Ziad Aboultaif
Edmonton Manning, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the minister is promising 500,000 homes every year. According to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 homes. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even though houses will be built, the new Liberal agency Build Canada Homes will add only 5,000 homes per year.”
“We know that such things should not be allowed to happen again, but there is nothing in our laws to ensure that. Bill S-228 would fix that. It proposes to clarify one section of the Criminal Code to bring an end to a legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism that disproportionately, but not exclusively, affects indigenous…”
“In the early part of the 20th century, a movement arose that had a flawed concept of human dignity and what it meant to be authentically human. The idea was that we should strive to create perfect people, which meant those who were considered to be imperfect should not be allowed to have children.”
“It is a simple change, but an important one if we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We want to make sure that there are no misunderstandings.”
“Additionally, section 45 of the Criminal Code of Canada protects individuals from criminal responsibility for performing a surgical operation if it “is performed with reasonable care and skill” and is reasonable based on the person's state of health and other circumstances.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize from the outset. This is not a speech that will soar to oratorical heights, castigating the government for its many failures and its apparent inability to understand the needs of the country. There is a time for that, but it is not now because this is not a partisan issue.”
The complete record
Every one of 285 lines we hold for Ziad Aboultaif, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, the role of opposition is to really stand up for Canadians, fight for Canadians and make sure the government does not overreach on the rights of Canadians at any level, regardless of whether it is at the economic level, the human rights level or the privacy rights level. That is where the opposition stands in this House strongly to make sure that, when we oppose, we oppose for the benefit of Canadians. When we co-operate, it is also for the benefit of Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for telling us about these bills and what he does to handle such cases and such bills in the House of Commons, representing our party. Bill C-2 would have been a huge infringement on the privacy rights of Canadians. I am still receiving emails from constituents asking me to block Bill C-2; they think Bill C-2 is still in place. That infringement of Canadian laws and Canadians' rights is the greatest concern. We have to protect the privacy rights of Canadians. In the meantime, we have to find ways to protect them in the age of a digital world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have a system in place to begin with. I also mentioned that this bill must go to committee to be examined, to be strengthened and to give Canadians and the authorities all the tools so Canadians can be protected while their privacy laws or privacy rights cannot be infringed upon.”
“We support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' individual freedom, privacy and safety.”
“Not giving any oversight role to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada suggests that privacy is at best a secondary consideration. I am sure this was not the government's intention, and I expect this would be strengthened in committee. Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2 , successfully blocking the government's attempt to infringe on individual freedoms and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash; opening mail without oversight; and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Bill C-22 would be an improvement, but still needs work.”
“I understand as well that there are times when we need to balance individual and collective rights, and sometimes the collective rights are seen as being more important. That may be the case with this legislation, though I understand there have been some issues raised as to whether it would survive a constitutional test. My hope is those problems can be fixed at the committee stage. For example, civil liberties groups have suggested that the blanket retention of metadata is too broad. They point out that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in the U.S., for example, allows preservation on demand but does not allow blanket retention. In the European Union, the Court of Justice declared that blanket retention is incompatible with EU fundamental rights. As well, ministerial orders only require approval by intelligence commissioners.”
“In these days of rapid change, that provision would ensure that not only would we get this legislation right today, but that we would have built in a way to ensure that it would not quickly become out of date. The purpose of Bill C-22 is to ensure that investigators can skip preliminary investigative requirements regarding information that is easily obtainable. Thus far, Canadian courts have stated that warrants or court orders are required for even the most basic of information even if only remotely private, such as whether someone is a subscriber of a telecom company. I am a strong proponent of individual rights, including the right to privacy. I also believe in our Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“(1005) In an increasingly digital world, our old-fashioned policing is not always suited to dealing with crimes committed online. We all understand the need to provide new tools for law enforcement officers to access digital information. We can see the desire for the framework that ensures that electronic service providers establish and maintain a system capable of providing the information that law enforcement officers are authorized to access, and that is key. Law enforcement officers must have a lawful reason to be given access to citizens' online information. One of the things I appreciate about this bill before us is that it would mandate an automatic review three years after its provisions come into force.”
