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 3 of 9.
“This motion calls on the justice committee to put an end to the obstruction and delay tactics that have prevented progress on the combatting hate act, which has now been before the committee for over six months. Canadians might be surprised by this delay. After all, much of what is in Bill C-9 comes directly from the December 2024 fighting anti-Semitism report of the justice committee. Many members took part in this committee's hearings. This was a special anti-Semitism report that called for these types of steps to be taken. It called on the government to introduce measures to define “hate”, create a stand-alone hate crime offence and criminalize intimidation targeting religious groups. As a news flash to many Conservative colleagues who took an active part in this committee, all of these measures are in Bill C-9.”
“Under this bill, the hate motive would be recognized in the offence itself from the start, which would then have an impact on bail hearings and many other preliminary hearings. Third, it would address the wilful promotion of hatred through the public display of hate or terrorist symbols. This is a very important point that many communities have brought to our attention. There have been, even on Parliament Hill, the display of terrorist symbols at Canada's Parliament. An hon. member: Shame. Hon. Ruby Sahota: Mr. Speaker, that is shameful, and we are going to put a stop to that. This would not criminalize the mere display of a symbol, but it would target situations where symbols like Nazi imagery are shown in public with the clear intention of promoting hatred against certain communities.”
“We had heard from many community groups that due to the rise in protests happening at places of worship, they needed the federal government to put forward legislation like this so that it could apply across the country. We have seen municipalities and some provinces recently step up, but they had asked the federal government to act. That is exactly what we are doing with this bill. Second, it would create a stand-alone hate-motivated offence. Right now, if someone attacks a person because of their faith, identity or skin colour, they can be charged with assault, and the hate motive is only considered later at sentencing. This is a very important point. It has been brought up many times here today that this bill would not change anything. That is not true. Right now, the hate motivation would only be considered at sentencing.”
“That is precisely why, in September, having seen the rise of hate crimes in our community, our government introduced Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act. This legislation is about protecting Canadians and defending a basic principle that in Canada, every person should be able to gather, worship and live in their community without fear or intimidation. The bill takes three clear steps to make that principle real. First, the bill would create two new offences to stop people from intimidating or blocking others from entering places used by their communities, such as places of worship or community centres. For example, it would make it illegal to block the entrance of a synagogue or mosque to stop people from going inside to pray.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle . Every Canadian should be able to walk into their place of worship, send their children to school or gather in their community without fear. They should not have to look over their shoulder or wonder whether someone outside is shouting threats, blocking the entrance or intimidating them simply because of who they are, yet for too many Canadians today, that fear is real. During the last week, I visited synagogue Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto, Temple Emanu-El and the Shaarei Shomayim congregation in Toronto. Those synagogues have been victim to shooting incidents. I also visited the Toronto Islamic Centre, which was recently in the news for receiving threats of a mass shooting.”
“Madam Speaker, that was a very interesting speech. I met with several synagogues over this last week, especially the ones that were affected by the shootings in Toronto, and the Toronto Islamic Centre, which has been threatened with a mass shooting similar to what we saw in New Zealand. These are horrific incidents of hate that we are seeing across our country. It seems like the member is saying, “Do something now, but do not do anything. Do not put this bill forward. We do not want tweets, yet pressure the mayors; therefore, just tweet.” It is a very contradictory type of message. Without a law to stop hate, terrorism and symbols of hate in our communities, we need this piece of legislation. Do we not?”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Criminal Code of Canada, people who engage in criminal activity like this should be punished. There are high penalties in place. This is a failure in the administration of justice, which is a provincial issue. If the administration of justice had worked properly, then this case and this incident would not have occurred.”
“Mr. Speaker, since we have taken government, we have implemented many changes to the Criminal Code of Canada to strengthen it. There are over 80 different changes to the code in Bill C-14 alone. It is heinous what I am hearing from the other side. The provincial courts should be handling these cases. They are tried in the provincial trial courts, which should deal with these situations adequately. It is really upsetting to hear of these types of outcomes. I think the provinces should really be looking into this.”
“Mr. Speaker, just today I was with Peel Regional Police at a human trafficking symposium. We talked about these issues with survivors. It is really important that criminals of this type, who have committed this heinous crime, get the sentences they deserve. That is why we brought in bail reform. Had the Conservatives co-operated, we could have had it passed before Christmas, but they chose to obstruct. I am glad to see that the legislation is now progressing, and we can put an end to the revolving door.”
