Debates of Dec. 1st, 2025

The House resumed from October 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly emphasize that the government recognizes intimate partner violence as a very serious issue. This is why we have seen a large investment of resources, both financial and legislative initiatives, to deal with the issue.

When we talk about gender-based violence, it impacts far too many people, and the government is literally spending hundreds of millions of dollars in dealing with the issue. Legislation is also a very important component, and we are very much open to ideas on how we can make changes, even to private members' bills. Ultimately, we want to listen to what the survivors are telling us and be responsive in the best way we can.

As I say, it takes two things to do that. One is financial resources, which is something the government has done. The other is legislative change, which, again, is something we are very much interested in and have done in the past.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on this beautiful Monday, December 1, it is my honour to start the week by talking about Bill C‑225 on the issue of intimate partner violence. This is a major issue for the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which is continually having to re-examine the issue in the light of new developments. That is unfortunate.

The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code in order to create specific offences in cases where the victim is an intimate partner. It seeks to prohibit a peace officer from releasing a person who has been convicted of a similar offence within the previous five years. It would increase the detention period of property seized from three months to one year, with the possibility of an extension of up to two years. It would also implement stiffer punishments for criminal harassment of an intimate partner, threats to an intimate partner, assault, aggravated assault or assault with a weapon.

Coercive and controlling violence is a widespread problem, which is unfortunate. Allow me to provide a definition. It refers to repeated behaviours that aim to isolate, control, monitor or dominate the victim. This includes financial control, psychological manipulation, social isolation, restricting movement, breaking phones and threatening children or animals. Since we are talking about these behaviours, this violence, this coercive control, I want to emphasize the fact that this is one of the priorities I had established after a Quebec report about rebuilding trust was published. I received the request from Sherbrooke MNA Christine Labrie, who had served on the expert committee. We met at a café in Sherbrooke, and she told me that this was something that falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. I seized the opportunity, listening to the member who had worked with her colleagues in a non-partisan manner. The group was made up of people from all political parties. The work that Quebec did was very thorough. As they have requested, coercive control must be criminalized. This is really important.

After that brief digression, I would now like to return to the ultimate purpose of coercive control, which is to take away the victim's autonomy and freedom. Ninety-five per cent of domestic violence crimes involve some degree of coercion or control. That is serious. The Bloc Québécois supports studying the bill given the urgency surrounding the increase in domestic violence. Unfortunately, the numbers confirm that domestic violence has increased and that cases are on the rise. Some municipalities and some locations have even declared domestic violence an epidemic.

The bill seeks to protect the concept of first-degree murder by creating a new, stand-alone paragraph. The Bloc Québécois wants this protection to expressly include children and loved ones and to avoid creating redundant offences if the same offence already exists in the Criminal Code. As I was saying earlier, we want to include coercive violence in the Criminal Code, which, incidentally, was the purpose of a bill introduced in the previous Parliament by a colleague from the New Democratic Party and which made it all the way to the Senate. Unfortunately, that bill died on the Order Paper with the election. It was even the theme of last week's press conference to launch the 12 Days of Action to End Violence Against Women campaign. Finally, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled the report on a study that my colleagues and I proposed on coercive control. Once again, we determined that this is one of the main demands that must follow the tabling of this report.

There are problems with the current legislation. Victims have very little trust in institutions, in police forces and in the courts. Violence is massively under-reported. Only 36% of cases of domestic violence and only 5% of sexual assaults are reported. Immigrant women face additional obstacles because they are afraid that reporting will affect their immigration status. It is difficult to prove coercive control under the existing legal framework.

Some people say that coercive control should not be criminalized because it is difficult to find evidence and difficult to prove in court. However, we believe that we need to overcome that obstacle and focus instead on how to better educate people within the system, from police officers to judges. How can we better educate people to ensure that this is properly recognized? We also need to be able to find evidence of coercive control and present it in court.

Existing laws are also not being properly enforced. Charges are reduced to a peace bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code. With the Conservatives' support at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I proposed a study on the specific issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code and whether it truly meets the needs of victims.

Section 810 is deemed inadequate in cases where the risk of reoffending is high. That is what we have been hearing.

In the parliamentary context, there have been several attempts since 2020 to regulate coercive violence. First there was Bill C-247, Bill C-202, then Bill C-332, which is more recent. In 2023, we passed Bill C-233, which was drafted by the Liberals and was on electronic monitoring and continuing education for judges. A widely publicized increase in femicides has added more political pressure to take action and introduce legislation to try to find solutions to this scourge.

Several committees are currently studying the issue. I mentioned the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, of which I am a member, but I know that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are also studying aspects related to this file. I have had discussions with the members who sit on the same committee that I do, but I have also talked to members of these other committees, including the member for Rivière-du-Nord and the member for Drummond.

Let us talk about what Bill C-225 will actually accomplish. Under this bill, the murder of an intimate partner will automatically be classified as first-degree murder. That is what this bill says. Sexual harassment and threats against an intimate partner would both carry a maximum sentence of 10 years, while threats against a partner's property or pets would carry a maximum sentence of four years. Simple assault against an intimate partner would carry a maximum sentence of 10 years, while armed assault, bodily harm and strangulation would carry a maximum sentence of 12 years, and aggravated assault, 14 years. The bill also makes it mandatory for those accused of such offences to be detained in custody for up to seven days following arrest to undergo a risk-of-reoffending assessment.

Let us now talk about the most recent statistics on domestic violence in Canada. According to the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, in 2024, a woman was killed every 48 hours by an intimate partner. According to a 2023 Statistics Canada report, 76% of victims of domestic violence are women. Over 127,000 incidents of domestic violence were reported to the police in 2022, an increase of about 5% compared to the previous year. That is rather alarming.

