Anthony Housefather · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-16

“I'm telling a story about how our leader agreed with me years ago. I want you to think well of him. I claim this shows we keep our promises.”

“I claim this bill will make people feel safe. A Jewish group agreed with a Bloc proposal once. I'm sad no charges happened after some march in Montreal. This religious defence has never worked in court. But I still want the bill. No one should use their religion to excuse hate.”

“I don't care what that other guy said. All the big Jewish groups like this bill. Most of the Orthodox Jewish rabbis I know like this bill. Canadian Jews want this bill. I want this bill. Nothing in this bill hurts religious freedom. The old rule we took out never worked anyway.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the organizations that speak for the organized Jewish communities, all of them, support the bill, whether it is CIJA, B'nai Brith, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, the numerous groups that Mark Sandler has assembled in Toronto or the Canadian Women Against Antisemitism. I do not know of any major Jewish organization in the country that does not support this bill, so I do not believe that to be true. Most of the Orthodox Jewish rabbis I know support this bill, so I do not believe that is true. There may be some who do not, just like there are some in every religion who do not, but the vast majority of Canadian Jews have been asking for this bill and want this bill. As to the question of religious freedom, there is nothing in this bill that would thwart religious freedom. We removed a defence that has never successfully been used in Canadian history.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the Parliament of Canada to act. I want to make it clear that police and prosecutors should have more tools to charge people for hate crimes. I want greater protection for minority communities across this country. I want to deliver protections to all religious faiths, the LGBTQ+ community, and indigenous communities. I do not accept the argument that we should not give police the tools they say they need. I want the federal government to do something.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton. The combatting hate act has been before this House for nine months. During those nine months, we have had extensive debate in this place, in the other place and at committee. This bill is important. I want to take members back to what started the process of amending our hate laws in a way that is broader than the way they have been amended in the last 30 years. In the spring of 2024, in my own riding of Mount Royal, the Jewish community centre, the Montreal Holocaust Museum and The Jewish Public Library were surrounded by demonstrators. They were surrounded by demonstrators yelling hateful things. They were surrounded by demonstrators carrying signs, some of which supported terrorist organizations. However, the police failed to arrest people. They failed to stop what was a demonstration that descended into illegality. They said at the time that they did not have clear enough instructions or clear enough rules related to when a demonstration outside of a community centre, a school, a temple, a church or a synagogue has crossed the line. The combatting hate act makes clear that these buildings deserve special protection. It creates new intimidation and obstruction offences related to protests outside of community centres, places of worship and schools that make it clear that these buildings deserve special protection. It makes it clear that a person cannot intimidate someone from entering that building to hear a speaker they want to hear, to worship as they want to worship or to attend their classes. It makes it clear that a person cannot obstruct people from entering or leaving the building, which is what happened that night in March 2024. At the time, I called for this change to the criminal law. I said that, because the police told me that they were unable to take action, the Parliament of Canada has a duty to act, to rewrite existing criminal laws so that they are clearer and so they provide more tools to police officers. The same thing happened with respect to Mr. Charkaoui. He said things that were absolutely hateful in the streets of Montreal, but the prosecutors did not take action. We ended up in a situation where the House set up a committee. I asked for the justice and human rights committee to study anti-Semitism. We did, and in December 2024, we put out a unanimous report, on most issues. Yes, there was dissent, but the dissent was not on the vast majority of issues, including the intimidation and obstruction offence. However, that has not stopped what the Prime Minister called the “crisis of anti-Semitism” that has overwhelmed the western world, including Canada, where over 70% of religious-based hate offences are against the Jewish community, which makes up 1.2% of the population, and where a Jewish Canadian has a 19 times greater chance of having a hate crime committed against them than the average Canadian. I want to point out that two weeks ago there was an attempted arson attack on a temple in Westmount, Temple Emanu‑El, where I joined the Minister of Canadian Identity, former senator Marc Gold, and the Secretary of State for Youth to support the community at services. This law has a stand-alone hate provision, which can be used alongside the arson charges that gentleman will face, to make sure the person who is charged will face more jail time than previously. We also have provisions in this bill to say that when people fly terrorist symbols, the Nazi hakenkreuz or the SS bolt, or now the noose, which was added by the Senate in its recent amendment, in a way that inspires hate against a community, they would now easily be charged by the police. The bill offers greater protection for minority communities across this country, and for majority communities, by the way. It offers greater protections to Christians as well, who are a majority. It delivers protections to all religious faiths. It delivers protections to the LGBTQ+ community, the indigenous communities and other communities that face hate. Why would anyone be against it? Why would anyone be against this bill? The only argument I have heard to date against this bill, the number one reason I have heard, is that the law is not being enforced and we should just enforce the existing law, as if the federal government was responsible for the enforcement of the Criminal Code. This is something that is in the hands of the provinces. The decisions on whether to charge people are made by local municipal police, in most cases, and provincial prosecutors, not the federal government. The argument that we should not give police the tools they say they need to prosecute these crimes, because we should just tell them to do what they are supposed to do, does not wash, because it is essentially saying that the federal government should do nothing. We have the ability to write the Criminal Code, and we are doing so. With this bill, when it is enacted, and with the new bail and sentencing reform bill, which just received royal assent, we can now, as the Minister of Public Safety confirmed, go to the provinces and territories, have a PT meeting with the provinces and territories, and say that we need to act together to train police and prosecutors. We need specialized hate crime prosecutors across this country, to be named by the provinces. We need, most importantly, to have prosecutorial directives or other measures, where police are told by the provincial attorneys general how they should prosecute these crimes. It should be consistent across this country. The passing of this flurry of justice bills is an opportunity for us. I also want to address some of the misinformation I heard earlier today in the debate. First, one member talked about parents being worried about what they can say at the dinner table. Private discussions are not covered under the wilful promotion of hatred provisions under section 319 of the Criminal Code. To have members tell people that they have to worry about what they say at their dinner table is knowingly false. It is not true. Second, there were claims that the government would go out there and charge people, that somehow one minister's comments would lead to a government that could go out and say that people should be charged. However, we live in a system where independent prosecutors, working with police, make these decisions. They are not influenced by what a government person tells them to do or not to do in any individual case. The only way for the government to have its view is prosecutorial directives that apply to an entire class of people, which would come from the provincial attorneys general, not the federal one usually. I am kind of shocked to hear these claims that are so far out of reality that it diminishes what we are trying to do in the law. Finally, let me be absolutely clear. We also inserted a provision for greater clarity, to make clear that this is not the case, but we should not have had to do that, because it is obvious that this is not the case. People will not be charged because they read, quote or preach the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or any other holy book. This is entirely made up. It is negated by the Charter of Rights. It is negated by the “for greater certainty” provision in the bill. This is a really important bill. As a member of the Jewish community who has felt this hate, I know that every major organization in my community supports this bill. It is a really important bill to get hate off our streets, to make sure criminals get off our streets and to make sure there is deterrence. I would call upon everyone to support this bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-09

