Debates of Nov. 21st, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think these are valid suggestions that deserve to be studied. I think that Quebec in particular has more temporary workers because the process leading to permanent residency was more complex.

Certain things need to be checked with our provincial partners, including the Government of Quebec, but some things can certainly be done. The health of our economy depends on it. The health of our businesses depends on it. The same goes for Quebec's workers. We have to look at the big picture.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the excellent work he is doing in the House of Commons.

The budget includes a plan to develop our communities. This includes $115 billion over five years for community infrastructure. Can my colleague talk about the impact this plan will have on the communities in his riding of La Prairie—Atateken?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think similar problems exist in my colleague's riding and in my riding of La Prairie—Atateken. As just one example, we hear a lot about housing construction, but there is an underlying problem, which is the lack of infrastructure needed to support that construction. With this measure, we will enable cities and towns to obtain subsidies to build the infrastructure needed to accommodate people, thereby increasing the density of our regions. Cities will also eventually have the means to improve public transit. We need to keep in mind that these things are all part of a whole.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recall that a year ago, there was chaos in this House when it was announced that there would be a $40-billion deficit in an upcoming budget, and now the Liberals plan on doubling that. Does this concern the member of the Liberals?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question I can simply go back to what I was saying earlier.

Investments create a virtuous cycle that grows the economy, increases GDP, and generates more revenue for the government. That is what our government is proposing to Canadians. Ultimately, Canadians sent us here to do just that. They believed in our plan, and we are delivering on it.

I think it will work. I think that in a few years, our economy will run smoothly and Canadians will thank us for the initiatives we are taking right now. It is a matter of trusting Canadians. We trust in the country and we trust our workers and businesses.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I rise today to speak to budget 2025 and the choice it represents for our country: whether we return to fiscal sanity and economic hope or we keep layering new debt and new bureaucracy on top of the old problems we refuse to fix.

Canadians remember how we got here. I want to take everyone back to just one year ago to the 2024 fall economic statement, which triggered a full-blown political crisis within the Liberal government. The deficit in that document was so alarming that the former finance minister walked away and resigned from cabinet and the government fell into chaos. The former finance minister found this deficit so preposterous and so outrageous that it ultimately led to the resignation of Prime Minister Trudeau.

Canadians were then told that a new prime minister, the current Prime Minister, a former central banker, would restore stability. They were promised a steady hand, fiscal responsibility and a break from the decade of recklessness.

Budget 2025 proves the opposite. The deficit that helped topple the last Liberal government has now been doubled. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects deficits averaging over $64 billion a year for the next five years. Public debt has blown past $1.3 trillion. This budget alone adds more than $320 billion in new debt over the next five years, more than twice what the previous Liberal government was on track to adding over that same period.

Let me break down the outrageous debt level so that people watching at home can get a proper scope of how disastrous the government is. It is roughly $10 million in new debt every hour of every day. That is not renewal. This is indeed acceleration of the worst instincts of a Liberal government that has been in power for far too long. It is a government with no actual plan to get this country back on track. The budget implementation act, which we are debating today, would lock this path in.

Canadians were told there would be fiscal anchors. The Prime Minister promised to balance the operating budget within three years to ensure a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio and a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer now says there is only about a 7.5% chance of meeting even the first of those anchors. He has testified that there is a low probability the government will respect any of its own targets. This means the anchors were not actually anchors after all.

Instead of fixing the problem, the government has tried to redefine it. In order to make the claim the Liberals will be balancing the operating budget, they have quietly rewritten what counts as capital spending. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been very clear. This new definition of capital investment is “overly expansive”, and it goes far beyond what is used in our own public accounts and beyond international practice, including the system of national accounts, an internationally agreed upon standard for compiling measures of economic activity that is used in countries like the United Kingdom.

By shifting tax expenditures, investment tax credits and operating subsidies over to the capital column, the government makes day-to-day spending look smaller on paper. According to the PBO, if we were to use the widely accepted definition, so-called capital investment would actually be $94 billion lower and operating expenses would be higher over the next five years than what the government claims. Under that more honest definition, the operating budget never actually balances at all.

Regardless of the fact the Liberals are trying to mislead Canadians to make it seem like they are competent stewards of the public treasury, debt is debt, and no matter how they cook the books, they are still adding an insane amount of money to the public debt. Creditors do not care which column the government hides it in. Every dollar the government borrows must be paid back with interest. Under this budget, interest costs alone will reach more than $55 billion this year and grow toward $76 billion by the end of the decade. That will be more than we send to provinces for health care and more than we collect in GST.

