Raquel Dancho
Kildonan—St. Paul, Manitoba · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, despite big promises from the Prime Minister to bring generational economic change and move at speeds never before seen, our small businesses, the backbone of the Canadian economy, are struggling under this high-tax, big-deficit-spending Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, “from a position of strength”, she said. According to Statistics Canada, business capital investment has declined for five quarters in a row. Entrepreneurship is at a 25-year low and we are now in a recession. These are the devastating results under the Liberal Prime Minister .”
“(1610) There are a number of other rulings as well in recent years that have us really just questioning the morality we are seeing in this country and, again, the judicial activism. For example, two years ago, in R. v.”
“This really emphasizes the trend in this country of judicial activism and concessions by the Liberal government to that, and would undermine Parliament's role in setting sentencing policy. Ultimately, it would allow courts to impose sentences below mandatory minimums set by the House.”
“I thank my colleague for the question, Mr. Speaker. [ English ] I appreciate it. Again, I outlined in my speech a number of things we like in this bill, a number of things we have put forward and advocated for.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear any of that coming from Liberal members. What we are fixated on is rights for women against their abusers. For example, there was my bill from a few years ago that was from the Senate, from Senator Boisvenu. In that bill, there was the opportunity for a peace bond for two years.”
The complete record
Every one of 180 lines we hold for Raquel Dancho, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, “from a position of strength”, she said. According to Statistics Canada, business capital investment has declined for five quarters in a row. Entrepreneurship is at a 25-year low and we are now in a recession. These are the devastating results under the Liberal Prime Minister . This is his record, and Canadians are the ones having to suffer the consequences. When are they going to realize that it is Liberal economic policies that are sending people to food banks, causing job losses and driving this country into a recession? That is on them.”
“Mr. Speaker, despite big promises from the Prime Minister to bring generational economic change and move at speeds never before seen, our small businesses, the backbone of the Canadian economy, are struggling under this high-tax, big-deficit-spending Liberal government. Over half of small businesses in this country have said they would not recommend starting a business in Canada today. This is devastating news. After a decade of Liberals, Canada has become an unwelcome place to do business, and under the Prime Minister, it is not getting any better. When will the Liberals reverse their harmful policies so that businesses can get ahead?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's work on the justice committee. Kerry Sun is a doctoral student at the University of Oxford and a member of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. I will just outline his words in the National Post on the purpose of the notwithstanding clause. He wrote that it “is a mechanism to prevent overreaching judicial interpretations of rights from undermining the common good.” Chief Justice Wagner said that the decision could erode public confidence. This would have been the opportunity to use it. We feel it should have been used.”
“We brought forward concrete, clear amendments to ensure that the most egregious offences, for example, aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint, are removed from that safety valve, and the Liberals voted them down. They are not interested in working on this together. They want to play politics.”
“I thank my colleague for the question, Mr. Speaker. [ English ] I appreciate it. Again, I outlined in my speech a number of things we like in this bill, a number of things we have put forward and advocated for. That is why it is so frustrating that there is a provision in here that allows the opportunity for more judicial activism for lesser sentencing. It is very difficult for us because, again, there is a lot of our work represented in there, but how can we in good conscience support something that is going to provide more opportunity for judicial discretion to lower sentencing for violent repeat offenders? It is very difficult. I have outlined our position on this. I appreciate the member's work, as well, on this. Again, what is most frustrating, I think, is that we gave them every opportunity to get on board for this.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear any of that coming from Liberal members. What we are fixated on is rights for women against their abusers. For example, there was my bill from a few years ago that was from the Senate, from Senator Boisvenu. In that bill, there was the opportunity for a peace bond for two years. A peace bond is something that a woman who has been abused can get as protection against her abuser. It takes a lot of courage and a lot of time to go before the courts, through the process, to get it; in essence, it is a type of restraining order. In that bill, a woman would have had two years when she could relax for a moment with that protection. Liberal members diluted that to one year. I will take no lectures, no ivory tower from these Liberal members about protecting women and what is best for them.”
“We gave them every opportunity to take this out of the bill to ensure that these protections, this justice for victims, remain in our Criminal Code, and they voted them down. It is very disappointing but, unfortunately, not surprising.”
“It is so frustrating because there is stuff in this bill that we worked hard to push forward. I have been here for almost seven years. I cannot tell the House how much we have been banging on these tables demanding more justice for women, for children, for victims of sexual abuse, tougher sentencing, jail not bail for repeat violent offenders. Now the Liberals are getting up on their high horse, pretending they have the higher ground, and they are allowing this provision to give more discretion to judges to allow lesser sentences for aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint. I cannot get on board for that, and it is very upsetting. As members can tell, I get quite animated, because there is stuff in this bill we would like to support.”