Indigenous women are three to four times more likely to be the victims of domestic violence. Young women between the ages of 15 to 24 are most at risk. Four out of 10 victims report coercive control before the situation becomes physically violent. One in three children who is exposed to domestic violence will experience severe psychological distress. Again according to the 2023 Statistics Canada report, in 60% to 70% of cases, children witness violence first-hand.

There is also technology-facilitated coercive control. More than 50% of victims of domestic violence report being subjected to technology-facilitated control through location tracking, forced access to accounts, digital surveillance, or threats to share compromising images online. Data are also available for rural areas. The rate of domestic violence for women living in rural areas is 1.8 times higher than the rate for women in urban areas. Close to 80% of victims of domestic violence never contact police. Nine victims out of 10 say that they do not report the abuse due to fear of retaliation or due to financial dependence.

For cases of domestic femicide and homicide, 75% are committed by a current or former partner. Again according to Statistics Canada, a separation increases the risk of homicide by 500% in the year following the breakup. Domestic homicides account for 34% of all homicides of women in Canada. More than 50% of femicides occur after a lengthy period of coercive control. Domestic violence is on the rise. Between 2014 and 2023, it went up by 30%. In 2022, police recorded an incident of family violence every two minutes. The provinces with the highest rates are Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.

I could go on in this vein for hours, but I have only a minute left. To wrap up, 60% of victims say that coercive control is more traumatizing than physical violence, and 70% of victims report being under constant surveillance, including digital surveillance. One victim in two reports being subjected to economic violence, which prevents the victim from leaving the relationship. Financial dependence is also a barrier to reporting. The populations at greatest risk include indigenous women, as I mentioned. It is also important to find solutions for the children, as 60% of children exposed to violence develop symptoms of PTSD.

I could also talk about the impacts of separations, technology-facilitated violence, and the economic and social impacts, because the cost of domestic violence in Canada is $7.4 billion per year, which is huge. What we are also seeing is that 50% of women lose their jobs or have to change jobs because of violence, and over 800,000 women and children use shelters every year.

Given the numbers I just shared, I think that it is even more important to act, but we must do so carefully. We need to analyze this bill in committee and then we will see.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of my colleague and his private member's bill, Bill C-225. He has done an extraordinary amount of work on the bill, demonstrating his sincere and unwavering commitment to standing up for people impacted by intimate partner violence and its devastating effects.

As I looked into the issue more, there was a word that kept on coming up again and again: “epidemic”. Universities, experts, provinces, organizations and, most importantly, victims themselves referred to intimate partner violence as an epidemic. When we use this word, we are not speaking in metaphors; rather, we are talking about a real crisis that is widely, rapidly and predictably spreading across our country. It is overwhelming our justice system; it is one of the things that, rapidly and predictably, overwhelm it to the greatest extent. It also puts strain on communities and leaves devastation in its wake.

Lives are being ruined. It is a pattern of harm so pervasive that it cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident. By every measure, intimate partner violence meets the definition of epidemic in Canada today. It seems that, for the last number of years, any time I have picked up my phone and looked at the news, there has been one tragedy after another unfolding: another woman harmed or even killed at the hands of her partner. It has become far too common a story in this nation.

Recently we were shocked by the story of Savannah Kulla-Davies. Savannah was a young mother from Ontario whose life was taken by her ex-partner, Anthony Deschepper. What made her death even more devastating was how many warning signs there were and the fact that those were documented leading up to her death. Sadly, they were ignored, which is why we are talking about this in the House today.

Anthony had a long history of violence and threats toward Savannah. In fact in 2023, he faced firearms-related charges for an attack on her. A court document even stated that he did in fact discharge a firearm while being reckless with the life of Savannah Kulla-Davies. He evaded police for a month before finally being arrested by Waterloo police, yet despite his history, which was well documented, he was released on bail. Once released, he continued his pattern of extreme violence until it became fatal, ultimately resulting in the death of Savannah. Savannah knew the risks she was facing, and she tried to draw attention to them. She told her mother, “If I stay with him, he’s going to end up killing me.”

Savannah pleaded for protection. She did everything she could, arguably did everything right, but the system that was meant to safeguard her, the system that was meant to protect her and that was meant to be on her side as the victim, did not listen and did not act, which ultimately resulted in Savannah's death. This is not isolated. Again, these cases occur far too often in our country.

Madisson Cobb, a 23-year-old from Calgary, Alberta, was murdered in July by her ex-boyfriend. He had been stalking and harassing her for months. Madisson repeatedly sought help, going to authorities and even signing an affidavit. She acquired a restraining order that was meant to protect her until 2026. Her ex-partner was already bound by conditions requiring him to stay away from her home and her workplace and to have no contact with her, but those things did not matter. He had even been charged twice with stalking and harassment; that did not matter either. Madisson put her fear into writing in the handwritten affidavit to the court, saying, “I live in fear every day from him, I want him out of my life.”

She describes shaking and having panic attacks when she went out or when her phone rang, in fear that it might be him. Despite all this, the documented history, the active restraining order, the repeated charges and her clear warnings to the people in a system that was meant to protect her, Madisson was killed by her ex-boyfriend in a parking garage near her workplace.

Bailey McCourt is the woman for whom the bill is named. Bailey was a 32-year-old woman in British Columbia, Canada, and a proud mother of two girls. Like Savannah and Madisson, Bailey lived in fear of her ex-husband. She felt frustrated, scared and unsupported, according to her uncle, and she had lost faith in the courts and the system that were supposed to protect her.

This past July, Bailey's ex-husband was convicted of choking and uttering threats to another victim. After a hearing for those charges, he was let out on $500 bail, despite his history of repeat violence. Three hours after having been let out on $500 bail, he hunted down Bailey McCourt, took a hammer to her head and ultimately killed her, leaving her dead and leaving her two daughters without a loving mother. This brutal attack shook a community and robbed a family of a dearly loved woman.

