Debates of Oct. 21st, 2026

Safe Social Media Act

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North was referring to parents, and many of us here are parents. We care about raising our children, and we make sure that they are taken care of. We do not put our children into spaces where there is potential harm. However, we know, unfortunately, that online spaces can sometimes be the Wild West, and something that this bill is addressing is to put guardrails on the most egregious of behaviours.

I would say, frankly, that this is long overdue. The fact we are actually legislating on this right now, today, after the Internet and things have been in existence for what is now running to decades, is something that we need to reflect on as a chamber. How is it possible we are so late in this? This is something we should have addressed a long time ago. Therefore, I am really happy that we are doing this now. We need to reflect on our tardiness in dealing with this situation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage did a study on the effects of influencers and social media on our daily lives. Recommendations were made, including taking into consideration the context in different parts of Canada, Quebec and in the different provinces. Protecting youth is a responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Take for example how the ban on alcohol is enforced: it varies from place to place across Canada.

If the government implements a ban, will it apply equally across Canada? I would like my colleague to elaborate on this point, particularly regarding the need to consult with Canada's other legislatures as part of the process of drafting this legislation.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, respecting provincial jurisdictions is a must. In the government's view, and in my view, this bill respects the Constitution and the jurisdictions of the federal government and of the provinces. Dialogue with the provinces is important. I take note of my colleague's comments. I am certain that the government is mindful of the opposition members' comments.

Freedom of Speech in Members' Parliamentary Work

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the intervention raised by the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler respecting the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River's parliamentary work.

I will state that this issue does not constitute a matter of privilege. The long history of parliamentary privilege protects members from interference by external organizations and bodies in their particular duties. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 states, in regard to the protections of members to do their work unimpeded by external bodies such as courts or other adjudicative bodies, “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

The 24th edition of Erksine May's Parliamentary Practice states on page 233:

Article 9 is a provision of the highest constitutional importance, and should not be narrowly construed.

Four of the terms in Article 9 are particularly critical to its understanding: “impeached”, “questioned”, “proceedings in Parliament”, and “court or place out of Parliament”.

It is clear that the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, in making comments in a supplementary opinion attached to the first report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, was doing so in an official proceeding of Parliament as a member of Parliament. These proceedings in Parliament are protected by the ancient privileges established for just this purpose.

While the complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is under consideration, the member should not fear any reprisal for discharging his parliamentary duties protected by privilege. The Speaker is the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, and as an institution, it confers upon the individual in that role the power to defend these rights through legal proceedings or any place out of Parliament. The Speaker does not need the authority of a resolution of the House to execute his or her role as guardian of the rights and privileges of the House. I submit that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is well aware of the 400-year-old statutory regime that concretizes the rights of the House and its members to deliberate without external molestation.

I therefore conclude that members be reassured that their rights and privileges will always be upheld by the Speaker as the guardian of rights and privileges of the House as an institution.

I am thankful for the time to express that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. The Speaker will take it under advisement and return in due course.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to enact the Digital Safety Act and the Digital Safety Commission of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Safe Social Media Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address Bill C-34. I will pick up on the concern that the member from the Conservative Party officially expressed, and I can appreciate the sensitivity to it.

Having a digital safety commission of Canada, I would ultimately argue, is the right way to go. The member seemed not to oppose it when I put forward a question in terms of principle: In principle, does the Conservative Party support the idea of having a commission? She was virtually non-committal but at least did not say no. She was concerned about the makeup of the commission in that one person alone would have so much power. However, it would actually be three to five full-time commissioners who would be appointed by the Governor in Council. Of course, the chair would be running the day-to-day operations.

I am hoping the Conservatives will see the merit of having such a commission. There is a level of expertise that would be warranted for something of this nature. We can also look at the power the commission would have to address international platforms that are brought into Canada or those that are within our boundaries.

The impact of the Internet can and will always have a very positive role for all of us, including our children. However, it is very important to recognize that there is great potential for harm on the Internet. There are things such as algorithms and unregulated platforms, to the degree that individuals, as cited by the member of the opposition, see things about how to commit suicide, or deepfakes that cause horrendous humiliation. There is the impact that social media or chatbots can have. There are a lot of things we need to be concerned about.

This legislation is about complementing parents by providing government leadership in protecting our children.

Georgina's Law

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

moved that Bill S-242, An Act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, we have discussed some very poignant issues today, social issues that affect us all. I would like to add another point this evening. I am going to address a subject that is sensitive, difficult to hear and, of course, difficult to describe. I will be talking about violence against women, particularly violence against women in the context of domestic violence, which is becoming increasingly common. Even one incident is one too many. All too often, this violence claims its victim's life.

Despite the sensitive nature of the subject, I am pleased to rise today as the sponsor in the House of Commons of Bill S‑242, introduced by Senator Fabian Manning, who is close by here this evening. My hope is that everything we do as politicians will help build a safer society for our women and girls. We must break the silence surrounding this violence. We must strip this violence of the shame that often falls over the victims, and cast it over to the other side, as we learned from a French woman who was a victim herself, who is known for her immense courage.

This is Mr. Manning's third attempt to get a bill passed that would require the federal government and all provincial governments to stand shoulder to shoulder, with better coordination nationwide, in addressing violence against women. The idea of introducing this bill came to him after a meeting with Georgina McGrath, a Newfoundlander who survived many years of domestic violence. Georgina's story is the product of a system that fails to protect our women and girls, a system that sadly appears to protect abusers more than the victims, whose numbers are constantly rising to frightening levels.

I will share some statistics that illustrate my point. Here in Canada, the surge in violent crime since 2015 has been alarming. Overall, violent crime has increased by 57%. Firearm-related crime, in particular, has risen by 103% since 2015. Extortion, meanwhile, has increased by 300% over the same period. Homicides are up by nearly 10% since 2015. Intimate partner and gender-based violence is usually directed at women. It can be physical, psychological or sexual in nature. Since 2015, sexual assaults in this country have surged by 74%. The reality of sexual violence and abuse against young women is that over six in 10 women aged 15 to 24, or 61%, experienced unwanted sexual behaviour in a public place, the highest rate of any age group.

