberals' catch-and release-plan under Bill C-75 is failing Canadians. Ultimately, the principle of restraint has been twisted into a policy that protects repeat violent offenders, leaving law-abiding Canadians vulnerable. Together, these bills have created a revolving-door justice system, one where an offender can be arrested, released and often released again to commit the same crime within days, if not hours.

These increases did not happen by accident. They are a direct result of the deliberate Liberal policies that have weakened our sentencing and bail laws. Instead of taking decisive action, the Liberal government has repeatedly voted against common-sense Conservative proposals aimed to address these crises.

The Liberals voted against Bill C-381, proposed by my Conservative colleague from Edmonton Gateway, which would bring tougher sentences for extortionists.

The Conservatives are ready to pass laws and help Canadians protect themselves, their families and their homes, but the Liberals are insisting on targeting responsible gun owners and hunters with their gun-grab scam. It is shameful that they are not going after the real problems, which are extortionists.

The Liberals' failures are not limited to public safety laws; they are also evident in their mismanagement of our immigration system. In the fall of 2025, the Liberals voted against an update to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, proposed by the Conservatives to bar asylum claims from being made by those who have been convicted of serious crimes in Canada. This was a common-sense change that would have prevented the abuse of Canada's asylum system and deterred non-citizens from avoiding deportation after committing serious crimes.

Let me be clear: Canada's refugee system exists to protect those fleeing genuine prosecution. It is not a shield for individuals convicted of serious crimes. Do the Liberals really believe that an individual who has committed serious offences should be rewarded with Canadian citizenship?

When criminals use asylum claims and delay tactics to avoid deportation, it undermines public trust and puts Canadians at risk, and Canadians face the real consequences. In British Columbia, every single one of 14 people who were charged with extortion immediately claimed asylum after being charged. They used Canada's refugee system to delay justice and avoid deportation. This shows how the refugee system, which is meant to protect people fleeing real prosecution, is being exploited by criminals, and Canadians are the ones who end up paying the price. This is why this motion truly matters.

The motion would call on the Liberal government to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims. If someone has committed a serious violent offence, Canada's asylum system should not be available to them. It is as simple as that. The motion would also put an end to the leniency that lets non-citizens convicted of serious crimes escape deportation. Deportation should be a consequence, not a choice. The motion would also bar non-citizens with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims. This is important, as it would send a message to non-citizens, who now believe they can commit serious crimes and avoid deportation by abusing Canada's asylum system. Finally, it calls on the government to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 so that repeat extortionists stay in jail and cannot terrorize our communities any longer.

This motion is necessary to end the crisis. Even the NDP Premier of British Columbia called for the law to be changed. While the premier is a New Democrat and I am a Conservative member, there are some political bridges that we actually agree on. It protects genuine refugees, supports our law enforcement and restores confidence once again in our justice system. Most importantly, it puts victims first.

Canadians are asking for action and for leadership. They are asking for a government that takes their safety seriously. The House has a choice: We can continue down a path of leniency, loopholes and rising crime, or we can take a stand for safer streets, stronger laws and real consequences.

Conservatives are choosing safety and to put victims over criminals. I urge all members of the House to support this as well.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Richmond East—Steveston, who spoke earlier, I would just like to clarify some comments on Bill C-16 that I heard in the House. Bill C-16 would not change the offence of extortion itself and would not create any new mandatory minimum sentences for extortion. It would add extortion as an explicit aggravating factor. It would not redefine extortion. It would not increase the maximum penalty for extortion. It would not add a new mandatory minimum for extortion, and it would not create any new stand-alone offences for extortion either. I just wanted to clarify those points for the House of Commons before I began.

The reason we are here today with another opposition day motion is that the Liberals told us we needed to have one today. They allotted one of our supply days early on because they would rather push forward their new agenda, to say we are delaying things in the House of Commons, before the Prime Minister likely calls a spring election. That is what is taking place today. The government controls the House calendar. We heard the rhetoric from the member for St. Catharines, with his anger and confusion, but we are only here today because the Liberals did not want to talk about their own bills, full stop.

I rise in support of what we are talking about today. The safety of our communities is the first duty of a free and just society. Unfortunately, the Liberals forgot that for 10 years. The foremost responsibility of any government is to protect law-abiding citizens. Across British Columbia, and across Canada, that responsibility is being tested with increasing urgency. Recent data and public warnings point to a troubling rise in organized extortion and related criminal activity, while the response required to confront this threat has too often been delayed. For too long, policies that weaken consequences for serious crime and blur the integrity of our immigration system have eroded public confidence in safety and justice.

After nearly a decade, Canadians are asking a fundamental question: Why do criminals feel more confident, while communities feel more vulnerable? From small business owners and construction workers to truck drivers and young families, ordinary Canadians are facing intimidation that disrupts their livelihoods and undermines stability. In places like Abbotsford, threatening extortion letters have unsettled entire neighbourhoods and placed growing strain on local police. These are the lived realities of Canadians who seek nothing more than to work, raise their families and live in peace.

