Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, a family stopped by my office to share their story. Twenty-five years ago, they came to Canada to build a new home and a better future for their children. Their son graduated as an engineer, and their daughter is about to graduate. Both are struggling to find a good job that pays the bills. Now, they are planning to leave Canada. They worked hard, followed the rules and loved this country. That used to be enough. The Liberals have broken every promise of having an affordable life. Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative economic action plan so Canadians can find jobs and have hope that tomorrow will be better?

Mr. Speaker, with all the Liberal talk, where are the results? According to Liberals, Canadians never had it so good. Families came to Canada believing that hard work would allow their children to build a future here. For the family I mentioned, that promise is broken. Liberal inaction should not mean watching your children leave because they cannot find a job or build a life close to home. Our Conservative economic action plan is about saving Canadians money, cutting wasteful spending and lowering taxes, so again I ask this question: Will the Liberals adopt our plan so our future generations such as this family can afford to build their future here at home?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being forced to make impossible choices to make ends meet. Mark, a 73-year-old senior in my community of Cambridge, retired at 65, but in this affordability crisis, he has been forced back into the workforce because his retirement income is no longer enough to pay today's higher cost of living. This Canadian is not asking for a handout. He is asking for the financial security he earned through a lifetime of hard work. When will the Liberal government stand up for our retired seniors and adopt our Conservative economic plan, which saves Canadians money, so seniors such as Mark can retire with dignity?

Madam Speaker, today I rise on a topic of great concern to people in my community and to many Canadians from coast to coast. Perhaps no piece of legislation in this place has drawn as much public interest as Bill C-9. Combined, our offices have received tens of thousands of emails from concerned citizens opposed to the bill. The bill is about trust: who we trust with our beliefs, who we trust with our words and whether we can still trust that the government will protect our right to hold both. That trust is challenged when 240,000 postcards to MPs and senators remain in boxes at the Senate, undelivered. I have personally sponsored and presented petitions that have received signatures from people who value free speech and civil liberties. In my community of Cambridge, whether it is at events or just in the parking lot of a grocery store, I have had people come up to me to say that I should not let this one pass without a fight. It is no secret that religious freedom across this nation is under threat. We have seen churches burned, people threatened in the streets, synagogues vandalized and violence amongst different groups of people. This is not what life was like in Canada just a few years ago. Conservatives unequivocally condemn this hatred, and we want the chaos in our streets to come to an end. The government would have people believe that the response, Bill C-9, is some innocent bill. It calls it the combatting hate act. Nobody here is opposed to combatting hate. Nobody wants their church, temple or mosque to be attacked, but that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether the tool the government has chosen to use to address hatred is one that respects the very liberties that make Canada the best country on earth. It is about whether the legislation would actually protect religious freedom or just restrict it further. When people from across the political spectrum, from the Canadian Labour Congress to Catholic bishops, Muslim imams, rabbis, academics, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and more, come out in opposition to the bill, I think we know what the answer is. Their main concern centres around the removal of the religious text defence under section 319 of the Criminal Code. I would also like to recognize that I would like to split my time. For years, Canadians who expressed a sincere, honest religious belief have had a legal defence available to them when they expressed views on moral and social questions. That defence existed to protect freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which are enshrined in our charter. That was not a loophole. It was a deliberate choice by Parliament to recognize that sincere religious expression deserves protection, even when others find it uncomfortable. The Liberals, with help and encouragement from the Bloc Québécois, agreed to strip that defence out of the Criminal Code. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops warned that this would create a chilling effect on religious expression. One wrote that Canadians should not be criminally prosecuted for sincere, truth-seeking expression made without malice and based in centuries of religious tradition. He is right. The people in my community, from all faiths and backgrounds, wrote to me to say the same thing. They are afraid, not because they want to spread hatred, but because they are now uncertain whether what they believe and how they speak about it could one day be used against them in a court of law. Members can think about what that chilling effect looks like in practice: a pastor who self-censors a sermon because he is not sure where the line is anymore; a mother or father who is uncertain whether what they say around the dinner table could one day be characterized as something it was never intended to be; and the person who fought their way out of addiction through faith, who credits their belief with saving their life and who now wants to share that story openly, to tell others there is another way. That person now has to wonder whether speaking from their own lived experience, drawing on the very thing that pulled them back from the edge, could one day be used against them in a court of law. I have heard from all of them, people who picked up the phone or sat down to write to me because they genuinely do not know what the bill would mean for their lives. The government itself has mused about this. The Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, one of the people in charge of writing, introducing and implementing the bill, named specific parts of the Bible he found hateful. There is little in the bill to stop him from acting on those beliefs once it is passed. Let us talk about what the bill would not do. It would not actually address the root causes of hatred or offer the tools many people in our communities are asking for as they deal with this new wave of hatred. Burning a church, attacking a synagogue or calling for the death of someone in a particular religious group is already illegal. Bill C-9 would not have stopped any of the heinous offences we have seen in the news over the past months and years. We already have laws against obstruction, against threats and against the incitement of violence. If those laws are not being enforced consistently, the answer is not to add new vague offences. The answer is to resource law enforcement and the courts to apply existing law with consistency and fairness. The answer is also to not ram a divisive, threatening bill through the House of Commons under the guise of unity and freedom. The government introduced this bill only a few months ago. It has silenced the opposition and made backroom deals to move it forward. It has ignored organizations of all stripes and the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of Canadians from communities like mine who took the time to write, call and petition. This is not how we stop hatred. This is how we build resentment. This bill would amend the Criminal Code. It is not a minor administrative matter. Changes to the Criminal Code affect every Canadian in every province and every courthouse in the country. They affect what can be prosecuted, what defences are available and what the state can do to a citizen who says the wrong thing at the wrong moment. This deserves more than a rushed timeline brokered with the Bloc Québécois, while the official opposition was left on the outside. The tens of thousands of Canadians who wrote to MPs like me deserve a full debate. The Catholic bishops deserve a full debate. The Muslim imams deserve a full debate. Even the rabbis and civil liberty advocates who raised the alarm bells deserve a full debate. The pastors, teachers and parents who contacted my office deserve a full debate. I want to close by bringing this back to the people who sent me here. There is a woman in my neighbourhood, someone who has given decades to our community, who wrote me a letter about the bill. She is a woman of faith. She told me she is not a hateful person. She would never want anyone to be targeted, threatened or made to feel unsafe. She asked me in plain and honest language if the bill would mean that what she believes about the world, drawn from her faith, could one day be used against her in a courtroom. She asked if this bill means her grandchildren will live in a country where sincere belief is a liability. I did not have a reassuring answer for her, and that is precisely the problem. When a law aimed at combatting hate creates fear in the hearts of law-abiding, community-minded, faithful Canadians, when it drives them to petition their MP and write letters by hand, something has gone wrong in the drafting, in the process and in the government's willingness to listen. Our party, at its core, is about protecting what is worth protecting: the freedom to speak, to believe, to gather and to live according to our conscience without the state breathing down our neck. It is about trusting Canadians rather than managing them. It is about building policies that are durable, fair and based in common sense, not laws that are stitched together in backroom deals and rushed through a House that was not given adequate time to examine its implications. When people in my community hand me petitions and write to me by the thousands to oppose Bill C-9, they expect me to be their voice in Ottawa. They trust me to stand here to say clearly that this bill, in its current form, goes too far. The government has consulted too little and sacrificed the freedoms of too many Canadians in the name of a goal that could have been achieved more carefully, more fairly and more honestly. I am proud to be their voice in a Parliament that needs to hear it, because that trust, the trust Canadians place in Parliament to get it right, is worth protecting. I will never stop fighting for it.

Madam Speaker, the member across the way is the one who has been fighting against mandatory minimums, so I do not see how he is going to want to be strengthening the laws. The Liberals created this problem, and the Conservatives have the solution. Removing the religious defence will not make Canadians safer. It will not stop repeat offenders. It will not stop violent criminals, and it will not stop gang violence. It will not stop extortion. It will not stop human trafficking, and it will not stop criminals who continue to terrorize communities across Canada. What we need is for the laws we currently have to be strengthened and enforced.