Fitch Ratings has already warned that the budget's massive spending increases and debt burden weaken Canada's credit profile and underscore what it calls “the erosion of the federal government’s finances.” It notes that because fiscal rules are non-binding, “federal finances run a high risk of further deterioration.” Tax expert Kim Moody described this as “a horrible budget that will cripple our future generations.” As he put it, “The good parts are minor cameos, the bad dominates the middle, and the ugly rides off with our future saddled in debt.”

Canadians did not vote for this. Just six months ago, they were promised something completely different from the government. They were promised a $62-billion deficit, which is already high enough, not a $78-billion one. They were promised a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but it is rising, and less spending, not $90 billion more. They were promised fiscal anchors that would not be discarded in a matter of months. What people voted for and what they got are not the same thing, but is anyone surprised? They have been living this nightmare for the last decade.

I would like to move into the direct impact of this budget, because the damage caused by this recklessness is not just abstract.

In my community of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across the GTA, the housing crisis is the sharpest edge of these failed policies. Before the election, the government promised to build half a million homes a year. Today, we are not even close.

Home starts have cratered. From January to October, we have barely seen 200,000 starts nationwide. In the GTA, new home sales have collapsed. Compared with the recent 10-year average, single-family home sales are down by more than half. Condo sales are down by far more. Developers are laying off workers, projects are being shelved and young families are stuck. Plumbers, electricians, contractors and tradespeople are all feeling the pressure.

Development charges and the hidden taxes on new housing, coupled with GST and HST, can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of a home in the GTA. The cost of government now makes up roughly 30% to 40% of the price of a new home in the GTA.

During their election campaign in the spring, the Liberals promised to cut these charges in half. In the budget, that promise simply disappeared. There is no concrete plan to cut these costs, just frameworks, negotiations and more processes.

On housing, the government's answer is yet another bureaucracy: Build Canada Homes. It is as if the government wants our children to be renters forever. Do the Liberals want us to forget about the Canadian ideal of actually owning a home? It sure seems that way.

Instead of billions on housing measures that will not work, why do they not listen to industry? Why did they not listen to the municipalities and help support the reduction of fees and taxes that are preventing builders from building and keeping the price of homes out of reach? Why did they not steal our plan to remove the GST off all home purchases under $1.3 million, not just for the first-time homebuyer?

This same instinct shows up in productivity. The Bank of Canada has warned that Canada is stuck in what it calls a “vicious circle of weak productivity”, a systemic problem that makes it harder to meet today's challenges and seize tomorrow's opportunities. The deputy governor has pointed out that regulatory burden and lack of competition are key drags on growth and has urged thoughtful, systematic efforts to reduce those barriers, yet this budget responds to productivity and regulatory issues by creating even more bureaucracy.

We get the new Major Projects Office, layered on top of existing departments and regulations, instead of a real fix for the broken impact assessment rules of Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. We get the new Defence Investment Agency, another organization headquartered in the capital, instead of procurement reform that would let Canadian firms deliver ships, planes and equipment on time and on budget.

My greatest concern is not just what this budget does to today's economy, but what it does to tomorrow's Canadians. Future generations have no vote on this budget, but they will live with its consequences. They will inherit a country where more and more of every tax dollar goes to bureaucracy instead of hospitals, instead of homes, instead of innovation and instead of jobs.

Conservatives believe in a different path, a path where government lives within its means so that Canadians can live within theirs. I voted against this budget and will keep pressing for a direction that restores discipline, creates room for investments and gives young Canadians a reason to believe that the country's best days are ahead of it, not behind.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 clearly states that Canada possesses the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the entire G7, maintaining a strong AAA credit rating. Furthermore, the government's fiscal plan aims to achieve a crucial anchor: balancing day-to-day operating spending with revenues by 2028-29.

When the government successfully achieves its stated goal by 2028-29, the deficit will entirely support investments that grow the economy. These investments are designed to grow to $1 trillion in total investments over five years.

Why did the Conservatives vote against the budget that supports what I just talked about?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for years now, we have been hearing that investments will equal growth, but all we have is more debt and a slower economy.

Second, the government often loves to talk about net debt. The Liberals selectively use the term net debt versus growth debt measures, and they tend to ignore provincial and subnational debt. When we take those into consideration, as a lot of other countries do for health care and education expenditures, we learn that our debt is actually among the worst in the G7.

I will not support a budget that adds increasingly more burdens on Canadians and straps future generations with debt.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that, as an MP from a forestry region, I hear the government talk about jobs and employment measures for young people, but I am not satisfied with what I am hearing. Yesterday, I learned that a wood processing plant in my riding is laying off 100 workers, with Christmas just around the corner. The government is doing absolutely nothing for the forestry industry.

