Hon. Judy A. Sgro · TranslatePolitics.ca

Private Members' Business

Ukrainian Heritage Month Act

2026-06-12

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. I want this bill to pass so the government can claim it is helping families.”

Oral Questions

Public Safety

2026-06-12

“I want to cheer for police officers and look sad about their sacrifice. I want to spend time making kind words.”

Government Orders

2026-06-10

“I'm going to talk slowly and carefully to use up some time now. Maybe if I ask about changes that could improve the bill it will look like I am doing something important here.”

Oral Questions

Health

2026-06-04

“I want to remind everyone that my bill passed. Tell us what else you're doing to spend against vision problems.”

Government Orders

2026-06-03

“Mandatory minimums sounded good to me at first. But they get thrown out because of the Charter. We can't just use our heart on our sleeve -- we need more. Our responsibility is serious here.”

“I want to make sure women think we're helping them so they'll keep voting for us.”

“I don't care what that group thinks. Our bill will do what we want. That's all that matters.”

“I want to pass laws that don't get thrown out in court. We might feel strongly but we can't just write a law based on that. It has to be careful and legal too.”

“I want to look like I care. I met some victims once so that makes me an expert. This bill will give government and police more power to punish people. It will make the court process longer and more complex. We will spend more money. Children need to be kept safe.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is great to see you in the chair. I am pleased today to rise in support of Bill C-16 the protecting victims act. At its core, this legislation reflects something very fundamental: that our justice system must do much more to protect those who are the most vulnerable, especially children and survivors of violence; and that it must adapt to reflect the realities that they face today. Before I speak to the details of the bill, I do want to begin by acknowledging the strength and the courage of survivors. The member for Niagara South, last week or the week before, hosted a meeting that many of us were invited to and we listened to half a dozen women who were victims. They were there to speak of their position as being victims of sexual violence and so on, but also of their concerns that the perpetrators were not getting strong enough sentences. The victims have a life sentence because they will carry that abuse for their entire life, whereas the abusers seem to get very minimal sentences of 18 months or two years, which seem so very minimal. I very much agree with those individuals who were speaking. They were still very distraught about what had happened to them many years before and frustrated by the lack of penalties for the abusers. Whether the issue for those who came forward to tell stories is intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation or abuse of children, they want change and that is what Bill C-16 would bring. Their experiences were deeply moving and their points were well received. They are a powerful reminder that our justice system must continue to evolve, not in theory but in practice, so that it truly meets the needs of those it is meant to protect. Bill C-16 represents one of the most significant updates to our criminal justice system in generations. It would do so through four clear objectives: tackling gender-based violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims' rights and addressing court delays. Each of these pillars speaks directly to issues that the survivors I heard from two weeks ago, advocates and experts have been raising for years. First, with respect to gender-based violence, this bill would recognize something that has too often been overlooked: that violence does not begin with physical harm. It often begins, as my other colleagues have mentioned, with patterns of control, including coercion, intimidation and manipulation, that escalate over time. By introducing a new offence for coercive and controlling conduct, this legislation would allow earlier intervention before violence becomes lethal. This is critical. It reflects again what survivors and frontline organizations have told us, which is that warning signs are often present but we have not always had the legal tools to respond to them. The bill would also ensure that murders committed in contexts such as coercive control, sexual violence or exploitation are recognized with the seriousness that they warrant. These