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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The parliamentary secretary knows there is broad latitude in the consideration of legislation, and I know the member will bring his comments back to the legislation at hand.

I will call on the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge to resume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Bill C-223, which is on criminal justice, but I think we need to talk about what is happening on our streets. That is important. I expect there will be more points of order. Why? It is because this is very uncomfortable. It is not a personal thing. I know different members over there, and I have respect for them as individuals, but I am talking about policies. I am talking about the direction the Liberal government has brought our nation in, and it is not good.

When I was going door to door talking to thousands of people, I asked how crime has been over the past 10 years and where things were at. Nobody said it has gotten better. It has gotten worse, and Liberal policy is making it worse.

I want to declare, unequivocally, my respect and admiration for our police forces. In my constituency, in Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and Mission, it is the RCMP. They work hard and do the very best they can to protect our communities under the legal framework they have. All Canadians owe them a debt of gratitude.

In stark contrast to the Liberal record, the Conservative Party puts forward concrete and practical solutions that reflect the real needs of Canadians. We recently brought forward the jail, not bail legislation the Liberals voted against, even though police forces across the nation supported it. Last year, I brought forward Bill C-411, the anti-arson act, which would have brought in strong consequences for torching our forests and would have brought in mandatory minimums for those burning down places of worship. It seems like it is a free-for-all now to burn down churches or other places of worship under the Liberals. When I asked an OPQ, the government released that there were over 400 instances where places of worship experienced arson attacks. Deaths have occurred because of this.

The Liberals do a lot of talking about criminal justice, but things have only gotten worse, and they are only going to get worse the way they are going.

This week, on Monday, the Conservative member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola introduced Bill C-255. This legislation represents a meaningful step toward protecting victims of intimate partner violence. It is practical and its solutions will make changes, but the Liberal government, with its habitual obstruction, has stalled and blocked common-sense reforms like the jail, not bail initiative, showing that it prefers photo-ops and hollow promises to real changes.

Canadians deserve more than symbolic gestures; they deserve a government that will fight aggressively for their interests by securing jobs in the auto sector, in forestry or anywhere else. They deserve a government that will make our communities safe again, not one that allows repeat violent offenders to walk free because of political ideology. The Conservatives will fight for a Canada where families can afford to live with hope and dignity, where they can feel safe in their communities and where they can put their trust in their government to be on their side, not working against them.

The House resumed from October 23, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C‑223, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to reiterate how sensitive my party and I are to violence against women and their children. We must work tirelessly to ensure that all women and children can thrive in a safe environment at all times. A woman was killed in the north of my riding recently and I am quite shaken up by it. This has to stop.

The bill under consideration seeks to remove parental alienation as a concept from family law. In our view, it is not up to the legislature to decide whether a concept should disappear as a psychological phenomenon, let alone be removed from the Criminal Code, just because there is an emerging and minority hypothesis that parental alienation disproportionately harms one group.

Objectively, the definition of parental alienation proposed between 2010 and 2013 by the Parental Alienation Study Group, or PASG, to the DSM-5 preparatory committees is the one that is now nearly unanimously accepted among experts who subscribe to the concept:

Parental alienation is a mental condition affecting children or adolescents (often in the context of high-conflict parental separation) and characterized by two elements:

1. The child or teenager allies strongly with one parent.

2. The child or adolescent unreasonably rejects the other parent, without legitimate justification. The child or adolescent resists or refuses contact with that parent, even when ordered.

Forensic expert, retired professor at the Université de Montréal and recipient of the Noël-Mailloux Award from the Ordre des psychologues du Québec Dr. Van Gijseghem points out that there is not necessarily a causal link between the two parts of the definition. He adds:

Despite the apparent simplicity of the definition, diagnosing parental alienation “disorder” is no easy task and requires a rigorous and thorough psychological and family assessment that includes all family members.

Family law lawyer Jérôme Harrison believes in the importance of identifying two situations where the child is the focus of tension. When a child still feels torn, feels like they need to make a choice, we speak of a conflict of loyalty. This type of conflict can be fuelled by a wide range of disparate factors. When a child flatly rejects one parent, seems to have made their choice, is no longer or not torn between their parents, there is reason to suspect that one of the spouses is engaging in parental alienation.

That said, a child, usually a teenager with more advanced critical thinking skills, may have made an informed choice without being pressured by either parent. If there are reasonable grounds to believe that parental alienation has occurred, Mr. Harrison suggests contacting a lawyer to have an action plan put in place to address the situation. This process illustrates how professionals are able to detect credible parental alienation and that mechanisms are set in motion long before a trial.

