The sitting was dominated by second-reading debate on Bill C-14, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, which occupied the entire Government Orders period and continued into the evening. The central political argument was whether the bill adequately repaired the damage the Conservatives said the Liberals had caused through earlier bills, or whether it was a balanced, charter-compliant reform that would keep communities safe.
Bill C-14, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, would amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act to tighten bail and sentencing for repeat and violent offenders. It would expand reverse-onus provisions for offences including violent auto theft, home invasion, human trafficking and extortion involving violence, meaning the accused would have to show why they should be released. It would clarify that the principle of restraint does not require automatic release, require courts to consider the number and seriousness of outstanding charges, and direct judges to scrutinize bail plans more closely. On sentencing, it would add aggravating factors for crimes against first responders, organized retail theft and repeat violent offending, allow consecutive sentences for certain combinations of offences, and restrict conditional sentences (house arrest) for serious sexual offences. The Liberal government argued the bill was the product of extensive consultation with provinces, police and stakeholders, and that it balanced public safety with charter rights. The Conservatives supported sending the bill to committee but said it did not go far enough: they called for repeal of the principle of restraint, restoration of mandatory minimum sentences, a presumption of detention for repeat violent offenders, and measures such as cash bail and stiffer youth sentences. The Bloc Québécois supported the bill in principle but raised concerns about the breadth of reverse-onus provisions and about the federal government respecting committee amendments, citing the treatment of Bill C-3. The NDP expressed caution, warning that the bill would disproportionately affect Indigenous and racialized communities, that it lacked data to justify the changes, and that it did not provide resources for provinces and territories to manage increased detention. The Green Party questioned whether the surety system could be improved through federal legislation. The government urged all parties to pass the bill before the end of the year.
Oral Questions was dominated by the Conservative attack that after ten years of Liberal government, "elites and insiders have never had it so good" while ordinary Canadians, especially young people, are being told to sacrifice. Conservatives cited bonuses paid to executives at CMHC, EDC, BDC and other agencies, and contrasted those with rising food bank use, doubled housing costs and high youth unemployment. The government responded by pointing to its upcoming November 4 budget, accusing the Conservatives of voting against affordability measures such as the national school food program, dental care and the Canada child benefit, and of threatening a "Christmas election" by not supporting the budget. Other themes included ethics questions about the Prime Minister's past role at Brookfield and its offshore funds, trade failures on softwood lumber and agricultural tariffs, and the need for stronger enforcement against financial crime.