Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been doing yeoman's service on this file for quite some time, including working in the previous Conservative government for finance minister Jim Flaherty, a great finance minister who was able to bring Canada through the economic downturn and balance the books along with Stephen Harper, whose book Here for Canada is on sale today, by the way. It is a great story that I am sure all of us are going to enjoy.

When we listen to Liberals on the other side and they talk about how great Crown corporations are and about how wonderful the debt-to-GDP ratio is, we know that, just as with national defence, they love to cook the books and play a shell game. They are doing it this time around by using the Canada pension plan money as a way to show a better position of government debt to GDP.

I was wondering if my colleague wanted to comment on how the Liberals always cook the books.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is setting up the CPPIB, the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board, which is viewed around the world as the gold standard for governance, primarily for the reason that it is free from political interference. Every time the government uses the net debt-to-GDP ratio, it confuses the public by suggesting that the assets of the CPP, in effect, may be available to the government to use because the government is using those assets to reduce the amount of money that it shows it owes the rest of the world.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of Oshawa to speak to Bill C-31, the second budget implementation act. I want to begin by pointing out something that perfectly illustrates the Liberal government's inability to manage the country's finances and the business of Parliament.

We are debating legislation to implement last year's federal budget, yet this Thursday, the government is prepared to table an entirely new budget. If the government can barely get last year's budget implemented before introducing the next one, it might make Canadians wonder if they can have confidence in the government's ability to manage their hard-earned money. While the Liberals struggle to manage their own parliamentary agenda, Canadians, at the same time, are struggling to manage their household budgets. The government has become very good at making announcements and promises and, of course, spending money, but Canadians are still waiting to see any results that would bring meaningful improvements to their lives.

After 11 years of the Liberal government, Canadians are working harder, paying more and falling further behind. Families are struggling to afford groceries. Young Canadians are losing hope of owning a home and seniors are watching their savings disappear as they struggle just to cover everyday expenses. According to The Salvation Army's 2026 report, 31% of Canadians are skipping or reducing meals because they cannot afford groceries. That is up 27% from last year. Among Canadians between the ages of 18 and 34, that figure rises to 41%. The same report found that half of Canadians surveyed have used their savings to cover basic necessities, while 40% have taken on debt or relied on credit and 30% have delayed or completely missed bill payments.

The Daily Bread Food Bank's 2026 report found that one in eight children in Toronto is now relying on food banks. These challenges are deeply personal in my hometown of Oshawa. Our community was built by generations of automotive workers, skilled tradespeople, small business owners and hard-working families who believed that if they worked hard, they could build a better life. In a recent affordability survey conducted in Oshawa, more than 8,000 residents shared their experiences and concerns. Of those who responded, 73% reported that their financial situation had not improved. In fact, 5% said they were living paycheque to paycheque. One unexpected car repair, one increase in rent or one additional household expense can be enough to push them further in debt or, worse, unable to pay or cover their bills completely.

Our local food banks like Feed the need in Durham and other community organizations do extraordinary work supporting those in need. I want to recognize the volunteers and staff who dedicate their time to help our neighbours. However, food banks should be a temporary safety net, not something working families must rely on to get through each and every month.

Beyond the affordability crisis, there is another deeply concerning issue with Bill C-31 that deserves serious attention. Throughout the legislation, the Liberals are seeking to grant ministers sweeping and discretionary powers yet again over important areas of our economy and government, including taxation, defence procurement, air transportation, and mining and natural resources in Canada's north. These are significant powers involving decisions that can affect Canadian businesses, taxpayers, workers and entire communities, yet Conservatives are concerned that the legislation does not provide what Liberal legislation never seems to provide: transparency, safeguards and parliamentary oversight to ensure these powers are exercised responsibly. In several areas, the government is asking Parliament to give ministers greater authority to make consequential decisions with limited opportunity for scrutiny. That should concern every Canadian, regardless of political affiliation, and I think it does, because accountability is a fundamental responsibility of government, even if it is not a principle of the Liberal government.

Let us take the proposed changes to the Canada Revenue Agency as an example. The bill would allow the CRA to automatically file certain tax returns for eligible low-income Canadians, with a process that could treat a failure to respond as an authorization to proceed. Helping vulnerable Canadians to access the benefits they deserve is a worthwhile objective, but it should never come at the expense of their rights. Canadians should not be expected to shoulder the consequences of errors, for instance, in tax returns they neither prepared themselves nor expressly approved. Even the taxpayers' ombudsperson raised concerns about the proposed approach and recommended stronger safeguards here.