Furthermore, parental alienation is difficult to argue in court because evidence gathering is difficult and there is still some debate over this psychological concept. In a study conducted in Ontario between 1993 and 2011, 170 legal decisions referred to parental alienation. In the majority of these cases, the allegations of alienation were unfounded or there was insufficient evidence to reach a verdict.

Let us be clear: parental alienation, a phenomenon that the medical community can observe and measure and that a majority of family law attorneys use, is not abstract and cannot be dismissed on the grounds that it no longer corresponds to the findings of a few researchers with differing opinions on the subject. This implies that the judiciary, many family law attorneys, and in some cases the police, medical professionals, or child protection workers are not doing their jobs properly because they lack the judgment to detect potential acts by an abusive parent who encourages a child to reject the other parent.

Unfortunately, parents sometimes get into a fight where the children can be caught in the middle and used as weapons against the other parent. Quite often, one or both parents will convince one or all of the children to choose a side through a myriad of tactics, arguments, lies and defamatory statements at the expense of the other parent. On the other hand, a child may become alienated from a parent long before the divorce process begins. A child may have experienced abandonment, insecurity, fear, emotional detachment early in life or aggression from a parent. In short, the child might already be detached from a parent and therefore alienated without having been through a divorce.

Historically, divorce has remained a federal jurisdiction since the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1867, which placed marriage and divorce under federal jurisdiction. The stated objective was to ensure that the rules were consistent across provinces and to avoid contentious situations if a spouse decided to move somewhere else in Canada.

Unofficially, this has allowed Quebec to maintain control over family law, despite its clear distinction in the handling of separations by following French civil law tradition. It is therefore a holdover from another era that unnecessarily complicates family law and allows Ottawa to have the final say on marriages. The Bloc Québécois is therefore calling for marriage and divorce to be handed over to Quebec City in order to ensure uniform rights, regardless of the type of union individuals choose.

The Bloc Québécois supports the objectives of Bill C‑223, namely to guarantee the well-being of children in divorce cases, and it is prepared to revisit this sensitive topic. However, we reject the premise that parental alienation has a harmful and disproportionate impact on one group. The proposal to remove this concept from the Criminal Code to avoid cases where this may have happened seems excessive to us.

According to the experts in psychology and law who were consulted, it seems that this phenomenon is rare and that there is no consensus on this matter. Lastly, as previously mentioned, it is difficult to imagine removing a concept that comes from the field of psychology and that has been used by the courts for many decades because of an emerging minority theory that lacks consensus.

One of the cardinal principles of justice is equality before the law. Creating an exception risks causing more harm to children than good. We cannot brush aside the fact that a parent may use coercive alienation against their children. We must trust the various professionals throughout a difficult process such as divorce, and we believe that a parent who engages in parental alienation, intimidation or coercive violence towards their child will ultimately be found out and made to answer for it.

The Bloc Québécois believes that any amendment to the Criminal Code must be carefully considered, and we want to avoid weighing the legislation down with controversial provisions. Nevertheless, we will vote in favour of the bill so that experts can weigh in on the wording and so that the committee can debate the best practices for protecting children during a contentious divorce. If the committee deems it appropriate to improve the bill or remove parts of it where there are differences of opinion, the Bloc Québécois will offer its full co-operation.

Considering that family law is highly developed, regulated, and rooted in Quebec's civil law tradition, the Bloc Québécois calls on the federal government to give up this last piece of common law, the Divorce Act, which is an anomaly in separation and divorce management. This archaic separation, which was politically motivated at the time, is no longer necessary. Quebec courts have shown that they can deal with different separation cases seriously and professionally.

What is more, Quebec's justice minister introduced unified family tribunals, or UFTs. Since October 10, 2025, civil union-related claims are now heard by the Court of Québec's Unified Family Tribunal. This is another example of the Quebec government's expertise and seriousness in this type of civil litigation. Quebeckers simply want to handle divorce proceedings themselves, and they are calling for an end to this two-tiered system.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking to Bill C-223, the keeping children safe act, aimed to strengthen protections for children and survivors in family law proceedings where family violence or coercive control may be present. I want to begin by thanking my friend and colleague the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain for bringing this important legislation forward and for her continued work to ensure that the safety and well-being of children remains at the centre of Canada's family justice system. This bill addresses issues Parliament has examined carefully over many years: family violence, coercive control and the misuse of parental alienation claims and the profound impact these harms can have on children.