I would like to know whether my colleague sees things the same way I do, not only with regard to the budget but also with regard to all of the government's actions in relation to the forestry industry.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns.

This budget is typical of a Liberal government. It promises everything and delivers nothing. We have never seen a budget that spends so much money and delivers almost nothing for individuals, nothing tangible. Could we expect any more? We have been living this nightmare for the last 10 years.

There is so much more that could have been done to create the conditions, including the environmental conditions, to see our economy prosper. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has underdelivered as it always does.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give my colleague an opportunity to expand on the real-life consequences of this budget and the rising costs. I hear about them on a regular basis, and I am curious to know if he hears about them on a regular basis too. How are Canadians really impacted by the reckless spending of the Liberal government?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing hope. We hear it at the doors every single day.

People are finding it harder and harder to get ahead. We see the statistics. There are 2.2 million people lining up at food banks. Can members believe that? In this great country, 2.2 million people are lining up at food banks and 700,000 of them are children. Young people cannot find jobs. They cannot afford housing.

When we meet with people in industry and ask how we can attract more investment into this country, we hear the same thing over and over again: The environmental conditions for business to flourish are not there. We are overly regulated and overly taxed, and we need to repeal these measures to make Canada a more competitive country again.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, unions, doctors and engineers, people from all walks of life, appreciate this budget, so why are the Conservatives still not happy with it?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been pretty clear on that. We are not supporting this budget because it doubles the deficit. It adds over $320 billion to the national debt. That is money we could be paying to health care transfers. It is more money than we collect from GST. There could be more money for programs that people need. Instead, we are mortgaging away the future of our children and our grandchildren, the future of this great country, and we are running roughshod over those who came before us to set us up for success.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me and giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, which is the budget implementation act and the overall budgetary policy of this government.

Let me start by recognizing and thanking the people of Ottawa Centre for giving me the opportunity to speak on their behalf in the House. It is an honour every time I get up.

Every single budget tabled on behalf of the Government of Canada, no matter which political stripe, is shaped by the context or moment in time we are living in. This moment is quite unique. We hear different expressions, such as a hinge moment, a pivotal moment and a moment of great consequence, and I think all of them are quite appropriate descriptions of the times we are living in.

We are seeing serious signals toward protectionism, especially by the United States, and tariffs are being imposed on countries that have been long-time friends and allies, like Canada, for no justifiable reason. We are seeing shifting geopolitical alliances between countries, and countries like Canada are considering what they should be doing to invest in the north or the defence sector. That is the context in which this budget is being presented.

The aim of this budget is to set Canada up for success in this changing economic and political environment. In fact, I would argue that it would be highly inappropriate if the government did not make bold decisions, as we see in this budget, because then we would not be responding to the challenges.

The big challenge we have to respond to is strengthening our economy to make sure that our country remains both politically and economically independent. It is imperative and something the Prime Minister spoke about. In fact, the most recent election was fought on that. What steps are necessary to make Canada an economically independent country so that we are less reliant on the United States, are more focused on ensuring we trade with different parts of the world and are able to build our economy?

There are two big elements to make that happen that are part and parcel of this budget. One is to build one economy, as opposed to 13 in the country, and build the country east to west, which is the true axis of the country, with, of course, our northern coast and northern communities as well. This is as opposed to how we have always done business, which is from north to south and to the United States. This is something we have to reorient. In that process, we have to open up opportunities, through our Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic coasts, to other parts of the world. The investments my Conservative colleagues continue to oppose, which are part of this budget, are not just wasted money; they are being invested to build the infrastructure necessary for the economic independence of Canada.

There are a couple of other points I want to raise that I think are worth mentioning.

In this budget, there are no new tax increases. In fact, we are cutting taxes for over 20 million Canadians, especially those in the middle class, by lowering an income tax bracket. We have gotten rid of the divisive consumer carbon tax, which is helping families save money. We are cutting taxes. There are no new taxes in this budget, which is worthy of support.

In addition to that, we are not cutting any social services. We are making sure that Canadians get the help they need, whether through the Canada child benefit, the $10-a-day child care plan, the Canada disability benefit, the national school food program being made permanent, old age security or the guaranteed income supplement. All those important supports that Canadians rely on are being maintained and protected in this budget.

That is an important element for me in my support for the budget, but there are four or five key points I want to raise that are important in the budget.

