Ruby Sahota
Brampton North—Caledon, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, on the day of his funeral, I ask all members to join me in honouring OPP Constable Tarun Bali, who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, and in extending our heartfelt condolences to his loved ones and fellow officers.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians have questions, victims have questions and the police chiefs have questions as to why it has taken so long for Bill C-22 , which was originally Bill C-2 , to get through the legislative process. Every day that we wait, more and more victims are created in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, where are the Conservatives who used to care about protecting Canadians? They are not in this House. It is the government that has committed to protecting Canadians through our various bills that we have progressed through this House.”
“Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, I have heard the Conservatives make reference to, “Why do we need this bill at all? We already have existing laws.” It is really surprising to me, hearing that come from the Conservatives, considering they claim to be tough on crime and want longer sentences.”
“Mr. Speaker, this Conservative opposition is not about scrutinizing bills. We are up for scrutiny. We have amended many of our bills, including Bill C-22 .”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talks about underlying crimes that are in the code already, such as assault or mischief. This bill would take the penalties for those crimes and double them for people who would dare prevent somebody from going into their synagogue.”
The complete record
Every one of 448 lines we hold for Ruby Sahota, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“This provision would have the power to save lives. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the members of the status of women committee who have urged action on this for years. The world does not stand still, and neither can our laws. The protecting victims act would modernize a range of offences to keep pace with the way harm is now inflicted. We would be modernizing the events of criminal harassment to recognize that a person can now be stalked through technology, including the tracking of someone's location through their phone. We are also confronting the rapid spread of artificial intelligence used to create deepfakes. There is a gap in our law today, and the bill would narrow it by expanding the definition of an intimate image to include images created through artificial intelligence.”
“As the Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes put it, the automatic requalification of these homicides as first-degree murder would put an end to the inconsistencies in the current law and finally recognize these killings for what they are: femicides that exist within a continuum of domination. That is the language of people who have studied this violence for decades, and we should listen to them. We know through extensive engagement with experts and survivors that the pattern of using violence and intimidation to control every aspect of a person's life is one of the strongest predictors that a relationship may turn deadly. By naming this conduct and criminalizing it in its own right, we would give the justice system the ability to intervene before a relationship becomes violent and before violence becomes fatal.”
“I have met many of these families and heard from them first-hand as to the impact it has left on their lives. These are not statistics. They are people who shared our hallways at school, who sat beside us at work, and who were loved. The protecting victims act would respond to that reality by moving forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge in cases of femicide. It would ensure a first-degree murder charge where murder is committed in an intimate partner setting; where it takes place in the context of a sexual offence; where it is motivated by hatred, including hatred of a person because she is a woman; and where it is preceded by a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.”
“I want to begin by thanking every member of the committee on every side of the aisle for the seriousness they brought to it. Over several months, the committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received over 60 briefs from survivors of violence, advocates working to end gender-based violence, law enforcement, legal experts, child protection organizations and the provincial and territorial partners that administer justice every day. What was striking was not the disagreement but the breadth of the consensus that something must be done and that the bill would do a great deal of it. While the bill may have changed in the process, the seriousness of the issue has not. In Canada, a woman is killed every 48 hours. There have been femicides in every part of this country, and behind each one is a family that grieves.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-16 , the protecting victims act, an essential and comprehensive piece of legislation situated on a broader strategy to keep communities safe. The last time the bill was in the House, our hon. colleagues voted to send it to committee so it could be studied, tested and improved. I am pleased to report that this is precisely what has happened. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has done serious and careful work. Members on all sides heard from witnesses, asked hard questions, proposed amendments and engaged with the substance of the bill in a way that Canadians expect their Parliament to. The legislation has returned to the chamber today and is stronger for that work.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is false. Half of those individuals are not on bail. We have changed provisions. We have made it so that people can be easily removed from this country. Many of those individuals are being removed and others are being charged and trials will be held. We have seen trials across this country in extortion cases, and people have received hefty sentences, but if our bail and sentencing bill is to pass, then the sentences will be even stiffer.