(Return tabled)
House of Commons Hansard #46 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was young.
House of Commons Hansard #46 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was young.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act First reading of Bill C-253. The bill requires the federal government to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income to address severe poverty and food insecurity across Canada, particularly in Nunavut. 200 words.
Criminal Code First reading of Bill S-233. The bill amends the Criminal Code regarding assault against health service providers and first responders, aiming to protect them from unprecedented violence. 200 words.
Bail and Sentencing Reform Act Second reading of Bill C-14. The bill strengthens Canada's criminal laws, focusing on bail and sentencing reforms. It aims to keep repeat violent offenders detained by clarifying the principle of restraint and introducing reverse onus for specific crimes. Sentencing changes include aggravating factors for crimes against first responders and critical infrastructure, consecutive sentences, and ending house arrest for serious sexual assaults. Conservatives deem it "good, but not good enough", while the Bloc questions its data basis and overall impact. 14100 words, 2 hours.
Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-4 Kevin Lamoureux raises a point of order on Bloc Québécois amendments to Bill C-4. He argues expanding the GST rebate for new housing infringes the Crown's financial prerogative, requiring a royal recommendation, and seeks their removal. 1100 words, 10 minutes.
National Strategy on Housing for Young Canadians Act Second reading of Bill C-227. The bill establishes a national strategy on housing for young Canadians (ages 17-34), aiming to address their housing needs. While the Liberal proponent sees it as complementing existing efforts and a relatively non-partisan issue, Conservatives argue it is another bureaucratic report that won't solve the current crisis caused by Liberal policies. The Bloc Québécois calls it useless and an empty shell, suggesting the government should instead release money owed to provinces. 9100 words, 1 hour.
(Return tabled)
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
With regard to the consultative process for Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures: (a) what meetings or correspondence did the ministers and staff responsible for the preparation of Bill C-2 undertake with (i) women and gender equality organizations, (ii) migrant and refugee rights organizations; (b) did the government seek a legal opinion from the Privacy Commissioner concerning the legal validity of Bill C-2, prior to introducing it in the House of Commons; and (c) what steps did the government take to ensure that Bill C-2 was compliant with the 1951 Refugee Convention, prior to introducing it in the House of Commons?
(Return tabled)
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
With regard to requests made by First Nations in Manitoba to the government over the past five calendar years: (a) which First Nations have made requests to Indigenous Services Canada for fire prevention and fire fighting resources, including, funding for (i) personnel, (ii) training, (iii) direct training, (iv) protective gear, (v) water pumps, (vi) hoses, (vii) vehicles, (viii) hand tools and portable fire suppression or controlled-burn equipment; (b) which of the requests in (a)(i) to (a)(viii) were fulfilled; (c) for the requests fulfilled, how long did Indigenous Services Canada take to (i) answer the request, (ii) deliver the resources; and (d) how much funding has been allocated by Indigenous Services Canada for the provision of these resources?
(Return tabled)
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
With regard to the program evaluation of the College and Community Innovation Program and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council’s Community and College Social Innovation Fund, launched in May 2024: (a) what is the current status of this evaluation; (b) when will the evaluation be completed; (c) where and when will the results of the evaluation be published and made available to the public; and (d) if the results are not being made available to the public, (i) why not, (ii) who made the decision to keep them secret?
(Return tabled)
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
With regard to expenditures incurred by the government related to relocation or moving expenses for staff members of the Office of the Prime Minister, since March 14, 2025: (a) how many staff members had relocation or moving expenses which were covered by the government; and (b) what is the total value of such expenditures to date?
(Return tabled)
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Armed Forces: what was the procedure and what criteria led the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre - Halifax to suspend the search on August 7, 2025, for the two people from Havre-Saint-Pierre who went missing at sea on August 5, 2025?
(Return tabled)
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise today to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes on October 25.
First, I would like to clarify that I do not believe this issue is a matter of privilege that should take precedence over all other business in the House.
That being said, I would like to inform the Chair that the question raised in the House on October 25 is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in accordance with a motion adopted by that committee on October 23.
Furthermore, it is appropriate for the Chair to await a committee report to the House before intervening in such matters, and no committee report has been presented to the House.
