House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was extortion.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Petitions

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims Members debate rising extortion rates and Canada's justice and immigration systems. Conservatives propose barring non-citizens convicted of serious crimes or with active judicial proceedings from making refugee claims, ending leniency to avoid deportation, and repealing Bills C-5 and C-75, citing a "revolving door justice system." Liberals defend their "tough-on-crime" agenda, highlighting pending legislation like lawful access and bail reform, and accuse Conservatives of obstruction. The Bloc opposes the motion, raising concerns for political prisoners and potential legal challenges. 48900 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives focus on the rising cost of living, citing high food inflation, increasing consumer bankruptcies, and the impact of Liberal deficits and taxes. They condemn the surge in extortion and propose barring criminals from claiming refugee status. They also criticize subsidies for foreign-made electric vehicles amid Canadian auto job losses.
The Liberals highlight their strengthening economy, job creation, and investments in affordability for Canadians through tax cuts and benefits. They emphasize their auto strategy, investing in electric vehicle manufacturing and charging infrastructure. They also focus on tightening bail and sentences for extortion, improving lawful access, and taking control over immigration, while accusing the opposition of obstruction.
The Bloc criticizes government inconsistency on F-35 contracts, urging their suspension despite US reliability concerns. They also condemn the denial of 85,000 seniors facing Old Age Security benefit issues due to faulty Cúram software.
The NDP advocates for an independent foreign policy against the US blockade on Cuba and urges protection of universal healthcare.
The Greens raise a point of order concerning Bill C-2, arguing it violates the "same question rule" as much of its content is already in Bill C-12. They request its removal from the Order Paper or reintroduction with only unique sections like warrantless access.

Arab Heritage Month Act Second reading of Bill S-227. The bill, S-227, An Act respecting Arab Heritage Month, proposes designating April as Arab Heritage Month in Canada. Members from the Conservative, Bloc Québécois, and Liberal parties express support, highlighting the significant contributions of Arab Canadians to Canadian society, culture, and economy, and the importance of recognition, education, and belonging. The bill passed second reading and was referred to committee. 3200 words, 25 minutes.

Adjournment Debates

Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative Gord Johns raises concerns about the sunsetting Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative and the salmon allocation policy review. He stresses the need for stable funding and honest communication. Jaime Battiste highlights the government's investments and collaborations, assuring ongoing discussions and commitment to the sustainability of Pacific salmon.
High food prices Arpan Khanna raises concerns about high food prices, sharing a story about a senior considering MAID due to food insecurity, and blaming Liberal policies. Peter Fragiskatos acknowledges the problem, and asks Khanna to propose solutions. Khanna suggests removing hidden food taxes and tariffs, while Fragiskatos questions the impact of the carbon tax.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, my friend is right. We need to have an evidence-based approach that is solution-focused. Rhetoric does not help anybody, except for people on social media, perhaps. I would love to talk to the member at greater length. I do not have a lot of time right now, but Bill C-16, for example, addresses some of the very concerns he just raised. That is evidence-based legislation. This legislation, like Bill C-14, was done after thorough and extensive consultation with the parties who are most affected by the challenges we face, and that is why we are seeing widespread support for all of these bills.

Again, I will emphasize and ask members to please work with us to get these bills passed.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel Québec

Liberal

Patricia Lattanzio LiberalParliamentary 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.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, leaving aside the very controversial decision my friend referred to in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Pham, which still does not provide any sort of framework by which judges are to apply a discount, if any, I want to focus on the Bill C-5 implications for extortion. I believe I heard my colleague indicate that Bill C-5 did not take away a mandatory minimum penalty for extortion. I remind her to review that again because quite clearly the Liberals removed the four-year to five-year mandatory minimum penalty for extortion with a firearm.

My question is very simple. Given that the mandatory minimum was taken away, which sent a very clear message to extortionists that there are not significant consequences for committing the crime, why did the government not use the opportunity in Bill C-14 to bring back a reverse onus or even bring back the mandatory minimum penalty in Bill C-16, given the substantial increase in extortion in this country?