To fully grasp the gravity of the situation, and the national crisis we are facing when it comes to violence against women, we need only consider that, since the start of this year, some 19 femicides have reportedly been committed in Quebec alone. According to the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, 147 women and girls were violently killed across the country last year. The Government of Canada even states plainly on its own website that, in this country, a G7 nation, a woman is killed every 48 hours. Is anyone paying attention? Is anyone not turning a blind eye? Is anyone not simply moving on, convinced that there are more pressing matters to address? We must act because the next victim is alive tonight. She is still alive.

In the section on 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, which will be held from November 25 to December 10, we note that a woman is killed every two days in Canada. The Government of Canada's website states:

GBV [gender-based violence] continues to affect women, girls, and 2SLGBTQI+ communities at alarming rates. Every 48 hours in Canada, a woman or girl is killed in an act of gender-based violence. In 2024, 240 women and girls were murdered, primarily by men, a 54% increase over pre-COVID rates. Victims and survivors of GBV often face lasting personal, social, and economic impacts with consequences that can echo across generations. GBV carries a high economic cost, with Canadian governments spending billions annually on healthcare, justice, and social services to respond to it.

I will now share some more numbers that show that women are right to be constantly hypervigilant, which, of course, is not normal. The number of female victims of police-reported domestic violence is up 39%. Since 2018, intimate partner violence has increased by 14% nation-wide. Furthermore, in Canada, 28% of all violent crimes are committed by an intimate partner. This represents nearly one in three crimes. Lastly, 79% of victims of intimate partner homicide are women.

That is why Senator Manning wants all governments in Canada to sit down together and coordinate their actions. The senator has long called on the government to implement a national plan to address intimate partner violence. Since this plan now exists, he is now asking, through this bill, for the federal government to support this national strategy and show leadership by sitting down at the same table with all the provincial governments to develop a clear vision of the situation and take joint action to address violence against women.

Georgina's Law contains four sections and sets out the following for the Minister of Women and Gender Equality to consider.

First, it says that the “Minister must continue to lead national action to prevent and address intimate partner violence.” What is interesting is the ongoing nature the wording of the bill adds to any national action or strategy. The government can call it whatever it wants. The goal here is a national initiative that will outlast all governments.

Second, it states that the Minister of Women and Gender Equality must “engage annually with other federal ministers and with provincial ministers responsible for the status of women and regularly with Indigenous partners, victims and survivors, and stakeholders with respect to: (a) the adequacy of current programs and strategies aimed at preventing intimate partner violence and at protecting and assisting victims of intimate partner violence”. We want to ensure that the measures put forward are effective and provide an appropriate response to any situation involving violence.

Allow me to continue: “(b) partnerships in the prevention of intimate partner violence and the protection of victims of intimate partner violence”. The idea is that ministers across Canada will discuss “the financial and other costs of action to prevent and address intimate partner violence”. Finally, of course, discussions must be held on “any constitutional, legal or jurisdictional implications of action to prevent and address intimate partner violence.” The bill also states that “the engagements...must begin within one year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.” Of course, we hope that it will be adopted as soon as possible.

With respect to accountability, as this is an important element, the bill provides that, within two years of the day on which the bill receives royal assent and every two years thereafter, the minister must prepare a report setting out progress on national action to prevent and address intimate partner violence. That report must then be tabled in each House of Parliament. In other words, is it possible to share our best practices? Could we not avoid reinventing the wheel and improve how we talk to each other?

Let us talk about Georgina's law for Georgina McGrath. This woman knew cowardly men who beat her. The last one that fit this profile almost killed her. The following is an excerpt from her testimony in the Senate on April 11, 2024. I need to give a little warning, because it is not easy to hear.

The mental and emotional abuse followed hand in hand with the physical abuse. Everything was my fault, of course, and I was crazy for questioning him on anything. His reign of terror continued over the next few months. I had black eyes, a broken-off tooth, a concussion and a tiring amount of emotional and mental abuse.

Later in her testimony, she went on to say the following:

On September 25, 2014, I received the biggest beating of my life.... He...started strangling me.... He...started punching me on the side of my head.... I just lay there waiting for the final punch.

That day she managed to reach her sister. After attempting to commit suicide, in the end, thankfully she woke up in the hospital.

She continued by telling the senator the following:

The next thing I remember is waking in the hospital and seeing my two children. That's when I knew I was in for the fight of my life. I had ruptured ear drums, temporal and facial damages and bruises all over my body that took seven weeks to fade away.

These women, like Georgina, are broken inside. They will bear the scars for the rest of their lives. They are forever marked by these experiences. Georgina McGrath encouraged Conservative Senator Fabian Manning to take action. This is a relay race. Now, it is up to us to take the baton and say yes to Mr. Manning, yes to Georgina and yes to all the women who do not feel safe and who fear for their lives. This evening, we need to say yes to them. Let us also do our part and pass this bill, which is a reasonable, common-sense piece of legislation.

I think that the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, and the New Democrats can easily join me and the Conservatives in supporting this bill without hesitation. Let us take inspiration from the bipartisan consensus among the three provincial parties in Newfoundland and Labrador that support this initiative. Let us take inspiration from the National Assembly of Quebec, which unanimously passed the Gabie Renaud Act in a bipartisan effort in June 2026.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec very much for sponsoring this bill. We talked a lot about collaboration between all of the parties. The minister worked with the Conservative senator, Senator Fabian Manning, to advance this bill. The Conservative members of FEWO, and our member who just spoke is doing an amazing job as chair of FEWO and I really respect the work she is doing, helped pass Bill C-225, Bailey's law, to strengthen protections for survivors and victims of intimate partner violence.

