Patricia Lattanzio
Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“Treating these murders as the Criminal Code's most serious forms of homicide speaks directly to the gravity of these offences and to the seriousness with which the government is moving to address them. I would like to dwell for a moment on the term I am using here, “femicide”, and the importance of naming it as such.”
“Behind every one of these numbers is a person, a family and a community left to grieve. We owe those families more than our sympathy. We owe them action, so let me outline a few of the key changes that Bill C-16 would bring.”
“Most significantly, Bill C-16 would strengthen mandatory minimum penalties for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation material, including restoring more than 12 mandatory minimum penalties for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by the courts.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this evening on behalf of the citizens of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel to speak to Bill C-16 , the protecting victims act, at third reading. Across the country, we are facing a stark reality. In my home province of Quebec, there have been 10 femicides since January.”
“Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes tells us that this type of violence, which so often goes unseen, is one of the main determinants of femicide. Criminalizing it would help us detect high-risk situations sooner and strengthen prevention.”
“We would also be putting more information into the hands of victims by providing them with information about available resources proactively, without requiring a formal request.”
The complete record
Every one of 233 lines we hold for Patricia Lattanzio, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Religious communities, LGBTQ Canadians and racialized groups have faced dramatic increases in hate crimes. Police and municipalities report that they lack sufficient tools to respond effectively under the Criminal Code. The bill before us would fix that. This is a moment for action, not delay. The Conservative Party has the choice to continue spreading fear and misinformation or to stand with Canadians who deserve to live, worship and gather in safety. We are a government that acts decisively. This bill denounces hate and would protect communities and strengthen the law. It would do so while fully respecting the freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression, the right to protest, and while giving law enforcement the clarity and the tools they need to protect Canadians.”
“Its members have tried to frame this bill as an attack on religion, claiming that preaching or teaching scripture could be criminalized. That is categorically false. Courts have long held that four existing hate propaganda offences require proof of wilful intent to target an identifiable group, which is a very high legal threshold that peaceful religious expression has never met and never will under this bill. Instead of supporting practical protections for Canadians, Conservative members have resorted to filibusters, procedural delays, fearmongering and misinformation to block the bill's process. It is politics over people and partisan games over the safety of Canadians who face harassment and intimidation simply for living their lives. The evidence is clear.”
“They are parents, seniors, students and community members targeted simply for who they are. Conservatives do not want to acknowledge that hate crimes are real. They do not want to protect the most vulnerable communities. It is completely shameful. I have the privilege of sitting at the justice committee where government members worked constructively with opposition and stakeholders to strengthen protection and clarify the law where it is needed. A “for greater certainty” clause was added to explicitly state that religious speech and practice is not captured by the legislation before us. The definition of hatred was even amended to include the word “extreme”, ensuring alignment with the Supreme Court rulings. Despite these careful measures, the Conservative Party continues to mislead Canadians.”
“It is the member who previously dismissed the Polytechnique massacre as a “fake holiday”. It is the same member who defended Holocaust deniers on the radio by suggesting that denying the Holocaust is just free speech. It is still the same member who stood up for PEGIDA, a white supremacist organization, following the 2017 Quebec City mosque attack that left six innocent men dead. They were fathers, sons and husbands who were murdered while praying. This is the level of moral bankruptcy guiding the Conservative opposition. It speaks volumes. Statistics Canada reports 4,777 incidents in 2023, which is a 32% increase from 2022. Religion-based hate rose 67%, while sexual orientation-based hate rose 69% and race or ethnically-based hate continues to grow. These numbers represent real Canadians living under real threat.”
“They believed in establishing a stand-alone hate crime offence, and they once believed in safeguarding access to religious and community spaces, yet today, in 2026, the same Conservative Party has turned its back on these very same issues. The Conservatives are clearly divided and inconsistent on the issue. That is why Quebec Conservative members are not standing up to speak to the legislation. They support it, but their leader is barring them from speaking. That is why no progressive Conservative members on that side of the House have spoken out on the bill. They are being told not to. (1635) Who actually emerged as the Conservative champion on the opposition to Bill C-9 ? It is not their shadow justice minister. It is actually the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South .”