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. Anti-Semitism is real, and Jewish communities deserve protection, but the Criminal Code already provides that. A lawyer the Liberals themselves brought to committee said Bill C-9 would not criminalize anything that is not already illegal. The real conversation is about why existing hate crime laws are not being enforced consistently. We agree on the goal of protecting vulnerable communities. The question is whether duplicating existing law, while removing the religious text defence, actually gets us there.

Madam Speaker, Canada's hate speech laws currently provide a defence against prosecutions for the wilful promotion of hatred where a person, in good faith, expresses an argument or opinion on a religious subject based on a belief found in a religious text. The defence applies only to that specific offence. It does not apply to advocating genocide or counselling violence or threats. It does not apply to any other Criminal Code offence. Calls to incite hatred or violence, whether cloaked in religion or not, are already illegal and are not protected by the religious defence.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs unanimously tabled a pivotal report, “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”. That title means something only because more than 50 women made it true. They sat before committee and relived military sexual trauma, wounds inflicted, at times by the very people who were supposed to stand beside them. They knew the cost, but they spoke anyway for every woman who has not served yet and deserves better. Angel, a veteran and survivor of military sexual trauma, did not testify, but she recognized herself in every word those women spoke. She wore the country's uniform with pride, yet something happened in that uniform, done by someone who should have had her back. Those women kept their promise to Canada, but two years later, Canada is still working on keeping its promise to them. To the women veterans with us today and to those watching from home, this was not a plea for sympathy; it was a blueprint. They do not owe us anything more. We owe them so they will be invisible no more and not ignored again.

Mr. Speaker, the government thinks it can fix the chaos it created by rushing legislation and shutting down debate. I am hearing directly from survivors, women who have faced repeat violent offenders, and they are asking for stronger protections, not weaker laws. Organized crime has taken over, as criminals know there are no real consequences. There are real amendments that need to be made to better protect Canadians, yet the government is cutting off debate and limiting committee work. Why are the Liberals shutting down debate instead of strengthening the law to keep Canadians safe?

Mr. Speaker, September has always felt like a month of beginnings. The quiet of summer gives way to something busier and more purposeful. In Cambridge and North Dumfries, where I am from, we feel a shift. There is a particular energy to September that other months do not quite carry, a sense that something is being picked up and continued. Therefore, when I look at Bill S‑210, a Senate bill now at report stage in this House, sponsored by the member for Etobicoke Centre, which would designate September as Ukrainian heritage month, I see an opportunity to combine the vitality of that season with the pride of a community that has shaped Canada's character for generations. That is why I could offer my support. I want to take a few minutes to talk about why, and what I genuinely hope it accomplishes. The Ukrainian Canadian community's patience has outlasted more than one Parliament already, a testament to its perseverance and its faith in this institution. I have some personal understanding of what it means to leave a country and build a life somewhere new. That was my family's story. What I know from growing up with that history is that people do not leave easily. They leave because they have to, or because they believe the sacrifice is worth what is waiting on the other side. They carry what they can, and they let go of what they must. Then they get to work, because that is the only way forward. What heritage actually looks like, in my experience, is not the declared kind. It is the lived kind, and the two are not always the same thing. I grew up in Cambridge, Ontario. It is a city with deep roots and a proud identity built over generations by families who came from different corners of the world and decided to invest their full energy and hope in making this their home. The families I grew up alongside came from Portugal, from Scotland, from Germany, from all across this country and from across the world. What they brought with them was not only language or food or tradition, though all of that came too. They brought a way of working, a standard for how people treat their neighbours and a belief that if they show up and do the job right, this place will give something back. Over time, those values merged into something distinctly Cambridge, a city that is just as proud of where it came from as where it is going. That is what heritage looks like when it is working: not a flag on a building or a line in a speech, but real people making real choices, and those choices feeding generations of rich community. The first wave of Ukrainian settlers arrived in Canada in September 1891, and it is precisely that first recorded arrival that gives the month chosen for this bill its significance. Most of these settlers were farmers who broke ground on the Prairies and created communities from conditions that would have turned most people back. They settled in places like Chipman, Alberta, and Stuartburn, Manitoba, places that were barely names on maps when they arrived. They did not treat being Ukrainian and being Canadian as separate identities—

