House of Commons Hansard #53 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was investments.

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.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance Members debate the government's budgetary policy. Conservatives criticize high deficits, inflation, and taxes, arguing it harms small businesses and affordability. Liberals defend generational investments in social programs, infrastructure, and defence, claiming it builds a stronger economy. The Bloc Québécois criticizes insufficient provincial transfers and continued oil subsidies. The NDP raises concerns about mental health and veterans' support. 14500 words, 2 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives heavily criticize the government's record spending and largest budget deficit outside of COVID. They argue this fuels inflation and unaffordability, leading to 2.2 million Canadians using food banks. They condemn the industrial carbon tax for raising food costs and the luxury tax cut for private jets, while highlighting massive interest payments.
The Liberals focus on the 67,000 new jobs created and promote Budget 2025 as building a strong economy. They highlight investments in housing, healthcare, Indigenous services, and the military, alongside tax cuts and initiatives to fight climate change and support francophone immigration.
The Bloc criticizes the government's budget for failing to meet Quebec's needs in areas like health care and housing, accusing Liberals of pandering to Conservatives instead. They also raise concerns about lobster smuggling and political interference in fisheries enforcement.
The Greens raise concerns about the growing ecological deficit due to inaction on climate and nature for future generations.
The NDP criticize the Liberal budget's climate plan for ignoring future generations and demand renewed funding for Indigenous friendship centres.

An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to survivor pension benefits First reading of Bill C-256. The bill aims to eliminate a "gold digger clause" denying survivor pension benefits to spouses of veterans and federal civil servants who married after age 60, described as "archaic" and "sexist." 400 words.

Petitions

Jail Not Bail Act Second reading of Bill C-242. The bill, C-242, aims to amend the Criminal Code to prioritize public safety in bail decisions, especially for repeat violent offenders. It proposes repealing the principle of restraint, expanding reverse onus, and tightening risk assessment. Conservatives support it for safer streets. Liberals call it constitutionally questionable and redundant, citing their own Bill C-14 as a responsible alternative. The Bloc Québécois raises constitutional principles and prison capacity concerns. 8300 words, 1 hour.

Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Bill C-242 Jail Not Bail ActPrivate Members' Business

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, improving safety in our communities is a mainstay of our Liberal platform.

Six months into the new government's mandate, we have clearly backed up our commitments with a series of concrete actions, as the budget tabled earlier this week shows.

During the election campaign, we promised Canadians that this new government would make bail reform and tougher sentences a priority. That is exactly what we are doing with Bill C‑14, for example.

On this side of the House, our approach is responsible and constructive. We ensure that proposed amendments to the Criminal Code are constitutional. Otherwise, if the bill passes, the courts would strike it down. This wastes time and resources, and leaves Canadians disheartened. That is not something we want.

Looking at Bill C‑242, one really has to wonder whether our colleagues in the official opposition have really taken the time to analyze it from a constitutional perspective. If my colleagues' goal is truly to make communities safer, I wonder why they are promoting a redundant bill that creates confusion and poses constitutional risks, rather than working to implement Bill C‑14.

I will take the next few minutes to explain why Bill C‑14 is a step in the right direction to make our communities safer, as we committed to do during the election campaign. Bill C‑14 proposes a comprehensive reform of Canada's bail and sentencing systems, with more than 80 targeted amendments. This is a major undertaking that will meet the public's expectations. It includes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

With regard to strengthening the bail system, Bill C‑14 will create new reverse onus provisions for serious and violent crimes. This means that bail will no longer be the norm for these types of crime. The accused would be detained by default, and would then have to prove why they should be released on bail. This applies to crimes that are plaguing our society. I am thinking in particular of organized auto theft. In recent years, people going on vacation are finding that their vehicles have been stolen from the airport. People should not have to worry about whether or not they will find their vehicle when they return home. We are therefore going to make bail harder for people who engage in organized auto theft.

We are going to crack down on home invasions. People should feel safe in their own homes. It will be more difficult for those who attack people in their own homes to get bail. The same is true for people who engage in human trafficking and smuggling. People who exploit vulnerable individuals should have a harder time getting bail, and that is what we are doing with Bill C‑14. This bill also addresses crimes such as violent assault, sexual assault and extortion involving violence. It will be more difficult for those who commit such crimes to get bail in Canada. I believe that this is what Canadians expect of us.

We are also going to ask the courts to take into account allegations of random or unprovoked violence. Let us say that someone attacks me when all I was doing was walking down the street, minding my own business. That will be an aggravating factor that must be considered when determining whether the person should be kept in custody while awaiting trial. It is the same thing if the accused has a history of intimate partner or other violence.

We will also change the conditions of release. For people charged with offences related to auto theft, burglary, extortion, and organized crime, courts will have to consider imposing stricter conditions, such as curfews, geographic restrictions, and no-contact orders. For those charged with extortion or organized crime, the same will apply, and there will be prohibitions on possessing a weapon.

When a court assesses the grounds for keeping a person in custody pending trial, there are three main factors to consider. First, it is essential to make sure the person will appear in court. Is the person a flight risk? Second, the protection of the public must be ensured. If the person is released, does this pose a risk to public safety? Finally, public confidence in the administration of justice must be maintained. This last reason is very important. That is why, with Bill C‑14, we are introducing an amendment to require courts to take into account the number and seriousness of pending charges.