When Conservatives sought to strengthen protections for taxpayers at committee, the Liberals rejected an amendment intended to ensure that individuals would not be held responsible for errors or omissions in returns that were filed on their behalf and not even by them directly. How the Liberals can reject such an amendment is beyond me.

That same troubling pattern appears in the government's approach to defence procurement. Division 16 of Bill C-31 would establish the Defence Investment Agency and expand ministerial authority over defence purchasing and investment. Conservatives support getting our brave men and women in uniform the equipment they need, but we are deeply concerned about the broad exceptions to competitive procurement and the discretion being placed in the hands of ministers yet again. The government should not be able to award significant contracts without competition or exclude potential suppliers on national security grounds without appropriate safeguards and accountability. It is funny how those two words keep coming up: safeguards and accountability. Our military needs equipment, not another layer of bureaucracy. Our soldiers, sailors and aviators deserve a procurement system that delivers the equipment they need efficiently, transparently and at the best possible value.

For communities like Oshawa, where manufacturing has been the backbone of the economy for generations, these decisions matter. Our automotive workers, skilled tradespeople and manufacturers have the experience and expertise to contribute to Canada's industrial and defence capabilities, but Canadian businesses need fair, predictable procurement rules that reward competitiveness and innovation, not a system where political discretion can determine who gets the opportunity.

Similar concerns arise with the bill's provisions affecting air passenger complaints and mineral rights in the north. Whether the government is changing who makes decisions about passenger rights or expanding federal authority over northern resource development, Canadians deserve clear rules, meaningful recourse and proper scrutiny.

These concerns are particularly important when we consider the government's broader record of economic management. In fact, let us remember that it was the Liberal Prime Minister who told Canadians very recently that affordability is the best it has been in a decade, yet his government continues to pursue higher spending and growing deficits while families struggle to make ends meet.

Conservatives believe there is a better approach. The government must cut wasteful spending, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and excessive consulting costs, and keep its commitments to reducing debt and deficits relative to the size of our economy. When transportation costs increase, those expenses are passed along through the supply chain, affecting the prices Canadians pay for groceries and other necessities. That is why Conservatives are calling for the elimination of federal taxes on diesel until Canada Day, a suspension of the GST on fuel until the summer and a permanent removal of the federal clean fuel regulations.

My neighbours in Oshawa are asking for a fair chance to get ahead. They want to afford their groceries, save for a home, raise their children and retire with dignity.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-235, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

(Motion agreed to)

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island. It is my honour to address Bill C-235, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, at third reading, not because it is my private member's bill, but because of all those who have been a part of this journey through years of hard work and effort across party lines. I rise to acknowledge the collaboration and support on every side of this House that made this bill possible. Members of every party have debated it, questioned it, amended it and made it stronger, always through the lens of respecting the families of victims. I thank them for that. That vision was never lost. The amendments they recommended, seven in all, were offered with just one purpose: to make this bill just. My hope today is that this vision and this spirit of collaboration will continue and carry this bill to the upper chamber so that it can continue its journey to becoming law.

A private member's bill is meant to be the loneliest kind of legislation, one member, one idea, one chance. However, this has been a team effort. Let us think of Kimberly Proctor who was 18 when her life was taken in Langford close to where I live. Her aunt, Jo-Anne Landolt, came from Vancouver Island to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and told the committee, in her own words, what a parole hearing costs a family like hers, or the families of Tori, Kristen and Leslie, and so many more, every family who has had to speak a loved one's name at a parole hearing in a room they never chose to enter, and the many others whose names I have spoken as well in this House.

An institution is judged by how it treats people on their worst day. Our Parliament, the justice system, the Parole Board are all institutions. The Parole Board carries one of the hardest jobs in our country. This bill criticizes none of them. It asks whether we can give a family more time before that next hard day in a parole room. Ms. Landolt told the justice committee that in the beginning, a single victim statement took her months to write. She travelled from the island to the mainland with overnight stays, security clearances and procedures. One hearing was delayed, over and again, to December, then February, then June, with a full year of waiting and preparing. For every step of preparing for those hearings, she and her family relived the worst day in their lives. She said her family attends parole hearings for Kimmy, to be her voice. She also said that this bill “won't take away the pain...but it will ease some redundant stress.” Early on, she told the committee, “Something good has to...[come] from Kimmy's death”, “Someone can't die like that for nothing.”

