Debates of March 13th, 2026

Build Canada Homes Act

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague brought up a number of good points. Right now, in northwest Ontario, the mining companies desperately need people. Bill C-20 seems to be another bureaucracy by the Liberal Party and the government, and it is just going to hold that whole northwest part of Ontario back. How can we hire people when we do not have housing? I want to ask the hon. member about that.

I have a similar situation in Saskatchewan. They have these big plans but no housing. When we do not have housing, we do not have companies willing to build.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. As I mentioned, this is something we see across northwestern Ontario and many regions of the country, including in Saskatchewan. There is a lot of opportunity for development. Northern Ontario has what the world needs in terms of critical minerals. There are many opportunities for that, but we need the housing to be able to house the workers. It is a very simple concept. We see it in major development. The Liberals talk about self-reliance and getting things built here in Canada. They need to start with housing in northern Ontario if we are going to see that reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island to discuss Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act.

Simply put, Vancouver Island, and indeed Canada, is in a housing crisis. There is an entire generation being priced out of home ownership, and far too many, including young Canadians, have lost the hope of ever owning a home. This crisis will not solve itself, and it is the job of the government to take action to fix it.

Last week, I held a round table in Langford specifically to discuss housing with my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka, the shadow minister of housing. We spoke to builders, developers, mayors and other local industry leaders to discuss the challenges they are facing, along with possible solutions, to get homes built. They all said the same thing: Extraneous regulations, long and unpredictable approval periods, expensive taxes and the rising cost of materials and services are killing the industry. Companies like Viking Properties, a small developer on Vancouver Island that has successfully built over 400 housing units in the Langford area, including 250 units since 2019, told us about increased fees, development cost charges and the long wait times they face to get permits approved. These all add significant costs to their projects and are holding them back from building at a faster pace. These are costs, by the way, that all end up being passed on to the buyer.

These are the real problems that are slowing homebuilding in Canada and making housing unaffordable for an entire generation. Compounded delays and skyrocketing costs have created a cycle where buyers cannot afford to buy, sellers cannot afford to sell and builders cannot afford to build. We see this in crumbling housing starts across Canada.

This brings me to Bill C-20. The Build Canada Homes agency, or bureaucracy, will be the third housing agency created in the last 10 years and the fourth housing bureaucracy, none of which have succeeded so far. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, yet here we are, doing the same thing again. Canadians, frankly, deserve better.

Building enough homes to meet the demands of a growing population is the only way to make housing affordable again. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has said we need to reach a target of 430,000 to 500,000 homes built per year for the next 10 years to meet this demand. Originally, the government promised this new housing agency would build 500,000 homes per year. That was promising, yes, but it was just a promise. So far, it has not delivered.

In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported that the Build Canada Homes agency will build only approximately 5,200 homes per year. That is only 1% of the original promise, 1% of the targeted amount needed to make housing affordable for Canadians again. This simply is not enough. This will not solve the crisis we find ourselves in, so we must rely on our private developers and builders who have the proven skills, ingenuity and fortitude to get this done. To do that, we must address the challenges they are facing so that they can build. Builders across Canada share the same message. They need less government involvement, fewer taxes and quicker, predictable approval times. We need to cut red tape so homes can be built effectively. What we do not need is a fourth remix of the same song.

The last 10 years have proven that adding processes does not fix the problem. Instead, it adds another layer of reviews, which take time, which leads to delays, which lead to added costs, which lead to higher sale prices. Another government agency is not the answer to the crisis. Under its current mandate, Build Canada Homes will not change zoning laws, eliminate discretionary rezoning, impose firm timelines on reviews, reduce development charges or remove environmental duplication charges, so it will not build enough homes to meet the necessary targets or address any real challenges the industry is facing. Not only does this new agency not address these challenges, but it does not address the root cause of the crisis. We cannot build homes fast enough to keep up with our growing population.

Conservatives have put forward alternative solutions that would target some of the industry challenges head-on. One is cutting the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, which would save families up to $65,000 on new homes, making these builds more affordable. Another is, importantly, tying federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, which would encourage municipalities to permit more homebuilding each year with a target of 15% more.