I am wondering if the member could please speak to the importance of this cross-party collaboration in advancing action on intimate partner violence.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some issues call for co-operation. By their very nature, they do not lend themselves to partisan debate or political point-scoring. This year marks 20 years since I entered politics. On several occasions, I have seen parliamentarians recognize that certain issues simply cannot be subjected to partisan battles.

There are indeed several bills in the works. People listening to us at home will be happy to hear that, in committees or in other areas of Parliament, we are able to engage in parliamentary debate, reach agreement, and be on the same page. I am convinced that, when it comes to this particular bill, we will be able to work hand in hand, because ultimately, the goal is to ensure that when women wake up in the morning, they wake up happy and safe, and that, when they go to bed at night, they remain safe.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague with whom I work on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. She is the chair of the committee, and I truly enjoy working with her. This is not a partisan issue, but I still have a question for her. In Quebec, we worked across party lines, all together, and produced a report on rebuilding trust.

The report contained a recommendation for the federal government, which I tackled head-on. We carried out a study at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and we held a press conference, with all the political parties, to ask the federal government to do its part and to respond to Quebec's request that it criminalize coercive control. We succeeded in doing that. Coercive control is now included in the law resulting from Bill C-16. We took that step, which was a request from Quebec. As my colleague mentioned, the Gabie Renaud law was unanimously passed before last summer.

How does the member see her bill? How does she see it fitting in since the report on rebuilding trust did not call for a national policy and there are already things being done in Quebec? How does she see her bill fitting in with all that?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Manning's initiative is very much in keeping with the various measures that can be undertaken, be they strategies, national initiatives or legislation. In this case, we have legislation that provides a framework for a national effort to prevent violence against women. I commend the Government of Canada for having put that effort in place. Senator Manning called for it, and that request has been answered. Now comes a second request: that this national effort survive the various governments that eventually sit on the other side, regardless of which party sits on the government side. The aim is precisely to ensure that this strategy has staying power. I think that is the goal: to reach the kind of consensus that will bring about real change.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the shadow minister for the status of women, I find this to be an incredibly important topic: ensuring that it remains non-partisan and that we work together to advance a national framework. That being said, I am going to ask my colleague if she could just quickly state how this will move toward protecting women from intimate partner violence and how we can better ensure that they can get out of these situations and be supported in building their own futures.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a national initiative designed to bring together all the partners from across Canada, from every province, to sit down and discuss the situation.

We need a clear picture of the current situation. We need to approach this issue objectively. What programs are in place? How is violence against women being addressed? Are there initiatives in the west, the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario or elsewhere that have proven effective and could be replicated in other regions? It really is about establishing national coordination to ensure that we are all working from a common understanding and pursuing shared objectives in addressing violence against women.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before the House today to support Bill S-242, Georgina's law. Above all else, I stand here in support of every victim and survivor of intimate partner violence across this country.

At the heart of this bill is Georgina McGrath. For years, Georgina lived through physical, mental and emotional abuse. In 2014, her life was nearly taken away from her. Her experience is her own, but the fear, the control and the isolation she endured are a reality that far too many people across Canada know.

Intimate partner violence does not always begin with physical violence or physical harm. Sometimes it begins quietly, through control over someone's choices, their relationships and eventually their sense of safety. For many survivors, leaving does not mean the danger is over. This is what makes intimate partner violence so devastating. It can follow someone into their home, their workplace, their relationships and every part of their daily life.

The numbers tell us how widespread this violence remains. In 2024, nearly eight in 10 people who reported intimate partner violence to police were women and girls. Most devastatingly, in 2024 as well, a woman in Canada was killed by an intimate partner every five days. Behind every one of these numbers, though, is a person whose life and story cannot be reduced to those statistics. While anyone can experience intimate partner violence, we know people face greater risks and greater barriers when they try to finally get help.

Indigenous women, women with disabilities and those living in northern, rural and remote communities, including members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, often face greater barriers when it comes to ensuring their safety and access to justice.

For many, these barriers are compounded by discrimination, language differences and limited access to services that understand their experiences. Too often, their stories are questioned and not believed. Survivors have told us what they need: a safe place to turn, someone who will listen and a system that meets their needs with understanding. They need systems that understand. That is the principle behind Canada's work through the federal gender-based violence strategy and the national action plan to end gender-based violence.

However, these are strategies and plans. They are only good if changes can be made to somebody's life. This bill would require the Minister of Women and Gender Equality to continue leading these national efforts. For example, it would mean that a child arriving at a shelter, scared and confused, can be met with someone better equipped to understand what they have been through and to help them feel safe. Between 2021 and 2024, that work trained hundreds of shelter staff across Canada, including staff in indigenous shelters and northern communities. For a survivor who has already endured so much, having someone beside them to explain their rights and guide them through the justice system can make a very overwhelming experience a little less lonely.

I myself will be forever indebted to Chrysalis House in Kentville, Nova Scotia, a women's shelter that took me and my one-year-old in for eight weeks after we had left a situation that still shakes me to my core today. Places like Chrysalis House can mean getting help with navigating the justice system. I had received a public defender who did not even know my name, failed to show up to review my statement and forgot to attend my pretrial hearing prep. I was up against a very well-known defence attorney and large resources.

Having navigators, which would be part of this bill, could mean not having to face these processes alone. This is what it means to put survivors at the centre of our work and to build systems that understand what people have lived through, but also respond to what they need most.

When we speak about the importance of the work, we must also remember Georgina. After everything that she had endured, she chose to speak. She chose to use her voice, hoping that her experience could help protect someone else. Together with Senator Fabian Manning, she helped bring forward Bill S-242.