“Our concern with Bill C-2 was that the powers given to law enforcement and ministers were too broad. Bill C-22 is far narrower in the powers it gives to law enforcement and to the minister. Bill C-22 focuses on telecommunications and Internet service providers, not any service providers. It would create oversight for ministerial orders and has explicit provisions in it that would prohibit the government from requiring the retention of web browsing history, social media activities or the actual content of communications. One could argue that this is a reasonable compromise as we attempt to balance the needs of society along with the rights of individuals. We live in a world where it seems the only constant is change. All of us in this House, from the oldest to the youngest, have witnessed huge technological changes in our lifetime.”
“Bill C-22 would require Internet providers and other online services to facilitate access to basic information that would assist in the investigation of federal offences. That sounds reasonable. The problem, though, is that would require those platforms to build and maintain surveillance capabilities inside their own systems. How secure would those systems be? How safe would those systems be? This new method of doing things would impose a financial burden on suppliers. They would be expected to develop and maintain technical surveillance capabilities at their own expense. I wonder how many would be willing to spend extra for robust data protection of something that does not add to their bottom line. Conservatives believe police should have the tools necessary to stop criminals.”
“It creates a new legal framework, enabling faster and lower-threshold access to basic data, clear emergency powers, structured international requests and mandatory provider compliance, including built-in surveillance capabilities, metadata retention and a required parliamentary review after three years. While police agencies have expressed their support for this bill and for lawful access, civil liberties organizations still have issues with parts of this bill. It is up to us to carefully review this legislation to ensure the Liberals do not repeat past failures. I am hearing regularly from constituents concerned about this legislation. They want me to call on the government to withdraw Bill C-22 . One of their biggest concerns is privacy and protection of their information.”
“Our investigative laws have failed to keep pace with the rapid growth of the digital ecosystem. The Liberals, and some in law enforcement, argue that this gap has created an investigative stall where critical leads in cases of child sexual exploitation, human trafficking and organized crime are abandoned because authorities cannot quickly identify suspects behind IP addresses or burner phones. Even when police have legal authority to obtain data, service providers may lack the technical infrastructure to retrieve it or transfer it into a usable format, resulting in failed investigations. That is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. This proposed legislation is a definite improvement over its predecessor.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe in law and order, and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Instead, the Liberals have let the situation get out of control. Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2 , which fell well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other cases. Conservatives forced the government to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking the Liberals' infringement on individual freedoms and privacy. Now, they have introduced new legislation, Bill C-22 , the lawful access act, which reintroduces some parts of Bill C-2 . Canada is the only Five Eyes country that does not have a lawful access regime in place.”
“Mr. Speaker, not even a week goes by that I do not hear from my constituents about this issue. Canadians are very concerned about international interference in our elections. There were studies and there were efforts to get this through, but it has not been implemented. The government has not moved on it. We hope that with this bill, it will get more serious and act in a responsible way to get this through, because we cannot afford any more interference in our electoral system.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say it is too late that the government brought this up after four elections. I think this is very necessary to make sure that we have a perfect, very transparent electoral process. I believe the bill will go to committee. It has to go to committee, where it will be studied more and examined better to get the best results out of it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I also enjoy working with the hon. member on several committees. We are talking about international interference in Canadian politics, and here we are trying to interfere with how Canadians want to donate and which party they choose to support. I disagree with the hon. member on that point. The bill is going to committee, and at committee there will be room for more suggestions and recommendations that could get through. In my opinion, we are trying to prevent interference in our electoral system from outside and here we are interfering with the way Canadians support political parties on the inside. I think there is a contradiction there.”
“Requiring political parties to establish a more comprehensive policy for the protection of personal information than is currently provided for under the act is important. The public needs to see that we are holding ourselves to the highest standards. That means working harder to safeguard electors' personal information under the party's control and making sure that we protect the privacy of those whose information we hold. We need to lead by example. As parliamentarians, it is vital that we address these issues. We want free and fair elections and a democracy that is the envy the world, not one riddled with foreign interference.”
“One can find both the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition online, along with Hollywood celebrities, pushing various get-rich-quick schemes. We know those are fake, but they can be convincing. As artificial intelligence software improves, it will get even harder to spot the difference between real and fake. During an election campaign, these deepfake images could be used for political advantage. It is important for the integrity of the election process to clamp down on them. As politicians, we need to make sure that our own houses are in order. We need to adhere to the highest standards, not just for public confidence in the process, but because it is the right thing to do.”