One is the focus on trade diversification. As I mentioned earlier, we need to make sure we are not reliant solely on trading with the United States. We need to diversify our trade. The Prime Minister and the government have set a target of doubling our non-U.S. exports over a decade; that is about $300 billion that we are talking about. That will happen only if we engage with other parts of the world.

That is why the Prime Minister and members of the government are renewing our relationships and are rebuilding our alliances with other parts of the world, whether it is in Europe, the Indo-Pacific or the Middle East, to make sure that we are creating new opportunities for our businesses to do business.

We heard in question period earlier today that the Government of the United Arab Emirates has decided to invest $70 billion in Canada. That is a huge gain, as are the free trade agreements we have signed with Indonesia. We are negotiating with Thailand, with the Philippines, with Mercosur and with ASEAN.

All of this will allow us to diversify trade and open new markets for our businesses.

The other big element of the budget is investment in infrastructure. We are talking about schools, hospitals and community facilities. As all of us often talk about, these is the infrastructure that our communities use, and we hear from our communities about it. The government is investing directly in our communities. It is going to support our constituents and make sure they continue to live a better quality of life. I believe that the number is around $50 billion over the next few years that is being invested in our community. That is a really important investment. Again, building community assets that are going to support our communities is part of the budget.

The part I am quite excited about is Build Canada Homes, again, making sure we really deal with the housing crisis the country is going through by leveraging the capacity of the government to build more homes and to build them faster, to really leverage in that way a lot of the lands owned by the federal government. I know quite a bit about this because in my riding of Ottawa Centre there are a lot of federal lands ready to be repurposed and redeveloped to build affordable housing. There are neighbourhoods like Tunney's Pasture and Confederation Heights in my community, and there are buildings like the Jackson Building, which is right in downtown Ottawa, that could be repurposed for homes.

All those investments are going to create good homes for people.

There are also the superdeductions that are part of the budget. They are going to spur so much economic growth. They are going to ensure that there are new investments coming into our communities. Something the business communities have been asking for for some time is part of the budget so we can really attract private capital to be invested.

Last but not least, there is investment in our Canadian Armed Forces, to make sure that we not only meet the requirement of 2% of our GDP but also increase it to 5% to ensure the security and protection of our country from coast to coast to coast, especially the Arctic coast, so we protect not only us but our neighbours as well.

This is why I am supporting the budget. It is an investment in our country. It is a generational investment because it is investing in the generations ahead of us. Our responsibility is to build for them. That is what the budget is doing: building equity that we can then build on to create the prosperity that Canadians deserve and that we have always worked for.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question around something that is really important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was some language in the budget around the oil and gas production cap: that maybe the government would get rid of it because it may no longer be necessary.

I am wondering whether the member opposite supports getting rid of the oil and gas production cap completely and giving a strong commitment around that.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I support a sustainable economy. I support an economy that is driven toward the future. That would require the use of both conventional energy and renewable energy. I think that as a country we can do both.

This is a country made up of people who are creative and ingenious. I think that is the work we need to engage in, and we need to harness all parts of the country. We have a responsibility not only to our children but also as global partners. A sustainable economy is what I support.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comprehensive speech and particularly for focusing on Canada's essential role in navigating global challenges and securing our economic independence. He highlighted the critical importance of growing and diversifying Canada's trade to build resilience, especially given the rapid reshaping of the global trading system.

The core fiscal strategy of the budget is to spend less so we can invest more. Could my hon. colleague please elaborate on how this commitment to fiscal discipline and strategic investment has enabled the government to launch such ambitious nation-building initiatives and strengthen Canada's sovereignty from coast to coast to coast?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the member for Oakville West, who is the member of Parliament for my parents and does an amazing job. I remind her that my parents are the two most important constituents she has, and she recognizes that very important fact.

The fact of the matter is that the budget is focused on borrowing money not for our operating side, program delivery, but for the capital side. It is no different than what we all do in our lives. When we have to buy a house or a car, we go to a bank and get a loan. The reason the bank will give us a loan is that we are building equity; we are investing in something tangible.

That is precisely what governments need to do and what we are doing. We are investing in capital, whether that is building roads, community infrastructure, ports or highways. That is going to help grow our economy and make sure we have assets for future generations.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government has used some creative accounting in its budget to magically turn debts into investments.

I would like my colleague to enlighten me on how, for example, security costs for the FIFA World Cup can be a government investment.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

What we need to really focus on is the reason the money is being borrowed. If it is being borrowed for the purposes of investing in economic growth, that is going to result in more prosperity, increasing the GDP. That is no different than what we would do in our personal lives when it comes choosing for what purposes we would or would not use our credit card. That is the discipline we are bringing.

