Tamara Kronis · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Report Stage

2026-05-04

“I'm frustrated. The government could let us all work together to make the bill better. But instead it's using its majority to ignore the committee's work.”

“I want to support the military too. The government took too long. Now we need to try something else to help military people.”

“I don't like that the government ignored the committee's advice on this bill. They're pushing military sexual assault cases onto civilian courts without the resources they need. They aren't listening to the experts or increasing the independence of the military justice system. If they don't support the committee's amendments, they'll lose my vote.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 was supposed to improve how justice works inside the Canadian Armed Forces. There have been serious and persistent concerns that misconduct, especially sexual misconduct, has not been handled fairly or independently in our military. The government dragged its feet for years. There were three reports done on this matter over a period of seven years. Finally, with the tabling of this bill, the government appeared to be addressing these issues. The initial draft of the bill proposed to move serious cases, including sexual assault, into the civilian courts. Many expected this move to be welcomed and to be seen as a serious step toward better accountability and stronger protection for victims. The committee system in the House of Commons is designed to allow members of Parliament to examine legislation in depth. Committees act as the engine room of this place, and every so often we find out in our committees that we were wrong. That is what happened with this bill, because it turns out that our military did not wait for government to act. In the years between the release of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, our military implemented mandatory duties to report. It trained the chain of command, military police and health care providers. It implemented a victims rights charter and provided access to independent legal supports and access to victims liaison services. The military has not solved all of the problems, but it took some pretty big steps forward that make military tribunals the forum of choice for some victims. An incredible, and very credible, group of witnesses came to the defence committee hearings on this bill and told us so. In response, Conservative members of the defence committee worked with members from all opposition parties to improve the bill to respond to the reasonable proposals by survivors and experts that military sexual assault victims be allowed to play a role in determining whether their cases would be investigated and heard in civilian or military courts. They asked for choice, and the committee worked to embed that choice into the bill. Then, a few days ago, the Minister of National Defence tabled amendments to the bill at the report stage that ignored that advice, dismissed the testimony heard over weeks at committee and effectively restored much of the original drafting. When I last rose to speak to this bill, I tried to drive home the point that this debate is about more than just legislation. It is about trust. It is about whether those who don a Canadian military uniform and serve this country can trust that the system will protect them, can trust it to be fair and can trust it to deliver just outcomes. Yesterday I spoke at a ceremony in my community commemorating the 81st anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. We had more than 50 air and sea cadets participate, more than 50 young souls who are the future of our military, souls whom Canada may yet send off to war. The cadets were excellent. They participated in the colour guard, they stood sentry at the cenotaph, and they helped dignitaries lay wreaths. One played the Last Post and Lament on her bugle, another read the prayer for the air force, and another read the roll call of ships lost, while yet another rang the bell. It was beautiful and inspiring, and our community is so very proud of them. Today, as we debate this bill at report stage, the question of whether those cadets and the many others who serve our country can trust the system still hangs over this chamber. Have we earned that trust? If the answer depends on this version of Bill C-11, it is unfortunately a resounding no. Members of the House worked in good faith across party lines to improve the bill, and we stand by the wisdom of the committee with respect to choice for survivors of sexual assault in the military. My support for the bill is contingent on the Liberal government upholding not only the amendments made by Conservatives at the defence committee but also those made by the other parties, including the member of that committee who has since crossed the floor to join the Liberals. Will she now vote against her own amendments and those she supported? The Liberals have chosen to use their new majority in this House to undo the work of this committee. They have chosen to double down on what we now understand to be a poor choice to push sexual assault cases onto an already overburdened civilian police and court system without providing the resources that local police forces and provincial courts need to deal with military cases. Instead of listening to the experts and increasing the independence of the military justice system, the defence minister wants to preserve his ability to interfere with ministerial directives to ensure that the director of military defence counsel services, the director of military prosecutions and the provost marshal general stay under the thumb of the chain of command. These decisions are all ill-advised and would do nothing to improve conditions in our military at a time when our military needs our support. If there is even a perception that decisions can be influenced by the chain of command or by political considerations, confidence in the military justice system will remain fragile. My hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who served our country faithfully as a navy commander, spoke to that human cost in a way that should stay with all of us. He reminded us that behind every policy gap and every delay there is a person, someone who stepped forward to serve, who put on a uniform and who deserves better from their country. Every time the government fails to protect victims, it means another member of the Canadian Armed Forces is left wondering whether it is worth coming forward. It means another survivor is weighing the risk of speaking out against the likelihood of being ignored. It means another erosion of confidence in an institution that Canadians should be able to believe in without hesitation. The Minister of National Defence admitted at committee that he did not consult victims himself. He admitted that he did not consult with Justices Arbour, Fish or Deschamps on this file. He admitted that he did not consult provincial justice ministers or provincial or municipal police officers in the more than a year since this chamber considered Bill C-66, the predecessor to this bill. This reflects a disturbing trend that we see through the Liberal approach to our justice system, where government legislation seems to consistently prefer the accused over victims. It also reflects the approach that the government took to Bill C-3 at report stage, when it again used its relationships in this House to undo the work of committee. In the context of the way that our military has progressed these issues, the request by witnesses for choice in deciding whether to engage the civilian justice system or the military tribunal system makes sense, because in some cases the military system will have conflicts of interest or other issues created by proximity or relationships. In other circumstances, the civilian justice system just would not have enough people with the lived experiences to be able to deal with the facts of a particular case when situated within military culture. In one case, a witness at committee testified that, as a francophone, she would like to be able to choose the military pathway to ensure that she would be able to have access to services and proceedings in French rather than having to follow proceedings in English, as she would have to do through the serendipities of locations should she find herself serving in an anglophone province. If cases are going to move to civilian courts, there is work to be done up front with the provinces to make sure they can absorb these cases. If the federal government simply moves these cases by fiat, without ensuring that the system is ready, we risk serious failure, the kind of delay that increases the risk that cases collapse before they are heard and further frustrates those seeking justice. Canadians have heard promises from the government before. They have seen announcements and commitments, but too often they have not seen results. My hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has been persistent in pressing this point. This is not an abstract policy debate. It is about real people and their real pain. The government has a choice to make, and my vote hinges on the balance with that choice.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-04

