Debates of Oct. 29th, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

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

Madam Speaker, I note that at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the director of the criminal justice program has pointed out that three successive ministers of justice have noted that we do not have any standardized approach to collecting data about how many people who apply for bail get it. The vast majority do not, and without standardized data, we are making reforms without necessarily having the evidence base we need.

I wonder if the hon. Minister of Justice has any comments on the question of whether we have a data and evidence base that is not driven as much by the very painful anecdotes but by evidence.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands is right that there is a paucity of data when it comes to the administration of bail in Canada. Part of the reason is that we have different provincial systems with different challenges. We have challenges not only as to when a person may be released on bail and how often they may receive bail, but also as to the reasons behind those decisions.

This issue will require collaboration among the provinces to develop common standards and collect the data we need going forward, but at the same time, in the absence of a perfect dataset, we have the opportunity to work directly with the governments that administer the system and the law enforcement officials who work within the system day to day.

When there are nearly unanimous perspectives on certain changes posing very real problems in communities, it is incumbent upon me to listen to those who have the responsibility to deliver on the words included in the Criminal Code. To the extent that we can launch an initiative to better collect and share data in a disaggregated way about offenders who may pose risks, I would be more than willing to entertain a conversation as to what role the federal government may play in collaboration with provinces, which have the primary responsibility in this space.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There has been some consultation, and I hope you will find unanimous consent for us to go back to questions on the Order Paper for less than a minute.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

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

Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 284 to 297 could be made orders for returns, these returns will be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.284—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

With regard to case number 41231, English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al., as of June 17, 2025: (a) how many hours have public servants dedicated to this legal challenge; (b) how much money has the government spent on the challenge; (c) what resources has the government employed with respect to the challenge and how much money has been allocated to each of these resources; and (d) what is the total amount the government has incurred in legal costs?

(Return tabled)

Question No.285—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

With regard to the challenge to Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State, broken down by case in which the government was involved: (a) how many hours have public servants devoted to each legal challenge; (b) how much money has the government spent on each challenge; (c) what resources has the government employed with respect to each challenge and how much money has been allocated to each of these resources; and (d) what was the total amount of legal expenses incurred by the government (i) broken down by challenge, (ii) for all challenges?

(Return tabled)

Question No.286—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

With regard to the Black Class Action Lawsuit (Nicholas Marcus Thompson et al. v. His Majesty the King (T-1458-20)), broken down by department: (a) what is the total amount spent to date by the government on this lawsuit; and (b) what is the total amount paid to Fasken, the law firm representing the Crown in this case?

(Return tabled)

Question No.287—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

With regard to the continuing designation of the United States of America as a safe third country under section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: (a) how many reports have been produced to date pursuant to the directives for ensuring a continuing review of factors set out in subsection 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with respect to countries designated under paragraph 102(1)(a) of that Act; (b) for each such report, what is the (i) date of production, (ii) authoring department or agency, (iii) title or identifying reference number, (iv) date the report was provided to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship or any other Minister; (c) has the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship or any other Minister ever made a determination that the United States of America may no longer meet one or more of the conditions required under subsection 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and, if so, when and what action, if any, was taken; (d) have any Charter compliance assessments, legal risk analyses, or litigation-driven reviews concluded that the United States of America may not meet the requirements of paragraph 102(2)(a), (b), or (c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act since 2015, and, if so, what were the conclusions and who received them; (e) when is the next review of the United States of America's safe third country designation scheduled to take place, and what are the timelines and procedures for its completion; (f) were any of these reports shared with the United States of America government or its agencies, and, if so, which ones and on what dates; and (g) will the government table in the House unredacted copies or summaries of all reports produced to date under these directives?

(Return tabled)

Question No.288—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With regard to the planned budgetary reductions for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency: (a) is Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada moving forward with a Deficit Reduction Action Plan in 2024 and, if so, what it the targeted budget reduction for the Department in percentage and actual dollars broken down by (i) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region, (ii) province or territory; (b) what specific programs or services within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada are projected to experience reductions in funding as part of the Deficit Reduction Action Plan in 2024–25, 2025–26, and 2026–27, broken down by (i) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region, (ii) province or territory, (iii) full-time employee reduction; (c) how will the anticipated Deficit Reduction Action Plan affect processing times for applicants, broken down by each immigration stream, including the processing of study permits, work visas and travel visas; (d) what measures will Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada implement to ensure the Deficit Reduction Action Plan does not adversely impact service delivery standards for applicants and stakeholders, including settlement organizations; (e) what workforce adjustments or layoffs, if any, are planned within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to accommodate the Deficit Reduction Action Plan, and what impacts are anticipated on staffing levels or full-time employees and employee workloads, broken down by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region; (f) how does Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada plan to engage with and communicate these changes to key stakeholders, including provinces, territories, settlement agencies and impacted applicants; (g) how much funding has been refocused away from the Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in the federal government’s refocused spending initiative, broken down by year in these program areas, (i) border security and enforcement, (ii) customs and trade facilitation, (iii) traveller screening, (iv) citizenship and passport services, (v) refugee resettlement; and (h) what is funding that has been refocused away from Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in the federal government’s refocused spending initiative being redirected toward, broken down by year?

(Return tabled)

Question No.289—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

With regard to measures taken by the government to prevent the import of alcohol and drugs into Nunavut, broken down by community and by fiscal year since 2020-21: (a) what specific measures are in place to ensure that mail and other packages entering Nunavut via Canada Post do not contain alcohol or drugs; (b) if screening facilities are used for this purpose, where are the screening facilities located; and (c) what percentage of mail and packages was checked for alcohol and drugs, in total and broken down by processing location and by method used to check the packages (scanning, manual search, etc.)?

(Return tabled)

Question No.290—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

With regard to the Hamlet Food Voucher Program funded through the Inuit Child First Initiative and delivered by Indigenous Services Canada: (a) broken down by hamlet and fiscal year since 2019, what is (i) the number of Inuit children or families served by the program, (ii) total amount of funding allocated to the program; and (b) what indicators does Indigenous Services Canada use to demonstrate that the health care needs of Inuit children will either decrease or increase in the next three fiscal years?

(Return tabled)

Question No.291—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

With regard to the consultation process in the government's preparation of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act: (a) which Indigenous rights holders were consulted about Bill C-5 prior to it being introduced in the House of Commons; (b) how much time were these rights holders provided to share their concerns about Bill C-5 with the government; (c) did the ministers and staff responsible for the preparation of this bill address any concerns raised by Indigenous rights holders in correspondence or meetings held with them prior to Bill C-5 being introduced in the House of Commons; and (d) what steps did the government take to ensure Bill C-5 obtained the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous rights holders to ensure it was compliant with (i) An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (ii) Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including subsection 35(3)?

(Return tabled)

Question No.292—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

With regard to the government’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund, broken down by fiscal year since the program was initiated: (a) how much of the total funding allocated to this fund has been committed to date; (b) which organizations have applied for this funding and were refused; (c) which funding recipients received a reduction in funding year-over-year; and (d) what were the evaluation criteria used by the government to determine which (i) organizations received funding, (ii) previous funding recipients lost funding?