Bill C-223

Keeping Children Safe Act

An Act to amend the Divorce Act

This enactment amends the Divorce Act to, among other things,
(a) require legal advisers who undertake to act on a spouse’s behalf in a divorce proceeding to assess the risk of family violence and, if there is a risk, to take steps to implement an appropriate plan;
(b) provide the means by which a court may more accurately assess the impact of coercive control on a parent-child relationship so as to ensure that children are protected from domestic violence after a separation or divorce;
(c) allow a court, if certain conditions are met, to obtain information or evidence directly from a child in writing or by means of an interview with the child for the purpose of determining the child’s views and preferences; and
(d) address certain myths or stereotypes regarding family violence by providing that courts, in determining its impact, are not to make certain inferences, including that violence no longer occurs once spouses have separated or a divorce proceeding has commenced.

Keeping Children Safe Act

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

moved that Bill C-223, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I feel enormously honoured to stand here today with significant amendments to the Divorce Act in a bill entitled the “keeping children safe act”.

This bill would give children a voice in divorce proceedings and stop the increasing and egregious practice of disregarding children's views and preferences under the pretense they have been manipulated or alienated by a parent. It would prevent judges from restricting a child's time with one parent to improve the relationship with the other parent, and it would prevent courts from forcing children to attend so-called “reunification therapy”.

This bill would require legal advisers to remedy the effects of domestic violence and coercive control rather than discount them or even punish disclosures. It would change the existing premise in family courts that children are property that must be split equally between parties in a divorce.

I want to thank the National Association of Women and the Law, and particularly Suzanne Zacour, for first raising with me the extreme and widespread issues in family court about a year ago. NAWL introduced me to survivors, parents accused of alienation and children forced into bizarre programs that seem like the conversion therapy this House banned four years ago. I was horrified. I brought them all to testify at the status of women committee last year during our coercive control study, and I am sure all members who were there during their testimony will remember it vividly.

NAWL worked with me throughout the summer and early fall on crafting this legislation. I note that the government is calling for some amendments, which do seem reasonable to me, to maintain the integrity of the system while staying true to the main concepts of this law, as I have just outlined.

While I was working on this bill, I got so many calls from victims and survivors who wanted to share their stories with me that I could not find time to hear them all. There was one woman in Hamilton who was about to lose her child due to accusations of parental alienation, so I went to her house. I met with her and her nine-year-old daughter. They clearly had a loving relationship. They were both terrified that the police would show up to force her into the custody of her father, whom she did not know well, had never lived with and about whom she had disclosed a disturbing story that suggested sexual abuse.

The transfer did not happen that night, but the next day when the mother and daughter were at the hospital dealing with anxiety, that is when it happened, and the mother wrote to me afterward. She said, “12 cops made me force her down seven floors, kicking and screaming, and told me I would be arrested in front of her if I did not take her to her father's truck. I can't make her last memory of me being physically forcing her into danger, and I also can't fight for her if I get arrested.”

This mother has not had any contact with her daughter for months upon months. She says that this bill would break the chains of our silenced children and set them free from abuse and slavery.

Children's opinions cannot be left out of a divorce. They are part of the divorce. They should have a say. Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. Article 12 guarantees children the right to express their opinions on matters affecting them and emphasizes the need for them to have an opportunity to be heard in any judicial proceeding that affects them.

Canada ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1981. That is monitored by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, also known as CEDAW. Last year CEDAW called on Canada to prevent the use of parental alienation allegations. They said in a news release, “Shelters, researchers, service providers, legal professionals, and experts all agree that parental alienation accusations are being weaponized against victims of domestic violence.”

Many survivors point to the 2023 report on violence against women and girls and its causes and consequences, by UN Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem. She argued that all countries should adopt legislation to prohibit the use of parental alienation allegations in custody disputes. She said the following about parental alienation:

1) It has been dismissed by medical, psychiatric and psychological associations, and in 2020 it was removed from the International Classification of Diseases by the World Health Organization. Nevertheless, it has gained considerable traction and has been widely used to negate allegations of domestic and sexual abuse within family court systems on a global scale.

2) The report demonstrates how the discredited and unscientific pseudo-concept of parental alienation is used in family law proceedings by abusers as a tool to continue their abuse and coercion and to undermine and discredit allegations of domestic violence made by mothers who are trying to keep their children safe.

