Debates of Jan. 28th, 2026

Keeping Children Safe Act

[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.

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

Agriculture and Agri-food

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 3, I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he would abandon the government's proposed regulatory changes to the plant breeders' rights in favour of supporting the rights of farmers who save and re-use their seed. The parliamentary secretary rose and responded that consultations have happened, which completely dodged the question. Less than a week later, on October 9, I rose in the House to present a petition signed by more than 6,000 Canadians who want the same answer to the same unanswered question.

Amending the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, as the government has proposed to do, would be, as I said in October, harmful and reckless. It would force farmers to purchase seed annually, and it would drive up production costs, restrict access to new varieties and undermine the ability of farmers to adapt to climate change. It would undermine the age-old practice of farmers' using farm-safe seed, forcing them to buy seeds or pay royalties year after year.

That is what the CFIA's proposed regulatory changes would do to the people who grow Canada's fruit, vegetable, ornamental and hybrid varieties.

I am rising again tonight on the issue because in the government's response to my e-petition 6778, which was signed by more than 6,000 Canadians, it missed the mark and left the farm community perplexed about whom the government is actually trying to help with its changes. It is certainly not the hard-working farmers who produce our food.

The National Farmers Union has been banging the alarm bell on this issue, and I want to thank its members for their tireless advocacy and for keeping this important issue at the forefront. Earlier this month they wrote to the agriculture minister expressing their disappointment with the government's response to the e-petition and, once again, urging the government to abandon its proposed amendments to the plant breeders' rights regulations removing farmer privilege to certain crops.

That letter from the National Farmers Union was co-signed by many other major agricultural stakeholder groups from across Canada, including the Atlantic Canadian Organic Regional Network, the Canada Organic Trade Association, the Canadian Organic Growers, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario, FarmFolk CityFolk, Friends of the Earth Canada, Growers of Organic Food Yukon, Manitoba Organics, Organic Alberta, SaskOrganics, SeedChange and Young Agrarians.

The co-signatories on the letter feel the government's response to this issue was inadequate and is not reflective of a government that purports to take farmers' concerns seriously. They note that the government failed to provide a thoughtful response that properly acknowledged the validity of the points made in the e-petition, including forcing farmers to buy seed and/or propagating material annually, which would increase production costs, allow plant breeders to raise prices, prevent access to new varieties that are not available commercially, and prevent farmers from adapting their crops to changing climatic conditions on their farms.

They also state that removing farmers' privilege for new fruit, vegetable and ornamental varieties would unfairly encroach upon farmers' age-old practice of using farm-saved seed. The CFIA wants private investment in plant breeding to become more profitable by taking more revenue from farmers. Canada should provide more support to our public plant breeding system, which benefits farmers and the public. Farmers' privilege is key to food security and Canada's sovereignty. Ensuring that farmers can reproduce crops on their own farms, even if supply chain or climate impacts restrict the supply of propagating material, is critical.

I should note that this letter was sent to the whole of cabinet, including the Prime Minister. In all sincerity I say that I have a copy of that letter with me this evening if the government needs a copy.

I hope the parliamentary secretary is prepared to address these concerns in a more fulsome way than was done during question period in October. I stand alongside these incredible organizations in calling on the government to abandon the proposed regulatory amendments, protect farmers and support farmers' rights through this real action, not empty words. I look forward to the response.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising this important point in the context of the debate this evening. In my view, we do not talk about agriculture very often and yet agriculture is central to our economy, Canadians' lives and food security, as my colleague referred to. A country that does not feed its people is a country with few options, as our Prime Minister said so well. I would add that, today, the issue of food security is more important than ever.

I am pleased to rise in the House and have the opportunity to speak to the proposed amendments to the plant breeders' rights regulations. I want to talk about the importance of plant breeders' rights in Canada and how they relate to the long-standing practice of saving seed for replanting. I also want to talk about the ongoing consultations with farmers, which my colleague spoke about earlier.

The government remains steadfast in its support of our vibrant agricultural sector, which benefits Canadian farmers and our wider agri-food industry. A direct way we can support this sector is by modernizing our regulations, and the sector all across Canada is asking for that. The proposed amendments are designed to foster innovation in plant breeding and address key challenges such as climate resilience, crop yield and sustainable production.

