Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, so I spent much of the summer checking in on businesses on Hamilton Mountain to see how they are managing the unfair U.S. tariffs that have upended their business models. One particular highlight was my visit to Niko Apparel Systems with owner Joe Camillo. The factory floor has 66 advanced machines for designing and sewing niche market sports jerseys. One employee, Olga, proudly described how she juggles six different threads at a time while sewing jerseys for local hockey, cycling or lacrosse teams, or referee jerseys for Ron Foxcroft. These are jerseys designed and made on Hamilton Mountain with Canadian materials. Hamilton businesses are fiercely proud to be Canadian. The U.S. tariffs are a threat, but thanks to the regional tariff response initiative, our government is helping businesses such as Niko expand and adapt despite these trying economic times. Niko has been on the mountain for 30 years. We want to see it continue for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “The Effects of Influencers and Social Media Content on Children and Adolescents”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. While I have the floor, I move: That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Mr. Speaker, today on Parliament Hill, I recognize and applaud the leadership of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. Bravo to the team for their first Canadian Screen Award for best national newscast. It is likely not the last such award, given the talent and hard work among the journalists and the rest of the news team. In 1999, the APTN became the first national indigenous broadcaster in the world. Since then, the APTN has continued to grow, connecting indigenous and non-indigenous audiences. These are stories and perspectives that would not be heard if it were not for the network dedicated to indigenous people and their stories. Given that we are in National Indigenous History Month, I would encourage all colleagues to check out all of the APTN offerings, from the award-winning national broadcast to the sports coverage and the brilliant new North of North TV series. Congratulations, APTN, on 10 Canadian Screen Awards this year.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member brought up Lucy Maud Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables. I read all of those books when I was a little girl growing up. That was before the Internet, when Canadians were able to talk to each other and find Canadian content. We have heard at heritage committee, over and over again from Canadian artists in every genre, that they would have not made it as far as they did without the supports and the Canadian content rules we have in place today. Does the member opposite believe that it is important to have Canadian culture?

Mr. Speaker, today on Parliament Hill, we welcome police unions from across the country, including a stellar team from my riding in Hamilton. I got to know a lot of police officers in my previous role as a journalist, particularly in my specialty of covering criminal court cases. I appreciated how all the elements of crime were laid bare in a trial, and I learned how doggedly detectives had to work in order to crack a case. I saw how much the officers cared, how they got to know the families of the victims, felt their pain and did what they could to make the process easier. Police officers have truly difficult jobs, but they do them with dedication. On their days off, they are typically raising money for causes or raising awareness about harms. We must ensure that police officers have the tools and resources they need to fulfill their mandates to keep our communities strong and safe. We should thank police, loudly and often, for their vital work.