That is what this bill is for, the families. It applies to only the most heinous and depraved of crimes, where the same victim is abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered in the same event or series of events. Justice officials told the committee there were about 26 offenders in federal custody between 2000 and 2020 who had crimes that fit this pattern, though not every one of them was convicted on all three offences.

Let me say plainly what this bill would do, because it has been described as larger than it is.

First, the starting point is that it would stay at 25 years of parole ineligibility, as it is today.

Second, a jury could make recommendations.

Third, in those cases, only a judge could add years up to a ceiling of 40 years of ineligibility, but only after weighing an offender's character, the offences and the circumstances.

Fourth, a judge would need to give reasons. The offender could appeal, so could the Crown, and the Parole Board still would decide whether anyone was ever released. That would not change.

Now I will go to an important question that members have asked. Is it constitutional? Section 12 of the charter protects every person in this country from cruel and unusual punishment. Many Canadians, myself included, find it unimaginable to extend that protection to those who have done such horrible things, but the charter requires it and Parliament respects it.

In 2022, in Bissonnette, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down a provision that let courts stack parole ineligibility in multiple murder cases and that allowed 50 years all the way up to 150 years. The court said that Parliament may not remove, in advance and for every offender, any realistic possibility of parole. I take that seriously, and so did the committee.

This bill is built differently. It does not stack. It does not start at 50 years. It starts where the law starts today, at 25 years of ineligibility for parole. The justice officials told the committee that the key difference from the Bissonnette case is judicial discretion. A judge could choose 26 years or 30 years; nothing is automatic. Then the committee made the safeguards stronger, adding appeals for both sides and reasons from a judge. As reported in this House, the Library of Parliament found no full paroles among the offenders in this class of most heinous crimes.

The Parole Board has not treated these offenders as releasable. The bill asks only to say so less often, to the families who must prepare for every hearing. I will not stand here and promise how a court will rule. No member of this House can do that. However, officials told the committee plainly that any change to parole ineligibility would be closely examined under the charter, and I welcome that. A law that touches liberty should be examined.

What I can say is that Parliament did its part. We heard from families, police, the ombudsperson for victims of crime, and justice officials, and we kept the 25-year ineligibility parole floor where it is. Eligibility for parole is a date on a calendar, not a release.

Several members, who were worried about this, asked that this bill apply only to future cases, and I can assure everyone that it would.

I am speaking directly to my Bloc Québécois colleagues. I believe in social reintegration, and I believe that every offender should have the opportunity to access it. I also believe there are certain horrific crimes, such as these, where that may not be possible.

That is why this bill leaves the decision to judges, with justification, and gives both parties the right to appeal. It does not close the door. It requires the courts to examine each case individually.

How did we get here? It is not the way many private members' bills do. At second reading, the member for Bourassa said, “When a family has to relive their trauma at every parole hearing, it is not only difficult, it is inhumane.” He asked for the right to appeal, written reasons and a clear rule that the law look forward.

At committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice moved seven amendments, and all seven carried. I thank her for her collaborative and positive work on them.

The member for Mount Royal, speaking of an earlier version of this bill, told the committee, “I supported it then, and I still support it now.”

The member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, who grew up half a block from where Kristen French lived, showed real emotion at the table. I thank her and, through her, every member of the committee for their thoughtful questions and support.

The member for Rivière-du-Nord pressed me on rehabilitation, and that is the right question for every sentencing law. The reasons and appeals are how we keep that door open honestly.

I thank my own colleagues in this House.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman tabled this bill in two separate Parliaments, and he seconded it when I introduced it. He has spoken in support of it in the House many times. He has given years of hard work and passion to it. I know it is as near and dear to his heart as it is to mine.

The member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River seconded it again at second reading and spoke strongly in support of it.

The member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South kept the voices of families, like Tori Stafford's father, at the centre of the committee room.

The member for Oxford, our critic for justice, gave his full and strong support to this bill.

Larry Brock, the former member for Brantford—Brant South, gave me guidance through this process, and I am incredibly grateful to have worked alongside him.

A private member's bill is carried by far more than its sponsor. Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, the ombudsperson, told the committee that this bill is one part of a broader conversation: clearer information for families, attention to the time between reviews and a real complaints process. I support all three, and I would ask the government to bring those forward.

This bill has come before the House in earlier parliaments. Twice, it has passed committee with the support of every party. We do not need an election to interrupt it again. Every party in the House has a hand in this bill, but more importantly, it belongs to the families it is meant to serve. Most importantly, it is a win for families, beginning with Kimberly Proctor's.