Last spring, I got the chance to meet Georgina and hear about her personal story and what having this bill passed would mean to her. This bill would require the federal government to continue the national work to prevent intimate partner violence and publicly report on the progress every two years. It would also require ongoing discussions with governments, indigenous partners, victims, survivors and stakeholders about whether our response is working, and that matters. Survivors should never be brought into a conversation only after decisions have been made. Their experiences must help shape the decisions themselves, because they understand in many ways where our systems have fallen short and others might not.

In speaking today about the impact of sexual violence, I would also like to add that it was an absolute honour on Monday to attend the Governor General's 2026 award event to celebrate two extraordinary Nova Scotians whose work is also making a lasting impression in this realm.

Sunny Marriner, from my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets, has spent nearly 30 years advocating for survivors of sexual violence and demanding accountability from the institutions responsible for protecting them. Her leadership has helped transform how police investigations are reviewed, with independent advocate review teams now operating in 32 communities across five provinces. Sunny recently chaired the expert advisory panel for the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime's systemic investigation into survivors' treatment in the criminal justice system, and testified on the institutional police response to sexual violence during Nova Scotia's Mass Casualty Commission.

Also recognized during this event was Shianne Gordon, an African Nova Scotian two-spirit queer community advocate from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, with deep roots in Africville. It is through her work in violence prevention, youth outreach and supporting survivors of sexual violence that she is also helping build a safer, more inclusive community. That is the type of navigation we are talking about that is needed, and bills like this one will help bolster programs and support those giants.

Both women remind us that meaningful change takes courage, compassion and commitment. It is tough work to ensure that every person is treated with dignity. On behalf of South Shore—St. Margarets, I congratulate Sunny and Shianne on this very well-deserved recognition. Nova Scotia is very proud of them.

Addressing intimate partner violence should never be a partisan issue, as we are talking about today in this House. This is an issue where we can come together and protect the women in our country. Georgina chose to use her voice. We have an opportunity to make that hope a reality now, but we must also remember the women who are no longer here to share their stories, and those who remind us why this work matters. May Georgina's law honour their memory and help ensure that other women have a chance to live the lives that they deserved. That is why I am proud to support Bill S-242.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these are difficult issues. I rise today to speak to Bill S-242, an act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence. It is a Senate bill introduced in December 2025 by Senator Fabian Manning of the Conservative Party of Canada, and it passed third reading in the Senate on February 24, 2026.

In his speech introducing the bill at second reading, the senator highlighted the patience and tenacity of a woman from Newfoundland, Georgina McGrath, and talked about the correspondence he had exchanged with her over the following years.

The woman told him about the ordeal she had suffered at the hands of her intimate partner. Of course, we commend Ms. McGrath's contribution, her courage in speaking out publicly and her persistence in fighting the violence, domination and abuse suffered by victims of intimate partner violence. We encourage all victims in Quebec and throughout all Canadian provinces and territories to do the same. This is a huge societal challenge.

That said, it is objectively safe to say that significant progress has been made in this regard. All political parties in the House have been working together constructively to implement transformative measures.

No one doubts the senator's sincere commitment, but he knew himself that Bill S-242 could not end abuse or eliminate intimate partner violence. He therefore obtained the support of the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, and I commend her for introducing this bill.

Basically, as the bill title suggests, the bill provides for the continuation of national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence.

The Bloc Québécois has concerns about this bill, which does not have any real impact other than to interfere in one of areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces and territories. It is important to remember that the administration of justice, like social services, falls under the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. It is up to Quebec and the other provinces to implement their own strategies for eliminating this problem. Quebec has done its part in that regard. Quebec, as a distinct nation, and all of the Canadian provinces must have the autonomy and latitude to deal with these tragedies as they see fit. Each community in Quebec and Canada is unique and has its own specific needs.

I will therefore continue my speech by first discussing in more detail who is doing what to address domestic violence. Then, I will talk about what is already being done in Quebec and Canada, and finally, I will address what still needs to be done.

First, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it is governments—the ones delivering services, hearing from community organizations, health care networks, police services and the justice system—that must determine what is best at a local level. This is a matter for Quebec and the provinces.

It is no longer a secret that Ottawa must increase health transfers. Challenges and crises such as intimate partner violence, random acts of violent crime, substance abuse and homelessness continue to grow, often because of insufficient resources. Fortunately, it is not due to a lack of dedicated people on the ground. Every day, workers hold the social fabric together with sheer determination. My thoughts are with those who continue to work tirelessly in the community sector. Once again, Ottawa appears to be attempting to shape provincial public policy through a bill that, at first glance, seems harmless and whose objectives few would question in principle.

The Bloc Québécois has vigorously defended victims' rights and worked constructively during committee studies on intimate partner violence and coercive control, supporting every initiative aimed at strengthening protections for victims. We were the first to advocate treating the murder of an intimate partner as first-degree murder, curbing the violence associated with it and ensuring a rapid decline in such violence, including through the use of technological tools such as electronic bracelets that can help prevent unwanted, and sometimes fatal, encounters.

As in many other areas where Quebec and the provinces work together, all governments can draw on one another's best practices and most effective approaches to put an end to these tragedies and address their root causes through increased funding for psychosocial crisis centres, suicide prevention services and crisis intervention workshops.

We must also recognize the vital contribution of the shelters that assist people in distress who must flee a violent partner. Everyone agrees that the time for discussion has passed. We must act quickly, and indeed very quickly.

Instead of public money being squandered on planning meetings, it should be used directly on the front lines. The needs are urgent. Dozens of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women called for direct support and adequate, predictable funding. All the stakeholders who are called upon when a situation involving intimate partner violence escalates, whether they are patrol officers, mental health and social workers, shelters for people in distress, medical and psychiatric services, or the courts, agree that they need a lot more resources to help them handle these cases that can shatter lives or, in the worst-case scenario, claim innocent lives.