Mr. Speaker, they did not treat being Ukrainian and being Canadian as separate identities. They recognize that being one deepened what it meant to be the other. They held on to their language, their faith and their traditions, while also becoming some of the most committed Canadians this country has ever seen. They knew that they could love where they came from and love where they were. Canadians recognize this truth instinctively because it mirrors the story of so many families who have made this country home. By 1914, approximately 170,000 Ukrainians had made Canada their home. They established newspapers to preserve their language while learning English. They sent their children to Canadian schools while teaching them Ukrainian songs. They carried something heavier too: the memory of the Holodomor, the Soviet-engineered famine, of 1932 and 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The grief of this travesty was carried across an ocean where it was held quietly for generations and where it still lingers in the hearts of their descendants. The fact that a community carrying that kind of loss still chose to build here, still chose to invest everything in this country, says something profound both about their resilience and about what Canada offered them. Continuing waves arrived after the Second World War, carrying the weight of further displacement and loss, but no less determined to build something beautiful. Another wave came after 1991, when independence opened a door that had been closed for generations. Most recently, since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Canadians from coast to coast have opened their communities to families arriving under circumstances no one should ever face. Each wave made the same essential decision to start over, to rebuild, and to give their children and grandchildren something reliable when everything solid had been taken from them. That decision, made when nothing was certain and everything mattered, demands a kind of resolve that deserves more than brief recognition. Ontario and Manitoba have already designated September as Ukrainian Heritage Month. Alberta and Saskatchewan have followed suit. Parliament is, in a real sense, catching up to what those provinces recognized some time ago. Federal recognition carries a unique weight, and it matters that this House adds its voice to what the provinces have already affirmed. When we designate Ukrainian heritage month federally, we are not just recognizing a community. We are inviting the entire country to see their story reflected in our shared Canadian story. Every May, communities across Canada mark Vyshyvanka Day, a celebration of Ukrainian culture and identity expressed through the embroidered shirts that have become a symbol of heritage and resilience. In Toronto, thousands gather at Nathan Phillips Square. In Edmonton, families fill Churchill Square. In Winnipeg, the celebration has grown into one of the city's largest cultural events. That is the spirit September heritage month should aspire to match. Someone can walk through Cambridge on any weekend and they will see that same spirit. They will see people who have been here for generations standing beside people who arrived recently, working on the same fundraiser or coaching the same team. There are firefighters, police officers, teachers, innovators, builders and workers. People do not focus on their differences. They focus on building the community together. That is what Cambridge does, and from what I see, it is what most Canadian communities do when given half a chance. The spirit of showing up, pitching in and not making a production of it is one of the most genuinely Canadian things I know. It exists because generations of people from different places brought their best and added it to something larger than themselves. That is the community I am proud to represent. That is the foundation that Bill S-210 is, in its own way, asking us to honour. I have met with farming families in North Dumfries who have worked the same land for four generations, watching the world change around them while holding on to a deep connection to this country and their community. They still gather for Easter dinner, whipped up from their family recipes handed down through generations. They still know the songs their great-grandmother sang, but they are also innovating with precision the sustainable farming practices their great-grandmother could not have imagined. Being that deeply rooted, combined with forward momentum, deserves recognition alongside the stories of those who crossed an ocean to build life here. These stories do not all follow the same path, but they share something: a decision made at some point to commit, to stay, to build and to trust that the place they chose would be worth it. This is how heritage months can carry real potential and how they can also carry a real risk. The potential is that they give communities a legitimate occasion to bring forward stories that might otherwise find no voice, stories that, once told, have a way of changing how people see each other and how they understand the country they share. The risk is that we stop at the declaration, that we mark it on the calendar and move on, having made a gesture without doing the harder work of actually listening. Canadians notice the difference between genuine respect and political convenience. What I hope Bill S-210 produces is something genuine: community gatherings and conversations in community centres, in church halls and around kitchen tables that would not happen without this invitation to begin them. There is the grandfather who arrived with almost nothing and who built something their grandchildren are still proud of, and the young person who is only beginning to understand what their family community gave up so they could have a better future. These stories exist in every riding in the country. September gives us a reason to find them and bring them forward, and that is worth supporting. I would encourage every member in the House, as September approaches, to do more than issue a press release. Members should find a story in their riding that they did not already know; sit down with someone from the Ukrainian community or from any community whose history they had not yet taken the time to understand; ask them what they brought when they started over; ask them what they sacrificed to get here; and ask them what they pray their grandchildren will remember 50 years from now. Those conversations are worth more than anything we can pass in the chamber. If Bill S-210 opens the door for more of those conversations to happen across Canada, it will have accomplished something that lasts past September and past this Parliament. September is a good time to start listening.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C‑20 with deep concern for the families in my community who are watching this housing crisis unfold before their eyes. In Cambridge, I have witnessed what the government struggles to acknowledge. What we are navigating is no longer a housing crisis; it is a housing catastrophe. Rebranding existing projects does not build homes. Let me tell the House about an 84-year-old constituent of mine. She worked her entire life, paid her taxes faithfully and raised her family with dignity, yet a staggering cost of living, property taxes and maintenance costs consumed her pension and home ownership, pushing her to seek refuge in a Cambridge shelter overwhelmed by those without a roof. There are so many people that shelters have long wait-lists, and they can no longer accommodate seniors in need. Members can picture their own grandmother or grandfather struggling up shelter stairs that were never designed for their needs, squeezed into overcrowded dormitories with makeshift bunks, unable to find comfort or rest in spaces designed for temporary crisis, not for the housing needs of seniors who built this country. The dignity of a lifetime of contribution to our community was stripped away by a housing market that no longer recognizes their value or their need. In today's Canada, people who did everything right are ending up with nowhere to live. This is not the Canada I know. This is not the Canada any of us promised to protect, yet we are witnessing families across this nation face impossible choices because the government has failed to deliver the most basic foundation of security: a home. When housing costs consume 60%, 70%, even 80% of a household's income, families are forced to choose between rent and groceries, between keeping the lights on and keeping a roof overhead. In Cambridge, I have seen families with two working parents, both with steady jobs, unable to afford a modest two-bedroom rental. Teachers, nurses and trades workers are being priced out of the very neighbourhoods they serve. These are not choices any Canadian should face in a country as wealthy and resource-rich as ours. The mathematics of survival have become impossible for working families. A nurse earning $70,000 annually faces rent costs of $2,500 per month for a basic apartment before utilities, groceries and child care, let alone having any capacity to save for a down payment or dream of owning a home of their own. This represents more than half their gross income for housing alone. When the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation recommends spending no more than 30% of income on shelter, we see how this market has completely failed Canadian families. After 10 years of empty Liberal promises, national strategies and new bureaucracies, what do we have to show for it? We have another Crown corporation, another layer of administration, another committee that multiplies meetings while families feel the grip of inflating rent. Bill C-20 asks us to celebrate yet another bureaucracy, the fourth housing agency under the Liberal government, while seniors face impossible housing costs and families are priced out of entire communities. The Liberals created the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's national housing strategy with great fanfare. They established the federal lands initiative. They launched the rapid housing initiative. Each came with press conferences, ribbon-cuttings and promises that this time would be different. It is not. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that this new Crown corporation will contribute just 5,000 homes per year, which is 1% of what the Liberals promised. The Liberal housing minister himself admitted there are no targets set for the number of homes to build. How can we take seriously a housing plan with no housing targets? What kind of strategy refuses to define its own objectives while families wait in desperation? These numbers represent a scathing indictment of Liberal priorities. Across a nation of nearly 40 million people, 5,000 homes annually means one new home for every 8,000 Canadians. In Cambridge alone, with a population of just over 160,000, this would translate to fewer than 18 new homes per year for this grand federal initiative. This is not merely policy failure. This is a matter of life, death and dignity for Canadians. Behind these statistics are real people facing real crises that demand our immediate attention. The housing market has become a barrier to the very foundation of Canadian life. Economic mobility, once the hallmark of our nation, is grinding to a halt as housing costs consume an ever larger share of family budgets. Let me address a particularly troubling consequence of this crisis. Women trapped in abusive relationships face an impossible choice when financial abuse underlies domestic violence. Those who want to leave dangerous situations must choose between staying with abusers who control their finances or face homelessness because safe, affordable housing simply does not exist. The cruel irony is that when women finally find the courage to leave dangerous relationships, they discover that housing costs make independence impossible. Meanwhile, children aging out of foster care find themselves with nowhere to turn. At 18, they are expected to navigate an adult world without the family support most young people rely on, yet they face housing costs that challenge families with dual incomes. These young people, who should be focusing on education, building careers and contributing to our communities, instead spend their energy simply trying to survive in a market that treats housing as a commodity rather than a necessity. Builders in my community consistently raise concerns about rising costs, lengthy approval processes and regulatory requirements that change throughout projects. Those challenges make it difficult to plan, invest and expand. Some builders also struggle to retain skilled workers. Construction depends on a stable workforce. Industry uncertainty makes it harder to provide the long-term opportunities that workers and families rely on. When housing opportunities arise, we lack the workforce to build at scale because skilled trades have moved to more stable sectors. The skilled trade shortage has reached crisis proportions. Electricians, plumbers and carpenters are aging out faster than young people are entering these fields. Why would a young person commit to an apprenticeship when project delays make steady employment impossible? Development charges have increased by 180% over the past decade in some Ontario municipalities, while approval timelines have stretched from months to years. These costs are passed directly to homebuyers. Across the country, many young adults are delaying major life decisions like marriage and starting families because of housing costs. They cannot afford to care for themselves, let alone children. We are witnessing the fundamental promise of Canadian life, that hard work leads to prosperity and security, crumble under the weight of housing costs that have far outpaced wage growth. Even Statistics Canada reports that birth rates have declined to historic lows, with housing costs cited as a primary factor in family planning decisions. At some point, we all have to ask whether the answer is another layer of federal administration or whether the focus should be on removing the barriers that prevent homes from being built in the first place. Canadians are not asking for more organizational charts. They are asking for more homes. That is why Conservatives believe the focus should be on removing barriers to construction rather than creating new bureaucracies. We would cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, immediately saving families up to $65,000, making home ownership achievable for thousands more Canadians. We would tie federal infrastructure dollars directly to homebuilding results, requiring municipalities to permit at least 15% more housing each year or forfeit federal funding. We would seek to end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing construction, unlocking billions of private investment that is currently sitting on the sidelines. These measures would reduce construction costs by tens of thousands of dollars. While the government creates new departments and new delays, we would create new opportunities and new homes. Our approach recognizes that housing is built by workers with tools, not by bureaucrats with organizational charts. Canadians have waited long enough for leadership that understands the urgency of this crisis and the necessity of bold action to solve it. These are practical measures focused on increasing supply and improving affordability. They recognize that every family needs a home. How can we ask Canadians to call Canada home when we cannot trust the government to provide the foundation they need to build their lives? Bill C-20 offers bureaucracy where Canadians need action, it offers committees where families need shelter and it offers promises where communities need results. For that reason, I cannot support Bill C-20, because rebranding existing projects does not build homes.

Madam Speaker, Canadians are not living in the past. They are living through a housing crisis that has worsened dramatically over the past 10 years. Under the government, Canada has experienced rising costs, declining affordability and the most severe housing pressures we have seen in a generation. What once was a challenge has now become a full-blown housing catastrophe. The consequences are very real. Women are staying in dangerous situations because they have nowhere to go. Shelters are full. Providers in communities like mine are turning people away because there are simply no beds available. Those frontline organizations are not asking for more announcements or more studies or more excuses. They are asking for action. The reality is this. The government promised homes but delivered bureaucracy. Rebranding programs and making announcements does not build homes, and Canadians are paying the price.

