House of Commons Hansard #47 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-14.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-4 Mr. Perron raises a point of order on the admissibility of Bloc Québécois amendments to Bill C-4's GST exemption for first-time homebuyers. He argues they do not require a royal recommendation, as they lower revenue. 1100 words, 10 minutes.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act Second reading of Bill C-14. The bill aims to strengthen bail and toughen sentencing, targeting repeat violent and organized offenders. It expands reverse onus provisions and restricts conditional sentences for sexual offences. While the government emphasizes public safety and Charter compliance, the opposition deems it insufficient, arguing previous Liberal laws caused current problems. Other parties express concerns about judicial discretion, the bill's impact on marginalized groups, and provincial resource implications. 47400 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives criticize the Liberal government for its lavish spending on insider bonuses (e.g., $30 million at CMHC) and consultant contracts, alleging cronyism with high-salaried friends. They highlight the resulting affordability crisis for Canadians, citing record food bank visits, doubled rents, and youth unemployment, while questioning the Prime Minister's offshore tax havens and trade failures impacting Canadian farmers.
The Liberals promote their upcoming budget as a plan to build the strongest economy in the G7, focusing on housing affordability for young Canadians, including GST cuts, and investments in skills training and social programs like the national school food program and dental care. They criticize Conservatives for voting against these measures and risking a Christmas election.
The Bloc champions Quebec's self-determination, demanding the repeal of the Clarity Act. They also seek urgent federal support, like a wage subsidy, for the forestry industry against U.S. tariffs and highlight a minister's correction on Driver Inc. inspections.
The NDP advocates for universal public health care, including dental and pharmacare, and opposes cuts to arts and culture funding.

Canada Health Act Second reading of Bill C-239. The bill aims to amend the Canada Health Act to strengthen accountability by requiring provinces to develop and report on frameworks for timely health care access. Critics argue it adds more red tape, duplicates existing reporting, disrespects provincial jurisdiction, and fails to address the federal government's underfunding of health care or the shortage of health professionals. 7100 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

Ship recycling in British Columbia Gord Johns argues for federal investment in ship recycling infrastructure in British Columbia, highlighting the number of vessels needing recycling and the potential for an indigenous-led center of excellence in Port Alberni. Annie Koutrakis says the government recognizes the importance of safe ship recycling and is reviewing international regulations.
Softwood lumber industry Helena Konanz criticizes the Liberal government's inaction on softwood lumber, leading to mill closures and job losses. Annie Koutrakis responds, emphasizing the government's commitment to building Canada's economic strength through housing and infrastructure projects, and its investment in skills training programs for workers.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that we are here to celebrate the contribution of the provinces and the federal government. We are working together to ensure that the justice system serves communities and to improve the justice system in Canada and Quebec.

I have confidence in the work of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They will be able to call on a number of experts who have already been consulted.

Ultimately, I have confidence in the House and the Parliament of Canada.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Guelph Police Service's board in my hon. colleague's riding was pushing for bail reform years ago, endorsing a nationwide campaign of police service boards joining police chiefs and municipalities, calling on the Liberal government to act on this and to recognize the shortcomings in Liberal government policy that have gotten us here.

I fully share the hon. member's desire for public safety and improved measures to deal with criminality.

Does the hon. member acknowledge that it was Bill C-75 that got us here and made this a crisis demanding a response from the government?

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am a new MP here. I have been here about six months. I can tell members that the Guelph Police Service does an extraordinary job in the community and in its advocacy.

What is the point, really, of looking back? Here we are today, having heard the feedback of a number of speakers who are experts in this field, who have provided 80 targeted measures.

Here we are today. I am happy to hear the member opposite say that he fully supports these new measures.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in the House several times today, the principle of restraint was not created in Bill C-75. It was ruled on in a Supreme Court decision, in the Antic decision in 2017, although the principle of restraint is something that was applied in courtrooms far before that as well.

I would like to ask the member about the feedback she is getting from her community on Bill C-14 and all the measures that are contained in it.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have had these ongoing questions. I was a member of city council for six years before; crime in the community, as well as community safety more broadly, is clearly an issue. I quoted a member of the police association in my remarks. I do not want to take the chief out of context, but their police association welcomes the legislation.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, I welcome the new member to the House.