Therefore, I believe it is premature for the Chair to rule on this question and that it would be more prudent to wait for a report from the committee on this matter, which will provide more context on its study and recommendations. This would also be consistent with the practices and rules of the House, which clearly stipulate that the Chair must not intervene in matters before a committee until a report has been tabled in the House.
To simplify things for the Chair and members who do not sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as noted in the meeting minutes, on October 23, 2025, the committee agreed:
That the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner be invited to appear for one hour in relation to the study of the forms and procedural and interpretative guidelines from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Madam Speaker, before I start, I seek unanimous consent to split my time.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George.
It is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the fine constituents of my riding, and it is significant for me as a former participant in the criminal justice system for almost two decades. This is an issue that I have been pushing for, and it is an issue for which I have been advocating for change. Really, it is one of the rationales as to why I left the Crown attorney system in Ontario and sought to become a legislator, which was to make and pass laws that would improve community safety.
If we take a look at the last 10 years, we see rising crime rates, which is a very serious matter right across the country. I have embarked on a cross-Canada tour and engaged with all of the stakeholders we can imagine who would have a position on this. All of them were unanimous in what needs to be done. For the last four years, these stakeholders engaged in their own advocacy with the federal government, writing to not only the current justice minister but also former justice minister Virani to affect change. For four years, that was largely ignored.
We know how we got to this situation. I often get asked the question as to why the Liberals are so preoccupied with the rights of the accused at the expense of victims and community safety. I have never really had a concrete answer to provide without doing a bit a research, so I did that.
Surprisingly, this goes back almost 50 years, to the early 1970s. The Trudeau government, this time the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, appointed a solicitor general by the name of Jean-Pierre Goyer, who stood in the House of Commons, not this building but Centre Block, and proudly proclaimed in the House, at that time, his intention to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society. That struck me as a wow moment, as it is the origin of the whacked out hug-a-thug mentality of the Liberal government in making it so much easier for them to conduct their trade.
We then heard from Justin Trudeau and his justice ministers, who said to not blame them, that they are simply following what the Supreme Court of Canada literally asked them to do to codify changes in bail with the passage of Bill C-75.
I have read those decisions, both in my professional capacity and, again, as a parliamentarian. Specifically, I am referring to the decisions of Antic, Zora and St-Cloud, which never instructed the federal government to do anything and never instructed it to codify any principle in the Criminal Code.
How criminal justice is administered in this country is that we follow the Criminal Code. We also bear in mind case law, the decisions of our lower courts, the decisions of our superior courts, the decisions of appellate courts and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is how the administration of justice works.
Justin Trudeau and the current Liberal government did not have to do anything, but they did.
At the time, and this was 2019, I was in the trenches. I was dealing with bail court. I was asking myself why it has become exceedingly difficult. There would be an obvious case, such as when someone had proven themselves to be unreliable in making promises and to be a menace to not only themselves but also the community, but they were being released. Of course, we would get memos from our superiors in Ontario and Queen's Park, and, lo and behold, I found out that the federal Liberal government had changed the law, changed the direction and changed the trajectory of what bail court is all about.
This also instructed, in my view, all judges and justices of the peace who hear bail applications every single day to prioritize the release of the accused with the principle of restraint, releasing them at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. That is and will always be the origin of catch-and-release. I lived it. I experienced it, and unfortunately, the rest of Canada is still experiencing it.
Then the Liberal government made it worse in 2022 when it decided it had to pass Bill C-5 to make it even easier and softer for criminals to get through the criminal justice system. It decided that, for all the most serious gun offences, to take away the mandatory minimum penalties and to give the ability to ask for conditional sentences for very serious offences. We all know the consequences. Then the government started to hear from the stakeholders, and again it promised that it was listening and would make some changes. Hence, it introduced Bill C-48, which increased reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code. We know that did not have the desired impact.