“Mr. Speaker, these are not our judges. These are Canadian judges appointed by provinces. Our criminal court hearings happen at the provincial level. Conservatives would like Canadians to believe that there is some type of federal policy that is making judges make these decisions. There is absolutely no such policy. If anything, we are tightening the Criminal Code of Canada. In Bill C-16 and Bill C-14 , we are making sure that we support victims of sexual assault and that we make conditional sentences no longer a thing.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is completely the opposite. The Conservatives would like Canadians to believe that there is some policy in place. There is no policy in place. The provinces should respond for those types of actions that are happening in provincial criminal courts. It is not federal policy. If anything, we are strengthening the Criminal Code of Canada to make sure that criminals face the penalties they should for these outrageous crimes.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives really cared about these issues, they would support us and the responsible legislation we are putting forward. We are bringing down asylum numbers in this country and we are reducing fraud in our system, with the leadership of the immigration minister . If the Conservatives cared, they would stop their divisive politics and hate tactics, they would join us in making sure that legislation passes swiftly through the House, and they would stop the obstruction.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have been getting the immigration system under control. Bill C-12 is about to pass through the Senate. This will not allow people to abuse our asylum system. If they cared so much about crime, they would have passed Bill C-14 a long time ago. We could have passed that bill back at Christmastime. There are 80 different changes to the Criminal Code of Canada. We are strengthening our Criminal Code more than we have seen in generations.”
“Mr. Speaker, one-third of all legislation that we have brought forward has been tough-on-crime legislation, justice reform and public safety bills. Many of these measures have moved forward and progressed, but there are some measures that have not moved forward at all because the Conservatives have been obstructing those measures. We need to be able to provide law enforcement with the tools it needs, the advancement that is needed. Lawful access measures are a part of that regime. I would like the Conservatives to work with us.”
“Mr. Speaker, cases like this are exactly why we brought in Bill C-14 . I am glad to report that Bill C-14 has passed on to the Senate. The Senate is doing its work. There will be bail reform in that bill. There will be harsher sentences for people who commit crimes. I am glad we will be able to tackle this issue. My role has been put in place because we are a tough-on-crime government, and we will do everything that it takes to make sure we do not have incidents like this.”
“Mr. Speaker, throughout question period and throughout the debate in the House today, we have heard immigrants and refugee and asylum claimants linked to criminals and be told that their claims are all bogus. This is false. When someone's case is determined to be invalid, when the process is complete, their work permit is cancelled, and so is their health care. The Conservatives are just trying to divide Canadians. They are not trying to improve health care by any means. If they were, they would have voted for dental care. They would not be creating two-tier systems in provinces across this country. They are not concerned about—”
“Mr. Speaker, is it true? Did we just heard the member say that Bill C-9 is unnecessary? That is our hate crime legislation. Worshippers in Canada today have felt intimidated and threatened going to their place of worship. We are trying to protect Canadians from that threat, that fear for their lives. The Jewish community has been asking for this bill for a long time, and it seems like the member does not care.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in his speech the delays that happened at committee, and I hope he can elaborate a little more, because the Conservatives have constantly been trying to get Canadians to somehow believe that the government would table legislation and then obstruct our own legislation. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. Bill C-9 first went to the justice committee. Therefore, it was under consideration. Bill C-14 came after, and because of the filibuster on Bill C-9, that delayed C-14. Is that not correct?”
“Mr. Speaker, we made a big announcement addressing this very issue because we know it is something Canadians are struggling with. Therefore, we announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. This not only gives a one-time benefit to Canadian families but also helps them for the next five years. We are not only doing that. We are also looking at how to strengthen our supply chains. We are investing in companies that are in the business of food manufacturing. We are investing in greenhouses so we can have more food in our country—”
“Mr. Speaker, does the member agree that removing conditional sentencing, allowing an offender, a repeat, violent, domestic abuser, back onto the streets, is uncalled for? The amendment would remove that provision.”
