Debates of Dec. 4th, 2025

Criminal Code

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad statistic that 95% of victims do not actually take their case to court. Most of them report that their reasons for not going to court are that they feel unsupported by the system, do not want to have to repeat their story and do not want to have to face their perpetrator again. We have to find ways to protect victims and make sure they can come forward with their stories.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-246, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning consecutive sentences for sexual offences. It is a private member's bill brought forward by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

The bill would replace the existing Criminal Code provision that requires sentencing courts to impose consecutive sentences in child sexual offences cases with one that would require consecutive sentences for all other sexual offences. In cases where an offender is already serving a sentence for a sexual offence, it would require a new sentence for a sexual offence to run consecutively to the sentence the offender is already serving.

I appreciate the sponsor's aim of signalling the seriousness of sexual offences by requiring mandatory consecutive sentences in cases involving multiple sexual offence convictions. I would note, however, that Bill C-246 is the wrong approach. It is unconstitutional and overly rigid, and it would not make Canadians safer.

The bill seeks to force judges to stack consecutive sentences for all sexual offences, including those that already carry mandatory minimum penalties. The Supreme Court, in cases such as Senneville, has emphasized that judges must consider reasonable hypotheticals when determining when a sentence is grossly disproportionate. The Court of Appeal of Quebec, in the Vera Camacho case, struck down part of the existing consecutive sentencing framework for sexual offenders against children because it would result in sentences that are grossly disproportionate and unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, the Conservatives propose to expand this fragile provision to include adult sexual offences. This approach is reckless. It would remove judicial discretion entirely, prevent judges from applying the totality principle, risk grossly disproportionate global sentences, discourage early guilty pleas, lengthen trials unnecessarily and put increased pressure on provincial courts and correctional facilities, all without any evidence that it would reduce re-offending.

This is why our government has adopted a different, evidence-based and constitutionally sound approach. Through Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, we would strengthen the justice system while keeping victims at the centre and core of our focus. How would the bill do that? One way is with tougher bail rules. Bill C-14 would make it harder for serious sexual offenders to be released before trial, and it would introduce a reverse onus for assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocation or strangulation behaviours linked to the escalation to homicide.

Second, it would end house arrest for serious sexual offences. Conditional sentences have been proven insufficient for serious sexual offences, particularly those involving children. Bill C-14 would ensure that offenders serve sentences reflecting the gravity of their crimes. Third, with respect to consecutive sentences for repeat offenders, as mentioned before by the hon. member from the Bloc, Bill C-14 would allow judges to consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent sexual offenders while preserving discretion to ensure that outcomes remain proportionate, fair and constitutional.

These measures reflect our commitment to victim-centred, charter-compliant reforms. Unlike the Conservatives, who prioritize ideology over evidence, we are strengthening public safety without creating legal chaos. Let us also remember Bill C-2, which would equip police with the lawful tools they need in order to catch predators before they commit crimes.

Survivors, as well as families of victims, have been telling us that about the need for less-toxic rhetoric around intimate-partner violence, and they urge Parliament to act responsibly. As one example, yesterday the House unanimously adopted Conservative Bill C-225, about fighting intimate-partner violence, as we intend to amend the bill in the justice committee and strengthen it to protect women who act in self defence from being wrongfully charged with first-degree murder. This is the spirit in which we have shown we can work together to protect Canadians and their lives.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to delay critical legislation, wasting committee time debating irrelevant matters while women's organizations across the country have called for urgent action. As such, I ask the member opposite this: Will she support passing these bills before the House rises?

Furthermore, before the House rises, the minister will table legislation addressing gender-based violence, intimate partner violence, child protection and court delays. These measures are crafted with victims in mind, reflecting their lived experiences and the realities they face. We hope the Conservatives will refrain from obstruction and join us in supporting our legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C-246, which was introduced by my colleague from Lethbridge, Alberta. I commend her. This bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to require that sentences imposed on offenders convicted of multiple sexual offences be served consecutively, that is, one after the other, in cases where multiple offences are committed against one victim at the same time and also where the offender is already serving a prison sentence for another sexual offence.

The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill so that it can be studied in committee. We will then be able to examine this Conservative proposal more closely, but, as members will see, I already have a number of questions and concerns.

I would like to begin by taking a moment to explain how our criminal law currently provides for consecutive sentences, because consecutive sentences are already possible and are imposed practically every day in courts across the country. I will then discuss the merits of the Conservative proposal to reduce judges' discretion so that consecutive sentences are automatically imposed on repeat offenders or perpetrators of multiple sexual offences.