“The government messed up and now they're in trouble. They didn't make a deal with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost. Now they say they'll protect property rights, but it's too late for that. The government wants property owners to fix their mistake. They talk about making deals, but they're the ones who couldn't make a deal in the first place. What are they gonna do now?”

Private Members' Business

Offender Rehabilitation Act

2026-05-01

“I see people in my community with addictions who commit crimes and have a hard time getting out of that cycle. I think if they get education and job training in prison, it will help them stay away from crime when they get out. A program I saw on a visit to a prison was good at this. This bill will push prisons to have more programs like that. Prisons cost a lot of money. Programs to help prisoners when they get out cost less and work better. The bill will also have stricter penalties for fentanyl traffickers. We should pass this bill.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I come from a place where we have stunning coastline, innovative businesses, delicious restaurants, talented artists and a mild climate that makes me want to put down whatever I am doing and take the dog for a hike. We have much to celebrate, but we also have one of the highest death rates from overdose in Canada, fuelled by an addictions crisis that is ruining people's lives, leaving them with traumatic brain injuries and killing far too many. The numbers have been improving but we are still one of Canada's hardest-hit communities with insufficient services, social disorder, and a crime rate and crime severity index that are both well above the national average. Many people struggle with addiction without ever committing a crime, but when people live on the street without stable support while dealing with a serious addiction, a significant percentage will inevitably have repeated contact with the criminal justice system. It is a cycle that is hard to break. Addiction leads to instability, instability encourages poor choices and those poor choices lead right back into the criminal justice. We have had porta-potty arson with four set on fire in just one night; a person who roamed a busy downtown mall parking lot with a hypodermic syringe attached to a toy bow and arrow; a city worker stabbed over and over again with syringes in a park washroom; addiction-driven assaults with axes, illegal firearms, knives, bricks, bear spray and human feces; and crime on boats, in coffee shops and in homes. I once had a local fire official tell me that the probability of a fire in certain kinds of buildings was 100%. These are not organized or rational crimes. They reflect instability and create real fear in our community. The people who commit them often cannot be deterred or treated through the traditional tools of our criminal justice system. That is why I am proud to rise today to second and support Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act, sponsored by my colleague from Kitchener Centre. This bill combines accountability with real rehabilitation, taking a practical, balanced and long-overdue step toward improving both community safety and offender outcomes in my community and across Canada. Canada is one of the only western countries that automatically releases offenders before the end of their sentence, regardless of behaviour. Canada's current approach does not encourage change, it does not reward effort and it does not give Canadians confidence. This legislation would allow judges to require offenders to participate in education, training or treatment programs while serving their sentence. It would consider progress in those programs in parole decisions. It would introduce the principle that early release should be earned through demonstrated effort and real change. This comes as recidivism rates in Canada remain too high, with estimates approaching 88% for some populations. However, if prisons are merely storage facilities, if someone walks out of custody with the same skills, the same habits and the same challenges they had when they went in, we should not be surprised when they reoffend. First-time offenders increasingly lack basic education and job skills. Many do not have a high school diploma. Others struggle with literacy and executive function. We just cannot tell a person struggling with both addiction and ADHD, who lives on the street, to show up Tuesday at 10 a.m. and expect them to be there. Education, skills training and treatment programs in corrections are linked to better employment outcomes and lower rates of reoffending by as much as 30%. I had the chance to see this in action on a recent visit to the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. The Guthrie program is a separate, provincially funded therapeutic community unit within the Nanaimo Correctional Centre that builds life skills, responsibility and practical tools that offenders need to reintegrate into society. Participants are given the kind of responsibility