We have suggested cutting development cost charges by 50%. This was a campaign promise by the government last year, but I am sad to see that it has not followed through. We would also like to see the removal of capital gains tax on reinvestment in new housing in Canada, which would unlock billions of dollars of investments in the country's homebuilding sector.

These are solutions that tackle the real problems the industry is facing and put the power back into the hands of Canada's home builders. I encourage my colleagues across the way to seriously consider these solutions so we can reach the goal I believe we all share, which is making housing affordable to Canadians.

Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Housing told Canadians the reason housing prices are so high is the war in Iran. This is a ridiculous statement to make for a multitude of reasons, none more so than the fact that we know the housing affordability crisis did not start a few weeks ago. It has been years in the making, indeed 11 years in the making, I would suggest.

My colleagues across the way keep telling us to focus on what we control, so I urge the minister to take that advice. Let us focus on the issues that truly burden the industry: too much government involvement, long wait periods, taxes. These are all the things that destroyed the housing economy in Vancouver when the minister was the mayor there. I spoke about insanity before. Here it is again. More of the bureaucracy, rules and regulations that caused costs to skyrocket in Vancouver when he was the mayor are now imposed on all of Canada under his leadership, and it has been a year.

The minister knows his grand plan is not working. His big announcements and promises of building at speeds never seen before, catalyzing the housing industry and 500,000 homes per year have gotten us nowhere. Instead of taking responsibility and focusing on positive solutions, the minister has decided to lay blame elsewhere. This is why my Conservative colleagues have put forward a plan, and I have reiterated it in my speech today. Canadians know the reality of the crisis they face, so I challenge my colleagues opposite to look at the reality of the last year of promises and slogans and compare it to the results, compare it to the reality. We have collapsing housing starts. Prices remain unaffordable. Despite lowering, they remain unaffordable to those who have lost jobs, are having their wages cut and are struggling just to pay for everyday costs. The supply levels are plummeting.

Conservatives have put forward a plan to unleash our trades, our investors, our workers and our resources so we can build homes quickly. Build Canada Homes will not remove those barriers. It only creates a massive new one. It does not solve the issue of delays. Therefore, it does not solve the issue of costs. Sometimes, the best thing a government can do is simply to get out of the way. I call on all my colleagues in the House. Let us work together to have homes built by builders, not bureaucracy.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if the member maybe could share the importance of partnerships and building partnerships with municipalities, with provinces, with the non-profit sector and with indigenous communities, and comment on the fact that this really is a whole-of-government approach. We need all hands on deck if we want to build the housing Canadians need right now. In particular, I would like to point out that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is very happy with this Build Canada Homes announcement. In fact, it has said:

[It] welcomes the federal government’s Build Canada Homes...initiative as a strong signal of leadership on the housing crisis. This announcement shows a clear commitment to working in partnership with municipalities—as well as provinces and territories, Indigenous governments, housing providers....

How is the member building partnerships in his community, and how can we all build together?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we do need to partner with municipalities, but part of that is getting out of the way and removing the extra layers of bureaucracy. I have spoken to builders and groups across south Vancouver Island, and they have said that they have had stuff cancelled and that they cannot afford to do these things, so they need help. As far as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities goes, they are signalling approval, but when they start looking at the realities I have pointed out, such as the cancelled projects and the promises of 500,000 homes that simply are not being built, the reality will quickly sink in that this plan is not working and we need to get out of the way and let our builders build.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to put the question on Bill C-20 at second reading.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. member]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it pass on division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from October 31, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-243, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (parole review), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the public is used to hearing politicians talk about importance of victims' rights, especially when a horrific crime is committed. What we have before us today is not just talk about protecting the victims of crime, but to actually do something.

Bill C-243 is designed to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that in the case of an offender who is serving a sentence for first-degree murder or second-degree murder, parole is reviewed in accordance with the statutory time frames instead of an application by the offender. This would be done after the parole board has decided not to grant day or full parole to the offender.

It is a simple change, but one that would have a profound effect on the families of crime victims. Most of us will never know the pain that comes with losing a loved one to murder. Thankfully, such crimes are rare in Canada, but they do occur. When they occur, families are thrown into a legal system that can be overwhelming. Frequently, it seems weighted in favour of the accused and the convicted killer with the rights of families forgotten.

