Ruby Sahota

In response to a question from Rhéal Éloi Fortin

“We made sure this bill still lets people talk about religion, politics, or science. They just cannot spread hatred against any group or treat Jewish people badly.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would agree. In addition to that, we included, for greater certainty, a clause to clarify that nothing prevents a person from communicating statements on matters of public interest, such as religious, political or scientific matters, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group or wilfully promote anti-Semitism.”

In response to a question from Jacob Mantle

“This bill only punishes people who clearly intend to spread hate. It follows our constitution and protects people of all religions. Its goal is to keep Canadians safe and stop hate crimes.”

“Mr. Speaker, this bill is very targeted and would address hate crime with the mens rea, the intent, to wilfully promote hate. I believe that is constitutional and is within the means. It would protect all faiths in this country. The intention of the bill is to protect Canadians and to make sure that people are deterred from committing hate crimes in Canada.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Frank Caputo

“I want us to end debate and pass this bill. It will keep Canadians safe in their places of worship.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is a platform promise that our newly elected government made last May. This bill was introduced on September 19, and it has gone through all the democratic channels through this legislative process. I believe it is now time for us to end debate on the bill so that Canadians can be safe in their places of worship.”

• 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 to limit debate on the Senate's changes to this hate crime bill to five hours. After that, the House must vote on them right away.”

“moved: That, in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of the Senate amendment to the Bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the said stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.”

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will help police investigate crimes faster, but the Conservatives are delaying it.”

“Mr. Speaker, do members know what victims in my community ask me? They ask me how long investigations will take. In order to speed up investigations and provide further tools to law enforcement, they need Bill C-22 to pass. However, the Conservatives in this House have been delaying that bill and have been on the side of social media giants, instead of on the side of Canadians so that public safety can be served.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 12 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“I want to praise police forces across Canada for their hard work fighting organized crime. They have made many arrests. Canada is cracking down on these international crime groups and will punish them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Durham police, Peel police and many police forces around this country that are working very hard, day in and day out, to crack down on organized crime. They have laid many arrests and many charges, and the criminal justice system will be dealing with these criminals. These are organized international crime groups. Many countries are suffering from their coordinated efforts, but Canada is cracking down and will punish these criminals.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

“Victims and their families want this bill passed to protect women and children. I want to know if the Conservatives will vote for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have met many victims across this country and families who have lost loved ones to femicide, and they are very eager to see this bill go forward. There has been a lot of co-operation at the committee level, as well as amendments that have been accepted. Some were outside of the scope, however. I really wanted to know whether the Conservatives will be supporting this bill, which would be a large change and protect women’s rights and the rights of children.”

“Too many court cases are thrown out because of delays. This bill stops complex cases from being dismissed so victims can get justice. What does the member think about that?”

“Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the bill that I also find very interesting, and that victims groups have been advocating for, was the court delays issue and the fact that so many cases are getting dismissed from our provincial courts right now because of the delays. This also provides an exception when cases are complex so that these cases do not get dismissed and so that victims get their day in court and get justice. This bill is about protecting victims’ rights. What is the member’s opinion on that?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It protects victims and sets 12 mandatory minimum sentences for criminals. I worry the Conservatives will vote against it.”

“Mr. Speaker, with every speech I hear, I am starting to feel more and more worried that the Conservatives may vote against one of the most ambitious changes in criminal reform when it comes to protecting victims in this country. This bill would create incredible changes. It would account for new technology. It would implement 12 mandatory minimum penalties. The Conservatives are fixated on making sure that it is all or nothing, so that victims do not get heard in court, so that perpetrators get away with their crime. We do not want them to get away. What we want is for them to have to serve mandatory minimum penalties. This is why the lesson from the Senneville case is not that Parliament should abandon this but that Parliament—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 35 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“This bill is actually tougher on crime. When minimum sentences do not have exceptions, courts strike them down. Our bill protects these sentences so criminals still go to jail.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am tired of hearing the exaggeration throughout the debate on this bill. The bill would be tougher on crime overall, because without a safety valve, mandatory minimum penalties would often get struck down. What we would do through the bill is keep minimum penalties in place. We could actually make sure that people serve a sentence when they commit a heinous crime. Really, the Conservatives are fake tough on crime, because what they have achieved is the cancellation of all these minimum sentences through charter challenges. What we would do in this bill is make them mandatory, and therefore make them tougher.”

“When the Conservatives made mandatory minimum sentences that broke the rules of the Supreme Court, it led to many court challenges. Because of that, people were not convicted.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have seen in the past that when the Conservatives have gone against mandatory minimums in cases that the Supreme Court has held are unconstitutional, there have been floods of litigation after. As a result, people did not get convictions, and so it is really important—”

“The Conservatives are wrong to say there will be no penalties under this bill. The bill keeps mandatory minimum sentences. It fixes problems raised by the courts so our sentencing rules follow the Constitution.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for me to correct the record. The member’s speech was extremely sensational. I know the Conservatives are trying to get a rise out of people and tell them that somehow there are going to be no penalties for anyone in any case. There are minimum penalties that are in our Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-16 also still maintains a minimum penalty. That is what, technically, the bill would do. In the Senneville decision, there were some questions left, and we addressed those gaps and questions through the bill. That decision did not hold that all minimum sentences are unconstitutional, but it gave some examples of where they may be in violation of section 12. It was really important for us to make sure we address that so we do not risk other minimum—”