“It would require showing proof of an emotion of an intense and extreme nature clearly associated with vilification and detestation. Finally, the bill would criminalize the wilful public display of symbols associated with hate or terrorist entities, such as the Nazi hakenkreuz . The intent to promote hatred would have to be present, meaning that the mere display alone would not be a crime. This would modernize the law and protect communities from intimidation, while fully respecting freedom of expression. The need for this legislation was once unanimously recognized by the House. Many elements of the bill originate from the 2024 justice committee report on fighting anti-Semitism that Conservatives supported at the time. They believed in codifying the definition of hatred.”
“This would ensure that Canadians can attend religious services, drop their children off at school or participate in community activities without fear. The bill would create a new stand-alone hate crime offence. Whether it is assault, mischief or other criminal conduct, if it is motivated by hatred towards a protected group based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or other characteristics, law enforcement and courts would now have the tools to treat this hate as an integral part of the crime itself. This is about clarity, consistency and justice for victims. The bill would also codify the Supreme Court's definition of hatred to ensure that hate-motivated conduct is addressed decisively, while at the same time ensuring that the mere criticism, offence or disagreement is not criminalized.”
“I will remind the House that Canadians, including the very brave people in the riding of Carleton, made their choice clear at the ballot box and want the House to implement the commitments made in the election platform. That is exactly what Bill C-9 would do. Voting against the bill would literally be voting against the very same things that Canadians voted for on April 28, 2025. Here is what Bill C-9 would actually do. The bill would protect access to community spaces and religious buildings. It would create offences for obstructing access to buildings used primarily for religious worship or by identifiable groups, including schools, community centres, seniors residences and cultural spaces. It would also criminalize behaviour intended to intimidate individuals trying to access these very same spaces.”
“The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which sees these actions first-hand, said the following: “FCM welcomes federal efforts to strengthen Canada's legislative framework to protect communities from hate, including hate speech and symbols. Local leaders see first-hand how they can threaten safety, trust and community well-being.” Our party platform, at page 19, made it crystal clear, a clear commitment to Canadians during the last elections, that we promised to criminalize intimidation and obstruction targeting people who simply want to access their community centres and places of worship. We promised to strengthen protections for communities facing hate-motivated crimes.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to rise as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to speak about and be in strong support of the government's combatting hate bill, strong and decisive measures in Bill C-9 that would protect Canadians from hate, intimidation and violence, while fully respecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which makes our beautiful country a beacon of democracy and inclusion. The bill is very measured, targeted legislation. It would address some gaps in the Criminal Code that leave communities vulnerable to harassment and threats simply because of who they are, how they worship or the spaces they gather in. Let me share the perspective of those on the front lines.”
“Mr. Speaker, these crimes that are being committed on a practically daily and weekly basis are simply unacceptable. We are committed to putting forward robust laws to be able to tackle these issues. It would be a pleasure for me to sit down with the member and go over his PMB. We will certainly engage in making sure that Canadians are always protected.”
“Madam Speaker, we witnessed a committee meeting that lasted from 4:30 p.m. to about two o'clock in the morning and that was one long filibuster. It was a fine example of reading whatever passage inspired members but had absolutely nothing to do with the bill. This is a tactic used to prevent the bill from moving forward. It is therefore essential that the House adopt the motion so that we can move forward and protect Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, what is unacceptable are the hours and hours of filibustering and obstruction by the members of the justice committee to not move forward with the bill. It is also a shame to hear the member opposite talk about the combatting hate act as a censorship bill. What does the member opposite call censorship? Does he think it is okay to target synagogues? Does he think it is okay to threaten LGBTQ+ people because of who they love? Does he think that it is okay to wilfully call for the extermination of women and racialized Canadians while waving a Nazi flag in public? Which form of hate is the member opposite trying to protect?”