First, I would like to say a few words about victims of sexual offences. I practised law for 12 years, 10 of them in legal aid, and I had the privilege of representing many victims of sexual assault, particularly when they were involved in litigation against Indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels du Québec, or IVAC. I saw the scars that sexual assault leaves behind, which are all too often permanent. I remember sensing the vulnerability, the feeling of brokenness, the weight that my clients carried around with them. We had to prepare for hearings together, and my clients would tell me how the assault had changed them. Some felt unsafe walking down the street at night, while others experienced flashbacks or found their relationships tainted by distrust. In every case, they carried the burden of injustice, and we fought together against IVAC to get compensation for their lingering pain or inability to work. Although we fought and won together, I never felt that our victories were enough to erase or repair what they had experienced. Their burden may have been a bit less heavy, but their existence was still affected.

Behind today's debate on this bill are those people, those victims whom I am thinking of tonight, yet the bill deals with sentences for offenders. I would like to point out that the victims I represented over the years did not talk to me about the length of their attackers' sentences. They primarily talked to me about their desire to continue living and their need for support, assistance, counselling services and so on.

That said, let us now look at how criminal law deals with offenders who commit multiple sexual offences. In general, sentences are concurrent. Typically, if an offender commits multiple offences, and if there are multiple sentences, they will be served at the same time, unless the law or circumstances justify consecutive sentences, which are served one after the other. As my colleague said, the Criminal Code already provides for consecutive sentences in the case of sexual offences against children, for example. Generally speaking, the Criminal Code says judges must consider consecutive sentences. They are not obligated to go that way, but they must always consider it. It is an exceptional measure, but it is available, and it is one of the tools judges can use to reflect the seriousness of multiple crimes. With consecutive sentencing, an offender convicted of several serious offences cannot get an artificial reduction in the length of time they must serve. This is what the Supreme Court has taught us. This option illustrates the principle that each offence deserves a separate penalty. Judges have broad discretion to decide whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive, but they must always respect the principle of proportionality and make sure the overall punishment is not excessive. The current rule of law strives to strike a balance by allowing for consecutive sentencing while requiring the justice system to consider all aspects of a sentence.

In its 1996 ruling in R. v. M. (C.A.), the Supreme Court confirmed that judges have considerable discretion, but that they must respect the principles of proportionality and parity in sentencing. With regard to consecutive sentences, the court reiterated that their use must reflect the multiplicity of offences without leading to an unreasonable overall sentence. Consecutive sentences are therefore already one of the tools available to judges when sentencing defendants who have committed multiple sexual offences. In court, repeat offences are already taken into account, as are aggravating circumstances, for obtaining harsher sentences. The justice system therefore already has the tools to impose consecutive sentences when deemed necessary.

Now let us discuss the merits of the proposal before the House. The Conservative proposal essentially aims to reduce judicial discretion so that consecutive sentences are automatically imposed on repeat offenders or perpetrators of multiple sexual offences. According to the preamble, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that sentences for multiple offences reflect the gravity of each offence and the distinct harm caused to each victim. We can also discuss this in committee and look into the matter further, but at first glance, based on what I have just said, I think that this goal can already be achieved under the current rules. Personally, I believe that we can trust the justice system to ensure that the sentence is appropriate in each case.

The goal could also be to reduce the recidivism rate by saying that harsher penalties are going to be handed down to repeat sexual offenders. Clearly, reducing the recidivism rate is a good thing. A study on this subject appeared in 2022 in Criminology & Public Policy, a scientific journal published by the American Society of Criminology. The study showed that the recidivism rate for sex offenders has fallen by 60% since 1970. This is a robust study that involved conducting a meta-analysis of 185 Canadian-based studies. The meta-analysis covered more than 50,000 criminals and combined 226 recidivism rates measured at different times and in different locations across Canada.

After controlling for various factors, the study concluded that the recidivism rate for sexual offences has decreased by more than 60% since the 1970s. Every repeat offence is one too many, of course, but the problem of repeat sexual assault is actually diminishing under the current rules. We can dig into this in committee and try to understand what the goal of the bill is, but when it comes to recidivism rates, things seem to be improving.

The goal could also be to reduce crime, and that is a good thing too. However, here again, it has not been proven that harsher sentences reduce crime. In committee, we can also discuss the collateral effects of this bill if it is passed. Longer sentences mean people staying in prison longer, which comes at a cost to the government. Longer sentences also have a negative effect on criminals' chances of rehabilitation. In short, there are serious questions about the usefulness of this bill and its effect on our criminal justice system, but we will nevertheless vote in favour of it at this stage to allow it to be studied in committee.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin, I want to recognize someone who has worked in my office since I was elected, Stephanie Rennick. This is her 32nd anniversary of working on Parliament Hill. I am profoundly indebted to people like her. We all are. Most of us are nothing without our staff. I want to thank Stephanie for everything, all the sacrifices, all the help and all the late hours. People like me are nothing without people like Stephanie.