that builds capacity, that teaches them to lead, and that will help them find work and build stability when they return to their communities. Being there reminded me that the people who end up in prison for convictions tied to addiction are not just our fathers, sisters and children. They are also our teachers, lawyers and skilled workers. Addiction does not discriminate, and when it takes hold, it can unravel even the most stable lives. Here is the rub: Programs like Guthrie exist and the expertise exists. What has been missing is a system that consistently and effectively evaluates the people in it for potential rehabilitation, encourages and incentivizes participation, and ties it to outcomes. Also missing are clear incentives and spaces for women, visible minorities and other populations who face systemic and persistent discrimination. This bill would provide the federal government with reasons to work with the provinces to create and expand programs such as the Guthrie program, both in and out of correctional facilities, by empowering judges to prescribe structured rehabilitation programs for offenders who would benefit from skills development, education and recovery as part of a holistic healing program. It costs roughly $125,000 a year to incarcerate someone in a men's institution and over $215,000 a year in a women's institution. By contrast, community-based programs that support reintegration cost a fraction of that, often as low as $15,000 per person per year, while delivering better outcomes. While corrections-based programs are more expensive, the investment in programs like the Guthrie program pay off in lower recidivism and better outcomes for everyone. Bill C-240 is not soft on crime. It is smart on recovery. It would require parole boards to consider an offender's progress in completing court-ordered rehabilitation programs when making parole decisions. It would also enable stricter penalties for fentanyl traffickers by making trafficking fentanyl in large quantities an aggravating factor in sentencing. This is the work I came to this place to do. I am deeply grateful to my colleague from Kitchener Centre for letting me and, by extension, the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, play a role in moving this important legislation forward. Other jurisdictions have already shown that, when accountability is combined with structured rehabilitation, there are better results. In countries like Norway, the system places a strong emphasis on education, work skills and personal responsibility during incarceration. Release decisions are closely tied to readiness for reintegration. When someone leaves custody, they are better prepared to lead a law-abiding life. The results speak for themselves. Norway has some of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. We should not copy any one system exactly. Canada has its own context, its own challenges and its own legal framework, but the principle is consistent. If we want safer communities, we have to reduce reoffending, and if we want to reduce reoffending, we need a system that promotes real change, not just the passage of time. This bill would take an important step in that direction and would provide powerful incentives for the federal government to work with the provinces to expand programs like the Guthrie program across the country. The bill would do its work carefully and responsibly. It would build confidence while improving outcomes. It would be fair and effective, and it would improve public safety. Victims and their families want a system that takes accountability seriously, but they also want a system that has a measure of mercy and opportunity for change, and they would really like to see a system that actually stops what has happened to them and their loved ones from happening to others. By strengthening the link between rehabilitation and release, offenders have an opportunity to break the pattern to improve their lives. There is sometimes a tendency to frame these issues as a choice between being tough on crime and supporting rehabilitation. That is the wrong way to look at it, because justice requires both. I think back to what I saw at the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. I did not see criminals; I saw people. I saw people who, with the right support and the weight of expectations, are taking steps to change their lives. I saw corrections officers committed to that goal, and I saw a program that makes a real difference. This bill would align with those outcomes. Every time someone leaves custody, they return to a neighbourhood, family, workplace and community. One question we should be asking is: Are they are more or less likely to offend? This legislation would help ensure the answer is the one Canadians want. For those reasons, I encourage all members of the House to support this bill, and I am proud to second and support it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You're great. I want people watching to feel good about our bill. Let's keep talking about it.”