“I want to outlaw fake nude pictures of people. We need a new law because technology keeps changing.”

“I'm just going to ignore those pesky Conservatives. Why can't they see this bill is good for everyone? They're just wasting time trying to stop our bill to make communities safer.”

“Don't listen to him. Our bill brings back mandatory minimums the way they're supposed to work. Conservatives say they want tough on crime, but they twist my words and fearmonger about reasonable reforms. I'm here to defend a balanced approach to sentencing, and I want the public to see through their games.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is no reasonable way that the bill can be interpreted as making mandatory minimums optional. What the bill would do is prevent courts from striking down minimum mandatory sentences based on hypotheticals. This should be exactly the type of bill Conservatives would support. Conservatives have railed against what the courts have done to strike down minimum mandatory sentences based on hypotheticals. I refer to the Senneville decision last year. This bill would restore minimum mandatory sentences and prevent courts from doing what was done in Senneville, by allowing courts to assess only the individual before them and not to strike down the entire category based on one hypothetical situation. The hon. member should read the bill again.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“This government wants to keep people safe. We already did many things to help with that. This bill will help victims and the police. I want everyone to vote for it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the parliamentary secretary's questions. The goal of the current government is for people to both be safe and feel safe, and for communities to be safer. That is why the government brought forward an ambitious agenda of criminal reforms that would make it tougher for bad people and repeat offenders to get bail, would make sure victims of hate crimes have better access to police tools to prosecute those hate crimes, and, in this case, would make sure victims are protected, particularly women and children, who, in many different instances, disproportionately bear the threat of coercive control or exploitation. The bill is an important piece of the tool kit, a tool in the tool kit for police and prosecutors. It is important for victims and other Canadians, and I encourage everyone to get on board and vote for the bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want Parliament to pass my bill. Our criminal laws must evolve. This act will help victims, women, children, and survivors of abuse. It will create a new offence of coercive control. It will strengthen protection for children. It will restore minimum mandatory penalties for serious child sexual offences. It will expand access to support services for victims. If you vote against this bill, you will have to explain to Canadians why you opposed it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, crime evolves. Technology evolves. The experiences of victims evolve. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that our criminal laws evolve as well. The protecting victims act responds to the realities of modern victimization. It strengthens protections for victims and survivors. It addresses emerging forms of abuse and exploitation. It increases accountability for serious offenders. It provides law enforcement and the courts with additional tools to help keep Canadians safe. Throughout the debate, we have discussed public safety, violence against women, child protection, online exploitation and victims' rights. These are not abstract issues. This is about real people. This affects families in every part of the country. They deserve a meaningful response from Parliament. The protecting victims act directly addresses the concerns of victims, survivors, community organizations and justice system experts across the country. It aims to better protect vulnerable people and ensure that our laws reflect today's realities. One of the most significant measures in the legislation would be the creation of a new offence of coercive control. For many years, survivors and advocates have told us that abuse begins long before physical violence occurs. Very often it begins with intimidation, isolation, manipulation or threats. It begins with a pattern of behaviour designed to dominate another person's life. Victims may be cut off from family and friends. Their finances may be controlled, their communications may be monitored, and their independence may gradually be taken away. Taken together, these actions can create an environment of fear and control that has devastating consequences, yet too often, intervention occurs only after violence has escalated. Too often, warning signs are recognized only after a tragedy has occurred. The protecting victims act would represent an important step forward. By creating a new offence of coercive control, Parliament would recognize that abuse is not defined only by physical violence, but that psychological abuse, emotional abuse and patterns of domination and control matter, and