As a potential effect of the bill, it could eventually result in placing more people in detention. From what we have heard from the Liberal government, we are going to have an austerity budget. I wonder if the member could share with us how the government expects provinces and territories to meet the potentially increased demands without the increased budget necessary to do so.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the legislation came about through extensive consultation with the provinces. They will understand what the impacts of the legislation would be. They are responsible for the administration of justice, so I think that we, and all citizens, can expect investments in courthouses, not only in the physical structures but also the staffing, detention centres and mental health facilities, as well as other supports, really, both in the upstream and postcommitment of offences.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

As always, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the wonderful folks of Oshawa. I also want to wish all families in Oshawa a happy Halloween tomorrow and remind everyone that on the last Friday in October, we mark poppy day, when Canadians begin wearing the poppy in remembrance of those who have served and continue to serve our country.

A lot of Canadians are living in a country they no longer recognize. Repeat violent offenders are terrorizing our streets. Law-abiding families are locking their doors in fear and are being encouraged to follow a 9 p.m. shutter routine; meanwhile, the same criminals are released over and over again, free to reoffend within hours. This is a direct consequence of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime agenda through bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which stripped away mandatory jail time and created a culture of catch-and-release.

After years of pressure from Conservatives, pressure the Liberals once dismissed as fearmongering, they have finally admitted what every Canadian already knows, which is that their so-called justice reforms were a disaster.

We are now debating Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which is a bill the Liberals claim would fix the very problems they, of course, created. Let us be clear: Conservatives will work to make sure the bill actually scraps Liberal bail and does not just rebrand it.

I would like to mention a post by one of the Durham Region Liberal MPs, the member for Whitby, who wrote, “Justice is no longer a revolving door. With the Minister of Justice...unveiling the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, our new government is closing the loopholes that once allowed repeat and violent offenders to slip through the cracks.”

I thought it would be prudent to repeat some of the comments made on this post by constituents of mine, as well as others in the Durham Region. John said, “‘Slip through the cracks’? How did it take you ten years to claim to fix a problem that you created with reduced bail and lenient sentences[?]” Darren said, “Thank you...for doing the Conservative thing. Pierre and team are proud. Looks a bit like Bill C-242, but that's okay, right, elbows up?” Scott said, “You guys installed the revolving door.” Derek said, “You know you could have also gotten rid of the bail reform...but instead we got a cut down version of what the [Liberals] voted down last month”. James said, “Look at us! We're slapping a bandaid on the problem we created!” Steve said, “Let's break it, then glue some pieces back together. We can say we are the ‘New Government’ [and] they will never know!” Kent said, “Look at us taking years to realize conservatives were right the whole time.”

In 2019, Bill C-75 enshrined the principle of restraint, directing judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity, even those with violent histories. In 2022, Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for serious crimes, such as robbery with a firearm, drug trafficking and sexual assault. The results have been devastating.

Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearm offences are up 130%, extortion has risen by over 300%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29% across Canada.

These are not abstract numbers. I know I mention them often in the House, but this is because there is a victim behind each statistic, a family shattered and a community left reeling.

This summer saw the heartbreaking murder of Bailey McCourt, who was killed by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail. Just this month, Savannah Kulla, a 29-year-old mother of four, was shot and killed in Brampton. Her accused killer was also out on bail. May both women rest in peace as we continue this fight in their names and in the names of countless others.

I saw the frustration first-hand this summer in Oshawa when I met with Andrew Tummonds and Tim Morrison from the Durham Regional Police Association. They told me what police officers and civilian members have been saying for years: Our justice system has tied their hands. They arrest the same violent offenders again and again, only to see them released the next day, sometimes within hours.

These officers and civilian members need stronger bail laws and the resources to enforce them, monitor offenders, support victims and keep dangerous individuals off our streets. These are the men and women on the front lines, and they have been sounding the alarm for a long time, long before the government finally decided to have half a listen.

At the Victims and Survivors Symposium in Mississauga last month, the Durham Regional Police Service chief, Chief Peter Moreira, put it bluntly. He said, “C-75, introduced in 2019...fundamentally changed bail in this country”. He went on to say:

You can see the problems with C-75. It has...created this imbalance.... One of the driving principles behind C-75 was to impose the least onerous conditions possible.... That sounds great in concept, but...it needs to be balanced against...the safety of victims [and the community]. We see recidivists being at the core of these very, very serious criminal offences..., people we had the opportunity to [detain, to protect victims] and future victims, and that has not occurred.

Chief Moreira was right. Police leaders across the country have been warning that Liberal policies are putting Canadians in danger. It should not have taken years of tragedy for the Liberals to admit they were wrong.