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have taken action and are seeing the results. Just recently, Peel Regional Police arrested over 17 individuals linked to extortion cases. That investigation took about eight months. We have brought lawful access legislation forward in the House. If the Conservatives had been on board and had helped us pass the legislation, that investigation would have only taken a month and we could have decreased the number of victims that the Conservatives are creating in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have made more changes to the Criminal Code of Canada than any other government by strengthening bail provisions and lengthening sentences, and guess what, auto theft is down across this country due to the efforts we have made in resourcing, law enforcement, making sure our borders are stronger and catching criminals. I hope the other place will pass the bail and sentencing bill as soon as possible. We are also reinstating minimum sentences.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are strengthening penalties and we are giving law enforcement the tools they need to catch criminals. Just last week, Peel Regional Police arrested over 65 individuals connected to organized retail crime. These are criminals who were going out and looting our small businesses. We are working to make sure that bail laws are strengthened. Do members know who has been getting in the way? The Conservatives have. Time and time again, police chiefs across the country are telling us they need the tools in Bill C-22 and the—”
“Mr. Speaker, we have been working aggressively to put forward many pieces of legislation, a record number, over eight pieces of legislation, in the House that address these issues and that address public safety, to make more changes to the Criminal Code of Canada than any other government has made. We are strengthening bail laws and we are making sentences longer, but the provinces also have to do their part. What we have heard is that many Crown attorneys dismiss charges, even to the point where we have seen prisoners accidentally released. The provinces, too, have to resource their courtrooms.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are determined to crack down on organized crime. That is why we have invested $1.3 billion into our borders. That includes our airports. This is the most substantial investment ever made by a government to beef up our security at our borders. It includes new technology. It includes new personnel for the RCMP so that we can catch the organized crime members who are committing these offences.”
“Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has investigated this matter and arrested six individuals in this case. It is a serious offence to change luggage tags. The RCMP officers are working with airport authorities and with other international partners. We are going to continue putting investments into the RCMP by increasing it by 1,000 new members so that we can continue doing the work that is needed to crack down on organized crime.”
“Mr. Speaker, like I said, our plan is working. We are strengthening our laws. We are catching criminals, and that is shown by the results we are seeing across the country right now. We have embedded FINTRAC into our law enforcement agencies, and we are also using CBSA to remove people who are removable. This plan is working, extortions are coming down and criminals are being put behind bars.”
“Mr. Speaker, our plan is working, and that is what the Peel Regional Police's investigation results show. The police have arrested over 17 individuals. Unfortunately, the investigation took eight months. What could have sped up that investigation so we could have caught those criminals within a month or less? Lawful access could have, but the Conservatives have been stalling the bill ever since we introduced it last year. It is what law enforcement is asking for, and we could mitigate having more victims because of the Conservatives' stalling.”
“Mr. Speaker, we outlined the second part of our plan in our spring economic update. Our plan is to build Canada strong with 80,000 to 100,000 new skilled worker jobs. These jobs will go to young people in this country. We recognize that young people need good employment. That is why we are announcing so many different projects throughout this country. That is why we have a plan to recruit them, train them and hire them.”
“Bill C-29. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-29, An Act to establish the Financial Crimes Agency and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts and regulations . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Mr. Speaker, we have implemented the strongest tightening of the Criminal Code of Canada ever in the history of this Parliament. We are putting forward legislation that would provide law enforcement with the tools they need to catch drug traffickers, but the Conservatives have delayed many of these tools. Lawful access should have been passed months ago. Finally, now it is at the committee stage, and I hope the Conservatives listen to law enforcement and provide them with the help they need.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is about time that the Conservatives wake up. The second bill that we introduced in Parliament was Bill C-2 , which included lawful access. However, after many, many months of Conservative delay, we have had to bring that bill back to Parliament as Bill C-22 . Just yesterday, members of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police were on the Hill, and they were commending the work that has been done to bring lawful access forward because they know that this is exactly what is needed to help solve extortion cases.”