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the permanent Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I have the great honour and pleasure of presenting three reports to the House of Commons today. First, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “Impacts of Artificial Intelligence on the Creative Industries”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. Second, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in relation to Bill S-227, an act respecting Arab heritage month. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment. Third, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in relation to Bill S-210, an act respecting Ukrainian heritage month. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment. It is clearly a very busy and very productive committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill S-211 today, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting, for many of the reasons we have heard already this evening. I am not someone who spends a lot of time watching professional sports, I will admit, but they are often on my TV when I am home with my family, and even I have noticed that sports betting ads are ubiquitous. It has become a topic of conversation in our house that people are not just watching sports anymore; they are participating with their money. They can bet on the next play of the football game they are watching or how many points a professional baseball player might make. Every few minutes, there is an ad encouraging Canadians to gamble, because watching sports seems to no longer be enough of an experience in itself. Our sports, sports figures and teams are part of our national identity. Sports have long brought Canadians together, and now Canadians have to navigate endless gambling advertisements in order to watch a game or a competition. For many people, this presents a risky temptation. Back in the early 2000s, when I was a journalist, I got to know a prominent Hamilton man who lost his career due to a gambling addiction. We spoke at length about this, and he introduced me to some of the men he had met at Gamblers Anonymous. All of them were people who had important careers until they lost everything due to their gambling addictions, including a lawyer who was supposed to be appointed to the Superior Court bench the same day that police were raiding his offices to find evidence that he had stolen money from clients to fuel his gambling addiction. We did a whole long TV series about this, and these people told me how difficult it was to resist when they were routinely bombarded by advertising that compelled them to keep spending money at casinos and other gambling venues. Remember, this was back in the early 2000s. It was before the tsunami of social media and the avalanche of betting sites we have available online today. Today the world is different. We know this. It is not just adults in the prime of their careers who are falling into destitution and despair due to addictive behaviours. Elderly people, vulnerable people and people susceptible to mental and physical harms are all being bombarded with the same sports advertising. Today children are glued to their devices. They are watching sports and, inevitably, are fed a constant stream of sports betting advertising. Gambling has become normalized as a part of sports. This is what our children are learning as they grow up. I chair the permanent Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We recently completed a study on the impacts of social media on young people, and we heard that many online applications used by children encourage addictive behaviour. The gamification of everything means that our kids are becoming addicted to their favourite vice earlier and earlier in life. They are learning how to become addicts. We heard this testimony from several witnesses. For example, Maude Bonenfant, the Canada Research Chair in Gaming, Technologies and Society and a professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, told us that platforms use games of chance and money. They use gambling as a strategy to keep users engaged as long as possible, and the line between video games and gambling is becoming increasingly blurred, so video games are becoming more like gambling. There is more betting within video games, and the algorithms are increasingly sophisticated, with the aim of keeping kids immersed in online content through gambling. Michael Cooper from Mental Health Research Canada told us that one addictive behaviour can be a catalyst for another addictive behaviour. For example, people who spend more than six hours online are more than twice as likely to be at high risk for alcohol and cannabis abuse and a host of other addictions. The same is true for gambling. This normalizing of gambling in everyday life can mean, according to Cooper, that our ability to regulate ourselves in the face of temptation is broken. Today, we are inundated with enticements to gamble, particularly in sports. Bill S-211 is a first step in preserving the integrity of the sports culture in Canada, but it is also about preserving the mental health of Canadians. Our colleague from Waterloo and other members have spoken about the former Bill C-218, the Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act. This was something Parliament brought and became law in 2021, because before that, all we had was black-market bookies with ties to criminal organizations. The bill was an attempt to put the industry under the purview of the provinces so that it had greater oversight. However, today, only Ontario in Canada authorizes third party gambling operators, as we have heard several times tonight, and sports betting operators have taken full advantage. They have purchased oodles of ad space on regional and national broadcasts, particularly on sports channels during sporting events. Some estimates say that we are subjected to three gambling ads every minute while we are watching sports on TV. We now see sports betting ads even when we are watching live. They appear on athletes' jerseys and on the boards around the ice rinks. In Canada today, we have more than 19 million active online gamblers. This is one of our fastest-growing industries. Canada rates eighth in the world for the most money spent on gambling, about $4 billion every year. Also, as I impressed upon this chamber earlier, children, teens and vulnerable people are also watching these games. They are talking about the experience the next day with their friends and their community. Do we really want them to think of gambling as a normal part of taking in a sporting activity, or even that a person has not really experienced a game if they have not put some money down on an outcome or player? We need to deeply consider whether we want important, healthy Canadian cultural institutions to be intertwined with the often harmful habit of gambling. Research shows that the more we are exposed to gambling ads, the more positive our attitude becomes toward gambling, intentions to gamble become greater and gambling activities increase. The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction found that almost one in four young people who bet online reported harms due to gambling behaviour, and that online sports betting is associated with double the risk of gambling harms compared to other forms of gambling. Also, sports betting advertising is four times more appealing to children than adults. I learned a lot about the significant impacts that problem gamblers face when I did that news series 25 years ago: impacts on their own health, on their mental health and on their well-being, and equal impacts on their family and their loved ones. Problem gamblers are four times more likely to have anxiety and depression, and seven times as likely to have planned suicide in the past 12 months. Excessive advertising can exacerbate all of these issues, as I heard from problem gamblers, and that was a quarter century ago, long before the onslaught of the advertising we face today. Researchers say that there is a possibility of a connection between the extent of exposure to advertising and the intensity of the gambling addiction. Bill S-211 asks the federal government to establish a national framework, regulate sports betting advertising, provide tools for the prevention and diagnosis of gambling and support those who are impacted by a harmful gambling addiction. Canadians agree that something should be done. In 2024, a poll by Maru Group found that most Canadians have a negative attitude toward gambling ads: 75% say that we need to protect children and youth from gambling ads, 66% say that those commercials should not be allowed during live broadcasts and 59% believe in a national ban on this type of advertising. When we pair gambling with the broadcast of a game, we normalize sports betting as an integral part of the sport experience. It is not. I will leave members with words from Bruce Kidd, a retired professor of sports policy. He wrote an article in The Globe and Mail on February 7, in which he established that about four million Canadians, the population of about Alberta, are at risk of a gambling addiction. He said: Think about multiples of the number of people who watch a Blue Jays game in Rogers Stadium. And then think about their families. If we fail to pass Bill S-211, those will be the numbers of...people we’ll have abandoned to the careless greed of the advertisers who think they’re doing their part by saying over and over again—and disingenuously, of course—“Please gamble responsibly.”

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.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I do not really understand where my colleague's opposition to this bill is coming from. Bill C-16 restores mandatory minimum penalties, which is something he is advocating for. We know that every time the government has tried to impose a mandatory minimum sentence in Canada it gets thrown out by the Supreme Court because, in some cases, it can violate a person's rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-16 gives us exactly what the Supreme Court has been asking for in those very rare cases. For example, if a 17-year-old shares an intimate photo of a 16-year-old girlfriend with his friend, does he go to prison for 25 years? It is definitely a bad thing he has done. The bill addresses all of the issues the member has just raised.

