Debates of Feb. 10th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

[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.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I have gone to many of the different areas of this country that are affected by extortion. What we are lacking right now are results. We are lacking the number of arrests in these cases. What the member keeps mentioning and talking about is sentencing. We currently have a maximum of 25 years in prison for extortion, and we have minimum sentences when extortion is committed with a firearm or through organized crime, so that is not the issue. In the cases where there have been trials, sentences have been of seven years or more. The problem is catching the criminals, and in order to catch the criminals, we need lawful access. We need to give our police forces the tools they need.

Would the member agree, and would the member co-operate with the government in passing lawful access through the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have already had the debate in this chamber between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 in good faith. The Liberals' attempt to bring up another issue that was not related to their election platform in the amendments they made in Bill C-9 disrupted a lot of good work that we could have done collaboratively on behalf of Canadians. Instead, when it was right before Christmas, in December, the Liberals chose not to work with us and to put a wrench in the notion of what freedom of religion means in Canada, when we could have been debating these issues in more detail.

What police also need and what they have been calling for are additional resources and for the Liberals to make sure there are no judicial vacancies.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Today, Mr. Speaker, just in media monitoring clips, there is a story from CTV News: “A new province-wide survey suggests more than half of British Columbians don’t feel safe in their communities, with respondents citing ongoing concerns about crime and violence.”

CityNews Vancouver says, “Abbotsford Police calling for justice system changes amid growing extortion”.

Those are just stories that are appearing today. I wonder if my hon. colleague could speak to the concerns that his residents are facing and why the government is not taking steps to answer those concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, when our institutions work as they should, people feel safer, victims know where to turn, investigations can move forward, and communities can stand strong in the face of intimidation and violence. Unfortunately, due to the changes Liberals have made over the last 10 years, that is not the case in Canada right now. We know what we need to do. The motion before us today is a step in the right direction. We want the Liberal government to work collaboratively with us and to stop putting its politics ahead of public safety in Canada. We need better from the government. It is not doing a good enough job to protect Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note the Conservatives are preventing Bill C-2 from passing. They are also preventing Bill C-14 from passing, both of which have a direct link to preventing extortion. I have a letter that was emailed to Conservative supporters. It says, “Extortion is spreading across Canada. Businesses are being threatened. Communities are being terrorized. And families no longer feel safe in their own neighbourhoods.” This is the type of propaganda the Conservative Party is pumping out, including today.

How much money has the Conservative Party made by filibustering legislation that would improve the conditions of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, all I have to say in response to the member for Winnipeg North is that it is time for the Liberals to stop playing politics with the lives and security of Canadians. I will offer him the opportunity to clarify his earlier statements on Bill C-16 and how he misled Canadians with his false statements on what is included in that legislation. I will take no lessons from the member.

Again, the Liberals need to work constructively with Conservatives, to vote for bills and laws and support motions that are going to put the safety and security of Canadians first. We have not seen that from the government.

[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.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what a challenge the extortion crisis is in my colleague's community, and I understand the passion that he brings to this issue speaking on behalf of his community members today.

My colleagues on this side of the aisle, especially those of us from British Columbia, have spoken extensively about the extortion crisis. We understand what a challenge this is in many communities across the country. That is why we have spoken with the Premier of British Columbia, cabinet ministers from British Columbia, mayors from municipalities affected most directly in the Lower Mainland, law enforcement officials and chiefs of police. The messages we have received from all those different levels of government and all those different stakeholders are very consistent. We have been told that law enforcement needs more tools, more resources, more cross-border and inter-jurisdictional coordination, and for the House to pass Bill C-2 and Bill C-14.

Will the member agree with just about every other public official on this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is truly passionate and understands the problem that is happening in B.C. right now, he should understand that our community members, British Columbians and the Conservative Party have been asking for change, not today or yesterday, but for over a year. We have brought forward bills to make sure we can address these root problems. We have been waiting on the government to act for the past decade, but it has not acted. That is the problem.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the worst thing a legislator can do is to use their speeches to increase public cynicism and cause people to lose confidence in institutions, to lose confidence in the role of legislators and politicians. I have been here since 2019, and since the arrival of the new Conservative leader, I have seen more and more of this type of rhetoric.

We were told some time ago that people are asking for medical assistance in dying because they no longer have enough to eat. My colleague just said that Canadians are living in fear. I do not know anyone in my circle who lives in fear every day. That does not mean we agree with extortion, but members need to propose solutions that are feasible and viable. There are already provisions in the law to ensure that asylum seekers who have committed crimes cannot obtain refugee status.

What my colleague is trying to do today is fuel public cynicism and sow discontent. The same is true of the speeches I heard earlier. That is a very dangerous game. One day, there may be a Conservative government in power, and he will have to follow that script.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague commented that he does not know anyone who is living in fear day by day. I urge my colleague to come to B.C. to see what we face in our Lower Mainland communities, because this issue is real, and it is alive. There were 36 extortion cases in January, just since the new year. It is insane.

