Debates of Dec. 4th, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, lost in all of the media stories last week was a CBC story that talked about a Campbell's soup executive getting caught in a meeting making fun of the “poor people” who ate their soup. This executive apparently said that Campbell's soup was for “poor people” and was a “highly processed food” that poor people had to eat.

When I saw that story, it seemed to be the perfect analogy for the Liberals with this budget. In the story, the executive, by his own admission, is selling highly processed food. If a person goes to Walmart, I think the price of a can of Campbell's soup ranges between $1.50 and $2.50. Frankly, it is what a lot of people in Canada are eating right now, yet this executive was making fun of the people, the poor plebes, who have to eat a can of Campbell's soup. The reality is a lot of people in Canada work really hard and used to be able to go out and afford a steak dinner once or twice a month or think about having a beef rib roast at Christmas. That was not much of a problem 10 years ago, but those are the people now eating Campbell's soup.

The arrogance in that executive's comments, I think, is exactly what the arrogance is of the Liberal government in tabling this budget. I looked at this budget through the lens of one of my constituents and wondered if they would think I was doing my fiduciary responsibility and standing up for good, wise stewardship of their tax dollars by supporting this. The first question I asked myself was, what is in it for my constituents? Is there anything in it for my constituents?

Although the Liberals have tried to sell this budget, it has, I think, a record deficit. We have never seen money like this in Canadian history. Economists and experts have talked about the fact that it is going to bankrupt future generations and that we are likely going to see a credit downgrade in the country. It has made our country less resilient. It is one of the most intensely deficit-laden budgets in history.

I wanted to see what is in it for my constituents. I thought we would see something like maybe a GST cut for all the money that the Liberals are spending, or maybe a rocket ship to the moon or a highway paved in gold, but instead I think it condemns my constituents to more soup nights. Please, sir, can I have some more Liberal deficits and Campbell's soup?

At the end of the day, what people want to look at or see in a budget is prudence and something for them. What we have seen out of the Liberal government over the last 10 years are funding announcements that result in nothing for Canadians, waste, deficit, higher taxes, and the inability to have a steak dinner. Most people in Canada want a steak dinner. That would be nice. I am an Albertan. Alberta beef is the best, but people cannot afford it anymore. They cannot afford protein.

I am not talking about just some Canadians. I am talking about most Canadians, those who, in many jurisdictions, would be considered solidly middle class. They are double-income families, but they are sometimes working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. They have seen their rents increase. They cannot get access to timely health care. There are all sorts of issues making their life worse, but the government is spending more. How is it that the government is asking us to support a bill that keeps seeing Canadians' lives getting worse while the Liberals spend more? That is a “no” for me. It is a “no” for most of my constituents too.

I want to also highlight the level of waste that we see in the government. Some of my colleagues have been litigating and doing an excellent job. Our shadow minister for industry, for example, has been doing a great job litigating the fact that the Liberals spent $13 billion or $14 billion on Stellantis.

[An hon. member]

It was $15 billion.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, they spent $15 billion, and Stellantis just left the country.

Yesterday, guess where Stellantis was. Its representatives were at the White House. Do members know what they were saying? They are investing $13 billion in the United States, a direct transfer from Canadian taxpayers to the United States of America, while rich Campbell's lobbyists, who I am sure are probably friends with some of these guys across the aisle, are talking about people who have to eat their soup. I do not think Canadians should be condemned to eating soup. They should have choice in food.

There was a startling report today showing that next year, an average Canadian family will have to pay, at minimum, an extra $1,000 for basic groceries. That is on top of the already huge increase in food prices.

In the province of Alberta, in my riding, food bank visits are at an all-time high. In Alberta, the 127 reporting food banks were visited 210,000 times, a jump of 21.8% compared to last year and 134% since 2019.

We have a budget where the government is dumping billions and billions of dollars, endless dollars, into corporate lobbyists and corporations that are not even trying to keep jobs here. The ministers did not even bother reading the contracts. Meanwhile, we should have some highly processed soup for dinner.