By naming the legislation “Bailey's Law”, we honour the memory of a mother, a daughter, a sister, a niece and a friend. We make a clear statement that the lives of women matter and that our justice system desperately needs correction. It is incumbent on us, as legislators in this place, to be the bridge between the change that is needed and actually creating that change. Through my colleague's private member's bill, we have that opportunity here today.

Though the women I have spoken about originate from different places in the country and from different backgrounds and ways of life, sadly one thing brings them together, and that is the fact that they were all victims of intimate partner violence. They are proof that intimate partner violence is not a series of isolated tragedies but rather a deadly epidemic spreading across the country. Their stories echo those of countless other women in every corner of this nation, women who are counting on us to make a difference in this place for them.

I believe it is incumbent upon us as legislators to honour their memory, their lived reality, their story and of course their living family members by moving forward with the piece of legislation that is before us. We must confront and cure the epidemic that is intimate partner violence.

Bailey's law would take real, concrete steps to save lives. If passed, the bill would do a few things. First, it would treat the murder of a current or former intimate partner as first-degree murder, regardless of whether it was planned or deliberate. Second, it would create specific offences, including assault of an intimate partner and criminal harassment of an intimate partner. Third, it would require that anyone convicted of an intimate partner violence offence within the preceding five years can be released only by a judge, thereby creating greater accountability.

The bill would also empower courts to detain persons accused of intimate partner violence at any time for a risk assessment reviewed by a judge, which is so crucial in terms of protecting a victim from potential harm leading to death. Last, the bill would modernize the detention of seized evidence, which is also needed.

The bill is not just legislation; it is a moral imperative on this place. Given what we know, given the stories that have come to light, it is incumbent upon us to take action. By passing the bill, we could honour the memories of individuals whose lives have been taken. It would not simply be legal reform; it would be a commitment to protect lives, to prevent violence and to restore justice. It is to make things work for victims rather than putting the perpetrator first, which is so important.

We know that the issue is not a partisan one but rather an issue that should concern all Canadians and therefore all members of the House. It is therefore my hope that my colleagues from all parties will come together, support the bill and stand with victims.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-225, the private member's bill sponsored by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. The bill aims to confront one of the most heartbreaking and pervasive crises facing families and women across this country: intimate partner violence.

Addressing intimate partner violence is a shared responsibility, and today we have an opportunity to demonstrate that when lives are on the line, collaboration must prevail over division. Gender-based violence must end, and we must ensure that survivors receive the protection and justice they deserve.

I want to thank the member opposite for bringing the bill forward. His efforts reflect a genuine commitment to ensuring that our justice system responds effectively when individuals, often women, face threats to their safety. I also commend the Minister of Justice for engaging closely with the sponsoring member and with provinces, territories, survivors and experts on the issue. This is exactly what Canadians expect of us: to work together, to problem-solve and to put people before politics.

When Parliament addresses issues with focus, urgency and compassion, it offers not only policy solutions but also hope, not just to survivors but to all Canadians who believe in the power and potential of the House. Today our task is both clear and urgent; we must strengthen protections for people at risk, close the gaps in our justice system and ensure that violence is met with action and not silence.

While Bill C-225 may appear tough, strength on paper does not always translate into protection in practice. As drafted, the bill risks punishing the very individuals it seeks to protect. Rather than its restoring trust in the justice system, there is a real danger that survivors, especially women, could lose even more confidence in our legal institutions.

Any legislative response must be thoughtful, rooted in evidence and grounded in the lived experience of survivors. This means listening to experts in gender-based and intimate partner violence, working in lockstep with the provinces and territories that administer the justice system, and, most importantly, centring the lived experience of survivors. Their voices must ground our approach.

As drafted, Bill C-225 would duplicate existing offences, impose automatic first-degree murder charges and significantly restrict police release discretion without regard to context, coercive control or self-defence. It may make for compelling headlines, but it does not make for sound, evidence-based policy. In fact the bill could create harmful unintended consequences, both legal and human. It would place additional burdens on an already strained provincial justice system, potentially causing delays, barriers to prosecution and the inconsistent application of justice. This strain could further erode confidence for survivors already facing fear, trauma and risk.

Intimate partner violence demands careful and thoughtful treatment under the Criminal Code. Blanket measures that lack flexibility fail to recognize the realities of coercive control, the cycles of abuse and the life-threatening circumstances faced by many victims. Most concerning is the real possibility that victims, particularly women defending themselves against violence and life-threatening abuse, could be penalized rather than protected.

Under the bill, a victim who kills their abuser in a desperate act of self-defence could face an automatic first-degree murder charge. That is not justice; it is traumatization. It is not protection; it is punishment. It is not what survivors deserve. We need legislation that protects survivors, holds perpetrators accountable and supports the justice system in delivering better outcomes. This is how we build trust and not erode it.

Our approach is different. Criminal law must reflect the full spectrum of intimate partner violence, including coercive control, psychological manipulation, economic abuse and the pervasive cycles of fear and entrapment that survivors experience. That is why our upcoming intimate partner violence reforms would be targeted, trauma-informed and grounded in the voices of the people who experience abuse first-hand and of those who work directly on the front lines.

IPV is complex. It cannot be adequately addressed through isolated or symbolic amendments but must be addressed through meaningful and modernized legal reforms that truly protect survivors and hold abusers accountable. A survivor-led approach is essential. Survivors have told us that punitive measures alone do not necessarily create safety and in some cases can create risk.

Real reform must reflect lived realities and address the root causes of violence, not just its outcomes. It means building on the excellent work of organizations like Next Gen Men, which promotes emotionally supportive and positive masculinity, challenging the harmful gender norms that often drive violence. It also means addressing socio-economic conditions like poverty, financial dependence and housing insecurity that keep too many victims trapped in cycles of abuse.