At its core, Bill C-223 is guided by a simple and essential principle: When families are in crisis, children must come first. Children are not legal strategies. They are not leverage in disputes. They are individuals with rights, needs and voices who deserve protection. However, Parliament has heard through committee studies and testimony that too often children have been separated from the parent who provides their primary care and safety, not because it was in their best interest but because allegations were raised without a full and informed understanding of family violence or coercive control. This bill seeks to correct this by ensuring that child safety, not litigation tactics, is the guiding principle in family law decisions.

For too long, violence within families has been understood primarily in physical terms, but through research, lived experience and extensive testimony before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the committee learned that harm can also be emotional, psychological, financial and controlling. Coercive control is not a single incident; it is a pattern of behaviour. Witnesses from women's shelters and victim services organizations described how coercive control can include isolating a partner from family or community, monitoring movements, restricting access to finances and using intimidation to instill fear and compliance.

One organization representative told the committee that in their experience supporting survivors, physical violence is almost always preceded by coercive behaviour, and that coercive control often continues even when physical abuse stops. A witness from another victim services organization emphasized that coercive control is a critical warning sign that must not be ignored, particularly when children are involved. Critically, the committee heard that these behaviours often persist after separation and can continue through family law proceedings themselves, impacting family law with respect to children.

One of the most troubling findings of the status of women committee study was how parental alienation claims can be misused in cases involving coercive control. Witnesses explained that when courts do not fully recognize coercive dynamics, protective parents, most often women, may be portrayed as obstructive, while a child's fear or resistance to contact is misunderstood or minimized. In such cases, children may be placed in unsafe situations or separated from the parent who is actually protecting them.

The committee also heard the testimony of witnesses from organizations who described the devastating consequences of failing to recognize coercive control early. They pointed to national inquiries and identified coercive control as a central factor in tragic outcomes, noting that missed opportunities to intervene by institutions and systems can have irreversible consequences for victims and their children. The committee was clear. When coercive control is misunderstood or dismissed, children pay the price.

That is why Bill C-223 matters. The bill would amend the Divorce Act to strengthen protections for children and survivors in family law proceedings where family violence or coercive control may be present. It would do this in several important ways.

First, it would limit the misuse of parental alienation claims, ensuring that courts do not rely on such claims in ways that undermine child safety or silence survivors. This is critical, because survivors should not be blamed for failing to facilitate the child's relationship with an abuser, particularly where violence or coercive control is present.

Second, the bill would prohibit courts from ordering harmful reunification practices that force children into contact intended to repair a relationship with the parent when safety is not assured.

Third, it would expand the responsibilities of legal advisers to ensure that risks of family violence are assessed and that appropriate safety planning is considered during divorce proceedings.

Fourth, it would reinforce that there is no automatic presumption of equal parenting time. This decision must be grounded in the child's best interest, including their safety and well-being. Finally, the bill would strengthen how courts consider the child's voice while protecting their safety and privacy, and direct courts to avoid relying on harmful myths or stereotypes about family violence, such as the assumption that to be credible, abuse must be reported immediately or leave visible injuries.

Together, these measures would help ensure that children are protected, survivors are not penalized, and clear guidance is given.

In 2019, Parliament modernized the Divorce Act to require courts to give primary consideration to a child's safety, security and well-being, and to consider family violence as part of that analysis. Those reforms were significant. However, the status of women committee's work demonstrated that further clarity and reinforcement are needed, particularly when coercive behaviour continues after separation and manifests within the family law proceedings. Bill C-223 would strengthen that foundation by responding directly to what Parliament has learned since.

On November 25, the committee released its report containing some recommendations informed directly by testimonies. These testimonies were from survivors, advocates, shelters and victim services organizations from across Canada. Their voices made it clear that coercive control can take many forms, emotional, psychological, financial and controlling, and that children's safety is at risk when these behaviours are not properly recognized.

The report emphasized that the system must stop penalizing survivors for protecting their children and must instead focus on safety, context and evidence. Bill C-223 responds to those findings. It reinforces that assumptions have no place in family law decisions, and that child safety, not litigation tactics, must guide outcomes.

Violence does not always leave visible marks. Fear can silence families, and children must never be separated from safety. Bill C-223 respects the complexity of family law in Canada while keeping children where they belong, at the centre of every decision. I call on colleagues on all sides of the House to join me in supporting this important legislation. Together we can continue to build a family justice system that is compassionate, evidence-based and firmly centred on keeping children safe.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise for the first time this year to speak to Bill C-223.