“Madam Speaker, there has been hour after hour of filibustering in committee. We see that the Conservative members are divided. Some support the bill, which is a good piece of legislation, while others do not. Unfortunately, Canadians are the ones who are paying the price because we must address the reprehensible acts that we are seeing. We need to take action. We need to go ahead and pass this bill, which will protect Canadians. That is why we had to proceed in this fashion. We hope that the House will adopt this motion so that the committee members can continue their work.”
“Madam Speaker, we have seen a rise in incidents of anti-Semitism, including two shootings at synagogues just last week. It is literally a reminder that Bill C-9 needs to pass, and to pass quickly, to send a strong message to Canadians that hate crimes are heinous and must be denounced. That is why we are acting on Bill C-9, to make it illegal to block or impede someone's access to their community or religious centre, and to create a new stand-alone hate offence so that these crimes are treated seriously.”
“Madam Speaker, we are here today discussing the process. The reason we have presented this motion is that we at committee have been trying very seriously to get the bill studied so it can come to a conclusion, but we have been unable to. As a matter of fact, the member who asked the question has done nothing but filibuster and obstruct the work of the committee, invoking his love of cats and dogs.”
“Madam Speaker, the fact is that there was a debate in committee, like there is for every bill. After debating the removal of this exemption, all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights voted in favour of removing it. In our opinion, it was the right thing to do.”
“Madam Speaker, there were many issues discussed at committee, and I remember very clearly that when the Bloc Québécois, in the House, at second reading, proposed the removal of such an exemption, the colleague who asked me the question said that everything was on the table. Therefore, everything was on the table at committee, and we disposed of that very same issue at committee.”
“Law enforcement, community leaders and human rights organizations have told Parliament clearly that the measures in Bill C-9 would give them stronger tools to address these threats. After six months of delay, it is time for Parliament to move forward. It is time to rise above partisan politics. It is time to listen to the voices of Canadians and send a clear message that hatred and intimidation will never define our country.”
“Let the legislation come to a vote. Let every member of this House make their position clear to Canadians. Those who support confronting hatred will stand up and vote for it. Those who oppose it will have to explain their choices to the communities that are asking for protection. Here is what is at play. Across this country, people at synagogues have been shot at. Those at mosques have been threatened. Churches have been burned, people at temples have been harassed and children have arrived at school with hateful or terrorist symbols waved outside their school gates. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a troubling pattern that communities across Canada are experiencing.”
“In other words, when legitimate concerns were raised, we addressed them. This is how Parliament is supposed to work, but even after that collaborative effort, the obstruction has continued. Parliament has already spent more than 35 hours debating and studying this bill. Witnesses have testified, amendments have been examined and every clause has been reviewed. For a bill of eight pages, that is thorough scrutiny, by any reasonable standard. At some point, debate must give way to decision. Democracy does not function if legislation can be delayed indefinitely. The communities affected by hate cannot wait forever while Parliament argues about procedure. That is why the motion before us is necessary. It would simply ensure that the committee can complete its work and that the House can finally vote on Bill C-9 .”
“When concerns were raised that Bloc Québécois amendments proposed in committee might create uncertainty around the freedom of religion, we listened. We worked with colleagues to introduce a “for greater certainty” clause, making it absolutely clear that preaching, teaching one's faith, reading scripture, delivering sermons, praying and discussing religious texts in good faith would never be criminalized by this legislation. Religious organizations from across the country welcomed that clarification. Groups such as the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian Hindu Alliance and the Christian Legal Fellowship, pretty much all religious groups, expressed their satisfaction with this additional clause to Bill C-9 and are now waiting for it to move forward.”