Let us look at what other countries are doing. In Brazil, parental alienation is actually a civil offence with potential criminal implications. The University of Manchester did a study that found that in Brazil, irrespective of abuse reported by mothers and children, fathers maintained direct contact with children. Multiple mothers lost custody and even all contact with their children. Five out of eight criminal investigations into child sex abuse, child rape and domestic violence by fathers were closed once there were parental alienation allegations. There has been so much controversy over the harms to women and children that this year, Brazil has a new bill to remove the concept of parental alienation from the country's laws.

Spain is the opposite, with legislation that specifically prohibits accusations of parental alienation. Ireland this year vowed to follow Spain's example. In the U.K., family law prioritizes the best interests of the child, and allegations of domestic abuse take precedence over allegations of parental alienation.

In the U.S., responsibility falls to individual states. Arizona, California, Colorado, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Utah have all implemented President Biden's 2022 Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act, which prohibits remedies associated with parental alienation. Several U.S. cases have made the news, including a story last year in The Denver Gazette where a man facing criminal charges for repeatedly raping his three daughters got court-ordered reunification therapy while his wife went to jail for objecting.

Parental alienation was a concept developed in the late 1980s by psychiatrist Richard Gardner. He said at the time that it often involves malicious and false sexual-abuse allegations made by the mother against the father to gain sole custody and remove the father from their children's lives. It was all about fathers' rights, regardless of circumstances and regardless of abuse.

The American Psychological Association says, “there have been no well-controlled empirical studies that confirm the phenomenon, nor have a standardized assessment process and specific diagnostic criteria been established for it.”

The APA is concerned about this concept's influence in legal settings.

The remedies for parental alienation that the courts have been ordering have been found to be seriously damaging to children. Reunification therapy is also called reintegration therapy, multi-faceted family therapy, multi-modal family therapy, reconciliation therapy and therapy for the intractable resist/refuse dynamic. There is a proliferation of names used interchangeably, adding to the ambiguity and controversy of these approaches. Possibly most concerning is the lucrative nature of these therapies, causing an explosion of so-called experts. Last year, in the Family Law Quarterly, Chadwick and Sloan wrote:

Undeterred by a lack of sound scientific evidence, a cottage industry of reunification camps has capitalized on the popularity of the concept of parental alienation, charging thousands of dollars to allegedly deprogram children who have been alienated from a noncustodial parent.

Orders can include transport agents who will remove a child from a home, courthouse or wherever they happen to be and send them to the camp. To avoid human trafficking implications, guardianship of the child is transferred at each point in the operation. The children often do not consent to this treatment, which violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Canadian health care consent acts.

Other remedies to parental alienation are equally harmful, including forced contact with a parent estranged for good reason, immediate custody reversals, prohibition of contact between mother and child, police enforcement and cost orders against mothers deemed to be alienators. That is why this bill would do more than just ban allegations of parental alienation in family court.

Witness after witness who appeared at the status of women committee last year disclosed how rampant parental alienation allegations are in Canadian courts. Abusers do not stop trying to control and dominate just because their partner has left; in many cases, the abuse gets worse. Carrie Leonetti, professor at University of Auckland law school, told committee that violent fathers are more than twice as likely to seek custody of their children after separation than non-abusive fathers. They are awarded custody approximately 70% of the time.

She said:

In the past two decades in family courts, the pendulum has swung from believing children and protecting them to disbelieving, silencing, and punishing their disclosures...re-entrenching fathers’ rights at the expense of women’s and children’s safety. The ideology of “parental alienation” has been the driving force behind this retrograde shift.

She said that “parental alienation is gender bias masquerading as junk science” and that more than 90% of those accused are women and most of those are victims of intimate partner violence. She said, “Judges and psychologists are obsessed with the idea that, when children disclose abuse by fathers, resist being in their care, and ask for protection, it is their mothers who are the real problem.”

Now people in Canada are being told by professionals not to claim abuse or seek protection because it puts their child at further risk. We heard this at committee. The Ottawa Victim Services and the Elizabeth Fry Society of New Brunswick told us many victims feel “the price for leaving the violent environment is even higher than the price for staying at home”. Witnesses said reunification therapy was akin to forced reprogramming of children, often resulting in psychological trauma, not a healed family relationship.