Since the Liberals took office nearly 10 years ago, violent crime has increased by 54% and extortion is up 330%. This is not a marginal increase. This is a systemic failure. Again, the member for St. Catharines talked about decreasing crime. Well, guess what. The cities of Surrey and Abbotsford in British Columbia, just in the last year, have had to create many special task forces to deal with the problem at hand here today. The reason is that the Liberal government failed to act, full stop.

Less than a month ago, police investigated an extortion-related shooting that damaged a local business and nearby vehicles. This was part of a series that included 34 reported threats, 21 victims and seven shots-fired calls in just 19 days. Law-abiding Canadians must be able to trust that crime will be met with firm and proportionate consequences. Instead, serious crime is too often met with delay, leniency and the absence of real consequences.

More than a year ago, I sponsored legislation in the House through Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act. This legislation would have delivered real jail time for serious offences, stronger penalties for organized crime involvement and a clear denunciation of extortion as a violent and coercive crime. The government, the Liberals, voted against it.

Today, police in British Columbia report that they are overwhelmed, arresting the same offenders again and again. Communities are left to deal with the fallout. Business owners are left to fend for themselves. Victims are left asking whether the justice system in fact works for them. This is the direct result of Liberal catch-and-release laws, weak sentencing and revolving-door bail policies that are enabling repeat offenders to return to the streets, placing families, workers and businesses at risk.

Our motion today also addresses the government's refusal to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, laws that have weakened consequences for serious and repeat offenders. We mention those laws again because their consequences will even touch on the legislation in this chamber and the impact of what the Liberals say it is going to do.

Bill C-5 removed mandatory prison sentences for serious firearm-related crimes, including extortion involving a weapon. Bill C-75 entrenched a principle of restraint in bail decisions that too often results in repeat violent offenders being released back into the community while awaiting trial. It is not every day that every single premier in the country stands against an action by a standing government. They did on that law. They did it because what the government did was so egregious that every premier, New Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, agreed that the government had failed badly and eroded any sense of justice in this nation.

In British Columbia, police have raised new concerns about transnational crime networks, some involving individuals with no legal right to remain in Canada. Allowing extortionists to hide behind asylum claims undermines public confidence and endangers communities, including immigrant communities, who are often targeted first.

Conservatives believe deeply in protecting genuine refugees, those fleeing persecution and violence, but when violent criminals can claim refugee status to delay deportation, something has to change. That is why last November, Conservatives proposed an amendment to Bill C-12 that would have updated the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to bar asylum claims from being made by those who had been convicted of serious crimes in Canada. The Liberals rejected it, and nothing has changed.

This motion reflects exactly what Conservatives have promised Canadians: to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims, bar non-citizens facing serious criminal proceedings from making refugee claims, end leniency that allows criminals to avoid deportation, and repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 so repeat extortionists stay in jail. These measures are fair, lawful and absolutely necessary. They would protect victims, newcomers and communities alike, and they would restore a sense of justice in our country.

The issue before us is not complicated. It comes down to a simple question: Will Parliament stand with victims or with the loopholes that protect criminals? The choice before the House is clear.

Public Safety

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing a surge in violent extortion that is shaking communities across the country. Families and small business owners in my own community are living with a level of fear they have never known before.

Extortion has risen by 330% since the Liberals were elected. In British Columbia it has climbed more than 480%. In B.C., 14 accused extortionists have paused removal by claiming refugee status, exposing the blatant abuse of our asylum system.

Canadians deserve to feel safe in their home, on their streets and in their place of work. We owe it to them to strengthen protections and to ensure that violent offenders face meaningful consequences. This is why our Conservative motion demands that the government close loopholes exploited by serious offenders, repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, end repeat offender cycles and ensure that violent criminals cannot use the system to delay or avoid removal from Canada. We also refuse to let the Liberals play politics with the safety and security of Canadians any longer.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because Canadians are asking simple but deeply troubling questions. They ask why our justice system seems to work harder for criminals than for victims, and why law-abiding Canadians feel increasingly vulnerable while repeat offenders appear increasingly confident.

Nowhere is that question more urgent than in the alarming rise of extortion across this country, including in my own region of Niagara. Let us begin with the facts, because facts do actually matter. Since the Liberals took office, extortion has risen by 330% in Canada. This is not a statistical anomaly or a coincidence; it is a systemic failure, one that is being felt in real ways by real people, including small business owners, families and newcomers across Niagara in my communities of Welland, Fort Erie, Thorold and Port Colborne, and throughout the region.

Extortion is not a victimless crime. It is the restaurant owner near our tourism and commercial corridors who receives threats and knows that a single incident could ruin their livelihood and indeed their lives. It is the family living in fear due to gangs that hide in the dark, shooting at houses in once-safe neighbourhoods.

Canadians are scared. Retaliation is certain if they speak out. There are newcomers who came to Canada seeking safety, opportunity and a better life, only to be targeted by organized criminal networks that exploit their fear and silence.

Niagara is a gateway region. We are home to an international border, four border crossings, major transportation routes and a vibrant but fragile tourism and industrial economy. We depend on trade and the safe movement of goods across our borders. Those strengths should be protected, but instead, criminals are exploiting them. They are doing so because they know the risks are low.

