Anthony Housefather

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“Ending homelessness is very important, but this motion does nothing to fix it. We should be debating real solutions for affordable housing instead. I am happy to talk with the member about homelessness.”

“Mr. Speaker, on whether the projects list would include ending homelessness, I am not quite sure that is what the project list works for. However, ending homelessness is a very important issue. Making sure that people have a roof over their head is incredibly important. Whatever government programs deal with that and continue to deal with that certainly are priorities for all of us in this House. I have a lot of respect for my colleague, and I am sure he would have preferred that, in the motion before us, there was a solution to the homelessness crisis. A motion could have proposed to debate how we could make housing more affordable versus the nothing motion that was put forward today. I am happy to talk to the member about the homelessness issue.”

In response to a question from Luc Thériault

“Helping seniors and lowering costs are important. Our government lowered the retirement age back to 65 after the Conservatives raised it. I know seniors face real challenges, and I am open to hearing the member's arguments on this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, affordability is very important. Seniors’ issues are also very important. We want all seniors to be able to live with dignity. That is why, in 2015, our government reversed the Conservatives’ decision to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. Discussions will be held on this private member’s bill. I recognize that there are real challenges facing seniors aged 75 and over. In addition, many seniors aged 65 to 75 continue to work. That said, I am certainly always open to hear my colleague’s arguments.”

In response to a question from Pat Kelly

“High costs are a real problem in many countries, and our government is working to fix them. The opposition's motion offers no real solutions.”

“Mr. Speaker, it must be very sad to be sitting in the opposition and have nothing as a solution to propose for affordability and to create a motion that basically does not propose anything at all. Affordability is a very important issue. Affordability is a problem throughout western democracies. Affordability needs to be tackled. This government is tackling it, and the opposition has zero solutions to propose in today’s motion.”

“I am against this motion because it offers no real ideas or solutions. It is true that Liberals have governed for 11 years, and it is true that people are struggling with high prices. But high prices are happening all over the world because of global wars, not because of our government. We are already helping Canadians by cutting taxes, paying for dental care and child care, and giving families money for food and housing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish. I often say what an honour it is to rise in the House to debate a motion. I actually cannot say that today, because this is one of the most nonsensical motions I have ever seen before the House of Commons. Normally, when we propose a motion, we have a solution; we have a proposal. We say, “This is my idea. I would like the House of Commons to debate it.” Today, there are zero ideas in this motion. It makes two statements, both of which are actually true, but have no causal link to each other, necessarily. The first statement we are debating is that the Liberals have been in power for 11 years. Well, yes, that is a true statement. I know that because I was first elected 11 years ago, and I have always sat on this side of the House, and my Conservative colleagues who proposed the motion have always sat on that side of the House. This is because Canadians, for four consecutive elections, have chosen a Liberal government. Let me read the results of those elections. In 2015, there were 184 Liberals elected to 99 Conservatives. In 2019, there were 157 Liberals elected to 121 Conservatives. In 2021, there were 160 Liberals elected to 119 Conservatives. In the 2025 election, with our new Prime Minister and our new government, we had 169 Liberals elected to 144 Conservatives. We all know what has happened since that election. We have had many members of the Conservative Party cross the floor to become Liberals. The Liberal Party has won six consecutive by-elections to have new Liberal members. Today, we are at 173 Liberal members, plus there are six vacancies. It is true. Canadians from across the country—from Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia and even Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan—elected Liberal MPs in the last election, and we now have a majority government. It is true. Will debating this motion actually achieve anything for Canadians? The answer is no, but if that is what the Conservatives want to talk about, then sure. The second statement is that Canada is in an affordability crisis. Well, sure, there is an affordability crisis in western democracies. There is an affordability crisis across the world because there are wars going on in Russia and Ukraine. There is a war going on constantly around Iran, and that has led to the rise in prices of things like fuel and wheat and other things, which has caused inflation to go up across the western world, and food in particular has been affected. Canada actually, as a country, has one of the lower inflation rates in the G7. Since the pandemic, inflation has been rampant, and Canadians are suffering as a result, just like Americans are suffering, British people are suffering and people are suffering in many other countries. They are suffering because they have to worry about how they are going to afford to pay their grocery bills. This is why this government has put forward numerous initiatives to try to deal with that question. Somehow, in some way, the Conservatives today have tried to argue that inflation and affordability are issues only in Canada, which is certainly not the case. They are an issue everywhere, whether the government is a right-wing government or a left-wing government or a centrist government. This government has actually dealt with the problem. We have put forward, in the last year and a half, numerous solutions that I can detail. Let us talk about the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will increase support for Canadian families by 25% over five years starting in July. In fact, the latest payment happened just a few days ago, which will allow Canadians to have more money to put towards their groceries and essentials. There is the first act that this government did, which was cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians by lowering the first marginal tax rate from 15% to 14%. It provided tax relief of $420 in the first half of the year. This year, it will be $840 a year for two-income families. This is a meaningful act to put more money in Canadians’ pockets. We are eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers and cancelling the federal consumer carbon tax, effective April 1, 2025, which was an idea the Conservatives supported. I know it is disappointing to be sitting in opposition for 11 years. I understand the frustration. However, the Conservatives themselves chose to make mention of that in the motion. It was not me who chose to talk about the fact that the Liberals have been in power and have been chosen by Canadians over and over again. It was them, so maybe they should celebrate that. Then there is the national school food program, We made that permanent, but the Conservatives voted against that. That program lets kids get food at school. It allows families to know their children are able to have a warm, good lunch at school. There are automatic federal benefits, where people who are lower income are automatically receiving benefits they qualify for. There are lowering costs and strengthening competition in essential services, pro-competition measures in the telecom sector and the financial sector to reduce prices. As well, there is the expanding and entrenching of the Canada child benefit. The Canada child benefit is something that millions of Canadians benefit from and is putting much more money into the pockets of parents of children until the age of 17. There is the lowering costs for child care and kid essentials. Lowering the cost of child care across this country, creating more spots and making sure that day care is affordable has not only allowed women to go back in the workforce in many places to make sure we have a much more equal workforce, but also allowed families to know they do not have to pay extraordinary amounts to do that. I am very proud that our province of Quebec was the first place in Canada, and perhaps one of the first in the world, to have affordable child care. Let us talk about the Canada dental plan. For way too long in this country, Canadians have been able to get medical care, but not dental care. This means people know their bodies are healthy, except for their teeth and gums, but the teeth and gums are some of the most vital parts of the body that can bring infection to someone’s entire body. For some reason, in Canada, we had never guaranteed that lower-income people would be able to pay for their dentist. These types of preventive measures are necessary to keep people healthy. If a person’s family income is $90,000 or less per year, they are able to qualify for dental care if they do not have other insurance provided by their employer. That is huge. There is the $500 Canada housing benefit top-up and the tax-free first home savings account that over 750,000 Canadians enrolled in. As well, there is the Canada disability benefit, where our government is delivering up to $200 a month, which is helping 600,000 Canadians. I can go on and on and on about all the affordability measures we are taking. Yes, Canadians are hurting. Yes, affordability is a huge issue. It is one of the most important issues facing this country, and we need to do everything we can to make sure that Canadians can afford to live their lives, buy their groceries, have housing and have the most important essentials. This motion today, as I return to it, proposes nothing. There is not one idea in the motion, not one. There is not a single idea in the motion. It merely makes two statements. There are no proposals. If they can waste time debating this in the House of Commons simply to acknowledge two facts and propose nothing, I fail to even see the purpose of the House of Commons. The House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, is here to listen to ideas, propose ideas and debate those ideas, not to simply put two different facts together that have no causality one to the other and say that it is a motion.”