According to our Criminal Code:

Culpable homicide is murder

(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

(i) means to cause his death, or

(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

(c) if a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that they know is likely to cause death, and by doing so causes the death of a human being, even if they desire to effect their object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

I am repeating those words from the Criminal Code to remind us of the gravity of the offence. The taking of a human life is the worst crime we can imagine. Every life is precious. For someone to deliberately and unjustifiably end a life is deserving of the most serious punishment we can mete out. That is why we hand out life sentences. That is why we limit eligibility for parole.

At the same time, Canadians believe in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption. That is why even those convicted of murder are eligible for parole. We believe there is hope even for those who commit the worst crimes. That is why even those convicted of first degree murder have the right to a parole hearing once a certain amount of time has passed. We acknowledge that people can and do change.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act reminds us:

The purpose of conditional release is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by means of decisions on the timing and conditions of release that will best facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens.

It also says:

The protection of society is the paramount consideration for the Board and the provincial parole boards in the determination of all cases.

In order to do that:

Parole boards take into consideration all relevant available information, including the stated reasons and recommendations of the sentencing judge, the nature and gravity of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the offender, information from the trial or sentencing process and information obtained from victims, offenders and other components of the criminal justice system, including assessments provided by correctional authorities;

As the system is now structured, and what this bill sets out to correct, an offender can apply for parole a year after being refused parole by a parole board. I do not think that is right when it comes to those who are convicted of murder, our most serious crime.

A parole board hearing is a serious affair. Prisoners hoping to be released make a case as to why the punishment they have already received is sufficient. They explain why they are no longer a danger to society. However, that is not all that is presented. There is also a case made as to why the parole application should be denied. The prisoner's progress is evaluated, the case is revisited and memories are stirred.

For the families of the murder victims, the trauma of the crime is revisited. They are expected to testify and to describe the impact on their lives of the untimely loss of a loved one through the criminal actions of another. They are asked to revisit a nightmare and, as the law now stands, they can be asked to revisit this nightmare every year. The system revictimizes the victims of the crime for no good purpose.

One of the great things about being human is that we have the capacity for change. We can repent our actions and be redeemed, but for most of us, that is a process, which is why I support Bill C-243. This legislation would take into account the reality that change can be a slow process. I believe there is hope for even those who have committed the worst crimes. I believe that people can and do change their ways. I believe that those who show true remorse for their actions and have been rehabilitated deserve another chance. That is why we have parole boards to consider whether those who have committed crimes can now be safely returned to society.

I do not believe that the parole application process should be used by convicts to revictimize Canadians. To me, it seems highly unlikely that someone deemed inappropriate for release by a parole board this year will change so completely in 12 months that the board will change its mind. There is a provision for mandatory review whether the offender requests it or not.

This legislation would not change mandatory review. What it would do is put an end to the annual revictimization of the families of a murder victim in a hearing that is almost predestined to end with the offender remaining incarcerated.

Those who care about victims' rights should support this bill. I congratulate my hon. colleague and neighbour from Edmonton Griesbach for putting together this important bill.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill addresses a very serious issue. We agree with many aspects of the bill. First, there is the seriousness of murder, of course. It is the most serious crime one can commit, and there are also different degrees.

I am also grateful to my colleague for highlighting the importance of rehabilitation, even though that can be very difficult to imagine. However, with this type of bill, we must always be careful not to overstep the courts' authority. I am neither a legal expert nor a lawyer, of course, and it always bothers me when processes are changed or when lawmakers impose something. I will explain why.

I understand the intent behind the bill, especially when the goal is to protect victims' families. I will start with that, actually. There may be other ways to approach this. It is true that it is heartbreaking when people who have lost a loved one are asked to testify and take part in the process. Most experts say that testimony from family members does not influence the process at all in the vast majority of cases, so is this even necessary? Could we not do without this more often? We could have family members testify only when necessary. There are definitely issues.

Under Bill C‑243, a person whose first parole application is denied would not be able to reapply. That takes away the ability of judges and courts to make a nuanced assessment. That troubles me, and it could even have the opposite effect in some cases. Currently, 32.4% of applications for full parole are granted, or three out of every 10 applications. That means that seven out of 10 are rejected.

