Shannon Miedema

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I agree. This bill makes online companies responsible for the harm they profit from. It sets rules to stop the terrible things that have happened online in Canada and around the world.”

“Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly that a lot of what we are aiming to do is put the responsibility properly on those who are profiting from these online platforms and to put guardrails in place so we do not have the terrible incidents we have seen in the past in this country and across the world. That is exactly what we are aiming to do.”

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“People should probably be 16 to use social media. Even more importantly, the companies that make money from our youth must keep them safe online, no matter how old they are.”

“Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his upcoming additional child, number seven. It is fantastic news. My understanding is that we are looking at age 16 and over as the appropriate age for being responsible and mature enough to navigate social media. The more important thing would be requiring the platforms profiting off our youth to do the work to make sure they are protected. In whatever ways that needs to happen, we need to make sure we are providing a safe online environment for our children, whether they be 10 years, 16 years or five years old. It is is really important and worth investigation.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 42 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill to keep children off social media until they turn 16 and make platforms remove harmful content. Parenting alone cannot protect kids from the depression, violence, and abuse they see online. Other countries have passed similar rules, and keeping children safe is a matter of public safety.”

“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville. I rise today in support of Bill C-34, the safe social media act. I will begin by sharing that I am a mother of three children, ages 10, 13 and 16. I, like all parents, am keenly aware of the risks of social media, and I understand the difficulties of regulating its use by our children and our youth. Even though I feel fairly confident that my kids are generally well protected, I cannot be sure, because parenting alone is not enough to protect our children. Many parents do not want their children on social media at a young age, but it is incredibly difficult to keep them away when all of their friends are online. It can be a major source of family tension and stress, to say the least. This is not a failure of parenting. We want what is best for our children, and a large part of that is ensuring that they are not isolated from their peer groups. It is also important to recognize the ease at which these services are accessed. Often without their parents’ knowledge, children are entering the digital world, and with only a few clicks, they can create an account and begin using platforms that may contain harmful content and expose them to dangerous actors at an early age. A World Health Organization study found that more than one in 10 adolescents showed signs of problematic social media behaviour, struggling to control their use and experiencing negative consequences. Notably, this report also included the following call to action: “Ensure social media platforms enforce age restrictions and create a regulatory framework encouraging responsible design of digital tools for young users.” With the introduction of Bill C-34, this is exactly what we are aiming to do. The bill covers both aspects of that call to action. It would create a nationwide restriction on social media services for Canadians under the age of 16 and implement three core duties for social media services. The duty to act responsibly would require regulated services to assess and mitigate risks linked to harmful content. The duty to protect children would require services to build age-appropriate safeguards into the design and operation of their products. The duty to make certain content inaccessible would require faster removal action on the most serious victimizing content: child sexual exploitation material and intimate content posted without consent. Technology is ever-adapting, and our legislation must reflect that. Online harms are intensifying, and our laws have not kept pace. Protecting our kids from the harms of social media is a responsibility that I know we all share. The digital world connects us, it educates us, and it drives our economy. Unfortunately, it has also become a space where too many children are exposed to preventable harm. A study co-led by researchers at the University of Alberta found that spending more time on social media is making Canadian teenagers, especially girls, feel anxious, depressed and disconnected. The results showed that just one extra hour of daily device use was linked to a 15% higher chance of moderate to severe depression, along with a nearly 13% higher likelihood of similar levels of anxiety. This is not just a concern for parents at home. This has societal implications that go beyond one child and one family. That is why it is our responsibility to act to address these rising trends. We are also seeing a rise in dangerous behaviour being presented online, and without effective safeguards in place, our children are subject to observing, internalizing and repeating these behaviours. A report released by Stats Canada in 2024 found that one in eight young people saw online content daily that could incite hate or violence. A study from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection found that 50% of youth had watched the Charlie Kirk assassination video, while 33% had seen videos