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the same talking points from the Conservatives on Bill C-5, saying we somehow removed mandatory jail time for extortion. Let me set the record straight, because Canadians deserve to hear this clearly and not just hear slogans.

I have a news flash: Bill C-5 did not eliminate mandatory jail time for serious extortion offences. In fact we deliberately maintained mandatory minimum penalties for extortion involving restricted or prohibited firearms, and for extortion connected to criminal organizations. Those are precisely the types of violent, organized crimes and extortion cases that are causing the greatest harm in our communities today.

Since the member opposite seems unfamiliar with the law they are criticizing, I would encourage them—

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I also really enjoy working with her on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I have, of course, read the Conservatives' motion. As I have said a few times since this morning, I am a bit disheartened by the motion because I do not think it is going anywhere.

Still, I always try to find something positive, and I believe I have. I want to know whether my colleague agrees with me on something. We get the impression from this motion that our Conservative colleagues want to work on justice issues. That tells me that we may finally see an end to the filibustering and get some bills passed. Bill C‑14 passed. Tomorrow, we will be working on Bill C‑9. Then, if all goes well, we will move on to Bill C‑16 next week.

I see it as a good thing when I hear that members want to work and will stop filibustering. Does my colleague agree with me?

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I would like to take this opportunity to tell him that I also enjoy working with him and my Conservative Party colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Our government has introduced several bills to keep Canadians safe. I know that Bill C‑14 has passed, and I hope that we will be able to study Bill C‑9 at committee tomorrow.

I very much look forward to continuing to work with my colleague on this and other bills that will come before the committee, including Bill C‑16.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I share one thing in common, I think. We have a Prime Minister who has been the prime minister for less than a year and has made a very substantial commitment to Canadians to bring forward a crime package. The bills that my colleague referenced deal, in good part, with that package.

Every day we seem to hear the Conservatives filibustering, coming up with all sorts of excuses as to why they do not want to pass the legislation. When we take a look at the holistic approach that the Prime Minister and this government have put forward, would the member not agree that the Conservative Party is, in fact, clearly filibustering and obstructing the passage of legislation? That serves their party, but it does not serve the Canadian people as a whole.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

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

We are very much looking forward to the Conservatives' co-operation.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Oxford, The Economy.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, understanding, appreciating and doing things for the victims of crime is one of the primary motivators, whether it is for the Prime Minister or for every Liberal member of Parliament in the House, to bring forward to the House a whole slate of crime bills. Using the example of extortion alone, extortion would in fact be better dealt with by passing Bill C-2 and Bill C-14. Those are lawful access and bail reform legislation. The Conservative Party is the only reason those two pieces of legislation are not passing.

Why does the Conservative Party have so much hypocrisy and absolutely no shame on this crime file?

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, the definition of hypocrisy and shame is standing up in this place after 10 years of passing soft-on-crime legislation, creating the crime crisis that we have in Canada, the crime crisis that puts victims at the centre of it. That is the definition of shame and hypocrisy, along with the Liberals' standing in the way every single time we have brought forward legislation or a solution in the House, contorting themselves into a pretzel, thinking they are going to be the ones who solve the very problems they spent 10 years in the chamber adding to.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code already includes sentencing provisions for repeat offenders who commit extortion. However, there are new measures in Bill C‑14, the bail and sentencing reform act, that would make it harder for offenders to get bail and that would impose harsher sentences for extortion-related offences.

What does the member think is missing from Bill C‑14?

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 is going through committee. In fact, it was 19 times that the committee asked for Bill C-14 to be studied. It has been clear in terms of what we have brought forward to the House. While Bill C-14, I think, is a step in the right direction for the victims of crime, and for the criminals who should be in jail, it certainly does not go far enough.

We are not going to stand in the way of the bill, but we are going to make sure Canadians know there is one party fighting for criminal justice reform, and one government continuously obstructing it.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague, as deputy leader, can provide some final clarity to the House, because I have heard nothing but exaggerated statements and mistruths in the Liberal Party's explanation about our party's being obstructionist.