Before I begin, I want to extend my warmest wishes for a happy new year to all the residents of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. Over the holidays, many of them took the time to write, call or speak to me directly. I want them to know how much I value those conversations. Hearing from them is essential to my work, and I am truly honoured to represent them in Ottawa in 2026.

The legislation before us, Bill C-223, an act to amend the Divorce Act, addresses an issue that touches families in a deeply personal way. The proposed changes to the Divorce Act are the first in several years, and I appreciate the member opposite for using her private member's bill to focus on such an important area of the law.

For people who may not be familiar with the the bill, I will say that it proposes a number of reforms to the Divorce Act, the first since 2021. Although I was not yet a member of the House at that time, it is clear that those earlier reforms were significant and that many advocates have continued to call for further improvements.

From speaking with people in the communities I represent, people who have been through the family court system, it is evident that inconsistencies in how cases proceed can undermine fairness. Experts have also highlighted how difficult it can be for the courts to properly assess coercive control and psychological abuse, both because of limited resources and because these forms of harm are not always easily defined in law. In addition, despite children being at the centre of these cases, children's voices are still not heard consistently. Alongside this is the very real and very serious issue of parental alienation.

There is much in the bill that I believe members across the House can support. One provision I am particularly glad to see is the explicit direction to courts not to dismiss allegations of family violence simply because there is no police report or no visible injury, or because parties continue to live together. This is a meaningful change, one that resonates with me personally. Many years ago, a friend confided in me that she would be better off if he had hit her. She was living in a coercive, abusive situation that left no bruises but caused deep harm. Her experience was a reminder that violence is not always physical but is no less real.

The bill also proposes requiring legal advisers to assess risks of family violence and to develop safety plans, and it would strengthen the ability of courts to consider coercive control and its impact on parent-child relationships. It would further introduce safeguards around the use of direct testimony from children.

If the bill were limited to these reforms, I expect members would still raise questions about implementation, particularly around the new responsibilities placed on courts and legal professionals. This would be expensive, but it is important. Overall, these are constructive steps.

However, I do have concerns with one aspect of the bill: the provision that would prohibit judges from considering evidence of parental alienation in family law cases. As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate the bill's efforts to broaden the types of evidence courts can consider, especially regarding children's testimony and family violence. Family law cases are complex and emotional, and they often require expert input, yet the bill would prevent judges from considering parental alienation, even when supported by expert analysis.

The bill would allow judges to consider coercive control, often based on expert opinion. I see no reason why judges should not also be permitted to consider parental alienation under the same conditions. Colleagues with legal experience have noted that parental alienation is already recognized in Canadian case law. One colleague from Ontario shared that in more than one-third of proven alienation cases, mothers were the alienated parent, often targeted by the abusive former partner. An absolute prohibition on considering this evidence seems, at best, misguided.

I understand that the bill’s sponsor has worked closely with organizations, such as the National Association of Women and the Law. Its contributions are undoubtedly thoughtful. However, its characterization of parental alienation as junk science is not universally shared. As a lawmaker, not a lawyer, I have reviewed the research, and it is clear that many respected voices in both law and social science disagree with that assessment.

I would draw the House’s attention to a detailed critique published in Law360 by two distinguished scholars: Nicholas Bala, a professor of law at Queen’s University, and Rachel Birnbaum, a social worker and professor at King’s University College, Western University. They raise many of the same concerns I have outlined, particularly regarding the risks of prohibiting judges from considering parental alienation altogether. They also reference rigorous scientific and legal research supporting the validity of parental alienation, including studies published in Developmental Psychology and the University of New Brunswick Law Journal.

I want to close by acknowledging the member’s sincere commitment to improving the safety and well-being of children. Her intentions are good, and I respect the work she has put into this bill, but good intentions alone cannot form the basis of sound legislation. As debate continues, I look forward to hearing from colleagues across the House. Should the bill proceed to committee, I believe it will require careful study and thoughtful amendment, informed by expert testimony. Our goal must be to craft legislation that truly protects children and supports families through some of the most difficult moments of their lives.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you all the best for 2026. I also wish all my colleagues a happy new year filled with happiness, health, serenity, a bit of calm and, above all, kindness for everyone around us. If I may, I would like to point out that I am proudly wearing a purple flower on my lapel to signify recognition and awareness of Alzheimer's disease, hence my mention of kindness. If my colleagues have a chance to thank people from community associations or groups in their ridings who work to help loved ones and those with the disease, I invite them to be kind during Alzheimer's Awareness Month.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-223, an act to amend the Divorce Act. I often say that I am proud to be a social worker in Quebec and a member of my professional association. I might give up my licence on March 31, but I have been a member of my association for many years. I am also a family mediator accredited by Quebec's justice department to help couples who are separating reach mediated agreements. In my practice, I have always worked to make parents understand that a mediation agreement is intended to help them divide up their property, assets and liabilities, but that the primary and most important focus must be the children. The agreement that is reached must be in the best interests of the children.