This means that if a person appears in court for a crime and has several other pending charges, those charges could play a role in the decision to take the person into custody or not, in order to maintain public trust in the administration of justice.

Bill C‑14 also provides stiffer sentences for different serious and violent crimes. We need to ensure that the sentences imposed are proportional to the severity of violent offences committed by repeat offenders. During the election campaign, people asked us to review these sentences, and that is what we are doing through Bill C‑14, because stronger deterrence through sentences that fit the crime is important.

New aggravating factors are going to be added, which ultimately means harsher sentences. This includes offences against first responders in the performance of their duties. Examples include police officers or firefighters, who put their safety at risk every day to protect us. These people deserve protection. If crimes like assault are committed against our first responders, the perpetrator will face harsher prison sentences.

Earlier this week, I attended a cocktail party hosted by the International Association of Fire Fighters, and I had the opportunity to speak with a number of firefighters from across the country. Many of them told me they were very pleased to see this measure included in Bill C‑14. They said that it was a step in the right direction and that it made them feel included in our deliberations. It is very important to ensure that our first responders are protected.

If the accused is a repeat violent offender who has previously been convicted of a violent offence in the last five years, this will also be an aggravating factor. If someone is serving a sentence, gets out of prison and commits another violent crime, they will have to go back behind bars. It just makes sense.

Organized retail theft in businesses and stores is now recognized as an aggravating factor. Small business owners and their staff get up every morning and work hard to earn a living. These people deserve to be protected. They do not deserve to be robbed. By better protecting them, we are sending them a message that we recognize how important they are to our country and our economy. If people commit crimes in their businesses, whether it is shoplifting or offences related to organized crime, they will be punished more severely.

It is the same thing for offences the interfere with essential infrastructure, especially copper theft. When a person steals copper from transmission lines or towers, it interferes with essential infrastructure. Let me give an example. Last summer, in Restigouche, in my riding, someone stole copper, which caused several cell towers to stop working. A large area was left with no cell coverage. Had there been an emergency, the public could have been in danger. That is why we need to crack down on this type of crime.

We will also increase penalties for certain crimes. For example, house arrest will no longer be an option for those who are found guilty of aggravated sexual assault or child sexual abuse. These individuals will have to serve a prison sentence. I think that Canadians expect such crimes to be severely punished. This is a measure that I unequivocally support, and it is included in Bill C‑14.

Bill C‑14 is part of a comprehensive approach to fighting crime put forward by our government. Our approach also includes Bill C‑12, which will strengthen security at our borders, and Bill C‑9, which will strengthen the fight against hate crimes. In addition, we have made commitments that will very soon result in legislative changes to better protect victims of intimate partner violence. There is our anti-fraud strategy, which aims to better protect our seniors from financial crimes. There are also the investments announced in the budget, plus those dedicated to crime prevention. We want to crack down on serious crimes, but we also want to prevent them. That is why we are investing in housing, mental health and youth support to strengthen crime prevention.

Bill C‑14 and all the other measures we are putting in place show that our new Liberal government takes the fight against crime very seriously. Sometimes I get the impression that my colleagues across the floor see politics as theatre. They propose ideological measures such as Bill C‑242, which would probably not even pass constitutional muster. On this side, we know that community safety is not about theatrics, it is not a matter of political gamesmanship. It is a serious issue that deserves concrete and constitutional measures such as Bill C‑14.

I think this is an excellent bill, particularly because we listened to the public, the provinces and the territories. I invite all of my colleagues to work collaboratively on adopting the Liberals' Bill C‑14 instead of continuing to promote a bill like Bill C‑242.

Bill C-242 Jail Not Bail ActPrivate Members' Business

3 p.m.

Conservative

Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the great people of Abbotsford—South Langley, whom I have the honour to represent in this House.

I want to recognize the important week we have coming up as we approach Remembrance Day. I want to take a moment to reflect on the significance of this time and why the simple act of wearing a poppy holds so much true meaning.

The poppy has become a symbol of remembrance for the men and women who served our country so proudly and continue to serve in our armed forces. These heroes laid down their lives so we could have the ability to call Canada home, a place we are so proud of and have the honour to live in. Canada's freedom, democracy and the values we preserve are the result of their courage, sacrifices and unwavering commitment to our nation.

Wearing a poppy is more than just a tradition; it is a pledge of gratitude. It is our way of honouring the courage, resilience and dedication of our veterans and our members in active service. I encourage everyone to wear a poppy with pride to reflect on the sacrifices made for our country and to express the most profound thanks to all who have served and are currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are speaking about such an important topic today. I made a statement earlier about an individual who was shot down in my community of Abbotsford. Bail reform and justice need to be brought to our country. It is why the Conservative Party put the jail not bail bill forward in this House. We are prioritizing our country and our nation.

We need change. People have dealt with this for long enough. They are suffering. There are people in our communities who are asking us questions, like why there is no justice and why justice is not being presented to the families that have lost loved ones.

It breaks my heart when family members cry in front of us and say that their loved one had done nothing. An eight-year-old boy from Toronto was shot while sleeping in his bed. What did he do to deserve such an act? This is why the bill is very important, and I look forward to continuing to speak to this matter.

Bill C-242 Jail Not Bail ActPrivate Members' Business

3 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 3:03 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 17, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 3:03 p.m.)