Bill C-14 represents a rare Liberal admission that their justice reforms have failed. It attempts to patch the damage caused by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 but still clings to the same failed framework. This shift is not driven by principle but by politics, yet it is a clear vindication of what Conservatives have said for six long years: Catch-and-release has put Canadians in danger.

One of the most heartbreaking and pervasive forms of violence in this country is intimate partner violence. It is nothing short of an epidemic. Every 48 hours in Canada, a woman or girl is killed.

Recently, I spoke with Cait Alexander from End Violence Everywhere, who survived an attack by her ex-partner when he was out on bail. Her advocacy is giving survivors a voice and exposing the gaps in our justice system. As she has said, Canada has become a graveyard of preventable deaths, with innocent women and children paying the ultimate price while begging for reform and safety.

In Oshawa, I have also heard from Victim Services of Durham Region, The Denise House and Luke's Place. They provide life-saving resources, including shelter, counselling and legal support for women and children fleeing abuse.

I want to thank Durham Regional Police's intimate partner violence unit, based in Oshawa, for the critical work it does every day. The officers and advocates, some of them close friends, stand on the front lines of some of the most dangerous and emotionally devastating situations. I thank each and every one of them from the bottom of my heart. I thank them for the incredible work they do, day in and day out, to serve Oshawa.

When our justice system releases violent abusers back into the same communities where their victims live, it fails those victims completely. Bill C-14 must ensure that repeat domestic violence offenders face real consequences and that public safety, especially for women and children, comes first.

After years of Conservative advocacy and Liberal denial, the government now claims it wants to act. As always, the devil is in the details and Conservatives will make sure, through amendments, that the bill is as strong as possible. Conservatives believe public safety must be the overriding test in bail decisions.

While the government plays catch-up, Conservatives have already been leading. We have introduced and supported legislation to strengthen our justice system, protect first responders and stand with victims.

Bill C-225, a Conservative private member's bill, would strengthen protections for victims of intimate partner violence.

Bill C-221, inspired by Oshawa resident Lisa Freeman, would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to guarantee that victims of crime receive full disclosure.

Bill C-246 would amend the Criminal Code to ensure that sentences for sexual offences are served consecutively rather than concurrently.

Bill S-233, which was recently passed in the Senate and tabled here in the House, and which I was proud to second, would amend the Criminal Code to make it an explicit aggravating factor when assaults involve first responders and health care workers.

Conservatives have been listening. Bill C-14 might sound right, but sound bites do not stop bullies. After all, it took the Liberals six years, multiple ministers and countless victims to finally admit what the Conservatives have been saying since 2019, which is that catch-and-release does not work.

We must protect Canadians and finally scrap Liberal bail for good.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the member said that Conservatives have been listening. I would like the member to clearly demonstrate that.

We have now fulfilled the Prime Minister's commitment to bring in substantial bail reform legislation, which would make our communities safer. We will continue to work with provinces and municipalities. Let there be no doubt about this. We have widespread support for Bill C-14 among stakeholders, whether policing, provinces, Crowns or others.

If the commitment is there in the Conservative Party, we can have new bail laws in Canada before the end of the year. It requires the Conservative Party to listen to what Canadians have said and allow us to fulfill a commitment we made in the last election.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, the only response I can give to that is, what took so long? We have had 10 years of Liberal failure and, for six years, we have seen the devastating effects of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. There is so much that needs to be done. What about all the people lost in all that time for whom we have been advocating? We have been speaking to the police associations. In six years, how many deaths were there? How many assaults on how many women were there?

That is my answer.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Oshawa for her speech. I would like to acknowledge her concern for victims of domestic violence. This is an issue that affects us all and one on which we must all stand together.

That is why I think there are some interesting aspects to Bill C‑14. When Parliament resumed this fall, the Conservatives introduced Bill C‑242, another bill that deals with pretty much the same subject.

I would like to ask my colleague whether the Conservative Party will work together with the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals in committee to improve the bill before us, to fix its flaws, so that we can find common ground and finally help communities to feel safe. People do not feel safe right now. I would like to know whether the Conservatives will co-operate, even though this is not their pet project, their bill. Will they work seriously to improve it so that something good can come of it?

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a legitimate question. Yes, we had Bill C-242, which is still on the Order Paper. However, the measures in Bill C-242 go far beyond what Bill C-14 would do. Of course, if we can see some marked improvement with Bill C-14, a small step is better than no step at all.