Experts like Julie Lalonde have told us that intimate partner violence is not limited to physical harm. Her work on coercive control, stalking and bystander intervention has helped shape national conversations about how violence often begins before it becomes visible. She reminds us that protection is not just about reacting; it is also about recognizing early warning signs, intervening sooner and ensuring that survivors know they are not alone.

Another survivor, Attiya Khan, has challenged Canada to rethink how we talk about intimate partner violence, so it is centred not only on punishment but on healing, accountability, prevention and survivor empowerment.

While there are many contributing factors to intimate partner violence, we know this for sure: It must end. Real progress comes through prevention, capacity building, early intervention and strong supports. There is much work ahead, but the government's commitment is unwavering. We are doing the work outside of legislative reforms. Through the national action plan to end gender-based violence, we have invested more than half a billion dollars, $539 million, which is flowing directly to provinces and territories. Importantly, at least 25% of that funding is specifically dedicated to education and prevention initiatives, because protecting survivors means not just responding to violence after it happens but also working to prevent it before it occurs.

I recently participated, as part of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, in its study of gender-based violence, femicides and section 810 of the Criminal Code. Expert witnesses, such as Louise Riendeau from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, shared some important concerns about Bill C-225 as it is currently written.

In her testimony, Madam Riendeau shared, “On the one hand, Bill C‑225 simply repeats most offences and places them in a context of intimate partner violence. That maintains the logic of isolated incidents, which wouldn't be the case if there were instead an offence of coercive control.” In other words, rather than recognizing ongoing patterns of abuse, this bill would maintain a narrow, incident-focused view of violence. That approach fails to capture the lived realities of survivors.

She went on to warn of another troubling impact of the bill. Under the proposed framework, she notes, “ A victim who left marks on their attacker by biting or scratching them while they were being strangled would be charged with a crime against an intimate partner, just like a controlling and violent spouse.” This means that a victim acting in self-defence while fighting for her life could be charged in the same way as the perpetrator.

These concerns show why simply duplicating offences or automatically classifying all intimate partner violence as first-degree murder fails to reflect the full spectrum of intimate partner violence, especially those rooted in coercive and controlling behaviour. Rather than protecting survivors, it risks criminalizing them. Tather than bringing justice, it risks retraumatizing them. Rather than enhancing safety, it could silence the very voices we are trying to empower.

We must ensure that our reforms protect victims, not punish them. We must build laws that reflect reality and not just react to it. Collaboration across party lines on intimate partner violence is not only important; it is critical. If we are serious about reducing the violence that affects women, children, families and communities, then we must work together with determination.

In that spirit, our government intends to put forward amendments that strengthen this bill, not to dismiss its intent but to ensure that it truly protects survivors and does not unintentionally criminalize them. Criminal law must reflect the full spectrum of intimate partner violence, including coercive control, ongoing patterns of abuse and physical assault. That is why our government will be proposing targeted amendments to ensure victims are not captured under the first-degree murder clause, to modernize the seized property regime and to avoid unworkable bail measures.

The government can support meaningful reforms that would actually enhance protection for survivors while maintaining charter-compliant, evidence-based policy. These reforms will be grounded in evidence developed in close consultation with provinces and territories, ensuring that the law is informed by those who administer justice and by those who experience abuse first hand.

Our government, with the largest women's caucus in Canadian history, is committed to making Canada safer and protecting victims of IPV. Protecting women is not a partisan issue, and we will continue to work with survivors, communities and all levels of government to ensure targeted, evidence-based reforms.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a very important topic today, and I find it reassuring that we are able to talk about it. I hope that we will be able to vote on this bill quickly. In my speech this morning, I will explain the content of Bill S-225, but I will also talk about what I experienced before becoming an MP. Members may not be aware, but I worked in community organizations for many years. I served as the director of community organizations in the Antoine‑Labelle RCM. Laurentides—Labelle is home to many extraordinary organizations that will have to adapt to this bill if it is passed.

This bill is sponsored by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I am very pleased that this bill is coming back in another form and that it was tabled by my Conservative colleague. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to “create specific offences in respect of intimate partner violence”. Second, it would “prohibit a peace officer from releasing a person arrested for an intimate partner offence if the person has committed an intimate partner offence in the preceding five years or is at large on a release order in respect of an intimate partner offence”. Third, it would “increase the detention period of things seized under section 490 of the Act from three months to one year and...provide for circumstances in which notices to the person from whom the thing was seized may be dispensed with”.

All of this seems quite complicated, but I hope that this bill leads to the creation of better measures that will help all victims, who have my full sympathy and support this morning. This sort of thing should never happen. Unfortunately, as my colleague from Shefford mentioned a few minutes ago, the number of victims is on the rise. The number of reports is also growing. Action must be taken. The bill could have completed all the steps in the legislative process a few years ago, but here we are today, still dealing with this matter.

I would note that this proposal originally came from the NDP, and now the Conservative Party is picking up the baton. This tells me that we need to sit down at committee and fine-tune the bill to ensure that it is consistent with all our values. I am very pleased this morning, and I would really like victims to know that we are doing all we can to help them. When a bill dies on the Order Paper, we have to start over, but I am sure that we will move forward. I spoke a bit earlier about the parliamentary context. Bills were proposed in 2020 and in 2023, and then came the prorogation and the election. I think, however, that we are going to get to the finish line quickly.

I would like to move on to talk about statistics, because I am not convinced people are fully aware of the situation. Every 48 hours, a woman is killed by an intimate partner in Canada. That number comes from the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability for the year 2024. Furthermore, according to Statistics Canada data for the year 2023, 76% of victims of domestic violence are women. More than 127,000 cases of domestic violence were reported to the police in 2022. This is an increase of approximately 5% over the previous year.

I have three more statistics to share. Indigenous women are three to four times more likely to be victims of domestic violence. Women aged 15 to 24 are the most at risk. I will conclude by saying that four out of 10 victims report coercive control before physical violence occurs.