that victims deserve protection before violence escalates. All too often, victims wonder why no one intervened sooner. Creating a new offence related to coercive control finally recognizes a reality that survivors have been describing for years. This measure gives authorities an additional tool to intervene earlier and better protect those at risk. Another major focus of the protecting victims act is the protection of children. I believe that every member of the House can agree that children deserve to be safe, protected, and free from exploitation. Unfortunately, criminals increasingly use digital platforms to groom victims, distribute exploitative materials, engage in sextortion and facilitate abuse. The Internet has created tremendous opportunities, but it has also created new risks. The law must keep pace with those risks. The protecting victims act would strengthen the legal framework related to child sexual exploitation and online abuse. It would make reporting requirements mandatory for social media companies when child sexual abuse material and exploitative content are identified. Canadians rightly expect digital platforms to act responsibly and to co-operate in protecting children from exploitation. Parents expect Parliament to respond when criminals use modern technology to target young people. The legislation would be exactly that response. Protecting children should never be a partisan issue. The fight against the sexual exploitation of children should never be a partisan issue. We all have a responsibility to act when the safety of young people is at risk. The protecting victims act would also respond to the growing threat of sexually explicit deepfakes and image-based abuse. Technology continues to evolve at an extraordinary pace. Artificial intelligence has created remarkable opportunities, but it can also be misused. We have seen disturbing images of sexually explicit images being created and distributed without consent. Women and girls have been disproportionately targeted by these harmful practices. No one should have to fear that their likeness will be manipulated and weaponized against them. No one should have to endure the trauma of discovering that sexually explicit images have been created or shared without their consent. The protecting victims act would modernize the Criminal Code to address these realities and ensure that victims are protected, regardless of whether abuse occurs online or off-line. Accountability is another important principle underlying the legislation. Canadians expect serious consequences for serious crimes. That expectation is reasonable and is reflected in the protecting victims act. The legislation would restore more than a dozen mandatory minimum penalties related to serious child sexual offences, would increase penalties for child predators and would strengthen the criminal justice response to some of the most serious crimes in our society. Children who experience sexual exploitation often carry that trauma throughout their life. Families are devastated. Communities are shaken. The consequences extend far beyond the immediate offence. Our justice system must respond accordingly. The legislation would also recognize that victims need support throughout the justice process. For many victims, the crime itself is only the beginning of a difficult journey. Participating in criminal proceedings can be intimidating, stressful and retraumatizing. The protecting victims act would expand access to testimonial aids and support measures to help victims and witnesses participate more fully in the justice process. The act would also expand access to support services for victims and witnesses. It would help make the justice system more accessible, more compassionate and more attuned to the needs of people who have already been through traumatic experiences. These reforms would help improve the experience of victims, while supporting the broader goal of ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done. Yesterday, some members of the House voted against the protecting victims act at report stage. That was their decision, but they will have to explain to Canadians why they opposed legislation that would create a new offence of coercive control, strengthen protections for children and victims and restore minimum mandatory penalties for serious child sexual offences. For our part, we are proud to support the legislation. We are proud to support victims, we are proud to support survivors, and we are proud to support safer communities. At the end of the day, the questions before us are straightforward: Do we believe victims deserve stronger protections? Do we believe children deserve greater safeguards against exploitation? Do we believe survivors deserve to be heard? Do we believe our laws should evolve to meet emerging threats? Do we believe Parliament should act when change is needed? I believe that the answer to all these questions is yes, and that is why I encourage everyone in this place to support the bill at third reading.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I support this bill. Our laws must change when the world changes.”

