Iqra Khalid

[Points of Order, September 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order that I raised a couple of days ago. The standing order specifically is Standing Order 116. That standing order was put in place with the express purpose of protecting the rights of committee members to participate in debate on motions before those motions are put to a vote. It does not matter if the chair claims he did not see my hand. The point of the matter is that my hand was raised and the onus was on the chair to canvass the room and make sure he was fulfilling his obligation as chair to ensure that debate had actually come to a complete conclusion.

The standing order in question is in place to protect the rights of members to speak to a motion before it is voted on, regardless of whether the chair accidentally or on purpose does not acknowledge the request of the member to speak. It is designed as a fail-safe to protect members. The onus is on the chair of committees to confirm there are no members wanting to participate in the debate before the question is called.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add that to my original point of order.

[Vehicle Theft, September 24th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to the residents of Mississauga—Erin Mills: the concern of auto theft and its impact on the lives of my constituents. That is why the Liberal government is working across jurisdictions to enact real solutions to crack down on auto theft and make our communities safer.

Our national auto theft summit in February led to a national action plan, enhanced detection at major ports and stronger collaboration with local police. It is thanks to these collective efforts that auto thefts decreased by 17% in the first six months of 2024. This success is due in no small part to our local police forces, and I want to particularly highlight Chief Nishan Duraiappah, Deputy Chief Nick Milinovich and Peel Regional Police officers for their incredible efforts to arrest criminals and recover stolen vehicles through project odyssey and more initiatives. This is what real action looks like.

[Points of Order, September 23rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order; specifically, it relates to Standing Orders 116(2)(a) and 116(2)(b). This is in relation to events that took place earlier today at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

I understand that the Speaker does not normally become involved with the business of committees, but there are occasions when the Speaker has intervened. I think this may be one of those occasions.

During debate on a motion today in committee, my hand was up to speak prior to the vote being called, but the chair called the vote regardless. I immediately indicated that my hand was up to speak, but the chair ignored my request and proceeded to a vote. This exchange can be found in the videos of today's meeting.

As you know, Madam Speaker, Standing Order 116(2)(a) states:

Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.

Standing Order 116(2)(b) states:

A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.

The exchange that happened in committee can be seen on video; not only this, but the rules of the House also apply at committee. In the House, we take members at their word. I state categorically that my hand was up to speak to the motion and that I had indicated it to the chair before the vote.

I would respectfully ask that the Speaker look into this, deem that the proceedings on the motion be nullified and allow the debate to continue so that I am able to speak, as I had indicated my desire to do so.

[Online Harms Act, September 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will be the voice of reason in the House today.

Unfortunately, when we hear colleagues accusing each other in righteous indignation, we have to look at our track record. We have done a lot as a Liberal government to protect children while a lot of slogans have come from that side. There is a lot of politicization of the issue when we should be protecting children here in our country. We are not able to get to that because they continue to completely restrict and hold up legislation, instead of letting it go forward in the House so that it can protect Canadians and protect our children all across the country.

[Online Harms Act, September 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will take no lessons about the protection of Canadians from a party that continues—

[Online Harms Act, September 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I recall serving with the hon. minister on the justice committee and talking about this exact thing. One thing that came to light was how the previous government, the Harper government, got rid of section 13 of the human rights code. Basically, that section created a remedy for those who were being targeted and victimized online. I think that, yes, there is a balance between what is freedom of expression and what is hate speech. Hate speech should absolutely not be protected. We have seen how much it has impacted our communities and our ability to work together as a country.

[Online Harms Act, September 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, our government created a ministry for mental health, which put in millions of dollars to ensure that youth have access to mental health facilities and resources, to make sure that they are being safe and that they are protected. At the same time, the online harms bill would make sure that youth are not victimized, that they are not sexually victimized. Yes, there is a lot more work to do, and we are willing to do it, as long as we do it together.

[Online Harms Act, September 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, it is not up to us to decide individual cases. That is up to our law enforcement because that is how our Constitution and our democracy work. However, it is up to us to set the standard of what free speech is versus what hate speech is, as well as to ensure that we are creating a balance so that Canadians are protected regardless of their gender, religion, creed or ethnicity.

[Online Harms Act, September 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like people do not really want to hear what I have to say, but we can count apparently. However, I am quite honoured to stand here to speak about this bill, because it is so important to communities like mine and to people like me.

As I was saying, another criticism that is made against the proposed hate crime offence is that it is too broad and would potentially apply to every offence in the Criminal Code and any other act of Parliament. However, this is not a novel approach for offences in the Criminal Code. For example, section 83.2 makes it an offence to commit an indictable offence in that act or any other act of Parliament “for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group”.

While the proposed hate crime offence is not restricted to indictable offences, which are considered to be more serious, there is a good reason for the difference. It is to ensure that the offence can apply to all hate crime offences, many of which can be prosecuted as summary conviction offences rather than indictable offences. Specifically, the 2022 statistics for police-reported hate crime in Canada show that the largest number, which is 54%, were non-violent crimes, and of these, the majority were general mischief offences. However, 46% of crimes were violent offences, including the offence of uttering threats and common assault. Mischief, uttering threats and common assault can all be prosecuted as indictable or summary offences.