Normally I have a couple of notes, but I am going start without notes. I am going to speak directly to the Liberals here, because I cannot believe what we just heard from the parliamentary secretary. In fact, whoever wrote that speech should be ashamed of themselves, because they just got the law completely wrong. They talked about the unconstitutionality of this provision. Well, if this provision is unconstitutional, then the provision that is identical to it, the one around consecutive sentences for sex offences against kids, is unconstitutional itself. I cannot believe that.

Yes, I am raising my voice, and yes, I am speaking with passion, because victims serve a psychological life sentence. The Liberals are communicating to this House and to all Canadians that this does not need to be changed and that it is okay for sex offences to be cheaper by the dozen. It is wrong.

The Liberals can scoff and snarl under their breath, or they can do something. They can ask the person who wrote that speech or the person who delivered that speech what they were thinking about in regard to Bill C-14, a bill on bail? I consulted with the hon. member on this bill, and I reflected on my life prosecuting sex offences against kids, also teaching a sentencing class at our local law school, and about the totality principle that the member spoke about. The totality principle says that somebody's overall moral culpability should not exceed the length of the sentence, that it should be proportional, yet somehow this is said to offend the totality principle. What?

If this offends it, then what about the provision that this was designed on, to say that everybody who hurts a kid should serve a consecutive sentence? If anybody wants a real-life example, I will talk about the first case that I undertook that really taught me about this. It was a case on Internet luring. The offender was located in Canada, and the victims were in the Philippines. I will just give a warning here. This is graphic, so if anybody does not want to hear it, please beware.

That offender, a Canadian, was paying mothers to offend against their children. Yes, it is uncomfortable, but this is what is happening. He pled guilty to several charges, and because of that, there were consecutive sentences. Now, based on that speech, one would say that that was wrong, that he should have concurrent sentences. The totality principle still applied.

How is it possible that anybody in this House could disagree that if somebody sexually assaults one person and sexually assaults somebody else in 90 days and sexually assaults another person in 90 days, and so on, they should serve consecutive sentences? Those sentences can be fashioned in accordance with the totality principle to reflect the overall moral culpability of that person.

Are the Liberal members okay with this? Are they okay with signalling and getting behind the content of that speech? I challenge every single one of them to go back and reflect on that in their caucus.

I texted an advocate for sexual assault survivors, somebody who herself was sexually assaulted and speaks about it publicly. Sometimes I joke around in this House and have more fun, but I have always believed politics is about timing. There is a time to have fun, there is a time to be righteously angry, there is a time to be serious, there is a time to be loud and there is a time to be quiet. If ever there was a time to be loud in this House, this is it.

This is the time for the Liberals present in the House to ask if they are sure they want to say they do not want to tie judges' hands. Is that what I heard, that they do not want to tie the hands of judges when it comes to consecutive sentences for sexual assault? Did I hear that? Are the Liberals okay with it? I ask because victims are going to be watching.

That speech will be dissected. Let us not forget that our words in here mean something. If we cannot agree on that, what the heck can we agree on?

What I find even more reprehensible is that somebody said we should not throw the full force of the law against sexual offenders. Those victims are serving a life sentence, a psychological life sentence, and I just heard someone say why we should not apply the full force of the law to offenders. However, the Liberals want us to support Bill C-14 because, boy, is it tough on crime. What a joke.

We are debating whether people should serve an appropriate sentence for sexual assault. I am thinking to myself, “Well, duh.” Of course they should. I do not care if I am heard on Wellington Street saying this.

We have come to the point where people serve more time on a maximum sentence for property crimes. Robbery is taking property by force, and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Sexual assault is taking sexual dignity by force, sexual inviolability by force, sexual integrity by force, and the maximum sentence is 10 years.

What do we hear from the Liberals? They did not say whether they would vote for or against this bill. To those watching at home, I say to contact my office. Contact every Liberal and tell them there should be proportionality in sentencing, because for far too long, we have measured sexual assault sentences in months instead of years.

I was obedient to the rule of law and the rule of precedent as somebody who practised law. I may not have agreed with them, but I was obedient to precedents. Does anybody here know, speaking rhetorically, about the range of sentences for a sexual assault involving intercourse in British Columbia? It starts at two years. The Liberal position says that if it is done again to another victim, it should not necessarily be consecutive. It is two years for the violation of somebody's sexual integrity. Yes, there is a bit of awkwardness in the House right now, because there should be.