There is nothing in the budget for Canadians. There is a lot for the Liberals' rich friends and and a lot for corporations that have other benefits, like regulatory benefits that keep cellphone bills high. The layers of ways the Liberals screw the average Canadian, between regulatory capture and just forking out direct cash to their friends, are so magnificently bad.

In this budget, the level of debt is shocking. It is kind of tricky of the Prime Minister to say we are saving money, because he has tried to cook the books and restructure how expenses are categorized. We are not that dumb. He might think we are. That is how he treats some of his cabinet ministers or journalists when he tells them to “look inside” themselves instead of answering a question. That level of arrogance is not going to make my constituents able to go out for a nice dinner or just afford basic groceries.

I am the shadow minister for immigration, and I have never seen a more incompetent immigration minister in the Liberal government's history, and that is saying a lot. Through this budget, the Liberals are continuing immigration levels that are unsustainable. There are not enough houses, doctors or jobs for people in Canada right now, yet they are juicing these numbers. In one bill in front of the House of Commons right now, Bill C-12, the Liberals are trying to give themselves powers to mass extend temporary resident visas. We have an amendment that I hope the government will support on that front.

Everything is about increasing the size of government, increasing the largesse of the Liberals' corporate friends and increasing the population in unsustainable ways through immigration, and my constituents are left with having a can of soup that an executive of the company calls not nutritious and highly processed. At a bare minimum, in a G7 country, people should have more to look forward to than a bare cupboard at night.

I know there are people in my community, which was once very well off, who have lost their houses. There are now parts of my community where homelessness is a problem in a big way, and people cannot afford to make ends meet. I know there are seniors in my community who thought they were going to have a safe retirement but now cannot afford to buy groceries.

The Liberals are now asking us to support $78 billion when a company they gave $15 billion to just transferred $13 billion of it to the United States. Come on. Something has to give.

The Prime Minister told Canadians that he would be the person who could better manage Canada's finances. All he did was rack up debt on the credit card. He is not the only economist in this room. His economic policy is bad; it is failed socialist policy that does not benefit anybody.

No, I do not support this budget, nor should anyone else in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The deputy House leader, or whatever his title is, just told you to shut up. He should apologize.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I did not hear anything. I assure members that even if a member told me to quiet down or used some other term, I would not, but I did recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety for questions and comments.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will certainly have the opportunity to ask a question afterward.

The member for Calgary Nose Hill is asking what is in this budget for her constituents. I will keep the debate very simple. I will ask the member what she thinks of the productivity superdeduction, which will essentially enable Canadian businesses, businesses in her riding of Calgary Nose Hill, to quickly write off their capital investment costs for capital expenditures, process transformation, automation, renewable energy, research, experimental development and so on.

I think it is an incredible economic stimulus that is going to kick-start our economy—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a productivity superdeduction if the government scrapped the temporary foreign worker program and stopped allowing businesses that have no reason to bring in temporary labour to continue to suppress our wages and suppress productivity in this country. I think about how badly the government has distorted productivity measures by allowing literally millions of temporary foreign workers into this country, which also takes opportunities away from Canadian youth. That is probably one of the key productivity drivers in this country.

However, my colleague across the way wants my constituents to pay more for basic common sense. No, of course we will not.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. I know she is an expert on immigration. I would like to ask her about the budget allocated to border protection.

Does she think that hiring 1,000 border services officers over three years will be enough to keep our borders secure? Will Canada have all the resources it needs to properly manage immigration?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that my colleague and I spent at the public safety committee last week trying to improve Bill C-12, which was so lacking with regard to border security. I will note that, every time the Liberals say they are going to hire more border security, they do not do it. It is about the announcement. Colour me skeptical if I do not believe anything they say they are going to do.

Just to reiterate some of the work that my colleague did last week, we tried to advance measures which would have made it more difficult for people who have a criminal past or criminal intent to enter the country by proposing common-sense, cost-free measures to Canada's immigration system, and the Liberals rejected that. Shame on them.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill.

Should Canadians trust a government that, after 10 years, still cannot manage procurement, cannot control spending, cannot deliver infrastructure, such as the Gordie Howe International Bridge, and cannot provide basic answers in this chamber?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is so exciting to see a Conservative elected in Windsor. It is awesome.