When I look at Bill C-14, I see more reverse onus provisions, much like those in Bill C-48. I cannot say that this bill is Bill C-48 2.0, because it is not. I listened to the justice minister, who wants to provide some confidence to Canadians and victims that the Liberals are finally getting it right, that they are striking the right balance and that community safety is going to be paramount, but there is nothing in Bill C-14 that directs judges not to release in certain circumstances. It makes recommendations that they should not give primary consideration to early release, but it does not mandate that these dangerous repeat criminals should remain in custody. We all know what happens when we lock up the repeat violent criminals. It is that crime rates go down. In fact, when we look at Statistics Canada's statistics over the last 15 years, over the last four or five years of the Stephen Harper government, the crime rate went down significantly. When we look at that same graph, we see a spike the moment Justin Trudeau took government and every year thereafter.
I am not saying that Bill C-14 is going to be manna from heaven, because it is not. It is being supported by law enforcement, just like they supported Bill C-48, because, let us face it, law enforcement is desperate for something. I have spoken to all of the major stakeholders who are now saying in the media that they support Bill C-14. They have made recommendations to the government, and some have been captured, but not all. There are many avenues for improvement, and I would encourage the government, as it listens to the debate in the House and, ultimately, as it reviews it at committee, to look at the common-sense solutions in the member for Oxford's jail not bail act. That would provide direct instructions to judges on how to deal with repeat violent criminals.
If we start by scrapping the principle of restraint and replacing it with the principle of public safety and protection, that is an instruction that would telegraph to judges that, when they are dealing with a class of individual who has been on a number of releases or who has a criminal record, it shows repeated behaviour of not abiding by conditions, and the priority is on the protection of the community, not the convenience of the accused. I encourage the government to look at that.
Bill C-14 is good, but not good enough. Conservatives will make it better.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, we all know that the Prime Minister made a solemn commitment to Canadians when he said that we would bring forward bail reform legislation. A phenomenal amount of work has been done in consultations with a wide spectrum of stakeholders, whether it was provinces, territories or indigenous leaders. There has been so much consultation on it. We now have substantial bail reform legislation before us. There are mayors, premiers and individuals who want to see Parliament act on this legislation.
Would the member not agree that it would be a wonderful thing to commit to seeing this bail reform legislation ultimately pass and even get royal assent before the end of the year?
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Madam Speaker, it is optimistic for the member to suggest that the bill could be passed by the end of the year. I am hoping, as we consider it as an opposition party, that my friend's party would also consider reasonable amendments to improve the bill. I said that it is good, but it is not the best, and it can be improved.
My friend talks about a substantial bail reform package. I would disagree with the use of the word “substantial”. There is some relief here that law enforcement would like. The reality though, in practical terms, is that it would not separate out those offenders who should not be in consideration of getting bail. I encourage the member to read the proposed jail not bail act, which provides great counsel on that issue.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, the member's take on the legislation is fascinating. I know how hard he has worked in this area. I would be very grateful to share ideas for reasonable amendments.
My sense from the minister is that he and the government are open to amendments. My question to my hon. colleague is this: Has he also been asking to see how open the Liberals are to improve the bill through amendments?
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Madam Speaker, could the member repeat her last line? I did not quite catch it. There was some talking in the background and I could not hear it.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Apparently there was some issues with the sound.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands can repeat the question.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked me to repeat the last line, which was to ask my colleague if he had indications, as I feel I have, that the government will consider helpful amendments that would allow us to support the bill. I know that he has criticisms, and I have criticisms. Maybe we can compromise and get a better bill.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Madam Speaker, my relationship with our current justice minister is vastly different from those with previous justice ministers. He is open to conversation. We have exchanged our personal cell numbers. I spoke about the bill with him this past weekend. He knows that we are going to be putting forth reasonable amendments. He has indicated a willingness to look at that. In fact, I am even going to suggest that I would pass those on to him even before we get to committee because I think there is an opportunity for the House to work together to make this the best possible bail and sentencing reform that we can produce at this juncture in time.
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot today that the Liberal government coming up with workarounds for the old Bill C-75, which introduced section 493 to the Criminal Code, which is the principle of restraint in the administration of bail in bail court.
Instead of doing these workarounds, could we get rid of section 493 altogether? The Liberals are blaming it on the Supreme Court of Canada, but we were never instructed to change the law.