When we talk about this topic, we all recall certain notorious criminals, whose names I will not bother to mention here. I will simply describe the circumstances: the Quebec City mosque tragedy, serial killers and so on. Generally, the system seems to be working quite well. Of course, sometimes horrific crimes are committed by repeat offenders, but these are exceptional cases. If there is something we can do to limit that even further, we should.

However, what this bill is saying is that people who have applied once will never be able to apply again. That could have a negative effect. I am concerned that it could influence the Parole Board of Canada's decisions. It is the duty of the board members not to grant parole if they feel that there is even the slightest chance that an individual could pose a danger to the public. That explains the Bloc Québécois's position. We will be voting against the bill for that reason. The decision needs to remain with the Parole Board. If there is a problem, then we need to review the appointments to that board and perhaps its workload as well, so that members have enough time to properly analyze each case.

I am worried about what might happen when board members are on the fence, when they think that a person may be fit to be released back into society but they still have a niggling doubt. They might think that, if they say no, the person will never be able to apply again, and so they might be tempted to release the person, despite that niggling doubt. They might end up taking risks that they are not currently taking. We therefore have to be careful about the unintended consequences that a bill may have.

The bill has very noble intentions. I am not challenging the bill's intentions which, by the way, I support. I think this is just an issue that we have. Our society needs to be better protected, especially victims of crime. However, we have to be careful about the bills we propose. For that reason, I do not believe that this is a good bill.

It could have targeted prolific offenders or repeat offenders, people who committed a crime, were released, returned to society, committed other crimes, were re-incarcerated and released only to commit more crime. That would have brought some nuance to a bill that is otherwise much too broad.

I really appreciated the member's point that human beings are the most able to evolve and change. I thought that was an interesting point, and he is quite right. It is normal for the individual to believe that they are fine and they can rejoin society. It is also normal for parole board members to conclude that, even if the individual thinks they are fine, they might still have a long way to go.

There has also been discussion about the annual review, which is generally required by law. However, a judge may also decide that the individual will not be ready to come back in one year's time. That does happen. The member also referred to the automatic review process after five years. However, the Conservatives have forgotten about day parole. Some individuals may be in prison but allowed to leave during the day and return in the evening. There is actually a very high success rate for this kind of release. I will provide a few statistics at the end of my speech to prove my point. In the case of day parole, there is no such thing as automatic review after five years. What this means is that, under this bill, if someone is refused once, that is the end of that.

We also need to be careful about what we say in Parliament. I mentioned at the beginning that I am neither a lawyer nor a legal expert. However, I am very careful to read my files thoroughly and not to say just anything. When people in the House say that murderers are sentenced to only 25 years in prison, that is not the truth. Murderers are sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole after 25 years. That is the full nuance. We must also be careful when informing the public, so as not to spread misinformation. If parole is not granted, it will not happen. Even in cases where parole is granted, there will always be conditions and supervision, because a life sentence remains a life sentence.

It is always difficult to speak to bills like this, because we know we are touching on sensitive issues and things that are excruciating for families who have experienced this kind of tragedy. I want to reiterate my empathy and sense of duty toward these people. However, that does not mean we should pass an imperfect bill that will cause harm to other individuals. That is the reason, in broad terms, why the Bloc Québécois will unfortunately oppose the bill.

Now I want to talk about statistics, as I said I would. When it comes to full parole, the approval rate is 32.4%. That is about three in 10. In the case of day parole, the approval rate is 77%. That is closer to eight in 10. The day parole rate is much higher because there is much closer supervision. It is therefore possible to assess this more effectively.

Now let us consider the results regarding parole and day parole without a repeat offence. The goal is not to say that this person is terrible and must die in prison; the goal is to protect society. This is our duty as legislators: to ensure these people do not reoffend. In the case of day parole, 99% of parole periods are completed without a repeat offence. In the case of full parole, 97% of parole periods are completed without a repeat offence.

With numbers like that, I do not think that, as legislators, we can say that the situation is so appalling and outrageous that the laws need to be changed. Some adjustments may need to be made, as I said earlier. Let us come up with some categories and some level-headed ideas. What I am concerned about is that there might be negative impacts that could lead to people being released sooner, as I said earlier.