“I want to split my time with someone else who agrees with me.”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-05

“'The C.D. Howe Institute doesn't say Canada's in recession. That means our economy is good right now. We just got 88,000 new jobs! See, the government's plan works. Youth unemployment went down, women too. Lots of construction and factory jobs.We're making the economy stronger, why don't the Conservatives like that?'”

Statements by Members

Filipino Heritage Month

2026-06-05

“I want people to know I support a specific ethnic community in my riding that holds events. Also I am very cultured.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, June is Filipino Heritage Month. It is a chance to celebrate the amazing Filipino Canadian community that has enriched our country in so many ways. It is a chance to celebrate the culture and traditions of the Philippines. It is a chance to celebrate Dr. José Rizal, the founder of the modern Philippines, who championed patriotism, education, justice and civic duty, which are values shared by the Filipino community today. In my riding of Mount Royal, which is the heart of the Filipino community in Montreal, we will have a large number of events. I want to thank the Filipino Heritage Society of Montreal and its president, Al Abdon; the Council of Canadian Filipino Associations of Quebec and its leaders, Dario Boco and James de la Paz; the Filipino Association of Montreal and Suburbs and its president, Jojo Laud; and the Knights of Rizal and its regional commander Gerry Danzil for hosting these events. Let us all join together and say Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. Long live the Philippines.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Public Safety

2026-05-29

“You say our government does nothing. But we did a lot! We made a big report. It told governments and police and universities what to do. I will keep working hard to solve this crisis. The Prime Minister shows leadership. He will solve it too.”