My colleague is standing up for jobs in his community. While the Liberals are spending tens of billions of dollars on companies that are taking investments to other countries, with no job guarantees, he is standing up and saying he is going to protect the auto sector in his riding.

I say kudos to him, and no, of course we should not trust the Liberals. There is great work coming from Windsor with that guy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know why the member opposite continuously wants to vote against the investments that the federal government is making, not only in the province of Alberta as a whole, but also in the constituency she represents, through good, sound social programming?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the member rose in this place and said that, if somebody was being sexually assaulted in this country, a non-citizen, judges would not give them special treatment. He said that. Then he stood in the House and gave many examples of that, including a 13-year-old girl who had been raped. I thought he was going to apologize for saying that, but I guess hope springs eternal.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

When Canadians hear the phrase “budget implementation”, they expect something simple: a plan that respects taxpayers, strengthens our economy and delivers results without waste. Unfortunately, this bill misses that mark in ways that are not minor, but fundamental.

I want to approach this from a perspective that we do not hear that often in Ottawa, the view of rural and resource-producing communities, of agriculture and energy workers, of families who contribute so much to Canada's prosperity yet feel increasingly overlooked by federal policy. I want to speak as someone who has worked internationally for decades, particularly in post-Soviet countries, where government overreach, sluggish bureaucracy and disrespect for local decision-making are constant barriers to growth. When I look at Bill C-15, I see too many of these same mistakes creeping into our own system.

This is a budget that would spend more while delivering less. The government continues to treat spending as synonymous with progress. Bill C-15 would implement a budget that is the most expensive in Canadian history, yet Canadians feel poorer, less secure and less hopeful. Where I come from, on the Prairies, we earn trust, not by how much we spend, but by what we deliver. Families live within their means, and small businesses operate carefully because overspending can cost someone their livelihood.

Farmers know that inputs do not matter if the yields are not there, but Ottawa continues to spend without measuring outcomes. The budget implementation act commits billions more in new spending while offering little accountability and no realistic plan to restore affordability to Canadians. This is why Conservatives oppose the direction of the bill. The government is asking Canadians to pay more while receiving less.

The most urgent issues facing Canadians today are affordability, housing, groceries, fuel and basic necessities, yet Bill C-15 would entrench policies that have made life fundamentally more expensive. Whether someone lives in Toronto—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. He will have the remainder of his time when the House next takes up this matter.

Criminal Code

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved that Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentences for sexual offences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, there is a special delight that every consumer knows when they go into a store and walk away with a deal, that moment when we realize that we are paying a little bit less than what we were expecting to. Maybe it is 15% off of one's favourite boots or favourite shoes. Maybe it is buying one and getting the other one half off. Maybe it is hitting the jackpot and buying one to get the other one free.

Especially at Christmas time, these sorts of deals tend to attract people. They tend to get us into a storefront. We love a bargain. We love getting more value than what we pay for. Discounts are a part of everyday life, and they are especially a part of this season. They bring a thrill when we are able to spot them and take advantage of them.

As great as these discounts are, I would offer that they belong in stores alone. They do not belong in our justice system. The practice of treating serious crimes like they are items on sale is not just misguided but altogether dangerous, unjust and completely detached from the experience of victims who will never receive a discount on the trauma they experienced and live with.

Unfortunately, in our current justice system, discounts are handed out far too often in criminal sentencing. One of the biggest and most troubling discounts granted under Canadian law is concurrent sentencing. In other words, it offers an offender the opportunity to serve multiple sentences under one. Instead of facing real consequences for each act of harm, they serve all sentences at the same time. One sentence for multiple crimes equals drastically reduced jail time.

If this logic were applied anywhere else in life, I think we would be outraged. We would call it absurd, but in Canada's courts, it is somehow common practice. Even more troubling is that this discount is applied to some of the most egregious crimes, including mass murder or serial sexual assault. Today, I will focus on the latter with regard to my private member's bill.

Sexual assault crimes are not minor offences. They are not mistakes. These are acts that rob individuals of their dignity, their agency and their sense of safety and well-being. They can alter the course of a person's life, not just for a few weeks or a few months, but forever. The perpetrators of such deeply violating crimes often walk away with sentences that fail to reflect the severity of the harm they have caused. Concurrent sentencing should never be allowed for such crimes, which is why I am proud to address this issue and stand with victims by presenting my private member's bill, Bill C-246, the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act.