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and the government's ongoing efforts to protect children and ensure that child sex exploitation is unequivocally denounced, deterred and prevented. Colleagues may know that I also have a private member's bill coming up for second reading in a couple of days, the keeping children safe act. I feel that this bill works in the criminal context to do what my bill does in the family courts. It protects children, it gives them a voice and it protects them from coercive control after a relationship is done. I served as a journalist for more than 20 years. I spent a lot of that time in criminal court, so I know a lot of victims of really heinous crimes. I know that they expect a justice system that does not tolerate things like sexual exploitation, that protects victims and that hands serious consequences to people who commit serious crimes. Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, reflects the government's commitment to ensure that our criminal law is strong, principled and capable of meeting that responsibility. I will start by addressing the mandatory minimums that we have heard so much about here in this chamber today. I know it has been a controversial topic. I have covered criminal court, and it has been a controversial topic for decades. Mandatory minimum penalties, for those who are not aware, mean that a judge cannot impose a sentence any lower than the prescribed minimum penalty, regardless of the circumstances. They can impose a longer sentence, but they can never impose a shorter sentence. It does not matter what the evidence was that they heard. Victims like mandatory minimum penalties because they clearly denounce serious crimes. They can be a deterrent for some offenders, but they can also be unfair in some circumstances. That is what we have heard from the Supreme Court. Judges currently do not have any discretion, even if they feel that a mandatory minimum is too harsh for the particular case that is in front of them. Mandatory minimums risk violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They can result in grossly disproportionate sentences. Unlike what we have heard from the Conservatives so far today, “grossly disproportionate” is a really high threshold. It means that it must outrage our society's sense of decency and that Canadians would find the sentence abhorrent or intolerable. That is the only time a judge would be allowed to use this mechanism, because there is no mechanism like this. Mandatory minimums have been declared unconstitutional by courts across Canada, including in child sex offence cases. However, the government agrees that mandatory minimums can be a good thing. They can denounce and deter some of the most serious crimes. That is why we have these provisions in Bill C-16. That is why we see this decisive, immediate action and these reforms in Bill C-16, where we would amend the Criminal Code to restore mandatory minimum penalties that have been found unconstitutional by the courts. We would do this by including a provision that provides judges the ability to have some discretion. They could order a sentence of imprisonment lower than the statutory mandatory minimum, but in very narrow situations. In most cases, the mandatory minimum would still apply, but if the court is sentencing an offender for something where the mandatory minimum will be found to be grossly disproportionate, should we just let it go to the Supreme Court to be thrown out and not have that law at all? With Bill C-16, the court does not need to do that. It does not need to throw it out. It does not need to find a mandatory minimum unconstitutional, and there would always still be a prison sentence. A conditional sentence would not apply in these circumstances. We would strike a balance, as the Supreme Court suggested. This is an approach that is responsive to stakeholders and suggestions that have been made repeatedly by the courts. When Bill C-16 comes into force, all the mandatory minimums that were found unconstitutional but that remain on the federal statute book would be considered restored. They would all come back into force. The courts would once again be required to impose mandatory minimum penalties for all the offences for which the penalty has not been repealed from the law, except in the rarest cases where the mandatory minimum penalty would result in cruel and unusual punishment for the offender before the court. It is a very high bar. I know victims will appreciate these measures, and I applaud the government for finding this middle ground. I also want to say that, as a feminist, I am so proud of this legislation. I am so proud that Canada is bringing this legislation forward. We know that gender-based violence and sexual exploitation are growing in this country. Around the world, they are growing. Online and off-line, predators are increasingly using digital tools to target our children. Bill C-16 addresses that. We heard about the victims who did not have their cases heard at all in court because of Jordan's principle. Bill C-16 would deal with those delays we have seen in court. That means that more cases would actually be heard in court. The bill addresses and calls out femicide. It addresses criminal harassment and the non-consensual sharing of images, particularly deepfake images produced by AI. As we have heard, which makes my heart sing, Bill C-16 would criminalize coercive control. I was here in the last Parliament when former NDP member Laurel Collins brought the coercive control bill to Parliament. I remember the impassioned speech that she gave about why we need this law on our books. Bill C-16 takes that private member's bill, the amended version of it that was meant to pass in the House, and incorporates it. Too many women and children are living in fear in this country. My private member's bill and Bill C-16 address a lot of their concerns, and I encourage all members of the House to support them.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to explain. It has not been happening all over. It has been happening at the Supreme Court when a case comes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decides that we cannot have a mandatory minimum sentence if it is too broad, if it encompasses a situation where Canadians would find it abhorrent for the mandatory minimum sentence to be applied. It is a very high bar. A case the Supreme Court talked about, for example, was if a 17-year-old shared an intimate picture of his 16-year-old girlfriend with a friend. It is a terrible thing. It is illegal and he should not do that, but should he spend his entire life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years? Most Canadians would say no, and that is why the Supreme Court said that we need to have an off-ramp. We need to give judges discretion. They have to be able to hear all of the evidence. In the worst cases, yes, we need a mandatory minimum. We need people to know that these crimes are intolerable in Canada. However, for those cases, if we want the Supreme Court not to throw out the mandatory minimum penalties, we need this off-ramp.