What we are dealing with is an extortion crisis. It needs to be dealt with now, not yesterday. That is why we are urging the government to vote for this motion, agree with us and collaborate. Let us work together.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we listened to the Liberals, they would have us believe that crime is down in this country. Nobody believes that. The Liberals have done a complete turnaround. While being the cause of the increase in crime in this country and after having advocated for and protested to defund the police, they are now saying they are the solution to the problem they caused.

I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in communities like Surrey and Abbotsford right now, we are hearing from police institutions doing press conferences. They are troubled. They hear the community. The community right now is concerned about these issues. We are trying to work with local municipalities, as well as the provinces. We want to make sure we can bring real results to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

First, I want to say that I am always incredibly proud to speak in this chamber and to stand here as a representative of the people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, whom I have the great fortune and honour of representing. I thank them at every opportunity I get.

I am really happy to be standing here today, talking about a very important topic. I emphasize that, because I am distinguishing it from a very important motion. The last time I spoke in the House on crime-related issues, I said something along the lines that I do not think there is anybody in this chamber or any elected official who does not believe that defending our citizens, standing up for our communities and having safe streets is critically important. I followed that by saying that I defy anybody to say that to my face. It was misinterpreted as a challenge to go outside or something ridiculous like that. The next thing I knew, it was on social media. I will reiterate what I said then. I do not think anybody in this chamber will tell me that I do not believe in the values that I just pronounced, and I know they do not either. That is my starting point.

Having said that, I am sort of sad that I missed the debate last Friday on the Standing Orders because, had I been here, I might have suggested something like changing the name of “opposition day” to “obstruction day”. The leader of the official opposition spoke in this chamber earlier today and said to “put aside partisan obstructionism”. The problem with that statement is that he should be giving that speech tomorrow morning at his national caucus meeting, not here in the House of Commons, because his comments should be directed at his own caucus members.

I thoroughly enjoy working with opposition members, particularly on the justice committee. I look across the way and say that with sincerity.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is not yet questions and comments. I invite members to withhold their questions and comments until that time comes.

The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore may continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate because I was just talking about how much I like the opposition members, so I will scratch that part from my speech.

[An hon. member]

It is refreshing.

[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.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are trying to build a narrative that the Conservatives are obstructing them at every turn, despite the irony of actually doing this on a bill that we are presenting. I watched the Liberals obstruct it. Every single speech has the word “obstructionism” in it. I think even a new word was created today, “obstructionality”, by one of the speakers.

I am wondering if the member, who talked about how terrible it is to work with the Conservatives, has any views on the actual bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I assume the member is talking about the opposition motion because what we are debating here is a motion, not a bill. Since he was careful to correct people on their use of language, I thought I would return the favour.

I have expressed my views very clearly. I think the motion before the House is a form of obstruction in itself, because if we go through all of these pieces of legislation, Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, they are addressing the very issues that Canadians are clamouring for and that the member and his colleagues are clamouring for.

I will repeat: Please help us get the legislation passed like we did with Bill C-14.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was well-though-out and meaningful, as always. The member has a depth of knowledge, being the chair of the justice committee, as to the shenanigans that have been going on there for some time.

In every speech Conservative members have made in the House, they have somehow stated that their motion, presented today, would not allow people to claim asylum. They specifically reference a news story from December 11, wherein 12 people claimed asylum out in Surrey, B.C. However, we tabled Bill C-2 in the House in June. Had the Conservatives co-operated and not obstructed that bill, those people would not have been eligible to claim asylum at that time.

How important does the member think it is to collaborate and to make sure that we move forward these important pieces of legislation for public safety?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say again that I enjoy working with colleagues on the justice committee and elsewhere. I mean that, but it is more enjoyable if we actually work constructively to try to get these bills passed. Bill C-2 is a perfect example. With the passage of these laws, the issues that the Conservatives continue to raise time and time again would be addressed. However, as I also said earlier, I sometimes cannot help but think that they are more concerned about having a live issue than a real result.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a highly partisan motion, and the response was highly partisan as well. As New Democrats, we recognize, and I think everybody in the House recognizes, that there is a rise in extortion, that there is a rise in organized crime, that everybody has a right to feel safe in this country and that we need to do more. The Conservatives continue to make assertions that mandatory minimums and longer sentencing would actually curb this, but if we look to the States, there is a sevenfold incarceration rate from taking that very approach.

What we want is evidence-based policy. I would like to hear from my colleague about solutions. When we look at solutions, what we hear about is targeted enforcement against organized crime, which is effective public safety, as well as timely courts and prevention, not rhetoric that undermines charter rights and stigmatizes newcomers. I hope my colleague can talk about solutions, because clearly they must step forward and do more. I am sure my colleague agrees that the government needs to do more.