“Mr. Speaker, although I agree with some parts of the member's intervention, I also think that prevention is a very important part of solving the criminal situation we have in the country. Rehabilitation upon conviction is also very important because one day people will be released, and we want to make sure they are released with a plan and with the ability to work. Data is also a concern I have shared. We have been asking the provinces to share bail data with the federal government to strengthen our decision-making, but they have been unable to do so. That is something I plan to work on. Would the member not agree that repeat violent offenders being released back out are a public safety risk, and that—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly important and that is why we brought that bill back in June. It has been very disappointing to see that there has not been any co-operation from the opposition parties. We would have expected some from the Conservatives, in particular, who claim to be the party of law and order, yet they are not allowing police the tools they need to tackle modern-day crime. This is so important in the cases of child exploitation, sextortion and extortion that are happening in so many communities across Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good point. Bill C-16 is legislation that is currently in the committee process, and it does reinstate mandatory minimums in cases of sexual assault. It is very important that when we talk about protecting our children, we make sure that our systems are in place in order to do so. That is just one thing that is addressed in Bill C-16. In this bill, it is so important to recognize that it addresses organized auto theft, break and enter of homes, human trafficking and smuggling, assault, sexual assault, violent extortion and many other things, including retail crime and repeat violent offenders. It is very important that we address these issues and get this bill passed from the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 would not erode any mandatory minimums. This is an issue that has been litigated. In our democracy, we have independent institutions such as our judiciary, the Supreme Court, which has forced this Parliament to act. In a previous Parliament we had acted, but that does not mean that mandatory minimums do not still exist within the Criminal Code for specific crimes. We have mandatory minimums in many instances, but this bill does not touch that area. I am wondering why the member is implying something, because I believe it is a bit misleading and could cause people to think that we have somehow eroded those minimums in this bill.”
“(1010) Weakening this bill at report stage would undermine that work. It would create uncertainty at a moment when clarity is needed. It would send the wrong signal to communities that have been asking for leadership and follow-through. Public safety is not a partisan issue; it is a shared responsibility. Bill C-14 reflects that understanding and is thoughtful, measured and responsive to the realities Canadians are facing. The House has done important work on this bill. Now is the time to see it through. I urge all members to support Bill C-14 at report stage and allow this legislation to move forward so that these reforms can make a real difference in communities across the country.”
“It would respect the role of judges and the independence of the courts but would also recognize that Parliament has a role to play in setting clear expectations where experience shows that clearer direction is needed. That is why this bill matters. It would send a clear message that repeat violent behaviour will be taken seriously. It would reinforce that court orders must be respected and strengthen the tools available to address serious criminal conduct while preserving fairness and proportionality. Just as importantly, it would demonstrate that governments can work collaboratively across jurisdictions and party lines to address complex issues. It reflects input from provinces and territories, from law enforcement and from experts. It shows what can be achieved when we focus on outcomes rather than slogans.”
“The report stage amendments before us would take us in the latter direction. Some of these amendments would remove or dilute provisions designed to address repeat violent offending. Others would roll back sentencing and bail measures that partners across the country told us were necessary to restore confidence in the system. Still others would undo compromises reached after thoughtful discussion at committee. This is not what Canadians asked for. Canadians asked us to act. They asked us to strengthen public safety in a way that is responsible and durable. They asked us to do the hard work of governing, not to delay or dilute action at the final stage. Bill C-14 would not overreach. It would not replace judgment with ideology.”
“They are the ones responding to calls from residents, supporting police services and working with prosecutors and courts. Their message to us has been consistent: Targeted reform is needed, and it is needed now. At committee, members from all parties engaged seriously with the bill. Amendments were proposed and debated. Officials were present to provide expertise. Where changes improved the bill, they were adopted. That process strengthened the legislation and ensured that it would work as intended. The bill before us at report stage reflects that collaboration and that work. At this point in the legislative process, we face an important choice. We can move forward with a bill that has been carefully crafted, studied and improved, or we can reopen and weaken key provisions that are central to its purpose.”
