Connie Cody · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

Veterans Affairs

2026-06-16

“The Women Veterans Council members who resigned are sad. The government should do something about it.”

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-16

“The existing law already protects good faith religious speech. Why are you asking for something that's already there?”

“The government is right that antisemitism is real and Jewish people deserve protection. But our Criminal Code already has laws against this. Even the government's own expert lawyer said this bill won't make anything illegal that isn't already. The real issue is enforcing the laws we have consistently. I agree with protecting people, but piling on duplicate laws while taking away a religious defense might not be the way.”

“You've been fighting to get rid of mandatory minimums. Now you pretend to be tough on crime? I don't buy it. Your 'solution' does nothing. Criminals won't care. It won't stop them. We need real enforcement and real punishment. Enforce the laws we already have!”

“Tens of thousands of Canadians from many faiths are writing to me. They're afraid this bill will let the government arrest them for their religious beliefs. The government says it's combatting hate, but we already have laws against violence and threats. This bill doesn't add anything good. Canadians deserve a full debate. The government needs to slow down and listen. I want to protect the freedom to believe and speak without the state breathing down our necks.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Ukrainian Heritage Month Act

2026-06-12

“That's a nice story. It makes me happy. We should have a Ukrainian Heritage Month. The government should tell everyone to learn about Ukrainian culture during September.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I like this bill. It would make September Ukrainian heritage month. My family came from another country too. People come to Canada and work hard. That's what Ukrainian-Canadians did. We should celebrate their contribution.”

Official Hansard

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—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

2026-06-12

“I want longer debate on Bill C-14. I want the government to add amendments that put in stronger laws against crime. I want the government to stop limiting debate. I say the government is keeping Canadians less safe.”

Statements by Members

Women Veterans

2026-06-12

“The government should spend more money because of what happened to these women. It's been two years already, and I'm going to keep reminding voters about this report until the government does what the report says.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-05

“Those sad stories show we need to spend more. The system is strained. Vulnerable people need more help.”

“The other party made housing worse. They spent a lot of money and it didn't work. We need to build more houses.”

“To make houses cheaper in Canada we need way more houses. We need to build 200,000 more each year for ten years. Build Canada Homes won't build nearly enough. They will build a few thousand a year at most. Since Build Canada Homes started more people need shelter. But Build Canada Homes has not helped lower the number of families needing help.”

“Canadians need houses now! The government failed. Women have no where to go. Shelters are full. My riding needs more houses. The government only makes announcements. Can you build actual houses please?”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm telling a sad story about an old lady to pull on your heartstrings. I want you to feel bad so you'll support my plan to cut taxes and red tape for builders. I don't like the other party's complicated plan to make the government build homes. My plan is better because it helps families buy homes from builders instead.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want permission to share my speaking time with another member.”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-02

“The Liberals pretend everything's fine, but our economy's in trouble. 100,000 jobs lost. Business investment down five quarters in a row. People can't make ends meet. But the Prime Minister is hiding from questions. He won't even show his face. Why is the Prime Minister missing when Canada needs him? This is a real crisis - ours is the only G7 country in a recession.”

“I want to blame the Liberals for Canada's recession. I don't want them making excuses with global factors. Other countries aren't in a recession, so it must be the government's fault.”

Private Members' Business

2026-05-29

“I want the government to fix a problem. That problem is parents not getting enough time off work when their child dies. I'm sharing a personal story to make you sad for these parents. The government should give parents more time off work. It wouldn't cost the government much and it makes us look compassionate. It's a small change but it will make these parents' lives a little easier. The government can't fix their grief, but it can give them more time to grieve without worrying about work or money.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-05-29

“I don't like the bill. I think it lets ministers give money to their friends without having to compete for it. I want a way to hold ministers accountable if they make bad choices with our money.”

Oral Questions

Public Safety

2026-05-27

“The government broke public safety. Their new plan won't help you. Criminals get out too easy. Police can't stop them. It's all the government's fault. I'm tough on crime.”

Official Hansard

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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