“I admit there is a crisis of antisemitism. I want credit for denouncing it and funding security.”

Statements by Members

Jewish Community Institutions

2026-05-07

“I think the Canada Revenue Agency is being used to attack Jewish schools. That's not good. I want the government to protect them.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding a deeply troubling complaint filed with the Canada Revenue Agency targeting 11 Jewish schools in Montreal and Toronto. These schools are essential pillars of Jewish life in Canada. They exist to teach language, history, culture and identity, just as faith-based schools across this country do. For months, there has been a coordinated effort to mis-characterize Jewish schools, to strip them of funding and to undermine their place in Canadian society. Let me be clear: Attacking Jewish schools or Jewish day camps is a direct attack on Canadian Jewish life. The CRA must be unequivocally clear that it will not allow tax laws to be weaponized against any group. Jewish schools in this country have already faced serious threats, including repeated gunfire attacks. All Canadians have a right to be safe and feel safe; this includes Canadian Jews and this includes Canadian children. I hope all members of the House will join me in denouncing these attacks on Jewish community institutions.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“The government's directive is good. It won't stop us from defending property rights. Show me a case where Canada should make arguments without evidence.”

“I want you to stop spreading disinformation. The Prime Minister already clearly said he would protect private property rights. The government appealed the decision. I don't think a committee should develop legal arguments. We already have expert constitutional lawyers arguing for the government. I want you to trust the government's arguments.”