“The bill would create a new offence for making or publishing, with the intention of affecting the results or disrupting the conduct of an election, a statement that they know is false or misleading. That makes sense to me. Truth is important. Those who are lying for political gain need to be exposed and punished. The bill would also bring in the “unauthorized use of a computer” offence to include “disrupting the conduct of an election” as opposed to solely affecting the results of an election. That, to me, is a better reflection of reality and perhaps easier to prove. Expanding the scope to what is captured as a false or misleading publication and impersonation to include AI and deepfakes also makes sense.”
“We already make it an offence to offer or accept a bribe during an election, so it makes sense that we extend this to the nomination and leadership contests that are such an important part of our democracy. Like all members in the House, I receive a lot of correspondence from constituents on issues of the day. A lot of those letters and emails are complaints about Liberal policies. I understand that. I have a few complaints about Liberal policies myself. Too often, though, the complaints are based on wild theories circulating on the Internet that have no basis in truth. Misinformation and disinformation is running rampant. I am not sure that we will ever be able to eliminate it, but we can try.”
“It also makes sense to prohibit persons and entities from selling advertising space to a foreign entity to transmit a message to influence another person to vote or to refrain from voting for a particular nomination contestant or leadership contestant. The only real question is why we have not done this sooner. Given all that we have heard about foreign interference in the past few years, I am surprised that the government has not acted with more speed on this matter. (1315) I am also surprised that we had not previously thought about the necessity of prohibiting people from offering a bribe to influence how a person votes in a nomination or leadership contest.”
“However, we do not know with any certainty whether the interference has changed the outcome of the results of any particular riding. We can say, though, that it was the intent to do so. Conservatives have long called for the strengthening of protections against foreign interference, including during leadership and nomination contests. It is good to see that Bill C-25 would address this issue. It is good to see that this legislation would change the Canada Elections Act respecting nomination contests and leadership contests. It makes sense to prohibit foreigners and foreign entities from unduly influencing an elector to vote or to refrain from voting in a nomination or leadership contest. We want Canadians to make their choices without interference from foreign capitals.”
“Disinformation and misinformation run rampant. Truth is hard to find. We can be subtly shaped without even realizing it. Of course, we have always been subject to foreign influence. Fifty years ago, it was the prevalence of American television programming that was a major concern. Influencing the culture and shifting it to our direction is something we need to be aware of, but it is the effort of foreign governments, not cultural influencers, that is what we are looking at with this legislation; though sometimes, admittedly, governments can be behind the cultural influencers. We have had inquiries. The results have been, in a way, frustrating. We know that there have been attempts at foreign interference in our elections and our nomination contests, perhaps even in the leadership races.”
“Put simply, this bill would, among other things, establish new prohibitions and modify existing prohibitions, including, in relation to foreign influence in the electoral process, accepting or offering a bribe, unauthorized use of a computer and making or publishing false or misleading information respecting elections and the candidate nomination process. The bill would establish new prohibitions in relation to voting in a nomination contest or leadership contest; prohibit the acceptance or use of certain contributions by political entities and third parties, including from anonymous sources; and it would provide for new requirements relating to political parties' policies for the protection of personal information. Combatting foreign interference has become a bigger challenge in recent years as so many of us get our information online.”
“I say lessened because, even with our best efforts, there are always going to be those, especially in foreign governments, who are going to attempt to interfere with our political electoral process. Governments elsewhere may have a different agenda from Canada's. They will naturally want, if possible, to shape our way of thinking. Dealing with those attempts is one of the reasons for Bill C-25 , the strong and free elections act. Before I forget, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest priorities we have as parliamentarians is safeguarding our democracy. Without free and fair elections with voters able to choose for themselves whom to support, what we do here and say is meaningless. Ensuring that the way we conduct elections is free from malicious control is one of the most important things we can do. Protecting democratic principles is not a partisan issue. Those on the left, those on the right and those in between are in agreement. We trust people to make the right choice as long as they have the opportunity to do so in a setting where the influence of those with bad intent has been lessened.”
“Mr. Speaker, he makes promises, but the Prime Minister fails to make life more affordable. Canadians are experiencing financial whiplash under the Liberal government. Nearly three-quarters say rising prices for essentials like food and gas are straining their finances. Unpredictable conditions mean cutting back on spending and delaying major financial decisions. Canada is less affordable under the current Prime Minister . Will he help Canadians by adopting our Conservative plan to cut all federal taxes on gas and food?”