Above all, let us continue to focus on victims and their families. I think this is an observation I can share with my Conservative friends. Victims are not being heard and supported properly in our society. We need to support them more. I mentioned earlier that experts are saying that the families' testimony is not very useful. If the testimony is not useful for the decision, why are families being forced to go through that? Why are they made to go through it several times? Some changes could be made.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to support Bill C-243, Brian's bill, for my friend the Conservative MP for Edmonton Griesbach. He has been a tireless fighter, especially for how deeply this impacts Alberta families.

In 2012, 35-year-old Brian Ilesic and three of his co-workers serviced an ATM machine at my alma mater, the U of A. They never made it home. Brian and two co-workers were killed, and the fourth person was seriously injured. All four men were ambushed, shot in the back of their head, point-blank, for cash. Brian's life was over. Dianne and Mike, Brian's folks, are here today. They say their son had an infectious smile, a warm heart and a giving nature.

A day later, the coward who killed Brian was caught trying to flee the country. He pled guilty to first-degree murder, two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted murder. He was sentenced to 40 years without parole. That is good, but nine years into the sentence, the Supreme Court struck down a Conservative law that enabled judges to extend parole ineligibility for killers who murder multiple victims.

The Conservative law was for a clear reason: to keep the worst criminals behind bars for as long as possible so everyone else can be safe. However, that ruling changed things, so Brian's killer could now apply for parole after just 12 years. That means the friends and family of the people he murdered must face the guy who killed their loved one, online or at parole hearings, and relive all over again the trauma that never really leaves them, to plead that brutal killers should not be let out, in order to keep themselves and, frankly, every other Canadian safe.

However, it does not stop there. Currently, murderers can apply for parole every single year. That is wrong, and it is what the bill tries to fix. Bill C-243 would ensure that when a murderer is denied parole, they cannot apply again the very next year. They would have to wait at least five years. I personally do not think loved ones of victims of the worst kinds of murder should have to go through that even once, but our Conservative colleague brings a reasonable material change for the better. All MPs should support it. The bill would help the now always-vulnerable peace of mind of the living victims of these torturous crimes, everyone who loves the souls and lives taken too soon.

The brave people who sacrifice themselves to protect, serve, help and save the rest of us, and the people who fight for victims all across Canada, support this common-sense fix. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, and police associations from Ottawa, Calgary and Toronto all support it. Victims' loved ones and advocates support it, such as the Edmonton's Victims of Homicide Support Society; Christina Trang, whose dad, Hung Trang, was murdered in Ottawa; and Oshawa's Lisa Freeman, who turned the pain of her dad's murder into selfless service for victims in the scary and complex maze of court, trial and parole systems where the deck often tilts against victims.

I support the bill, for all victims, and it is personal. In 2011, my lifelong and best childhood friend, Dana Turner, was murdered. The killer got a sentence of obstruction of justice and second-degree murder. I have a warning: I will speak the truth. After previously stabbing her in the head with a paring knife an earlier time, her ex-boyfriend stabbed her in both eyes with a pencil, a theme for him in other crimes; strangled her with shoelaces; and ran over her head and body repeatedly with a car, because the farmer's field near Innisfail was somewhat soft, to make sure she was dead.

In 2016, during debate on the life means life act from former Conservative MP Ron Liepert, I spoke about Dana; her sons; all her siblings; her extraordinary older sisters, who took on more than anyone could imagine; her mother, who will never be the same; her dad, one of my many volunteer dads; and the damage done to everyone who loved her. That bill would have made life sentences for murder truly mean life, but the Liberals defeated it.

I have read Dana's sister Paula's victim impact statement here. To reflect the gravity of what MPs debate, I will share parts of it again. Paula said the following:

Dana’s death has left me often depressed, anxious, suspicious, scared and angry. Dana’s murder required me doing things that I would never wish on anyone. I, along with the help of my parents and siblings had to go through Dana’s belongings item by item, box by box, sorting through her clothes, baby memorabilia, mail, and personal belongings all of which made me feel like I was stealing and violating her privacy. I had to decide what items to keep for her children when they got older, and sold the rest at a garage sale almost giving it away like everything she had worked for her whole life was suddenly garbage. I made phone calls to and met with Dana’s pastor and helped arrange her memorial. I had to print large photos of her to place on a table at the front of the church as there wasn’t a body to put in a casket as her “remains” stayed with the medical examiner as evidence.