are not isolated acts. They are part of a continuum of violence. This legislation would begin to reflect that reality in law. Second, with respect to protecting children, the need for action is urgent. We know that the nature of exploitation has changed. Predators are increasingly using digital platforms to groom, manipulate and extort children. Bill C-16 responds directly to those threats. It would strengthen offences related to child luring and sextortion; criminalize emerging forms of abuse, including the use of threats and digital content; and reinforce accountability through stronger penalties. It would also ensure that law enforcement and the justice system would be equipped to respond to the new technologies, including the use of AI-generated sexual deepfakes, which can be used to exploit and harm victims. For children and families navigating these deeply traumatic experiences, these measures are not abstract. They are essential protections. Third, this legislation would strengthen victims' rights. We know that, for many victims, the justice system can be overwhelming. Victims often struggle to access information, to understand processes and to have their voices heard. Bill C-16 would build on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by improving access to information, expanding participation and ensuring that victims are treated with dignity and respect. It would also expand access to supports such as testimonial aids, helping reduce the risk of retraumatization when individuals come forward. These are practical changes, but they are also deeply meaningful. They would help ensure that victims are not simply observers in the justice process, but participants whose experiences matter. Fourth, and critically, the bill addresses court delays. Delays are not just procedural issues. They have real consequences. We have seen serious cases, including those involving sexual violence, collapse entirely because of delays. For victims, this can be devastating. It can mean that after coming forward, after reliving their trauma, there is no resolution and no accountability. Bill C-16 introduces measures to reduce these outcomes, requiring courts to consider alternatives before stays of proceedings, streamlining procedures and clarifying just how these delays are assessed. These changes in Bill C-16 are about ensuring that cases are heard and that justice is not lost to process. What is important about this legislation, as well, is not just any single measure, but its collective impact. The bill recognizes that violence today is complex and evolving. It reflects the rise of digital exploitation affecting our children, the realities of coercive control, the vulnerabilities of children online and the ongoing challenges victims face within the system. It also responds to what we have heard from commissions, experts and communities across the country that earlier intervention, stronger protections and a more responsive justice system are needed. At the same time, it is important to ground this work in principle. We must ensure that victims are treated with care, dignity and compassion. We must ensure that those who come forward are supported, informed and respected throughout the process. We must continue building a system where survivors can have confidence not only that they will be heard, but that the system will respond in an appropriate manner. No single piece of legislation will resolve all the challenges. We know there are gaps that will remain. We also know that continued investment in prevention, in services and in supports will always be essential, but legislation like Bill C-16 is a critical part of that work. It provides the tools. It sets the standards and it signals clearly that protecting victims, especially children, is not optional. It is a fundamental responsibility of us all. I am proud to be part of a government that is taking meaningful steps, both in law and in practice. I appreciate the fact that the opposition is supporting this bill and has helped move it along. In closing, this bill is more than legal reform. It is about ensuring that survivors are heard, victims are protected, and those women who I met from Niagara South two weeks ago can look at Bill C-16 and know that we were thinking of them when we put this forward. It is about ensuring that those who are the most vulnerable are not overlooked, but supported with care, dignity and action. For all of these reasons, I am proud to support Bill C-16 and appreciate the support of all of the opposition.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Nekai Walks