Government Orders

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

2026-05-01

“I want to look good by saying I listen to Quebec. But really I just want to talk about my riding's problems instead. The government should spend money to fix the crisis in my community.”

“I agree with my friend that the government keeps hiding things. Liberals are holding secret meetings to keep Canadians in the dark. I want my friend to say more bad things about this.”

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-05-01

“Food prices are soaring! $100 for groceries without meat or cheese. But this government claims everything is fine. Liberals block every idea we propose to fix this. How many more warehouses must food banks build before you admit there's a problem? Stop your reckless spending and help families afford food!”

Statements by Members

National Day of Mourning

2026-04-28

“I want to show I care about workers. I want to stop accidents and deaths. I want people to know I'm here if they have problems.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, each April 28th we come together in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, throughout Canada and around the world to solemnly mark a day of mourning in memory of people who have lost their life on the job and to renew our commitment to safe workplaces. Whether someone is a chef on a ferry, a scaffolder on a construction site, a machinist in a mill or an administrator in an office, every worker deserves to know they will return home safe at the end of the day. Today we remember the people who did not make it home. We stand with the families, friends and co-workers who carry that loss, and we recommit ourselves to making workplaces safe for everyone. However, this day is not only about looking back. It is also about moving forward. It is about speaking up when something is not right. It is about supporting one another. It is about making sure safety is never treated as optional. My door is always open to the workers in my community to discuss federal issues related to the important work they do. Today we honour the fallen and we renew our commitment to protect the living. Every accident, every injury and every loss of life in the workplace is one too many.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Canadian Space Launch Act

2026-04-28

“The government makes big promises. But it just says 'trust us, we have your back.' The government is popular now. But what if people regret it later when they see how much power it took?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I really respect the fact that the government and my colleagues across the way are struggling to meet the world where it is and to find a good response for Canada in that context. However, there is a disturbing trend, and it does not just come through Bill C-28. It has also shown up in other legislation, like in the acts enabling the Major Projects Office or Build Canada Homes, where there is an ambitious, big, splashy announcement made and promises made that are pie in the sky, sky-high and into orbit, but when we look at the details, the message is, “Just trust us. We have your back.” In a circumstance where the government is undeniably popular right now, that is one thing, but I hope Canadians do not end up with buyer's remorse down the road when they find out that power has been consolidated in a group of people who do not know how to wield it wisely.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I thought space travel was magic when I was a kid. This bill is kind of like that. It says it'll put us on even ground with the G7 and do amazing things. But like my colleague said, it's missing a lot of important stuff.”

“The bill doesn't say much. I agree there's a chance to make things better, but we need more details. Let's talk about it more in committee and make this bill have more substance.”