Can the member provide context as to how many times the justice committee tried to prioritize Bill C-14 before Christmas and how many times the justice committee tried to prioritize Bill C-16 after Christmas?

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will make it very simple for everybody watching at home. It was 19 times that the committee asked for the piece of legislation to be studied.

I want to make one thing clear on what Conservatives are doing in this place. We are going to work with the government to bring forward the very pieces of legislation that we have been advocating for, for almost 10 years, in the House. We are not going to stand in the way of that, but we are the official opposition, and we are going to oppose the very dangerous laws that Liberals put forward in the House. Most of all we are going to expose what the government is not telling people, and that it is, frankly, standing on its high horse and exaggerating 10 years of a crisis that it has created. It is now trying to come in with a cape and solve it.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

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?

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, I know I am not supposed to call anyone a liar in the House, but I am really shocked to hear things like that there is Liberal legislation that somehow tells judges to give lenient sentences based on immigration status. There is no such legislation. There is no such law on the books that requires judges to give lenient sentences based on immigration status. That is absolutely, patently incorrect. I think the Conservatives want Canadians to believe these falsehoods.

In the House today, the Leader of the Opposition said that Bill C-2 is allowing authorities to read people's emails. That is false. What Bill C-2 would do, what lawful access would do, is that it would help the police connect phone numbers to names. That is so important in order to be able to catch these extortionists.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

I will remind members and the secretary of state that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. I am referring to the beginning of her statement.

The member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations has the floor.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the secretary of state needs to look herself in the mirror and ask why she has failed Canadians, why she has failed victims and why she has allowed such criminality to be so pervasive throughout this country.

She had a choice. She could have said no to the passage of Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory minimum penalties. She voted yes. She had a choice in passing Bill C-75, which opened up the floodgates to catch-and-release. It is really rich for her to claim now that they are taking it seriously when they were the cause of the problem in the first place.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned a few things in his speech. One is the absolute failure of the Liberal government when it comes to the disastrous catch-and-release policy it has. He also mentioned something I would like him to elaborate a bit more on, and that is the failure of the government to address the reverse onus provision for extortion. It had the opportunity. Why on earth would it not do so?

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I am at a complete loss. The Liberals have known for well over a year that violent crime was on the rise, but particularly extortion, at over 330%. On the highest level of any criminal act in this country, they sat silent. If anything, they could have sent a very clear signal to law enforcement, to victims and to those who prey on and victimize individuals using extortionary tactics that they are not going to tolerate it anymore. They failed in Bill C-14, and now they are failing in Bill C-16.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I commend his energy and his passion for the rule of law.

That said, we do not agree with today's motion. That is obvious. I have said so several times already.

My question relates to his passion for justice and the rule of law. Bill C‑14 is coming back to the House on Friday, I believe. Will our Conservative colleagues vote in favour, since I heard them say several times that it is a step in the right direction? Can we also hope that they will support Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act, which will be studied in committee tomorrow? Afterwards, we will be looking at Bill C‑16.

Do I take it, from this surge of passion for the law, that we will be able to make progress and pass Bills C‑14, C‑9 and C‑16 in the coming weeks?

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claimsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the same sentiment as my colleague from the Bloc. It has always been a pleasure working with him. I certainly enjoy all of his interventions and his contributions to the justice committee.

I think our party made it abundantly clear where we stand on Bill C-14. We wanted to prioritize Bill C-14. We tried desperately at least 19 times before Christmas to prioritize it. Unfortunately, the government chose not to agree with us.

On Bill C-9, there are still some issues that need to be hammered out. There are still some fundamental philosophical differences with respect to the Bloc amendment. We are going to work in earnest to try to overcome those differences. I have reached out to the government, offering some solutions, and I am waiting to hear back from the government.

We desperately want to get to Bill C-16 because that is what stakeholders want us to do. We will work diligently to ensure its passage.