The bill is simple, direct and necessary. It would mandate consecutive sentencing, not concurrent sentencing, for those convicted of sexual offences. In plain terms, that would mean no more bundling crimes into one low-price package and no more sentencing discounts. Sexual predators would no longer be able to compress their crimes and walk away with a reduced amount of time in jail. Instead, each crime would carry its own penalty and each victim would receive the full recognition that she or he deserves.

Under this law, every victim would count, and not just in a moral or symbolic sense. They would really count. Their voice counts. What happened to them counts. The crime committed against them matters and should be paid for.

Currently, Canada does not allow for consecutive sentences in these types of cases. It does, however, allow for them when it is to do with children. While that protection for children is absolutely right and necessary, the logic behind that allowance equally applies to adult victims.

I ask members to consider this just for a moment: In Canada, the maximum sentence for a break-in or a violent robbery is life in prison. Life is the maximum sentence. The maximum penalty for sexual violence against an adult is only 10 years. It is 14 years when that victim is under the age of 16. We have to sit with this comparison for a moment. A property crime, a robbery, carries a higher maximum sentence than the violent theft of a person's bodily autonomy.

A home can be repaired, and a stolen phone can be replaced, but what about restoring a person's dignity and restoring a person's sense of security, their trust in the world? Those wounds are far deeper and take far more to heal. Therefore the penalty should also be far more.

The fact that our justice system punishes property crimes more severely than it punishes sexual offences is not just inconsistent; I would say it is altogether an injustice to the people who face these types of crimes. For far too long the scales have been tipped in favour of the criminal, the offender, while victims are left struggling, having to pull the pieces together and find healing for the egregious crimes committed against them.

Years of soft-on-crime policies have left communities less safe and victims increasingly vulnerable. Since 2015, sexual assaults in Canada are up nearly 75%. Offences against children are up an alarming 120%. These are not just abstract percentages or mere data points for academic purposes; these are numbers representing real people with real stories, lives forever changed. Each statistic represents betrayal, fear and lifelong consequences that generally impact not only the victim but also their family, friends and community.

In Toronto, a family doctor was charged with nine counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation, involving three patients over a period of time. These patients walked into his clinic expecting care, compassion and professionalism from this individual; instead they were preyed upon by someone in whom they had placed trust. They left not with healing but with deep wounds, not having been cared for but having been exploited.

The sentence for this physician who committed more than a dozen intrusive and grave crimes was three and a half years. He committed thirteen heinous crimes but was given one sentence because all the crimes were enmeshed into one.

Let us think about the societal message that is delivered. What message is sent to other victims who are terrified to come forward? It tells them that their suffering will be compressed, that their voice does not matter. What message is sent to other potential offenders? Well, it tells them that even if they hurt multiple people, commit multiple crimes, the system will protect them. It will have their back.

What message does it send regarding the societal value we place on making sure people are kept safe in the most vulnerable spaces, such as the medical office they enter? It suggests that even profound violations committed under the guise of care are somehow eligible for a discount, and it reaffirms to victims that the justice system does not stand with them but rather on the side of the perpetrator.

Kashif Ramzan pretended to be a talent agent attracting young people into the modelling industry. Two young women were lured in, and they faced horror instead of opportunity. They were both sexually assaulted numerous times over. At the end of the day, Ramzan pleaded guilty and did not refute any of the accusations brought against him. The sentence he faced was 18 months for the one, and two years for the other. In this country, 18 months plus 24 months equals 24 months, because multiple sentences are combined into one being served.

Again we must ask, what message does this send to society? What message is sent to young women who are already navigating a world where exploitation all too often hides behind charm, flattery and supposed opportunity?

It tells them that if they are victimized, the system does not have their back. It tells them that their dreams can be weaponized against them, that they can be exploited and that it is not as big of a deal if there is more than one of them. It tells the public, especially these young women, that predators may face only a fraction of the punishment their crimes deserve. Meanwhile, they are expected to sort through the pieces of their own brokenness.