Mr. Speaker, I was not involved in the drafting of this bill, but I am certain it was evidence-based. We do know that Canadians want mandatory minimums when they are appropriate and that they can deter crimes. I have sat in criminal courts too long not to understand the member's skepticism and to feel it a bit. It is hard to imagine that a criminal would be deterred from committing a horrific crime if they know the sentencing threshold if they get caught. It is hard to imagine. The principle in court, I believe, is that a mandatory minimum can denounce a crime and also deter it from happening.

Madam Speaker, as a kid at Christmas, all I wanted to unwrap was the latest Little House on the Prairie or Nancy Drew book, and as I hit my teens, it was all about Margaret Atwood. Her books informed my feminism, inspired my sense of humour and instilled in me a lifelong love of dystopian fantasy fiction. Earlier this week, at the start of 16 Days of activism against gender-based violence, I saw her on stage in Hamilton in front of 1,500 rabid fans, and I was reminded of just how powerful a woman's voice can be. This event was for Interval House of Hamilton, which supports women fleeing violence and trains men and boys to avoid hypermasculine misogyny. I have read them all, but my favourite Margaret Atwood book is the MaddAddam trilogy, where we read, “we must be a beacon of hope, because if you tell people there's nothing they can do, they will do worse than nothing.” Beacons of hope, like Margaret Atwood and Interval House, remind us that we can all do something about gender-based violence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reflect on last week's ceremonies of remembrance. November 11 is always special at the Royal Canadian Legion on Hamilton Mountain, in part because of the valiant leadership of Jean Tomlinson, but particularly because of the Reverend Chisholm. Rev. Dr. Francis Chisholm, a World War II vet, padre since 1964, is still captivating at 99 years old; the junior Rev. Chisholm, his daughter, is another inspiring leader. Last week was also the 75th anniversary of the Korean War. An event was hosted by Hamilton Mountain's HooJung Jones, the most ardent advocate for the 1950s conflict we have in this country. That conflict saw 26,000 Canadians go to war, and 516 of them did not come home. Because of the champions in our community, we will never forget.

Mr. Speaker, my friend's speech was very eloquent. I know that he has a background in law, and I think a lot of parts of his speech were particularly poignant. He mentioned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I know that some of the things the Conservatives accused the Liberals of doing were actually overturned by the Supreme Court because they were found to be unconstitutional because they lead to some of the things that he said in his speech about the injustices in our justice system. Does the member believe that Canadians want us to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or should we just use the notwithstanding clause every time there is a political uproar about something?

Madam Speaker, Bill C-3 sets out a balanced, straightforward framework for citizenship. Canadian parents born abroad would be able to pass on their citizenship if they can prove a substantial connection to Canada before the birth or adoption of their child. This is fair. Would the parliamentary secretary for immigration please share with the House what would be at stake if we were not to act today to advance Bill C-3?

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite was a journalist in his former life, as I was in my former life. In that role, we get to know a lot of victims of crime. I appreciate the heart the member brought to this legislation and the intent behind it. I, too, know some of the victims he has spoken of today. I wonder if the member has any concerns that this bill, as it is written, may violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and may therefore not pass muster when it comes to the Supreme Court of Canada. He mentioned that consecutive terms were thrown out by the Supreme Court at one point. Does he have concerns about this, and if so, what would be his remedy?