Madam Speaker, to restore housing affordability in Canada, we will have to double housing construction across the country, adding more than 200,000 units each year for the next decade. Build Canada Homes will hardly scratch the surface, building only a few thousand units a year at best. Since the inception of Build Canada Homes last September, demand for shelter space has risen dramatically, and the perceived accomplishments from Build Canada Homes have not offset any of the high rates of families seeking—

Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the member. Seniors should be able to live out the rest of their life with dignity. After 10 years of the Liberal government, housing has become less, not more, affordable. What once was a crisis is now a catastrophe. We see the consequences every day. Shelters are at capacity. There are long wait-lists. Shelters are no place for anyone, families, children or seniors, to live. They cannot accommodate the overwhelming number of people seeking shelter. If we are looking for dignity, we have to build the homes for people to build their family and their life.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is now the only G7 economy in a recession. It might be big news to the bankers and bureaucrats in Ottawa, but in my community, the warning lights have been flashing for months. The Cambridge Food Bank reports that hundreds of people with full-time jobs are using their services every month. These Liberals lecture hungry people about so-called global factors, but France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.K. all face tariff pressures from the U.S. and none of them are in a recession, just Canada. If our recession was about tariffs, war and oil prices, then why is it that Canada is the only G7 economy in a recession right now?

Mr. Speaker, that minister's cherry-picking skills would put even the best fruit farmer to shame. Over 100,000 jobs have been lost since the beginning of the year, and business investment has declined for five straight quarters, but the Liberal government pretends that everything is fine. Families in my community have real questions about how they are going to make ends meet, put food on the table or just keep their jobs. The Liberal Prime Minister's response is to go into hiding. He has been dodging the cameras and our questions for five days. Now that we have a real economic crisis, why is the Liberal Prime Minister missing in action, and why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, there are moments in this place when we speak about policy and there are moments when we speak about people. Today, as I rise to address Bill C-222, also known as Evan's law, I am speaking about both. I am mostly speaking about love, about loss and about what happens when the two collide in ways that change a family forever. With love, the heart is full. With grief, the heart is heavy. I want to begin by thanking my colleague across the aisle, the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, for bringing forward this legislation. I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary courage of Evan's family, who turned their deepest heartbreak into a force for change so that other families might be spared even a small portion of the pain they endured. Their advocacy reminds us that sometimes the most profound acts of love come from the places where our hearts are most broken. The journey to parenthood begins well before a child enters a home. Whether someone is expecting the birth of a child, becoming a step-parent or welcoming a child through adoption, families make the same kinds of preparations. Homes are reorganized, routines are reshaped and hearts are opened to make space for someone new. They look ahead to milestones, both small and large, like first steps and first words, school graduations, weddings, and the hope of grandchildren far in the future. Families prepare not just for a child, but for a future shaped by that child's place in their lives. However, sometimes life takes a different path than the one that was planned. Sometimes the dreams held so carefully are shattered in ways that leave families struggling to understand how they are supposed to continue breathing, let alone navigate bureaucratic processes and government forms. I know this reality, not just as a parliamentarian, but as a mother who has walked this path. Years ago, my husband and I lost a son. In the days and weeks that followed, even the most basic tasks, like grocery shopping, folding laundry and answering the phone, felt overwhelming. Ordinary moments could undo us. Hearing a parent call out their child's name could stop us in our tracks because it was our son's name. Tears would fall without warning and without reason. At the same time, life did not pause. We still had other children who needed care, routines that had to be maintained and a world that expected us to continue. We did, but it was hard. Each holiday, each celebration and each quiet reminder exposed just how vulnerable we were. It was the memories, the moments we had lived and the love we had shared that held the broken pieces together. What I know now, and what Bill C-222 so clearly recognizes, is the importance of time. When we lost our son, immediately the world felt completely upside down. We needed time to breathe, time to grieve and time to begin finding our way back to our daily routine, yet we only had two weeks. Too often, processes are built around administrative efficiency, yet families live their lives around moments; moments of joy and moments of profound loss. This bill would take an important step toward narrowing that gap. It invites us to reflect on how other federal systems handle the loss of a child. Beyond employment insurance itself, current federal rules often require parents to meet strict filing, reporting or notification deadlines within weeks of a loss. These timelines may be efficient from a systems perspective, but they are not designed for moments of tragedy. Extending federal deadlines by an additional 60 days would be a limited practical adjustment, one that does not expand government or create new benefits, but simply ensures federal processes better align with the realities families face in the immediate aftermath of a loss. The research shows us what any parent who has lost a child already knows. This kind of loss affects everything. It affects one's ability to concentrate, to sleep and to trust that anything will ever be the same again. Studies tell us that grieving parents experience increased rates of anxiety, depression and physical health problems. They struggle to return to work, not because they do not want to, but because their minds and bodies are trying to process something that fundamentally changes who they are. Even when employment insurance benefits barely cover families' expenses, they provide something more valuable than money. They provide space. They provide space to grieve without the added pressure of financial crisis, and space to be in the slow, difficult work of learning how to live in a world that no longer contains their child. Giving parents that space does not weaken our workforce. In fact, it strengthens it. Parents who are forced back to work too soon often struggle longer and return less prepared to engage fully. Parents who are given reasonable and structured time are better able to return and to contribute. Compassion in moments of loss is not a barrier to participation. It is often what makes participation possible, helping parents rebuild the bridge back to employment. Bill C-222 recognizes that when we lose a child, we do not stop being parents. We do not stop needing time to care for them, even if that care now looks different: arranging funerals, creating memorials and finding ways to honour a life that was too brief but no less precious. Under Bill C-222, parents would continue to receive employment insurance parental benefits until their benefit period expires, even after the death of a child. The bill would remove the requirement for new claims and reports during this time and work within the existing framework that already provides up to eight weeks of bereavement leave under the Canada Labour Code, acknowledging that this time can make the difference between surviving and drowning. These changes might seem small to someone who has never lived this reality, but to a parent trying to arrange their child's funeral while worrying about keeping the lights on, to a family struggling to return to routines that no longer make sense, or to someone trying to figure out how to go back to work when work feels meaningless, these changes are everything. Grief does not belong to any one party, and neither should compassion. This is not a partisan issue. This is about whether federal systems respond reasonably when Canadians face the most devastating moments of their lives. No member of the House is immune to loss. It will touch every community, every family and, at some point, every one of us. When it does, Canadians deserve systems that reflect not just efficiency but understanding. My Conservative colleagues have long advocated for improvements to the system, and we are pleased to see progress with Bill C-222, though we recognize this is only the beginning. The bill does not pretend that government can fix heartbreak. It cannot restore what has been lost or ease the pain that will always persist. What it can do is ensure that in a family's darkest moments, when it is least equipped to navigate systems, forms and bureaucratic requirements, it is met with understanding rather than additional hardship. When someone we love dies, we learn that grief is not something we recover from. It is something we learn to carry. The weight never fully leaves, but over time we learn how to balance it alongside all the other things we must carry: hope, responsibility and the determination to keep moving forward, not because the pain has ended but because love requires it. What Bill C-222 offers is recognition that love does not end with death and that neither does the work of being a parent. With love, the heart is full. With grief, the heart is heavy, and sometimes the heaviest hearts need the most support. I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-222, to stand with grieving families and to ensure that when Canadians face the unthinkable loss of a child, our response reflects the best of who we are as a nation.

