Connie Cody

“I do not want this bill to pass. It removes protections for religious speech and will make people afraid to share their faith. Attacking places of worship is already illegal, so police should just enforce the laws we already have.”

“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.”

“I want the House to pass this bill to make September Ukrainian Heritage Month. Ukrainian Canadians have helped build this country for generations, even after facing great hardships like famine and war. This bill will help all Canadians learn and share their stories.”

“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.”

“The government is rushing this bill and shutting down debate instead of making it stronger. Crime is out of control, and victims are asking for stronger laws to protect them from repeat violent offenders. We need more time to debate and fix this bill to keep Canadians safe.”

“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?”

“Two years ago, women veterans bravely told a committee about the sexual trauma they suffered in the military. They gave us a plan to fix these problems. Canada has still not kept its promise to help them, and we must do better.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

“Our housing system is under serious strain. When there are not enough homes, vulnerable people like seniors and women leaving dangerous situations suffer first.”

“Madam Speaker, it is true that we need to have greater dignity expectations. The examples I raised of seniors and women who tried to leave dangerous situations are not isolated cases. They are clear indicators of a system that is under serious strain. When housing supply is this tight, the people who feel it first are often the most vulnerable, and—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Over 100,000 jobs have been lost this year, and Canada is in a recession. Families are worried about keeping their jobs and buying food. I want to know why the Prime Minister is avoiding our questions instead of dealing with this economic crisis.”

“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?”

• Echo ×16

  A repeated line

  “Why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?”

  Said 16 times by 13 members since May 29.

  Every time it was said →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It lets parents keep their parental leave and benefits if their child dies, instead of cutting them off while they are grieving.”

“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.”

“This bill lets ministers give government work to their friends without competition. It gives them no real consequences when things go wrong.”

“Mr. Speaker, the bill would allow ministers to hand out sole-source contracts to insider friends without competition. I am wondering if the member agrees that if there is no clear mechanism to hold ministers accountable when decisions go wrong, this is effectively granting immunity from consequences.”

“Liberal laws let repeat offenders out of jail too easily. Police have to keep arresting the same criminals over and over. I want the government to change this and keep criminals behind bars.”

“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?”

In response to a question from Rebecca Alty

“Could my colleague talk more about how government delays on property rights hurt public trust? Canadians need to know that their homes truly belong to them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s remarks on this issue and the broader concern around private property rights. Could my colleague speak further to how government delay and unclear action on property rights risks setting a precedent nationwide and what that does to public trust when Canadians want certainty that their homes truly belong to them?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It sets up a national alert system to quickly warn the public when an older person with dementia goes missing, so we can bring them home safely.”

“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.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Nearly one million Canadians are expected to be living with dementia.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since April 29.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Jeff Kibble

“We should not base this bill only on the Arbour report. The committee did not get to question Justice Arbour. Military prosecutors say the military has changed and can handle these cases now. The law should reflect how the military works today, not in the past.”

“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.”