If the Minister of Women and Gender Equality is willing to keep the momentum going and take action to prevent and address intimate partner violence, it would be a welcome addition to our efforts to tackle this urgent and deeply concerning challenge. Let me reiterate that the communities and frontline stakeholders know their needs best and that the Government of Quebec and the governments of the provinces and territories must remain in control of their own strategies in this area. Ottawa should play an important supporting role, rather than overseeing the work of the provinces.

Furthermore, when it comes to aligning existing strategies and programs or consulting with partners on any constitutional or legal issues related to this initiative, including respect for jurisdictions, the Bloc Québécois strongly denounces these principles, because intervening in this way constitutes interference in the affairs of Quebec and the other provinces and territories.

Second, as with other legislation, the government can request a review of existing laws relating to intimate partner violence and direct a committee to conduct a study on the issue. It is important to remember that Parliament has passed some very important laws to curb and deter this type of violence. Some examples are Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and the government's Bill C-16, which received royal assent before the 2026 summer recess.

Additionally, important bills were passed in the previous Parliament, including Bill C-332 on coercive control introduced by the former NDP member for Victoria, and Bill C-48, which was recognized for reversing the burden of proof for certain intimate partner violence offences, including when the accused has previously received a discharge for this type of offence.

I would remind the House that Quebec already has comprehensive, effective infrastructure for supporting children and families. This bill will inevitably create another parallel federal bureaucratic process. As it stands, the bill introduces a structure that will let Ottawa impose its vision, priorities and conditions on the provinces, turning a seemingly innocuous bill into a tool for centralization.

During this Parliament, however, some very important progress has been made to deter intimate partner violence and strengthen the sentences. The Bloc Québécois believes that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, along with the Standing Committee on the Status of Women or any other committee concerned by these issues, can at any time examine, study and measure the effects of these laws, determine their impact and success, and adjust them to suit needs at a frequency to be determined by the committees.

For example, Bill C-225, known as Bailey's law, strengthens the penalties for homicide, femicide and offences involving intimate partner violence, while Bill C-16 makes coercive or controlling conduct a separate offence and expands the definition of first degree murder in some situations involving femicide. These two laws function in a complementary way.

In May, following a study initiated by the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women also tabled a report entitled “Preventing Violence Against Women: Criminal Code Peace Bonds, Bail and Sentencing Reforms in Canada”, so we have already heard from many witnesses regarding peace bonds, better known as section 810 orders, in the context of intimate partner violence, and Senator Manning's concerns were addressed by those witnesses.

Throughout the study, the committee heard concerns about the effectiveness of these provisions. Witnesses called for reforms to Canada's criminal justice system to better protect women and children from domestic violence and intimate partner violence. In releasing this report, including its 19 recommendations and two observations, the committee hopes to contribute to ongoing efforts to combat gender-based, domestic and intimate partner violence in Canada.

I will have to touch briefly on the third point in just a few seconds. Another step the government could take is to increase health transfers, without conditions, as well as social transfers, to allow the provinces and Quebec to invest in their own priorities. These are measures that could be taken.

As Canada prepares to criminalize coercive control, there are calls emphasizing the importance of laying the groundwork for this new legislation.

I would like to say one last thing. In an interview with The Canadian Press, Annick Brazeau, president of the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, explained that “femicide and homicide in a domestic violence setting often represents the tip of the iceberg”, the culmination of a long-standing pattern of violence. She noted, however, that “such tragedies sometimes happen without any prior violence”.

We considered all of that, but the most important thing is to make sure there is not one victim more.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the hardest things to imagine is being afraid of the person one lives with: the person who is supposed to care about them, the person they share their home with, and the person who may know exactly how to make them feel trapped, isolated and afraid to leave. For some people experiencing intimate partner violence, getting out is not always as simple as walking through the front door. There may be children or pets involved. There may be nowhere else to live. There may be financial barriers, threats or even a real fear of what happens when an abusive partner finds out that they even want to leave. We have to keep these things in mind when we talk about preventing intimate partner violence.

In 2024, police recorded more than 128,000 victims of intimate partner violence in Canada. Nearly eight in 10 were women and girls. That same year, 81 women were killed by a current or former intimate partner. Those numbers are devastating, and behind every one of them is a person, a family and a life that is forever changed. As the shadow minister for women and gender equality, I take this issue seriously. It is also something we have been hearing about through our work in committee. We have just wrapped up a study on women's shelters, and we look forward to finalizing the report and putting forward recommendations that reflect what we have heard.

During that study, we heard from amazing witnesses. Some of them work on the front lines, helping women navigate the difficult times and these difficult moments in their life. Others have survived abuse and have since dedicated their life to helping other women find safety and rebuild. There is something important about hearing from people with lived experience. They understand what it takes to leave. They understand the fear, the uncertainty and the challenges that come with starting over, and they know that getting someone out of immediate danger is only a part of their journey.

A woman also needs somewhere safe to go. She may need help finding housing, supporting her children, accessing counselling or getting back on her feet financially. She needs to know that when she asks for help, there will be someone there to help her walk through her very next steps. A common theme that kept coming up during committee was the need for practical supports that meet women where they are at, along with coordinated resources to make support accessible. Telling a woman to leave an abusive situation is one thing. Making sure she has somewhere safe to go when she does it is another. We need to be honest about that difference.

That is why Bill S-242, Georgina’s law, is worth talking about. The bill is about continuing a national action plan to prevent intimate partner violence. We can announce funding and study the issue, but what matters most is where we do the work. We need to ask the right questions. Where are women having trouble getting help? What happens when a shelter is full? What options does a woman have if she decides to leave tonight? How do we make sure that women in smaller communities have access to supports too? How do we make it easier for the organizations helping these women to collaborate and work together?