of mass or school shootings. Despite these high rates of exposure, only a small minority said they had actively searched for that content. Instead, most said that the content frequently appears unexpectedly in posts by strangers or in algorithmic platform recommendations. There is an unfortunate connection between viewing this sort of content and repeating it in real life. The same report from Statistics Canada found that more than a third of people suspected of cyber-related hate crimes were between the ages of 12 and 17. The harms being perpetrated online are not being left on the screen. They are being translated into real-life actions in our schools, in our homes and in our communities. Moving past the physical violence, these harms extend into sexualized violence and graphic content. Statistics from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection show that 10% of Canadian youth reported exposure to child sexual abuse material, while 13% had seen a video of adults being sexually abused. Anything above 0% is completely unacceptable, in my view. The reality is that there has been endless research done that showcases a clear link between social media use in adolescents and mental health concerns, rising hate and sexual violence. This research is well documented and well studied. It has been presented with the backing of parental safety organizations, our world-class research institutions and even tech companies. This topic was first brought to my attention when similar legislation was presented in my home province of Nova Scotia by Iain Rankin, member of the legislative assembly for Timberlea-Prospect and the interim leader of the Nova Scotia Liberal Party. In presenting his piece of legislation at the provincial level, he started a conversation that introduced me to the work of Jenna Poste, a tech executive by trade and founder of the Nova Scotia chapter of Unplugged Canada. Jenna and the team at Unplugged Canada have been advocating for this sort of action for years. Jenna spoke at a press conference where she highlighted a point that I made in my speech earlier, which is that many parents do not want their children to have a presence on social media, but when that comes at the cost of social ostracization, it sometimes becomes too difficult to make that decision and enforce it. The most common criticism I have heard since this bill was first tabled in the spring is that the government has no place in parenting. I agree, but the government does have a responsibility to step in when it comes to matters of public safety. Canada does not have to reinvent the wheel. Similar laws have been passed in a number of jurisdictions around the world, including Australia, Norway, Spain and Greece. Even provinces such as Manitoba are also looking at taking matters into their own hands at a provincial level. I also want to present a historic comparison with regard to opposition to matters regarding public safety. In 1984, when Nova Scotia was implementing its mandatory seat belt legislation, it came with much public outrage and scrutiny. In my research regarding Bill C-34, I found an archived CTV interview with people who were opposed, in which a Nova Scotian justified that opposition by calling the legislation “something that infringes on the petty details of the organization and conduct of people’s lives.” I feel quite confident that if we ask most Canadians today, they will recognize that seat belt laws are appropriate measures to protect our citizens, and I feel quite confident that 42 years from now, this legislation would be met with the same wide-reaching opinion. As we continue to debate on this important legislation, I urge my fellow members to consider the public safety concerns I have presented today and remember the full range of regulations that exist within this piece of legislation that would not only protect our children but also provide sufficient opportunities for social media platforms to implement necessary safeguards, because the safety of our children must be our top priority and should not and cannot be a responsibility left to parents alone. The digital environment is not safe for children. Leading health authorities now warn we cannot say that social media is sufficiently safe for young people and that governments must act decisively to reduce these risks. We are proposing this legislation because it is our responsibility to act, to act now and to act with urgency.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Our laws have not kept pace.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since October 28.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Scott Anderson

“We are starting work on major building projects across the country, and more are coming. This work takes time, but we are keeping our promises. We are working fast to fix our economy and deal with the crisis with the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting history lesson. I appreciate that. We are laying the foundation for transformation in this country. We have shovels in the ground across this country, which has been said in question period all of this week, on major projects, and more are to come. It does take a bit of time to get it all in place, but I think we are proving that we are acting on our commitments in good faith in trying to urgently transform our economy to address the crisis with the United States.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 41 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 41 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“The Pacific pipeline project does not serve the United States. It helps us sell clean fuel to other countries so we rely less on the US. This bill still protects the environment while that happens.”

