House of Commons Hansard #133 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was elections.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bail and Sentencing Reform Act Members debate the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-14, which targets bail and sentencing reform. Liberals propose adopting specific changes while rejecting others as redundant. Conservatives, including Larry Brock, criticize the government for relaxing surety restrictions. The legislation seeks to enhance public safety and further address repeat violent offenders while maintaining judicial discretion and Charter protections. 4200 words, 25 minutes.
Food and Drugs Act Second reading of Bill C-265. The bill creates a pre-approved list of therapeutic products to streamline special access. Supporters argue it reduces administrative burdens. While cross-party support exists for the objective, the Conservatives seek amendments to ensure safety and prevent drug diversion, while the Bloc emphasizes provincial jurisdiction. The House has referred the proposal for committee review. 7700 words, 1 hour.
Protecting Victims Act Third reading of Bill C-16. The bill strengthens protections against gender-based violence, targeting coercive control and femicide. Conservatives criticize clause 63, fearing it allows judges to bypass mandatory minimums. While supporters emphasize victim support and modern updates, the debate focuses on whether the legislation's judicial discretion creates an inappropriate "get-out-of-jail" card for serious offenders. 8200 words, 2 hours.
Strong and Free Elections Act Report stage of Bill C-25. The bill, titled the strong and free elections act, amends the Canada Elections Act to address foreign interference, disinformation, and AI risks. Government members argue these updates strengthen democratic integrity, while Conservative MPs critique the bill for allegedly failing to close loopholes regarding foreign financing, while also questioning its effectiveness in preventing interference during nomination contests. 3400 words, 1 hour.
Strong and Free Elections Act Third reading of Bill C-25. The bill amends the Canada Elections Act to address ballot flooding and foreign interference. While the government moves to impose time allocation, the Bloc Québécois criticizes the quashing of debate. Conservatives generally support the provisions aimed at election integrity but argue further amendments are necessary to close remaining loopholes regarding foreign funding for third parties. 4200 words, 35 minutes.
Adjournment Debate - Employment Garnett Genuis criticizes the government for ignoring youth unemployment, proposing a plan to unleash the economy, fix immigration, invest in vocational training, and increase housing availability. Jennifer McKelvie defends the government's approach, citing existing investments in summer jobs, skills strategies, and new initiatives for recruiting skilled trade workers. 1300 words.
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑232, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Bill C-232 Corrections and Conditional Release ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C‑232 under Private Members' Business.
Bill C-232 Corrections and Conditional Release ActPrivate Members' Business
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying—
Bill C-232 Corrections and Conditional Release ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
Due to the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 35 minutes.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
Patricia Lattanzio LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime for 2024-25.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, this time, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying from the House of Commons may have a dissenting or supplementary opinion appended to its first report by tabling it with the Clerk of the House by July 10, 2026, and that, in such a case, the Clerk of the House shall forward such dissenting or supplementary opinion to the Clerk of the Senate so that it may be deemed to have been tabled in both Houses; that a message be sent to the Senate informing it that this House has adopted this order, and inviting it to adopt provisions to give effect to this order.
Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in DyingRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
There being no dissenting voice, it is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActRoutine Proceedings
Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs Québec
Liberal
Marc Miller LiberalMinister of Canadian Identity and Culture
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-34, An Act to enact the Digital Safety Act and the Digital Safety Commission of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, four reports of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group.
I had the privilege of leading several of these missions alongside the Hon. Senator MacDonald as co-chairs of the Canadian section of the interparliamentary group.
The first concerns the IPG's participation at the west annual meeting of the Council of State Governments, known as CSG, in Jackson, Wyoming, from September 16 to 19, 2025.
The second concerns the IPG's participation at the CSG national conference in Chicago, Illinois, from December 9 to 13, 2025.
The third concerns the interparliamentary group's first-ever mission to Mexico City, from January 13 to 15, to participate in CUSMA-focused discussions and round tables.
The fourth overviews the IPG's contributions to the Future Borders Coalition transportation border summit in Washington, D.C., on January 21 and 22, as well as our discussions with U.S. counterparts from the interparliamentary group.
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie—Algoma, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, entitled “Issues Related to First Nation Communities Without Reserve Lands”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
moved for leave to introduce An Act to establish National Agricultural Innovation Day.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to introduce a bill entitled An Act to establish National Agricultural Innovation Day.
(Motion deemed adopted)
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
National Agricultural Innovation Day ActRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
National Agricultural Innovation Day ActRoutine Proceedings
National Agricultural Innovation Day ActRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I declare the motion carried.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Finance.
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), the House:
agrees with amendments 1(a), 2(a) and 3 made by the Senate;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(b) because subsection 515(13.1) of the Criminal Code already requires courts to state on the record that they considered section 493.2 in making a bail decision, rendering the additional provision unnecessary;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 2(b) because engagement with relevant partners and stakeholders is already permitted, and the additional statutory consultation requirement could limit flexibility in the preparation and tabling of the report.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Ajax.
Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the message received from the Senate concerning Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. At the outset, I would like to thank the senators for their careful study of the legislation. The Senate plays an important role in our parliamentary system. It provides sober second thought, hears from witnesses, reviews legislation clause by clause and proposes amendments where it believes improvements can be made.