Together, we stood up for the families of victims. We have heard their voices, and I stand with them. I feel confident that all members of Parliament stand with them. I spoke with Ms. Landolt today. She is thankful, and she strongly supports this work. Families in Langford, in Ontario and in every province are watching what the House does today. Let us give them a vote that every party can stand behind, a vote that says regardless of who holds government, no family should be asked to relive the worst day of their lives in a parole hearing room they never chose.

To the families watching us, from Vancouver Island to Quebec, this journey was not a choice, and no one should have to go through it alone. We have listened. Let us work together to pass this bill.

Let us pass Bill C-235 and send it to the upper chamber with the voice of this House behind it.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for taking on the bill and bringing it forward this far and for his passion and compassion for the families of victims who were brutalized persons.

When I first drafted this bill back in 2012, it was with the realization that Clifford Olson was dying in the hospital and talking about how he used parole board hearings to retraumatize the families, to revictimize the families at these ongoing, unnecessary parole board hearings, and how it impacted families like the Rosenfeldts. Also at that time was the Tori Stafford case, and I knew her family would have to go through two separate parole board hearings because of the killers in that situation, Terri-Lynne McClintic and Michael Rafferty. That was really the nexus for drafting the bill.

Could the member speak to the fact that this is not about being harder on the criminal, the murderer, the people who kidnap our kids, torture them, assault them, sexually assault them and murder them? This is about empowering the courts and being compassionate to the families so that they would not have to go through all these unnecessary parole board hearings, because the people who commit these types of heinous crimes never do get released.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the passion he has brought to this bill, for the amazing work and support he has given me and for his kind words today.

The member mentioned the Olson case. It has been proven that these most heinous criminals get off on further victimizing the victims' families. We know these types of criminals are never released by the parole boards, and going forward, we know they likely will never be released by the parole boards.

This bill addresses the revictimization of families. This bill is focused on families. It would change little for the criminals of these horrific crimes, but it would make a huge, positive difference for the families of those victims.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we understand the intent of the bill, and our hearts go out to the victims' families.

I am not a legal expert, but as a parliamentarian, I wonder whether this bill might not lead to constitutional challenges. From what I understand, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of extending the minimum period before someone can be released on parole. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that was ruled unconstitutional.

I am wondering how the bill before us today could be deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, given previous rulings.

I would like my colleague to clarify that.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I can tell, and the experts have looked at it, the courts agreed that the provision of the Bissonnette case was unconstitutional because the trial judge's remedy to set discretion at 40 years was too intrusive, but that was struck down because they were stacked upon each other. This will potentially face a charter challenge, but the way that it was built with the floor of 25 years, nothing has changed there. With discretion and the way the bill was built, as the legal experts who came before the committee have stated, is that the floor would stay the same at 25 years of parole ineligibility and discretion would still lie with the judge and with the Parole Board and would rest with the safeties that have been put into this bill. I am confident that this bill will stand and help the families of victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I both represent parts of Vancouver Island. Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is his constituency and Saanich—Gulf Islands is mine, and I want to thank him for the work to bring this forward. I want to again say that I also appreciate the work of the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime.

I am someone who cares very much about civil liberties and the concerns for cruel and unusual punishment. I think this bill has gone through all the kind of analysis that puts those concerns to rest. This is about avoiding the retraumatization of families, and I am very pleased to see the House come together to support the efforts of the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her comment, and I also appreciate her passion for supporting the families of victims.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the third reading of Bill C-235, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act.

During debate on this bill at second reading, members of the House recognized both the seriousness of the offences the bill aims to address and the difficult issues it raises regarding ineligibility for parole, the interests of victims, and the principles governing sentencing in Canada.

Since then, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has had the opportunity to examine these issues in greater depth. It has also been able to hear a range of important perspectives on these issues, including those of Jo-Anne Landolt, whose 18-year-old niece, Kimberly Proctor, was tragically murdered in 2010; the federal ombudsman for victims of crime; and representatives of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. We are grateful to all the witnesses who took the time to share their experiences and expertise with us. Their contributions have enabled the committee to better understand the problem the bill seeks to address and have helped identify ways to improve it. The result is the amended bill before us today.