“Mr. Speaker, in April, Canadians will mark National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week. April 7 is Green Shirt Day, reminding us of the importance of organ donation. These annual initiatives highlight the critical need for donors, encourage donor registration and celebrate the many lives saved through transplantation. More than 4,700 Canadians are waiting for a life-saving transplant. It is important to let our loved ones know that we want to be organ donors. Whether as living donors or with donation at the time of our passing, we have the power to save lives. We can give the gift of life, the greatest gift of all. I ask everyone to please become a registered organ and tissue donor.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. I think there is no will in the government to do any of that. The by-election is coming soon in Quebec, and that is why the Liberals are rushing this through, to make sure there are no further amendments. If the bill is of value to the government, it would have allowed more consultation and more amendments to take place, so that we could have a better piece of legislation, rather than a useless one like the one we have right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I feel for the Bloc Québécois. The Liberals will be sharing the vote gaining in certain places with them. As for the question, the laws are in place. We need the enforcement. There is no political will out there in the current government to enforce the laws. If the political will were there, we would not see attacks on synagogues or mosques or churches. If the government had any intention of protecting those religious institutions, we would see it emphasizing the political will to make sure that we enforce the laws that we have in place.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am really thankful to the hon. member for basically repeating what I said. We do have laws in place that protect the freedoms of Canadians, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and all that, but the government is refusing to enforce those laws while trying to communicate a political piece of legislation with the intent of gaining some votes in some areas regarding a certain segment of society. The government members are experts in retail politics. That is what the government does best. This legislation is no different from other bills it has introduced in the House.”
“It will certainly not protect anyone from hate, least among them people of faith. Rather than wasting time on this flawed bill, the government should enforce the anti-hate legislation already on the books. That is something the people of Canada would support.”
“The constituents of Edmonton Manning are opposed to this legislation and opposed to removing the religious defence from the hate crime section of the Criminal Code. When I spoke on this bill previously, I noted that the question we need to ask ourselves in the House is, how can we best respond to hatred? Legislation such as Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act, may provide a Criminal Code framework for punishment, but is punishing people for their ideas and beliefs going to change those beliefs? We have a responsibility to protect Canadians, especially vulnerable Canadians, from being harassed by those whose motivation is hate. It is our responsibility to find a balance between free speech and individual rights. Members should ask themselves if this bill does that. This legislation will not make Canadians safer.”
“In an unnecessary piece of legislation that duplicated what can already be found in the Criminal Code, at least there was the understanding that sometimes there can be legitimate disagreement as to just what is hateful, but now the government, in a shameful attempt at gaining the votes it needs to pass this deeply flawed bill, is willing to throw out the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom in public discussion in order to pass bad legislation. If the government has no intention of actually enforcing this anti-hate bill any more than it does the existing Criminal Code provisions, it may not matter, except that any assault on freedom of religion matters. We should not be casually doing away with constitutionally protected freedoms, especially not for political expediency.”
“The Supreme Court recognized this defence as necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional, understanding how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are. When it was introduced, Bill C-9 had a similar provision for the display of hate symbols. It allowed that “No person shall be convicted of an offence": (a) if the display of the symbol was for a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to journalism, religion, education or art, that is not contrary to the public interest; or (b) if, in good faith, the display of the symbol was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.”
“According to the Criminal Code, “No person shall be convicted of an offence”: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. (1735) These have long been seen as reasonable exemptions.”
“The Criminal Code reads: Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. It is already there, but the government has chosen not to enforce the law of the land. Why does the Liberal Party believe things will change by adding another law that it probably has no intention of enforcing? Do we not have more important things to do than waste our time with virtue signalling? Our current laws include a number of exemptions to the hate crime provisions.”
“What we have not seen recently is a willingness by police to lay charges, perhaps because there is no political will to enforce Canadian law against certain vocal groups. This selective enforcement has made things worse, not better, as some groups feel the law does not apply to their statements or their actions. The Criminal Code also goes beyond the condemnation of general expressions of hateful speech to take aim at one of the biggest problems facing Canadian society, which is anti-Semitism.”
“It also says: Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. That is also clear. Additionally, it says: Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. The laws are already there.”