• Echo ×6

  A repeated line

  “Is it the national school food program?”

  Said 6 times by 4 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“This bill will help all communities feel safe. People should not be allowed to use their religion to excuse spreading hate in public.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe that this will foster a sense of security for all communities, because no one wants to be the target of hatred. It is true that CJA-Québec said that it supports the Bloc Québécois and the proposal that it put forward a few years ago. We saw what was happening on the streets of Montreal and the fact that no prosecutor was taking action due to the potential use of this religious defence. If individuals promote hatred on the street, they should not be able to use their beliefs to justify hatred against groups. It is also very important to say that this defence has never been successful in a Canadian court since the law has been on the books.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“The vast majority of Canadian Jewish groups and rabbis support this bill. It does not hurt religious freedom.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It gives police clearer rules to stop people from blocking or scaring others outside schools and places of worship. It also makes it easier to charge people who show hate symbols or commit hate crimes. Hate crimes against Jewish people are very high right now, and this law helps protect them and other groups.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will make communities safer, even though the opposition tried to stop it in committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague said, this legislation is a step forward. Everyone needs to be pragmatic. We will never get everything we want, but this bill is very good news for everyone who wants safer communities in Canada. It was unfortunate to have to sit in committee hour after hour as our colleagues tried to derail this bill. Like the other justice bills that we introduced, this is something very important to Canadians.”

In response to a question from Kelly DeRidder

“This bill does not make mandatory minimum sentences optional. It stops courts from throwing out these sentences based on imaginary cases. It makes sure courts only look at the person in front of them. Conservatives should support this bill.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Our goal is to keep people and communities safe. We are making it harder for repeat offenders to get bail, helping police deal with hate crimes, and protecting victims of abuse, especially women and children. I want everyone to vote for this bill.”

“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.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes controlling an intimate partner a crime. It also increases punishments for hurting children, stops people from sharing fake sexual images of others, and gives more support to victims in court.”

“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.”