Plant breeders' rights are a vital form of intellectual property protection. They provide an incentive to plant breeders to invest time and money into creating new resilient plants, which we need. We want to help protect plant breeders' rights in the same way we are protecting other inventors and their creations.

We know that our hard-working farmers face serious threats from increasingly unpredictable and extreme weather events, as well as other dangers that threaten crops and orchards. Our goal is to support them by reducing crop losses and improving innovation and productivity. We can achieve this by encouraging breeders to develop varieties that are resilient to climate change.

That will help Canadian farmers adapt to the effects of climate change, offering options to fight drought, heat and disease, and I have a lot more I want to say.

Last year, the CFIA held consultations and then published a “what we heard” report that indicated strong support. The report showed that 90% of the feedback received supported those amendments.

The most recent consultation period is coming to an end, and we are now reviewing the new comments we have received, including those presented here by my colleague. This will be completed in the coming weeks.

That said, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We remain fully available to all Canadians who may have concerns about this issue. Consultations are still ongoing.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I stand alongside these incredible organizations, which I talked about earlier, representing small farmers. They are calling on the government to abandon these proposed regulatory amendments, to protect farmers and to support farmers' rights through real action and not empty words. From what I just heard, I do not feel the government is going to do that, but it needs to come clean, explain its rationale and listen to the impact this is going to have on these farmers.

The ask of the stakeholders, who represent hundreds of thousands of farmers who grow our food, is simple: Will the government show, through concrete action and not empty words, that it respects a farmer's right to the age-old practice of collecting and saving their own farm seed, and abandon these harmful regulatory changes?

There are different sizes of farms. There are different farmers' needs, but these organizations represent a lot of farmers. They are being ignored, and I hope that the government will come clean on what it is proposing to do.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the importance of a farmer's privilege, which my colleague referred to, to save and replant seeds. The proposed regulatory amendment would help clarify this concept, and that is what we will do.

The proposed changes do not alter the right to save and reuse seeds, such as grains and legumes, which is a long-standing practice.

Farmers' privilege would not apply to crops such as hybrids, fruits, vegetables or ornamentals, which in many cases are propagated, or copied, through vegetative reproduction.

Indeed, it would be unfair for an orchard owner to grow hundreds of trees from cuttings taken from a single apple tree without compensating the breeder for the years they devoted to developing a new variety, which often takes 15 to 25 years. Nevertheless, our farmers will still have the option of purchasing plants that are not protected.

Health

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the government on the privatization of health care in Alberta. I want to be very clear: This is something that is starting in Alberta but something that I am deeply worried will have impacts across this country. I also want to be clear: This is not a theoretical issue. This is a debate; it is a conversation that Canadians need to have.

On December 22, a father of three, a 44-year-old man, went to the Grey Nuns Community Hospital in Edmonton. He waited eight hours with chest pains. He lost his life. Those three children do not have a father any longer because of our failing health care system.

When I asked the minister what she was going to do to protect the Canada Health Act, to protect Canadians in this country, including Albertans, her response was wholly inadequate, talking about innovation and about building infrastructure at a moment in time when the failure of the health care system in Alberta has caused people to lose their lives.

I want to quote Dr. Paul Parks. He is a Medicine Hat ER physician, and he is the past president of the Alberta Medical Association. He said, “I've been here 25 years and never seen it [so] bad.” This is the reality that we are living with, with our health care system in Alberta.

Make no mistake: When Danielle Smith brings forward a bill like Bill 11, that is the biggest attack on our health care system since Tommy Douglas and the NDP made medicare a reality in this country. For every Canadian who cherishes a health care system that is public, that is universally accessible and that is delivered to every single Canadian equitably, this is the biggest threat, this threat that we see from Danielle Smith. I saw Scott Moe put up his hand and say, “That sounds great to me.”

People in my province are dying because our health care system is failing, and what they need right now is a federal government that stands up and defends the law of this land, the Canada Health Act. That is our law. That is the federal law; that is our jurisdiction.

I asked the minister, “Where is that line? At what point are you going to step in? At what point are you going to say that attacking our public health care system is un-Canadian? At what point do you look at that and say that Canadians do not want a two-tiered, American-style health care system?” I wrote to the Prime Minister. We have been pleading with the government to step in, to take the steps necessary and to defend the Canada Health Act to ensure that all Canadians, including Albertans, have access to publicly delivered, universally accessible health care.