“This is a bill about balance, and it recognizes that public safety and fairness are not competing values but complementary ones. Canadians want a justice system that protects their rights, and they also want a system that responds effectively when patterns of violence or serious criminal behaviour emerge. Bill C-14 would strengthen bail rules and target circumstances involving repeat violent offending, clarify when detention should be more strongly considered, and strengthen sentencing responses for serious crimes that undermine public safety and confidence in the system. It would do all of that while preserving judicial discretion and respect for the charter. That careful balance is one of the reasons this bill has received support from provincial and municipal partners. These are leaders who are responsible for keeping communities safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-14 at report stage and to urge members of the House to support the bill as it stands. This legislation is not abstract; it is grounded in what Canadians are experiencing in their communities. Over the past several years, we have heard consistent and clear calls for action from across this country. Premiers, mayors, police chiefs, prosecutors and frontline workers have all told Parliament that repeat violent crime is having a real impact on public safety and on confidence in our justice system. They have asked us to act responsibly, not recklessly. They have asked for solutions that are practical, focused and capable of making a difference on the ground. Bill C-14 is the result of listening to those voices and responding in a serious way.”
“Mr. Speaker, the same measures that I refer to on asylum in Bill C-12 , which is currently in the Senate, were originally presented in the House in Bill C-2 back in June. Had the Conservatives not obstructed at that time and co-operated with us, those asylum cases that the member is referring to would not be allowed. However, there is good news. Once Bill C-12 passes in the Senate, the claims that have been made will be cancelled.”
“Mr. Speaker, extortion is real and we are taking it very seriously. That is why, back in June, we tabled lawful access measures in Bill C-2 . Those measures would make it possible for police to quickly investigate these types of crimes, as well as child predator crimes. It is important for us to give law enforcement the tools it needs to keep up with criminals. The motion that has been brought forward by the Conservatives is basically moot. With Bill C-12 , all of the asylum cases they are referring to would not be allowed.”
“Mr. Speaker, the nation is heartbroken by this tragic shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. Our hearts are with the families, friends and loved ones of all the victims, and with the little girl who is currently fighting for her life. May we all keep her in our prayers. We are forever grateful for the speed and courage of the RCMP and all first responders on that day. Their actions and bravery saved lives.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was well-though-out and meaningful, as always. The member has a depth of knowledge, being the chair of the justice committee, as to the shenanigans that have been going on there for some time. In every speech Conservative members have made in the House, they have somehow stated that their motion, presented today, would not allow people to claim asylum. They specifically reference a news story from December 11, wherein 12 people claimed asylum out in Surrey, B.C. However, we tabled Bill C-2 in the House in June. Had the Conservatives co-operated and not obstructed that bill, those people would not have been eligible to claim asylum at that time. How important does the member think it is to collaborate and to make sure that we move forward these important pieces of legislation for public safety?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have gone to many of the different areas of this country that are affected by extortion. What we are lacking right now are results. We are lacking the number of arrests in these cases. What the member keeps mentioning and talking about is sentencing. We currently have a maximum of 25 years in prison for extortion, and we have minimum sentences when extortion is committed with a firearm or through organized crime, so that is not the issue. In the cases where there have been trials, sentences have been of seven years or more. The problem is catching the criminals, and in order to catch the criminals, we need lawful access. We need to give our police forces the tools they need. Would the member agree, and would the member co-operate with the government in passing lawful access through the House?”
“Mr. Speaker, what the Conservatives are banking on with the opposition day motion is that Canadians will not understand the mere filing of an asylum claim and an approval of an asylum claim. Even today, if one files an asylum claim and has criminality, they would not be approved. Bill C-12 is a bill currently in the Senate that would substantially make this motion moot. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, here we have yet another Conservative who probably needs to remove his fingers from his ears, because we have already solved this problem. Under Bill C-12 , essentially all of these criminals would not be allowed to apply for asylum. Even in the cases we heard in B.C., where they have applied for asylum, they would not have been able to had the Conservatives not obstructed and had they passed C-2 when we tabled it. Because they obstructed it, they have been able to make those claims. However, there is good news, because it is in the Senate, and once it is passed, those claims and those cases will be cancelled.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about this issue and therefore doing everything possible by bringing legislation that will tighten bail and impose stricter sentences. The one bill that is missing is Bill C-2 , which we tabled in the House back in June. If the Conservatives were serious about solving the problem, rather than doing this window covering they have brought with this motion, which essentially is moot because Bill C-12 already does everything they are asking for, they would approve lawful access and consent today to moving that bill forward. Will they allow the vote, pass the bill and catch the criminals?”