That is basically what this bill seeks to address by putting the focus back on the children. By amending the bill, it provides even more opportunities to focus on children who go through very difficult experiences when their parents separate. Needless to say, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill so it can be studied in committee, because we can see that its objective is truly to protect children. They are our most precious asset and we agree on the objective. However, in all honesty, a fairly in-depth study will be needed, because many bills are being introduced right now to amend the Criminal Code. When changes are made to the Criminal Code, it is necessary to bring in experts so we can better understand the implications of those changes.

In my practice as a social worker, I have handled about 70 cases where I listened to or helped parents smoothly navigate a divorce or separation and where I made sure, above all else, that the agreement they reached was in the best interests of the children. I witnessed some pretty tough situations. First, I should point out that in Quebec, the Government of Quebec provides five hours of free family mediation so that parents can reach an agreement. This is a good way for us to tell whether mediation is even possible. I can say without hesitation that if a social worker senses that violence is an issue or that the two parties cannot speak freely because of tensions or violent and disrespectful comments, family mediation is off the table. Family mediation is a process where both parties have to participate willingly, and each parent has to let the other speak in order to reach an agreement, which entails compromises. One of these compromises concerns custody.

What I am trying to say is that I have witnessed situations, both personally and professionally, where a child was caught in the middle of a dispute between their parents and where one parent pitted the child against the other parent. This is damaging and devastating to children. It leaves lasting wounds. Whether it is the father or the mother who is using violent language or harassing the other parent, what children want more than anything is to be loved by their parents. In my practice, I noticed that children were sometimes used to score points, either in mediation or in legal proceedings. I noticed that children were often conflicted about loyalty. They did not want to talk too much about what they were experiencing or observing because they did not want to hurt the other parent. I have seen both mothers and fathers use their children against the other parent, putting the children in an impossible situation.

Loyalty conflicts cause children to feel deep emotional pain. If they are not supported and helped, they can carry that pain with them their entire lives. In Quebec, we have tried to develop a tool that is primarily a mediation system focused on the well-being of the children. It allows for discussion and co-operation between the parents.

In 2025, Quebec's justice minister created a unified family tribunal. It deals with and specializes in family matters. This is very important, because the people who judge these cases or who attend the court proceedings need to have a much deeper, more specific understanding of families, separation, and its consequences for children. We can tip our hat to Minister Jolin-Barrette. I do not always agree with everything he says, but, as a social worker and family mediator, I can tip my hat to him. He did a heck of a job creating this tribunal.

All that is to say that, in Quebec, we have made some progress in the area of family law. Most Quebeckers no longer get married in church. Instead, they are opting for civil unions. In Quebec, there is some overlap, in the sense that some couples are married while others are in civil unions. We know that divorce and marriage are federally regulated, while civil unions are regulated by Quebec. We believe that it would be easier if Ottawa delegated all the administrative aspects and jurisdiction over marriage and divorce to the provinces. Some provinces, like Quebec, have a way of approaching cohabitation arrangements, civil unions or marriages that can be different from other jurisdictions. Having full jurisdiction would allow us to better support families and couples who choose separation and divorce.

Now, the bill before us contains some good provisions. We agree with the provision that states a judge does not need a police report to find that spousal violence is an issue in a couple's relationship. We generally agree with that. People with clinical knowledge know that violence is not just physical. It can be psychological and insidious. It can consist of repeated insults that affect a person's physical and mental health. When people lose their sense of self-worth, they often lack the strength to leave a toxic relationship. We agree with this provision.

We are prepared to look at the bill's other provisions as well. I am sure that my colleague from Shefford, our critic for the status of women, will help us improve this bill, but more importantly, she will help us ask the experts questions. We are legislators, but experts in the field advise us. That is the work we are going to do in committee.