2026-06-03

“I want MPs to attend my screening event. I'm promoting an organization in my riding. This film is about gun violence. The screening is related to the National Day Against Gun Violence. I will now name important people attending the screening.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite all parliamentarians to join us this evening for a special screening of Nekai Walks, hosted with our trusted partners at YAAACE, an organization doing extraordinary work with young people in Toronto. Taking place later today in Wellington 310, this powerful documentary tells the story of resilience, recovery and community in the face of gun violence. As we approach the National Day Against Gun Violence, on June 5, the film offers a timely and deeply meaningful opportunity to reflect and to learn. I am especially pleased to welcome to the Hill, Devon Jones, founding director of YAAACE; Nekai Foster, the young man at the heart of this film; and the film's director, Rico King. I encourage all of my colleagues to attend this important and inspiring event.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

2026-05-25

“I'm glad you're feeling better. I know the port of Churchill is important to you. It will cost taxpayers a lot to develop Churchill and infrastructure. But our government has a Major Projects Office to push big expensive projects. It's good when the government spends money on big things like ports. We're signing more trade deals too. That'll mean more goods moving through the ports we're spending on.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that my hon. colleague is feeling better and that he is back and standing up and down in his usual role in the House. It is interesting that he mentions the port of Churchill. We did have a former member of the NDP who was constantly talking about the port of Churchill. That is the reason why, when the hon. member mentions it, I am so very well aware of it. It will cost a lot of money, but there are enormous opportunities if we can develop. Through our Major Projects Office, all of those things where there are huge opportunities for us to move forward are making themselves available. I just had an opportunity, with our trade committee, to visit Brazil and Argentina and talk about the free trade agreement with the Mercosur area, which we plan to hopefully get signed by the summer. There are opportunities that are provided, with the investments we are making in major infrastructure products, to be able to move merchandise and agricultural goods through much faster. I look forward to that being successfully completed.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“We all know we need housing. I want to say there will be more. The government is doing everything it can to build housing. We're working very hard on it.”

“You're right. I agree. Our infrastructure is bad. Our ports need help. The port of Vancouver needs new bridges. I believe our budget will fix that. Our plan for the future will improve access to the ports.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member was also a member of the international trade committee for many years. We have had the opportunity to work together and very much care about similar issues. We are looking at the infrastructure dollars and the improvements that have to happen at the ports. I read this morning about two bridges that lead to the port of Vancouver and how those bridges have to be replaced. Otherwise, we are not going to be able to get anything to the port of Vancouver from that direction. I believe the investment we are making will improve those access points. The member is 100% right: If we do not have access to the ports, how are we going to get our different goods there? I think that is all part of the plan for the future to make that difference.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm proud to support the government spending money on all these programs I like. I want more money for my community. More money for students. More money for security at community centres. A special tax break for employee ownership trusts. More money for build communities strong fund. I held a tax workshop and I support free tax help too. The deficit is being responsible. Let's pass this budget so the government can spend money to help people.