“They allow it for treason and murder but not aggravated sexual assault with a firearm? What about sexual abuse against children? We also put forward amendments to ensure that those offences were excused, that those were not included, that those would be in the same category as the treason and the murder, so that this would not apply. That was also voted down. We worked collaboratively in that committee to provide opportunities so that these mandatory minimums would remain, and they voted them down. I would like to hear Liberal members describe to us in what scenario they morally believe a judge should be permitted the authority to allow less than four years for an aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint. If they cannot think of a scenario, why did they not support our amendment?”
“Instead of doubling down and asserting our rights of Parliament, the government would allow a “safety valve”, as per the Minister of Justice , for judicial discretion with mandatory minimums. We cannot support that. I will just describe one example: aggravated sexual assault. This is how the Criminal Code defines aggravated sexual assault. It occurs if the person who is being sexually assaulted is wounded, maimed, disfigured, beaten or in danger of losing his or her life. That action at gunpoint has a current mandatory minimum of four years, which, quite frankly, I think is not nearly enough, but that is what it is. At least it is there. Why is it that the Liberals voted against our amendment at committee to ensure that provision is not part of this safety valve?”
“Now Bill C-16 , with clause 63, is providing more opportunity for judges to decide, despite Parliament having ruled that certain offences are so egregious that they require mandatory minimum prison time, like child pornography, for example. I look at this, and it is difficult to wrap my head around it when I think about some of the worst examples we have seen. We cannot go a week in this country without seeing some ridiculous ruling by a judge who ruled that someone could be let out on bail despite 50 violent crimes, some including sexual assault, breaking and entering, violent assault. They say, “Oh, yes, you can go out on bail,” over and over and over. There are light sentences for sexual abuse. We see this all the time.”
“(1610) There are a number of other rulings as well in recent years that have us really just questioning the morality we are seeing in this country and, again, the judicial activism. For example, two years ago, in R. v. Bertrand Marchand, the Supreme Court ruled that a one-year mandatory minimum for child luring was cruel and unusual punishment. In R. v. Hills, it struck down the four-year mandatory minimum for reckless discharge of a firearm. These are very dangerous crimes, very horrific crimes in many cases, where the mandatory minimum is being struck down by the Supreme Court. Most egregiously, in R. v. Bissonnette, involving the man who opened fire and killed six people in a mosque, the court decided it was unconstitutional to impose consecutive life sentences on murderers like that. I disagree strongly with all of those rulings.”
“During this case, the Supreme Court said that, maybe not in that scenario, but in another potential scenario of a 17-year-old sending an 18-year-old an intimate image, if maybe that 18-year-old shared it and that was ever charged by police, prosecuted by the Crown and then brought all the way up to the courts, an MMP could be cruel and unusual punishment in that hypothetical scenario. This is why there is no longer a one-year mandatory minimum, based on this decision. Now they are bringing this forward, saying that this helps that situation. It gives the judges what is basically an out. I guess this is what they are allowing. We would have used the notwithstanding clause on that judicial ruling and been very proud of that.”
“It was the Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville decision in the fall. For those who may not be familiar with that ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for the offences of possessing and accessing child pornography is unconstitutional. Our Supreme Court of Canada, the supreme judicial body in this country, ruled that a one-year mandatory prison sentence may be unconstitutional in certain hypothetical extreme scenarios for possessing and accessing child pornography. In the case in particular, the two offenders had 475 and 805 files, respectively, depicting child pornography, mostly of girls between the ages of three and six years old undergoing horrific, unimaginable sexual abuse.”
“This really emphasizes the trend in this country of judicial activism and concessions by the Liberal government to that, and would undermine Parliament's role in setting sentencing policy. Ultimately, it would allow courts to impose sentences below mandatory minimums set by the House. It would provide discretion to a judge to determine that a sentence should be less than a mandatory minimum penalty under circumstances the judge deems cruel and unusual punishment. This sounds like quite a significant hurdle, but recent court cases make me question if we should be allowing judges the discretion to determine what exactly that is. In fact, the Liberal government has linked this provision in the bill to a recent Supreme Court decision that I think really rocked the nation. For me, when it came out, it made me feel sick to my stomach.”
