Debates of Oct. 30th, 2025

The Economy

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little known fact, because it was not exactly a bestseller, but that man was the Leader of the Opposition's biographer. That would mean he knows some intimate secrets about the Leader of the Opposition.

What I suggest is that he walk down a few stairs, talk to his boss and tell the Leader of the Opposition, the “grinchy” guy, not to steal Christmas from our kids or cause a Christmas election and vote for the budget, because it is going to help Canadian youth and will build the best economy in the G7.

Health

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he wants to make generational investments in nation-building projects. New Democrats agree. We also know that a healthy economy is a healthy workforce.

The NDP pioneered dental care and pharmacare because they deliver essential primary health care to Canadians. We believe every Canadian should have head-to-toe health care regardless of their ability to pay.

Will the Liberals acknowledge that universal public health care is nation building and reflect that principle in their budget next week?

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for his question.

I am the Minister of Health and my role, first and foremost, is to defend the Canada Health Act. I can assure my colleague that we will defend universal health care for Canadians, both before and after the budget.

Finance

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, deep cuts are being planned for the arts and culture sector in the upcoming budget. Festivals and events could lose $22.5 million, reducing their funding to 2007 levels. The Canada Council for the Arts could face a $50-million cut.

Arts and culture not only feed our soul but are a major economic driver, contributing $65 billion to Canada's GDP in 2024 and generating $17 billion in federal and provincial tax revenue. Funding should be increased to support these made-in-Canada jobs.

Will the Minister of Finance scrap these cuts?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, between 2015 and 2024, the government doubled the funding for the arts and culture sector in this country. It has doubled the funding for the Canada Council for the Arts. We will continue to be there for our artists and for our cultural sector.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would like to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Barb Ramsay, Minister of Social Development and Seniors for the Province of Prince Edward Island.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I will rise to ask the traditional Thursday question.

I know I speak for all Canadian baseball fans, who have a lot on their minds this weekend other than what the government's legislation might be next week, as the Blue Jays come home with the wind in their sails as they look to finish the job in games 6 and 7. I know I am very excited for that, and I want to congratulate all the players, teams and fans for an amazing playoff run so far.

I heard a lot of references to the Grinch in the government House leader's answers today. I will point out that, much like the Prime Minister is making food unaffordable for Canadians, so too the Grinch took the roast beast away from the Whos in Whoville. I know that many Canadians cannot afford “whosits and whatsits”, after the government's inflationary deficits have priced families out of being able to buy toys for their children, so I hope it is the government that will remove its Grinch costume and think about an affordable budget for an affordable life for Canadians.

I would like to ask the government House leader what the business for the rest of this week and for next will be for the House, and to ask specifically whether he will show some Christmas cheer and some Christmas charity and allow the House to have a take-note debate on any number of issues that are distressing to Canadians. For example, the official opposition has asked for a take-note debate on softwood lumber, as many Canadian families are heading into the Christmas season out of work from the lumber industry after the punishing tariffs that the Prime Minister has failed to remove.

Will the government House leader schedule a debate on the automotive sector, after thousands of workers in Canada have received pink slips because of the government's failure to get a deal on autos? Will he schedule a debate on agriculture, as our Canadian producers now face tariffs not only from China but also from India, something that the Prime Minister promised to solve? He said he would get a deal and a win for Canada and remove tariffs, but there are actually more tariffs today for Canadian workers than there were when the Prime Minister took office.

Finally, when the budget is introduced on Tuesday, will the Liberals continue to ask Canadians to sacrifice even more so the Liberals can line the pockets of their friends, or will he bring in an affordable budget that allows Canadians to have an affordable life?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in there that was kind of like a Trey Yesavage slider. We will try not to swing or flail too much at all of those hard pitches from the opposition House leader.

Next week, Canadians will have a choice. An affordable budget for an affordable life that would build Canada strong and build the biggest and best economy in the G7 is one choice they have. The second choice is a Christmas election that no one wants, that would follow six months from the last election and that would deprive Canadians of benefiting from the budgetary plan that the government will be presenting next week.

The opposition serves up green eggs and ham, but on this side of the House there is a plan to build Canada strong and build the strongest economy in the G7.

This afternoon, we will continue the second reading debate of Bill C-14, the bail act. Tomorrow, we will resume debate at report stage of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025).