The government can count on the full co-operation of the Bloc Québécois in studying this bill both seriously and thoroughly. The most important thing to remember is that the purpose of this bill is to ensure the safety of children, and children must be at the heart of our decisions. The government can therefore count on our support for a healthy and respectful debate on this bill.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-223, the keeping children safe act, introduced by my friend and colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain. I will begin by acknowledging the courage of the many survivors, advocates, legal experts and organizations who have spent years bringing these issues forward, often at great personal cost. I also want to acknowledge the work of the hundreds of organizations across Canada that have called for this reform.

This is an important bill. It would protect children and families as they navigate through the court system. The bill's central purpose is protection for the survivors of intimate-partner violence and their children as they go through the already complex and emotional process of separation and divorce.

This bill allows us to believe survivors and prevent them from being revictimized during the legal process.

At its core, the bill asks whether we are truly centring the best interests of the child or whether we are allowing outdated assumptions and systemic blind spots to put children at risk. The answer matters, because family law decisions are not abstract; in fact they shape children's daily lives, determine whom they live with, whom they see and whether they grow up safe.

Bill C-223 places the best interests of the child at the heart of all decisions. It specifies that there should be no presumption of shared custody and that decisions must be based on the safety, well-being and lived reality of the child.

The bill would require legal advisers to screen for family violence, including coercive control. It would strengthen the court's ability to assess the impact of coercive control on the parent-child relationship. This is critical because coercive control is not always visible in bruises or police reports, but its effects on children are profound and long-lasting.

The bill would ensure that children's views and preferences are meaningfully considered, and that they are not automatically dismissed as the product of manipulation. Bill C-223 would give children the opportunity to be heard in an age-appropriate way, with proper safeguards, and it would make safety a paramount consideration in custody decisions.

Finally, Bill C-223 would prevent courts from issuing orders that retraumatize children, including forced reunification therapies or sudden reversals of primary residence in the absence of evidence that such measures are safe or necessary.

In 2024, Statistics Canada reported that there were only 25,000 child and youth victims of police-reported family violence. We know that these figures only tell part of the story. Many cases of family violence are never reported.

Children who have experienced or witnessed family violence carry trauma that shapes their development, their sense of security and their ability to form healthy relationships. When our family courts fail to take their fears seriously, when courts dismiss their disclosures as manipulation, or when children are forced into the care of parents who have harmed them or who have harmed the other parent, we compound that trauma. We teach them that their voices do not matter, that adults will not protect them and that the system designed to serve their best interests has in fact failed them.

When I served on the status of women committee, we studied coercive control. We heard testimony from survivors, lawyers, psychologists and frontline workers. Again and again we heard how violence does not end when a relationship ends. In fact in many cases it intensifies, through the courts, through custody disputes and through the manipulation of legal processes themselves.

We heard how coercive control operates not only through physical violence but also through fear, surveillance, intimidation and the erosion of autonomy. We heard repeatedly how children are drawn into that control, used as leverage, silenced or forced into situations that are unsafe, in the name of parental rights.

During committee testimony, we heard heart-wrenching stories about the harm that forced reunification had on children. For example, we heard from a 17-year-old girl who told us that she was ordered by the court to go to a reunification camp in New York after her father claimed parental alienation. She told us it felt like she had been “judicially trafficked”. Those are her words.

Among other things, she and her younger brother were told that their negative memories of their father were not real. They were forced to smile in photos, tell their father that they loved him and show physical affection toward their father under the threat that, if they did not, they would not be allowed to see their mother. When this witness was 16, she ran away to try to go to her mom's house. Her father had the police bring her back. She was ultimately under a no-contact order with her mother for over 500 days.

Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. We heard of a young woman who, at age 15, was forced into the custody of her father, who sexually abused her. Children told us over and over again that they felt that they had no voice, that nobody believed them and that there was nobody to talk to, especially when, after they finally told someone, their disclosures of abuse were repeated to the abusive parent, who would then use that to further intimidate and victimize them.

Under this bill, children would be able to tell their story confidentially to the court without fear. This bill treats children as people with agency, not as property to be divided.

Too often, decisions are still influenced by myths and stereotypes, such as the notion that co-parenting is always the best solution, that children who refuse contact have been manipulated, or that a parent, often the mother, who raises safety concerns should be considered unreasonable or uncooperative.

Research shows that mothers are twice as likely as fathers to face allegations of parental alienation, even in cases where violence is documented. Protective actions taken to keep a child safe are reframed as hostility. Fear is reframed as non-cooperation, and children's voices are too often dismissed on the assumption that they cannot be trusted.