“Also, it would update mandatory reporting requirements concerning child exploitation material, but also the bill would criminalize coercive or controlling conduct within intimate partner relationships, which we support. I used to serve on the status of women committee, and we have long been hearing that this is an area that needs very early intervention, so I welcome that in this piece of legislation. However, there is a very divisive piece that we need to discuss. It is clause 63 in Bill C-16 , which the Liberals have included. It makes it very difficult for us to support the bill. Despite all the good work that we have done that is reflected in it, there is a very clear red line in clause 63. It is what the justice minister has called a safety valve for mandatory minimum penalties.”
“In fact, that would build on a bill from the Senate from about four years ago, which I helped champion, from former Conservative senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who is a nationally renowned champion for fighting against violence against women. It is great to see that is part of this bill. I appreciate that. Bill C-216 from the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill aimed to ban deepfakes of intimate partners to keep Canadians safe, especially women, from non-consensual intimate images being created and shared. Bill C-16 also includes provisions from that same bill to bring in mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material, so that has been taken up as well. There are a number of measures that we have championed and that we welcome seeing in the bill.”
“As such, I am very honoured to engage in this debate, and frankly, there are a number of measures in the bill that we personally support, notably things that the Conservatives on this side of the House have brought forward over recent years and have championed in recent years. While we welcome those things being adopted in this bill, we have other concerns, which I will get into shortly. For example, there is Bill C-225 from the Conservative member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , our public safety shadow minister. That bill is currently in the Senate and would make the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to engage in this very important debate we are having about the Liberals' bill, Bill C-16 , which comes in light of quite significant violent crime statistics in the country over the last 10 years. For example, sexual assaults have increased by 76% and violent crimes by 55%. That comes after 10 years of the Stephen Harper government, when there was a 26% decline in violent crime, but over the last 10 years of Liberal government, there has been a 55% increase in reported violent crime. Sexual violations against children in that decade as well are up by well over 100%. Human trafficking is up by over 84%, so the bill is arriving at a very dire time in violent crime against women, against children and against the most vulnerable in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's words against gender-based violence. We all support a decrease in that, but I do want to outline something for her. As per the Criminal Code, aggravated sexual assault is defined as follows: It occurs if the person assaulted is wounded, maimed, disfigured, beaten or in danger of losing his or her life while being sexually assaulted. The provision with aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint has a mandatory minimum of four years, which is not nearly enough, in my opinion. Why does the member support clause 63 in Bill C-16 , which would allow judges the discretion to provide lesser sentences than the mandatory minimum of four years for aggravated sexual assault with a firearm?”
“We cannot hope to compete with the subsidies that China provides. How can he justify this when our auto sector is struggling?”
“Mr. Chair, it is not necessarily other countries creating electric vehicle subsidies that benefit the American EV auto sector. Again, I do not understand. The minister did not answer my question about why our taxpayer dollars are going to benefit the American electric vehicle market when our auto sector needs support. He did not answer that at all, but we will move on. It is very clear that the government is going to keep doubling down, but what is really shocking is that, despite all the struggles he is having in getting this electric vehicle strategy off the ground and despite billions of dollars that the government is trying to get out the door to attract this investment, the minister is bringing in 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles, which will represent a third of the electric vehicle market in this country.”
“However, the reality is a lot of that money is not going to benefit the Canadian auto sector, which is struggling and needs the support. No, It is going to go to foreign-made electric vehicles, because Canada, despite all these promises and all this money, makes one, maybe two, eligible vehicles. How is it that our auto sector is struggling, we are losing thousands of jobs, and the finance minister has brought forward a $2.3-billion subsidy that will largely go to benefit Donald Trump's American auto sector? How is he justifying benefiting the Trump auto sector when our auto sector needs the support?”
“Mr. Chair, if we listen to the CEOs who are writing down up to $25 billion because of EV losses and if we look at the thousands of job losses at the Brampton facility and the CAMI facility, I think it is very clear the EV market in North America is struggling. That is despite billions of dollars of promises from the Liberal government and hundreds of millions of dollars flowing. They are still struggling to make a go of it. We see in North America that EVs do not really sell unless they are receiving huge subsidies from the taxpayers, so that is exactly what the Liberals are doing. They are doubling down on this failing strategy and have brought forward a $2.3-billion EV subsidy so that Canadian taxpayer dollars can go to those purchasing electric vehicles.”
“Again, how can the minister stand here and say that the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and committed billions more, yet the CEOs themselves are saying that they cannot make a profit with these EVs?”