“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my hon. colleague’s framing. The pipeline, the Pacific link, is a major project. It is designated as a major project, but its purpose is not to serve the United States. It is to diversify our trade relationships internationally and to reduce our reliance on the United States of America. That has been made very clear, and it is something that we absolutely must do to build our economic resilience and provide what we can offer to the world, which is low-carbon fuel, at this time of transition to a clean economy. Bill C-39 has pieces in place that would ensure environmental assessment is rigorous in that process.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. Opponents are spreading false claims about it. The bill does not eliminate environmental reviews, consult less with Indigenous people, or stop workers from striking. It only speeds up the review process, cuts duplicate work, and adds limits to when the government can step into a strike. Our environmental and labour standards stay strong.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. There is much to discuss. This bill has been subject to a wild disinformation campaign, some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House. Therefore, I want to begin today by saying something that should not be controversial in this place. Members of Parliament are allowed to disagree. We can oppose and even criticize legislation. We can believe that government has gotten something wrong. That is democracy and that is our job. However, there is a difference between opposing legislation and telling Canadians that legislation says something it does not say. Unfortunately, we have heard quite a bit of the latter when it comes to Bill C-39. We have heard claims that this bill would eliminate environmental assessments. It would not. We have heard that it would eliminate indigenous consultation. It would not. We have heard that it would eliminate workers’ right to strike. It would not do that either. With the rise of social media and short-form content, Canadians are less likely to get the full story. Complex legislation cannot be reduced to a viral slogan or a social media post, yet in an era when many Canadians get their news online, we have a responsibility to ensure that what we share is rooted in facts and not in fear. Therefore, let us separate the facts from the fiction when it comes to Bill C-39, and let us start with the environment. I have spent my entire career fighting for the environment, and I would never support something that would weaken environmental protections. The building Canada strong act would make no changes to the federal environmental standards. This would be a change in process. Regardless of what kind of project is reviewed, all factors would need to be taken into consideration, including climate impacts, species at risk, ecological and nature implications, navigation, navigable waters and much more. Bill C-39 does not say to forget the environment and build whatever someone wants. Nothing in the 244 pages of this piece of legislation says that we would bulldoze nature, yet those are the things that are being said outside of this House and in this House. When multiple government agencies are asking the same questions, running the same assessments and coming to the same conclusion, there is a serious opportunity to streamline processes. We can do that by changing who is leading these assessments and how departments coordinate their decisions. The projects moving through these new processes would still undergo rigorous assessment. This would not suddenly allow more environmentally sensitive projects to come to fruition. What it would do is make approvals happen faster, reduce the strain on the federal bureaucracy and speed up the economic benefits of major projects. If members opposite believe the bill would not provide adequate environmental protection, then they can make that argument and tell Canadians which standard they think would be inadequate and which safeguards they want strengthened. They can put forward an amendment and present a true alternative. That is what Parliament is for. However, standing in the House and telling Canadians that Bill C-39 would simply abolish environmental assessments is not a policy argument and it is not rooted in fact. Long regulatory processes have a cost. It costs the government when federal employees are tasked with duplicate efforts. It costs communities that are waiting to see investment come to fruition. It costs workers who are awaiting new opportunities. It comes at a cost to Canada’s economic prosperity, which is something we have to be very focused on at this time. My question to those who oppose this bill is as follows: Why should a federal regulatory process take longer than necessary once all of the information is on the table? I am open to hearing feedback on this topic from my colleagues across the aisle, from my constituents and from Canadians at large, but when this feedback is rooted in disinformation rather than fact, it is the duty of all members of this House to correct the record. Another section of this bill that has seen significant controversy relates to workers’ rights. I took time to study these provisions carefully and meet with my constituents and stakeholders who raised concerns, because it is my responsibility to understand the legislation before us and to provide clear information to Canadians. As I stand here and debate this bill, I want to make it clear that I am not dismissing concerns about the legislation in front of us. My job is to seek clarity on these concerns and bring this information back to my constituents. What I have been seeing online is that Bill C-39 would eliminate a worker’s right to strike, but this could not be further from the truth. For years, there have been concerns about the use of section 107. Right now, the minister can use it where the minister deems it expedient. Bill C-39 would put clear limits on that power. A prescribed process must occur, and intervention must be tied to a strike or lockout that could have a significant adverse national impact. While we are seeing social media posts saying that this government would be eliminating workers’ rights, the reality is that Bill C-39 would put clear guardrails around ministerial intervention. That is why, when I hear the member for Edmonton Strathcona say that this legislation would give the minister extraordinary new powers to intervene in a legal strike, I take issue with that characterization, because this bill would do the opposite. As we continue to discuss the implications of this new legislation, I invite all members of the House to ensure that we are telling the whole story. Bill C-39 is a transformative piece of legislation that would keep Canada moving. It would unlock economic growth by reducing red tape and providing regulatory certainty, accelerating significant national infrastructure development while improving the labour relations framework and strengthening supply chain efficiency. We are facing an uncertain world, and Canada needs to build greater economic resilience at home while diversifying our trade relationships abroad. U.S. tariffs have only heightened the urgency of addressing the structural barriers to investment, productivity and trade that are limiting our country’s prosperity. This work can be done, and it can be done safely. Through Bill C-39, we can get back into the business of building big things while maintaining strong environmental, social and labour protections, because this bill would not remove protections, but it would remove duplication.”