Time and time again, when Conservatives have brought forward common-sense solutions to confront this crisis, the Liberals have voted no. They voted against closing loopholes that allow false refugee claimants, including those tied to serious criminal activity, to exploit Canada's asylum system. They voted against Bill C-381, which would have imposed tougher sentences on extortionists. They continue to refuse to repeal Bills C-5 and Bill C-75, legislation that has fuelled a revolving-door justice system, where repeat offenders are released again and again, including in regions like Niagara, and police officers are forced to rearrest the same individuals, repeatedly.

Laws are not compassionate if they abandon victims. They are not humane if they embolden criminals. They are not effective if they leave communities like Niagara less safe than they were before.

The motion before the House is clear, targeted and reasonable. First, it calls on the government to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims. Canada's refugee system exists to protect people fleeing persecution, not to shield criminals from accountability. In Niagara and elsewhere, where many of the newcomers follow the rules and contribute positively to their communities, this distinction matters deeply. When criminals abuse the refugee system, it undermines trust and unfairly stigmatizes law-abiding immigrants who are doing everything right.

Second, the motion calls on the government to bar non-citizens with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims. This loophole is being exploited, and regions and communities like Niagara feel the impact. Individuals facing serious charges use refugee claims to delay proceedings and complicate removals. They remain in Canada longer than they should. This is not fairness; this is dysfunction.

Third, the motion calls on the government to end the practice of leniency that allows non-citizens convicted of serious crimes to avoid deportation. Canadians believe in due process. People in Niagara believe in fairness, but they also believe in consequences. If someone who is not a citizen commits a serious crime, serves their sentence, and then uses legal technicalities to remain in Canada indefinitely, the system has failed the victims, the community and the public trust. Deportation in these cases is not extreme; it is responsible.

Finally, the motion calls on the government to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, legislation that has weakened sentencing, expanded bail and contributed directly to the rise in repeat violent and organized crime, including extortion. Police officers in Niagara have been clear. They are arresting the same offenders over and over again. Crown prosecutors are frustrated, victims are ignored, and small business owners feel abandoned, yet the government continues to defend policies that prioritize ideology over public safety.

Extortion thrives where consequences are uncertain and enforcement is inconsistent. Criminal organizations are rational actors. They assess risk. When sentences are lighter, bail is automatic and deportation is delayed, crime becomes a business model. It is like an episode of The Sopranos. The people who pay the price are law-abiding Canadians, including families and small business owners across Niagara, who simply want to feel safe in their own communities. Let me be clear. This motion is designed to protect Canadians and those who dream about becoming Canadian.

Niagara was built by immigrants. Niagara thrives because of newcomers, over generations. This motion protects them. It is pro-victim, pro-law and pro-common sense. Canada can be compassionate without being naive. We can welcome newcomers while still being firm with those who abuse our generosity. I ask members of the House, what message do we send to the Niagara business owner who has been extorted when an offender is released within hours? What message do we send when criminals exploit refugee processes faster than the government can close loopholes? What message do we send to Niagara police officers when their work is undone by laws that favour release over responsibility?

Leadership is about choices. The Liberals have chosen leniency over accountability. They have chosen delay over action. They have chosen ideology over evidence. Today, the House can choose differently. We can stand with victims instead of criminals. We can protect the integrity of our immigration system. We can restore confidence in our justice system. We can send a clear message that extortion, organized crime and repeat offending will not be tolerated in Niagara or anywhere else in Canada.

In 2023, a foreign national attempted to purchase sex from who he believed was an underage girl. When he arrived at the location, he was met not by a child but by an undercover police officer. He was arrested, and yet when it came time for sentencing, the court imposed a lighter sentence, not because the crime was minor but because the harsher penalty might have affected his immigration status. Canadians need to ask themselves how that makes any sense. We have seen where this kind of failure leads.

In Welland, Daniel Senecal committed one of the most horrific crimes imaginable: the sexual assault of a three-year-old child. It is a crime that shatters families and leaves lifelong scars. These are not technical violations. These are serious violent offences. I ask the House plainly, do members believe that individuals who commit crimes like these, crimes against children, should ever be rewarded with the privilege of Canadian citizenship, or do we finally draw a clear line and say that protecting the most vulnerable must come before protecting the status of criminals?

I urge all members of the House to support this motion, not for partisan reasons but for the safety of the communities we represent and the trust Canadians place in us to get this right.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in northeast Calgary. I want to speak today on an issue that hits very close to home and has deeply impacted members of the South Asian community across Canada. Families and small businesses are living in fear as extortion has become rampant across the country. Communities in Surrey, Brampton and northeast Calgary have become all too familiar with these threats and intimidation.

In many cases, extortion begins with a phone call from an unknown or international phone number. The perpetrator makes a demand for thousands of dollars and, in some cases, millions of dollars. They threaten to harm an individual's home, business or family. They drop details about the individual's place of residence or the names of their children and their school. They warn that going to the police will only make matters worse.