On Monday at noon we will go back to debate on Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, and in the afternoon we will turn to Bill C-4, with major tax cuts for all taxpaying Canadians contained in the affordability legislation, at report stage and third reading.

Next Tuesday we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Tuesday will be a big day. At 4 p.m. the Minister of Finance and National Revenue will deliver the budget speech.

I would also like to inform all hon. colleagues that, as we approach the fateful day when the opposition gets to decide whether it deprives Canadians of their Christmas, Wednesday and Thursday will be days reserved for debate on the budget.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period on October 6, I asked the Minister of Jobs a question about the Driver Inc. scam. In her response, the minister stated that her department had "created a specialized inspection team that has already conducted more than 100,000 inspections and awareness-raising activities in the [trucking] sector."

Today, in the news, we learned that her office has issued a correction and that her department conducted 1,000 inspections, not 100,000. I would like to know whether the Hansard can be corrected, because that represents a difference of 99,000 inspections.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for his comments.

Hansard cannot be rewritten, but his comments are duly noted and will be entered in Hansard.

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nunavut.

I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to strengthen Canada's bail and sentencing laws by tightening release provisions for repeat and violent offenders and ensuring that serious crimes would be met with sentences that reflect their gravity. I would like to focus my remarks today on the proposed changes to the conditional sentence order regime, which is commonly referred to as house arrest.

Conditional sentencing was introduced in 1966 to reduce the overreliance on incarceration and correctional institutions by allowing judges, in appropriate circumstances, to order that a sentence of imprisonment be served in the community under strict conditions. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that conditional sentences are designed to combine the objectives of denunciation and deterrence with the rehabilitation and reintegration of the offenders. Judges must impose conditions that reflect this balance.

Such conditions can include curfews, mandatory counselling, abstention from alcohol or drugs, abstention from owning weapons, and frequent reporting to a supervisor. Breaching any condition can result in the offender being placed in custody to serve the remainder of the sentence. To qualify for such an order, a number of conditions must be met. Number one, an offender must receive a sentence of less than two years. Number two, the court must be satisfied that serving their sentence in the community would not endanger public safety. Number three, such a sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

The Criminal Code imposes other limitations on the availability of conditional sentences even if those conditions are met. Specifically, conditional sentences cannot be imposed for offences that carry a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, or for offences related to terrorism or criminal organizations, when prosecuted by indictment and the maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment, or for the offences of attempted murder, advocating genocide and torture.

Bill C-14 proposes to add new restrictions to the conditional sentence regime to ensure that that conditional sentences would no longer be available for serious sexual offences, including those involving children. In particular, conditional sentences would no longer be available for the following offences: sexual assault when prosecuted by indictment; sexual assault with a weapon; threats to a third party causing bodily harm; aggravated sexual assault; and sexual exploitation of a person with a disability when prosecuted by indictment. In addition, any offence that is of a sexual nature involving a victim under 18 years of age would be ineligible for a CSO when prosecuted by indictment.

These proposed changes to the availability of conditional sentences are measured and deliberate. They would maintain the conditional sentencing option for low-risk offenders in appropriate cases, while reaffirming that sexual violence and exploitation demand more significant consequences.

In my view, these changes are important and necessary. Although appellate courts across the country have affirmed that conditional sentences are not appropriate for sexual offending, there have been a number of decisions in which courts have nevertheless ordered conditional sentences for serious sexual offences, including cases involving minors or vulnerable victims. Given the profound harm these crimes inflict on victims and the need for sentences that clearly denounce such conduct, I am supportive of the proposed amendment to restrict conditional sentences in that type of offending.

Additionally, the proposed changes were to respond to concerns raised by a number of partners and key stakeholders, including the provinces and territories, about the availability of conditional sentences for offenders convicted of sexual assault and other serious sex offences, particularly when those crimes involve children or other vulnerable persons. Partners and stakeholders have been clear and consistent in their views. Conditional sentences should never be available for sexual offences of this nature, and especially not for those committed against minors.

Bill C-14 would respond directly to these calls to reform. It represents constructive federal-provincial collaboration to ensure that sentencing laws strike the right balance between judicial discretion, public safety and society's confidence in the administration of justice. The proposed amendments also respond to the lived experience of victims and survivors. Many of them have described the retraumatization that can result when they learn that an offender has remained in the community after conviction. For survivors, seeing a person found guilty of sexual offences serving a sentence at home can undermine confidence in the justice system and deter others from coming forward.