In response to a question from Sherry Romanado

“I have been focusing on local celebrations, like the anniversary of the HMCS Sackville and honouring the Battle of the Atlantic. I also announced new housing funding for military members in Halifax. I plan to talk to the people in my riding about their main priorities soon.”

“Mr. Speaker, my conversations have been more focused on some celebrations lately. We just had the 85th anniversary of the HMCS Sackville. We recommissioned it notionally, which was fantastic. We had the commemoration of the Battle of the Atlantic. I was able to make a funding announcement for improved and increased housing for CAF members in Halifax and across the Halifax Regional Municipality. My conversations have been much more celebratory of late, but I am sure my constituents have a lot to say on those 10 priorities, and I will be sure to talk to them shortly.”

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“Our defence spending is helping Dalhousie University do more ocean science research. Also, Halifax will host the Our Ocean Conference in 2027.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am really excited about the dual spending that is happening as we put our strategy into action. Dalhousie University has a wonderful ocean science and research program, and it is capitalizing on defence spending to further ocean science and research. That is a really important piece of it, where we are going to increase our innovation and research. Excitedly, today, we just announced that the Our Ocean Conference is going to be hosted for the first time in Canada in 14 years in Halifax in 2027, where we will bring all the great minds from science and research together to continue to advance our shared priorities.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Jeff Kibble

“I disagree with the member. The defence minister has a good plan, and our new defence strategy is doing well. People working in the defence sector in Halifax support the work we are doing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly disagree with the member. I do not think that we are putting the cart before the horse. I am really excited about the defence industrial strategy. I am really excited about the vision, hard work and accomplishments so far of our Minister of Defence. I am really proud of all of the members of the defence sector in Halifax, many of whom I know more and more, having taken this role on just over a year ago. I am excited to continue to partner with them. The response that I have received so far is one of gratitude, optimism and hope for the future of Canada and of our defence.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 8 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Marilyn Gladu

“I want the House to approve this spending plan. The world is becoming more dangerous, and Canada must be able to defend itself. This plan gives the Department of National Defence $50.7 billion to pay troops better, recruit more soldiers, and buy new ships and equipment.”