In recent months, numerous families and small business owners have come to my constituency office after receiving extortion calls. They were shaken, afraid and unsure where to turn. Some told me that they did not know whether to report the threats. The safety of my constituents is my top priority in the House, and I will continue speaking on this issue until something gets done.

In another case just last month, a father in northeast Calgary received a phone call over WhatsApp from an international number. The man on the line asked for thousands of dollars and claimed to know about his seven-year-old son and where he went to school. Like many others, this call was meant to terrify him into compliance and silence.

Crime and extortion statistics in Canada have become so bad over the last 10 years that it is truly hard to fathom how things got so out of hand. Since the Liberals took power in 2015, violent crime has risen 54%, gun crime has risen 130% and extortion has risen by 330%. In my neighbouring province of British Columbia, extortion has risen by 480% since 2015. These are truly unfathomable numbers.

Canada's extortion crisis is not an isolated issue and it did not happen overnight. It is the result of years of weakness in our criminal justice system and in the bail and sentencing laws. Liberal bills such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 treated perpetrators like victims and prioritized criminals' rights over public safety. These policies of lenient sentencing and reduced consequences have emboldened criminals and signalled to international crime networks, including the Lawrence Bishnoi gang, that Canada is an easy target for extortion-related crime.

These Liberal policies have directly contributed to the rise in crime Canadians are now facing across the country. In my hometown of Calgary, police are currently investigating 21 extortion cases, including recent shootings in Redstone and Taradale. I want to thank the Calgary Police Service, the Alberta Law Enforcement Response Team and all of our first responders for their bravery and work ethic in dealing with these matters. Their work sends a clear message to scammers, thugs, criminals and terrorists that our communities will not take threats and will not be silenced.

In Surrey, British Columbia, there have been over 30 reported extortion attempts already this year. Compared to last year's total of 133, Surrey is on pace to have 500 extortion attempts by the end of this year.

Like many families across Canada, a Brampton household began the new year with hope and optimism. Within days, that hope was shattered when they received an extortion demand for half a million dollars and later had multiple shots fired at their home. Incidents like this leave families shaken and communities wondering whether their own homes could be next. This pattern is being seen in communities across Canada. It is why city councils in Brampton and Surrey have asked the Liberal government to step up its response to extortion.

I agree with the mayor of Brampton, Patrick Brown, who has said that the Liberals must recognize extortion as a national public safety issue and take immediate action to address it. Mayor of Surrey, Brenda Locke, has been equally vocal, stating that “our laws are simply too weak” and that “strong federal leadership” is needed to protect communities and restore public confidence. I could not agree more.

This is why, over a year ago, the Conservative member for Edmonton Gateway introduced Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act, which set out a clear plan to address this crisis. The Liberals voted it down, choosing to side with criminals instead of communities. Conservatives have also introduced Bill C-242—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I was very articulate in my speech about why I was very supportive of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Canadians are now looking to us to see what the issues are and what actions we need to take now. They are asking the House to work together. They are asking us to work collaboratively. They are asking us to pass the pieces of legislation that are in front of the House right now in order to make Canadians safer.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend opposite how she could be so proud of her government's abysmal track record for the last 10 years when she herself voted in favour of Bill C-75, in favour of Bill C-5 and in favour of Bill C-48, which created the problems we are facing right now with extortion. It is fine to say they are taking it seriously now, but where was she 10 years ago?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be as passionate an intervenor as my dear colleague from Winnipeg North, but nonetheless I have a few very important things to say about the opposition day motion today.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate today. As the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and as someone who has heard testimony from legal experts, law enforcement and settlement organizations over recent months, I rise to speak to the motion with a perspective grounded in both evidence and our government's principled approach to public safety.

As members may know, I am the daughter of immigrant parents who fled their respective countries due to poverty, war and discrimination. They came to Canada to find a safe place to raise their children, so I very much understand on a personal level what our immigration system means to families, but I also understand that public safety must always be paramount.

Let me be absolutely clear from the outset: Claiming asylum cannot and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. The Conservatives would have Canadians believe that our asylum system provides a safe haven for criminals. This is simply not true. Our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already establishes that a claim is ineligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board if the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality or by reason of a conviction in Canada for an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.

When CBSA believes a claimant is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, their claim is put on hold while their case goes through the criminal justice system. If they are found guilty, their asylum claim is terminated. Their authorized period of stay in Canada ends, and they will face removal. In cases of serious inadmissibility, removed foreign nationals are permanently barred from re-entering Canada. Criminal matters take precedence over immigration matters. Making a refugee claim does not exempt lawbreakers from the consequences of their actions.

I want to address the calls in the motion to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. The Conservatives claim Bill C-5 allowed house arrest for serious crimes like extortion. This is simply incorrect. Conditional sentence orders are never available where the sentence is two years or more, which is typically the case in serious extortion offences. They are also unavailable where an offender poses a threat to public safety. Furthermore, we maintained mandatory jail time for extortion involving restricted or illegal firearms or extortion connected to criminal organizations, precisely the types of extortion cases Canadians are most concerned about today. The Conservatives should do their homework before repeating slogans.