Let me be clear. Conditional sentences can be an important pathway to accountability and reintegration, but only when the circumstances of the offence and the offender make that outcome consistent with justice and public safety. In some cases, though, conditional sentences are simply not appropriate and send the wrong signal.

In closing, I would like to convey that Bill C-14 represents necessary and responsible criminal law reform. It demonstrates that Parliament can respond thoughtfully to emerging challenges in the justice system by refining the law to reflect both fairness and accountability. It strikes the right balance so that our sentencing framework remains coherent, consistent and worthy of public trust.

For those reasons, I urge all members to support the swift passage of Bill C-14, a set of reforms that reaffirm our collective commitment to a justice system that stands for victims, protects communities and preserves the integrity of the justice system. In doing so, we send a clear message that fairness and safety can reinforce each other and that the criminal justice system in Canada will always remain both principled and strong.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives worked hard to repeal Liberal bail. We introduced legislation weeks ago. Unfortunately, the Liberals refuses to work with us. They refused to propose amendments, and ultimately, they defeated our bill because it was put forward by us, not them.

Now the Liberals have introduced their own bill and are calling for co-operation. I want to be clear that we will work with anyone and everyone to protect Canadians, but there have been several victims of crimes perpetuated by people out on bail in the interim.

Will the member admit that Liberal bail was a failure and apologize to those victims? Will he admit that the Liberals played politics with Canadians' safety?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the member opposite that we do not play politics and we do not play with slogans. We are here to defend Canadians, and we will do whatever it takes to defend them.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. What is the factual basis for the government's claim that the bail system is broken? When the Minister of Justice announced Bill C-14, he said that accused persons had a "get out of jail free" card, and that being granted bail was incredibly easy.

The figures show that, in Canada, 71% of inmates in provincial or territorial prisons are currently awaiting trial. These are people who were denied bail. In the 1980s, 75% of people were denied bail and now it is even harder to get.

What is the factual basis for what the government is trying to do?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, may I request that my friend repeat his question? The translation was not working.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We will pause the clock briefly.

I would ask the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj to repeat his question.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. The Minister of Justice said that under the current system, when someone is charged, they have a free pass that they can show and they will be released right away. I want to know the factual basis for that claim.

The figures show that, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, 70% of people in provincial prisons are currently awaiting trial. By comparison, in England, that figure is 20%. We imprison a lot more people before their trial here in Canada. Another thing worth noting is that people are being put in prison to await their trial far more now than they were in the 1980s.

What exactly is the problem that my colleague and his government want to solve?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before introducing this legislation, our Attorney General travelled across the country. He met with mayors. He met with police forces. He met with all the other people who are responsible for law enforcement in Canada. These are the things we were told. This is what needs to be done to create confidence among Canadians in our justice system. That is exactly what our legislation will do.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his work when it comes to protecting people in Surrey, where we both come from. An issue particularly on the rise there is extortion. How would the bill help to make people feel safe in their communities from acts of extortion?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the number one thing to note is that people who take part in extortion would have to prove to a judge that they are worthy of being released, rather than it being the responsibility of the Crown.

Second, we would be able to look into their history, going back 10 years. If they are sentenced, they would have to serve their sentence. If it is two five-year terms, it would not be one term. They would have to serve exactly 10 years.

Those are the things that would make sure criminals do not continue to do what they are doing.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen violent crime increase by 55% in the last 10 years under the Liberal government. Sexual assaults are up 60%. Homicides are up 29%. The Liberals keep releasing criminals onto the streets under the least onerous conditions available.

What does the member have to say to victims of crime who have seen this repeatedly across our country? How can he justify not taking faster action to keep criminals behind bars, where they belong?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation has been brought in to ensure that what my friend on the opposite side said does not happen again. We are bringing in legislation to toughen the law and ensure that Canadians feel safe in their homes and that laws are there to protect them.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-14 as the NDP justice critic, and I acknowledge that there is huge public concern about the bail system and that Canadians want to feel safe.