“Mr. Speaker, the global security environment today is volatile and uncertain. We face real challenges, both military and non-military, that demand an equally strong and coordinated response. Canada must be prepared to defend ourselves and our allies. Our government has announced the most ambitious defence rebuild in a generation. Today, with the 2026-27 main estimates, we are putting the money behind that commitment. I am really pleased to stand in the House to talk about this today, representing my riding of Halifax. Halifax is home to the largest defence base in the country. CFB Halifax, in one form or another, has existed since the 18th century, predating Canada as we know it. The military and our armed forces members are ingrained in our history and are already shaping our future. Our city is advancing incredible projects for the Canadian Armed Forces. We are building the River class destroyers and we are home to NATO DIANA and the Maritime DISH. As we prepare our next big defence procurement with the new fleet of submarines, there is even more possibility for Halifax. The government is requesting $50.7 billion for the Department of National Defence. That is $15 billion more than the previous year, or a 42% increase in funding. That includes $5.1 billion in new operating funding, $7.1 billion in capital and $2.3 billion in grants and contributions. These are not abstract numbers. They represent real capabilities and real investments in real people: the personnel who wear the uniform and defend this country every day. Last year, Canada hit 2% of GDP on defence for the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, half a decade ahead of schedule. Reaching the 2% benchmark is a foundational step in renewing Canada’s defence and a clear statement of resolve in a more dangerous world. We are now working toward NATO’s new defence investment pledge: 3.5% of GDP for core defence and 1.5% for broader defence and security infrastructure, for a total commitment of 5% of GDP by 2035. As the Prime Minister noted at CANSEC, Canada is already meeting that 1.5% target for critical defence infrastructure. These estimates keep that momentum going. Canada’s new government is delivering on its promise to make generational investments in the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces and to further accelerate these investments in the years to come. In a more dangerous and divided world, Canada is taking full responsibility for defending our sovereignty and building our strength as a reliable partner and ally. Our government made a promise to rebuild, rearm and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are getting it done. A military is only as strong as its people, and this government has made clear that our people in uniform deserve to be treated accordingly. The $1.3 billion in these estimates reflects the historic pay increase we delivered for CAF members; the largest in a generation. Better pay means better recruitment. It means better retention and a more capable and more ready force. The results are already showing. CAF recruitment is the highest it has been in three decades. Last fiscal year, we surpassed our recruitment goals, bringing in over 6,700 new regular force members. We are also investing $274.9 million in CAF recruitment and training to modernize how we attract and develop the next generation of service members. We are building a more robust recruiting and training system, and we will dedicate the resources needed to be successful. There is $274.5 million committed for Canadian Forces health services, because the obligation to care for our people does not end when an operation does. The CAF continues to build a more modern, effective and inclusive military supported by digital tools and data-driven processes. Work is ongoing to improve efficiency, reduce delays and align recruitment and training systems with the evolving needs of the organization and of Canadians. Words do not defend Canada, but capabilities do. The CAF must be ready to operate in the Arctic, across North America, through NORAD, within NATO’s collective defence framework and wherever global stability demands a Canadian contribution. These estimates include $7.3 billion for in-service support, keeping the equipment we have available, reliable and sustainable. As well, there is $1.2 billion for fleet equipment readiness to adapt and respond to a faster and more complex security environment. Preparedness also means investing in what comes next. That is why we have included $12.8 billion for major multi-stage procurements, River class destroyers, joint support ships, Canadian multi-mission aircraft and critical infrastructure investments that will serve Canada for decades. These capabilities will defend our sovereignty in the north, protect our maritime approaches and allow us to operate shoulder to shoulder with our allies. The Canadian Coast Guard is part of the Department of National Defence’s main estimates. The $4 billion included here funds its critical missions, search and rescue, icebreaking, environmental response and ocean science. As part of the defence portfolio, the Coast Guard will now do more, sharing intelligence, coordinating with defence partners and enhancing Canada’s maritime security posture. In a country with three oceans and the world’s longest coastline, that is no small thing. No country defends itself alone, not Canada and not our allies. That is reflected in the $3.3 billion in grants and contributions, funding programs, organizations and partners whose work advances Canada’s defence mandate. A significant share supports Ukraine through the military training and co-operation program, because the fight for a rules-based international order is one in which Canada has a direct stake. We are investing in NATO initiatives that strengthen interoperability, intelligence sharing and collective decision-making across the alliance. We are also doubling down on Canada’s defence industrial base. These estimates include initial investments for the new Canadian defence industry resilience program, strengthening domestic production capacity and Canadian sovereignty. That includes support for nitrocellulose production, a critical energetic material for artillery that is in high demand across allied militaries. Programs like IDEaS and MINDS continue to connect innovators, academics and industry to the defence mission, turning Canadian expertise into Canadian capability. In February, we released Canada’s first-ever defence industrial strategy. The framework is straightforward: building Canada first, partnering where we cannot and buying smart where we must. These estimates put that strategy into action. Spending more is only part of the story. Spending well is the other part. Through the comprehensive expenditure review, the Department of National Defence is targeting approximately $460 million in operating cost reductions from 2026-27 through 2028-29. That means continuing the fleet divestment strategy, streamlining the real property portfolio, expanding energy performance contracts and modernizing project approvals and internal business processes. The global security environment is not waiting for anyone. We are building again. The 2026-27 main estimates are a down payment on that commitment, an investment in people, in preparedness and in the partnerships that make Canada stronger. We are spending with purpose, we are investing with urgency and we are rebuilding the Canadian Armed Forces with the ambition this moment demands. I urge all members to support these estimates.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “Rearm and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces.”