These are not hypothetical scenarios. They are the real kinds of work and what a women thinks about before they leave. It helps her determine if there is an actual safe way out. We cannot expect someone who is already dealing with fear and uncertainty to spend days calling different organizations, repeating her story and trying to figure out which services might be able to help her. We need to make it easier for women to find all the available support, and we need to be honest about where that support is falling short.

That is where the experiences of the witnesses we heard from become so important. They have seen what works. They have seen where women get stuck. They know what happens when women are ready to leave but do not have the money, housing or support to make that possible. When survivors dedicate their life to helping other women, we should listen to what they have learned. Their experiences cannot be something we listen to and acknowledge just during committee but forget the moment we walk outside those doors. They should help shape decisions we make.

One of the things I want to see from this kind of national work is a clear focus on prevention. Far too often, we have this conversation only after the tragedy has occurred. A woman is seriously hurt, or a family loses someone they love, and everyone asks, “How could this happen?” We need to ask those questions before we reach that point. Did someone recognize the warning signs? Was there help available? Did the person experiencing abuse know where to turn? What barriers were in place that left them feeling that leaving was impossible?

IPV does not always begin with physical violence. It can start with controlling behaviour, threats, isolation or financial abuse. A person may gradually lose contact with friends or family or become increasingly dependent on a partner causing them harm. By the time we reach out, they may have been dealing with the situation for a very long time.

We need to make sure that people take the warning signs seriously. We need accessible support and people who know how to respond to services and can help prevent the situation before it escalates. We need to remember that leaving an abusive relationship can become one of the most dangerous periods for the victim. That makes safety planning and access to knowledgeable support all the more important.

Prevention is not simply telling people that abuse is wrong. It is making sure that people recognize they are in an unsafe situation and know that they have support to turn to and a way to move forward.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank the people who work in women's shelters and support organizations every single day, like a few in my riding such as Women in Crisis, the YWCA, Safe Families, the Sexual Assault Service Centre and many more.

These people sit with women in crisis, help them make difficult decisions and work with them to give their children and themselves a chance to move forward, sometimes to the point of burnout. Their work matters tremendously, but we cannot rely on them to make up for every gap in the system. They need resources to be able to do their jobs, they need to be able to connect women with the services they require and they need us to take their concerns seriously when they say that something is not working.

That is one of the reasons I look forward to finalizing our committee's report on women's shelters. We have heard from people with lived experience and from survivors who turned some of the hardest moments of their lives into a commitment to helping others. We owe it to them to take their testimony seriously and consider what changes would make a real difference in their lives. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but there should be a common expectation that women who need help immediately can find it, and they should be treated with dignity and respect as they do.

I want to be clear about what Georgina's law can accomplish. On its own, this bill would not create more shelter beds or frontline organizations. What it would do is require continued national action, engagement with those affected by IPV and regular reporting. If a woman cannot find a safe space to stay, we need to address that. If services are difficult to navigate, we need to look at how to make them more accessible. If organizations are identifying gaps in support, we need to hear about them and respond. That is how we keep this work grounded in the lives of the people it is meant to help.

No woman should feel like her options are to stay in the abusive relationship or leave without knowing where she stands or where her children will sleep. No woman should have to navigate a maze of services all the time in trying to get herself to safety. No survivor should come forward to tell us what needs to change and feel their experience has gone unheard.

Georgina's law is an opportunity to keep prevention on the agenda and bring the right people together to identify what is working, what gaps remain and how we are going to fix them. At the end of the day, we can have meeting after meeting and create endless programs to help, but that is not success. We measure it by whether a woman needs help and can get it, whether she can find a safe place to go, whether she and her children can begin to rebuild their lives and whether we are doing everything we can to prevent another family from losing a loved one. That is the responsibility we have and it is the work we must continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address Bill S-242 today. It is a bill that I believe has universal support. At the end of the day, when we think of intimate partner violence, we need to recognize that it is not just a women's issue. In fact, in many ways, we also need men to step up to the plate and address the issue in a very positive and creative way.

I believe that every member of Parliament understands the importance of the issue. In terms of intimate partner violence, we can think of coercive control, which often takes place, the stalking and the emotional and psychological impact of abuse. We can talk about how violence, whether it is physical, sexual or cyber, continues to grow and has become a real concern. The impacts physically, mentally and economically are significant. These are all the types of things we have to deal with when we talk about intimate partner violence and why it is so critically important that we do what we can.

That is what pleases me about this debate. We have seen, in the last year or so, significant actions taken. Today it is about Bill S-242, which originated from the Senate, but members will recall Bailey's law. Bailey's law originated out of the Conservative caucus. We can talk about Bill C-16. I do want to spend a bit of time talking about Bill C-16 because of the significance of Canada and the national government demonstrating leadership. I note these three pieces of legislation because they amplify the fact that parliamentarians of all political entities here in Ottawa understand how important this issue is to our society.

We all have a right to live in a safe society. Far too often, we hear of a victim of intimate partner violence. Every year, far too many women are murdered as a direct result. We need to recognize that not only the federal government has a responsibility. We see that within the legislation. There is a responsibility for governments of all levels and the many different stakeholders out there, all of which need to realize how important it is that we deal, in this case, with issues like Georgina's law.

I appreciate members sharing the comments that Georgina made before the Senate. It puts one face on the tens of thousands of victims of varying degrees throughout our nation every year. That is why we have seen the type of support we have seen in the debates thus far.

To go back to some of the issues from a personal perspective, in terms of advocacy, I remember back in the days when I was an MLA taking a tour of Osborne House. That would have been in the 1990s. Osborne House does not exist anymore. Technically, it does. It is called Willow Place now, but it performs the same sorts of services for victims.

It is important that different levels of government support these facilities, because they are providing absolutely essential services to the women in our community. These are women who have been sexually abused, physically abused and emotionally abused, and they are often scared to be in their home. They often have children. Sadly, the demand for these services is not decreasing. Collectively, we need to do a better job.