When we allow stuff like this to be said in this House and do not stand up for victims in this House, we should all hang our heads in shame. I hope every single Liberal goes back to caucus and asks why that speech said what it said. Why are we allowing this to happen? I say shame on every parliamentarian who does not fight for victims of sexual offences in this country.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in response to Bill C-246, an act to amend the Criminal Code. It is private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

The bill would change the Criminal Code so that, when someone is convicted of two or more sexual offences at the same time, their sentences would have to be served one after the other. If that person was later convicted of another sexual offence, their new sentence would automatically be added on top of the sentence they are already serving for the earlier sexual offences.

Sexual offending is a profound violation that leaves lasting physical, emotional and psychological harm. These are not crimes that can be minimized or treated lightly. They require our justice system to respond with clarity, strength and accountability. The grave harm caused by sexual offending is one of the reasons the government is seeking to advance important criminal law reforms, including the recent bail and sentencing reform act, or Bill C-14, which has a view to reinforce community safety and strengthen Canada's justice system.

Bill C-14 represents a significant step forward in updating Canada's criminal justice framework to make bail law stricter and sentencing law tougher. The bill includes more than 80 targeted changes to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other relevant acts, and all are directed toward delivering firm and fairer outcomes for everyone in Canada.

Bill C-14 includes an amendment that would require judges to consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders, including repeat sexual violent offenders. A consecutive sentence means multiple prison sentences are served one after the other, with the total length of the sentence being the sum of the individual sentences imposed for one offence. This is different from a concurrent sentence, where multiple prison terms for different offences in a single sentence can be served at the same time.

If passed by Parliament, Bill C-14 would send a strong signal to the courts that longer sentences may be warranted in cases of repeat violent offending, while still allowing for individualized circumstances to be considered by the sentencing judge. Bill C-14 would capture a broad range of offenders, including anyone with a record for violent offences in the last five years, as well as a broad range of offences, such as any offence involving violence or threats of violence. It would include, but not be limited to, offences involving sexual violence. As a result of this proposal, courts would be required by law to consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders, and failure to do so would be an error in law that could be appealed.

Bill C-14 would also make it more difficult for those accused of serious, violent and sexual offending to be released on bail. The general rule for bail is that, when a Crown prosecutor seeks the detention of an accused person, they must demonstrate to the court that there is just cause to detain the accused. This means the Crown has the responsibility to show the accused should not be granted bail.

However, in certain cases, the accused must show why they should be granted bail. This is referred to as reverse onus. In a reverse onus situation, an accused must be detained while awaiting their trial, unless they can demonstrate to the court that they should not be denied bail by showing that there is no just cause for their detention, meaning they are not a risk to public safety. A reverse onus demonstrates Parliament's intention that bail should be more difficult to obtain in cases where the accused might present heightened risk if released on bail.

Right now, the Criminal Code sets out reverse onus for several criminal offences, including for offences where the allegations involve violence against an intimate partner if the accused had been previously convicted or discharged of an offence where violence was used against their intimate partner. This reverse onus recognizes the fact that violence against intimate partners unfortunately tends to happen more than once, so those who have been previously convicted of such offences may pose increased safety risks to their victims if released on bail.

Building on this foundation, Bill C-14 includes a proposal to create a new reverse onus bail provision for assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocating or strangulation. Evidence suggests this behaviour is indicative of potential escalation to homicide, particularly in the intimate partner context. The proposed reverse onus recognizes that those accused of such offending may present—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to remind the member that we are dealing with a particular topic, Bill C-246, which deals with consecutive sentencing. I wonder if you could call on the member to follow the rules and discuss the provisions of the bill that is currently before the House. It is a very important one.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the member for the reminder. As members know, wide latitude is given to members, and I am sure the member for Pickering—Brooklin was coming back to the matter at hand as she was giving examples.

I invite the member to continue.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed reverse onus recognizes that those accused of such offending may present heightened safety risks to their victims if released on bail.

The bill currently going through Parliament would also significantly strengthen sentencing, including for sexual offending. It is proposed that conditional sentence orders, also known as house arrest, be unavailable for serious sexual offences, including those against children.

Protecting children from sexual exploitation and abuse is a top priority for the federal government. The government has taken significant steps to strengthen laws, enhance its law enforcement tools and support victims. Canada's approach reflects the belief that every child has the right to grow up free from harm and that those who violate that trust will face the full force of the law. These amendments respond to concerns from provinces and territories, many of which have observed a troubling rise in conditional sentence orders being ordered in response to sexual offences, including child sexual offences, noting that these sentences were not sufficiently reflective of the gravity, nor sufficiently protected victims.

These concerns have prompted calls to restrict conditional sentence orders for those offences and to ensure that the use of conditional sentence orders remains consistent with the principles of denunciation and deterrence and promotes public confidence in the justice system. These targeted reforms reflect the government's commitment to addressing the serious harms caused by sexual offending and its profound impact on victims.