I support the budget because we are investing in the infrastructure we need for our economic growth, not just today but also for generations to come.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I first met the member when I was in law school, and I have always admired his work and his reflections on indigenous issues as well.

I want to highlight, though, that the member mentioned there are no cuts to social services. I wonder if this is an oversight on his part, because there are important cuts being made to indigenous programs like the Inuit child first initiative and Jordan's principle. I wonder if the member can commit to working with relevant ministers so those indigenous programs are not being cut like the rest of the social services he mentioned.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to recognize the member for Nunavut. I have always learned from her, and I thank her for her thoughtful guidance. I had a conversation earlier with her about the supports that are necessary for indigenous communities, whether in the north or in my community, which a lot of members of the urban indigenous communities call home.

If there is guidance or clearance we need on some of the measures so those supports remain in place, I am absolutely committed to working with the member opposite to make sure we continue to invest in our indigenous communities in the north and in urban settings.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today, although I would have preferred to do so under different circumstances.

Of course, I am pleased to speak about the budget, but first I want to express my solidarity with the workers and their families from the Arbec plant in Port‑Cartier, which announced less than 24 hours ago that more than 100 employees in my region would be losing their jobs. One hundred employees is 100 families. Many people are losing their jobs just before Christmas because the plant is closing indefinitely.

Of course, I stand with these workers. I would like to take this opportunity to challenge the government, which likes to talk about a “strong Canada” and claims to be creating jobs but then turns its back on all my constituents. Yesterday, even before learning about the closure of the Arbec plant, I had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for Labour some questions, which he was unable to answer. I expected a lot more from this government, which boasts about creating jobs and making the Canadian economy the strongest ever. In fact, long before the budget was tabled, the Prime Minister had already sent a message to workers, telling them to look elsewhere, to upgrade their skills and to do something other than pursue a career in the forestry industry.

In my opinion, this does not send a very positive signal to the forestry industry. Even before the budget was presented, these workers had already been told that they were being abandoned. Now the budget confirms it. No funds are earmarked for forestry workers or the forestry sector in general. However, the budget does provide funds for pipelines and the western economy. Once again, the forestry sector is being abandoned.

Everyone knows that Bloc Québécois members talk about independence in the House. Given this situation, my colleagues will understand why we would rather manage our own money. For more than a decade, we have been living in a petro-monarchy where money is spent on polluting natural resources, namely dirty oil. The Bloc Québécois wants something else for Quebec: a sustainable future for ourselves, for our children, for future generations and for the planet. We would like to see the money invested in other things, but that is not what we are seeing here. Once again, the government is failing to support the forestry industry. I hope the secretary of state or the minister will be able to respond.

It is one thing to talk about forestry workers, but the solution is actually quite simple. We had requested a wage subsidy to maintain the employment relationship, as a strong signal to show that the government believes in the forestry industry. This request was denied.

We are not asking for loan guarantees. When things are going badly financially, no one wants to take out a loan when they do not know what tomorrow will bring. What the Bloc Québécois is asking for is an advance on countervailing and anti-dumping duties, and that is what the industry wants. However, we have still not received a response from this government. This measure should have been included in the budget. True, the auto industry is in crisis. The steel industry is also in crisis; we produce steel back home too. However, forestry is important. It is truly the identity of my region that is at stake today.

I would now like to discuss Correctional Service Canada. The budget calls for significant cuts of 15%. There is a penitentiary in my riding, and the correctional officers are worried about their future. Resources are already short, in terms of both personnel and security, and officers are not being provided with what they need to do their jobs. Now the government has decided to cut their pension funds. However, a pension fund is part of the negotiated salary. It is not separate. At a certain point, during collective agreement negotiations, workers decided to invest part of their salary in a pension fund. What the government is telling them is that what they negotiated does not matter and that it has decided to cut their pension fund. If that is what it means to help workers and build a strong Canada, then, as everyone already knows, I do not want to be part of Canada.

As for EI, which is very important in my riding, it is vital to remember that those who apply for EI are not doing it by choice. They are doing it because they have been hit hard, like the workers at the Arbec mill right now. In a rural region like ours, these tough setbacks also affect seasonal industries. Let me just mention that it is the industries that are seasonal, not the workers.

Workers want to work, but things need to get developed for work to happen. We have not even reached the development stage. Villages and entire communities are dying because this government does not want to lend a hand. It could tell workers that it is going to help them get through the year and get through the spring gap, that they can stay home and that someday, something might be developed. Right now, it is sending them the message, in the forestry industry anyway, that they are not important. It is sending the message that it does not want fisheries. It does not want or care about tourism. People who plant trees in the forestry sector do not matter.