moved that Bill C-223, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, I feel enormously honoured to stand here today with significant amendments to the Divorce Act in a bill entitled the “keeping children safe act”. This bill would give children a voice in divorce proceedings and stop the increasing and egregious practice of disregarding children's views and preferences under the pretense they have been manipulated or alienated by a parent. It would prevent judges from restricting a child's time with one parent to improve the relationship with the other parent, and it would prevent courts from forcing children to attend so-called “reunification therapy”. This bill would require legal advisers to remedy the effects of domestic violence and coercive control rather than discount them or even punish disclosures. It would change the existing premise in family courts that children are property that must be split equally between parties in a divorce. I want to thank the National Association of Women and the Law, and particularly Suzanne Zacour, for first raising with me the extreme and widespread issues in family court about a year ago. NAWL introduced me to survivors, parents accused of alienation and children forced into bizarre programs that seem like the conversion therapy this House banned four years ago. I was horrified. I brought them all to testify at the status of women committee last year during our coercive control study, and I am sure all members who were there during their testimony will remember it vividly. NAWL worked with me throughout the summer and early fall on crafting this legislation. I note that the government is calling for some amendments, which do seem reasonable to me, to maintain the integrity of the system while staying true to the main concepts of this law, as I have just outlined. While I was working on this bill, I got so many calls from victims and survivors who wanted to share their stories with me that I could not find time to hear them all. There was one woman in Hamilton who was about to lose her child due to accusations of parental alienation, so I went to her house. I met with her and her nine-year-old daughter. They clearly had a loving relationship. They were both terrified that the police would show up to force her into the custody of her father, whom she did not know well, had never lived with and about whom she had disclosed a disturbing story that suggested sexual abuse. The transfer did not happen that night, but the next day when the mother and daughter were at the hospital dealing with anxiety, that is when it happened, and the mother wrote to me afterward. She said, “12 cops made me force her down seven floors, kicking and screaming, and told me I would be arrested in front of her if I did not take her to her father's truck. I can't make her last memory of me being physically forcing her into danger, and I also can't fight for her if I get arrested.” This mother has not had any contact with her daughter for months upon months. She says that this bill would break the chains of our silenced children and set them free from abuse and slavery. Children's opinions cannot be left out of a divorce. They are part of the divorce. They should have a say. Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. Article 12 guarantees children the right to express their opinions on matters affecting them and emphasizes the need for them to have an opportunity to be heard in any judicial proceeding that affects them. Canada ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1981. That is monitored by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, also known as CEDAW. Last year CEDAW called on Canada to prevent the use of parental alienation allegations. They said in a news release, “Shelters, researchers, service providers, legal professionals, and experts all agree that parental alienation accusations are being weaponized against victims of domestic violence.” Many survivors point to the 2023 report on violence against women and girls and its causes and consequences, by UN Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem. She argued that all countries should adopt legislation to prohibit the use of parental alienation allegations in custody disputes. She said the following about parental alienation: 1) It has been dismissed by medical, psychiatric and psychological associations, and in 2020 it was removed from the International Classification of Diseases by the World Health Organization. Nevertheless, it has gained considerable traction and has been widely used to negate allegations of domestic and sexual abuse within family court systems on a global scale. 2) The report demonstrates how the discredited and unscientific pseudo-concept of parental alienation is used in family law proceedings by abusers as a tool to continue their abuse and coercion and to undermine and discredit allegations of domestic violence made by mothers who are trying to keep their children safe. Let us look at what other countries are doing. In Brazil, parental alienation is actually a civil offence with potential criminal implications. The University of Manchester did a study that found that in Brazil, irrespective of abuse reported by mothers and children, fathers maintained direct contact with children. Multiple mothers lost custody and even all contact with their children. Five out of eight criminal investigations into child sex abuse, child rape and domestic violence by fathers were closed once there were parental alienation allegations. There has been so much controversy over the harms to women and children that this year, Brazil has a new bill to remove the concept of parental alienation from the country's laws. Spain is the opposite, with legislation that specifically prohibits accusations of parental alienation. Ireland this year vowed to follow Spain's example. In the U.K., family law prioritizes the best interests of the child, and allegations of domestic abuse take precedence over allegations of parental alienation. In the U.S., responsibility falls to individual states. Arizona, California, Colorado, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Utah have all implemented President Biden's 2022 Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act, which prohibits remedies associated with parental alienation. Several U.S. cases have made the news, including a story last year in The Denver Gazette where a man facing criminal charges for repeatedly raping his three daughters got court-ordered reunification therapy while his wife went to jail for objecting. Parental alienation was a concept developed in the late 1980s by psychiatrist Richard Gardner. He said at the time that it often involves malicious and false sexual-abuse allegations made by the mother against the father to gain sole custody and remove the father from their children's lives. It was all about fathers' rights, regardless of circumstances and regardless of abuse. The American Psychological Association says, “there have been no well-controlled empirical studies that confirm the phenomenon, nor have a standardized assessment process and specific diagnostic criteria been established for