When I stand in this place and I ask the question of the minister, I get nothing. I am going to ask again: Where is the line? When will the Liberal government live up to its obligations to Canadians and in fact enforce the Canada Health Act?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time speaking in the House in the new year, so I want to start by wishing everyone a happy new year. I look forward to working together with colleagues from all parties at a time that demands unity.

Our government was elected last year with the promise to build Canada strong. We understand the importance of nation-building projects, and let me be clear that there is no greater nation-building project in Canada's history than the Canada Health Act. Our government will always defend and protect the Canada Health Act because we recognize that our universal health care system underpins our economic strength. To build Canada strong, we need healthy Canadians.

This is reflected in budget 2025, which makes generational investments in health care. We are investing $5 billion in building Canada's health care infrastructure, in attracting top research talents from around the world and in a comprehensive assessment of health care and health infrastructure needs in the north. These are critical investments that will build Canada's health care capacity from coast to coast to coast. Whether it is helping to build a new hospital or attracting researchers who will make their scientific breakthroughs here in Canada, our government is demonstrating in budget 2025 that we are doing our part.

It is deeply disappointing that the member for Edmonton Strathcona voted against the budget. At a time when we need to make generational investments, it is sad to see that she and many members of her party would rather play politics than build up health care across the country, including in Alberta.

In building our health care capacity, we of course need to work closely with our provincial and territorial partners. We have always been clear that, if a province or territory needs help in delivering health care to it citizens, we are there to help because we recognize that access to medically necessary health care should be based on medical needs, not someone's ability to pay.

By working with our provincial and territorial partners, and most importantly, by making key investments that build up health care infrastructures from coast to coast to coast, we will make sure that universal health care continues to be Canada's defining nation-building project and achievement.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was not a response to my question about when the government is going to step in to tell Danielle Smith to adhere to the Canada Health Act.

I want to talk about one other piece that Danielle Smith is attacking, which is the rights of trans kids and trans people in my province. She is interfering in the relationships that trans people have with their doctors. There are three people that should be in the room when trans kids are talking about their health care: them, their parents and their doctors. The fact that Danielle Smith seems to feel that she needs to use the notwithstanding clause so that she can insert herself in those conversations is disgusting.

I would ask that the government use the powers it has to protect human rights and our public health care system in this country.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good that the NDP and the member opposite are speaking up for the Canada Health Act, but they need to back up their words with actions by backing budget 2025 and ensuring that needed investments in health care infrastructure can flow to where they are needed the most.

Our government will always defend universal health care, but we understand that defending the Canada Health Act means investing in the health care system.

International Trade

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the Prime Minister argued for an aggressive elbows-up approach with the United States. Then in November, in the wake of Donald Trump's crippling tariffs and the ongoing trade war, the Prime Minister was asked during a G20 summit when he had last spoken to the President. His response was to flippantly say, “Who cares?” This was an insensitive remark, particularly to the thousands of Canadians in the auto, forestry, steel and aluminum industries who had lost their jobs since the Prime Minister came to office.

With his having gone from “elbows up” to “who cares”, having failed to keep his election promise of having a new trade deal with the United States by July, having gone to Washington in October and come back without a trade deal, having seen softwood tariffs triple and having seen thousands of layoffs, I asked the Prime Minister when Canadians might expect a trade deal. My question was a serious question, a relevant question and timely. It might have been a bit aggressive, but the parliamentary secretary's response that afternoon was simply to insult me and my party.

He offered no apology for the Prime Minister's insensitivity to workers, no excuses for the broken promises on trade deals and no path forward. He just patted himself and his government on the back for their relief efforts. The parliamentary secretary's insolence in question period is not really the reason I have brought this back for an adjournment debate. I am here tonight because in the last two months, the underlying issues that precipitated the “who cares” response remain unresolved. The Prime Minister's flippant attitude toward journalists and parliamentarians is showing a troubling pattern.

Only this past week, the Prime Minister was asked how talks with President Trump were going. He said, “That's the most boring question. Think of a new one.”