Mr. Speaker, one year ago, Canadians did not feel safe on their own streets. After a year of the same old Liberal government, they are now afraid in their own homes. In Cambridge, people are being attacked where they sleep. A 60-year-old senior was assaulted in his own home. A homeowner had his wallet taken while the offenders also tried to steal his car. In the middle of the night, a woman was sexually assaulted by a stranger who broke into her home. This is what happens when repeat offenders are let back out instead of being kept behind bars. Canadians are paying the price. How much worse does it have to get before these Liberals stop letting criminals cycle through the system and start keeping Canadians safe in their own homes?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal minister just told Canadians to feel safer because they proposed a band-aid for a system they broke. Canadians do not need another paper promise. They need to be safe in their own homes. The Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws let repeat offenders walk free and come right back through Canadians' front doors. Police are forced to arrest the same offenders again and again because the system keeps letting them out. Criminals are not getting the message and are getting bolder because they know they will not face real consequences. A system that will not keep them behind bars is not protection. It is failure. It is like putting a screen door on a submarine; it is completely useless. When will they shut down this revolving door and start protecting Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, for bringing forward this exceptionally important bill. She has done meaningful work on this issue, including sponsoring a petition that garnered over 7,300 signatures. This legislation represents another step forward in responding to a very real and growing concern facing Canadians. Bill C-263, the silver alert national framework act, speaks to something that is very simple, but it is also very urgent. Tens of thousands of vulnerable seniors living with dementia go missing every year in Canada. When that happens, every minute matters. Canada is undergoing a significant demographic shift, and our population is aging rapidly. By 2030, over 1 million Canadians are expected to be living with dementia, rising to 1.7 million by 2050. That estimate comes from national research by the Alzheimer Society of Canada, which tracks how quickly dementia rates are rising as our population ages. With this rise in cases of missing elderly persons, there is great concern as baby boomers are aging. New data shows that one in four seniors over 85 has a form of dementia, which is resulting in more seniors wandering away from home. Senior advocacy groups state that the preliminary data being collected shows that between 50,000 to 60,000 people out of the nearly 1 million Canadians with dementia are reported missing each year, and these numbers are rising. Families and communities across the country are already dealing with this reality, trying desperately to keep loved ones safe while navigating the uncertainty dementia causes every day. This pressure will only increase in the years ahead. Those who know someone living with dementia understand how quickly a routine walk can become disorienting, how everyday surroundings can suddenly feel unfamiliar and how easily someone can lose their way. They live with the constant fear that a loved one could wander and not know how to get home. Caregivers are often carrying far more responsibilities and worries than people realize. Many describe living with this constant fear, wondering whether it is safe to step away, to run an errand or to allow themselves just a few moments for self-care. The first hour after someone goes missing is often marked with hesitation. Caregivers check familiar places, call neighbours, retrace routes and only later realize how much time has passed. Those early moments are filled with uncertainty. By the time they reach out for help, valuable time has already slipped away. It is said that, if an older person is gone for more than 24 hours, there is only a fifty-fifty chance that they will be found safe, making this a matter of life and death. When a loved one does go missing, caregivers frequently shoulder an immense emotional burden. They replay decisions, question their judgment and carry guilt, even when they did nothing wrong. For many years, I worked closely with nursing homes and seniors and heard directly from staff and families about the daily realities of caring for people living with dementia. One concern that is mentioned is how often individuals find a way to wander. In many cases, the outcomes were fortunate, and someone was found at a bus stop, a coffee shop, or on a walk on a familiar route. However, there are also cases with far more serious consequences, where delays in locating someone led to harm that could have been prevented. Those experiences underscore the importance of early notification and a system that responds quickly when the unexpected happens. When a vulnerable senior goes missing, families do not experience time in the usual way. Every minute feels longer. Every moment carries the weight of uncertainty. Families search. They make the calls. They are pacing. Above all, they hope someone somewhere will be able to help bring their loved one back home safely. Police, search and rescue teams, and first responders do extraordinary work in these situations. They search large and unfamiliar areas, coordinate volunteers, review camera footage and track movement patterns while racing daylight, weather and long tiring hours. In many cases, responders work across multiple jurisdictions. The local municipal police force, provincial resources and community volunteer search teams are all trying to piece together the same information at the same time. Conflicting alerts slow this coordination, and delays widen the search area. First responders consistently tell us the same thing, which is that a clear, national framework would help responders narrow their focus sooner and act with greater precision. Early, accurate public awareness makes a huge difference on the ground. The bill is inspired, in part, by a very unfortunate tragedy that occurred in Winnipeg in 2023, which was when Mr. Earl Moberg went missing. Mr. Moberg was an 81-year-old husband, father and grandfather who disappeared from his home and was never found. In the wake of that loss, his family acted. They launched a petition calling for the implementation of a silver alert system so no other family would have to endure that same heartbreak. Bill C-263 would require the federal government to work collaboratively with territories, provinces and police services to establish a national standard and coordination for silver alerts. Provinces and territories already take the lead in policing and emergency response, and the legislation would respect that reality. The federal role would ensure that the systems align, that information flows and that standards are shared. The goal of the legislation is straightforward: Canadians' being notified quickly when a vulnerable senior goes missing, in order to bring them home safely. In my community of Cambridge, and in communities across this country, people understand what it means to look out for each other during moments of crisis. We see it when neighbours check in, when local businesses stay alert and when people step up to help when they know what to look for. However, good intentions alone do not help families when a vulnerable senior has disappeared. They must be supported by systems that allow accurate information to reach the public without delay so people can respond constructively rather than react after the fact. These challenges are often more acute in rural and smaller communities. Distances are greater, lighting can be limited, and familiar landmarks can disappear quickly when someone moves beyond a town centre. A person can travel well outside a safe radius without even being noticed. In those settings, rapid public notification would allow our farmers, shopkeepers, drivers and neighbours to stay alert in real time. A national approach would ensure that geography does not determine how quickly a family receives support. Canadians pay attention to public alerts because they are reserved for serious situations. Canadians are already familiar with the value of a coordinated alert system through the Amber Alert program. We have seen how quickly it mobilizes the public and how effective it can be. Lives have been saved because communities were notified early. Bill C-263 recognizes that seniors living with dementia deserve the same level of urgency and public communication when they go missing. Canada already has the tools needed to do this. The national public alerting system can issue rapid, geo-targeted alerts across cellphones, radio and television. This bill would not create something new. It would enhance the use of what is already in place. A national framework for silver alerts would help establish shared standards, clear processes and reliable coordination across jurisdictions. It would support first responders and communities by ensuring that information is timely and actionable. The bill speaks directly to families searching for a loved one, caregivers waiting for news, first responders working against the clock, and communities willing to help when they are informed. Dementia may change the way someone sees the world, but it should not change the way the world sees them. The difference between a coordinated response and a delayed one can be the difference between bringing someone home safe or never having that chance again. The legislation would allow Parliament to respond more effectively when families need our help the most. I encourage all members of the House to give Bill C-263, the silver alert national framework act, thoughtful consideration and to work together so that when a vulnerable senior goes missing, Canadians are prepared to respond, because every minute matters.