What is coercive control? Today's technology makes it possible to learn a lot about a person, but also to monitor their activities and to use that information to limit their privacy and freedom. Today's discussion needs to be about what can happen when, six months after a breakup, an intimate partner still has an unhealthy attachment and attempts to control or dominate their former partner. This domination can be financial or verbal. It has to stop. When people talk to us about this type of situation, they ask if there are enough resources. In my opinion, we need to agree from the outset on the need to legislate and make significant changes to put a stop to this. We will have to adjust and ensure that there are sufficient resources.

Earlier, I was talking about existing organizations. I would be remiss if I failed to mention an organization in Mont‑Laurier that is very important to me: La Passe-R-Elle. This organization is over 30 years old. In fact, I believe it just celebrated its 40th anniversary. It is an emergency shelter where women can go when they feel so threatened that they need to leave their homes to go into hiding. For decades, this organization has been providing support and guidance so that these victims can take back control of their lives.

I feel sure that the organization has helped prevent femicide, even though there is probably no data to prove it. Furthermore, right now, in 2025, the organization is taking the next step. Due to the current economic situation, people who leave their homes are worried about what is going to happen next. Will they have the necessary means, resources and financial support? This organization has just built housing units for these women and children, so they can take the time to get back on their feet, regain their freedom and and become self-reliant by reclaiming their power. That takes courage, but it also takes time. Often, time is what is lacking. I believe that, today, we will be able to take a step in the right direction.

In closing, I would like to make one last point. We talk a lot about women, but we should also talk about children. Sixty per cent of children are exposed to domestic violence. It has been noted that they develop trauma-related symptoms, which is something that should not be overlooked. What is more, 30% of children become direct victims of violence themselves. Children who are exposed to violence are seven times more likely to develop anxiety disorders. I hope that we will quickly vote to refer the bill to committee for review so that we can offer all the victims the help they deserve.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this morning on behalf of my neighbours in Oshawa to speak in strong support of Bill C-225, a bill that would protect victims, hold repeat offenders accountable and strengthen Canada's ability to respond to the growing epidemic of intimate partner violence.

For 10 years, Canadians have lived under Liberal hug-a-thug policies that have made our communities less safe. Crime, chaos and disorder have become a daily reality in too many neighbourhoods, including in my own hometown of Oshawa.

Intimate partner violence is nothing short of an epidemic in this country. It has been said before that, every 48 hours, a woman or girl is killed in Canada. That means, by that statistic, since the House was sitting last, a woman was killed due to intimate partner violence. By the time we sit on Wednesday, another woman will be killed by intimate partner violence, and again on Friday, and so on and so forth. It is impossible to hear “every 48 hours” and not feel the weight of what we are up against. Behind each heartbreaking news headline, real families are suffering, because Canada's broken criminal justice system is not working. The human cost of these reckless policies is devastating.

According to Statistics Canada's most recent report, intimate partner violence grew by 14% between 2018 and 2024. In 2024 alone, more than one-quarter of all victims of violent crime were victimized by a current or former intimate partner. These are not just numbers; they are lives. As a mother of two children, I think about the kind of Canada I want them to grow up in: a Canada where the justice system protects the vulnerable, where violent repeat offenders are held accountable and where no child has to witness the suffering or loss of a parent because the system failed to do its job.

Canadians have not forgotten and will not forget the tragic story of Bailey McCourt, a young woman whose life was stolen just hours after the judicial system failed her. Her husband murdered her three hours after he was convicted for assault and threats. He walked out of court and carried out a fatal attack on Bailey. This is why I am proud to stand here today in support of Bailey's law.

As a mother, I cannot imagine the grief her family carries. I cannot imagine the unimaginable pain of telling a child why their mother is gone. No family should ever live through that. Unfortunately, stories like Bailey's are not isolated. Intimate partner violence is significantly under-reported, with just 36%, one-third, of intimate partner violence cases reported. Victims are often caught in a cycle of fear, trauma and economic dependence. Far too often, they feel trapped, unheard and unprotected by the very system that is supposed to safeguard them.

In 2024, police reported 142,724 victims of family violence, which included nearly 130,000 victims of intimate partner violence. Since 2014, there have been 1,755 family-related homicides in Canada, and nearly six in 10 of the victims were women or girls. More than 25,000 children and youth were victims of family violence last year, along with more than 7,600 seniors. These numbers are disturbing, and each represents a broken home, a traumatized child or a family that will never be the same. They show that the epidemic of intimate partner violence is escalating.

Doing nothing is not an option. Bill C-225, introduced by my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, is a serious, targeted and urgently needed response, which is why I was proud to jointly second this bill in this session. One important step that C-225 would make is that the murder of a current or former intimate partner is automatically deemed first-degree murder, whether it was planned or not. This reflects the tragic reality that intimate partner killings often follow long patterns of control, coercion and escalating violence. It would guarantee that the harshest penalties would be applied in these cases.

Bill C-225 would also create clear stand-alone offences for intimate partner violence, including assault, assault with a weapon, causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, criminal harassment and uttering threats. This legislation additionally would empower courts to order risk-of-reoffending assessments at any stage. It would allow judges to detain an accused person for a short period to complete a professional assessment when needed to protect victims. The bill also would modernize how seized evidence is handled, extending retention periods to ensure investigations are thorough and victims remain safe.

I want to take a moment to thank Victim Services of Durham Region, Luke's Place and The Denise House, all located in my hometown of Oshawa. These organizations do extraordinary work supporting survivors, advocating for safety and providing a lifeline to women, men and children in danger. I also want to thank the intimate partner violence unit of the Durham Regional Police Service, which is also based in Oshawa, for its dedicated efforts to respond to these cases with professionalism, compassion and urgency.