We will certainly put the public safety of Canadians first, as always.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC

Mr. Speaker, the folks on the other side seem to want to split their time between insulting us, asking us to please vote for their bill and trying to avoid responsibility for the whole mess in the first place.

If Bill C-14 is the great bill the Liberals claim it is, can my colleague explain why it is necessary in the first place? Who caused the problem in the first place?

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think my speech was super clear on this.

The problem, in the first place, started with Bill C-75 in 2019 and continued with Bill C-5 and the reduction of mandatory minimum sentences. Canadians have been feeling so completely unsafe in their communities for six years. Police associations have been begging us to change this for years. The comments made by folks in Whitby, under a Facebook post by the member for Whitby, made it clear. The revolving door the Liberals are trying to destroy was created by them, built by them and made to work by them so that serious violent offenders could continue to be released on our streets to murder, abuse and harm Canadians on a daily basis.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, I just saw two Liberals stand up. It appears they want to take up time here. Actually, one of them was the member for Winnipeg North. I really enjoy his interventions on the law.

We are talking about the law today. One of my favourite aspects of our banter in the House with the member for Winnipeg North is Bill C-2. It was really interesting to hear him talk. He will often get up and, dare I say, pontificate on the law when it comes to these issues. On Bill C-2, he repeatedly told us, and let us call it pontification again, about how somebody needs a search warrant to get access to mail. However, in the legislation, it clearly says, “The Corporation may open any mail” to see if it contravenes the legislation.

The member for Winnipeg North should be applauded for his zeal in this regard. I love not only how often he says something but also the fervour with which he says it. Unfortunately, the problem is that his officials contradicted this very thing. We spent literally days in the House of Commons debating about mail. I hope that, when the member gives us exhortations on the legal front, he has done his homework this time.

The member tells us he was right the first time. I do not want to say someone is wrong, but I would say he is wrong.

I will go on to something a bit more serious. I learned that a person from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, Fred Sawada, recently passed away. He was an uncle to one of my friends, someone I went to kindergarten with, Kristy Sawada. He was a brother to her father, Jack. They did a lot for the community. They ran service stations, one of which was a few blocks from where I grew up. My deepest condolences go to Fred's family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I would also like to take this time to recognize Ari Jyrkkänen, a young man from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola who contributed tremendously to democracy. In the last year, he was someone who was of great help to me. I want to give him a shout-out. His father, Ken, is a veteran of our Canadian Forces. We thank him for his service. We thank the family for all they have done. I wanted to give him a shout-out.

I was on the phone with a prosecutor not long ago. One thing they said is deficient in this bill, and perhaps the member for Winnipeg North already knows what I am going say, is regarding section 525 of the Criminal Code. This varies from region to region, but section 525 is on a review of bail. The principle is that nobody should be languishing in custody after charge approval.

Back in the day, for instance, in my prior career, I saw a murder file from 1984, I believe. The file was about this thick, which is what a theft file now looks like. Trial dates were set, I think, on the third or fourth court appearance. In other words, people got to trial. It got done. Now people do not get to trial, oftentimes, for a year and a half or two years. It was this mentality that beckoned the Jordan decision.

I am not here to give a discourse. I am here to raise this issue. We have this antiquated law that says there should be a bail review after 90 days in custody. This is assuming a person has only one file, because section 524 operates this way: Let us say somebody is in custody on an indictable matter, such as robbery. They have a bail hearing at day 81 of detention, which can happen. Counsel can just put it off. The person says they want to apply for bail at day 81. If that person is detained at day 81, by virtue of the operation of section 525 and how it has been interpreted in British Columbia, I am told, that person can then have a review of their bail nine days later.

Obviously, this is completely antithetical to what we intend. If they want to have a review of bail, it should be an appeal of bail. A review and an appeal are two very different things. An appeal is saying that the judge messed up. A review is meant to address this ongoing languishing that we do not want people to do when their matter has not gone to trial yet. To me, this is something that needs to be addressed.

I will go on to sex offences. I am trying to think of how many times I have said this in the House. I rose in the House and questioned former minister Lametti about this very issue of house arrest for sex offenders. In fact, I put it to him in committee that there was a mother who offended against her own child. She facilitated an offence. It was absolutely disgusting. Thankfully, it was overturned on appeal. That mother got house arrest. I have said it no less than, probably, 20 times. I gave a speech on this very issue of house arrest for sex offenders two weeks ago. Every single time, the Liberals looked the other way. “There is nothing to see here. There are no issues.” We were constantly told it is the provinces' fault: “Look this way. Look that way. There is no problem with bail. We have it figured out.” Former minister Virani and former minister Lametti actually told us there was no problem.