“New legislation is just meaningless words without enforcement. According to the Criminal Code, “Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.” The code defines “genocide” as: acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. An identifiable group means “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.” That seems pretty clear to me.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East . To put it bluntly, I am not convinced that this legislation, Bill C-9 , an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places, is necessary. I find it strange therefore that after months of making other legislation a priority, the government now wants to make this a priority. Given the track record of the Liberal administration, I am also not convinced that this bill will change anything. The reason I say this is that we already have laws on hate crimes in Canada designed to protect vulnerable communities and people. The laws are clear. The crime is well defined. What is lacking is the political will to ensure that the laws are properly enforced.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a political exercise for a party that does retail politics very well. We know what this is aiming for. This bill would not make anything safe. It would not help anything. Is it better for the government to enforce the legislation we have on the books when it comes to protecting people rather than doing what it is doing to divide people further?”
“Mr. Speaker, there are a few things to speak to. First of all, the government is politicizing this issue and causing a lot of division among Canadian society. Secondly, the government has lost the trust of the faith communities in Canada. As far as what we are hearing from Canadians is concerned, I have religious institutions in the double digits in my riding of Edmonton Manning. It is a diverse riding in Canada. There are a lot of concerns. I have been hearing about this for months. The government has flip-flopped for political reasons to work with the Bloc Québécois on this issue. It had better tell Canadians the true story and should better explain its position.”
“To me, it seems highly unlikely that someone deemed inappropriate for release by a parole board this year will change so completely in 12 months that the board will change its mind. There is a provision for mandatory review whether the offender requests it or not. This legislation would not change mandatory review. What it would do is put an end to the annual revictimization of the families of a murder victim in a hearing that is almost predestined to end with the offender remaining incarcerated. Those who care about victims' rights should support this bill. I congratulate my hon. colleague and neighbour from Edmonton Griesbach for putting together this important bill.”
“One of the great things about being human is that we have the capacity for change. We can repent our actions and be redeemed, but for most of us, that is a process, which is why I support Bill C-243 . This legislation would take into account the reality that change can be a slow process. I believe there is hope for even those who have committed the worst crimes. I believe that people can and do change their ways. I believe that those who show true remorse for their actions and have been rehabilitated deserve another chance. That is why we have parole boards to consider whether those who have committed crimes can now be safely returned to society. I do not believe that the parole application process should be used by convicts to revictimize Canadians.”
“Prisoners hoping to be released make a case as to why the punishment they have already received is sufficient. They explain why they are no longer a danger to society. However, that is not all that is presented. There is also a case made as to why the parole application should be denied. The prisoner's progress is evaluated, the case is revisited and memories are stirred. For the families of the murder victims, the trauma of the crime is revisited. They are expected to testify and to describe the impact on their lives of the untimely loss of a loved one through the criminal actions of another. They are asked to revisit a nightmare and, as the law now stands, they can be asked to revisit this nightmare every year. The system revictimizes the victims of the crime for no good purpose.”
“In order to do that: Parole boards take into consideration all relevant available information, including the stated reasons and recommendations of the sentencing judge, the nature and gravity of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the offender, information from the trial or sentencing process and information obtained from victims, offenders and other components of the criminal justice system, including assessments provided by correctional authorities; As the system is now structured, and what this bill sets out to correct, an offender can apply for parole a year after being refused parole by a parole board. I do not think that is right when it comes to those who are convicted of murder, our most serious crime. (1335) A parole board hearing is a serious affair.”
“The Corrections and Conditional Release Act reminds us: The purpose of conditional release is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by means of decisions on the timing and conditions of release that will best facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens. It also says: The protection of society is the paramount consideration for the Board and the provincial parole boards in the determination of all cases.”
“I am repeating those words from the Criminal Code to remind us of the gravity of the offence. The taking of a human life is the worst crime we can imagine. Every life is precious. For someone to deliberately and unjustifiably end a life is deserving of the most serious punishment we can mete out. That is why we hand out life sentences. That is why we limit eligibility for parole. At the same time, Canadians believe in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption. That is why even those convicted of murder are eligible for parole. We believe there is hope even for those who commit the worst crimes. That is why even those convicted of first degree murder have the right to a parole hearing once a certain amount of time has passed. We acknowledge that people can and do change.”
“According to our Criminal Code: Culpable homicide is murder (a) where the person who causes the death of a human being (i) means to cause his death, or (ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not; (b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or (c) if a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that they know is likely to cause death, and by doing so causes the death of a human being, even if they desire to effect their object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.”