QUESTION PERIOD — Ministry of Justice
Extortion Offences
May 28, 2026
I want to pick up on that, minister.
Extortion-related crimes have surged in this country by 330% since 2015. Violent, organized criminal networks are targeting law-abiding families, and small- and medium-sized businesses are living and working in fear. It is unacceptable in Canada.
Last weekend, the Peel Regional Police charged 17 non-citizens connected to an international extortion ring, the so-called For Brothers criminal network, which was preying on members of the South Asian community in the Greater Toronto Area.
You know, minister, very well that the opposition supports certain elements of your crime legislation. It continues to fall short, unfortunately, in meaningfully addressing serious violent offences such as extortion.
How do you justify introducing so-called tough-on-crime measures while simultaneously proposing safety-valve provisions that would allow judges to sidestep mandatory minimum sentences under the Criminal Code?
Let’s keep in mind that the operation of that safety valve comes on the recommendation of a number of different parliamentarians, including the Public Safety critic of the Conservative Party of Canada, who sits alongside me in the House of Commons.
More broadly, the issue of extortion could not be taken more seriously. Of course, there are extremely serious penalties that exist in the Criminal Code today, including some mandatory minimums, but those would only have some residual discretion where the penalty would be grossly disproportionate.
Moreover, in my engagement with law enforcement, what they’ve told me when it comes to extortion is not that the solution has anything to do with the response to the decision included in the bill but instead giving them the tools that they need to prevent and prosecute these crimes.
Specifically, Bill C-22, the lawful access act, 2026, is the number one tool that they cite to me that will help them bust extortion rings.
In addition, we have new measures relating to bail when it comes to violent extortion and consecutive sentencing when it comes to extortion and arson, for example.
We are taking action that is serious. There are serious penalties on the books. But the missing pieces of the puzzle, according to the law enforcement I’ve spoken with, are the investigative tools that they need in order to bust these extortion rings.
I take the Peel Region’s news with 17 arrests as a good thing that will help reduce crime not only in the Peel Region but potentially across other parts of the country. I believe it will better equip police forces to continue their good work by advancing the important tools that they’ve asked for.
Minister, compassion and leniency are important, but I think things have gotten a little bit out of hand. Among those arrested in the Peel Region last week was an individual reportedly wanted for murder in his country of origin.
You were the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. You allowed these individuals into Canada. Now, in the Justice file, you’re proposing measures that risk handing down lenient sentences for serious violent crimes.
Minister, our critic on the other side doesn’t sit with you; he sits on the other side of you. We support, as I said, some measures of tightening up the Criminal Code, as your government is attempting to do. However, why won’t you restore Canadians’ confidence in the integrity of our criminal justice system and commit to removing the safety valve provisions from Bill C-16 that are not going to have the desired effect?
With enormous respect, though Frank Caputo may sit on the other side of the chamber from me, we are both working alongside one another to serve the interests of Canada.
One point of agreement, given his public statements in the past — again, now serving as the Public Safety Critic — was that he didn’t just suggest, he implored his colleagues in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and others to specifically adopt a safety valve approach. We have a high degree of confidence that it will protect the constitutional scrutiny that will inevitably come upon different mandatory minimums that exist in the code because it also follows not only the political statements of different actors but guidance from the Supreme Court itself. There were different ways we could have chosen to do this, but the manner we chose was to restore mandatory minimums, protect those which are on the books but offer some —
Thank you, minister.