Although the committee made significant changes to strengthen the legislative framework, the substance of the proposal remains unchanged. Bill C-235 would apply to a narrow category of cases where an offender is convicted of murder, a kidnapping offence and a sexual offence involving the same victim and the same event or series of events. These are exceptionally serious offences that already carry a life sentence. Bill C-235 will give sentencing judges additional discretion to extend the parole ineligibility period beyond 25 years, up to a maximum of 40 years.

It is important to remember that parole eligibility does not mean release. It means that an offender becomes eligible to apply for parole and that the Parole Board of Canada will determine whether to grant parole. Bill C-235 would change when this process can begin for the first time in these narrowly defined cases.

For victims and their family members, the parole process can have emotional and practical repercussions. Those who choose to participate may be asked to write or update statements detailing the persisting impact of the crime, attend hearings and present their concerns about the offender's possible release. This can involve reliving painful memories, talking about their loss, taking time off work or having to travel to get to a hearing. By allowing a judge to delay the start of this process, Bill C‑235 aims to allow families more time before they have to deal with these demands.

Ms. Landolt's testimonial gave the committee a striking example of this burden. She described her family's experience during the parole process in the years following the murder of her niece, Kimberly. She spoke of how hard it had been to draft the victim statement, get to the hearings, face one report after another and have to relive the circumstances of Kimberly's death. Her family firmly supports Bill C‑235, convinced that a longer period leading up to parole eligibility, in cases like Kimberly's, could lighten the load for families such as hers.

The committee also heard from the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, whose office studied victims' experiences with the federal parole process. He noted that experiences and needs varied widely. Some appreciated the opportunity to participate in the process, while others preferred to be more removed from the process. This diversity in experience underscores the importance of the discretionary power provided for in Bill C‑235. Rather than automatically delaying parole eligibility in all eligible cases, the bill would allow a sentencing judge to determine whether a longer period is justified, taking into account the offender's character, the nature and circumstances of the offences and any recommendations made by the jury.

The committee's study also highlighted ways to strengthen the bill's safeguards to ensure that it would withstand charter scrutiny. For example, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police expressed support for the bill but raised some concerns about how an extension of the parole ineligibility period might infringe on the rights guaranteed by section 12 of the charter, which prohibits cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Among other things, they recommended that the bill expressly grant offenders the right to appeal the length of their parole ineligibility period. The committee adopted this recommendation by adding an explicit right for an offender to appeal a decision to extend their parole ineligibility.

The bill has also been amended to give the Crown a corresponding right of appeal when the parole ineligibility period is less than 40 years, or when the sentencing judge decides not to extend the parole ineligibility period. Given that the bill would allow the period to be extended by up to 15 years, this right of appeal constitutes an important safeguard. It will also enable appellate courts, over time, to develop guidance on the circumstances in which an extension of the parole ineligibility period may be warranted.

The committee has also amended the bill to require sentencing judges to provide reasons, either orally or in writing, for any decision to grant or deny an extension of the parole ineligibility period. This promotes transparency by ensuring that the basis for the decision is clear.

Taken together, these safeguards reflect an important conclusion that emerged from the committee's study: The desire to ease the burden on victims' families must be part of a fair, balanced and carefully regulated process.

The interests of the victims, on the one hand, and the fairness and integrity of the sentencing process, on the other, are not conflicting concerns. In fact, Dr. Roebuck addressed this point directly, while acknowledging the harm that repeated parole proceedings can cause. He emphasized the importance of fairness and reintegration. He also agreed that ensuring the law could withstand constitutional scrutiny was, in itself, in the victims' best interests.

Ms. Landolt also agreed that strengthening the bill's transparency safeguards and ensuring its resilience against any legal challenges would be in the best interests of the victims and their families. She said that this could help the victims regain a sense of normalcy and recover from their tragedy.

The committee also heard from a number of witnesses who said that the support offered to victims and their families throughout the parole process could be further improved. Dr. Roebuck identified some other concerns, including the information provided to victims, the timelines for the frequency of parole hearings, the burden involved in attending proceedings and the mechanisms available when victims feel that their rights have not been respected.

In his testimony, he emphasized that Bill C-235 addressed one aspect of victims' experiences with the parole system, but that more work needed to be done to make the process more responsive to victims' needs.

Bill C-235 focuses on a category of crime that is particularly serious and traumatic. The committee's work ensured that, in doing so, the legislation not only considers victims and their families, but is also better able to withstand scrutiny and provide a lasting response to the harms they have described.