it.” The APA is concerned about this concept's influence in legal settings. The remedies for parental alienation that the courts have been ordering have been found to be seriously damaging to children. Reunification therapy is also called reintegration therapy, multi-faceted family therapy, multi-modal family therapy, reconciliation therapy and therapy for the intractable resist/refuse dynamic. There is a proliferation of names used interchangeably, adding to the ambiguity and controversy of these approaches. Possibly most concerning is the lucrative nature of these therapies, causing an explosion of so-called experts. Last year, in the Family Law Quarterly, Chadwick and Sloan wrote: Undeterred by a lack of sound scientific evidence, a cottage industry of reunification camps has capitalized on the popularity of the concept of parental alienation, charging thousands of dollars to allegedly deprogram children who have been alienated from a noncustodial parent. Orders can include transport agents who will remove a child from a home, courthouse or wherever they happen to be and send them to the camp. To avoid human trafficking implications, guardianship of the child is transferred at each point in the operation. The children often do not consent to this treatment, which violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Canadian health care consent acts. Other remedies to parental alienation are equally harmful, including forced contact with a parent estranged for good reason, immediate custody reversals, prohibition of contact between mother and child, police enforcement and cost orders against mothers deemed to be alienators. That is why this bill would do more than just ban allegations of parental alienation in family court. Witness after witness who appeared at the status of women committee last year disclosed how rampant parental alienation allegations are in Canadian courts. Abusers do not stop trying to control and dominate just because their partner has left; in many cases, the abuse gets worse. Carrie Leonetti, professor at University of Auckland law school, told committee that violent fathers are more than twice as likely to seek custody of their children after separation than non-abusive fathers. They are awarded custody approximately 70% of the time. She said: In the past two decades in family courts, the pendulum has swung from believing children and protecting them to disbelieving, silencing, and punishing their disclosures...re-entrenching fathers’ rights at the expense of women’s and children’s safety. The ideology of “parental alienation” has been the driving force behind this retrograde shift. She said that “parental alienation is gender bias masquerading as junk science” and that more than 90% of those accused are women and most of those are victims of intimate partner violence. She said, “Judges and psychologists are obsessed with the idea that, when children disclose abuse by fathers, resist being in their care, and ask for protection, it is their mothers who are the real problem.” Now people in Canada are being told by professionals not to claim abuse or seek protection because it puts their child at further risk. We heard this at committee. The Ottawa Victim Services and the Elizabeth Fry Society of New Brunswick told us many victims feel “the price for leaving the violent environment is even higher than the price for staying at home”. Witnesses said reunification therapy was akin to forced reprogramming of children, often resulting in psychological trauma, not a healed family relationship. One researcher told us that children are silenced and that mothers are found to be “alienating” for normal reactions to abuse or normal behaviour such as not having pictures of their ex-partner in their house. Another warned that several U.S. providers of reunification therapy are moving into Canada because states are adopting child safety laws like the one I am presenting today. One mother who was labelled an alienator told us, “Not one mode of contact is permitted. Imagine not even being able mail your child a birthday card or Christmas presents for years.... Children are not permitted to say last goodbyes or attend funerals.” Child survivors of the therapy told us, for example, “When we described emotionally abusive episodes, our dad told the therapist they didn't happen. The therapist told us that we needed to think of things from our dad's perspective, that we weren't remembering things correctly”. They were blamed for the abuse. A professor from the University of Calgary told us, “sometimes the people who are testifying as experts in parental alienation cases are the same people who run the reunification camps, and they stand to profit directly from those camps.” Another professor from Stockton University told us that a “cottage industry” of lawyers and mental health professionals who profit from parental alienation accusations in custody disputes often resist any limitations on the use of such claims. She said that this is done by people without particular training or qualifications, and that it is not a regulated industry; it is just very profitable. I mentioned how much outreach I started receiving when I was working on this bill and since it has passed first reading, I can say that hundreds of organizations have indicated their enthusiastic support, like Women's Shelters Canada, the Alliance of Canadian Research Centres on Gender-Based Violence, YWCA Canada and dozens upon dozens of women's shelters across the country. These are some quotes sent to me on social media. One person said, “This is so, so necessary. I couldn't stop weeping reading this bill. Our children must be heard and the court system must be transformed from being yet another tool for abusers to abuse, control, demean and devalue their victims.” Another person said, “This change cannot come soon enough. Anyone who is surviving the Family Court System learns quickly that 'children's rights' don't exist. They value parental equity above all. The term 'parental alienation' is thrown out by an abuser like a vengeful 'hail Mary'.” Another said, “You don't know me, but thank you so much. I am a sexual assault survivor and this Bill is going to change lives and protect so many kids from abuse.” The woman from Hamilton I mentioned earlier said, “My daughter was silenced and placed under the control of someone she explicitly said she feared. Bill C-223 gives children their voices back.” These changes are desperately needed and I implore all members to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it should be about equal rights for parents. It should be about the best interest of the child. That is the whole point of the bill. Judges should be able to look at all the evidence, and children should be appointed a lawyer. We heard in committee that they were not allowed lawyers when they were attending court; they were not allowed their voice. We were told that the letters they wrote to court were not listened to. Divorce court should not be trying to repair the relationship with a parent from whom the child is estranged without, at the very least, looking at why the child is estranged from that parent.