This is the opposite of justice, it is the opposite of deterrence and it is the opposite of what a healthy society should signal about the seriousness of sexual violence.

When the system merges multiple victims into a single punishment, it erases the individuality of their suffering and the weight of each of their experiences. It tells victims implicitly, if not explicitly, that their pain is worth less and that the law sees them not as unique human beings deserving of justice but as tally marks on a spreadsheet.

Whether a predator commits repeated offences against one person or single offences against multiple people, justice demands that each of those crimes be paid for. Sentences must be served consecutively, not concurrently. This reflects the extent of the harm done. Anything less is a betrayal of victims.

It is long past time to put victims first. Sexual offences should never be treated like a two-for-one deal at the shoe store checkout. There is no “buy one assault, get one free”, but that is what our current justice system does. There is no bulk discount on human suffering, but that is what our courts reward.

Each offence is in fact a distinct harm. Each victim is a whole person, and each act must carry with it its own consequences. Justice is not something to be discounted or bundled. Justice demands full recognition and full accountability for every crime and every victim.

My bill, Bill C-246, is about restoring that balance. It is about ensuring that the law stands firmly on the side of victims, not with predators. It is about making sure that when a sexual offender is sentenced, the punishment truly reflects the crime. It is about restoring faith in our justice system for the survivors who have so often been let down. It is about sending a clear message to society that sexual violence is serious, that it will not be tolerated, that every victim matters and that predators will face real, meaningful consequences.

My appeal to those in this place, to my colleagues from all parties, is that they support this bill, that they stand on the side of victims and that together we stand for a strong, robust justice system that refuses to minimize the most violating crimes a person can endure. We should be a group of people who instead stand for what is right.

I am asking members to support this bill. Let us send a united message from the House of Commons that we stand with the innocent, that we stand with the victims, that we stand with the survivors and that sexual predators will in fact face the full force of the law. There cannot be the continued practice of discounts for sexual predators. Let us please stand with victims.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on her bill. This is a very important issue that needs to be debated and that requires our full attention. All 343 of us here share the horror of these crimes committed by sexual predators. We all want these crimes to be severely punished in a way that acts as a deterrent.

However, the government has an obligation to act responsibly. It has an obligation to ensure that legislation is constitutional and that it will not be a waste of time. There is no point in wasting time. Considering—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would beg the hon. member to explain what is unconstitutional about standing with victims. What is unconstitutional about ensuring that sexual predators receive the full force of the law? When a member speaks in that way, it feels as though platitudes are being given on the one hand, in terms of a justice system that needs to be strengthened, but then excuses for that weakness in the justice system are being made on the other hand. That is problematic, because ultimately it is victims who are put at risk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation of the bill she is sponsoring.

I just want to draw something to everyone's attention because I get the impression it was not mentioned. I may have missed a word or two. It is already possible to give consecutive sentences in the case of a repeat sex offender or someone who commits multiple sex offences.

Under the current system, with the Criminal Code, arguments can be made to convince a judge to proceed in this manner. I must also say that, in our sentencing principles, the idea of seeking a fair punishment is already enshrined.

Does my colleague have a study or arguments she can share to prove to us that if this bill were adopted, it would either reduce crime or reduce the rate of recidivism for sex offences?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between what is permissible and what is normalized. If we truly want to deter crime, and in this case the heinous crime of sexual assault, then we have to normalize a sentence that is most suitable.

A discount sentence for people who commit sexual assault is not appropriate. It sends a message that the justice system is soft on crime and that those heinous acts matter or count only against the first individual but not against the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth or ninth individual. That is wrong. If we are going to find ourselves on the side of survivors, on the side of victims, we must strengthen our justice system.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the bill. Honestly, it could not have come at a better time, when sexual assault is up 76% in Canada. I am the chair of the status of women committee, and we heard disturbing testimony that half the people who are sexually assaulted do not even get a police report. Of the ones who do get a police report, 5% go to court, and only 1% actually get a conviction. The sentence is measured in an average of months, not years.

Are there measures the member would like to see the courts implement in terms of the maximum sentence, along with consecutive sentencing?