Oshawa formally declared intimate partner violence an epidemic this past March. The Denise House, a 33-bed shelter for women and children fleeing violence, shared with me the reality behind that declaration. Last year, it supported more than 300 women but was forced to turn away more than 600 others because there was simply no space. Most of the women seen at The Denise House have experienced repeat violence, and Durham regional police continue to see intimate partner violence calls rise by about 25% each year.

The people at The Denise House also told me that ensuring repeat perpetrators are held in custody is essential because it allows women and children to remain safely in their homes, reduces pressure on overcrowded shelters and prevents the destabilizing displacement that often follows violent incidents. They also stressed that too many offenders are released on bail or receive sentences that do not match the seriousness of their crimes or their actions, creating a dangerous disparity compared to similar offences outside intimate relationships. When weapons are involved, the risk of a woman's being killed increases five-fold. That is why stronger sentencing provisions matter.

Because a woman's risk of harm increases when she seeks help, The people at The Denise House believe that Bill C-225's risk assessment mechanism would have the potential to save lives, especially considering the 43 femicides recorded in Ontario in the past year. Ultimately, the people at The Denise House shared that Bill C-225 would be a meaningful and necessary step forward in improving safety and accountability for survivors. Their perspectives are essential. They are the ones on the front lines. Victims are falling through the cracks and legislative change is so urgently needed.

This bill should be bipartisan. It should pass swiftly through the House and through committee and on to the other House, where I would like to see this bill pass very soon so that we can see real change for women, children and families who are suffering. Victims deserve more than words and promises. They deserve action and a Canada that protects them, believes them and makes their safety a priority. As a mother, I want every child to grow up free from fear in a country where justice is real and violence is never tolerated. Bill C-225 would move us closer to that Canada.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan.

I want to commend my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola on this fantastic bill. It is our job as members of Parliament to take issues from our local communities and find ways to advocate for or work on them to make a better Canada. I firmly believe the member has done a great job with this bill. Unfortunately, it takes yet another tragic story for this bill to become reality.

When I was first elected in 2019, one of the first meetings I had in my office was with a group of women who wanted to talk to me about domestic violence. Saskatchewan, unfortunately, still carries the mantle for the highest rate of intimate partner violence per capita in Canada, and that number continues to be on the rise. In fact, if we go back to 2018, before I was even elected, there were 489 people per 100,000 who were impacted by intimate partner violence. That number is now almost 800 people per 100,000 in the province of Saskatchewan who are dealing with domestic violence. This is definitely a big issue in Saskatchewan and something I take very seriously.

One of the ladies who came to my office had lost, I think, her twin sister, who had been murdered by an intimate partner. They wanted to talk to me about what could be done about intimate partner violence. At that particular point in time, the issue they brought up and we worked closely on was a provision called Clare's Law, which was the disclosure of a person's history of domestic violence. We were able to do some work on that and, ultimately, get the RCMP to find a way to comply with Clare's Law, so that way Saskatchewan could become the first province to fully benefit from Clare's Law. We are here today to talk about a different law, though, which would be yet another great tool that could and should be used to deal with the scourge that is domestic violence.

We have heard the story of Bailey McCourt today. Multiple people have shared it. It is extremely tragic. When I read these tragic stories, I think about my two daughters and my wife, and what the tone is of what we are trying to accomplish in this place. I came to this place because I wanted to be able to make a better future, not just for my kids but for the next generation of Canadians. When we can learn from tragedy and the failures of the system and better protect people going forward, those are steps that we as parliamentarians must take.

With my final few seconds, I want to again acknowledge the great work by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, for putting forward this tremendous bill, and recognize the great speeches by my colleagues in the House today. I would acknowledge the family who is in attendance as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

This is a profound moment for me. This is the first time I have been able to rise on my own private member's bill, as in within both the first and second hours. In the last Parliament, we had Bill C-291, which changed the name from “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”. I drafted that bill and worked through it with the member who now represents Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, but this being a bill that I both drafted and am hoping to usher through the House, it is very meaningful.

I want to acknowledge a few people: Karen, who is Bailey's mom, and Carrie Wiebe, who suffered in the attack that took Bailey McCourt's life. I also want to acknowledge that we have several members of Bailey's family here in Ottawa. We are not allowed to point people out, so I will not, but at the end of the day, Bailey's father, her stepmom and her aunt are all present. I thank all of these people, whom I will collectively refer to as “Bailey's family”. I thank them all for their support and offer them my deepest condolences for what they have endured.

I thank the member for Lethbridge, the member for Oshawa and the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, who rose on very short notice.

In my last two or three minutes, I want to address something. I had a good conversation with my colleague from Spadina—Harbourfront. I am quite frustrated with some of the talking points the government has put out, and here is why. We hear things like, “This bill sounds tough on crime, but it is not, because of issues with defence.” When it comes to the murder provisions, that is about sentencing. Self-defence operates at the trial level, so if there is a valid self-defence claim, that occurs at trial, and the claim is either accepted or rejected by a judge or jury. If it is rejected, then there is a conviction.

In the current case, if there is a murder charge, the current state of law would mean that if self-defence is rejected, a person is liable for second-degree murder. When members say things like, “This could complicate it,” it actually does not complicate it at all. Self-defence is a trial issue that is a decision for a judge and jury. What this would do is impact the sentencing.

I get very frustrated when I hear these things. I could point out so many things. The member for Victoria wrote to a constituent with words almost identical to the ones we heard. I was incredibly frustrated by reading that.

Somebody I want to acknowledge is Kelly Favreau, who was with My Voice, My Choice and is now with a group called Beyond the Verdict, which advocates. Her work is so tremendous on this. What a tremendous supporter she is. We come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, but we are united on protecting victims of intimate partner violence.

I will say this very clearly: If there is an issue whereby intimate partners who are abused may be liable for self-defence, then we as the House have to address it now. If there is an issue whereby the law would compel somebody to be found guilty of second-degree murder, then I challenge the House to address it right now, because that has been the state of the law for decades. Why are we not addressing that? I am happy to address it. Frankly, I will lead the charge to address that. Nobody wants to see a battered spouse who is acting in self-defence serve a life sentence.