“Madam Chair, I do believe Volkswagen has written down $6 billion because of losses in electric vehicles. These CEOs are really showing what the market is demanding, and that is not electric vehicles. If we look at Stellantis, for example, it wrote down $26 billion on EV investments. Stellantis cited that its customers were not buying them, and that is why it just could not make a profit from EVs. Just in January, GM, which also received subsidies from the Liberal government and the taxpayer, announced $6 billion of write-downs as well on EV operations. They warned that more EV writedowns may be happening. In December, Ford announced nearly $20 billion of writedowns. It just keeps coming on EV productions. After years of trying to make them profitable, they are just not profitable.”
“I will just ask the minister again if he feels his promises are being delivered on an electric vehicle supply chain in Canada?”
“With Umicore for EV batteries in Loyalist Township, Ontario, millions of taxpayer dollars were spent, and the project was delayed indefinitely. GM POSCO in Quebec is an EV battery plant. Phase 2 is now delayed despite well over $126 million from the taxpayer being spent. GM's CAMI facility is in Oshawa with $244 million from the taxpayer. Their BrightDrop EV project was shelved. Of course, Honda just recently suspended indefinitely a $15-billion electric vehicle project in Ontario, citing issues with global EV demand. The Liberals' cornerstone, the NextStar Energy facility that was supposed to build and be a world leader in electric car batteries, is no longer making EV batteries. In fact, the auto company involved with that, Stellantis, has pulled out altogether.”
“Madam Chair, yes I am, with the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River . I will just go through the list, because I think the finance minister may not be aware of some of the commitments that he made to Canadians that have since fallen through. At Stellantis in Brampton, the plant laid off 3,000 workers. In fact it took those jobs, sent them to the U.S. and promised 5,000 jobs in the U.S. and $13 billion of U.S. investment, despite hundreds of millions of dollars flowing from the taxpayers through the Liberal government to retool Stellantis's facility in Brampton. Northvolt in Quebec went bankrupt despite up to $3 billion of commitments from the taxpayer through the Liberal government. Ford in Oakville, despite millions of taxpayer dollars spent, cancelled its project and is now making gas-powered trucks.”
“Madam Chair, the Canadian auto sector is in serious crisis. We are facing thousands of job losses, and really that is a result of the U.S. tariffs and, frankly, a disastrous strategic policy by this Liberal government. If I look at 2020 to 2024, when the finance minister was, in fact, the industry minister, he signed off on up to $52 billion with Ontario for electric vehicle subsidies to artificially manufacture an electric vehicle supply chain in Canada. He made very big promises that this was going to deliver huge returns for Canada, yet many of those projects have failed to deliver. In fact, we have seen thousands of job losses because of the failure of those projects to go forward. Can the minister admit that his electric vehicle strategy has been a failure?”
“Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has quite an extensive alert system. It depends on the region, but it is quite efficient. It has public billboards, sort of, across its infamous interstate system. Someone can be driving down there, going on a road trip with their family, and they will see an alert for the missing person. It can use cellular devices as well for these various alerts. The U.S. is the best example of this, and there has been some success. I want to mention that the purpose of the national coordination is so we can get research and testimony from experts across the country, which would make it easier for the will of the provinces to get moving and do this. It is to help make this happen, because the legislation is often there, but it has not happened. This bill aims to fix that.”
“What I am calling a silver alert in the bill is more about the cellular device capabilities that we see with Amber alerts, tornado warnings and things like that. I think Manitoba and Quebec have similar things. The problem is that they are not alerting people who are not necessarily paying attention to those notification boards. That is the problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe Manitoba has a similar silver alert framework to Quebec. Unless there has been a new development that I am not aware of, Quebec's silver alert, like Manitoba's, will go on police websites and social media. It notifies through a paper or electronic route, but not on our phones like an Amber alert or a tornado warning. Unless there has been a change in Quebec, I believe that is the case. It does not currently alert to our phones that there is a missing senior. There is a legislative framework that exists in Manitoba, but it has not been actioned to the level of cellular devices. It is just online. As I mentioned in my remarks, a silver alert technically went out for Mr. Moberg, but it was just the online alert. That is what Manitoba is calling its silver alert.”
“Let us discuss a framework. Let us have some coordination across the country. There can be a real leadership role. I just want to point out as well that right at the beginning, subsection 3(2) specifies working with provinces and territories as paramount, so it is in there.”
“Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the question from the hon. member. We work very well together on the industry committee, and it has been a pleasure to get to know him over the years. I am not proposing any amendments, as I think the bill is great as it is, but I am very open to amendments if other parties would like to propose them. My one concern is that I do not want to see the bill watered down to where it is just symbolic. Our goal, mine and the Moberg family's, with the advocacy they have done, is to make a real difference. I believe, given the alert structure that exists, there is a serious federal role to be played, in the sense that it can lead. The Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience can call a federal-provincial-territorial meeting, for example, on silver alerts. Let us get to the table.”
“Rather, it calls on the federal government to collaborate with the provinces, police, emergency preparedness officials and medical experts on establishing a flexible, coordinated national framework. Canada already has the technological infrastructure needed to quickly issue geotargeted alerts to cellphones over the same system used for amber alerts and weather alerts. The problem is not technological. The problem is a lack of coordinated, common standards across the country. (1755) [ English ] I would ask all parties from every corner of this country to seriously consider supporting this bill to go to committee for further study, and ultimately getting it over the finish line so that, as a country and as a House of Commons, we can ensure we are using the power in the palm of our hand to save lives of vulnerable seniors.”
“Over the past few months, Quebec coroners have investigated a number of tragic deaths involving vulnerable seniors who wandered outside in winter. This story reminds us that people with dementia can appear to be fine, like any other senior taking a walk alone, when they are actually confused, lost and in imminent danger. Quebec has already recognized the importance of silver alerts and has an alert system. However, the bill seeks to work in collaboration with the provinces, including Quebec, to improve national coordination, the criteria for issuing alerts, privacy protection and the responsible use of existing alert technologies. The bill also seeks to fully respect provincial jurisdictions and not to create and impose a federal system on the provinces.”
“Like so many Canadian families grappling with dementia, the Mobergs went through the extremely painful experience of watching a loved one slowly slip away even before their physical passing. The purpose of this bill is to save other families from having to experience the same tragedy. Canada's population is aging rapidly. By 2030, nearly one million Canadians are expected to suffer from dementia. According to Public Safety Canada, about 60% of people with dementia will go missing at some point. If they are not found within 12 hours, there is a 50% chance that they will be found injured or dead from hypothermia, dehydration or drowning. This problem affects every region of the country, including Quebec.”
“I do want to dedicate this bill to the Moberg family for their courage, resilience and resolve in turning an unimaginable tragedy into meaningful action. It has been an honour to work with them and to get to know them, and we hope, together, today will be one more step toward saving lives of vulnerable seniors in Canada. [ Translation ] Today, the House of Commons will debate at second reading my private member's bill, Bill C‑263 , an act to establish a national framework for silver alerts. This legislation is rooted in the tragic disappearance of Earl Moberg, a Winnipeg man with advanced dementia who left his home in December 2023 and never returned. His daughter, Britt Moberg, is with me here in Ottawa today.”
“I welcome that conversation very much, because ultimately the goal here is to save lives, and this is a tool that we can use. If this legislation helps push Canada forward toward a more coordinated, medically informed and operationally workable system that allows communities to respond faster when vulnerable seniors disappear, then this bill would have accomplished something very meaningful. At its core, this legislation is asking a simple question: When a vulnerable senior with dementia disappears and we already possess the technology capable of notifying nearby Canadians immediately, should we use it more effectively? The Conservatives believe that the answer is resolutely, yes, we should.”
“I want to make clear that this is not a partisan bill, not a political bill and not a left-wing or right-wing issue. This is a human issue. We have the technology to make a difference. It is in the palm of our hand every day, all day. We have it right there. We just need to mobilize it. (1750) I want to acknowledge members from different parties, including the Liberal Party, who have reached out to me, including the Minister of Emergency Management . They have engaged in thoughtful and constructive dialogue with me on this. I am very encouraged by that. I also want to recognize there may be amendments at committee talking about provincial jurisdictions, certain operational thresholds and various implementation details.”
“Another Nova Scotia senior living with dementia disappeared and was unfortunately later found deceased. In Alberta, a missing 79-year-old woman with dementia was fortunately found again within the 12-hour window. Particularly tragic, in January, Quebec's coroner was investigating the death of a 90-year-old woman found outside her seniors residence after wandering out in the cold. It was reportedly the fourth similar death involving a Quebec senior in roughly one month. These stories are happening across Canada, in every neighbourhood and in rural and remote areas. It does not matter where. There is no discrimination with this issue. It is everywhere. It is in care homes, in hospitals and in our own backyards. As our population ages, we have the responsibility to do something about this effectively and efficiently.”