On Bill C-75, the Conservatives' central criticism is that it codified the principle of restraint and bail, but what they refuse to acknowledge is that Bill C-75 actually strengthened protections for victims of intimate partner violence. It formally defined “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code to include ex-partners. It created a reverse onus for repeat intimate partner violence offenders, making it harder for them to obtain bail, and it now requires judges to consider prior intimate partner violence convictions and imposes stronger penalties for repeat offenders.

The president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Canada has stated clearly that the claim that Bill C-75 weakened public safety is a false narrative. Canadians deserve a debate grounded in facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a law that made it harder for repeat intimate partner violence offenders to get bail, then they should say so directly.

Just last week at the immigration committee I chair, we heard from Professor Audrey Macklin, chair of human rights law at the University of Toronto. She confirmed that under Canadian law as it currently exists, individuals convicted of serious crimes are ineligible to seek refugee protection. When asked about individuals who claim asylum after being charged with crimes, she was clear that if they are convicted of that offence, they will be ineligible because the eligibility requirements make them ineligible.

She also noted that those who receive custodial sentences tend to be removed, because they are in custody. Also, CBSA has historically prioritized people serving criminal sentences because they are, frankly, easy to find.

We further heard from representatives of the Refugee Centre, who told us that, in the first nine months of 2025, the acceptance rates for refugee claims reached 78%, of which less than 1% were fraudulent claims. This tells us that the initial decision-making is generally sound and that our system is working. Yes, it is overloaded, but it is working.

Everyone deserves to be and feel safe in their communities, and that is why Canada's government is taking real action to keep Canadians safe, not through slogans and divisive rhetoric but through comprehensive, evidence-based reforms. We have introduced several major bills: Bill C-2, the strong borders act; Bill C-12, the immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which has introduced over 80 targeted criminal code reforms, many directly addressing extortion.

Bill C-14 would create a new reverse onus for individuals charged with violent extortion, making bail significantly harder to obtain. It would require sentences for extortion to be served consecutively to sentences for related offences like arson. It would prohibit weapons at bail for those accused of extortion and organized crime offences. It would strengthen bail conditions for organized crime-related extortion, including geographic restrictions.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has endorsed Bill C-14, stating that it reflects their own recommendations. Police leaders called for broader reverse onus provisions and tougher penalties for organized crime, and Bill C-14 answers all of those calls. We have also made the largest single investment in Canadian border security, $1.3 billion. We are hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 new RCMP personnel. On top of all that, we have created a financial crimes agency to combat money laundering and organized crime.

What deeply concerns me about the motion before us is its intent. The Conservatives are not genuinely seeking to strengthen public safety; they are seeking to create division within Canadian society by suggesting that the federal Liberal government is making it easy for criminals to stay in Canada. This is absolutely false.

The member for Calgary Nose Hill proposed an amendment to Bill C-12 that she claims would have prevented non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making asylum claims. However, in reality, our law already does this. Her amendment would have created more operational and administrative procedures and likely resulted in significant litigation, not greater safety.

While Conservatives rely on slogans and ideological proposals, many of which are imported from outside of Canada, our government is delivering thoughtful, targeted reforms that strengthen public safety, protect victims and ensure that our justice system responds to the realities Canadians face today. While Conservatives are holding important public safety bills hostage in committee, we are working across party lines to ensure that we are delivering for Canadians.

Instead of looking backwards with motions designed to divide Canadians, our government is looking ahead. The criminal justice reform agenda being implemented by the government is principled, responsible and will meaningfully address the public safety challenges that communities across Canada are facing today. The reforms contained in Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16 have been informed by significant engagement with stakeholders right across this country. The federal government is doing its part. We need the provinces to do their part and the cities to do their part.

In conclusion, I encourage all members to work collaboratively to improve our criminal justice system. Canadians expect no less. They expect us to be serious about public safety, not to play political games with their security.

The government opposes the motion before us because it is based on misinformation, would undermine Canada's sentencing principles, remove long-standing judicial discretion and offer no real solutions to the challenges we face. Instead, I urge all parties to support the passage of Bill C-12 and Bill C-14, legislation that is right before us. In doing so, we will make all Canadians safer.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, when I sat in the basement of a Surrey home and met with the Sahsi family, I could see a combination of fear and anger in the sons who had lost their father, a law-abiding Canadian, a successful businessman, a pillar of the community, Darshan Sahsi, who was gunned down presumably by extortionists. Not long after that, I was at Radio Swift in Surrey, and as I looked up in the studio, staring me in the eye was a bullet hole put there by extortionists who had demanded that the owner pay money to avoid violence.

The other day, I spoke to a Lower Mainland, British Columbia, mother who was paid a visit by police officers warning her that a house on the street was the subject of extortion threats and so there may be stray bullets flying around the neighbourhood, such that some might consider moving their families into the basement, which is to say, not living on the main floor of the home, to avoid the prospect of a stray bullet flying through the window and killing a family member. Many others are saying they are leaving Canada altogether for fear of extortion, going as far away as possible to hide from the extortionists the Liberals have let into the country.