Bill C-14 also proposes adding a new aggravated factor at sentencing for repeat violent offending, which would include repeat violent sexual offending. An aggravating factor is a circumstance or detail about an offence that makes a crime more serious. Aggravating factors send a message to our courts that certain conduct justifies harsher sentences. These amendments would respond to ongoing calls to denounce and deter all repeat violent offending.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments have been actively collaborating on measures to strengthen the bail and sentencing regime for many months at the ministerial, deputy ministerial and officials' levels. The proposed amendments were developed in close co-operation with the provinces and territories, and reflect a collective agreement to support safer communities.

These changes are being advanced within the federal areas of responsibility and reflect commitments to bringing forward law reform in this area. However, a well-functioning criminal justice system requires action from the provinces and territories that are responsible for the administration of justice, which includes the conduct of the majority of prosecutions in Canada. Building on the bail and sentencing reform act, the Government of Canada has further committed to bringing forward additional legislative changes to address court delays, to strengthen victims' rights, to better protect people facing sexual and intimate partner violence and to keep children safe from crimes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Shefford will have approximately three and a half minutes and will then be interrupted for adjournment proceedings.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to do something in three and a half minutes on a subject that I am sure everyone understands is in my wheelhouse as the status of women critic for the Bloc Québécois.

I want to mention that this debate is taking place during the 12 days of action to end violence against women, which run from November 25 to December 6, the day when, unfortunately, people will commemorate the tragic femicide that occurred at École Polytechnique 36 years ago. Let us wear the white ribbon proudly.

I will start with some statistics. I will then quickly go over Quebec's demands and close with what the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying.

According to Statistics Canada, since 2015, the number of sexual offences has increased from 57 to 87 per 100,000 population. That is a 52% increase. During that same period in Quebec, the number of assaults rose from 45 to 98 per 100,000 population. That is a 119% increase. Those are big numbers.

Here are some more statistics: 50% of female victims lose their job or have to change jobs as a result of violence. Every year, more than 80,000 women and children use shelters. During these days of action to end violence against women, I would like to recognize everyone who works for a shelter or an organization to help women victims of violence. Their work in the community is essential.

In terms of police and court statistics, in 40% of cases, the violent partner has a prior criminal record involving violence. Less than 20% of domestic violence charges result in a major conviction. During the study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently conducting, we have learned that conditions related to section 810 of the Criminal Code are used in nearly 25% of cases, but in 60% of femicides, at least one prior complaint or report had been made.

As my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj explained so well, we understand that this situation is urgent. We welcome the bill introduced by the member for Lethbridge. We will study it in committee. We need to understand what is behind these statistics. Is it because of the #MeToo movement? We have to see whether that will really help fight this kind of crime. We have some concerns. For example, the Criminal Code already provides for consecutive sentences. We will have to look at that.

In Quebec, we worked hard on the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, or rebuilding trust. We have been trailblazers when it comes to combatting violence against women. We have specialized courts. We introduced electronic bracelets. I recently had a discussion with the member for Sherbrooke. I have also been in contact with the Quebec minister responsible for the status of women. Although Quebec has made progress on this issue, both of them are calling on Ottawa to do one thing urgently: to recognize coercive control in the Criminal Code. That is the priority request at the moment, because it would give police an additional tool.

Right now, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is looking into concerns related to the justice system. We studied the issue of section 810 conditions, and I agreed, in collaboration with the Conservatives, to also look at bail conditions. Right now, we are studying the causes. I see that as important.

I will conclude on this final point. We need to ask ourselves why the anti-feminist movement and masculinism are gaining so much momentum. This is leading to real violence against women. We need to look at this issue as holistically as possible.

I hope I will have a chance to talk more about that one day.

[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.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Pensions

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise virtually tonight at Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question I asked on October 31. The response came from the hon. Minister of Transportation, who is also the government leader in the House. It was inadequate, and that is why I pursue this very urgent matter tonight.

We are supposed to have a government policy of putting Canada first. The question I put that day in question period pertained to the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board and its actions, and I asked why we did not put Canada first. The hon. minister answered by saying that the CPPIB, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is “ethical” in tracking and “above-board” in making “investments all over the world, including in Canada.” He went on to say that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board “take[s] investing in Canada very, very seriously.”

Well, the CPPIB does not invest much in Canada, and I think my colleagues in the House need to know this about the $92 billion of our pension money, and so do all Canadians who have investments in the Canada pension plan and who count on it for our retirement. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board currently has 12% of that $92 billion invested in Canada and 47% invested in the U.S. and elsewhere all around the world.