“Mr. Speaker, we care deeply about this issue. That is why we put forward six bills to help address it. If the Leader of the Opposition cared so much, he would put forward a genuine suggestion, not one in a motion that is made moot by Bill C-12 , the stronger immigration and borders act, which is already in the Senate. It makes all of their suggestions moot. What he should do is address the issue of Bill C-2 , which is lawful access. Police have been asking for this provision across this country. Let me put it in simple terms that the Leader of the Opposition would understand: Would he allow the vote and pass the bill, so that, therefore, we could catch the criminals?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have brought forward a tough-on-crime agenda, including six different bills. The Conservatives have been stalling all of those bills. They would like Canadians to believe that because someone has applied for asylum, they are going to get it, which is completely false. None of those criminals will be allowed to stay in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to correct a falsehood, that we stopped criminal background checks. That is completely false. We did not stop any type of background criminal checks from being done. Second, would the member agree that this motion is completely moot because of Bill C-12 ? Anyone who has been convicted of a serious crime and who has been in this country for over a year would be ineligible to apply for asylum with Bill C-12. They would not be able to make the claim. It is the Conservatives who have stalled that bill. That was a provision in Bill C-2 , which we tabled in the House back in June, and they did not allow it to progress through the House. Also, anyone who comes in irregularly through our ports of entry would, after only 14 days, not be able to apply for asylum.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentions a very important point. We need to pass Bill C-2 to catch the criminals so that they can face penalties. The Conservatives seem to misrepresent, because in this country we have a maximum penalty of 25 years and minimum sentences for firearms and organized crime.”
“Mr. Speaker, would the member not agree that the motion is just an illusion of acting, that it is actually just window dressing? We have already addressed the issue in Bill C-12 . These criminals would not be allowed to apply for asylum, and even for those who have, their cases would be cancelled.”
“Madam Speaker, that is one consideration, as the member just mentioned. That is why I am saying that the motion brought forward by the Conservatives is irresponsible, because it would lead to lengthy cases in courtrooms, which we want to prevent. We cannot take away everyone's charter rights in this country. We have to deal with things factually and in a sensible way, backed by evidence and by the experts who helped us craft the bills we put forward in the House. Absolutely, we want to avoid lengthy court cases that would delay these matters further.”
“Madam Speaker, there is no need for the member to trust me. The proof is in the legislation. The words are in black and white. They are printed in the legislation. They are being debated in the House, and if good law is there, the opposition's job is not to just obstruct everything that comes before them. If these measures are going to help combat this issue and combat crime, then we would expect the opposition and the Conservatives to support those measures so that we can crack down on criminals and so that we can protect Canadians from the fentanyl drug trade. There are so many issues that the world is facing right now, and we need to evolve our laws to be able to tackle those issues.”
“The Minister of Public Safety and I are working with civil society organizations to try to come to a compromise so that we can also get those measures passed, because police desperately need them.”
“Madam Speaker, we need to work collaboratively in the House. The government tabled this bill back in June. It is a part of the government's responsibility to draft legislation and to table it in the House, but moving that bill forward through the House requires opposition parties to work with us and to put forward amendments to that bill. Once again, I would say Bill C-2 has been blocked due to opposition parties not supporting that bill. Conservatives and other parties are included. Therefore, the compromise that we came to was that we took some aspects of that bill, put them in Bill C-12 and are moving those forward. This is because we do not want other things not to pass and progress through the House, but there are important measures, like lawful access, still left in Bill C-2.”
“Madam Speaker, one thing we could do is maybe, on unanimous consent, pass Bill C-2 , which contains measures of lawful access that police across this country have been asking for in order to crack down on extortion cases. It is really essential, as technology evolves, that police also have the tools to deal with modern crimes and extortion, which is done through computers and telephones. They need to be able to connect these numbers and IP addresses. Without that, we are tying the hands of police behind their backs.”
“Madam Speaker, I am just trying to point out the fact that when we have broad motions like this, which are salacious in nature and trying to rage bait Canadians, it is irresponsible and creates a conversation in our country that is not factual in nature and overlooks a lot of very important concerns. Even today, if a protected person in this country commits a crime, Public Safety Canada and the minister have the ability to issue a danger opinion and remove that person from this country.”