One researcher told us that children are silenced and that mothers are found to be “alienating” for normal reactions to abuse or normal behaviour such as not having pictures of their ex-partner in their house. Another warned that several U.S. providers of reunification therapy are moving into Canada because states are adopting child safety laws like the one I am presenting today.

One mother who was labelled an alienator told us, “Not one mode of contact is permitted. Imagine not even being able mail your child a birthday card or Christmas presents for years.... Children are not permitted to say last goodbyes or attend funerals.” Child survivors of the therapy told us, for example, “When we described emotionally abusive episodes, our dad told the therapist they didn't happen. The therapist told us that we needed to think of things from our dad's perspective, that we weren't remembering things correctly”. They were blamed for the abuse.

A professor from the University of Calgary told us, “sometimes the people who are testifying as experts in parental alienation cases are the same people who run the reunification camps, and they stand to profit directly from those camps.” Another professor from Stockton University told us that a “cottage industry” of lawyers and mental health professionals who profit from parental alienation accusations in custody disputes often resist any limitations on the use of such claims. She said that this is done by people without particular training or qualifications, and that it is not a regulated industry; it is just very profitable.

I mentioned how much outreach I started receiving when I was working on this bill and since it has passed first reading, I can say that hundreds of organizations have indicated their enthusiastic support, like Women's Shelters Canada, the Alliance of Canadian Research Centres on Gender-Based Violence, YWCA Canada and dozens upon dozens of women's shelters across the country.

These are some quotes sent to me on social media.

One person said, “This is so, so necessary. I couldn't stop weeping reading this bill. Our children must be heard and the court system must be transformed from being yet another tool for abusers to abuse, control, demean and devalue their victims.” Another person said, “This change cannot come soon enough. Anyone who is surviving the Family Court System learns quickly that 'children's rights' don't exist. They value parental equity above all. The term 'parental alienation' is thrown out by an abuser like a vengeful 'hail Mary'.” Another said, “You don't know me, but thank you so much. I am a sexual assault survivor and this Bill is going to change lives and protect so many kids from abuse.” The woman from Hamilton I mentioned earlier said, “My daughter was silenced and placed under the control of someone she explicitly said she feared. Bill C-223 gives children their voices back.”

These changes are desperately needed and I implore all members to support this bill.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite, thank you for fighting for the well-being of children, and I certainly appreciate your passion and obvious dedication to your private member's bill. Through the many terrible cases you described, and regardless of the bias you explained, there are certainly accusations of parental alienation from both mothers and fathers.

What provisions are there in the private member's bill to ensure, in the many cases in which there are no examples of sexual, mental or physical abuse, that the equal rights of both parents are protected, regardless of their gender?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We will address the questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it should be about equal rights for parents. It should be about the best interest of the child. That is the whole point of the bill. Judges should be able to look at all the evidence, and children should be appointed a lawyer. We heard in committee that they were not allowed lawyers when they were attending court; they were not allowed their voice. We were told that the letters they wrote to court were not listened to.

Divorce court should not be trying to repair the relationship with a parent from whom the child is estranged without, at the very least, looking at why the child is estranged from that parent.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for her speech and her bill.

I heard some of the testimony she referred to at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, but that was during a study on the criminalization of coercive control. I remember that the committee members, including my colleague, said that this issue merited separate study so that it could be examined in greater depth.

Does my colleague think it would have been a good idea to conduct a study on the issue of parental alienation before drafting her bill?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after it passes second reading in the House, the bill will be sent to committee and we will examine it in detail. I think that is very important.

I know that the member opposite was present during the study and that she feels compassion for the victims who came forward. That is very important.

I am not an expert, so I am not saying that this bill is perfect as is. However, I think the committee will be able to bring the values within it to the fore.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if you could speak a little more about what this would mean for children, their agency and their well-being. I know you have heard from many survivors of this reunification therapy. I wonder if you could expand on that. I think that what you are doing is going to protect so many children from future abuse and that it is going to have a really meaningful impact on their lives.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Again, questions should go through the Chair.

The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her work and support on this, and for all the work she has done for children in Canada over the years.

This is all about protecting children. We heard from several children who went through the so-called reunification therapies. Some of them were sent across the border to the United States and given therapy inside a woman's apartment. They were told that they did not really witness the things they witnessed, that they were remembering wrong and that they had to give their father a chance. They were forced to kiss their father, look their father in the eye and say they loved them. There were so many things that violate the rules that we have in Canada about rights for people and the agency that children have. We cannot force them into these therapies.