In the 25-year history of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, its fundamental legislation has never been revisited, in contrast to the Quebec pension plan investment board. In Quebec, pension dollars are also invested by an arms-length board, but by legislation in Quebec, pension dollars have to be invested with some concern for improving the well-being of Quebeckers, in the interest of Quebec.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act does not require the board to be concerned about Canada at all. The investment board, made up of people who reside mostly outside Canada, is making decisions about investments from New York. It is concerned about getting the best return on investment. That means that it is, for example, a major investor in fossil fuel companies all around the world, in fracking in Ohio and gas fields in Texas, for example, with $22 billion of our pension plan money invested in fossil fuel investments. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the time that I have, I cannot really shine the light on all the scandals associated with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, but I do want to reference where I have found a lot of these specific examples: research by the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research, and a second report by a group called Shift, which focuses on pension wealth and planet health.

Let us look at a recent example, a huge scandal in which mismanagement by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, virtually unreported in Canada, lost Canadians $500 million of our investment while the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board had two seats on the board of Paris-based Orpea, Europe's largest long-term care facility. Look it up. It was engaged in criminal activity and embezzlement. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board had two seats on its board of directors; as well, it had 23% of the shares—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leader of the Green Party bringing the issue of the Canada pension plan up and how it distributes the funds it is ultimately responsible for.

As the government House leader indicated, there are substantial funds there, and we would like to believe we have significant investments in Canada. The member made reference to percentages. I think it might be a little higher than 12%. It is definitely higher than 12% when we factor in that some of the investments, I suspect, and I cannot provide great details on it, would be going into the United States. They might be investments that indirectly, or possibly even directly to a certain degree, end up being investments in Canada too.

The point is that the CPP is a critically important program, if I could use the word program, for all Canadians, because of the contributions that employees and employers contribute so we have the cash flow coming into the CPP, which is entrusted to an arm's-length board to invest those scarce resources in order to be able to pay out when the time comes.

It was interesting when the leader asked why we do not do more here in Canada. I know the CPP has partners from different places in the world where there are joint investments made. I do have confidence in the board.

The leader made reference to potential scandals that have taken place. I am not familiar with the ones she has referenced. Maybe she could provide a bit more information on that. What I would be interested in knowing is if the member ever thought of having it brought to a standing committee, which could look into the possibilities. I think it is important that, as much as possible, we allow the CPP to be at arm's length from government. I do not believe the government should be instructing it on business or investments. The board has the expertise within to make good decisions.

All in all, the CPP has done well with respect to the amount of return on its investments. Any investor will tell us that, at times some investments might not deliver what the expectation is, so there will be some losses. I think we have to look at the bigger and broader picture, which is that hopefully it has ensured that there is a good rate of return. If we were hearing that the rate of return was not in the best interests of the CPP, then I would suggest that we definitely revisit it.

The member said we should see more investment into Canada. I like to think that the CPP is looking at ways it might be able to contribute more with respect to investments here in Canada. However, I would like to look at the government, which has seen the value of the CPP. I think it was Justin Trudeau who, through negotiations with the provinces, finally got them on board so we could get more money going into the CPP. That is so more money would be going out to individuals so that, when they retire, they would receive more money. I think that is a very important aspect of the CPP.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act was passed in Parliament 25 years ago. It is specifically requires that the investment board pay no attention to anything other than rate of return. It omits any reference to investing in Canada for the benefit of Canadians.

It is time to bring the investment board act back to Parliament and amend it so, at the very minimum, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board considers what is good for the Canadian economy and for our future. I do not want my Canada Pension Plan Investment Board investing in ways to burn the planet for my granddaughter who has to grow up in a place that may be unlivable, but at a minimum, it should support Canadian businesses first.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I understand what it is the leader of the Green Party is saying.

We have major investments being made, from teachers associations and teachers unions to health care professionals unions and larger corporations. Wanting a rate of return has always been a priority. The member made reference to the province of Quebec. A lot of that investment goes outside of the province of Quebec in constantly looking for rates of return.

That is not to say, absolutely not, that the legislation cannot be looked at. I am encouraged she has raised the issue. Maybe we could have some more dialogue with respect to the CPP and the manner in which it does its investments. Personally, as an individual, I would be interested in having a discussion of that nature.

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada faces a continuing youth jobs crisis. The government has, unfortunately, with this budget, actually moved in the opposite direction from where we need to go.

Before the budget, Conservatives helpfully laid out the Conservative youth jobs plan, which identifies the key things we need to do: unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. Key policies in these areas would help to create jobs and opportunity. They would help to address the issue of a poorly tailored immigration system leading to competition for entry-level jobs. They would help young people get skills that align with the needs of the labour market and enable them to move to where jobs are available in cases where there are geographical mismatches.