“Mr. Speaker, Correctional Service Canada is able to apply conditions on any offender being released. It can apply any conditions that it feels are fit. I hope that in this case, conditions will be applied that are appropriate to make sure that Canadians are kept safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are doing the work needed to make sure that criminals are kept behind bars, but we are also doing preventative measures. We just today announced supports for victims. We have also announced programming to make sure that we prevent children from getting into a life of violence. We are working on all fronts to make sure that Canadians are safer in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the member is confused. We are the party that has delivered the jail not bail bill. The bill is currently in the Senate. It is our bail reform and sentencing bill. It makes it more difficult for repeat violent offenders to get bail, and it makes sentences longer for criminals— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, the question is shocking. We have delivered more public safety and justice legislation than any government prior. Seven different pieces of legislation in the House, and what have the Conservatives done all along? They have delayed. They have not supported them. On Bill C-22 , lawful access, I am glad to see that they were able to pass it on division to committee the other day. I hope that, at the committee process, the Conservatives will support the bill and give law enforcement the tools they need to catch criminals.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his years of service, as well as his contributions. I know that the member cares greatly about getting this legislation right and making sure that, hopefully, it passes through the House. I think law enforcement would be in agreement for maybe even a broader scope, but that is something we can work on, with this as a first step. We need to get this passed in order to take those other steps in the future. I would be open to going further in the future as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been really pleased with the response. Law enforcement, from the beginning of Bill C-2 to now, has been actively involved in providing recommendations and assistance on making sure that this bill is tabled so that they can see it passing. As I have said before, it has been decades in the works. Many governments and different Parliaments have brought a version of this bill forward. It is time that we get it passed, because we are falling far behind.”
“Mr. Speaker, reasonable grounds to suspect have been used in other places in the Criminal Code. I think that is completely appropriate in this case, since these are the initial steps in an investigation. Confirmation and subscriber information provide the police the ability to eliminate or narrow down suspects, so these are the first, initial steps of an investigation. At that point, having reasonable grounds to believe would be too high of a burden and would hinder investigations and us getting to the bottom of catching criminals.”
“Mr. Speaker, the bill as it is right now does not provide for encrypted communications. I know that after the bill passes, there is a regulatory framework that is going to take place, but that, too, does not envision receiving the content of encrypted, detailed messages. What it does is connect who is sending those messages, and that is what is really important to law enforcement, so that they can catch those who are involved in criminal activity.”
“I agree completely, and that is precisely why I am standing here today. Freedom without justice is not freedom. It is a promise we made and did not keep. The law, not the gaps in it, not the limitations of outdated legislation and not the absence of a framework that our allies have had for years, is the supreme authority of this country. It is time we made that mean something in the digital age.”
“We are not a country that chooses between safety and freedom. We built the charter because we believe we can have both. We built our courts because we believe oversight is strength and not weakness. That is exactly what this bill reflects: not surveillance, but accountability; not a back door, but a courthouse door, one that finally works in the digital world. Every day we delay is another day an investigator hits a wall at the very first step of a case. Every day we delay, another victim waits, while police chase down voluntary confirmations that may never come. Every day the police have to wait, victims multiply. Every day we delay, there are families somewhere in the country waiting for answers that exist but that we choose not to allow investigators to reach. I have heard it said that we cannot let security compromise freedom.”
“It is also shaped by Supreme Court rulings that tell us precisely where the constitutional lines are. We drew those lines, built in oversight and narrowed the scope from what was proposed before, because we understand that we cannot afford to get this wrong. Technology continues to evolve, and this is the moment. We must act now. Victims and investigators cannot wait any longer for action. This is what I need everyone in the House to understand: The alternative to this bill is not privacy. The alternative is impunity. A legal framework where investigators cannot confirm which telecom or Internet service provider to approach, and where the first step of an investigation depends on voluntary goodwill, is not a framework that protects rights. It is a framework that currently protects criminals. Canada was built on a promise.”
“This is why I want to tell them how we are balancing bringing investigative capacity into the modern era while at the same time protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. Every ministerial order requiring a provider to build lawful access capabilities must be reviewed and approved by the independent federal intelligence commissioner before it takes effect. Annual public reports would be required under this bill. The new subscriber production order would cover basic subscriber information and nothing more: no browsing history, no content and no communications without a separate and higher judicial threshold. This bill was shaped directly by feedback from numerous consultations with law enforcement, civil liberties groups, telecoms and Internet service providers.”
“We are not proposing something radical. We are proposing something long overdue. The OPP commissioner and president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Thomas Carrique, told reporters that he and many of Canada's police leaders have been sounding the alarm about the need for lawful access for the last 30 years, before smart phones and before the modern Internet. I want to now speak directly to those who have raised concerns about this legislation, those who believe, as I do, that protecting the privacy of Canadians is a fundamental function of government. They are not wrong to ask the hard questions. They are not wrong to be skeptical. That is what democracy is all about.”