Mr. Speaker, after it passes second reading in the House, the bill will be sent to committee and we will examine it in detail. I think that is very important. I know that the member opposite was present during the study and that she feels compassion for the victims who came forward. That is very important. I am not an expert, so I am not saying that this bill is perfect as is. However, I think the committee will be able to bring the values within it to the fore.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her work and support on this, and for all the work she has done for children in Canada over the years. This is all about protecting children. We heard from several children who went through the so-called reunification therapies. Some of them were sent across the border to the United States and given therapy inside a woman's apartment. They were told that they did not really witness the things they witnessed, that they were remembering wrong and that they had to give their father a chance. They were forced to kiss their father, look their father in the eye and say they loved them. There were so many things that violate the rules that we have in Canada about rights for people and the agency that children have. We cannot force them into these therapies. I think reunification therapy is fine as long as all parties are in agreement and fully cognizant of what they are agreeing to.

Madam Speaker, Canadians elected the government with a clear mandate to build a stronger and more prosperous Canada, and one powerful way to do that is to expand our access to international markets. Yesterday, Canada signed a historic agreement with Indonesia, the largest economy in southeast Asia. Would the Minister of International Trade please share with the House what this historic agreement means for businesses and workers in my riding of Hamilton Mountain and those all across this country?

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following three reports of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage: the first report, entitled “Tech Giants' Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally”; the second report, entitled “Harms Caused by Illegal Sexually Explicit Material Online”; and the third report, entitled “The Holding of a National Forum on the Media”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these three reports.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-223, An Act to amend the Divorce Act. Mr. Speaker, it is a true honour for me to table today an act entitled the keeping children safe act, which is a groundbreaking amendment to the Divorce Act. I want to thank the National Association of Women and the Law, in particular Suzanne Zaccour and my good friend with a family law practice Susan Berry for working diligently with me on this legislation. This bill seeks to give children a voice during divorce proceedings. It would require legal advisers to take coercive control and family violence into account and mitigate their effects. It would change the existing premise in family courts that children are property that must be split equally between parties in a divorce. It would stop the increasing and egregious practice of disregarding children's views and preferences under the pretense they have been manipulated or alienated by a parent. It would prevent judges from restricting time with one parent in order to improve the relationship with the other parent, and it would prevent courts from forcing children to attend so-called reunification therapy. There is much more to say about this bill, but at the moment, suffice it to say that nearly 300 organizations have called for these reforms. These changes echo the conclusions of the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, and its causes and consequences. Therefore, I implore all of my colleagues to please support this legislation. It is really important. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the secretary of state for her excellent speech and bring her back to the moment when she discussed how she spent some time this summer watching bail proceedings happen in court. As a former journalist, I have watched a lot of bail proceedings. I would like to hear more about some of the conclusions she came to and some of the things that informed her during that time, with the process itself and the justices of the peace who preside over those processes.

Mr. Speaker, Hamilton is known as Steeltown for many reasons, including its long-standing role as the centre of steel production in Canada. Stelco and ArcelorMittal Dofasco still produce steel in Hamilton, and we have derivatives like Walters Group on Hamilton Mountain, which creates beautiful architectural steel, including the beautiful tree-inspired beams that hold up the ceiling of this very room. Thousands upon thousands of workers across the Golden Horseshoe rely on the steel industry, but steel production is crucial for all of Canada. We need a steel industry in order to be a viable G7 nation. The 50% U.S. tariffs have been a massive challenge to our previously integrated industry. I meet regularly with those affected and I know how serious and engaged the government and the Prime Minister have been. Sustaining Canada’s steel industry is a top priority. We will get through this, and with Canadian steel, we will build the strongest economy in the G7.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the constituents of Hamilton Mountain for electing me for a second term, and I thank all of the amazing volunteers who brought such passion and hard work to help make it happen. I would like to remind colleagues and Canadians that this weekend marks the start of National Indigenous History Month. A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend a Red Dress Day ceremony at the Native Women's Centre in my riding, and the tears were flowing all around the room as we lit candles to illuminate the names of dozens upon dozens of local missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people. I wore the red dress pin that I beaded myself under the tutelage of a master beader at an earlier event at the centre. I clearly do not have my teacher's talent, but the process of beading was painful and intensely meaningful. Let us all take time this June to reflect on the history of indigenous peoples and how we can advance reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and in accordance with the policy on the tabling of reports in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, Canada's 10th report on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the concluding observations of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for 2024.

Mr. Speaker, I was also at the Equal Voice gala the other night and I heard the Prime Minister's speech. I heard him talk about all the tangible measures we have taken as a government to advance equal rights among genders, including a gender-neutral cabinet, $10-a-day child care and a women's entrepreneurship strategy. I also heard the speech of the deputy leader of the Conservatives, which completely undermined the whole—

Mr. Speaker, I was also at the Equal Voice gala the other night, and I truly enjoyed the Prime Minister's speech, which listed dozens of tangible things we have done as a government to advance gender equality, including a cabinet that has equal numbers of men and women, and including $10-a-day child care, a female entrepreneurship strategy and half a billion dollars going out across the country to end gender-based violence. Meanwhile, the deputy leader of the Conservatives, in her speech, completely undermined the whole point of Equal Voice. It is very telling what the Conservatives think about equality.

Mr. Speaker, inflation is cooling and interest rates are dropping, but not all Canadians are feeling the relief quite yet. That is why our government is putting a bit more money back into the pockets of Canadians, to help them afford the things they need and save up for the things they want. The vote passed last week and that means this season, Canadians will not pay GST on things that are holiday essentials for many of us, like prepared meals, kids' clothes and Christmas trees. Oddly, though, one member in the House did not want to give Canadians a tax break this holiday: the Leader of the Opposition, the same guy who loves to talk about axing taxes and even ran on giving Canadians a GST holiday in the last election. This is the time of giving and caring. Maybe the opposition leader's heart is just two sizes too small.