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Spadina—Harbourfront. This is my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-30, and I welcome the opportunity to talk about the way we are going to guide our great country forward. I am very proud to rise today in support of the government's spring economic update, which is an update grounded in realism, responsibility and, above all, the lived experiences of many Canadians. This document recognizes that while global forces remain uncertain, Canada is choosing to lead with focus and purpose. It shows that we are investing where it matters most: in people, communities and long-term economic resilience. This funding supports frontline responses that prioritize safety, dignity and coordination with municipal and community partners. It recognizes that addressing homelessness requires sustained federal leadership, not temporary fixes, and it ensures that communities are not left on their own. The people of Humber River—Black Creek are proud of the diversity that defines our neighbourhoods, but they know that rising hate-motivated incidents are real and very terrible. They undermine people's sense of safety and belonging. That is why continued investments in the Canada community security program matter. Supporting places of worship, community centres and cultural institutions with enhanced security is not about fear, but ensuring that every Canadian feels safe participating fully in public life. Economic strength and social cohesion go hand in hand. We cannot have one without the other. My community is powered by workers, many of whom are in small and medium-sized enterprises, family businesses and co-operatives. The spring economic update's decision to make the employee ownership trust tax exemption permanent is a practical, forward-looking measure. It would help workers buy into the businesses they helped build, support succession planning for local entrepreneurs and keep jobs rooted in communities like Humber River—Black Creek, instead of being sold off or hollowed out. This is an economic policy that rewards work, loyalty and shared prosperity. Affordability measures are felt especially sharply right now by students and young people. Many families in my riding rely on federal student support to make education possible. That is why extending enhanced Canada student grants and interest-free Canada student loans for the 2026-27 academic year is so very significant. In Ontario, approximately 400,000 students would benefit from these programs. This is about keeping the doors open so that post-secondary education remains a pathway to opportunity, not a barrier or a debt. Economic growth is meaningful only if it improves daily life. Investments through programs like the build communities strong fund recognize that community infrastructure, recreation centres, parks and public spaces are essential to healthy neighbourhoods for everyone. These investments support youth, families, seniors and newcomers. They create safe places to gather, stay active and build connections. In communities like mine, this is how opportunities become tangible. Let me also highlight the renewed support for the community volunteer income tax program. In Ontario alone, over 330,000 returns were filed last year through local clinics that help people with modest incomes, free of charge, access the benefits they are entitled to. For four Saturdays in a row, my constituency office, together with volunteers and community officers, filled out well over 800 income tax forms for many of my constituents. Renewing and expanding this program mean that seniors, newcomers, students and low-income families in Humber River—Black Creek can continue to access vital supports without barriers. The spring economic update also looks to the future. The upcoming Canada investment summit, which will be held in Toronto, will reinforce Ontario's and Canada's position as a global destination for investment in advanced manufacturing, infrastructure, clean energy and artificial intelligence. This builds on our strengths, creates jobs and helps diversify trade at a time when resilience matters more than ever. At the same time, Canada continues to maintain fiscal discipline. The deficit outlook has improved and investments are clearly targeted, not scattershot. Borrowing is focused on building capacity, not papering over problems. This spring economic update reflects the simple but powerful idea that economic policy should be measured by how it shows up in people's lives. In communities like Humber River—Black Creek, it shows up as safer communities, as support for students and workers, as help for families struggling with affordability, and as investments that strengthen neighbourhoods and create opportunity. That is why I am so proud to support this update, and why I believe it deserves the support of everyone in the House. This will help to move Canada forward, to move our businesses forward and to move many communities like Humber River forward to provide more opportunity for the many people who are struggling today and will clearly move forward in a much better way. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this issue today. I look forward to it getting through the House and off to committee, and eventually through Parliament and through the Senate.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Justice