I think reunification therapy is fine as long as all parties are in agreement and fully cognizant of what they are agreeing to.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is never a wasted opportunity to stand up in the House to talk about something so important, so vital to all of our lives: the strength and stability of family. It is a simple word, but it means so much to all of us.

We all know, as members of Parliament, that our families are our bedrock, our biggest support system, our cheerleader at the best times and, let us be honest, our therapist at the worst times. Often, they are the reason we get into politics in the first place. I would not be here if it were not for the encouragement of my granddaughter. It is family that inspires me to tirelessly fight for a better Canada, not just for my family but for all families. I will always be a wife, a mother and a grandmother first and above all else.

Everybody in Canada deserves to have their loving family at their side and to experience a relationship based upon love, trust and mutual support, but unfortunately, many people have a different experience with family. Divorce has always been and will continue to be a difficult and trying time in our lives. It touches all of us in some way. We may have been impacted when we were kids or as adults in marriages of our own. Even if we are lucky enough to not have to face it ourselves, we witness it happening to our close friends or other important people in our lives. However, the facts are the facts: It does happen.

When a divorce unfortunately does take place, the legislation here in Ottawa should be designed to protect people, especially children. I do not know my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, very well, but I know she also cares deeply about families. I hope to work with her on this issue and other issues as well.

However, rather than just talk about divorce after it has already happened, I think it is also important to address the root causes and systemic issues that lead to divorce in the first place. What causes divorce? It is well documented that stressful lives certainly do not help, and we all hear that life is certainly getting more stressful for people in this country, including in my community. The evidence is all around us.

It is hard to afford the necessities of life that we need, like food, housing and home heating. A full 25% of Canadians are now considered food-insecure. They are not asking for luxuries; they are asking for the basics, but the price of everything, including fruit, vegetables, meat and coffee, is going through the roof. The grocery aisle has become the luxury aisle.

We just received new statistics about food inflation here in Canada: It is two times higher than the acceptable level that the Government of Canada has set as its own target. The government has to give itself a failing grade yet again. It is a fact that Canadian families are expected to spend $800 more in groceries this year than they did last year. This comes at time when half the people are only $500 away from insolvency, but they are paying $800 more for groceries. Members can do the math on that one.

What comes from that? Well, it means either cutting back or going into debt just to get the everyday essentials, and that is happening more and more. What can also happen? Divorce can. The stress of finances and empty stomachs can overwhelm relationships, stealing the joy of marriage and family. The average Canadian has credit card debt of nearly $5,000, and Equifax found that 1.4 million people in this country missed a payment last quarter. The hole just gets deeper and deeper. For every dollar that Canadians earn, they owe $1.74 in debt. We all know that this simply is not sustainable.

What can the government do to help eliminate financial distress, which is a large factor for many divorces? Bringing inflation under control is a big thing. We know what causes inflation; it is out-of-control government spending that drives up the cost of everything for Canadians. Instead of reining in the spending, the government is spending more money than even Justin Trudeau did. We have heard this story before, and we know how it ends: more people using food banks, more stress, more skipped meals and more burdens on families.

What else can we do to bring more financial stability to families and reduce the stress that places an extra burden on Canadians from coast to coast? How about providing stable, good-paying jobs that make people feel financially confident to get married, support a family, buy a home and get settled in a safe neighbourhood?

People in my community are on edge more than ever. Each day, we see headlines about job losses and companies packing up and moving south. The news came out of Windsor, out of Oshawa and out of Ingersoll. Everyone is worried that it is going to come out of Cambridge next, with the loss of thousands of jobs from our auto sector that form the cornerstone of our city. As unemployment goes up, divorce rates go up too. It is a proven statistical fact.

We are talking about divorce, but in order to get divorced, one has to be married in the first place. There was a time not that long ago when the only major expenses to worry about were the wedding ring, the dress and maybe the honeymoon. The weddings many dream of are now just fears of debts to be incurred.

With housing costs at record levels, doubled in just 10 years, and student loans that do not lead to good-paying jobs as promised, people do not even think about the cost that comes with raising kids of their own. The essential Canadian dream of growing up, getting married, buying a home and starting a family is becoming just that, a dream, an idea to be fantasized about but never actually achieved.