“In the past few years, there have been some very tragic cases, including Mr. Moberg's. In British Columbia, for example, there was a news headline the other day that said that search and rescue teams are warning that missing seniors with cognitive impairments are becoming a growing trend. In Saskatchewan, an 86-year-old man with Alzheimer's wandered out of a care home unnoticed and was later found deceased. Also in Saskatchewan, just a few weeks ago, an 82-year-old grandmother living with only mild dementia, which is difficult to deal with, vanished and was found deceased nearly two weeks later. In Nova Scotia, a 79-year-old woman with dementia disappeared from a seniors residence. Luckily, the alert went out in some way and helped find her in time.”
“They can be targeted to within a few city blocks, so that just the cellphones in a specific area would get an alert. That matters, because it would help reduce unnecessary disruption and reduce alert fatigue, while still mobilizing public support when someone is truly vulnerable and at imminent risk of peril. Those are really some of the key principles here: proportionate, targeted, responsible public notification for time-sensitive cases involving vulnerable people. Importantly, this issue is becoming more urgent. By 2030, nearly one million Canadians are expected to be living with dementia. By 2050, that number is going to hit 1.7 million. People are more likely to get dementia as they age, so as our population ages, more Canadian families will, unfortunately, face what the Mobergs have faced.”
“Every missing person does matter, but it is the specific vulnerability of a senior with dementia who goes missing that is critical. The window to find them is so short. Families understand the sensitivities with issuing these alerts, and the importance of dignity and respect for the individuals. Ms. Britt Moberg spoke very movingly about this tension to me, saying that for people living with dementia, it is difficult. Things such as “You cannot drive anymore, Dad” are difficult discussions that need respect and dignity, and that needs to be a core frame for establishing the silver alerts. We put a lot of thought into that when drafting the legislation. In fact, Canada's existing alert infrastructure already allows alerts to be targeted with quite remarkable precision.”
“Instead it would recognize the constitutional reality that provinces and territories oversee policing and emergency management, while asking the federal government to provide a real national leadership role and coordination. Specifically, the bill would require the federal government to work with provinces and territories, police, emergency management officials, care providers and other experts to develop a national framework for silver alerts. The framework would include things like harmonizing risk thresholds, improving interprovincial coordination, establishing privacy guidelines, supporting geo-targeted notifications and ensuring that alerts are issued responsibly. I want to really emphasize that last point, because the bill is not proposing an alert for every missing person.”
“Meanwhile, Canada already possesses the technological infrastructure capable of delivering rapid geo-targeted alerts directly to mobile devices, to televisions and to radios. We already use this infrastructure for Amber Alerts and other emergency notifications such as weather alerts and tornado warnings. I have gotten a few of those over the years. Therefore, this is not an issue of technological capability limitations. It is an issue of coordination, standards and consistent implementation across Canada. That is why the bill was intentionally drafted as a framework bill. It would not create a federally controlled emergency alert regime, just to be very clear. We already have one of those with provinces.”
“Public Safety Canada has stated that if a person living with Alzheimer's disease goes missing and is not found within 12 hours, they have a 50% chance of being found deceased or severely injured, notably with hypothermia and dehydration, or having drowned. Therefore, every minute matters and every hour matters. Every moment matters when we are searching for seniors with dementia who have gone missing. However, in Canada today, whether the public is rapidly notified or not really depends on geography. Some provinces have explored silver alerts. Some have pilot programs. Some have legislation on paper, such as Manitoba, or online alerts, such as Manitoba. Some really have no operation at all.”
“It is when those stars align that we need all the technologies, all the supports in place, to ensure that we are bringing people home safely. Missing person cases involving seniors living with dementia are unique because of the specific vulnerability they have. They may appear normal, just a senior going for a walk. They may not even know they are in danger. They may not know they are missing. They may not be able to verbalize it. They may not remember where they live or whom to call in an emergency. They may not even know that they are dying of dehydration and hypothermia, just that they are in pain, but they cannot verbalize it. (1745) These are uniquely time-sensitive scenarios.”
“We do not really have the confidence or enough information to act on that gut feeling. That is the precise moment this bill is looking to deal with, to solve. I keep imagining that if she had received a silver alert on her phone that morning, with a description of a man who was missing, and then she also had a gut feeling when she saw a man of a similar description, maybe she would have acted. Maybe she would have called someone. Maybe she would have called emergency services. Something may have happened. Mr. Moberg, if that was him, might still be alive today if this had been in place. That is really the core motivation for this bill, for those moments when we see someone and we also have that alert. That is when there is action.”