For 10 years, the government has been saying that it plans to overhaul EI. EI is supposed to help workers, but it is not fit for purpose yet. For 10 years, I think that we still believed that reform was on the way. Now, no one expects the reform to happen. There is nothing, just nothing.

Helping workers also means helping young people. We know that the youth unemployment rate is high. We studied this in committee. Young people cannot even access EI benefits. As a result, young people's life plans and academic goals are at risk because they are not receiving support either.

Let us talk about the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The government says it is going to create jobs, but it is also going to eliminate 40,000 jobs. I want to know whether the jobs the government says it is going to create are quality jobs. There are a few numbers floating around. Will those jobs be unionized? Will those jobs come with benefits? Will those jobs be full-time jobs? Is it creating jobs just to create jobs? Does it even matter, given that the government has decided that cuts were necessary and that it thinks that good jobs are expensive?

That is another message the government is sending. It is saying that jobs do not necessarily need to pay well and that the public service is useless. In a region like mine where it is difficult or even impossible to access services, these people do crucial work, but they are not recognized for it. The government is once again eliminating jobs after promising to create them. The Canadian Labour Congress has asked how the government plans to create jobs by eliminating tens of thousands of them.

Let us talk about Canada Post. That interests me. I think its situation is rather unusual. The Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement was going on about how much it costs to operate Canada Post, how unbelievably expensive it is and how the government can no longer provide this service. The minister did not even refer to it as an essential service. I would like to remind the House that Canada Post reporter that half of its second-quarter losses, about $253.5 million, occurred in June. Oddly enough, June is when Purolator suddenly began offering a 65% discount specifically to Canada Post customers. For those who may not know, Canada Post owns Purolator. It owns a 91% stake in Purolator.

What Canada Post is doing is corporate cannibalism. Canada Post is basically eating into its own profits with Purolator's help. Yes, we want mail to be delivered. Of course we want it to be convenient and beneficial for all our businesses and for the entire population. However, in my opinion, there is a real lack of good faith here. The numbers are being fiddled. People know they can make numbers say just about anything. If we are being at all honest, I think that these numbers reflect a desire, probably on the part of Canada Post, to kill Canada Post.

I will conclude by saying that this is hypocrisy. It is not even budgetary window dressing. The government also boasted about passing anti-scab legislation. In the case of Canada Post, it seems that the situation is still going on because it is always possible to find replacement workers.

I also stand in solidarity with Canada Post workers and all the workers I mentioned, because the Bloc Québécois stands up for workers. We do not just pretend to stand up for them.

Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims' Families Act

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

moved that Bill C-236, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this may be the most important speech that I have given as a member of Parliament in my political career so far. That is because, as I think we can all agree in the House, the promises we make to our constituents, particularly constituents who are families of victims of crime, are the most important promises we make. I have been a member of Parliament for eight years, and this is the first opportunity I have had to bring forward this private member's bill.

The legislation was named in honour of Lyle and Marie McCann from St. Albert, Alberta. They were brutally murdered in 2010. Their killer is currently behind bars, but, to this day, we do not know the location of their remains.

I want to start by reading a statement from their son, Bret McCann, on behalf of the McCann family. It states, “On July 3, 2010, Travis Vader killed my parents, Lyle and Marie McCann. In early 2017, Vader received a life sentence for this despicable crime.

“Vader has never acknowledged that he committed this heinous crime.

“Our pain is everlasting. We will never forget, or forgive, what Vader has done.

“We know that it is critical for Vader's rehabilitation that he admit to having committed the murder of my parents. This is a prerequisite to any possibility of him ever having a role in normal society.

“As part of this admission, Vader would also need to provide authorities with the location of my parents' remains. It is very important to myself, and my family, that my parents' remains be located, and buried properly. I think it is a critical component of our grieving, and the one individual who knows where my parents' remains are has said nothing. Vader must reveal what he did with my parents' remains.

“‘No body, no parole’ laws have been enacted in Australia as a way of trying to bring closure to the families of murder victims. Similarly, the United Kingdom has implemented ‘Helen's law’.

“Like our Commonwealth partner countries [have done], Bill C-236 should be implemented in Canada as well.”

On July 3, 2010, 78-year-old Lyle and 77-year-old Marie McCann from St. Albert embarked on a road trip to British Columbia. They were on their way to pick up their daughter in Abbotsford, B.C. Tragically, they never arrived. On the evening of July 5, their motorhome was found ablaze at a campground near Edson, Alberta. The investigation led to the arrest and conviction of their killer, Travis Vader.