Just as indictable and hybrid offences in the Criminal Code should be potentially caught by the proposed hate crime offence, so too should offences where they are found in other acts of Parliament. Some have expressed concern that this would result in trivial offences being included. However, that would not happen. First, it would likely be a rare case where a trivial crime in another act of Parliament would be hate-motivated. Second, what might seem to be a trivial offence on its own could be significant when coupled with the disproportionate harm caused by hate crimes.

I will also emphasize that other acts of Parliament are not limited to trivial offences. For example, subsection 112(1) of the Firearms Act prohibits advertising a firearm in a manner that promotes violence against a person. It is a hybrid offence that, if prosecuted by way of indictment, carries a maximum punishment of two years for the first offence or five years for the second offence or subsequent offences. The new hate crime offence would capture this offence if motivated by hatred, whether it is prosecuted as a summary or an indictable offence.

I can carry on with the technicalities of this bill, but I realize that I am running out of time. I do want to say that it is up to us to ensure that the legislative framework exists and that we partner with our provincial counterparts to ensure that it is being enforced. At the same time, we as parliamentarians have an obligation in this House to ensure that we ourselves are not inciting hatred and that we are conducting ourselves in a manner that is becoming of the multicultural society that Canada is. Recently, I have not seen that happen. I have seen some tropes, whether they are about incels, against women or against trans, gay, Muslim or Jewish communities. This bill would go a really long way to ensuring that we are setting the framework for what is a strong, united Canada.

When I first moved to Canada, back when I was 11 years old, I wondered how Canada was such a peaceful country. It is not just because we have rules and regulations, but also because we have an ability to work together to ensure that we take care of one another. It is a constant battle. It is a constant piece of work for which we need to continue to build bridges, and this bill is one of them.

[Online Harms Act, September 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, since I was interrupted twice during the beginning of my speech, I will start from the top.

I am here today to talk about this very important bill on online harms and how it conveys what the online world translates into real, lived experiences for so many people across Canada. I was part of the justice committee when it started a study on online harms and hate crimes and how they translate to lived realities. I have seen first-hand, in my nine years as a member of Parliament, people being shot down in mosques and victimized in synagogues because of significant hateful rhetoric being pushed online and right-wing organizations targeting LGBT communities, for example.

This bill would have a very significant role to play in how we conduct ourselves as a country. The hon. member before me talked about the role of enforcement. We are talking about federal policy. We are talking about how we at the federal level can improve our legislation to make sure that Canadians are kept safe. All we can do is encourage our premiers to pick up the mantle and ensure that our communities are being kept safe and that laws are being enforced.

I will speak about two specific things in the Criminal Code. It is an enormous shame that the measures proposed by Bill C‑63 have been subject to significant misinformation and disinformation. I am extremely disappointed in the reaction of the official opposition to this critical legislation, having seen what has transpired because of online hate.

When the bill was put on notice but before the actual text was publicly available, we saw the Conservatives reject it immediately. They had no regard for its substance, no regard for the years of consultation with victims and with survivors of abuse, and no regard for the countless organizations that are begging the government to do more about exploitation and hatred, online and in the real world. Canadians deserve a lot better than this.

I am proud to support Bill C‑63. I would like to go through some of the myths that have been circulated about the part of the bill that deals with hatred specifically. I will be explaining why I think these are unfounded.

Let us start with the proposed hate crime offence. It would make it an indictable offence to commit an offence in the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament where the offence is motivated by hatred. It would have a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. This is a maximum punishment, not a minimum.

There are two important reasons for creating this specific hate crime offence. First, it would appropriately denounce the harm caused by hate crimes. Second, it would assist with data collection on hate crimes in Canada. Currently, a judge can apply the provision on hate as an aggravating factor in the Criminal Code to help determine a sentence, but the underlying offence is not categorized, for statistical purposes, as a hate crime. If this proposed hate crime offence is enacted, statistics on hate crimes would allow governments, law enforcement and victims to better understand how hate crimes are being charged, how they are being prosecuted and how they are being addressed by the courts.

Some have expressed concerns that the availability of life imprisonment as a penalty could result in unjust and misappropriate sentencing outcomes. I would like to explain why those concerns are misplaced.

First, the law in Canada requires judges to impose a just sentence that is proportional to the seriousness of the offence and the offender's blameworthiness. Second, a maximum sentence represents just that: the highest possible sentence, to be imposed only in the most serious of cases. It acts as a ceiling for a range of sentences, with judges being required to impose an appropriate one depending on the seriousness of the crime and the responsibility of the offender.

Maximum penalties of any kind are, by their very nature, imposed very rarely, taking into account principles of sentencing as applied on a case-by-case basis. As a result, life imprisonment would only be appropriate in the most serious of cases, notably for Criminal Code offences that are already punishable by maximum life imprisonment, such as aggravated assault and sexual assault.