2026-05-05

“I'm cheering for a bill that spends more money and gives more power to the justice system. It's meant to help victims and punish abusers. I don't like that I got some scary calls. That's bad. We need to do more to stop that.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today again, and as well, to support Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. The bill is grounded in a simple but powerful principle: that abuse and harassment are not acceptable, no matter whom they target, and we are not going to normalize that any longer. Bill C-16 puts the safety and dignity of victims first, especially women, children and survivors, by modernizing the Criminal Code to address coercive control and online exploitation. Violence and harassment seldom start with a single act. They emerge through patterns of intimidation. I have experienced personally, as have many of my colleagues, deliberate middle-of-the-night calls meant to intimidate, using a number shared widely by email with incitement to harass. That is not civic engagement. Bill C-16 recognizes those patterns and gives our justice system the tools to intervene earlier and to act. It also strengthens victims' rights and helps ensure that serious cases are not lost to delay. Bill C-16 helps ensure that safety—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

2026-04-27

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later.”

“I want the rules to stay the same as before. The party with the most MPs should get to make the rules. That's how we've always done it.”

“You're whining about majority numbers. We have the right number. People joined us because they want to help during hard times. They want to work on solutions with us.”

“No, that's not why we're adding people to committees at all. The committees will still do all the same work.”

“I want to add more of my party's people to each committee so that we have a majority on every committee. That will help our party stay in control of each committee's work.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to participate in this particular discussion. I will be sharing my time with the great member for Whitby, and I am pleased to be able to do that. It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about Government Motion No. 9, dealing with the composition of committees. Every member in this place understands the critical role that committees play in our parliamentary system. It is in committees where the hard work of legislating gets accomplished as bills are reviewed, amendments proposed and diverse perspectives are considered. This work ensures that legislation is improved upon before it makes its way back to the House. Committees are also a place where issues of importance to Canadians are studied. It is where the hard work of legislating gets accomplished as bills are reviewed, amendments proposed and diverse perspectives are considered. This work ensures that legislation is improved upon before it makes its way back to the House. Witnesses appear and offer their unique perspective. Ministers appear to defend and explain their actions and to be held to account. It is a system that is of the utmost importance to the functioning of democracy. As chair of the international trade committee, I can say that we have had numerous witnesses who have come before us to give us insightful ideas and thoughts on the challenges they are facing in this new world of tariffs. Nothing in the motion that we are debating today would change any of this. Committees would continue to carry out their important functions. Ministers would continue to appear to answer questions and defend their actions, and estimates would continue to be studied. Committees would retain all of the powers they currently have and be free to study anything that is within their mandate. This motion has one goal, and that is to maintain the long-standing tradition in our Parliament that the party that has a majority of seats in the House of Commons also holds a majority of seats on committee. I am going into my 26th year here, and that has always been the case. Whoever was in government was able to get whatever extra seats they wanted. It is not just members on this side of the House who are saying this. It is a recognized tradition within our system. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, first edition, makes it clear on page 819, where it states, “Where the governing party has a majority in the House, it will also have a majority on every House committee.” This is not something that the House leader invented over the weekend and decided he was going to do. Page 819 is very clear on what the practice is to be. Additionally, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states on page 790, “Party representation on committees reflects the standings of recognized parties in the House”. Therefore, the motion we are debating today is entirely consistent with upholding the traditions of the House. It is also important to talk about how the government has proposed to make the changes to committees. It could have looked at previous majority government numbers and mirrored that approach. To do that would have required removing members of the official opposition from committees. The government chose not to do this and instead took an inclusive and collaborative approach, which is what we really have been using for this last year with the successes we have had by all working together. The Prime Minister has been clear that the government intends to work collaboratively with all members of Parliament. The Prime Minister has stated, “We are absolutely focused on working with Parliament, getting legislation through Parliament, adjusting legislation where it needs to be, where it's better informed by discussions in Parliament, where we have to make compromise in order to do it. And we've shown that. We've shown that consistently.” Removing official opposition members of Parliament from committees was an option, as I mentioned, but it was an option the government chose not to proceed with, as we are serious about wanting to work constructively with all members. The government took a different approach. The motion we are debating would simply add members from the governing party to committees to ensure that the party with the majority of seats in the House of Commons also has a majority of seats on parliamentary committees. It is that simple. The changes proposed in the motion reflect the operation of the House of Commons. Namely, the numbers in committee would ensure that the government has a majority and that the chair of the committee would not need to vote and break a tie. The motion was drafted this way to mirror the state of play in the House, as always, where the numbers are such that the Speaker also does not need to vote to break a tie. It is an undeniable fact that the makeup of the House of Commons has changed since committees were formed. The government has gone from a minority government to a majority government. The Conservatives continue to argue about how this occurred, but that does not change the fact that it has occurred. As a result, the government has a duty to ensure that the makeup of committees reflects this reality. Because the change occurred partway through the current Parliament, the government took a responsible and constructive approach to this change that would preserve all the members from the official opposition on committees. We recognize the role these members play at committees. We respect the expertise that they have gained and that they bring to the debate. Much like we want to build Canada strong, we have chosen addition rather than subtraction in our approach. I think it is also worth pointing out that if a government were to go from a majority to a minority, the opposition would demand that committees also reflect that reality, so the motion we are debating today is a reasonable and responsible response to a change in the makeup of the House of Commons. The government has gone from a minority to a majority, and the motion would simply ensure that this is also reflected in committees, as has always been the case. One of the things I really value as a member of Parliament is hearing the diversity of perspectives that all members bring to their work. Canada is such a massive, diverse and beautiful country. Policies affect people differently depending on where they live. By all of us coming together to debate the issues of the day, we all benefit from the perspective of others. This is especially true in the work we do on committees. Legislation is made better through the perspective of others. Issues are studied because members from a particular part of the country think they are important. All of this would continue after the passage of the motion. Committees would continue to do the heavy lifting of Parliament and ensure that all perspectives are heard. I look forward to continuing this important work we all do on committees, and I will continue to work collaboratively with members from all political stripes to build Canada strong. We are at a challenging time in our country right now, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