Mr. Speaker, today Parliament opened with the words “freedom, opportunity and peace”, something we all get to enjoy. We are enjoying that because of the veterans and those who continue to fight for us and for all Canadians, and now they are asking us to help them, protect them and speak on behalf of their voices. Why is the government shutting down their voices and closing debate with its manufactured majority?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of the people of Cambridge, with a deep sense of responsibility to those who have served and those who continue to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. These are men and women who have committed their lives to protecting our freedom and preserving peace, often at great personal cost. When they raise their right hand to serve our country, they deserve to know that Canada will protect them in return, not only on the battlefield but within the very institutions they trust for support, justice and dignity. We are here to debate Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts. This is legislation that speaks to a serious responsibility: how we address sexual misconduct in the military and support those who come forward. At the Standing Committee on National Defence, Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP worked constructively across party lines, guided by the testimony they heard and by a shared understanding that we needed to get this right for survivors. At the core of this issue is a principle that should unite us all. Every victim of sexual violence deserves justice, safety and dignity. They deserve a system that works for them, not against them. I also want to speak directly to the survivors who came forward and shared their experiences with this Parliament. They did not have to do that. They did not owe us their stories, their pain or their trust. They came because they believed that if Parliament truly listened, change was still possible, and that trust matters, and it carries an obligation in all of us. That is why Conservatives have remained focused on standing with survivors of military sexual trauma and why we believe meaningful reform must begin by listening to those with lived experience. Unfortunately, the government has not demonstrated that same willingness to listen. The Minister of National Defence acknowledged at committee that he did not personally consult victims in developing this legislation. Instead, the government has relied on external reports, without ensuring that those perspectives were fully tested through the legislative process. The Liberals delayed this bill and are now moving to advance it in a way that risks undoing the very improvements that were made at committee. That approach raises serious concerns about whether the final legislation will truly reflect the needs of those it is intended to support. At the same time, key witnesses made it clear that removing choice would have real consequences. What survivors asked for was not privilege or special treatment. They asked for one thing: choice. They asked for the ability to decide which system they felt safest engaging with, which process they understood and which path would allow them to be heard with dignity and respect. Survivors spoke about access: access to language, to support systems and to processes they understand. They spoke about trust and how critical it is in determining whether they feel safe coming forward at all. The government's approach in Bill C-11 is to move cases of sexual assault into the civilian justice system. While that may be appropriate in some circumstances, it cannot be the only path forward, particularly given the current pressures facing that system. Across Canada, civilian courts are dealing with significant backlogs. Delays have significant impacts. They are a reality that affects victims. When cases are delayed beyond acceptable timelines, they risk being dismissed. We have seen this happen. Cases are not always resolved on their merits. Instead, they can be halted because the system cannot meet the timelines required. For victims, that is not just frustrating but devastating. However, the government's proposal would add further pressure to that already strained system without providing a clear plan for additional resources or capacity. That raises a fundamental question: How does this improve access to justice? Witnesses also warned us that that this is not an imaginary concern. We heard evidence about capacity on the ground. In one study examining cases at CFB Esquimalt, hundreds of incidents were reviewed, yet only a small number met the threshold for referral into the civilian system. Even then, prosecutors indicated they had the capacity to proceed with only a handful of cases each year. That reality matters, because when capacity does not match policy, the result is not more justice. It is fewer cases moving forward and fewer perpetrators held to account. When policy ignores those realities, the impact is not abstract. It risks retraumatizing those who have already been harmed and reinforces the very institutional barriers survivors have told us keeps them silent. Several witnesses cautioned against exactly this approach. They warned that removing the military's role entirely could reduce accountability, weaken discipline and, ultimately, fail to deliver justice to survivors. Others pointed to the importance of maintaining concurrent jurisdiction, allowing both systems to operate and victims to choose the path that best supports them. That is the balance that was reflected in the amendments brought forward at committee. It is also important to recognize that the Canadian Armed Forces has taken steps in recent years to improve how these cases are handled within the military system. Those efforts are not perfect, but they should not be dismissed outright. Reform should build on progress, not disregard it. Meaningful reform must also be about culture change. Survivors have told us clearly that systems that remove choice or create dead ends can reinforce institutional trauma rather than reduce it. The Arbour review played an important role in advancing this conversation, but it was written before key changes were fully implemented, including the removal of the duty to report and the strengthening of survivor-centric support mechanisms. It should not be used as a static justification for reversing progress that is still taking hold. If reform undermines trust or reduces the likelihood that cases proceed at all, then we are not fixing the system. We are weakening it. This is not about choosing one system over another. It is about recognizing that both systems have a role to play and that victims deserve the autonomy to decide which is right for them. Removing that choice does not simplify the process. It limits it. Addressing sexual misconduct in the military is not a simple task and no single reform will solve it entirely, but we do know that progress requires more than good intentions. It requires listening, collaboration and a willingness to incorporate the perspectives of those most affected. That is why the work done at committee is so very important. Conservatives are proud of the progress that was made alongside colleagues from other parties to improve this bill. The amendments that were brought forward were not partisan. They were grounded in the testimony of witnesses and the practical realities of the systems involved. Our position is clear. Support for this legislation must be tied to maintaining those improvements, particularly the principle that victims should have the autonomy to choose the system that best meets their needs. More broadly, Canadians expect us to ensure that both military and civilian justice systems are equipped to handle these cases effectively. That means not only determining where cases are heard, but also ensuring that whichever system is used has the capacity, resources and structure to deliver timely and fair outcomes. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces serve this country with professionalism and dedication. They deserve to work in an environment that is safe, respectful and accountable. Survivors of sexual misconduct within the military have spent years advocating for change. Many have done so at great personal cost, with the hope that future generations will not face these same challenges. Survivors did not come to Parliament as partisans. They came as human beings asking to be heard. Respecting that courage requires more than sympathy; it requires that we act in a way that honours what they told us. If this Parliament is serious about supporting those who serve, then we must ensure that Bill C-11 reflects what we have heard: Victims deserve to be listened to, they deserve timely access to justice and they deserve the autonomy to make decisions about how their cases proceed. That is the standard we should be striving for as members of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, choice is putting the empowerment back in the hands of the victims. At the heart of the bill is a very simple issue, choice for victims. Survivors who appeared before the committee were clear: They want the ability to decide whether their case proceeds to the military justice system or to the civilian justice system, based on where they feel safest, best supported and most likely to be heard. The approach that came forward respected that by allowing both systems to continue to play a role, rather than forcing survivors down a single path. What the government is now proposing would remove that choice by shifting everything to the civilian system. That just undermines the trust from the very people we are asking to come forward. We need to get it right, not just get it done quickly.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is an important one. What I keep coming back to, and what should matter to all of us, is what veterans and survivors have been telling us. Some had the courage to appear before committee, which is hard enough to do on its own. Others have shared their experiences in different ways. In every case, they did so because they believed their voices would matter here. We cannot acknowledge those voices and then move forward in a way that leaves people feeling their input was heard politely and then set aside. That sends the wrong message, especially to the veterans and survivors who already struggle with whether it is safe to come forward at all. Respect means more than listening once. It means taking seriously what they said, especially about trust, choice and feeling safe in the process. If we want people to keep coming forward, we must show that what they shared actually matters in the decisions we make here.

Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to determine what is going on here, since the government now has its manufactured majority. The Arbour report has been an important part of this discussion, but it should not be treated as the final word. Madam Justice Arbour was invited to appear before committee so members could ask questions and examine her recommendations in light of today's reality, but that did not happen. Since then, the director of military prosecutions has told the committee that the military has adjusted and is prepared to handle these cases. Reform has to reflect where the system is today and not where it was many years ago.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were promised restraint. Instead, they got more Liberal overspending, more debt, higher costs and more of the same. The Prime Minister did not change course from Justin Trudeau. He doubled down, doubling the deficit and, according to the independent budget watchdog, sending nearly two-thirds of new spending into day-to-day operations and a growing bureaucracy, not real investment. Those choices are hurting Canadians' daily lives. The cost of living has skyrocketed, food bank use is rising, and more households are maxing out credit cards just to afford groceries. After blowing past Trudeau-era spending and deficits, who does the Prime Minister think pays the bill?