“The bill wants to launch rockets into space and grow our space program. That's great, but the chosen launch site looks like a gravel pit. We need to examine the economics, because it looks like the government is now leasing back Crown land for a large amount of money. The government is also making it harder for us to examine transactions like this. It's a strange situation at a time when Canadians need transparency. The bill itself is also quite thin and leaves too much to government discretion. We should want crisp adherence to the law, especially with taxpayer dollars. There are intelligence, defense, and procurement implications to this space program that need to be considered. The legislation should be precise and efficient, so Canada gets the most benefit in a responsible way.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is actually a wonderful opportunity to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix. I was starting to talk about the fact that the bill is incredibly ambitious. It has ambitions of galactic proportions, in fact, looking to be able to launch Canadian rockets into space and to enhance our ability to participate in a space program. However, one of the challenges is that right now, the program looks like a gravel pit or a gravel-covered lot in Nova Scotia. I am sure the site was selected for a good reason. I am sure it provides an optimal location to be able to launch from, but I think it is going to be important from an oversight perspective to be able to look at and examine the economics of this deal. We have a very unusual set of circumstances. In this particular case, there was no need, it looks like, from the reports, to actually expropriate this great location. It looks like there was in fact an entity that got there. This was originally, I believe, Crown land and was in fact being leased out to someone who has made what might be a deal of galactic proportions, to be able to lease that space back to the government for a very large amount of money. What I struggle with under these circumstances is that the need to examine this transaction comes at a time when the Liberal government has actually taken steps in the House, in the last 24 hours, to make it harder to do that. I was in the ethics committee last night for several hours, listening to some of my colleagues from across the aisle speak at great length and with incredible lung capacity to the reasons the committee should not, in fact, get access to documents that the members of the committee were seeking in order to examine matters related to the Prime Minister's schedule, to conflicts of interest and to other matters that Canadians really deserve to be able to see into. Under the conditions we are in, in this country, if we really are, as the Prime Minister says, in a time of rupture, it is so important for the best ideas to rise to the top. There is only one way for us to get the best ideas, and that is to subject them to detailed questioning and analysis. It is in that spirit that we approach our duties with respect to the ethics committee. Of course, everyone knows the government wants to live up to its expectations, but the reason that conflict of interest screens exist and committees like the ethics committee exist is that we are all human. This oversight, and the knowledge that this oversight is there, enables us to be crisp in our adherence to the law and to really have it on our minds all the time, which is so important when we are dealing with taxpayer dollars. That takes me back to the bill and to the fact that already, within hours, frankly, of the initiative being announced, we have some questions as to the financial circumstances around the selection and lease of the site. On top of that, what we layer onto that is a bill that is really and truly quite thin in terms of its regulation. It does not answer some really important questions around how decisions are made, preferring instead to leave them to the discretion of the executive branch of the government. The thing about the executive branch of the government is that it does not operate in this place. It operates across the street and in various other buildings around the parliamentary precinct. It is so important to have that parliamentary oversight, as we think about questions around the safety and security of something as important as a space program, and as we think about the intelligence implications and the other matters that need to be taken into account when we are launching an ambitious program such as this. We are examining the bill at a time when the government has taken some steps, in the last 24 hours, to establish sort of an iron control over committees, which it would be able to use to, quite frankly, stifle debate on these issues. Earlier, one of my colleagues pointed out that in answer to a question about this act, one of the government members involved in transport, I think it might have even been one of the parliamentary secretaries, was discussing how they would be getting information like this. They would be working things out with the Canadian Space Agency. That is of great concern to us because the Canadian Space Agency, while a very important organization, is not an organization that has its focus on security and intelligence matters. There are defence implications to a space program like this. There are commercial implications. There are procurement implications. It really is one of those areas where the more I think about it, the more I see the need for a whole-of-government approach. That is not to create additional bureaucracies but to make sure the legislation is precise and clear enough that different parts of the government, different agencies, understand what their roles and responsibilities are and so that regulations around this program can be developed in a sensible and efficient way that would make sure Canada gets the most out of this program at this very important time. If we are going to build our country in a way that creates good jobs for the next generation, then it is so important to handle this initiative in a responsible way. It is going to be up to the transport committee, and I know my colleagues will do a good job in thinking the bill through. With that, I thank all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, who have contributed to making this important program launch in a good way. I look forward to answering questions about my remarks.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. This space bill is very thin on details. It just makes a new government program and lets the bureaucracy sort it out later. That creates a conundrum. I'm supposed to help the government but they offer very little guidance on where they want to go.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to discuss this important bill. It is a real opportunity to talk about issues that are important to our communities. The government has been incredibly ambitious with this bill, talking about the possibility of launching rockets into space from Canada and developing a national space program by 2028. Yet, in front of us we have a bill that is very easy reading because, at only 10 pages, it sketches out the briefest of details around what that program might look like. It is going to be a challenge for the transport committee to think about how to operationalize this and how to think about asking the government where it is heading on this. One of the characteristics that is emerging from this government, which we really see in this bill, is a trend towards creating a new organization, putting together very thin details around it and then leaving it to the executive branch of government to sort out, with an incredible amount of discretion. What that does under these circumstances is create a real conundrum. It creates a situation where, as constructive members of a loyal opposition, we want to work with this government to realize the ambitions of Canada and to build Canada into the kind of country that we can all be proud of. However, we find ourselves facing these situations without a lot of guidance from the government about where it wants to go. The ambitions associated with this bill are galactic, but the realities are closer to an abandoned—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You closed a program to clean up derelict boats. When will you restart it? I want to help my riding.”