I knocked on thousands of doors in Cambridge and North Dumfries during the last election campaign. This was the number one issue by far that young people talked to me about. They are working harder than ever. They want to succeed. They are doing everything they were told to do, like getting a degree and cutting back on expenses, but still the dream never becomes a reality. How can it become a reality when they are forced to live in their parents' basement as a 30-year-old adult?

For the lucky few who can get married, have kids and settle down, life is no less stressful. The days are busy with work, home and trying to match the energy of youth without feeling exhausted. Then add on the stress of paying for groceries and the mortgage. Just getting by is already heavy enough. Then throw on more Liberal failures, and the tension reaches a breaking point, ruining the marriages of many Canadians.

There are times when both parents need to work, but they cannot because child care is unattainable and still unaffordable. Parliament's independent watchdog just released a scathing new report about child care in this country, saying it has led to endless waits, a shortage of spaces and a rationing of child care. The report found that less than half the required number of spaces have been created in the last three years, and we are nearly 70,000 spaces short of our target. Those are not just statistics on a sheet of paper; those are 70,000 families that cannot access the services they need and were promised by the government. However, they are still forced to pay higher taxes for something most do not receive. Financial stress keeps building, putting further tension on relationships.

Marriage begins with vows that say “till death do us part”. Government failures that increase family struggles turns it to “till debt do us part”. These government failures drive up inflation and the cost of living. They drive down the rate of marriages and the growth of families. This all becomes a breaking point that drives up the rate of divorce, made even worse when divorce proceedings bring in the CRA.

If I wanted to talk about things from Ottawa that cause people stress, I could keep going on, but I would be here all day. The fact remains the same: The government's policies are making life harder for people from all walks of life and making Canadian marriages harder. This has devastating consequences for our communities, for families of all types and, of course, for children, who often bear the brunt of it all. Our highest priority should be protecting children and standing up for them.

I look forward to studying this proposed legislation in greater detail and hearing testimony from witnesses at committee, but let us also make sure we try to tackle the causes of divorce before they happen: stress, uncertainty and strife. Let us give people the best shot at having long, happy, successful marriages.

With all this talk of divorce, I want to say something on a lighter note. Marriage can come with a lot of obstacles that can lead to divorce, but it can also be something to be proud of. I thank my husband Bill for his endless support and all he does. I cannot think of anybody else I would rather have by my side. I thank my family, my children and my grandchildren for their understanding and continued love and support.

I know we all feel the same way about our own families, and I know we want every single Canadian to have an opportunity for the same kind of happiness, love and support that marriage can bring. It is up to us here in Ottawa to bring in the policies that can make that happen. Let us bring back hope and the Canadian dream for everyone.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking this evening about Bill C‑223, an act to amend the Divorce Act. It is a delicate subject that requires great sensitivity. There are human tragedies behind this bill, as well as a lot of distress. I am very aware that this bill is a response to the study on the criminalization of coercive control that I proposed to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I will present the background and objectives of the bill. I know that this bill was important to the Liberal member for Hamilton Mountain, with whom I worked at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It aims to amend the Divorce Act to better protect children and victims of family violence. Its key measures are the requirement for lawyers to assess the risk of violence before acting on a spouse's behalf; the possibility for the court to directly consult with children to find out their views; the prohibition on the court to take into account allegations of parental alienation, unless it occurs in the context of family violence; and a desire to avoid certain myths or stereotypes about violence ending after a separation.

I will elaborate further on the bill and speak to what is happening in Quebec. I will then present some statistics.

First, the intention is commendable, but it is a problematic legislative vehicle. The Bloc Québécois shares the goal of better protecting children and preventing domestic violence, of course. However, the bill goes too far in certain respects, particularly in seeking to dismiss the concept of parental alienation.

This approach risks weakening the tools available to courts to protect children in cases of parental manipulation. Parental alienation is a recognized concept. Despite what was said by some members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women during the study on the criminalization of coercive control, parental alienation is not an ideological invention, but a psychological phenomenon observed and documented by research and practice.

According to a definition recognized by the Parental Alienation Study Group, parental alienation occurs when a child forms a strong alliance with one parent and rejects the other without valid reason. Experts such as Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem and Jérôme Harrisson acknowledge the complexity of the diagnosis, but confirm its clinical reality. Alienating behaviours are not gender-specific. Both men and women can engage in them. Removing this notion amounts to denying the experiences of many parents and children in Quebec. In practice, courts already require solid evidence and professional assessments before recognizing a case of alienation. There is therefore no systemic abuse. I also know that my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will be able to talk about this a little later.