I am optimistic and hopeful today. I am open to amendments. I would like to acknowledge the fact that this has been, in the last few weeks, a very collaborative exercise. I have met with the Minister of Justice with members of Bailey's family. I know other people in Bailey's family have also had time with the Minister of Justice.

I really hope we can get this through as a united House, to protect intimate partners and take one small step towards ending the very large scourge of intimate partner violence.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would seek a recorded division, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, be read the third time and passed.

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. This weekend, we got to experience the first real blast of winter back home. It was down to the mid minus 20s. We had a bit of snow on the ground. I think we are fully into the grips of winter here now. To everybody who is out driving on the roads, or out working in the cold, I thank them for what they do and hope they stay safe. Again, it is an honour to be able to represent them here in the House of Commons.

I would like to say, as well, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Markham—Unionville.

We are speaking today on Bill C-4. If the government were to come up with a creative title for this bill, it could start with “repealing Justin Trudeau”. This would be a good way to frame this bill, because, for the last number of years, we heard over and over, time and time again, from the Liberals on that side of the House that Canada had to have a carbon tax, that the carbon tax was the most effective way to deal with climate change, that the carbon tax was an affordability measure.

We heard all kinds of ludicrous and crazy comments from the government about the carbon tax, and the Liberals told us repeatedly, again and again, that we had to have it. We had to have it. Conservatives needed to support the government, or else, and so on and so forth, yet here we are: One of the Prime Minister's first acts after becoming Prime Minister was to halt the regulations on the carbon tax. Here in this bill, we have it written in part 3 about how they are finally going to repeal all the clauses of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the fuel price on consumers. This is great. Conservative pressure got the government to finally admit and realize the carbon tax was punitive and punishing to Canadians.

Further proof of that is that right now, the price of gas around the country is actually at a nice low point. I would like to see it even lower yet. I will be honest; it could and should be lower, but at this point in time, it is significantly down from the highs of around $1.80, when we were at the peak of the madness with the Liberals and their insistence on the carbon tax. The last time I filled up, it was $1.18. Removing the carbon tax has had a huge portion to do with that. There are market measures, of course, that impact that, but the carbon tax was something that was imposed by the government on Canadians.

However, what the Liberals do not do in this bill is repeal the industrial carbon tax. We are seeing them actually double down on their insistence that it has to be in place. I am referencing the industrial carbon tax because this is an affordability bill, and the industrial carbon tax is a hidden tax on Canadians, but, in particular, it is because this bill also deals with housing and how the government is going to repeal the tax mechanism for first-time homebuyers on new or substantially renovated properties. Again, that was actually a Conservative idea. Conservatives were the ones who first proposed removing the tax on new and purpose-built homes, but the Liberals commandeered that as well.

Again, it is good to see two Conservative proposals and ideas make it into this bill. Our proposal would have gone a little further than this one does, but nevertheless, two Conservative principles in one bill is a good place to start for the government.

However, I would like to see them go a bit further. Why? Well, back in January, the Prime Minister, before he was the Prime Minister, was giving an interview, and he said to the interviewer something along the lines, “How much steel do you actually use? How much steel do you actually use?”, to downplay the role steel plays in the Canadian economy.

Well, this bill talks about housing. Within it, there are provisions on multi-dwelling units, condos and things like that. Just about every single condo that is built in this country has steel in it. We need steel in order to build high-rise buildings. We need steel for manufacturing. We need steel for all kinds of things.

I represent a riding in Saskatchewan. We have some manufacturers there. They tell me the industrial carbon tax is one of the single biggest threats they face. Again, because it is a hidden tax, they do not see it on their line items of the material they are bringing into their business to make their products with, but they know it is there, because it is forced onto the large emitters, which again are largely steel producers, concrete producers and things like that. This is one area where it applies.

However, it is also driving up the cost of housing. It has also had a dramatic impact on the cost of being able to build recreational facilities. I know the City of Swift Current is looking, first, to build a new swimming pool, and in the long term to add an indoor soccer facility and things like that. The cost to build this project in Canada has more than doubled in just the last couple of years.

The costs continue to skyrocket. We hear the Liberals get up and say it is Donald Trump's fault, or it is because of global issues, and so on and so forth, but the reality is that there are self-imposed issues at play here, and the industrial carbon tax is one of them.

There are other small towns affected, smaller communities, like the community of Biggar, for example. It is facing problems with its curling rink, which has been shut down for a couple of years. Biggar is one of the best communities for curling in Canada. It produces world champions, Olympic champions. People like Sandra Schmirler are from there, among a few others as well. It is a fantastic community that has always punched above its weight. The costs are exorbitant for Biggar to replace its curling rink, and when we look at a community of roughly give or take 2,000 people, plus or minus a few, that is a huge cost for a community like that to bear.

The government is single-handedly driving some of those costs to be higher than they need to be. If the government truly wanted to make this bill about affordability, it could have scrapped the industrial carbon tax, but it did not do it.

Another measure that the government could have taken is around lumber, so let us talk about lumber for a minute. If we are talking about housing, lumber is a huge part of that. We just had a take-note debate in the House last week on sawmill closures and on the softwood lumber issue. I will just reiterate that B.C. has seen around, give or take, 40 sawmill closures since 2015. Members will note that 2015 was the beginning of Canada not having a softwood lumber deal with the United States. That represents jobs and paycheques, but it is also GDP that Canada no longer has.

This time last year, there was an article written about nine forestry plant closures in Quebec. That was a CBC article. If anybody does not believe me, they can look it up. The CBC even wrote about it. Then we hear the Liberals trying to say that Canada has a better deal than everybody else around the world with the United States when it comes to tariffs and things like that, but we have some value-added products we make in Canada, such as kitchen cabinets, which we used to send down to the United States, and these have almost ground to a halt. Why is that? It is because we have one of the highest tariff rates in the world on these value-added products going down to the States. It is more than double what Europe's tariff rate is, so the Liberals' argument does not hold any water when it comes to some of these products.