Yes, I am speaking with a great deal of passion, because I cannot say how many victims have suffered as a result of that inaction. The Liberals will say that the provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. Yes. However, Mr. Speaker, do you know what? The provinces interpret the laws we make in the House. Those ministers, along with many of the people in the House right now, told us we were out to lunch. Hopefully, one of them will be permitted to get up on a question. This is on sex offences against children and house arrest. This is absolutely nuts.

Another aspect we need to look at for clarification is in the reverse onus provision itself. I will be candid. Reverse onuses typically have their place, but, again, we have heard from the Liberals so often about them. Here is the issue with the reverse onus: Typically, though not always, when an accused person is in a reverse onus, in my experience, they are actually in two, three, four or five reverse onuses. We could have somebody who is subject to literally 10 reverse onuses, so we have to recognize that.

The second issue with the reverse onus is that, oftentimes, it will apply to indictable offences only. When the issue was changed in sentencing to say that just about every summary conviction offence could get two years less a day, I believe the motivation behind that was to put more things in provincial court, which operates in a more streamlined manner. Okay, that is fine. There is no issue there, but what that means is that the Crown will proceed by indictment. For those watching, if they do not know the difference , it is felony versus misdemeanour and summary versus indictment. Then we have hybrid offences; the Crown can elect which is which. The whole point was so that the Crown would elect summary.

The reverse onus says that, if somebody has committed an indictable offence, they are in a reverse onus. What about somebody who has 80 convictions, but the Crown expects to seek 18 months of jail, which is fairly serious jail? If they elect to proceed summarily, that person, according to my information, in certain provinces and depending on the jurisdiction, will no longer be subject to the reverse onus provisions. We have a stymying of legislative intent there. This is something I really hope the Liberals deal with.

The last thing missing from Bill C-14 is Bailey’s law. Let us hope the Liberals do not heckle us on this, this time. The reality is that we need to pass legislation on intimate partner violence. We need to create a specific offence on intimate partner violence. We need to recognize the scourge and the plague that is intimate partner violence. I exhort the House, in the strongest language possible, to pass Bill C-225 with the urgency it deserves.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, a strong Canada means strong protections to keep our communities safe. Our new Liberal government is taking a rigorous approach to fighting crime, as evidenced by our many bills, our investments to support law enforcement and our Bill C-14. That legislation proposes more than 80 amendments to the Criminal Code to bring in tougher sentences and stricter bail conditions for repeat and violent offenders.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has urged all parties to pass this bill swiftly to enhance public safety and restore confidence in our justice system. Does my colleague agree with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that we need to pass Bill C-14 swiftly?

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, I see the Liberals are clapping. I wonder where that type of urgency was when we had our jail not bail act. That bill was endorsed by many of the same organizations that are endorsing this bill.

The Liberals are content to say that we need to pass the bill right away because these law enforcement bodies are telling us that they need it. Where was that urgency from the Liberals when the MP for Oxford put forward his bill, when the police association said it needed the bill? Where were the Liberals then? They voted against it, so it is quite hypocritical of them to say that we need to pass this bill right away, or by the same token, that we do not need to pass things the police chiefs say unless it is Liberal legislation. We will scrutinize this legislation and do our best.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. He referenced Bailey McCourt, the tragic, preventable homicide that is still on the books in British Columbia, which was a result of a decision made by a judge to release after conviction pending sentence. Bill C-14 does not close that gap. What would the jail not bail act say in reference to that type of process?

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, when somebody is convicted, the presumption of innocence is gone. I have no problem talking about the Conservative position on bail, which is generally that bail has become too loose, and I believe this bill could actually go much further. I also believe that, when the presumption of innocence has been displaced, as my colleague just mentioned, we need to act in a different manner. The principle of innocent until proven guilty has been displaced.

The principle of restraint is still on the books in such situations. I understand and recognize that Bill C-14 addresses the principle of restraint to a certain degree. It does attenuate it, but it does not remove it. I would go so far as to say that the principle of restraint needs to be reworked. It was common law. It needs to be readdressed.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are currently studying this issue of section 810 and minimum sentences at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We are conducting a study on this subject. What we are hearing, and what we heard in previous studies is that the use of the Jordan decision must also be regulated with respect to gender-based violence.

Earlier, a Conservative member was talking about Cait Alexander, who came to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and talked about her experience as a victim and survivor of domestic violence. She was calling for the Jordan decision to be regulated because, as things stand, some criminals' cases are thrown out because of delays.