While it is rare for someone to be convicted of murder without a body having been found, a judge decided that the overwhelming amount of evidence meant he could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Vader had committed the murders. Vader is behind bars to this day, but he was eligible for parole as recently as last year. He has continuously refused to disclose the location of the remains of his victims, meaning that the family has never been able to hold a proper funeral and get that closure.

I believe that withholding information that would lead to the recovery of victims' remains is an ongoing crime against the victims' families. It is a crime that currently has no consequences. The idea that a killer could be released on parole while they continue to refuse to provide this information is abhorrent to Canadians.

What Bill C-236 proposes to do is to address this injustice by giving judges, parole boards and correctional authorities new powers to consider an offender's refusal to co-operate in disclosing the location of the victim's remains at sentencing, in parole hearings and in other release decisions. Currently, there is no requirement for an offender's refusal to disclose to be considered by judges or parole boards. The current bill seeks to amend three statutes: the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

The amendments to the Criminal Code seek to achieve this: At sentencing, after an offender has already been convicted, the court will consider their refusal to provide information on the location of their victims to be an aggravating factor. If the court decides not to consider the offender's refusal to provide this information at sentencing, it must provide the reasons for this decision. This seeks to ensure accountability and transparency for victims' families, who all too often do not understand what is going on in the courts.

If an offender is sentenced for more than two years to life and refuses to provide information on the location of their victim's remains, the court has the discretion to order that parole will not be considered until half the sentence has been served, or 10 years, whichever is less. At sentencing, the judge would have to determine, based on the facts of the case, whether they believe the offender has material information that would lead to the recovery of victims' remains. In cases in which a judge does not believe an offender has this material information, the judge would have the discretion not to use these powers.

If these powers are used, and an offender later provides material information that leads to the recovery of the victim's remains, or if the circumstances leading to the order being put in place cease to exist, such as the remains being found, then the court would have the power to revoke this order.

The amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act are as follows: The bill adds a proposed subsection under section 102 that the parole board has the discretion to refuse to grant parole if it deems that the offender is withholding information on the location of the remains based on the facts of the case as determined by the sentencing judge. It also proposes to add in section 116 that the parole board has the discretion to refuse to authorize unescorted temporary absences if it deems that the offender is withholding information on the location of remains.

The amendments to the Prisons and Reformatories Act are as follows: Co-operation in locating the remains of victims will be considered in granting temporary absences. These are circumstances in which an inmate may be authorized to leave prison because of humanitarian or other reasons. There is discretion to decline these requests if an inmate continues to withhold the whereabouts of the remains.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right for an accused person not to be compelled to provide testimony. This would be incriminating against themselves. This is a very important constitutional protection. Bill C-236 does not create any consequences for an accused for the purpose of compelling information about the remains of their alleged victims. These legislative powers would only come into effect after an accused has been convicted of a crime involving the death of a person and when a judge has determined, based on the facts of the case, that the offender has material information they are withholding. It strengthens the tools available to the justice system to hold offenders accountable.

To be clear, if an offender does co-operate and the remains are found, this does not guarantee they will get parole. The parole board will still have to consider a number of factors, including whether they are a threat to the community and other factors.

It is worth emphasizing that the bill has been designed to ensure that judges, parole boards and correctional officials maintain full discretion to use these powers as they deem appropriate. In cases in which a judge decides not to use these powers, they can explain their decision so that families can have that accountability and explanation. These provisions are meant to prioritize the rights of victims and their families in keeping with the objectives of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

Even though the McCanns' killer has been convicted and incarcerated, he continues to traumatize the family by withholding the location of his victims. Although it was the McCann story that inspired me to bring this case here today, in sad reality, it is not the only case.

In 2014, Kathy Liknes, 5-year-old Nathan O'Brien and 66-year-old Alvin Liknes were murdered in Calgary, Alberta. At some point in the early morning of June 30, their murderer disabled a lock on their home and broke in. The circumstances of this murder are graphic, disturbing and horrifying, and I will not speak of them in the House today. However, purely by coincidence, a photo shot by a camera on a plane owned by a digital mapping company showed their bodies lying face down on the property of the convicted person. When the same plane flew over the next day, the bodies were gone. Their killer was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder. He has refused to offer any details on the location of his victims' remains. He never expressed regret or remorse. The sentencing judge said it is hard to imagine “a more cunning, cruel and horrific set of circumstances”.