If the government wanted to address affordability for Canadians, one of the places it could have started was getting a softwood lumber deal with the United States and prioritizing that. The Prime Minister said that he was the man for a crisis, and that was why Canadians needed to elect him. Tariffs have only gone up. They have gotten worse on steel and on lumber. If we look at affordability, it has gotten out of hand.

Part of this bill, as I mentioned earlier, is the tax cut for Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a nice report outlining the impacts it would have on Canadians. The average Canadian is going to see $280 in average savings, which is a small amount, but every bit of savings would help. However, let us break it down a bit more. When we look at what a single parent in the first income tax bracket is going to save in one year, it is $140. A single senior in the first income tax bracket is the biggest loser here, with only $50 in savings.

If we compare that to a senior couple in the second income tax bracket, they are going to save $680. The discrepancy between people who are in the first bracket and later in the second, third, fourth and fifth income tax brackets is crazy. When we look at the cost of living, we know it is seniors on a fixed income who are disproportionately impacted. When we look at single mothers with children, trying to put healthy, nutritious food on the table, they are struggling. This tax break shows that they are basically getting the equivalent of a couple of loaves of bread and a couple of packages of sandwich meat. That is about what it would amount to.

If the government truly wants to tackle affordability issues, I have outlined a few areas where it could do that, and there are many others. I am sure I can get to them in the questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the industrial carbon tax. Look at the Alberta premier, who is a Conservative, by the way. She is supportive of the industrial carbon tax.

My question is related to Bill C-4. It is a very powerful piece of legislation that would enable over 22 million Canadians to get a tax break. The Conservatives like to talk, and talk is cheap when it comes to delivering on important issues. They like to filibuster to prevent laws from passing. Back in the day, I guess it was in 2015 or 2016, the Conservatives voted against a tax break for Canada's middle class.

Will the member commit that they will not only vote in favour of this bill, but also see this bill pass before the end of the year?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I told the member, this bill has some Conservative values and Conservative principles in it. The Liberals are starting to run out of ideas. This is Bill C-4. It is only the fourth piece of legislation that this place has seen, and already, they are trying to plagiarize Conservative ideas and principles.

Of course, we are all for tax breaks for Canadians. We would like to see the government take it even a step further. When we look at the tax that is collected, it is not even enough to cover the cost of servicing the debt load the government is saddling onto the next generation of Canadians.

It is time for the Liberals to start talking about and doing things to try to increase productivity in Canada. Canadians need to see their paycheques go further and be able to do more. That would solve a lot more than the government coming up with more programs that do not actually help Canadians.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, and I especially appreciated when he mentioned the forestry plant closures in Quebec. That is what happened with the Arbec mill in Amos, in my riding. I wonder if he could talk about solutions that could have been included in this bill.

For example, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that the federal government pay 50% of the countervailing duties being imposed. Everyone agrees that borrowing from the federal government is essentially cost-free. The result is that it is the people on the ground, namely the machinery owners and so on, who end up paying. A wage subsidy would also be useful.

That is the context, but what did the government propose in this bill? It plans to lower taxes. What does that mean? It means that one-third of this year's deficit will go into people's pockets. People will take the cheque, but the generational debt will remain.

Should that money have been invested elsewhere, perhaps in our forestry industry?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The forestry sector is one of the breadwinners for Canada, or at least it has been historically. The government has completely abandoned and neglected it. I would have liked to see more measures to support economic growth, because that is what the forestry sector brings. Unfortunately, the member's riding has been decimated by bad Liberal policy, again ignoring getting a trade deal done with the United States.

We need more demand for these products in Canada. Housing starts are still going down across this country. If the government got out of the way so that we could truly enable homebuilding to happen, the forestry sector could continue to go up and we would have more places to be able to use these products here in Canada.

The government cannot quite figure out how to take advantage of this strategic asset that we have.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Feed Ontario's “Hunger Report 2025” came out in recent days, and the numbers were very shocking. We saw an increase in the number of seniors, working people and people with disabilities accessing food banks. I have a question for my colleague, who cited some of the disparities in the savings on taxes within this bill for single seniors and single parents.

The bill is called the making life more affordable for Canadians act. Does it accomplish that at all? What should have been done differently?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, while there is little income tax relief in this bill, the cost of inflation and the cost of food continue to go up. I keep track of the price of butter, for example, and in just the last year, it has gone up $2 at my local grocery store.

There was an article by Policy Options magazine, entitled “Ten million Canadians live in food-insecure households. The federal budget doesn’t help them.” A quarter of Canadians are food insecure. This bill does nothing to help those Canadians be able to get out of that particular position. If the government was serious, this is the kind of thing it would look to address.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is one message that the Conservatives have for the Liberals when it comes to their overall approach in bills like Bill C-4: Get out of the way.

On the surface, the Liberals are selling Bill C-4 as a way of giving a tax break to 22 million Canadians, among other components. That is the headline. That is the label on the packaging. What is the fine print on the packaging? The Conservatives took a look. The fine print is about embedding this proposed tax break in the bigger picture of Liberal deficit spending.

We have just passed a new budget that runs a $78-billion deficit. The government is adding $90 billion in new spending. That is $5,000—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. First of all, I want to apologize to my colleague.

There are some technical problems. I very much appreciate all of my colleagues here, but the camera is not focused on the person speaking. I am sure a lot of people have noticed. It reminds me of the good old days, when I was a TV journalist.

Maybe we can fix it right now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I am going to pause for just a second.

I ask the member to hold on for a brief intervention while I consult with the Table.

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

What we are going to do at this point is suspend the House to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 12:19 p.m.)