I would now like to discuss the risks of Bill C‑223. By removing all references to parental alienation, the bill prevents courts from examining a well-documented psychological reality, weakens the balance between parental rights and risks further judicializing family conflicts. This could leave some children without protection against manipulative behaviour. The 2021 legislation already provides a very comprehensive framework for family violence. Bill C‑223 therefore risks being redundant and unbalanced. Imposing a legal obligation to assess violence in every divorce case could also unnecessarily burden the courts.

Second, there truly is a Quebec perspective. Family law in Quebec is comprehensive and autonomous. Furthermore, family law falls under Quebec jurisdiction, except for divorce, which has been a federal jurisdiction since 1867. This distinction is anachronistic and unnecessarily complex. Quebec already has a strong civil law tradition, a modern and humane approach to family law as well as the unified family tribunal, which is new this year.

What is the unified family tribunal? The justice minister, Simon Jolin-Barrette, created the unified family tribunal. Since October 10, 2025, civil union applications have been heard by the unified family tribunal, which is part of the Court of Quebec. The tribunal can hear and rule on various cases, which illustrates the Quebec government's expertise in and attention to this type of civil litigation. These courts can therefore already rule on all aspects of a separation, such as custody, alimony and parental authority—just not divorce.

The Bloc is calling for Quebec to have control over marriage and divorce so that there is a consistent system that is adapted to our reality. In addition, it would not be a two-tiered system.

We recognize that there are challenges. As I said earlier, we in the Bloc Québécois would have liked a study to be done on the issue of parental alienation. Instead, it was included in a different study, and even my colleague recognized earlier that we could have heard from experts on the subject. A study on the subject could have enhanced our discussions. We support the bill being sent to committee for further study. We are not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We want to have experts, psychologists, legal experts and social workers come and testify. We want to propose amendments that genuinely protect children during acrimonious divorces and that guarantee their well-being without weakening family law.

However, we firmly reject the idea that parental alienation is an invention used by violent men. We are convinced that it is more complicated than that. We also reject the idea that the justice system is incapable of doing the right thing. Instead, the Bloc Québécois reaffirms its trust in Quebec courts and family professionals. We reiterate our commitment to defending genuine equality before the law, whatever people's gender. We also want to oppose any attempt to politicize psychology as it applies to legal proceedings. We want to do this work seriously in committee with other experts.

Third, I would like to present some useful statistics to inform the discussion about children exposed to their parents' separation or divorce. According to Statistics Canada, 18% of children aged 1 to 17 in Canada, or 1,185,700 children, have experienced their parents' separation or divorce. In Quebec, it was 23%. This illustrates the scale of the phenomenon and justifies the importance of a strong legislative framework to protect children.

I will now present statistics on domestic violence, children, and family justice. According to police data from the Government of Canada, in 2019, 22,299 children and youth were victims of family violence. Of those children, 60% were girls. According to Statistics Canada, in 2015, 16% of victims of violent crimes were children and adolescents, and 30% of those crimes were committed by a family member.

According to the Department of Justice, a review of court files revealed that domestic violence was mentioned in 8% of divorce cases. These data support the idea that domestic violence is prevalent in divorce and separation contexts and that assessing and taking this violence into account is justified.

I am now going to share a few statistics on parental alienation and alienating behaviours. According to the Canadian child welfare research portal, one Quebec study involving 30 shelters found that 45% of accusations or threatened accusations of parental alienation over the one-year study period comprised almost all of the accusations made in the past five years, and that 86.7% of service providers said that this phenomenon was impacting their practice.

An online estimate showed that 11% to 15% of divorces in Canada involve significant parental alienation. According to the Canadian Equal Parenting Council, one study reported that the long-term effects of alienating behaviours include anxiety disorders, depression, personality disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder in adults. This shows that parental alienation is real, that it has serious consequences and that it cannot legitimately be excluded from all legislative debate.

Regarding child custody after separation, according to the Department of Justice, court data revealed that in 62.2% of cases, the child resided primarily with the mother. In 9.4% of cases, the child resided with the father. In 21.3% of cases, the child was in shared custody 40% of the time or more. This helps illustrate the real environment of children after separation and supports the need for the court to have reliable tools, including for detecting alienation and deciding what is in the best interests of the child.