How could the Jordan decision be better regulated to meet the needs of victims and survivors in cases of sexual offences and murder?

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

2 p.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, my friend's question about the Jordan principle is an incredibly critical question. The Jordan principle will delay charges. We are waiting far too long to institute charges because the clock starts ticking. A sexual offender who offends against a woman may not be charged until day 365 so that the clock does not start ticking. What happens on that day? That delay is critical to protecting people. I agree with my colleague that we must address Jordan in the House. It is time.

Lise BaconStatements by members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to honour the memory of Lise Bacon, a remarkable woman who passed away yesterday at the age of 91. Her commitment to protecting Quebec culture and the French language have had a profound impact on Quebec.

As the first woman president of the Liberal Party of Quebec, who later became deputy premier of Quebec and the second woman elected to the Quebec National Assembly, she blazed a trail for countless other women who, like her, decided to get involved and make a difference. Her journey is inspiring.

As we observe Women's History Month, her passing reminds us that strong, visionary women like Lise Bacon are the ones who made it possible for others, like me, to dream bigger. Women like Lise Bacon paved the way for the 104 women who are here in the House of Commons today. In my riding of Trois-Rivières, her passing is especially poignant. That is where she grew up and learned the values that guided her entire life: work, respect and service to others.

Today, we thank Lise Bacon for her commitment, her courage and the example she set for everyone seeking a more just Canada and Quebec.

Automotive Industry in Kitchener South—HespelerStatements by members

2 p.m.

Conservative

Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON

Mr. Speaker, I represent Kitchener South—Hespeler, home to Toyota Canada, the largest car plant in our great nation.

I remember when its expansion was announced in 1994. Then, as now, the plant was a source of great community pride. Year after year, it wins awards for the quality of its product and its investments in its people. In 30 years, it has never laid off a full-time employee. It employs more than 8,000 of my friends and neighbours. American tariffs are putting those jobs at risk. That is 8,000 families wondering how they are going to pay their rent, get groceries and afford Christmas gifts for their kids if the Liberal government does not achieve some sort of resolution.

Canadians buy more cars than we make. If we would all commit to buying the cars that we make, we could protect those families. I want my friends and neighbours at the Hespeler Toyota plant to please know that every day I am here, I am fighting to protect their jobs. If Canadians fighting for our country in this ridiculous trade war are buying new vehicles, I would ask that they please consider buying one made in Canada, such as the RAV4s assembled in Hespeler.

I ask the Liberal government to please not sleep on this, show some leadership, show some fight, get this resolved and protect our jobs.

NATO Parliamentary AssemblyStatements by members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister said last week, “Threats from a more dangerous and divided world are unravelling the rules-based international order”. If we do not act now, the pressures will only grow. Our government's commitment to Canadians is clear: protect our sovereignty, defend our democracy and stand strong with trusted allies.

That is exactly what Canadian NATO parliamentarians did recently at the 71st NATO Parliamentary Assembly fall session in Slovenia. We joined our NATO partners to address the most urgent security threats of our time. We discussed how, as NATO parliamentarians, we need to continue to confront Russia's continued aggression head on. We discussed and adopted 15 reports on cybersecurity, disinformation and modern warfare, and we passed resolutions strengthening deterrence measures and ensuring a just and lasting peace for Ukraine.

Make no mistake, we cannot allow might to make right. We will defend the rules-based international order. We will support Ukraine until it wins. Our democracy and our way of life depend on it.

Natural ResourcesStatements by members

October 30th, 2025 / 2 p.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, the last lost Liberal decade killed hundreds of thousands of Canadian energy jobs. More are coming.

In just six months of the Prime Minister, Canadians lost over 18,000 jobs, year over year, in forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying and oil and gas. So many young Canadians, especially young men, and indigenous and visible minorities, who work in natural resources at higher rates than any other sector, need hope and change more than ever before. The Prime Minister says that young Canadians must sacrifice more, but he is sacrificing their futures.

This jobs crisis is due to the Liberal anti-development agenda and the Liberals' just transition Bill C-50, which will kill 170,000 jobs in oil and gas, 1.4 million trades jobs, 642,000 jobs in transportation, 292,000 jobs in agriculture and 193,000 jobs in manufacturing, is still law. If the Liberals are honest, they must scrap all of their anti-development laws to attract investment, bring home jobs and let Canada compete, or is this just another Liberal bait and switch.