“Thomas—London South spent hours in committee speaking about issues that had absolutely nothing to do with the bill, including his admiration for cats and dogs, while witnesses endured countless hours of filibustering and patiently waited to discuss this legislation designed to confront hate. The Conservative member for York Centre used valuable committee time talking about sandwiches he had for lunch instead of debating how Parliament should respond to threats that Jewish communities are facing in his own riding. This is not serious parliamentary work. Canadians expect so much better from all of us. Let me be clear. The government has made every effort to constructively work with colleagues across the aisle.”
“In the last federal election, our party made a clear commitment to confront the rise of hate-motivated crime, which appears on page 19 of the 2025 Liberal platform. I will remind Conservatives that Canadians, including the people of Carleton , supported our platform to address hate crimes at the ballot box. They asked us to act. Bill C-9 is part of fulfilling that promise. I have a great respect for the role of the opposition. Opposition parties play a vital role in strengthening legislation. Their job is to challenge, question and even improve bills through committee work, but not to paralyze Parliament simply because a bill creates internal divisions within their own caucus. Unfortunately, this is what Canadians have been witnessing. (1205) For example, the Conservative member for Elgin—St.”
“In fact, in December 2024, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released its report on fighting anti-Semitism in Canada. That report, which was supported by the Conservatives, recommended measures that are now reflected in Bill C-9 : defining hate more clearly, creating a stand-alone hate crime offence and criminalizing intimidation directed at religious communities. That is why it is difficult for Canadians to understand what has happened since then. The Conservatives of 2024 called on Parliament to act. The Conservatives of 2026 are delaying the very measures they once supported. Canadians are left asking a simple question: Which position reflects the Conservative Party's true position on the issue of hate crimes? More importantly, this debate is not only about parliamentary process but about Canadians themselves.”
“In fact, it is only eight pages long. However, those eight pages carry an important message: that in Canada, hatred and intimidation have no place in our public lives. The bill does three straightforward things: First, it creates offences to stop people from blocking or intimidating others who are trying to enter places such as synagogues, mosques, churches, schools or community centres. Second, it creates a stand-alone hate-motivated offence so that when someone commits a crime of hatred toward a person's identity, the law recognizes it right from the start. Third, it addresses the wilful promotion of hatred through the public display of hate or terrorist symbols used to target and intimidate vulnerable communities. I know many Conservatives support these measures because they themselves called for them.”
“Parliament has done its job of scrutinizing this eight-page bill, but there comes a moment when scrutiny must lead to a decision. After half a year of debate and study, the time has come for Parliament to act. The time has come to bring the combatting hate act to a vote, yet the bill remains stalled, not because Canadians are uncertain about confronting hate but because today's Conservative Party of Canada is divided on this issue. I say this with sincerity. When this bill finally comes to a vote, I believe many Conservative members will stand with us and support it. I believe that because many of them understand something fundamental, which is that Parliament has a duty to confront a specific form of violence that is rising in our communities: hate-motivated violence. Bill C-9 is not a complicated piece of legislation.”
“Madam Speaker, partisan politics is failing our most vulnerable communities. Partisan politics is failing our response to hate-motivated crimes and violence in this country, and when it prevents Parliament from acting to protect Canadians, then partisan politics is failing Canada itself. The motion before us today is a response to that failure. Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act, was introduced by the Minister of Justice on September 19, 2025, and was referred to the justice committee on October 1, 2025. Today is March 9, 2026. Nearly six months have passed since the bill's introduction. Since then, the House has debated the bill and the justice committee has studied it. Well over 30 witnesses have appeared and testified. Communities have spoken, both in person and via briefs, and amendments have been discussed among committee members.”