In conclusion, Bill C‑223 makes significant advances in terms of family safety. However, the fight against domestic violence must not be used as a pretext to gloss over legitimate psychological realities. The Bloc Québécois will act in a rigorous, open and cautious manner to protect children and prevent abuses. We firmly believe in this approach.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that, in Quebec, family law must belong to Quebeckers.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks this evening by really thanking the member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain. She has taken on this important private member's bill and taken on this important issue to protect children, to protect families and to protect parents. I cannot express my gratitude enough to her, but I think what is telling is that there are 300 women's organizations across this country that lend their support to this private member's bill. That is an indication of just how important this piece of legislation is to protect children in our country.

I want to share those thanks a bit broader because, as my Bloc colleague raised earlier, this began with a study at FEWO, at the status of women committee. It was also the courage of our members, from all parties, who began the study on coercive control and learned about the issue of parental alienation.

I want to take that a step back even, because this builds on important measures that the House has passed over the last years, notably the changes to the Divorce Act in Bill C-78 and then, more recently, Keira's law. For those colleagues who do not know about Keira's law, it was the first time that judges would be required to study and understand intimate partner violence and coercive control. Keira's law came about because of a little girl in my community who died tragically while on a hike with her estranged father. Jennifer Kagan, her mother, believes strongly that if the judge had learned and understood about intimate partner violence, had learned and understood about coercive control, Keira, who was four years old at the time, would still be alive today.

I want to thank someone else, Pam Damoff, who is no longer here in the House but who served as a former colleague. She really spearheaded this work and made sure that Keira's law became reality and that Keira's legacy would live on.

The member for Hamilton Mountain is taking another step. I first became aware of this when a constituent of mine approached me to ask if we could have a meeting to talk about her situation. She shared with me that her children had recently been taken from her while she was going through divorce proceedings with a former abuser. When the spectre of intimate partner violence was raised, the judge interrupted and said it was parental alienation. What ended up happening was that she lost, entirely, the custody of her children.

What is really important here is recognizing that this is a phenomenon that is growing in Canada. When I spoke to my constituent about this, I was shocked because I thought the courts were there to protect people from these kinds of things. If someone is a survivor of domestic violence with the courage to leave, to speak up and to try to protect themselves and their children, the system is supposed to be there to support them. She thought the same thing. That is why she shared her story. That is why she was trying to leave and protect her children. Instead, she was punished for that. When we spoke about this, she said that she was not alone, and that she could get a call together of women across the country for whom this was happening.

A couple of weeks later, I sat in on a Zoom call with over 50 women across the country who shared their stories with me. They talked about how their children had been taken from them by police, how their children were scared, how they were not able to have the kind of protection and support that they thought they were entitled to and they thought they would receive, and that they were in utter disbelief that this was happening. They told me stories like the one that the member for Hamilton Mountain shared of children being taken across the border to receive reunification therapy, that they had no idea where their children were because they were not allowed to have contact with them and how desperate, alone and abandoned they felt by the system that was supposed to be there to protect them.

The bill would provide important measures to ensure that the rights of the child, the agency of the child and the well-being of the child are placed at the centre of divorce proceedings. That is something I think all of us, as parents, hope would be the case.

I listened to my Conservative colleague's speech. The bill has nothing that is against the institution of marriage. The bill is trying to centre the rights of children in what is often a really awful situation for them, to give them a voice, to give them agency and to protect their well-being. What the bill would do is exactly that. It would clarify that there is no presumption of shared parenting, with each decision based on the best interests of the child.

It would prevent the courts from blaming women who are victims of domestic violence for not actively working to improve their children's relationship with their abuser. It would stop the practice of disregarding children's views and preferences under the pretense that they have been manipulated or alienated by a parent. It would prevent judges from issuing orders that restrict parenting time with the parent to whom the child is bonded in order to improve the child's relationship with the other parent, and it would prohibit courts from forcing a child to attend reunification therapy.

As my colleague, the hon. member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain, said, it is not opposed to rebuilding relationships with parents. That is not what the bill is about. It is about ensuring that a child can make active decisions in what is going to happen to them and to their future. That is what we should be focused on in the bill.

I understand that the government has a number of amendments it wants to make. What we should be focused on in the House, and I implore and I encourage members from all parties in this, is that when we are studying the bill, we should always think about what the objective is. I hope the bill makes it to committee. The objective is to ensure the rights and the well-being of the children, who find themselves in a place that was not their decision and in a situation that was not of their making but that has a huge ramification and impact on their now and on their future.