Why now, after 10 years of Liberals, do we in Canada suddenly have an extortion problem that never existed before? Liberal laws have turned extortionists loose on our streets, and Liberal immigration has allowed them into the country in the first place. When they get here and they finally get caught, they can declare refugee status and, under the Liberal laws, avoid leaving the country altogether.

The CBSA reported in December that 15 foreign nationals charged with extortion suddenly discovered they were refugees and claimed status so that they could stay in Canada. Now, because the Liberal government allows these phony claims to occur, Canadians will need to spend millions of dollars housing, feeding and paying the legal bills of these criminals. By the way, there will be an endless string of appeals, so that even when their claims are eventually rejected, God willing, it will still be seven years' more cost and more danger for Canadians. Liberals force taxpayers to pay for a higher standard of living for foreign criminals living wrongly in Canada than they allow for the hard-working, law-abiding seniors who built this country.

We have seen cases, case after case actually, where judges relying on Liberal laws are reducing sentences for foreign nationals who commit crimes in Canada to avoid “immigration consequences”. In one case, a foreign national attempted to buy sex with a child and received a lighter sentence so deportation could be avoided. In another, a foreign national driving the wrong way on a street crashed into and killed an entire family. He got just months in jail because the court wanted to protect his immigration status. In Calgary, a non-citizen convicted of sexual assault got leniency so that he could stay in Canada.

Canadians deserve to live in safe communities. They deserve freedom from random violence. They deserve to ride transit without fear of being attacked by strangers. They deserve to know that their kids can play safely in the streets, including into the evening hours. They deserve to run businesses without getting threatened or shot at or having their storefront burned down. They deserve justice and immigration systems that put law-abiding Canadians first, not foreign national criminals.

There is a direct cause and effect here. Liberal catch-and-release laws and Liberal open borders immigration have led to this 330% increase in extortion. We can say that in the inverse: that extortion was about 90% lower when the Conservatives were in power. As we see Liberal members trying to blame others for their 10-year-long record, we can see that it is under their watch and their laws that we have witnessed the more than quadrupling of this horrendous sector of crime.

There has been a 55% increase, under the Liberal government, in violent crime overall. Businesses are being shaken down. Bullets are shot through storefront windows. Firebombs are thrown in residential neighbourhoods. Extortionists are now so brazen that they post videos of shooting up residential communities on their social media because they know there will be no consequences for their crimes under the Liberal government. This is the daily reality for too many Canadians in Surrey, Brampton, Vancouver, Calgary and the GTA.

I was at a Calgary business that builds homes a few months back. I did a photo line, where I met with all the people who wanted to say hello. Out of about 150 conversations, there must have been 30 or so people who had either been threatened or knew someone who had been threatened. About 20% of the people I spoke to said they had been or that a close loved one had been threatened with extortion.

This crisis was not predetermined but it was predictable. We predicted that this would happen when the Liberals passed laws unleashing this crime.

I look across the aisle at the Liberal government here today. The same ministers who are now in the Liberal cabinet voted for the laws that caused this. They voted for the Liberal bill, Bill C-75, which created Liberal bail. Liberal bail is a system that requires judges to release criminals at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions, something the Prime Minister continues to support.

The Liberal government, including the members sitting here with us, voted for Bill C-5, which actually reduced jail time for extortion with a gun. The Liberal government brought in laws that actually lowered sentences for violent and sexual offenders, allowing them to serve their sentences in the comfort of their living rooms. We have worked to reverse these Liberal laws by putting forward common-sense proposals that would keep our Canadian people safe. We have tried, but the Liberals will not stop obstructing in order to protect their soft-on-crime agenda.

Conservatives have tried. We put forward amendments to the Criminal Code. For example, there was Bill C-381. I think that was the member for Edmonton Gateway's bill. It would create mandatory prison sentences of 10 years for extortionists. Liberals blocked it. Liberals obstructed. We tried to repeal Bill C-75, catch-and-release bail, but Liberals obstructed and blocked us. We tried to repeal Bill C-5, the house arrest law. Liberals obstructed and Liberals blocked. They opposed the Conservative bill, Bill C-220, which would have prevented judges from giving lighter sentences to people based on the fact that they are here as immigrants.

We are calling on the government to stop obstructing and stop preventing us from fixing the system that it broke. That means acting now. Today, we have before the House of Commons a motion that would ensure that anyone convicted of a crime would not be eligible to seek refugee status in Canada. It would require that they be removed immediately from our country and that their status as an asylum seeker would immediately be revoked.

This is a reasonable motion that would bring peace and tranquility to our communities. It would allow small business people to once again operate fearlessly, focusing all of their attention on hiring workers and providing affordable goods to their customers. It would allow the law-abiding immigrants who came here to contribute to do so in open and free communities without fear of danger. It would allow places like Surrey, Brampton, northeast Calgary, Vancouver and the GTA to be peaceful and tranquil once again, as they were before the Liberal government.