  Said 5 times by 5 members since June 1.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Anju Dhillon

“I support this change. It will make a big difference for Canada and especially for women.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is one of the changes I am most excited about. I think it would be game-changing for our country and game-changing for the better half of our population. It would be a hugely impactful change, and I support it wholeheartedly.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“The federal government, provinces, and territories share the job of running the justice system. The justice minister is working closely with them on this bill, and I think it will help.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what my colleague from Guelph said. This really is a joint effort. There are jurisdictional divisions and responsibilities across all levels of government. I think that our Minister of Justice and his team have been working in good faith and really doing deep consultations with provinces and territories on the shared responsibility of administering justice. I am very hopeful that this is going to get us much further.”

• 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 →

In response to a question from Anju Dhillon

“I support this bill. It helps stop violence before it happens by making controlling abuse in relationships a crime and by punishing online threats and harassment.”

“Mr. Speaker, every person deserves to live free from violence and fear. No life is worth more than another, and no one should face a greater risk of violence because of their gender, their sex, the neighbourhood they live in, the work they do, the school they attend or whom they love. Violence against our most vulnerable is some of the most morally reprehensible behaviour in our society. It is not a demonstration of strength or power or control. It is a profound failure of respect for the dignity, autonomy and humanity of another person. It rewrites the rest of their story, because becoming a victim of a violent act changes someone forever. It changes their sense of safety and often the course of their life. Our responsibility as legislators is to help build a society where those principles are not merely aspirations but realities. These acts may rewrite their stories forever, but we can help to ensure a happier ending. I am proud to stand up today in support of our government’s Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, because it would put the necessary tools in place for law enforcement and the legal system to take action. It would give police, prosecutors and courts the ability to intervene earlier, better protect victims and survivors and help prevent future harm. Bill C-16 is about victims, not as statistics and not as stories, but as people. It aims to do right by them and to recognize that their lives are fundamentally altered by violence long after the courtroom is empty and public attention fades. It would be responding to the real-world concerns we have heard from victims across Canada. Too often, our justice system asks these victims to relive the most traumatic moments of their lives while offering them little certainty in return. It asks them to be resilient and patient and silent while we debate the process. It places the burden of safety on those who have already been harmed. As a government, we are saying this is not good enough. We need to make changes, and we need to make them now. Bill C-16 would strengthen how victim safety is considered throughout the justice process. It would ensure that courts are better equipped to assess risk, recognize patterns of repeat violence and impose conditions that reflect the lived reality of victims. It would improve consistency and accountability in decision-making, particularly in cases involving intimate partner violence. It would also introduce concrete measures to better support victims throughout the legal process, including permitting, in the courtroom during testimony, support persons, or in some cases even support animals, to accompany children, persons with disabilities and people who have experienced sexual violence. This legislation is grounded in a simple but urgent truth: Violence, particularly intimate partner violence, is rarely random. It is often patterned, escalating and predictable. When we have evidence that harm is likely to occur, failing to act is not neutrality; it is negligence. As the member of Parliament elected to represent the people of Halifax, I have a responsibility to support this bill, which, among so many important steps, proposes to criminalize coercive and controlling conduct. For far too long, our criminal law has focused almost exclusively on isolated incidents of physical violence while failing to recognize the sustained patterns of psychological, emotional and financial control that so often precede them. Coercive control includes isolating someone from friends and family, monitoring their movements, controlling access to money, issuing threats, intimidation and humiliation. It is violence that may leave no visible injuries but that causes deep and lasting harm. The evidence is clear. Coercive control is one of the strongest predictors of serious injury and intimate partner homicide. In Canada, women are far more likely than men to experience intimate partner violence, and research consistently shows that the presence