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Bringing forward legislation like this requires a willingness to engage directly with painful realities and to carry the weight of a story that no family should ever have to live through. The care and seriousness with which this bill has been developed shows a genuine commitment to protecting women and ensuring that intimate partner violence is finally recognized in law for the danger it presents, because a crime unpunished is a crime unrecognized and encouraged. I also want to thank all the members of the House for recognizing the importance of this bill and allowing it to progress this far. I sincerely hope that sentiment continues and that we are able to make this critical bill into law. It should come as no surprise to hear that crime is on the rise across Canada. We can see it in our daily lives. More and more Canadians are living in fear, and unfortunately, this trend extends to intimate partner violence. An increasing number of women are dying at the hands of their partners. Intimate partners are connected through trust, proximity and often financial or emotional dependence. The person causing harm is not a stranger. It is someone with access, knowledge and control. When the law ignores that context, it ignores the heightened risk that comes with it. When these relationships become violent, it is all the more isolating, and it is that much more difficult for victims to seek help. Further, when the numbers on intimate partner violence keep rising, it is a sign that the system is failing. Worse yet, when victims do seek help, like in Bailey McCourt's case, the risks to them are still not addressed. Bailey was a young mother of two living in Cloverdale. She was trying to protect herself and her children. The relationship she was in had become violent and threatening. This was not even a single incident. The harm happened more than once, and the danger continued to escalate. On the morning of July 4, Bailey's former partner appeared in court and was convicted of assaulting her. By then, the justice system had a clear picture. There was a history of violence, there was a pattern of behaviour and there was a woman who had already been harmed and had made her fear known. Even so, after the conviction, he was released without a requirement for a full assessment of whether Bailey's life was still at risk. Hours later, Bailey was murdered in broad daylight. This shows that the system failed to treat intimate partner violence as the ongoing and escalating threat that it was. We heard from the families of victims of intimate partner violence during the committee study for this bill. These women were daughters, sisters and mothers, and died at the hands of someone they knew and trusted. These families expressed how the patterns of coercive control went unrecognized all the way through the process, even when it came to sentencing. Bailey's death shows us where our laws fall short. Bill C-225 is about closing that gap. It is about making sure that when violence happens with an intimate relationship, the law responds with the seriousness it deserves. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to ensure that when an intimate partner is killed in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour, that homicide is treated as first-degree murder. The same applies when the killing occurs while that coercion or control is taking place. In these cases, the law would no longer look only at the final act, but would recognize the pattern that led to it. Bill C-225 also speaks to cases of manslaughter involving an intimate partner. Where manslaughter occurs in the context of coercive or controlling behaviour, the bill would require the court to consider whether a sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed. It would not dictate the outcome, but it would ensure that sentencing fully reflects the seriousness of the circumstances. This bill would ensure that the law reflects what people already understand about how violence develops in relationships, and that this understanding is reflected at the point of sentencing. When there is a pattern of abuse, coercive conduct or controlling behaviour toward an intimate partner, that pattern must be treated as an aggravating factor. This is a very important step, because when people who work in policing, in shelters and in community services talk about these situations, they describe something very consistent, which is that violence within relationships rarely begins at its most extreme point, but instead develops over time, often starting with controlling behaviour, such as decisions about where someone can go, who they can see and how they can spend money, before moving into intimidation and eventually physical harm. By the time the situation reaches its most serious point, there has often been a long progression of behaviour leading up to it. When that progression is not clearly reflected in how the system responds, it leaves a gap between what is known about the situation and how it is ultimately treated. That is a gap this bill is addressing. One of the problems lies in how we look at violence in the law. An assault is largely treated the same, no matter the circumstances. Whether someone attacks a stranger on the street or harms the person they live with, trust, depend on and share their life with, the charge is often the same, but those situations are not the same. In Bailey's case, what stands out is not only the outcome, but the fact that there were visible signs that the situation was becoming more serious. When those signs are present, they should influence how the case is treated, particularly when it reaches sentencing, because that is the point where the court is deciding how the offence is recognized and how it is addressed. This bill would ensure that those patterns are not overlooked or treated as secondary, but instead are recognized as part of the offence itself when the sentence is determined. There is also another part of this that is important to understand, and that is how situations can shift once the justice system becomes involved. There is often an assumption that once charges are laid, things are under control, but that is not how it works in practice. There can be a period where the situation becomes more unstable, particularly when the aggressor understands that consequences are approaching and that their freedom may be limited. That awareness can change behaviour and often escalate the threat. When we look at these situations from that perspective, it becomes clear why it is important for the law to take a full view of what has been happening, not just what happened at one moment, but the pattern that led up to it. That pattern often tells us far more about the level of risk than the final act alone. Families that have lived through these situations often describe the same experience: they saw changes, they recognized that things were getting worse and they tried to raise those concerns. We also hear that they are left wondering why the response did not reflect what was happening. That question never leaves them because the outcome of what happened to their loved ones can never be undone. When the response does not match the level of risk, families are left carrying that loss, and that stays with them so much longer after the case itself. Families are broken and children lose their mother. We have also heard from women who have had to take serious steps just to stay safe, leaving their homes and their communities because they did not feel protected where they were. When we take a closer look at what that actually means, it becomes clear that these are not small decisions. It means leaving behind stability, support systems and everything familiar just to create distance from someone who has become a threat in their life. It can involve finding a place to stay on very short notice, changing routines and trying to rebuild daily life while dealing with uncertainty and fear. For some, it goes even further. Victims might leave their region, their province and even the country they were born and raised in, because they believe it is the only way to protect themselves. When someone reaches that point, it says something about the gap between the level of risk they are facing and the level of protection they believe is available to them. In my community of Cambridge and North Dumfries, and all across Canada, Canadians are concerned about situations where risk builds over time and where they are not confident that those risks are being taken seriously enough. They are not speaking in general terms. They are speaking about what they have seen and experienced. They are asking whether the system recognizes danger early enough and responds in a way that reflects how serious it can become. For those reasons and more, I support this legislation. I would encourage all members of this House to take a close look at what this bill is doing and why it has been brought forward. We owe that to Bailey, to all victims, to their families and to women who may be in situations where the risk is already building. This is a step forward we can take together and it is one that will make a real difference because crime unpunished is crime encouraged.

Mr. Speaker, as a new member here, I came to realize very quickly that committees are the workhorse for Parliament. I fear that the government is using majority to shut down debate on controversial legislation, something where Canadians might lose their voice. As well, committees are a place for transparency and accountability. I am just wondering if speed is now more important than scrutiny when writing the law for this country and for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, in my community, the one question I get from people is this: How are we going to keep accountability and transparency alive in government? The election has happened, and a lot of members ran their election campaigns on accountability and transparency. If there is a change of this order to committees, adding two more members of the government to committees, I wonder how that would not change the outcome of what is expected. Is the need for control so great that the voices of Canadians no longer matter with regard to transparency and accountability in committee?

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Galt Legion, a milestone that reminds us that remembrance does not happen on its own. It endures because individuals choose to carry it forward. In my community of Cambridge, Bill Albers is one of those individuals. Bill has devoted his time and energy to ensuring that important but often overlooked aspects of our wartime history are not lost. Through his work, he highlights the role of carrier pigeons and the pigeoneers who served during the First World War and Second World War. It was a vital form of service relied upon when other communication failed. More than the history itself, Bill's efforts reflected deep respect for service, sacrifice and remembrance. Especially in the centennial year of the Galt Legion, his commitment helps connect past generations to the present, reminding our community why we honour those who served. Remembrance is strengthened by people like Bill Albers, who ensure that the stories of war continue to be shared, understood and respected. Let us also remember that even the smallest wings carried the weight of great responsibility, saving thousands of lives.

Mr. Speaker, just one year ago, the Prime Minister was telling everybody who would listen that he would get a trade deal with the Americans by last July. He set the deadline. He made that commitment. Now, the Prime Minister has surrendered as tariffs on steel have doubled, tariffs on lumber have tripled, and the tariffs on manufacturers got bigger. The workers and job creators in my community now know that the Prime Minister's promises were more empty words from just another Liberal politician. He says our relationship with the U.S. is a weakness, but is the real weakness not the Prime Minister's constant over-promising and underdelivering when it comes to U.S.-Canada trade?

Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal policy, Canadians are not just stretched; they are falling behind. New data shows that 61% of Canadians feel financial whiplash from economic instability, 74% say rising costs for essentials are straining their finances, and 43% are just $200 away from insolvency each month. One senior told me she needs just $100 more a month to avoid the food bank, but even that is now out of reach. Families are cutting back, worried about job security, and in too many cases still not earning enough to cover their bills. Is this the unaffordability reality that these Liberals are deciding for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it short and quick. There have been a lot of concerns about government interfering with personal information and data, and it is losing a lot of confidence. My colleague highlighted the heightened impact on rural communities. I am wondering what the member believes is needed to ensure that Canadians in those communities have confidence in how these powers of government are used.

Mr. Speaker, Canada's auto industry is in crisis. Since the Liberal government took office, production is down 50%, exports are down 50%, and thousands of jobs are gone. The Liberal Prime Minister thinks we should surrender, but Conservatives say we should act. We put forward a new auto pact, with real solutions to make it easier to build and buy Canadian, restore free trade and protect blue-collar paycheques. It is about more than the jobs of today. It is also about the jobs of tomorrow and the next generation of workers who are dreaming of a future in the skilled trades. It is about the good-paying jobs that have formed the foundations of our communities for generations. Instead of supporting our plan to protect Canada's auto industry, the Liberal government voted against it. They have no plan to secure tariff-free access to the U.S. market. They only show up with empty words instead of working with Conservatives to support common-sense policies. Canadian auto workers were watching that vote yesterday, and they see that only Canada's Conservatives are serious about protecting Canadian jobs and Canadian sovereignty.

Mr. Speaker, every G7 country faces global headwinds, yet only one is choosing to make inflation worse through domestic policy. Canada now leads the G7 in food price inflation, carries the only shrinking G7 economy and faces fuel costs nearly 20% higher than the United States, because the Liberal government is adding an industrial carbon tax and a fuel standard tax that will reach 17¢ per litre. If the Prime Minister cannot name a single G7 country that is following this declining trend, what justification does this one have for doubling down on this failed path?