We ask them to work with us, to put aside partisan obstructionism, to accept that they were wrong to liberalize our laws and our borders, and to instead stand on the side of law-abiding, hard-working Canadians and restore the promise of safe streets and a country filled with opportunity and security.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Canada is facing a crisis that begins at our borders and ends up in our communities. Criminals have been emboldened by weak Liberal policies, and non-citizen criminals have been able to exploit our asylum system. Some of these criminals are now exploiting the refugee system, and those with false claims are remaining in Canada.

At the same time, extortion has exploded 330% since the Liberals were elected. Families and small businesses in places such as Brampton, my hometown of Edmonton, Surrey, Vancouver and Calgary are living in fear. Many of them are actually contemplating leaving this country.

Violent crime is at the highest level we have ever seen in Canada. In British Columbia alone, extortion is up nearly 500%. This is happening right across the country and in plain sight. In fact, these criminals are filming themselves shooting at houses, creating videos and posting them. When non-citizen criminals are caught committing serious crimes, including extortion, many of them file false asylum claims, which delay deportation and provide more lenient sentencing. In fact, under the Liberal government's catch-and-release bail laws, many are put right back on the streets, where they are free to reoffend.

Despite many Conservative proposals on both issues of broken immigration and soaring crime, the government continues to make things worse by letting unvetted criminals into our country, and then allowing them to stay as they exploit asylum loopholes. The government is also refusing to enforce tough penalties for serious crimes. No wonder crime is out of control and victims are the ones paying the price.

Just last week, the Premier of British Columbia expressed deep frustration with Canada's immigration laws as they pertain to non-citizens committing serious crimes and subsequently making asylum claims. He asked for our laws to be changed and called the abuse of our system “ludicrous”. Ten years of weak Liberal laws have allowed serious dangerous criminals, many of whom should never have been in Canada in the first place, to gain a foothold and terrorize our communities.

What is happening today with foreign gangs and criminals across this country is a symptom of two deep structural failures caused by the Liberal government. First, foreign criminals have learned that Canada's asylum system is porous and easily manipulated and second, weak Liberal laws have made our system unable to keep criminals in jail or deport non-citizen offenders. These two failures are driving up crime almost everywhere across the country.

On top of this, the Liberals stopped performing criminal record checks on immigrants, allowing people with criminal pasts to come here and continue their criminal careers. Before the summer, I asked the government what it was doing to protect Canadians. The answer was that it is going to hire 1,000 new RCMP officers. In the fall, we asked how many of them had been hired. Those RCMP officers have not yet been hired.

Weak legislation on crime, which does not even keep the worst criminals in jail, as well as Canada's asylum system, which has become a shield for foreign gangs and criminals, continue to spread crime and disorder throughout our streets without an end in sight.

Conservatives have put forward real solutions. On extortion, I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act, that would have restored mandatory jail time. The Liberal government voted against it.

On asylum abuse, we warned the government years ago that criminals were exploiting gaps in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and in November, the Conservatives proposed an amendment to Bill C-12 to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Canada from making refugee claims. This was a common-sense proposal that would have prevented the abuse of our asylum system and stopped non-citizens from using refugee claims as a tactic to delay deportation after committing serious crimes. The Liberals rejected it at committee.

The Premier of British Columbia has said that Canada's immigration laws must change, and he is right. Conservatives agree with him that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes should not be allowed to file asylum claims. We also agree that Canada must bar non-citizens with active judicial proceedings for serious crimes from making refugee claims. This would stop those who believe they can commit serious crimes and avoid deportation by abusing Canada's asylum system.

Furthermore, the practice of judges granting leniency at sentencing to help non-citizens avoid deportation must end. Too many individuals convicted of serious crimes have benefited from this practice at the expense of victims and public safety.

Conservatives attempted to make these changes by amending Bill C-14, but Liberal members voted it down. That is why the member for Calgary Nose Hill introduced Bill C-220, which is a simple one-line change to the Criminal Code to end this practice once and for all. The bill will be up for a vote in a few weeks, and we hope the Liberal government will support the Conservatives with this bill.

The Liberal government has failed repeatedly. Its members voted against Conservative motions to end loopholes for false refugee claims. They voted against tougher sentencing for extortion in my bill, Bill C-381. They have refused to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which created Canada's revolving-door justice system. They have now rejected our common-sense amendment to Bill C-12 to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Canada from making refugee claims.

Conservatives are calling on the government to stop blocking justice and to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims. We also must bar non-citizens with active judicial proceedings for serious crimes from making refugee claims and end the practice of sentencing leniency designed to help non-citizens avoid deportation.

There are overdue, crucial changes to Canada's immigration system and asylum laws that would finally close loopholes and prevent serious offenders from using Canada's immigration system to their advantage.

Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. They deserve a government willing to stand up for victims, not criminals, and they deserve a federal government that will finally fix the asylum and immigration failures at the core of this crisis. Conservatives have the common-sense solutions. We are ready to work with the Liberals to expedite legislation that will deliver these long overdue changes and restore safety to Canadian neighbourhoods.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey Centre.