“It would provide a more direct path to that basic identifying information so that investigators can act quickly at the start of a case without waiting on a process designed for other, far more sensitive data. The third tool requires core electronic service providers to actually have the technical capability to respond to lawful orders. Right now, and this is the part that is almost impossible to believe, a provider may receive a court order and be genuinely unable to comply, not unwilling but unable, because they have never built the infrastructure to respond. Investigations have stalled and in some cases gone cold for this reason alone. (1635) Canada is currently the only Five Eyes G7 country without a lawful access regime. The United Kingdom has one. The United States has one. Australia and New Zealand also have them.”
“The first tool is the confirmation of service demand. Police can ask a telecom or an Internet service provider one question: “Do you service this number or IP address?” It is a yes or no only. That is all: no content, no personal information, no communications. This question alone does not require a warrant, because the Supreme Court has recognized that a yes-or-no confirmation does not carry the same privacy weight as subscriber details or content. The second tool is a new, faster, narrower production order specifically for subscriber information, which means name, address and account details. This would require a judge and require reasonable grounds. This process would be court-supervised at every step.”
“In some cases, this completely stalls the investigation, not because the officers failed, but because the law did. Peel Regional Police has described cases where quick confirmation from a telecom company, a simple yes-or-no answer about whether a phone number is theirs, was the centre point of an entire investigation. That confirmation allowed them to seek a production order, identify a suspect and locate the victim quickly, but that outcome depended entirely on the provider choosing to co-operate voluntarily, as there was no legal framework requiring it. The victim was found because of goodwill, not because of the law, and goodwill does not always come. Goodwill is not what the justice system should rely on. What does Bill C-22 actually do? Let me describe the following tools that would aid law enforcement officials.”
“I am pleased to say that Bill C-22 would close the gap that currently exists. When an investigator receives a tip, a phone number linked to an extortion ring or a child exploitation case, or information about a human trafficking network, they have the grounds to investigate. They are ready to move, but before they can seek a production order from a judge, they need the answer to one foundational question: Which telecom company services the number? Under our current law, there is no clear legal tool to get that answer. Police must rely on voluntary co-operation, which may come in days or weeks, or not at all. Investigators may have to spend considerable time and resources pursuing a provider, only to learn that the phone number was never that of the suspect, and then they have to start all over again.”
“Mr. Speaker, in an increasingly and rapidly evolving digital world, law enforcement services are having to mitigate new challenges in the face of a rising tide of criminal activity using technology. Let me give some examples that we have been hearing. Cases of extortion are on the rise, including with arson and with shootings. Pedophiles are exploiting children online, which often leads to sextortion or human trafficking. Just in 2024, we lost over $600 million to fraud and cybercrime, and often the victims of these crimes are our most vulnerable seniors. This bill, in fact, would help law enforcement to be able to tackle these challenges. These new challenges have created a gap in ensuring the safety and security of Canadians. This gap is between what our investigators know and what our legal framework allows them to do about it.”
“As for some of what the member has brought up, in terms of people putting fake documentation into applications and then not being caught in other streams, this would fix that problem. The bill would allow different streams to—”
“Mr. Speaker, control in our immigration system is very important. I agree with that. This is why the government has been taking several different measures. The Auditor General's report just came out recently. It recognizes gaps in the system. However, those are gaps that were recognized by our government, hence the introduction of Bill C-12 , which was originally in Bill C-2 and tabled back in June 2025. However, the Conservatives cause a lot of delay on the bills that we have been putting forward to crack down on crime and to bring control back into our immigration system. We are standing here months and months later, in agreement with a lot of parts, but what we have done is delay the implementation. What the bill does is with regard to information sharing.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are many other countries, such as in Europe, the U.K. and the United States, that limit asylum claims to a one-year time period. I think some of the member's speech generalized and said that Canada would no longer give due process to asylum claimants. That is untrue. People who enter the country and wish to claim asylum would have an ample, one-year time period to put their claim in if their life is at risk. If they miss that time period and fall upon removal at some point in the future, they would also have the option of filing for a pre-removal risk assessment so that they are not removed into any risky situations. Is that not true?”