At that memorial, Paula asked me to read a poem Dana wrote about friendship, the greatest, gutting duty of my life. Dana's loved ones, like me, spent months putting up missing person posters and searching everywhere. We found out later he had killed her long before any of us had given up.

Paula said:

About a year later, when Dana’s remains were released to our family and we were able to have a funeral for my sister. I will always be haunted by the image of my father falling to the ground at her casket in a small room at the funeral home and there wasn’t anything I could do to comfort him. I wanted to hold Dana’s hand and say good-bye but when I felt in Dana’s casket for her hand I wasn’t able to find it in the vacuum sealed bag of bones that was placed under a satin sheet where an inflated pillow was where her head would have been.

That is the reality families live with after murder. In 2018, Dana's killer dragged the family back to court for an appeal. He failed, but Dana's family had to go through the trauma and legal proceedings just to keep him in jail. By the way, Mark Lindsay, Dana's killer, is now Roxanne Lindsay or Demaris Lindsay, and tried to get into a hospital instead of prison a couple of years ago. An MP's top job is to ensure killers cannot repeatedly traumatize the people they already hurt.

Another Alberta example of Canada's backward so-called justice system is RCMP Constable David Wynn. On the job in St. Albert, he found a stolen truck and a suspect shot and killed him. Constable Wynn died, as the RCMP say, to uphold the right. The killer was out on bail. He had 60 prior criminal convictions and 29 outstanding charges.

A fellow RCMP officer, Roland Misik, was originally from Lakeland. My husband and I remain close to his brother. He shared what he saw that day on Facebook a couple of weeks ago. He wrote, “His head was wrapped in bandages and there were tubes coming out of everywhere imaginable with a breathing apparatus for someone on life support. He was an organ donor and time was of the essence to use his loss of life to save others. The memory of him fighting for his life will stick with me forever, and he fought, his body never gave up. The man who murdered Dave took his own life when surrounded by [cops] and knew he would have to face the consequences of his actions. The coward's way out.”

Constable Wynn inspired Bill S-217 by a senator and the Conservative MP for St. Albert—Sturgeon River, who previously tried to pass it before 2019 to require courts to know an accused criminal's history at bail hearings, which is insanely optional right now, to make it harder for repeat offenders to walk free. If it had been law, David Wynn might still be alive, and Shelly Wynn, a tiny, bubbly, lovely, fierce warrior of a woman, might have her husband.

Murderers should not get to force victims' families before them year after year as though the pain of the loss comes with an expiry date. It does not. No parent should have to prep statements each year about the worst day of their life, as if it ever gets better after that. No sister should have to recount how her sibling was killed just to keep him-her behind bars. No one should have to watch a loved one break down again since the system makes them relive their trauma. Brian's parents, Dana's children, David's family and everyone devastated by murder already carry a life sentence of grief.

Nothing restores those lives or fills empty chairs at tables. Nothing stops the wish for phone calls or texts that never come. Nothing changes the past, but MPs can change the future. I urge all, for everyone forced to bury someone murdered by a monster, for every brave first responder and for every innocent Canadian, to support Bill C-243, because the least we can do for victims' loved ones is to pass this reasonable measure to give some time, just half a decade, to not have to bare their souls and beg, to not have to face the uncertainty and to not have to tear open those wounds over and over each year, for justice.

I love the Turners.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Lakeland for that very impassioned and personal speech. I was very moved by it. I want to thank the member of Parliament for Edmonton Griesbach for bringing forward this very practical and reasonable legislation that I think would make a significant difference in the lives of victims' families, something that I have been very passionate about ever since I was first elected to Parliament just over eight years ago.

I want to frame my remarks around the principle that our justice system has to strike a balance between protecting the rights of offenders and recognizing the lifelong suffering endured by victims and their families.

I believe that my colleague has brought the bill forward because Canadians have identified a very real problem in our parole system, one that is forcing families to repeatedly and regularly re-undergo the trauma of their loved one's loss through parole hearings that can happen as often as every year. I am supporting this legislation because I want to ensure that we have a justice system that does not impose these unnecessary traumas on families who have gone through the worst experience imaginable.