What an astonishingly arrogant and condescending response to a basic, normal, pertinent question from a journalist. Canadians expect clarity and respect from their Prime Minister and from those who speak for the government in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister was elected to get results for Canadians, and he made many very specific commitments during the election. He did promise a trade deal with the United States by this past July, and he has failed to deliver one. We all know that Donald Trump's attacks on the Canadian economy are unjust and unprovoked, and that his insults and threats to Canadian sovereignty are appalling, but the Prime Minister has made promises to Canadians within this known environment and he has failed to keep those promises.

Tonight, the parliamentary secretary has an opportunity to show some compassion for Canadians who have lost their livelihood as a result of tariffs unjustly imposed by Trump. Every day in question period, we hear heartbreaking stories of mill closures. These people care if and when the Prime Minister has spoken to the President. They do not think it is boring. They are increasingly aware of how unprepared Canada has become for the crisis before us. For 10 years, the government has driven hundreds of billions of dollars out of the country. The Liberals have shut down private investment in new pipeline construction. For 10 years, they have broken all of their promises on the deficit, the debt, spending, infrastructure construction and a host of other things they promised in 2015.

I am going to keep demanding accountability from the government. I will not forget that the Prime Minister and the government made a promise that they have not delivered.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might think nobody cares, but I would beg to differ with him. Canadians have been witnessing a government that is serious about all of our economic relationships, and the pace and scale at which our government is acting is truly unprecedented. Just to take an example, today we all heard about an announcement. The Minister of Industry has signed an MOU with the Republic of Korea. However, there are many more examples.

In fairness to my hon. friend, he has asked about the significance of our relationship with our largest trading partner, the United States. Canada's trade relationship with the United States remains one of the most important economic partnerships in the world. It is a relationship that has long supported our shared prosperity by creating jobs, fostering innovation and contributing to economic stability on both sides of the border. I think that is something the hon. member will agree with.

Today, we can all see that we face a disrupted global trading order with long-standing assumptions being upended. As we navigate this challenging period, we will continue to seek solutions with the United States, while also, of course, pursuing a broader strategy of trade diversification and building one Canadian economy. We certainly remain committed to the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and we are taking the CUSMA review very seriously.

To buttress my point, I think it is important to remind the member that this past Sunday, several days ago, the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade had a very cordial and productive discussion with the U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Jamieson Greer, where he reiterated that Canada remains fully committed to CUSMA. In turn, it is also important I point out that Ambassador Greer confirmed a very clear desire to work with both Canada and Mexico as we begin this review process.

We are ready, and I think it is important for the member to know that. We have been conducting consultations across our country. We have been hearing from industry stakeholders. We have been working closely with the provinces and territories, and we are leaving no stone unturned to make sure we stand up for Canada. It is important to bear in mind that we will take the time needed and necessary to reach a deal that is in the best interests of Canadian workers and Canadian industry.

To further this momentum, as I am sure the member is well aware, the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade will soon be leading a high-level delegation to Mexico, which includes prominent business leaders and representatives from key economic sectors. I am told, and from everything I see, this is going to be one of the largest trade delegations Canada has ever sent out into the world.

This is all to say, the changes we are experiencing are taking place in real time and the trade landscape is shifting, but our government is doing everything with respect to the CUSMA review and also with respect to all the economic relationships we currently maintain.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that it was not the parliamentary secretary who gave us such an arrogant, flippant answer in the question period from which this debate arose, but I will remind him that he ran in 2015, 10 years ago. He was elected when I was. They ran on a platform then to build infrastructure, unprecedented infrastructure, historic infrastructure.

Ten years later, countless deficits later, there are piles of new debt, and they are still talking about building. They were re-elected nearly a year ago with the promise to have a new trade deal in July. It has not happened. They talked about unprecedented speeds of construction, and nothing is being built. It is all empty promises.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking nothing for granted. The hon. member is absolutely correct. When we were first elected, our government appreciated full well how important infrastructure is, and I can assure him the same remains true today.

We are very much focused on this challenge. As the member is aware, and I do not know if he has had the opportunity to read the budget, we are investing strategically across this country. We obviously care about the one Canadian economy, but there is also the trade corridor fund, which is so incredibly important to allow us to position ourselves to have more robust trade with countries around the world.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:24 p.m.)