I therefore encourage members from all parties in the House to support it for swift passage at third reading so that it can proceed without unnecessary delay.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑235 may seem appealing at first glance because it deals with cases involving people who have committed heinous crimes. It is hard to imagine anything worse than kidnapping, sexual assault and murder. I fully understand the desire to come down hard on people who commit such acts. Still, there is something our Conservative colleagues do not seem to understand, and I do not know why. Perhaps they think that, if they keep trying, it will work eventually, but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled otherwise in R. v. Bissonnette. Repeated attempts will not change that. The maximum is 25 years.

Bill C‑235 is not our Conservative colleagues' first attempt, as I was saying. This is the eighth bill on this issue. It started in 2013. It may have started before that, but that is as far back as I looked. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has introduced this four times. Other Conservative colleagues, whose ridings I will not name because I do not know them off the top of my head, have also introduced similar bills. For instance, there was Bill S‑224, introduced by Senator Boisvenu, as well as Bills C‑296, C‑267, C‑266, C‑478 and C‑587. None of those attempts succeeded. They are back at it again today. That is all well and good, but I think we need to be serious. We have important work to do here. We were talking about budget issues earlier. We are still discussing last year's budget, and a new budget will be tabled the day after tomorrow. Bills like this one have been introduced eight times and have not been passed, so can we move on to something else?

I like that. In an ideal world, a person who commits crimes like that should receive harsh, very harsh, or even the harshest of all treatment. Society, however, has rules that set limits on such things. A murder, whether in the first or second degree, results in a life sentence from the outset. That is the way it is. The difference between the two is eligibility to apply for parole. If the crime is first-degree murder, the period of parole ineligibility is 25 years. Before then, parole is simply not an option. For second-degree murder, it is 10 years. Even then, however, the judge may seek recommendations from the jury and increase that period from 10 years to as much as 25 years. I will repeat that we are talking about cases involving abduction, sexual assault and murder. Under the law as it currently stands, where a murder is accompanied by either a sexual assault or an abduction, the offender will in either case face a minimum of 25 years before becoming eligible to apply for parole. As for a period of 40 years, the Supreme Court has already ruled that out.

We can certainly look at 33 other bills that, in one form or another, seek to achieve the same objective. It is simply impossible. Even if I, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, were to say that this is a good idea, that it reflects my personal view and that offenders should remain imprisoned for 40 years, I do not have the authority to make that happen. That is not my position, of course, but let us pretend that I am persuasive enough to convince the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and Parliament itself to vote in favour of such a measure. One, two or three years later, the Supreme Court would review the matter and conclude that Parliament had no authority to enact the legislation. Personally, I want to make a difference in my work as an MP and, with all due respect to my colleagues who are acting in good faith—and I do acknowledge that—I have to say that this is, unfortunately, a waste of time.

We heard this point raised earlier. As our colleague across the aisle noted, obtaining parole is no easy matter. First, it is not automatic. The vast majority of applications are denied. In 2023–2024, the parole grant rate stood at 32.4%. The vast majority of applications were denied. Furthermore, anyone seeking parole must demonstrate to the Parole Board of Canada that they no longer pose a risk to society and that the likelihood of reoffending is negligible or non-existent. Applicants must meet a number of conditions.

If these conditions are met and someone manages to convince the Parole Board to grant them parole, it is important to remember that parole comes with conditions attached. It is not as though the offender is handed a ticket and told to go off on vacation, that everything is settled and that nobody wants to hear from them again. Far from it. The offender will have to meet regularly with a parole officer. A number of conditions will have to be met. There may be curfews, a prohibition on drinking alcohol and a number of other conditions. It is not a free-for-all.

Once again, I understand the desire to ask whether there is a way to be strict enough with someone who abducts a young girl, sexually assaults her and kills her. I feel the same way. I think that this is unacceptable. I will keep to myself what I think about that sort of individual, but I agree that severe consequences are warranted.

However, we must also abide by the rules adopted by our society. These rules have been upheld by the Supreme Court, particularly in the Bissonnette case. My Conservative colleague referred to it earlier. Alexandre Bissonnette was sentenced to prison with no parole eligibility for 150 years. One does not need to be a medical expert to recognize that, as of now, it is not possible to live for 150 years. The Supreme Court held that such a sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned that sentence and held that the maximum would be 25 years. That is the maximum. Parole ineligibility periods cannot exceed 25 years.