I want to talk about what brought this law forward. It is called Brian's bill for a reason. I am referring, of course, to Brian Ilesic, a father, a son and a hard-working Canadian whose life was taken in a brutal murder in 2012.

I remember where I was the night of the HUB Mall shooting. I was working the night shift at the Imperial Oil refinery in Strathcona, Edmonton, and I could see the helicopters flying overhead. All of us working on the job site were asking ourselves what had happened. It was a fatal shooting, a fatal and evil betrayal.

Brian was working as an armoured car guard with his colleagues at the University of Alberta HUB Mall in Edmonton when a co-worker, somebody who should have had their back, turned on them and murdered them. In that attack, Brian Ilesic, Michelle Shegelski and Eddie Rejano were murdered, and another colleague, Matthew Schuman, suffered severe and life-altering injuries.

When I reflect on that tragedy, I think about the families of those victims and the entire community in the Edmonton area that knew them. I want to focus for a moment on the families that were left behind, because they are the people who must carry the consequences of this tragedy for the rest of their lives. I think about Brian's parents, Mike and Dianne Ilesic, who are here today and who lost their son in this tragic, senseless act of violence. I think about Brian's daughter, who was only a child when her father was murdered and who grew up experiencing many of life's milestones without him.

When I consider those realities, it reminds me that the pain of losing a loved one to violent crime does not simply fade over time. It is not something that heals. In my view, our justice system does not reflect and recognize that reality. It does not ensure that the processes that we have do not unnecessarily reopen the pain those families feel every day.

I think of the McCann family, who I have been advocating for through my private member's bill, which I hope to get passed in a couple of weeks here in Parliament. They have to go through parole hearings for the man who murdered their elderly parents.

I want to quote from a CBC article that quotes the Parole Board head in the most recent Parole Board meeting, stating that it is not a requirement that the offender admit to their crimes. How traumatizing is that for families, to have somebody brought before a parole board, face the uncertainty and the potential that this person who murdered their loved ones could be released, and hear the head of the parole board saying to the offender that they are not even required to admit to what they have done?

When the murderer in this case was convicted, the court imposed a life sentence with no chance of parole, at 40 years. At the time, that sentence reflected the seriousness of a crime that had taken three lives and permanently changed the life of another. I understand that for those families that were involved, this significant sentence provided some degree of certainty and reassurance that they would not have to repeatedly confront that offender through the parole process. However, that situation changed dramatically in 2022, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bissonnette. That decision struck down legal provisions allowing for consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murders. As a result of this decision, parole timelines for offenders have been significantly reduced.

I fully recognize that our courts have a role in interpreting the charter and our laws, and I believe Parliament has an important responsibility to examine the broader impacts of those decisions and to enact the democratic will of the Canadian people through the laws we make. In this case, one of the consequences of this court decision has been the increased uncertainty and distress for victims' families who believed at the time of the sentencing of their loved one's killer that they would not have to go through these repeated annual parole hearings but now, because of this decision, are being forced to.

Under the current system, once somebody who has been convicted of first- or second-degree murder becomes eligible for parole and applies for it, if that application is denied, the offender can apply again the following year. When I think about that process, I imagine what it must be like for those families to receive notice of another parole hearing year after year. I know some people might say these families do not have to attend the hearings, but I can tell members that every single victim's family I have spoken to feel it is their duty, as a family, to their loved one to show up to every one of those hearings, so they can stand up for their loved one who cannot be there because of the crime. That often means a very painful experience of preparing victim impact statements and revisiting the details of the crime again and again. I am not saying this process is completely flawed. Obviously, we know, it is necessary for people to have the right to a parole hearing. However, to force these families to go through this process year after year is a grave injustice.

When I look at other cases in Canada, I see how these repeated parole hearings can have a deep impact on families. One example we are very familiar with is the Bernardo case. His parole hearings have required the families of his victims to repeatedly revisit the horrific crimes committed against their daughters and their friends. When I hear the testimony of those families, I am reminded of the emotional toll of those hearings and that the process itself can create more trauma.