I think it was over the summer that we announced over half a billion dollars to continue the fight on gender-based violence. I was glad to hear the responses we were getting from all sides of the House when we brought in Bill C-16, because there were some historic measures that were being taken. We took into consideration patterns of coercive control and making it a criminal offence, which is truly unique, not only here in Canada, but in the Commonwealth, along with the issue of femicide.

It was quite encouraging to hear the expressions during that debate, and we are seeing a good sample of that in this debate dealing with issues like deepfakes and the emotional harm, the humiliation, as a direct result. Imagine being a 13-year-old girl or a full-grown adult who does not give consent to an abuser. These are the types of issues we have been dealing with over the last year, recognizing that some issues have to be raised above political partisanship. We want to see support for this legislation. We want to see it brought to committee.

The Minister of Women and Gender Equality has done an outstanding job of being out there in the community. The idea of having the minister ultimately providing those reports every second year is a positive thing, because it would provide a tangible update. We can bring in laws and change laws. We can provide budgetary measures to support the issue, but we need to have the numbers. We need to see the impact that it is having.

I want to extend my appreciation and thanks to those non-profit organizations and to all, females and males, who are involved in taking on this very serious societal issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

I believe the opposition House leader is rising to respond to a question of privilege.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Bill C-40

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add some further commentary to the question of privilege that is currently before the Chair and to rebut some of the arguments offered yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning my question of privilege about the apparent leak of details in Bill C-40.

The key thrust of the parliamentary secretary's argument was, basically, “trust me”. I agree with him that, consistent with the traditions of the House, we take members at their word. To that end, I accept that the parliamentary secretary himself did not leak the content of Bill C-40. The “comprehensive investigation” which he spoke about frequently, but not extensively, is another matter. The parliamentary secretary gave no insight into the scope or thoroughness of the so-called investigation, just that it happened and nothing was found, but how hard did they look?

In 2001, after details about the Anti-terrorism Act 2001 had been leaked to Bob Fife ahead of its introduction in Parliament, in addition to Mr. Speaker Milliken finding a prima facie case of privilege, as referenced in my original intervention, the Privy Council Office initiated its own investigation.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in its 40th report, outlined what was involved with that investigation:

Mr. Fadden explained that the Privy Council Office had initiated an administrative review of the unauthorized disclosure of information regarding the anti-terrorist legislation, and contracted with the firm of Deloitte & Touche. The final report, dated November 20, 2001, was provided to the Committee. It indicated that, during the period October 25, 2001 to November 20, 2001, Deloitte & Touche itself had conducted 53 interviews, including 11 Ministers, and Departmental Security Officers had conducted 419 interviews, for a total of 472. These were people who had been identified as being involved in the drafting process, the review process and the roll-out and communications process of the bill. The Deloitte & Touche report indicates that nine persons interviewed admitted to having spoken with the media with respect to what became Bill C-36, but only four spoke with either Mr. Fife or [Luiza] Chwialkowska. Of these four, three persons admitted having spoken to the two journalists in the few days prior to the appearance of the article in the National Post on October 13, 2001. All nine persons adamantly denied having provided any unauthorized information to the media in general, or to Mr. Fife or Ms. Chwialkowska in particular.

Four hundred and seventy-two professional interviews compared to who knows what, but take him on his word. He insists.

Next, I want to turn to the argument he offered that the government had never really decided to pick a lane on structuring the Defence Investment Agency. Let us look at the actual sequence of events that he scattered throughout his intervention.

On April 27, Doug Guzman, the Defence Investment Agency's Chief Executive Officer, told the Standing Committee on National Defence that there were “a number of ways” in which the Defence Investment Agency could be set up, including a Crown corporation. According to the parliamentary secretary, this was a sign that there was “still a live debate within the government.”

Fair enough, but the very next day, April 28, the government answered the question and settled the debate when the Minister of Finance and National Revenue laid upon the table the 2026 Spring Economic Update. On pages 82 and 145, the minister signalled the government's intention to establish the Defence Investment Agency as a “stand-alone entity”. That policy announcement assumed legislative expression through the introduction of Bill C-31 on May 6, which the following day, the minister referred to in a press release as making good on the government's pressures, among others, “establishing the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone entity”.

The government had never made any statements here in Parliament or, indeed, anywhere else, repudiating its policy or its proposals in Bill C-31, currently before the Standing Committee on Finance, that is, until Bill C-40 was tabled. Let us be honest about what actually happened. Mr. Guzman threatened to rage-quit from the government because of his impatience with public servants, something we also know because of sourced reporting on the pages of The Globe and Mail, and Bill C-40 suddenly became an urgent Liberal measure to keep the Prime Minister's Bay Street pal kicking around Ottawa.

I worry that the parliamentary secretary might find himself in trouble if the Prime Minister actually catches wind of his argument yesterday. The most frequent Liberal spokesperson in the House has basically stood up and told the world that we cannot rely on government decisions announced in Parliament, that we cannot rely on the word of the finance minister, given a mere seven sitting weeks earlier, and that we cannot assume that legislation introduced by the finance minister six sitting weeks earlier represents the actual policy of the government.

For a government that is making a big show about negotiating foreign deals and seeking foreign investment while talking about other governments signing agreements in pencil, the parliamentary secretary's argument that we should not rely on federal government announcements, economic updates and budget implementing legislation as authoritative representations of government policy is actually quite chilling. In the current era of heightened global uncertainty, it is what is called “political risk”, which has fundamentally driven many business and economic considerations of late.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary has single-handedly signalled to investment markets that they need to recalculate Canada's political risk, because the finance minister's word and the government's word apparently cannot be relied upon even in the short term. Alternatively, the parliamentary secretary is saying that in the government's pecking order, Mr. Guzman actually outranks the finance minister and that we should value their respective pronouncements accordingly. Either way, it is not good.