Mr. Speaker, copper theft is not an innocent crime. When vandals target essential infrastructure such as cell towers and power transformers, they are not just breaking the law; they are also putting human lives at risk. Copper theft literally leaves people in the dark and stranded when they need help the most. Last year in the Cambridge area alone, there were at least 15 cell service outages linked to these crimes, leaving residents unable to call 911 in an emergency. Do the Liberals realize that copper theft poses a significant threat to public safety, and do they agree that the House of Commons should take action now to protect our communities?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response from the member opposite, but there is more we can be doing. With Bell Canada designating Cambridge as a hot spot for copper theft, it is a real and ongoing risk for people in my community who depend on reliable power and cell service, especially during emergencies. The experts are clear: We need tougher penalties for thieves and vandals, deterrence for repeat offenders and concrete steps to stop stolen metals from being sold on the black market. Do the Liberals agree that these are common-sense measures to stop copper theft, and will they commit to working with Conservatives to put these priorities into law?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (scrap metal trafficking and essential infrastructure protection). Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce my private member's bill, the protecting Canada's essential infrastructure metals act. This legislation would take concrete steps to crack down on out-of-control metal theft and vandalism in communities across the country. The bill would strengthen penalties, target repeat offenders, protect critical services and disrupt the illegal resale of stolen metal. The theft of metals, like copper, has skyrocketed by more than 200%, according to some estimates, putting at risk essential services that Canadians rely on in emergencies, including 911 services, electricity infrastructure and cellular networks. The time for us to act to protect our communities is now. I look forward to working with colleagues from all parties to ensure that this common-sense proposal becomes law. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, a community member wrote to me about what they are seeing every day. They are seeing frail seniors standing outside grocery stores begging for help and Canadians lining up at food banks after a lifetime of work. The National Institute on Ageing states that one in five Canadians over 50 is now living at the poverty line. Many cannot afford groceries, heating their homes, essential goods and services or even a $500 emergency. Rising costs are not driven by events abroad. They are the result of policies imposed here at home, which continue to make life more expensive. Are the Liberals really telling Canadian families and seniors that they should just lower their standards and accept that life is permanently unaffordable?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-246, the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act, which is legislation rooted in dignity, accountability and respect for people who have survived sexual violence. Sexual crimes are among the most serious violations a person can experience. The harm reaches far beyond the moment of the offence. The effect goes beyond the physical. It can affect a person's sense of safety, trust and self-worth. For survivors, the impact does not end when the assault ends. It can follow them for years and often for a lifetime. It shapes how they move through the world, how they relate to others and whether they feel safe in their day-to-day life. In our justice system, sentencing is meant to reflect the gravity of an offence. This principle exists not only to hold offenders accountable but also to ensure that the harm done is fully acknowledged. No sentence can undo what happened, and no verdict can erase trauma, but sentencing sends a signal to survivors and to society that these crimes are unacceptable and will not be tolerated, and that perpetrators will be punished accordingly. Tragically, this is often not the reality. We have seen cases where individuals are convicted of multiple sexual offences, sometimes against multiple victims, yet are given sentences that do not reflect the scope of what they have done. In Toronto, a physician was convicted of nine counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation, taking place over nearly a decade. His patients came to his practice with the expectation of professionalism and care. Doctors swear an oath to do no harm. Instead, his patients were betrayed and victimized by someone who held a position of authority and trust. What was the penalty for this doctor? Despite the number and seriousness of the offences, this total sentence was just three and a half years. In British Columbia, young women were deceived by a man posing as a talent agent and were assaulted after being lured to so-called auditions. Even with multiple survivors, the sentence amounted to just 18 months. Unfortunately, these are not isolated examples. Sexual offences are increasing across the country. Since 2015, reported sexual assaults have risen significantly, and women account for the vast majority of people harmed. Offences against children have also increased sharply over the same period. So many lives have been permanently changed. In my own community, I have spoken with families, advocates and frontline workers who support women and girls as they rebuild after sexual violence. These are not distant stories. They involve real people who were harmed by someone they knew, someone in a position of trust or someone they were supposed to feel safe with. What I hear repeatedly is not a call for vengeance; it is a call to be fully seen and understood by the justice system. When survivors see that offenders convicted of multiple sexual offences serve sentences nearly identical to those imposed for a single offence, despite multiple convictions involving multiple acts of harm, it can feel as though their individual experience disappears into the process. The perception of being reduced or overlooked can deepen the harm long after the courtroom doors close. For survivors and their families, the journey through the justice system already requires extraordinary courage: reporting the assault; reliving it in court, often multiple times; and facing scrutiny and disbelief. What is sometimes less visible is how long that process can last and how much it demands. Court proceedings stretch over months or years. Survivors are asked to recount the most painful moments of their lives over and over again in unfamiliar, intimidating settings. They are cross-examined and wait for decisions that will shape their sense of justice and closure. When that process ends with a sentence that appears disconnected from the number or seriousness of the offences, it can undermine faith not only in the outcome but also in the system itself. Sentencing should reflect what the court has found to be true. When convictions establish multiple sexual offences, the sentence should reflect that multiplicity. Bill C-246 would align sentencing outcomes with judicial findings, ensuring that repeated criminal conduct would be treated as such. Bill C-246 would address a loophole in the Criminal Code that allows concurrent sentencing, meaning that sentences for multiple sexual offences can be served at the same time. In practice, concurrent sentencing can result in offenders' serving nearly the same amount of time whether they commit one sexual offence or several, even when the number of offences and victims is greater. The law recognizes the convictions as separate, but the sentence often does not meaningfully distinguish between them. It can create a perverse kind of discount, where additional crimes do not meaningfully increase accountability for each offence or each person harmed. For people carrying the impact of sexual violence, this can feel as though the law is counting time rather than harm. It leaves the impression that additional violations are absorbed into the process rather than recognized as separate acts of violence. When the law treats multiple sexual offences as one, survivors are left feeling that only part of what happened to them truly counted. Consecutive sentencing corrects that imbalance by ensuring that each offence is treated separately, because each act caused its own harm. This approach also speaks to public confidence in the justice system. Canadians expect that when serious crimes occur repeatedly, the law responds in a way that reflects that reality. When sentences appear compressed or reduced, it can erode trust and raise questions about whether the system is equipped to deal with repeat sexual offending. Clear, proportionate sentencing helps reinforce the idea that the justice system recognizes patterns of harm and responds accordingly. It supports deterrence, not through harshness but through certainty and accountability. Bill C-246 would require consecutive sentencing for sexual offences, ensuring that each offence carries its own penalty and that each survivor's experience is treated individually. This approach already applies when sexual offences are committed against children. The bill would extend that same principle to adult survivors, recognizing something fundamental, which is that sexual violence causes profound harm regardless of age. Age should not be the discerning factor, as everyone deserves the same clarity and protection from the law, whether the abuse occurs in childhood or adulthood, whether it happens once or repeatedly and whether it takes place in a home, a workplace or a community setting. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that our laws reflect the lived realities survivors face, not just the technical structure of the Criminal Code. The bill would not change definitions or create new offences. It would simply ensure that when harm occurs more than once, the response of the law reflects that reality. Consecutive sentencing affirms that each act of sexual violence stands on its own and that each survivor's experience is acknowledged fully, not absorbed into a legal calculation. This is not about retribution. It is about responsibility. It is about affirming that every survivor is a whole person, not a fraction of a case filed, and that sentencing should reflect the full scope of the harm inflicted. This is about the standards we set for our justice system. This should not be a partisan issue. It speaks to dignity, respect and restoring confidence in a justice system that too many Canadians feel has fallen short when it comes to sexual violence. To survivors, the bill would send a clear message that they are seen, that their experience will not be minimized and that the law will recognize the full reality of what they endured. To the people who commit these crimes, it would send another message: Each act of sexual violence carries consequences, and each offence will be answered in full. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, for bringing forward this important legislation. I encourage members on all sides of the House to consider what the bill seeks to correct, and to work together to ensure that our sentencing laws reflect both the seriousness of these crimes and the dignity of the people who survive them. Justice should never be reduced, bundled or discounted.