Let me begin clearly: Extortion is a serious crime. It terrorizes families, threatens small business owners and undermines confidence in public safety. In Surrey and across British Columbia, I have met with constituents who are living in fear. They deserve real solutions, not political theatre.

The Conservative motion claims to be about fighting extortion, but it relies on misinformation and proposals that would weaken, not strengthen, our justice system.

In British Columbia, the federal government has provided significant resources to combat extortion. We have committed $4 million to strengthen the B.C. extortion task force through the regional integrated drug enforcement team. In addition, the federal government and the Province of B.C. have jointly provided $1 million to support victims of extortion. The federal RCMP will deploy up to an additional 20 RCMP officers, along with helicopter resources, to support on-the-ground enforcement efforts in Surrey. Further funding is being delivered through the federal gun and gang violence action fund to disrupt gun and gang violence linked to extortion networks.

We have also taken decisive action by listing the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist organization. The RCMP and the CBSA are actively supporting investigations, laying charges and, where appropriate, also pursuing removal orders against foreign nationals who are inadmissible due to criminality or to non-compliance with Canadian law.

Once passed, Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, would modernize immigration enforcement and crack down on transnational organized crime, including extortion networks, making it harder for violent offenders to exploit procedural delays.

Now let us address the Conservative proposals directly. They are claiming that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes can make refugee claims to avoid consequences. That is simply false. Claiming asylum does not and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. Criminal matters take precedence over immigration matters. When CBSA believes a claimant is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, their claim is put on hold while their criminal case proceeds. If they are found inadmissible, their asylum claim is terminated, their lawful status ends, and they face removal.

Foreign nationals already subject to a removal order cannot make a refugee claim. In cases of serious inadmissibility, those individuals are permanently barred from re-entering Canada.

CBSA is aggressively pursuing the removal of criminals attempting to misuse the asylum system. Where credibility issues arise, CBSA prioritizes those files, presents evidence to the Immigration and Refugee Board and seeks dismissal or admissibility hearings leading to deportation.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a claim is already ineligible if the person is inadmissible for serious criminality or has been convicted in or outside Canada of an offence punishable by at least 10 years. Adopting the Conservative proposal would not close a loophole; it would create new administrative layers and invite litigation.

Paragraph (b) of the motion would bar asylum claims for those with active criminal proceedings. That, too, has already been addressed. CBSA officers may suspend eligibility reviews when a claimant is charged with a serious offence. Once the criminal case is resolved, the officer resumes the assessment and may deem the person ineligible. Canada's system already prevents asylum claims from advancing when serious charges are pending.

In paragraph (c), the Conservatives call for an end to so-called leniency to avoid deportation. What they are really proposing is to prohibit judges from considering immigration consequences at sentencing. Judges may consider immigration consequences to ensure that a sentence remains fit and proportionate, but never to reduce a sentence below what is appropriate. There is no evidence that the courts are improperly lowering sentences to avoid deportation. Any rare adjustments are reviewable on appeal and often reflect the joint positions of the Crown and defence. Eliminating judicial discretion would weaken, not strengthen, the justice system.

The Conservatives are also demanding the repeal of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Canadians elected this government with a mandate to strengthen public safety and modernize the justice system, and we are delivering. We have tabled more than six major public safety and criminal justice bills designed to crack down on violent and repeat offenders. Conservatives have delayed them, while premiers, police chiefs and municipalities have called for their urgent passage.

Bill C-75 did not weaken bail. It strengthened protections for victims of intimate partner violence by defining “intimate partner” to include former partners, creating a reverse onus for repeat offenders and requiring courts to consider prior convictions. Bill C-14 would go even further by clarifying that restraint does not mean automatic release, yet the Conservatives have blocked it. I have seen that in the House. The other day, speaker after speaker from the Conservatives did nothing but block Bill C-14, which would strengthen the bail act.

Bill C-5 did not allow house arrest for serious extortion. Conditional sentences are unavailable when sentences exceed two years or offenders pose a public safety threat. Mandatory jail time remains for extortion involving firearms or criminal organizations, which are exactly the cases that Canadians are most concerned about.

Our current legislation agenda targets extortion directly and effectively. Bill C-14 would create a new reverse onus for violent extortion, require consecutive sentences for related crimes like arson, prohibit weapons at bail and strengthen geographic restrictions. Together with Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and Bill C-12, these reforms would strengthen border enforcement, cybersecurity, hate crime laws and immigration integrity. These are evidence-based measures supported by law enforcement and municipalities across Canada.

Extortion is not a street-level crime; it is driven by organized networks and money laundering. That is why the response must be comprehensive. Fighting extortion requires evidence-based policy and firm endorsement, not false promises, and it requires a justice system that is tough on crime while still upholding the rule of law.

The Conservative approach is to blame immigration and repeal laws. Our approach is to dismantle criminal networks, strengthen enforcement, protect victims and uphold the rule of law. Victims of extortion want results, not slogans. This motion would divide communities, undermine due process and distract from real solutions.

For those reasons, I will oppose this motion and support the serious, targeted reforms needed to keep Canadians safe.