“Mr. Speaker, our new Liberal Prime Minister was given a clear mandate by Canadians to tighten bail, strengthen sentences and keep repeat violent offenders in jail, where they belong. After months and months of obstruction by the Conservatives at committee, holding Bill C-14 hostage and running down the clock by talking about cats and dogs, they finally relented last week and allowed the bill to move forward. Today, as the bill reaches its final stage at third reading, I urge the Conservatives to support this important piece of legislation that would help keep our communities safe.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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—”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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. (1625) 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, 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about bail reform, so I would hope that the member opposite would stay on topic. After the Conservatives' refusal to pass Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act, before Christmas, I welcome the members opposite's recent support of a Liberal motion to study Bill C-14 in three days and move it forward. Canadians will be watching the justice committee this Wednesday when Bill C-14 goes to its final clause-by-clause stage. Conservatives say they deeply care about bail reform. If that is true, then let us see them pass it on Wednesday and report it back to the House for a third reading. I really hope the member opposite does not once again spend hours in committee talking about cats and dogs just to run out the clock.”
“Even after police chiefs across the country called on them to act, they said no. Now suddenly they support fast-tracking the bill. We do welcome that change, but let us be clear that this urgency was missing when it mattered the most. It is better late than never, I guess, but let us not rewrite history. This government is serious about crime, about victims and about real solutions. We will protect communities from violent offenders, and we will protect Canadians from hate and intimidation at the same time. Let us stop the misinformation, stop the obstruction and get to work on keeping our communities safe.”
“The reality is that, out of those so-called 17 attempts, I was the first to move a motion to fast-track Bill C-14 and send it back to the House, and the Conservatives voted against it. If anyone listens carefully to that broadcast, they can literally hear them voting no and saying they need more time to study. We have been studying bail reform since September at the justice committee. Police chiefs, police associations, municipalities and the premiers of Alberta, B.C. and Ontario have all called for the passage of Bill C-14, yet Conservatives once again said they needed more time. There is no more time to study. It is time to act and pass Bill C-14 . Let me remind the House that all last fall Conservatives refused to pass Bill C-14, our bail and sentencing reform act to keep violent offenders off our streets.”
“They were direct recommendations from the House of Commons' fighting anti-Semitism report, a report that Conservative members supported. When the member talks about attacks on religious freedom, let us be honest: We are the party of the charter, the very same party that literally wrote freedom of expression and religion into the Constitution. What Conservatives are doing is simply running around telling church and mosque leaders that freedom of religion is under attack and then passing the hat to fundraise off a claim they know is false. They are not defending faith. They are using faith communities as ATMs. On bail reform and Bill C-14 , I must correct the record again.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South's question is deeply misleading. That member asserts that the Liberals rejected not about 20 but 17 attempts to advance critical bail reforms. That is simply not true. What we rejected were Conservative attempts to derail and kill the combatting hate act. That bill would make it illegal to publicly display hate symbols when the goal is to promote hatred against a group of people, treat crimes motivated by hate more seriously by creating specific hate crime offence when someone commits a crime because they hate a group of people, and make it a crime to intimidate or obstruct people's lawful access to places like churches, synagogues, mosques or other spaces used by identifiable communities. These are not new ideas.”
“Mr. Speaker, the truth is that tariffs on steel and aluminum, canola, lumber, autos and other sectors are not the result of Canadian engagement; they are part of a global surge in protectionism driven by decisions in other capitals. The government will continue to defend the rules-based trading system, protect our workers and create new trade opportunities for our businesses.”
“To answer the member's question directly, the Prime Minister will continue to showcase the best of Canada in order to open new markets, secure new jobs and reduce the leverage any single market can ever yield over Canadian livelihoods.”
“At the leadership level, that engagement includes the Prime Minister 's recent visit to China, which focused on stabilizing the bilateral relationship, addressing trade irritants affecting Canadian exporters and reopening channels for Canadian agri-food businesses. When countries impose tariffs on Canadian products such as lumber, steel and aluminum, canola or autos, this government does not back down. Instead, it addresses unfair measures with calibrated responses to protect Canadian industries while working intensively to remove barriers through negotiation. That is what responsible governance looks like: standing up for our industries, being honest with Canadians, working toward negotiated solutions and supporting impacted sectors and workers.”