“I want to ask two questions. How much risk should the government accept when developing a new industry? How can we protect taxpayers?”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

2026-04-27

“I don't like the other party's motion. It would increase their control over committees. I prefer our amendment. Our amendment would keep committees representative and let them scrutinize the government. I want to imply the government just opposes our amendment because they don't want scrutiny.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I approach the first anniversary of my coming to this place, it is a good chance to reflect on the lessons I have learned. One of the important lessons someone learns in this place is that just because we can do something, it does not always mean it is a good idea. The government motion we have in front of us would increase the size of committees, as well as the government's control over them. There is a Conservative amendment to this motion that would simply ensure that while committees are expanded, a small number of them would continue to be able to hold the government to account. It is not about blocking change. It is about protecting the independence and effectiveness of this place. I would like to ask the government House leader if he can explain why the government would oppose a straightforward amendment to keep committees representative of the House and preserve committees' ability to properly scrutinize government activity.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code

2026-04-27

“I want this bill to pass. It will fix a problem. It has many measures to make things better. Passing this bill is the right thing to do.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is rare that a member of the House has to begin a speech with a trigger warning, but while some of what I am about to describe is difficult to hear, it is necessary if we are to fully comprehend why we must act on the issue of intimate partner violence. For far too many people in this country, intimate partner violence is not a topic; it is a lived reality. My speech and the bill are dedicated to the victims of intimate partner violence who are watching today. They are dedicated to the family of Bailey McCourt and to all people who did not get the luxury of turning away from what I am about to describe, because these memories that I share today are theirs. They are memories of being held down as the air is squeezed from their lungs. They are memories of complete control over their comings and goings, repeated blows and beatings, a knife used in a moment of rage, threats, isolation, abuse of children and pets, the shouting, the quiet calm before the rage, the knowing what that look means, and figuring out how to get the kids out of the room as if that means they will not hear. This is about rape, violence and death at home, in the very place that should have been the safest. It levels me every time I think about it, and we have to think about it in the House. Some people make it through. Some find the strength to speak. We heard this just days ago at the justice committee, where a survivor described with clarity and composure how control is built piece by piece until there is almost nothing left of the vibrant woman who once was. We heard it in the status of women committee testimony around the bill. However, too many people do not make it through. Bailey McCourt, for whom the bill is named, is dead and unable to speak, killed by a person who was supposed to love and protect her, hours after he was released on bail. Therefore we must speak for Bailey, and more than that, we must act. Bill C-225 is not symbolic. It is a response to a growing and serious problem. We know that the numbers do not tell the full story. We know that many cases go unreported. Fewer than one-third of victims report to police, which means that what police see is only a fraction of what is actually happening. Even less is reported on in our communities, which means that what we know, what we hear about, is an even narrower subset, yet in Canada in 2024, there were over 128,000 victims of intimate partner violence. That is 356 victims per 100,000 Canadians aged 12 and older. That is more than one victim for every person who lives in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. If victims of intimate partner violence were voters, they would fill an entire riding on their own. Women and girls are disproportionately affected. They experience intimate partner violence at three and a half times the rate that men do. When we consider homicides, we see that the numbers become even more stark. Nearly 80% of people killed by an intimate partner are women or girls. Among minorities and indigenous people, the numbers are even worse. These are not isolated incidents; this is a pattern, and beautiful Vancouver Island is not immune. Communities on Vancouver Island face high pressure in the system. We see that not just in police