The New Democrats, having read through this bill, have concerns. There are real challenges in our bail system. Some examples include the high detention rate of those charged and awaiting trial. One-third of those charged are never convicted of anything. Jails are full and bursting. This bill does not address resources for provinces and territories, which would have to bear the burden of this bill. While in detention, there is no access to supportive programming, like drug and alcohol addiction programs and any other substance abuse programs. There is a severe lack of data about the number of people out on bail who are reoffending. Of course, we all know there is an overrepresentation of indigenous and marginalized communities in corrections.

Conservatives like to talk about catch and release to stoke fear. Most of these are urban, public disorder problems caused by poverty, drugs, alcohol and mental health problems.

Jurisdictions all over the world, including the United States, have a tough-on-crime approach to bail, which does not make communities safer. We see that all the time in the media. Often, these policies make communities less safe and increase recidivism.

Regarding pretrial detention, I have some facts to share. Over the past 30 years, the rate of pretrial detention in Canada has more than tripled. The rate is far higher in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and most western European nations. The poor, the homeless and those suffering from addiction or mental health issues are more likely to be denied bail and held in detention because of a few factors: They do not have phones, do not have access to stable housing and employment, which are necessary to meet the requirements of bail, or lack friends and relatives who could serve as sureties.

More than 60% of those being held in provincial correctional institutions are awaiting trial. Many detainees are never convicted of an offence, and less than 65% of charges result in convictions. Those in pretrial detention have no access to alcohol, drug, or mental health programs. Even short periods in detention lead to higher rates of future conflict with the law. More than 40% of those detained are held for longer than a month. Pretrial detention often has serious impacts that can lead to loss of housing, employment and custody of children.

For those who do get bail, failure to meet conditions set out for bail often leads to additional criminal charges. Too many of those lack the personal supports and resources necessary to meet those conditions.

As I mentioned briefly, there is a serious lack of data and evidence-based information for reform. That is what we are calling for. No jurisdiction in Canada collects standardized data about the number of people out on bail and what their bail conditions were when offences were recommitted while on bail.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association made a submission to the justice committee and included recommendations about data collection. It cited the importance of grounding amendments to the Criminal Code in data and evidence. Regarding legislative reform, it must be done once adequate data has been collected. The federal government must collaborate with provinces, territories and civil society to launch specific initiatives to collect and report standardized data about bail systems to inform legislative reforms. There must also be improved conditions in provincial and territorial jails, because the potential for poor conditions undermines the objectives of preventing crime and ensuring rehabilitation. There is a lack of leadership from the federal government regarding data collection in the criminal justice system.

Another concern is the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the corrections system. Indigenous people are drastically overrepresented in the corrections system.

This bill would establish a broad category of reverse onus bail provisions applying to many offenders. It would have a disproportionate effect on indigenous, racialized and marginalized Canadians. There are, of course, specific Nunavut concerns because of the lack of infrastructure and a travelling court system.

Canadians' concerns about violent repeat offenders are real. New Democrats are also concerned, but rushing ahead with reforms without data and without considering the impact on indigenous and marginalized groups is a huge concern. These broad reforms, without informed data or evidence, are not the solution.

New Democrats have a different approach to bail reform. There need to be pragmatic and achievable solutions to keep communities safe. They need to address the root causes of crime, and justice reform should be targeted, not broadly capture everyone.

We need to provide better supervision for those on bail. Another solution is on-demand drug, alcohol and mental health treatment programs to end the revolving door of criminality.

For these reasons, the NDP believes in supporting and expanding community-based bail supervision programs. For example, the John Howard Society has run bail supervision and verification programs in partnership with the Ontario Attorney General since 2011. These programs now operate in 17 Ontario communities.

The success rate of these programs is over 90% in making sure bail conditions are observed and clients show up in court. The cost is five dollars per day, as opposed to $184 per day for detention in Ontario, and this has reduced the overall numbers in pretrial detention. These programs ensure those on bail meet their conditions and have opportunities to be connected to alcohol, drug and mental health treatment programs.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association agrees with the NDP that Canada must increase support for community corrections. Additional bail supervisors must be hired, and alternate bail release and supervision programs must be implemented, with a focus on offenders with mental health or addiction challenges.

The NDP is cautious in our approach to this bill, and we will continue to consult with women's groups, civil liberties groups and indigenous groups to ensure their voices are being heard.