Connie Cody · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

Public Safety

2026-05-27

“Liberals are letting criminals run wild. Canadians are in danger. My party would be tougher on crime.”

Official Hansard

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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“The government should protect property rights. If the government doesn't, Canadians won't trust that their homes are really theirs. That's bad. The government needs to make sure property rights are clear everywhere.”

Private Members' Business

Silver Alert National Framework Act

2026-05-06

“I'm full of empty words but I can't say anything substantive because my party hasn't decided yet. All I can do is fill time with anecdotes, empty platitudes and emotional appeals until they give me my talking points.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Report Stage

2026-05-04

“Nobody can tell what's going on. You have a manufactured majority. The Arbour report is old news. The military says it's moved on. We need current information to reform the system, not old talking points.”

“That's a good question. Veterans have talked to us. They want us to listen. We need to show we care. Then they will keep talking to us.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm upset the government isn't listening to veterans. Veterans should get to decide where their case is heard. The government shouldn't make that choice for them. Conservatives will stand up for veterans' right to choose.”

“I'm saying the bill is all about giving back choice to victims. I want a justice system where victims can decide where to take their case. They should be able to choose where they feel safest and most supported. But the government's proposal would take away that choice and force all victims into the civilian system. That's going to break trust with the people we're asking to come forward. We need to do this right, not just rush it through quickly.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm repeating nice-sounding words about the military and sexual assault legislation. I want the government to listen to victims and give them choices. I don't like that the government is rushing this bill.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Military Justice System Modernization Act

2026-05-04

“I want you to cheer for the military with me. I think the government is being unfair and it looks bad for them to shut down debate. I want to criticize the government.”

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-04-28

“The government promised to spend less but instead they spent more. Trudeau and the new Prime Minister both spent too much. The government is spending money on itself, not on investments. Canadians are suffering because of this. The cost of living is too high. More people need food banks. People are using credit cards to buy food. The government spent more than Trudeau. Who will pay for all this government spending?”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

2026-04-27

“I want voters to cheer for me when I promise transparency. I'm worried the other party will put more people on committees. I think adding people to committees will hurt transparency.”

“I don't like that the government might use its majority to push through controversial laws without enough debate. I want more transparency and accountability at committees, not speeding up scrutiny just to pass laws faster.”

Private Members' Business

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code

2026-04-27

“I will thank my colleague for bringing this bill forward. It is a good bill. It will make things better. I want this bill to pass.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

International Trade

2026-04-23

“The Prime Minister promised a trade deal. He didn't deliver. Now we have more tariffs. Workers are paying. I think the Prime Minister makes promises he can't keep. I don't like that. I want the Prime Minister to deliver what he promises.”

Statements by Members

Galt Legion 100th Anniversary

2026-04-23

“I want to cheer for a vetern and a legion in my riding. That makes me look good.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