That does not mean that the inmate will be released from prison after 25 years. They have been sentenced to life in prison. They will remain an inmate for the rest of their life. What parole means is that, instead of keeping them in a cell, we can release them. They will be able to apply for parole after 25 years. They will be able to tell the Parole Board that they are rehabilitated and that they are asking to be released. It does not matter how they were rehabilitated or why. That will be assessed when the time comes. The Parole Board will conduct an investigation and determine whether or not they should be released. That is all. The 25-year sentence is not being revised. We are simply giving these inmates the ability to ask to be released at the end of 25 years. They may choose to apply for parole, and according to the statistics, it is likely that they will do so. They can apply after 25 years, but they may never actually be released and they may die in prison. Yes, under special circumstances, the Parole Board may decide to release such inmates. I do not want to lecture the House, but this seems pretty clear to me.

I cannot understand why, once again, our Conservative colleagues are stubborn about this proposal. I acknowledge that they are acting in good faith. I was elected to the House 11 years ago. In 11 years, I have had discussions with many people and I have disagreed with many members. Still, I have not met any, or at least not many, and perhaps no member of Parliament who acted in bad faith. I acknowledge their good faith. From their perspective, it is important and we should pass legislative amendments to increase it to 40 years. I acknowledge that. I do not agree with them, but I acknowledge that they are acting in good faith, because they think that is how things work.

However, I urge them to reread the Bissonnette decision, to digest it, to fully understand it and to include it in the Conservative narrative that this cannot be done in Canada, under the existing law.

If the Conservatives still wish to go further, I invite them to look at the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They could invoke the notwithstanding clause, the way others, including Quebec, have in other cases, cases involving secularism, among other things. By invoking the notwithstanding clause, they might be able to convince the Supreme Court that, despite what it has said, we have the right to do things differently, but that is just a theory.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank every member who has spoken on this bill today and over the many times it has come before this House in earlier Parliaments and at committee.

I thank the member opposite from the Liberal Party for his detailed and passionate analysis where he pointed out the many safeguards that are built into this bill to protect against the challenges that the member from the Bloc Québécois pointed out. I thank the member opposite from the Liberals for his support. I know we are making the correct decision.

I would like to address the comments of the member for Rivière-du-Nord, who spoke about the Bissonnette case. Indeed, it was rejected, but it is worth pointing out. I have read the 2022 Supreme Court of Canada decision 23, where the court agreed that the provisions that the judge stacked parole ineligibility on top of each other were deemed unconstitutional. In fact, in that case, the judge tried to remedy it by reducing the sentence from 150 to 40 years. When that decision was thrown out by the Supreme Court, it was due to those provisions, not the 40-year sentence.

This private member's bill, I can assure the member, has been built completely differently. This is making the right choice to both protect criminals and, more importantly, respect the rights of the family members. We never want another family to be touched by this kind of horrific crime. I pray there never is, but if there is, God forbid, this is the kind of bill that can lessen their pain. For that family, for Ms. Landolt's family and for every family that has walked that road, this is what we can do.

I have done my part, and I am humbled to have been able to contribute. My hope is that it will make it to the upper chamber and the upper chamber will bring the same compassion and the same speed, so that the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act can do what its name promises, and respect those families. I have carried this torch as far as one member can. I hope that it soon will humbly pass to the upper chamber and if this bill does become law, the torch can finally be laid down because the law will carry the weight from there.

To the families that have had to carry this for so long, I thank them. We pray, as I said, that no family will ever have to use this law.

I want to tell Ms. Landolt and every family that has told us about their trauma of reliving these horrific crimes at parole hearings that they have carried this longer than any of us. They did not have to. They carried it for Kimmy, for all the victims and all of the families. I say to them, as they say in the navy, Bravo Zulu, or well done, to everyone.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my private member's bill, respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, do now pass.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Artificial Intelligence

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the House how often memories come back to me of the Speaker's saying, “It being now 12:40 a.m., pursuant to an order reached earlier this week”, deeming a motion to adjourn the House to have been moved, and saying, “The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has the floor.” It is nice that our adjournment proceedings are beginning at a more civil hour and that there are still members in the chamber.

I am pursuing a question I asked in question period on June 4. It was the day the government announced its artificial intelligence strategy, which was called “AI for all”. My question for the government started by noting that I just wondered how the slogan “artificial intelligence for all” lands in Tumbler Ridge. We had just become increasingly aware of the role AI had played in the tortured and challenging mental health crisis that was being experienced by the adolescent who then killed children and caused such unbearable pain.