Bill C-223 does not remove discretion from judges; it actually guides it with evidence. The bill does not diminish the importance of parental relationships. In fact, it recognizes that a relationship that is unsafe is not a relationship that is in the best interests of the child.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women heard clearly that if the courts do not understand coercive control, they may repeat it. If they prioritize formal equality over actual safety, they put children at risk.

Canada has committed internationally to protecting women and children from violence. The keeping children safe act would build on that commitment by aligning our domestic framework with evidence-based best practices and international human rights obligations. We cannot meet those commitments if our laws remain out of step with what we know.

Bill C-223 asks us to listen to children; take violence seriously, even when it is subtle; and ensure that the justice system does not become another tool of harm.

This bill seeks to ensure that, if families experience violence, they are not revictimized by the very system that should be protecting them.

For these reasons, I am proud to support the keeping children safe act, and I urge all members to do the same.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-223, the keeping children safe act. I want to extend my thanks to the member for Hamilton Mountain for her work on this very important issue.

As the chair of the status of women committee, I heard extensive testimony on coercive control, parental alienation and family violence in Canada. In 2025, our committee released a report recognizing coercive control as a serious form of intimate partner violence, involving repeated psychological abuse, intimidation, stalking, isolation, manipulation, financial control and even cruelty to family pets, all of which undermine the autonomy, safety and well-being of women and children. The report did not just identify the problem but made 16 clear recommendations to address them. These recommendations come directly from survivors, experts and frontline organizations across our country. Therefore, I allow their testimony to inform my perspective as I speak to this legislation today.

Coercive control comes in many forms. It can include constant monitoring, threats, financial control, isolating someone from friends or family, using the legal system to intimidate a former partner and even using the children as leverage to maintain power and control, which is especially prevalent in divorce cases. As we heard, this behaviour often does not stop after separation; in many cases, it only escalates further. Too often, family courts are asked to make decisions without fully recognizing these patterns. Survivors told us that their concerns were minimized, that abuse was treated as a private conflict or that it was dismissed entirely because there was no police report or visible injury. In some cases, protective parents were even accused of alienating their children for raising legitimate safety concerns.

Bill C-223 seeks to address these failures by strengthening and amending the Divorce Act so that courts are better equipped to recognize coercive control and parental alienation.

I would like to briefly outline exactly what the amendments aim to do.

First, the bill would require family law lawyers to assess the risk of family violence and coercive control when representing a client in a divorce, and to take steps to put a safety plan in place where risks exist.

Second, the bill would give courts clearer direction on how coercive control affects parenting and child safety. Coercive control is often not visible or physical but a pattern of behaviour, of things that sometimes are difficult to see. Patterns of intimidation, isolation, threats, manipulation and financial control are things that tend to continue long after separation, and the bill would make it clear that they must be taken seriously.

Third, Bill C-223 would ensure that children's voices are heard through written evidence or in camera interviews with appropriate safeguards. Children are not property to be divided, and their views should not be dismissed simply because they are inconvenient. Children can easily be intimidated by one parent or another, so the measures in this bill would allow written testimony or video interviews, which would prevent the child from being unduly traumatized by the judicial process or being intimidated by one parent or another.

Finally, the bill would bring greater clarity to how parental alienation claims are assessed, ensuring that child safety and the evidence of family violence remain the priority.

The House has already acknowledged that our systems have failed children in the past. I had conversations with Pam Damoff, a former member of Parliament who was a great advocate, talking about Keira's law and what was needed to follow up on that. Members may remember that Keira's law followed the tragic death of Keira Kagan, who was killed by her father after her mother had repeatedly raised concerns about coercive control and family violence that were not adequately recognized in family court. Keira's law requires judges to receive training on intimate partner violence and coercive control. That is an important step, but training alone is not enough. Bill C-223 would build on that work by providing clearer guidance in the Divorce Act so that courts are better equipped to prioritize child safety and recognize warning signs when making custody and parenting decisions.

I would like to spend a bit more time on the issue of parental alienation, because it is important that everyone understands. Deliberately undermining a child's relationship with a loving, safe parent is harmful. It causes long-term emotional damage to children, and when that happens, courts must be able to recognize it and respond appropriately. No child should be used as a pawn in a custody dispute, and no parent should be cut out of their child's life without good reason.

However, our committee also heard clear evidence that allegations of parental alienation have too often been misused in cases involving domestic violence and coercive control. Survivors told us that when they raised legitimate safety concerns, they were accused of manipulating their children simply because the child expressed fear or resistance towards the abusive parent. In some cases, those allegations were accepted without proper scrutiny, and children were removed from a safe parent as a result.