We need to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are, but rather than implement our plan, we saw a budget, particularly in the area of training, that goes in the opposite direction. The government has now decided to not give student grants to students on the basis of the institution they are going to, in particular to discriminate against students going to particular private institutions. I think students would not mind going to public institutions if all of the same programs and areas of vocational training were offered in public institutions as are available in private institutions.

However, the reality is that there are certain kinds of careers for which virtually all of the formation happens at private institutions. Targeting the students and not allowing those students to get grants means that students pursuing in-demand skills in certain vocational careers will no longer be able to access that funding. The budget also completely leaves behind polytechnics, where the vast majority of apprentices are trained.

We are seeing the government perpetuate this kind of discrimination, where it leans hard into saying the university sector is the only way and continues to leave further behind students who are interested in in-demand skills and vocations that involve career colleges, polytechnics and other areas.

We are already in a situation where there is a training mismatch, and the government's solution has been to say that if Canadian young people and the skills the labour market needs are not aligned, we are just going to have temporary foreign workers fill those gaps. What we need to do is support training for young people to acquire skills that align with the labour market, but this budget, by discriminating against students who go to certain kinds of institutions, is moving in the opposite direction.

We are going to be seeing new job numbers out very soon. The problem is that we have consistently had over 14% youth unemployment, recession levels of youth unemployment. At this point, we still have significantly higher youth unemployment than we had a year ago. Conservatives have put forward a constructive plan to address this. Liberals have refused to implement that plan and have actually gone in the opposite direction.

We are going to be seeing new job numbers tomorrow, and I want to ask the government very clearly, why is it moving in the opposite direction with training provisions in the budget? What is the rationale for discriminating against students who go to career colleges that are organized in this way? Why has the government failed to implement the constructive ideas that Conservatives have put forward to unleash the economy, to fix immigration, to fix training and to build homes where the jobs are?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. I believe that the government has invested, and we do not say that the only jobs out there and available for young people are if they get university degrees. With regard to technical institutes, I think of everywhere from Red River College Polytech, which does outstanding work, to the University of Manitoba, which also does outstanding work. Quite frankly, there are other forms of apprenticeship programs that are offered through trade unions and others, all of which the government supports, if not directly, then indirectly, through anything from transfer payments to direct cash in support of things like apprenticeship programs with a special focus on young people.

A good example, in terms of the contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives, would be the Canada summer jobs program. Back in the day, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, the Conservatives cut that program significantly, but if we take a look, we can see that the Canada summer jobs program is one of the ways in which young people can get the type of work that could see them ultimately develop a career.

At the end of the day, we can take a look at the overall numbers in terms of jobs. My friend was talking about looking forward to seeing the stats coming out tomorrow, and I, too, look forward to the stats. I think, overall, Canada is doing quite well, because we have seen an increase overall in the number of jobs created since the Prime Minister was elected. That is an important stat to recognize.

Yes, there are certain areas that cause a great deal of concern. Young people are always a concern. They were a concern when we had high youth unemployment under Stephen Harper. For individuals who are 55 plus or even 50 plus, it could be very difficult to try to find a job when they are having to retire because their company either has let them go or maybe even has closed or whatever it might be.

We recognize that there are issues that need to be looked at and given special consideration, and we see that in the budget. It is the very same budget that the member opposite, who says that he is concerned about youth unemployment, is voting against. I think he is selling the budget short by not recognizing the hundreds of millions of dollars incorporated within the budget to support things, as I say, like apprenticeship training and programs to support post-secondary institutions, not to mention equalization and transfer payments that go to provinces.

We have to recognize the role that provinces play. I had a tour of, I think it was Boeing or StandardAero, where they talked about working with Ottawa, the province and Red River College in ensuring that they are able to meet the needs of the future workforce. There is a great deal of co-operation that needs to take place, and it is taking place for anyone to see, unless, of course, they have their eyes closed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot there, but I want to particularly zero in on one thing the member said, which is that he thinks things are generally going well.

Fourteen-plus per cent youth unemployment is not things going well. Those are recession levels. This summer, one in five returning students, roughly, was not able to find a job. These are students who rely on the income they earn in the summer to be able to pay for their continuing education. These critical milestones in their life that they are preparing for, which they are trying to get to through work, are being blocked in a large number of cases because of economic failures, a poorly tailored immigration system and a training system that is going to get worse under the government because of a plan to attack students pursuing particular professions.

Would the member be willing to acknowledge that that is a bad number for youth unemployment?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would acknowledge that it is a number of concern, just like when it was just under 14%, which I believe was back in 2013. That is when the member's party leader sat around the cabinet table and the Conservatives were cutting programs such as the Canada summer jobs program. Yes, I was concerned back then, because I want to be there to support the young people of Canada, and we do need to give special attention to that, whether it was back in 2013 when it was high or at the number it is today.