Private Members' Business

Silver Alert National Framework Act

2026-05-06

“I want you to think I'm nice and I care about sick seniors. This bill might be good for people. I want to make sure it won't bother provinces too much. The government is already working on this too. I want to change the bill a little to make sure it won't send alerts too often or share private information in the wrong cases.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the chance and the opportunity to speak to Bill C-263 today. First, I want to thank my friend, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, for proposing a bill that is not only meaningful to the Moberg family, and I want to salute the courage of the Moberg family who were in Ottawa today, but could make a real difference in the lives of seniors living with dementia. I think all of us in the chamber know at least one person, have grown up with one person or, as adults, have run into one person who has dementia. Sometimes they are in our families. Sometimes they are close friends. To watch their decline over time is one of the scariest and one of the most difficult psychological things one could possibly have happen. First of all, the individual, as they are aware of their decline, which is often the case, is terrified. Their family members are also terrified. As the hon. member said in her speech, one day the person could be watching television, conversing, having dinner with their family, and the next day they could be in a state where if they walk out the front door, they will not know how to find their way back home. I cannot even tell members how many cases, over the course of the last 10 years that I have been a member of this place, I have heard from families with a loved one with dementia who has had a serious incident happen, and the fears that have been expressed. It goes beyond touching my heart. The fact that the hon. member took this opportunity to hear a tragic story and use it to come forward with a piece of legislation that could improve the lives of Canadians is deeply appreciated. As she said, this is not a partisan bill. This is not a bill that is left, right or centre. This is a human bill. The proposal of a national framework to support a coordinated silver alert system, to utilize our existing national public alerting system to issue geo-targeted notifications when a vulnerable senior disappears, would be a collaborative effort. It would be a collaborative effort between federal government, provincial government and territorial government. It would alert the public, through TV, radio and wireless devices, to a life-threatening situation. We do that right now for tornadoes, fires or Amber Alerts. The goal is to include this type of vulnerable senior in that system. The system is very busy. In 2024 alone, 855 emergency alerts were sent out across Canada. They contained vital information during extreme storms and other critical events. I would also note that this file is being actively worked on by the government. In budget 2025, we committed to renewing the NPAS model to better support emergency alerting throughout Canada. Indeed, the federal government is in discussion with provincial and territorial counterparts to promote more consistent use of public alerting systems, including guidance for consistent alerting for missing vulnerable people. As such, it gives me pleasure today to say that we, as a government, intend to support the bill with targeted amendments at the committee stage. We want to ensure that some of the drafting concerns that we hope to address will be considered by the committee. Hopefully, we can find a means so that everybody in the House will be comfortable with the bill. First, any framework must be developed in consultation with our provincial and territorial counterparts across the country, to ensure that it complements, rather than complicates, existing local protocols. As the member mentioned, provincial and territorial governments are referenced in the bill. Perhaps there is another way that we would like to reference them. Measures proposed in the legislation do relate to an area that is in provincial jurisdiction, as the member recognized. We just want to make sure that everyone is onside. Search and rescue operations are led, almost always, by local police services in coordination with provincial agencies and volunteer organizations like Search and Rescue Canada. We were honoured to welcome Search and Rescue Canada on the Hill this week as part of our humanitarian workforce program, for which we just announced $108 million in new funding. When a senior goes missing in a rural township or dense urban core, the response must be immediate and tailored to that specific area or community. In addition, many provinces have already taken steps to adopt silver alert systems for missing seniors. Quebec's non-intrusive alert system, which was announced in February 2026, aims to inform police services. This evidence-based program also uses non-intrusive means like social media, television and radio programs to alert the public. As my colleague said, these alerts are not sent out on cellphones at the moment. We want to make sure that we co-operate. One of the things the member mentioned is the privacy and dignity of the senior. We want to make sure that how we coordinate this under the proposal involves something that will respect the privacy and dignity of seniors and their families. I am sure that, as we understand, a silver alert would broadcast the name, photo and medical condition of an individual to possibly millions of people, depending on the area. We want to streamline this to make sure the right cases are the ones brought forward. In extreme and dangerous cases, that probably is the case. Perhaps there are other cases where it might not be, so we have to discuss that. For example, seniors who live with early-stage dementia often maintain independent lives. In some cases, their families may prefer that their medical privacy be protected as they engage in the search in the early stages. We will discuss this as part of the notification system, and I am sure we will find a collaborative solution that will work for everybody in this House. One of the problems I wanted to mention, which I have heard from our provincial counterparts, some municipal counterparts and police, is the concern over alert fatigue. Through discussions with the provinces and territories, we want to make sure that alert fatigue does not happen. I often get complaints from people in Montreal asking why they get alerts about a child who is missing in Trois-Rivières, given the unlikelihood of the child from Trois-Rivières being in Montreal, with the phone buzzing at three o'clock in the morning. Part of this must be to figure out where the alert target area should be and what the alerts should be. I also want to talk a bit about dementia care, because this bill brings up an important issue about dementia. The Alzheimer Society provided recommendations in its landmark study released in 2022. The Government of Canada's “A Dementia Strategy for Canada”, released in 2019, looks at not only prevention, medical treatment and cures, but also improving the quality of life of dementia patients. Many stakeholders have expressed stronger support for programs such as dementia-friendly communities led by the Alzheimer Society of Canada, with financial support from our government. This initiative supports localized efforts to implement and adapt dementia-friendly practices, including promoting awareness and strategies on how to effectively communicate with people living with dementia. For example, exactly as the member said, when we see a senior who we think might be lost, confused and scared, how do we approach them? Should we approach them? These are all things we need to teach our communities. It has to be more than just alerting family members of people who have dementia as to how to deal with dementia patients. In January 2026, our government announced $4.7 million in funding to fund six projects under the dementia community investment program, bringing the total number of projects we have supported to 36. Our government often talks about our commitment to ensuring the safety and dignity of all Canadians. Seniors built the communities we live and thrive in today. We owe it to them to keep them safe in all of our communities. In conclusion, I look forward to working with the sponsor of this bill to ensure that a national approach to silver alerts is evidence-based and adequately addresses community needs and provincial concerns.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-05-01

“I want to look good by quoting someone from a Conservative province. Conservatives don't like my plan. I think they should. I want more government spending to make Canada a superpower.”