of controlling behaviour dramatically increases the risk of lethal outcomes. By criminalizing coercive control, Bill C-16 would give our justice system the tools to intervene earlier, before violence escalates, before lives are lost and before harm becomes irreversible. These are the steps that matter most, because this bill is not just about changing the way we respond to violence; it is about stopping it from happening entirely. It refuses to accept that violence must become extreme before the law responds. However, coercive control is only one part of how this bill would modernize our response to the evolving forms of violence. The protecting victims act would also take further preventative measures, including the creation of a new offence that would prohibit even threatening to distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material, because threats need to be taken seriously, and we need the tools to stop them from becoming a reality. The bill would also target sextortion by criminalizing threats to distribute intimate images and by increasing penalties for people who exploit fear and humiliation for coercion or gain. Bill C-16 would also modernize our criminal law to reflect the realities of harm in the world we live in today. It would strengthen protections for victims of image-based sexual violence, including the non-consensual creation and distribution of intimate images and sexually explicit deepfakes, recognizing the profound and lasting damage these acts cause. It would improve accountability of people who weaponize technology to humiliate, threaten or control others, particularly women and girls. The bill would enhance how courts consider risk, patterns of behaviour and victim safety across bail, sentencing and supervision, and it would reinforce a simple principle: that dignity, consent and personal autonomy do not disappear online. It would also modernize Canada’s criminal harassment laws, recognizing that stalking and intimidation increasingly occur through technology and that victims should not bear an unreasonable burden to prove their fear before the law can respond. Violence is violence, whether it happens behind closed doors or behind a screen. In April 2020, Nova Scotia experienced the deadliest mass shooting in Canadian history. For many Canadians, it was a shocking and tragic news story. For my constituents, and for those of my fellow Nova Scotian MPs, it was something far more personal. Communities across our province lived through the fear and uncertainty of those days and continue to carry the grief and loss that followed. The events of April 18 and 19, 2020, led to the establishment of the Mass Casualty Commission, which undertook a comprehensive examination of the circumstances surrounding the tragedy and the systemic factors that contributed to it. Among its findings, the commission highlighted the critical link between gender-based violence and broader threats to public safety. It found that patterns of intimate partner violence, coercive control and escalating risk were present long before the shootings occurred, yet those warning signs were not sufficiently recognized or addressed. The commission concluded that violence is often not a series of isolated incidents but rather a pattern that can escalate when left unchecked. It called for earlier intervention, stronger risk assessment tools and a justice system that responds to gender-based violence with the seriousness it deserves, designed to protect victims, prevent future tragedies like this and to keep communities safe. Bill C-16 would respond to those lessons by strengthening our ability to intervene before harm becomes irreversible. In my community of Halifax, we see both the devastating impact of violence and the extraordinary strength of the people who survive it. We also see the tireless work of frontline organizations that step in where systems too often fall short. Shelters like Adsum house provide safety and stability for women and children children fleeing violence. Organizations such as the YWCA Halifax, Alice House, Bryony House and the Avalon Sexual Assault Centre support survivors through crisis, recovery and rebuilding their lives. These groups do life-saving work every day, often with limited resources and under immense pressures, and they have been clear with us about what is needed. Safety cannot begin only after harm has occurred. It must be built into the system itself. Proactive and preventative measures save lives. Bill C-16 is one part of how we do better. It is not the only solution, but it is a necessary one. It reflects evidence, it reflects lived experience, and it reflects a commitment to ensuring that victim safety is not an afterthought but a priority. We are here not to accept violence as a fact of life but to prevent it where we can, respond to it where we must and ensure that it never goes unanswered, because we know that harm is predictable, and we also know that it is preventable. We owe that responsibility to survivors, to families and to communities across this country that deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their lives, and that is why I support the protecting victims act.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Women are far more likely than men to experience severe forms of intimate partner violence.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since June 4.

  Every time it was said →