There is also the murder of Lyne Massicotte. In July 2003, 43-year-old Lyne Massicotte was murdered in Quebec City. She was visiting the city to go on a date with a man she met online. It was not until early 2010 that police finally arrested her killer. According to information uncovered as part of an undercover police investigation, her killer admitted to strangling her and killing her. After violating her body, he dumped it on the banks of the St. Lawrence River. Although it has been over 20 years, the sisters and friends of Lyne Massicotte have been unable to find peace, because her remains have never been found. Her killer is eligible for parole in 2035.

There is the saga of missing and murdered indigenous women. Despite composing 4% of Canada's female population, indigenous women make up 10% of missing women in Canada and 16% of all female homicides. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls reported in 2019 that indigenous women are 12 times more likely to be murdered or go missing than non-indigenous women. In 2022, at least four indigenous women were murdered by a serial killer. The remains of Morgan Harris, Marcedes Myran and Rebecca Contois were found in landfill searches. However, the remains of the fourth victim, Ashlee Christine Shingoose, have never been found.

The killer has been convicted on four counts of first-degree murder. However, he has shown no remorse for his actions and has never co-operated in locating his victims' remains. This killer will be eligible for parole in 2047.

In my riding, there was the case of Samuel Bird this past summer. In June, a young boy, 14-year-old Samuel Bird of Paul First Nation, went missing. After an extensive search, his body was found just south of my town of Stony Plain on October 16, four and a half months after he was last seen alive.

I want to recognize the exceptional effort of all those involved. Despite investigators calling it “one of the most challenging cases [they] have been involved in”, the unwavering dedication of police, his family and volunteers allowed for Samuel to receive a proper burial. His accused killer has been charged with 14 offences. While the family of Samuel Bird will be granted some closure by his remains being found, the accused made obvious concerted efforts to hide his body in the hopes that it would never be found.

In reaction to this recent case, the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs for Treaties 6, 7 and 8 made this resolution at its convention:

We support strengthening accountability by requiring offenders convicted of serious crimes to disclose information about the location of victims' remains before parole or sentencing consideration, recognizing its potential to bring closure and healing to families of [missing and murdered indigenous persons].

Just today, we received the shocking news that one of the killers of Laura Babcock, Dellen Millard, was downgraded from maximum security to medium security. Laura Babcock went missing in early July 2012. The pair of killers are believed to have disposed of her body in an animal crematory, and her remains have never been found. Despite no body being found, overwhelming evidence led to a conviction of first-degree murder.

Just yesterday, despite having stabbed another prisoner as recently as 2023, Millard was downgraded to a medium-security prison, and his co-conspirator Mark Smich has been enjoying medium-security prison since 2021. This was done despite a refusal on the part of the killers to admit to the crime they were convicted of, and they have never provided information about the location of Laura Babcock's remains.

Even though these killers have been convicted and are incarcerated, the trauma for victims and their families continues to this day. During the trial of Travis Vader, the McCann family killer, he claimed that he was not guilty because of a lack of physical evidence. He was convicted on an overwhelming body of evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed the murders.

I have heard some argue that perhaps this legislation should not be enacted because those who are convicted of a crime may be innocent and this legislation could be used on them. My simple answer to them is that by that logic, why would we ever put anyone in prison if they claim they are innocent? We have a judicial system that protects the principle of the presumption of innocence, but once somebody has been convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not up to the Parole Board to question the legitimacy of that decision.

Just last year, Travis Vader was up for parole, and the Parole Board was required to make only two key considerations: whether his release would pose an undue risk to society and whether his release promoted the protection of society. Travis Vader was never required to provide any material information that led to the recovery of his victims' remains. He was never required to admit the guilt of his crime, and he has not been held accountable for withholding this information from the families. Bret McCann has said that throughout court proceedings, Vader continuously mocked the McCann family by smirking and making obscene gestures.

The idea that somebody could be granted parole and be allowed to walk the streets in this country while they have information about the location of their victims' remains is abhorrent. It is an injustice, and this legislation seeks to solve it.

Just because a killer is prosecuted and incarcerated, that does not mean victims' families have full closure. In fact, victims' families could never have full closure, but not having the remains of their loved ones is an ongoing trauma that families face each and every day. As long as remains go unfound, it continues to impact victims' dignity and the well-being of their families.

I introduced this legislation because I believe families have a right to know where their loved ones are. They have the right to give them a proper funeral, and those who would deny them the fundamental decency of having their remains for a funeral must be held to account.

I have not made this a partisan issue. I hope that I can get support from all parties for this common-sense legislation that is needed to support families.