Fortunately, we have a government that is committed to supporting youth through different programs, as I have already mentioned, with direct and indirect supports, working with different jurisdictions, and, of course, through something I am a big fan of, supporting the Canada summer jobs program. I believe it creates hundreds of good, career-type jobs going forward. It gives them a bit of a taste and an experience—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River.

Ethics

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I posed to the government: How much does the Prime Minister have in offshore tax havens?

After all, the Prime Minister has a notorious track record of using offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes in Canada. Before he ran for the Liberal leadership earlier this year, the Prime Minister served as chair of Brookfield. Brookfield happens to be Canada's biggest corporate tax dodger. According to analysis from the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research, Brookfield managed to avoid paying a staggering $6.5 billion in taxes in only five years. To put $6.5 billion in perspective, that is more money than the government spends on the RCMP.

That is right. The Prime Minister's company managed to avoid paying more in taxes than the Prime Minister's government spends on Canada's national police force. Brookfield has managed to dodge paying taxes through a complex and opaque web of shell companies set up in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, primarily. So brazen is Brookfield's tax avoidance that three Brookfield entities worth $50 billion are registered to a bike shop in Bermuda.

The Prime Minister was not only the chair of Canada's biggest corporate tax-dodger, but also an architect of Brookfield's offshore tax avoidance scheme. This is a prime minister who set up three multi-billion dollar investment funds in the notorious tax havens of Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. One of those funds is the Brookfield global transition fund. This is a fund the Prime Minister registered in Bermuda, a fund that the Prime Minister stands to make tens of millions of dollars from in carried interest payments, in other words, future bonus pay based upon the performance of that fund.

What we have is a Prime Minister who stands to profit, who stands to make tens of millions of dollars, from investments that are shielded from paying taxes in Canada because he set up the fund in Bermuda.

Canadians deserve to know exactly how much the Prime Minister has in offshore tax savings.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting process we are in. The Conservatives continue with what I have always said is character assassination. With the new Prime Minister, right away they want to attack his personal integrity.

I just did a very quick Google search, and I asked about Conservative MPs who have invested in Brookfield. Members would be surprised. The leader of the Conservative Party appears to have some indirect interest in companies associated with Brookfield. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party has stocks in Brookfield. There are a number of others. I do not necessarily know their ridings, so I cannot say them by name. If I had leave to do that, I would be more than happy to share the names.

The point is that at the end of the day, Canada has a fairly rigorous system. I am sure the member would agree, because it was Stephen Harper who brought it in to ensure that a sense of accountability, transparency and ethical behaviour was taking place.

We have a Prime Minister who met the requirements even before he became the Prime Minister. He has a blind trust. We have some of the most rigorous rules in the world, but that is not good enough for the Conservatives. The road to power for the Conservatives is to personally attack the leader of the Liberal Party.

Let us look at who the leader of the Liberal Party is and his background. He was appointed to be the governor of the Bank of Canada by Stephen Harper. He was appointed to be the governor of the Bank of England. He has incredible, impeccable experience in understanding an economy. Yes, he does have investments, much as many Conservatives do, and he has been highly successful.

Are the Conservatives saying he is not qualified to be the Prime Minister? He is following the rules, but they want to attack the Prime Minister personally, believing that by doing that, it is politically advantageous for the Conservatives. They want Canadians to think there is something wrong with the leader of the Liberal Party.

I would contrast the leader of the Liberal Party with the leader of the Conservative Party any day, anywhere, especially given the economic times and challenges we have. The Prime Minister has done an incredible job of working with premiers and indigenous leaders and bringing in Bill C-5 to build one Canadian economy and build Canada strong. That is not to mention the amount of travelling he is doing to build bridges and get more investment to come to Canada.

There is the potential for trade agreements with the Philippines and India. Look at what has happened in Indonesia. We have legislation before us today to deal with England and Northern Ireland. Why? It is because we have a very active Prime Minister who is out and about working hard day in and day out for Canadians in every region of the country, and all the Conservatives want to do is attack his character. I find that very unfortunate, and I believe Canadians will see through the Conservative tactic.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Liberals call an inconvenient truth a personal attack.

It is a fact that the Prime Minister was chair of Canada's biggest tax-dodger through its use of offshore tax havens. It is a fact that the Prime Minister set up an investment fund in the offshore tax haven of Bermuda. It is a fact that the Prime Minister stands to make tens of millions of dollars from that fund, from investments that are shielded from paying taxes in Canada because he set up the fund in Bermuda.

Again, how much does the Prime Minister have in offshore tax havens?