Bill C-223 does not dismiss the possibility of alienating behaviours, but it rejects the idea that alienation should be assumed or used to outweigh evidence of family violence. It requires courts to look at the full context, the patterns of behaviour, power imbalances, and the children's lived experience before reaching possibly devastating conclusions. That balance matters. Protecting children requires recognizing both the real harm caused by true alienation and the very real danger of using alienation claims to silence abuse or dismiss children's fears.

Getting this wrong has serious consequences. When courts act on assumptions instead of evidence, children can be placed back into unsafe situations, causing a generational cycle of distrust in the system. However, parental alienation is not well understood. It was very helpful, when trying to get the courts to recognize coercive control, to provide a list of the types of behaviours that would be admissible to show that pattern of behaviour. I think the same is true for parental alienation. This is one area of the bill that may need some clarification or help in order to ensure that people adequately understand how to recognize true parental alienation when it is occurring.

One of the strongest messages alluded to at committee was that family law does not operate in a vacuum. Decisions made in divorce proceedings affect housing stability, mental health, education and long-term outcomes for children. When our courts miss warning signs or fail to properly assess the risk, these consequences show up in many forms. They show up in children struggling at school with anxiety and trauma that can follow them into adulthood, and in families that lose faith in the justice system that is meant to protect them. That is why it is so important that this legislation encourages courts to get these decisions right.

Clearer guidance on coercive control, stronger recognition of children's experiences and a more careful approach to highly contested concepts like parental alienation all help move family law towards decisions that are evidence-based and centred on safety. When the system works properly, it protects children and gives families the stability they need to move forward.

As this bill moves forward, it deserves careful and thoughtful study. We must ensure it genuinely strengthens child safety, respects due process and avoids unintended consequences. Family law decisions are among the most consequential decisions a court will make. They shape a child's sense of security, stability and trust for years to come.

When families are at their most vulnerable, our law must not make things worse. It must not create incentives or discourage legitimate safety concerns from being raised. Instead, courts must help examine the evidence and focus on patterns of behaviour and the lived experience of the child. Above all, our family law system must remain grounded in evidence and guided by a single clear principle: keeping the child safe. Obviously, there are issues of provincial jurisdiction, since it is provincial courts that typically administer the Divorce Act. The training of all the people involved and ensuring that it is properly executed will be very important. That means listening carefully and doing our best to make decisions that protect children from harm.

This bill is looking at keeping children safe. There has been a lot of work done to keep women safe. I think also there is work to be done to make sure that men are safe.

I do support this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time for the debate has now expired. I will now call on the member for Hamilton Mountain for her five-minute right of reply.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking the dozens of people who came to Ottawa today to support this legislation, because these reforms are urgently needed. We have organizations like the National Association of Women and the Law, Women's Shelters Canada and YWCA Canada. There are 300 women's organizations across this country that support this legislation, because they hear from victims almost every day. These are victims who are asking, “How do I protect my child?”

We have a dentist here who has seen so much family violence in his practice; he did not know how to address it. We have lots of victims, including, as we heard from my friend, a 15-year-old girl. Her dad claimed parental alienation even though he was a sexual abuser. Next year, she will be going to criminal court to testify against him. She was here today to tell people that if this legislation had been in place, she would not have had to go through that.

Opponents ask about about parents' rights, fathers' rights and mothers' rights. I do not think it should be about the parents' rights. I think we should centre every decision on the best interests of the child, especially when there are allegations of abuse.

Right now, in family court, it does not look like allegations of abuse are taken seriously. In fact, it is an aggravating factor if one brings up allegations of abuse during divorce court. We have police and women's organizations in this country today advising women not to disclose to family court that they have suffered abuse, whether it be coercive control or physical abuse, because disclosing that leaves them vulnerable to losing their children, and they just want to protect their children.

We cannot let this stand. We have to listen to children. We have to take domestic violence seriously. We have to treat it, and we have to understand how it affects families, including children.

As my good friend from Brampton South said tonight, let us stop penalizing survivors. As my good friend from Ottawa West—Nepean has said tonight, let us not let the justice system be another tool of harm.

I thank all the members in the House who seem to unanimously be supporting this legislation. Next week, we will vote. Let us send this bill to committee. Let us make it as good as it can be, and let us pass this law so that children are safe in this country again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

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

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 4, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.