files but also in wait-lists and in service demand. Hundreds of people in our communities are waiting for safe housing and support, with hundreds on wait-lists for transitional and second-stage housing. This means that people ready to leave violence often have nowhere to go. It means delay, and delay in these cases can be deadly. Laura Gover, a 41-year-old mother and a professor at both Vancouver Island University and Camosun College, was murdered this January in her home by her ex-husband, the day before a court date, leaving behind two preteen daughters. Amy Watts was just 27 years old when she was thrown off a cliff to her death by her ex. In many of these cases, there are clear warnings signs, prior incidents and opportunities to intervene. Too often, these opportunities are fleeting or missed. An abuser does not rely on violence alone. They isolate. They manipulate. They reshape their victim's world until it becomes smaller and smaller. They create a world where their victim begins to doubt their own instincts and lose their identity, then their confidence in the world around them, and ultimately their ability to leave. By the time the physical violence escalates, many victims are already trapped in ways that are not always visible from the outside, and it does escalate. That is what makes this issue so difficult and so dangerous. Our laws have simply not kept pace with reality. Bill C-225 would take important steps to close the gaps. It would create specific offences for violence against an intimate partner, recognizing that this is not the same as other forms of assault; it carries a higher risk of escalation and a higher risk of death. Bill C-225 would establish that when murder occurs in the context of intimate partner violence, particularly where coercive control is present, it should be treated as first-degree murder. This would reflect the reality that these acts are rarely sudden but rather are the result of a pattern. These provisions would remove the strain on families while they wait to see whether charges will be upgraded. The bill would strengthen peace bonds by introducing reverse onus provisions, ensuring that people who pose a risk are not released without serious consideration of the danger they present. The bill would allow for a seven-day period of custody for risk assessment, giving authorities the time needed to properly evaluate the threat and to take steps to further protect victims. The bill would address how evidence is handled, recognizing that these cases often involve patterns of behaviour over time, not just a single incident. These are measured, practical changes designed to intervene earlier and to prosecute more effectively, because there have been too many cases where the signs were there, the risk was known and the outcome could have been different: Bailey McCourt, Laura Gover and Amy Watts. We say their names. These are cases that weigh on our communities and raise difficult questions about whether more could have been done. Bill C-225, Bailey's law, is about doing better. It is about recognizing patterns of abuse before they escalate to the point of no return. It is about giving our justice system tools that reflect what we now understand about coercive control, intimate partner violence and the tools that law enforcement needs to respond, and it is about sending a clear message that this kind of violence will be treated with the seriousness it deserves. All members of the House have spoken to survivors of intimate partner violence. All of us have tried to comfort grieving families. The question is no longer whether we understand the problem. The question is whether we are prepared to act. I admire my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for bringing the bill forward after extensive consultation. The bill reflects the voices of victims, the work of advocates and the painful lessons learned from cases that should never have ended the way they did: in trauma, in injury or in death. I applaud my colleague for working with communities and in committee to come up with meaningful legislation to push back the evil, to make the system see and to transform suffering into change. Passing the bill would not solve everything. There is more work to be done on prevention, on support services and on ensuring that people have safe options when they need to leave, but Bill C-225 is a meaningful step. It acknowledges the reality of what victims face, and it would move us closer to a system that reflects that reality. We cannot keep responding after the fact. We must intervene earlier. We must take risk seriously, and we must put the safety of victims at the centre of our approach. That is what Bill C-225 would do, and that is why it deserves the support of every member of the House. May the memory of each of the victims be a blessing, and may they inspire the House to take all steps possible to end intimate partner violence.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