When we speak to children who have gone through and who have been survivors of reunification therapy, as my colleague said, we find that some of it is fine, but some of it is really worrying. If we think about a child being sent across a border to be in some stranger's apartment and to receive some unprofessional therapy about what they think has happened and what the therapist is telling them has actually happened, we can imagine what that does to them. We can imagine the fear, uncertainty and loneliness they feel.

I am asking the House to support the legislation. I think that what all of us want and what we care about is the well-being of the child. That is what we put front and centre here.

My colleague spoke about the fact that there is a cottage industry that is building up, a cottage industry that is preying on vulnerable children. The fact that there are judges who have decided that, when they hear a child mention potential abuse, their first instinct is to reverse custody, to take a child away from a parent and put them towards another one, is actually quite mind-boggling.

What we want is to have confidence in the courts. The bill would enable that. The bill would give us the confidence to know that the decisions being made about the now and the future of our children in situations beyond their control are being made in their best interest and that they have a voice and a vote in their future.

I thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for bringing forward this important legislation.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-223, which was brought forward by the member for Hamilton Mountain. I think everyone recognizes that the safety of our children and our grandchildren is paramount. My wife and I have four beautiful granddaughters, and I can attest that their parents would do anything within their means to protect them from danger, and my wife and I would stand there with them.

It is instinctive and natural to protect our young. We see it in the animal kingdom. There are bears that come into my backyard and neighbourhood regularly, and no one wants to face a mother bear with her cubs. This is true even with birds, which will protect their nest. It is natural for a society to want to protect its young people, and it is really important.

One thing Canadians from coast to coast agree on is that they have felt less safe and less protected over the past 10 years. Why do they feel less safe? It is because they actually are less safe. Do not take my word for it; look at Statistics Canada. Since the Liberals have come into power, violent crime is up 54%. Extortion has skyrocketed 330% across our nation and actually 582% in British Columbia.

Sexual assaults have gone up 75%, and on the topic of children, sexual violations against children are up 249% in 10 years. People can go to the Statistics Canada website to see this. In British Columbia, for which I am a member of Parliament, it has gone up 400%. This is crazy, out of control and terrible.

There is no doubt that public safety under the Liberal government is a glaring failure. The streets Canadians walk on are less and less safe. The statistics I just mentioned, and anybody can look up those numbers, represent hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Canadians. These are not just numbers but are families, victims and children.

Auto thefts, break-ins and assaults are becoming increasingly regular occurrences. A few years ago I was talking with the agent of an insurance company who said that my neighbourhood was quite safe. I thought that was great, because it impacts insurance rates. In the past year or two, I have been surprised by how many of my neighbours have come to me wanting to see what my security cameras have shown, because of activities that have happened. Recently, and I was not able to get the car's licence plate number, there was a car parked outside with guys in it wearing masks over their faces. They committed a break-in.

This is the experience we are facing across our nation, and it is not good. Why has this been happening? It is because the Liberal government has systematically weakened our justice system. It has prioritized ideological policies over the safety of law-abiding citizens. It has eliminated mandatory jail time for serious offences and has effectively made it easier for repeat offenders to roam free, terrorizing communities.

In Vancouver, the same 40 individuals were apprehended 5,000 times in one year, and that is just for the crimes they were caught for. I have talked to police officers who tell me how frustrating it is to arrest someone and to see them out later that day or the next day, roaming the streets again. They have asked, “What is the use?” It is not their fault at all. They are doing their job, but the legislation has made it so that they have to release criminals under the least onerous conditions.

The reckless Liberal approach has left families feeling vulnerable in their own neighbourhood and unsure if their home or their children are safe.

The Liberals' approach to justice is not just misguided; it is dangerous. lt puts the rights of criminals ahead of those of victims and communities, eroding trust in our institutions. Their bail, not jail policies have been like a bullhorn, blasting out to offenders that consequences are optional, that they can go ahead and roam our streets. If they want to steal or do this or that, it is a free-for-all. This is not the Canada I knew growing up, and it is not the Canada it should be right now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to talk about the bail issue, there is Bill C-14. This is a private member's bill, and the member who put it forward put a great deal of effort and time into it. There are only two hours of debate. I would ask—