I noted that seven families were in court seeking redress for the loss of their children who were not adequately protected, and I asked when there would be protection. The hon. secretary of state who responded to my question did, of course, share that sense of grief, and said, “[The government is doing] everything we can, including working with AI companies and advancing our protective legislation, to ensure that these types of tragedies never happen again in Canada.”

I am glad I submitted an Adjournment Proceedings slip, not because the answer was particularly egregious from the secretary of state but because our response to this is inadequate. I also referenced in my question on June 4 that I was very much taken by the advice of Pope Leo XIV that artificial intelligence, in his words, needs to be “disarmed”. That was before the additional trauma and additional facts were unearthed about the Tumbler Ridge tragedy.

It is still with me. I am so honoured that I was included, and I thank the Prime Minister for including all leaders of the other opposition parties so we could all go to the vigil in Tumbler Ridge together. It has not left me for a day how searing that tragedy is and how avoidable it was.

Flags were raised within OpenAI and other companies that are really creating an addiction problem for young people and creating real mental health issues, even to the extent that artificial intelligence and what are now called chatbots were actually engaging in a conversation to encourage the very tragic and disturbed person who committed these crimes.

It has now come to light that there are at least allegations, which have been unearthed through joint work of the RCMP and law enforcement in the United States, that there was another person who was in an ongoing conversation with the young person in Tumbler Ridge, promising them that they would become famous because the person in the States was promising to livestream the killings in the school as they happened. Again, this would never have been possible without artificial intelligence.

We have before us Bill C-34 now. I asked my question before Bill C-34 was tabled, which happened later in June. I know that a lot of levels of government and different countries around the world are trying to grapple with what we do with artificial intelligence. We are being warned by people such as Geoffrey Hinton, a Canadian who is actually credited and known as the godfather of AI, that there is an existential risk.

Here we are, and we still have no answers.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for her question. We are both British Columbians. We have both felt the pain of the families and victims at Tumbler Ridge. I am a dad. No day goes by that I do not think about what it is like for the parents who lost children or whose children have been injured, and what it is like for that entire community. I think it is not an exaggeration to say that Canadians and all of us in this House are heartbroken, and we continue to keep the families, survivors and victims in our thoughts and prayers.

To the hon. member's question, our AI for all strategy is built on three pillars: trust, opportunity and sovereign control. It has to begin with trust. We all know that Canadians are only going to use and benefit from AI when they know they are protected and when they can trust it.

Over the course of the last several months, we have spoken to parents, we have spoken to kids and we have spoken to teachers, educators and experts. That is how we have come up with our response. That is why our government is taking the approach of protecting children, strengthening privacy protections and putting clear rules in place so that Canadians can use this technology safely. That is the right way to move forward.

These protections are not an afterthought. It is quite the opposite. They are the foundation and cornerstone of our strategy. It starts with clear rules around how personal information is used. The hon. member referenced legislation. We are modernizing Canada's consumer privacy law through Bill C-36, which was introduced in June and recognizes privacy as a fundamental right. It would safeguard children's information. It would strengthen Canadians' control over their personal data. It would create a right to deletion. It would protect them against surveillance pricing.

However, trust also means keeping Canadians, especially our kids, safe online. Bill C-34, the safe social media act, would hold social media platforms accountable for reducing harms from online content. It would also protect children from the harmful content the hon. member mentioned: AI chatbots.

We are taking tangible action to stop AI from being used to mislead voters. We are working with police and security experts to stop people from using AI to scam Canadians, cause harm or worse. We have committed $50 million to expanding the Canadian AI Safety Institute, strengthening Canada's ability to track risks and advance technical safety research. Our government has invested $150 million in LawZero, led by Yoshua Bengio, the world's leading AI safety researcher. Alongside Germany, we are helping build AI that is safe by design right here in Canada.

Following this tragedy, our government summoned OpenAI officials to Ottawa to demand stronger accountability and clear escalation pathways. I was in that conversation, and I can say that our government has been tireless in ensuring that young people know that we will keep them safe from any risks related to AI. Following this, OpenAI established direct contact with the RCMP to report high-risk cases, and our government directed the company to apply stronger standards and to review past cases while the Canadian AI Safety Institute continues its review.

Canadians' safety is our first priority. We will ensure that companies operating in this space act responsibly and that Canadians, and particularly Canadian kids, are protected. Nothing that we can do will change what happened at Tumbler Ridge, but we owe it to survivors like Maya, who is now home, to ensure that young people and families know their government is taking steps to ensure that this technology serves them and keeps them safe, not the other way around.