Finally, another argument the parliamentary secretary offered is that the media got it all wrong and therefore there could not have been any leak because it was reported that the legislation would provide for an associate minister of national defence, when in fact Bill C-40 would create the position of associate minister of national defence for procurement. This sounds like a distinction without a difference. If anything, the phrase “associate minister” is the dead giveaway, the smoking gun, that there was a leak of details found within the bill. The phrase is a very precise and specific expression. It is very much an inside baseball term in the Ottawa field known as the “machinery of government”. The phrase was nowhere in the defence procurement lexicon until the night before Bill C-40 was introduced. It certainly was not in any of the quotations offered by the parliamentary secretary yesterday.

All told, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to give the parliamentary secretary's intervention the appropriate weight, namely an acknowledgement that he himself did not leak Bill C-40 to The Globe and Mail or the CBC. When we strip away the verbiage of his intervention, we are left with a threadbare argument by a government seemingly desperate to avoid any committee investigation related to the leak of this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. opposition House leader for his intervention. The Chair will take it under advisement and return to the House in due course.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Safety

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by recognizing the great farmers in Oxford county who are busy bringing home the harvest. Behind every field, there is a family working around the clock, sacrificing it all, fighting the elements and fighting economic pressures, but they still have hopes that this year they will bring back a strong harvest for Canadians. I want to thank our farmers, who feed our families every single day.

The Liberals often talk about public safety. It took a lot to get there. First, they denied the problem existed and that crime was happening in our community, but it was under Conservative pressure that they finally started acting, or tried to act.

Here are some of the headlines we are hearing. Drones are delivering McDonald's McNuggets and alcohol to Canada's most secure prison. Corrections Canada is planning to distribute paper straws to inmates for safer snorting. A convicted B.C. child killer was granted leave to take cooking classes. A convicted murderer who killed his pregnant girlfriend was granted escorted leave for a carpentry apprenticeship. A convicted murderer on day parole is attending McGill law school, raising safety concerns for students. A B.C. offender with 274 convictions is out on bail once again. Fifteen offenders in Kelowna are generating over 1,300 police files in a single year. One of those offenders had 423 police files and 66 convictions and was out on bail. Twelve offenders in Chilliwack are accounting for up to 60% of local crime, with one offender having 350 police files and 12 convictions and another having 331 files and 58 convictions. Three GTA auto theft suspects already out on bail were arrested in a ring linked to more than 75 stolen vehicles, with over 90 charges.

Here is a crazy one. A man accused of shootings at a London cannabis shop and a Scarborough movie theatre was granted bail. Guess for how much. It was one penny. We do not even make pennies anymore, yet under the Liberal government, serious offenders are being released on bail for a penny. The Liberals are running ads that tell Canadians not to worry because they are all safe, that they should trust them. That is what they are spending millions of dollars on, but what they are not doing is keeping Canadians safe. They are failing at that.

I can tell members that Canadians do not feel safe in their own homes anymore. I just gave real headlines in the media that come up every single day, so how can the Liberals stand up, look Canadians in the eye, look victims in the eye and tell them their Liberal justice system is working?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, people in Canada have been clear that they want their communities to be safe, that repeat violent offenders should be dealt with firmly and that the justice system must work to protect victims. That is exactly what the government is delivering through the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, formerly Bill C-14. The issues raised by my colleague are indeed serious. Organized crime, fentanyl trafficking and repeat offending cause real harm, but slogans about “catch and release” do not fix the problem. Careful, targeted reform does. That is what the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act has delivered.

At its core, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act is about focusing the system where the risks are the highest. It has strengthened bail laws for repeat and violent offenders by clarifying that public safety must be central in decision-making. It has expanded the use of reverse onus provisions to address specific high-risk offences where the accused must demonstrate why they should be released. This is not an automatic detention, but it is a clear shift to ensure that those who pose the greatest danger face stricter scrutiny before being granted bail.

The act also aims to improve the quality of bail decisions. Courts are now required to more rigorously assess release plans. Accused persons who are subject to a reverse onus will have to clearly demonstrate that their proposed plan addresses the risk they pose as it relates to the grounds of detention. This matters because Canadians have seen cases where conditions were imposed but not effective in managing risk. The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act addresses these issues directly.

On sentencing, the legislation introduces new aggravating factors and requires consecutive sentences in certain circumstances. This reinforces accountability and sends a message of denunciation and deterrence. However, legislation alone is not enough.

Public safety depends on enforcement capacity, and the government is making those investments. The government is hiring 1,000 new RCMP personnel to strengthen federal policing across our country. These officers will enhance our ability to combat organized crime networks, financial crime, online exploitation and drug trafficking operations, like those referenced by the member opposite.

At the border, the government is making one of the largest security investments in recent history, $1.3 billion, to strengthen Canada's borders and immigration system. This includes hiring 800 new border services officers as well as 200 additional personnel in critical roles such as intelligence, enforcement and investigations. These are the very people who intercept illegal drugs, disrupt smuggling operations and protect our communities before harm occurs. This is a comprehensive strategy: stronger laws, stronger enforcement and smarter prevention.

The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act is not about rhetoric. It is about results. It targets repeat and violent offenders, strengthens bail and sentencing, and backs it up with historic investments in policing and border security. That is how we protect people in Canada, and that is how we build a safer community for all.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' solutions are band-aid solutions. They are not fixing the problem. I just gave recent headlines as examples since their measures have taken effect. A person with 274 convictions was released on bail.

I want to send a clear message to Canadians. The crime they are seeing in their communities is not normal. We cannot accept the chaos that is happening on our streets. The Liberals talked about bail. They still believe in the principle of restraint. That means releasing an accused at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. That is still part of the Liberal law. The member talks about these big promises of hiring 1,000 new officers. We have heard that I do not know how many times, yet there have never been any results. It is all talk, no results.

Will the member stand up and tell us how many of those police officers have actually been hired as of today?