These examples reinforce my belief that the parole system must be reformed and structured in a way that respects victims and victims' families. That is why I am proud to support Bill C-243. I believe it proposes a reasonable and balanced solution. It would not eliminate parole eligibility, nor would it prevent offenders from having their cases reviewed. Instead, it would ensure that after a parole application is denied, the next review would occur at the automatic review period already established in law, which is approximately five years. I see this as a practical adjustment that would reduce these unnecessary repeated hearings while maintaining a fair process for evaluating parole eligibility. It would also reduce the administrative burden within the system while ensuring that families are not forced to revisit their trauma year after year.

When I consider everything we have discussed in the House today, I believe that Bill C-243, which is supported by a wide range of law enforcement and victims groups, represents a balanced and compassionate reform to Canada's justice system. I see it as legislation that would acknowledge the pain experienced by victims' families and seek to reduce their unnecessary hardship within the parole process. Supporting the bill, in my view, is about ensuring that families like the Ilesics and others are treated with the respect and compassion they deserve. It is about ensuring that our justice system would recognize not only the rights of offenders but also the enduring impact of violent crime on families who have been left behind.

For these reasons and many others, I strongly support Bill C-243. I encourage all members of the House to support this bill to get it to committee so we can finally get it passed and stand up for victims' families.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

To conclude debate, I recognize the member for Edmonton Griesbach for his right of reply.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, June 15, 2012, was a dark day in Edmonton. A young man named Brian Ilesic was one of three armoured-car guards who were murdered. The other victims were Michelle Shegelski, Eddie Rejano, and Matthew Schuman. As they serviced ATMs in the Hub Mall on the University of Alberta campus in Edmonton, their co-worker, Travis Baumgartner, shot and killed Brian, Michelle and Eddie. Baumgartner then locked them in a vault behind the ATM and fled like a coward in the armoured truck. Thankfully, Matthew's life was spared, although he was critically injured.

Brian was just 35 years old, a devoted father, a loyal friend and a cherished son. In 2012, the savage murderer Baumgartner was found guilty, but Brian's parents, Mike and Dianne Ilesic, are dreading the day when they will have to face him at a parole hearing.

I want to dedicate this speech to Brian and to his parents, Mike and Dianne, who are watching what is happening today. This bill is for them, and it is for all the victims left behind.

For families, the suffering goes on for decades. In many cases, those left behind must face the person responsible at parole hearings. As it now stands, if a convicted murderer applies for parole and is denied the first time, he or she can apply for another parole hearing just one year later and year after year afterwards. Under Bill C-243, convicted murderers could only apply for parole every five years instead of each and every year.

The trauma endured at these parole hearings is well documented. The families of the victims of Paul Bernardo have spoken about this. They spoke about the pain of being forced back into that nightmare again and again.

Another person watching today is Christina Trang. Her father was murdered in Chinatown, which is part of my riding of Edmonton Griesbach. She supports this bill.

Our justice system must protect the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims and their families. Right now, many Canadians believe that balance has tipped too far. They feel that the rights of murderers are placed before the rights of the loved ones left behind. Hundreds of Canadians coast to coast have signed my petition in support of this bill.

This bill would not undermine justice. It would strengthen it. It would ensure that victims and their families are treated with the dignity they deserve, while still respecting the integrity of our legal system. I believe all MPs on both sides of the House will support that, and I am hoping they will vote for this bill to go to committee for further study.

To colleagues on both sides of this aisle, I ask them to think about the Canadians in their riding who have signed petitions and written letters asking for this bill. Please represent them, stand up for them and support this common-sense legislation.

I am grateful that this bill has received support from the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the president of the Canadian Police Association, the Alberta Federation of Police Associations, the Calgary Police Association, the Toronto Police Association and the Ottawa Police Association. It also has the support of Teamsters Canada and Teamsters Local 362, which represented Brian.

I would also like to thank Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu and Senator Denise Batters for their support, as well as my good friend, the MP for St. Albert—Sturgeon River, for his support. I thank again Brian's parents, Mike and Dianne.

This bill is not about politics. It is about people. It is about victims. It is about families whose lives have been shattered by senseless, brutal violence. We can build a justice system that treats victims with the respect and compassion they deserve. That is what Bill C-243 seeks to do.

This is for Brian Ilesic. This is for every victim of violent crime and for every family left behind.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 2:13 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 23, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:13 p.m.)