That is precisely what occurred with Bill C-14. After reviewing the bill, the Senate adopted four amendments. The motion before the House today proposes that we agree with two of those amendments, amend one of them and respectfully disagree with another. I believe that this approach strikes the right balance. It recognizes valuable contributions made through the Senate's review, while ensuring that the legislation would remain faithful to the objectives Parliament has pursued throughout its study of the bill.
Before turning to the amendments, I think it is important to briefly remind members why Bill C-14 was introduced in the first place. Across Canada, communities have been raising concerns about public safety. Premiers, mayors, police leaders, victims' advocates and frontline organizations have all called for action to address serious violent offending, repeat offending, organized criminal activity, extortion and human trafficking.
Canadians have seen a troubling rise in violent extortion targeting businesses and families. Communities have experienced growing concerns about organized crime and repeat violent offenders. Transit workers and other frontline workers have called for stronger protections. Provincial and territorial governments have repeatedly asked the federal government to review the criminal law framework to ensure that our laws respond effectively to evolving public safety challenges. Bill C-14 is that response.
The legislation would strengthen the bail system for certain serious offences by expanding reverse onus provisions in carefully defined circumstances. It would create new tools to address violent repeat offending. It would strengthen sentencing provisions for serious crimes, including extortion and arson committed for criminal purposes. It would respond to the growing threat posed by organized criminal activity and human trafficking. It would improve public safety while preserving judicial discretion and maintaining consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The bill has been studied extensively. The House committee heard testimony from witnesses. Amendments were proposed and debated. Members from all parties contributed to its development. The Senate undertook its own review and proposed several amendments for the House's consideration.
The first amendment before us relates to sureties. As members know, during the House committee study, an amendment was adopted to prohibit individuals who had been convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years from acting as surety. The Senate amendment would maintain that prohibition while providing limited judicial discretion in circumstances where no other surety is available and where the court determines that allowing the surety would be in the best interest of justice. The government supports this amendment, which would maintain the fundamental objective adopted by the House. Individuals convicted of serious offences would continue to be prohibited from serving as a surety.
At the same time, it recognizes that exceptional circumstances may arise. Witnesses who appeared before the Senate raised concerns regarding the practical impact of a complete prohibition in certain remote, rural and northern communities where the pool of available sureties may be limited. The amendment provides a narrow and carefully structured mechanism that would allow courts to address those exceptional circumstances while preserving the overall intent of the provision. For that reason, we believe the Senate amendment represents a reasonable refinement and should be supported.
The second amendment concerns the annual reporting requirements related to bail data. Members will recall that the House adopted an amendment requiring the Minister of Justice to table an annual report respecting bail data. The Senate amendment proposes two changes. First, it would require that the information respecting rates of detention before trial be included in that report. Second, it would require the minister to consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection and the criminal justice system, including Statistics Canada, when preparing the report.
The government supports the first part of this amendment. Information relating to pretrial detention can contribute to a fuller understanding of how the bail system operates across this country. Reliable data is important. Evidence‑based policy is important. Parliamentarians would benefit by having access to meaningful information about the operation of the criminal justice system.
However, the government does not support the second portion of the Senate amendment. The minister already has the ability to engage with relevant partners, experts and organizations when preparing reports and evaluating criminal justice data. Creating a specific statutory requirement is unnecessary and could reduce flexibility in how information is gathered and reports are prepared. As a result, the motion proposes an amendment that would retain the reporting component while removing the mandatory consultation requirement. I believe this approach appropriately balances accountability with operational flexibility.
The third Senate amendment concerns proposed subsection 515(13.2), of the Criminal Code. This amendment would require a justice to ask on the record whether section 493.2 applies, even where neither party has raised the issue during the bail hearing. The government respectfully disagrees with this amendment. The reason is straightforward: Existing law already addresses this issue.
Subsection 515(13.1) of the Criminal Code already requires courts to state on the record how section 493.2 was considered in making a bail decision. In practice, this requirement already necessitates consideration of whether section 493.2 applies. As a result, the proposed amendment would not create a new substantive obligation. Instead, it would duplicate requirements that already exist within the Criminal Code. For that reason, the government believes the amendment is unnecessary.
The final amendment relates to the coming into force of provisions respecting access to youth records. The amendment would provide that these provisions come into force on a day to be fixed by the order of the Governor in Council. The government supports this amendment. The amendment reflects a practical implementation approach and would help ensure that all relevant partners have sufficient time to prepare for the coming into force of these provisions. It would not alter the policy objective adopted by Parliament. Rather, it would support effective implementation.
After careful consideration, the government believes that the package before the House today strikes the right balance. It would accept Senate amendments that improve the legislation, propose a targeted modification where appropriate, and respectfully reject an amendment that is unnecessary because its objective is already achieved through existing law. Most importantly, it would preserve the core purpose of Bill C‑14.
Canadians expect Parliament to respond to serious public safety concerns. They expect us to provide law enforcement and the justice system with effective tools. They expect us to address violent offending, organized crime, extortion and human trafficking. They expect us to work collaboratively and move legislation forward when consensus has largely been achieved.
Bill C‑14 has now been studied by both chambers of Parliament. The House has done its work. The Senate has done its work. The amendments before us have been carefully reviewed. I encourage members to support the motion before the House so Bill C‑14 can proceed without any further delay and continue its path forward for royal assent.
Kerry Diotte Conservative Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Mr. Speaker, why is it that Liberals always seem to support criminals rather than supporting victims' rights?