“Mr. Speaker, we do have a plan. That is why we listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity. This provides our law enforcement and the CBSA with the tools to hold people inadmissible in our country and then remove them. The CBSA is working through the files and is removing those with links to the IRGC. This is the plan. Along with that, we are protecting our institutions. We just made an announcement for an extra $10 million today to make sure that our religious communities are safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, there were many questions brought up by members of the committee. The discussion happened amongst all members of the committee. That is my clarification for that. Plus, it is so essential that we ban these hate symbols that are used to intimidate and promote terrorism in our country. The Conservatives are against that. Why is that?”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill was debated at the second reading stage. For those watching, the second reading stage is before the bill even goes to committee, and even at that time, there were several Conservative members who spoke against the bill and had lots of reservations about the bill. Now they claim that the only time they had reservations was when the freedom of religion defence came up in committee. Even when that amendment came up and was discussed at the committee, every witness at committee was questioned about it. There was discussion. For the member to state that there was no discussion on the issue is disingenuous. He could go back and see all the video clips and film from the committee hearings or he could read all about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, anything that I mentioned in my speech is a matter of public record. Nothing I have said has been false. It has all been documented, whether it is on record at the committee stage or in past statements made by Conservative members, which are well documented, either on radio airwaves or in articles. I stand by everything I have said.”
“Jewish communities facing rising anti-Semitism, Muslim communities facing Islamophobia, Christians seeing their churches being burned and many other vulnerable communities who simply want to gather, worship and live safely have been asking us to move forward. (1210) That is why this motion calls on the justice committee to finally complete—”
“I know he appreciated the amendment we introduced to clarify that religious freedom would not be affected by this legislation. I believe he would like to move forward and represent his community, but his leader is telling him not to. Page 19 of our platform made a clear commitment to Canadians. It promised to criminalize intimidation and obstruction targeting those who simply want to access their community centres and places of worship, and to strengthen protections for communities facing hate-motivated crimes. Canadians, including the people of Carleton, made their choice at the ballot box and want us to implement the commitments in the platform. Bill C-9 delivers on those promises. For more than six months now, communities across the country have been waiting for Parliament to act.”
“Canadians get frustrated when they see the Conservative member for York Centre waste an entire committee meeting talking about what he had for lunch, while synagogues in his own country, in his own community, are facing threats and while CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, is asking him and Parliament to pass Bill C-9 quickly. The member for York Centre was elected to bring the voice of his community to Parliament. Many people in his community are asking him to support this anti-hate bill that would help keep them safe. Instead of bringing his community's voice to Ottawa, he is bringing his leader 's voice back to his community. That is not the duty of a member of Parliament. I believe that the member supports this bill because I have seen him work constructively in committee.”
“The member is the Leader of the Opposition 's designated champion on fighting hate, yet this is the same member who previously claimed that the observation of the Polytechnique shooting was a fake holiday, the same member who defended Holocaust deniers on the radio by suggesting that saying the Holocaust never happened is free speech and the same member who stood up for Pegida, a white supremacist organization, after the 2017 Quebec City mosque attack that left six men dead. They were fathers, sons and husbands who were killed while praying by a vile person who admired the same group.”
“Unfortunately, even after we responded to concerns raised by a few Conservative MPs, and even after religious communities from across the country backed this new clarifying amendment and asked Parliament to move forward, Conservatives at the justice committee still kept obstructing. Canadians see this. Canadians get frustrated when they see Conservative members like the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South spend hours speaking about his admiration for cats and dogs, instead of addressing the issue of hate in this country.”
“We have spent 35 hours studying eight pages. That is thorough scrutiny. I recognize it may have been tempting for a small number of Conservative MPs to spread false claims that this bill would threaten religious freedom and free speech, and to use those claims to raise a few dollars from faith communities at rallies. Even in the face of that, the Liberals were willing to work with them. We were ready to find common ground and added a clause for greater certainty stating clearly that the right to pray, teach or quote religious texts would not be affected. After all, we are the party that literally enshrined freedom of religion in one of the most important documents in this country: the charter.”
“(1205) Fast-forward from the Conservatives of 2024 to the Conservatives of 2026, and suddenly the very measures they once backed are now being blocked and delayed in committee. Canadians are left asking a simple question: Which Conservatives should they believe, the ones from 2024 who said Parliament must act against hate, or the 2026 Trumpian-style Conservatives who now stand in the way of legislating against the hatred and intimidation our most vulnerable communities are facing? Parliament has already spent significant time debating this bill. Since September 2025, it has been debated in the House and studied extensively at committee with over 30 witnesses heard, amendments proposed and every clause examined. In total, more than 35 hours have been spent studying a bill that is only eight pages long.”