Mr. Speaker, on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, I am thinking about all the women suffering from abuse I met during my journalism career and all the families I got to know covering criminal cases caused by femicide. Gender-based violence does not stop at physical harm. It includes psychological and economic manipulation, which also have devastating effects that perpetuate cycles of violence and endure for generations. All of us have a responsibility to reflect on this, particularly men and boys. We heard this recently at a status of women committee hearing. Attitudes and behaviours that objectify and belittle women create a culture of violence. Hashtags like “men going their own way”, used by the Leader of the Opposition in his videos, further entrench violent attitudes in our society. These are not new issues, but for the first time we have a government actually doing something about them with a national action plan to end gender-based violence. It is not everything we have to do, but it is a strong start, and on this side of the House we will not relent until every woman is safe.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to some excellent work by Radio-Canada reporter Christian Noel, we learned this week that Conservative MPs are being muzzled by their leader. The article states, “The man who promised during his leadership run to make Canada ‘the freest country in the world’ maintains tight control over the actions of his caucus members.” One Conservative told CBC, “Everybody is being watched. What we say, what we do, who we talk to. We're told not to fraternize with MPs from the other parties. And that's not normal.” The Conservative leader will not even let his members advocate for the housing accelerator fund in their ridings, which is money for housing for the people who voted them into office. I know that in my riding of Hamilton Mountain, the housing accelerator fund means $93 million for 9,000 new homes over the next decade. Affordable housing providers, such as Indwell, Victoria Park Community Homes and Good Shepherd, say the fund is critical to their work. It is time for the Conservatives to stop parroting their leader's slogans and start standing up for their constituents.

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the many benefits provided by Correctional Service Canada's penitentiary agricultural program. The government remains committed to the implementation of evidence-based policy informed by experts that contributes to offender rehabilitation and safer communities across Canada. In response to the question from the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, I will say that the Government of Canada consulted widely about whether to reinstate the penitentiary agriculture program. In 2016, Correctional Service launched a feasibility study, which included community consultations, an online forum and a public town hall that featured the participation of more than 6,000 people. The majority of participants in both consultations said that they wished to bring back the penitentiary agriculture program, noting the positive impact on employment opportunities for offenders. Since 2017, Correctional Service has engaged a number of internal and external stakeholders, including community organizations, to identify opportunities in the penitentiary farm program to represent a variety of types of agriculture activities during the offender employment training, and this includes the expertise of the prison farm advisory panel. The panel works to bring together agricultural and farming leaders to provide informed recommendations and program ideas on how we can better protect our communities through offender rehabilitation. The government will continue to work to protect the safety and security of our employees while also promoting the safety and security of our communities through evidence-backed rehabilitative programming. I am proud to highlight that through the programming provided at the farms, Correctional Service is recognized as an international leader in the development and delivery of correctional interventions. Since their reopening in 2018, the penitentiary agriculture programs at Joyceville and Collins Bay institutions have provided on-the-job vocational training that relates to the agricultural industry, allowing federal inmates to gain employment skills that are also transferable to other industries. Inmates at the farms perform activities like building and renovating necessary infrastructure and working to repair and rebuild farmland, in addition to crop production. These activities mirror the activities that take place in agricultural lands across the country that employ tens of thousands of people at any given time. One of the ways that Correctional Service works to provide safer communities from coast to coast to coast is through the provision of these employment programs, which build essential skills that will assist offenders in finding employment in the community after their release. There have been several research documents dating back almost a decade that have noted a connection between employment and positive reintegration results. For example, inmates who participate in the CORCAN employment program while incarcerated are more likely to get a job in the community. Offenders under community supervision who find employment in the community have reduced recidivism rates. Inmates who participate in the CORCAN employment program while incarcerated are more likely to be granted parole. Furthermore, all revenues generated through the penitentiary agriculture programs are reinvested in the offender employment and employability program, allowing for further programming to aid in offender reintegration. I would like to thank the members of the advisory panel who have helped to contribute to the success of the farms.

Madam Speaker, Correctional Service Canada will continue to implement evidence-based policies and programming to keep Canadian communities safe, all while providing Canadians good value for money. Programs, such as the penitentiary agriculture program, help offenders become productive, law-abiding citizens and skilled workers when they return to the community. Research dating back to 2014 has noted a direct connection between employment and positive reintegration results upon release. In addition to building safer communities by working to provide offenders with skill sets to find employment, community programming, such as the penitentiary agriculture program, works to save Canadians money. Offenders are better able to financially support themselves when they can find employment upon release to the community and they are required to pay taxes. Correctional Service Canada will continue to work with our various partners to strengthen our farming operations, which promote offender rehabilitation and safer communities for all Canadians to enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, this Veterans' Week, I want to thank all those who have served and all those who continue to serve in the defence of our country. Two weeks ago, we marked 10 years since Corporal Nathan Cirillo was senselessly gunned down while on sentry duty in Ottawa at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. That morning, I walked over to the War Memorial to pay my respects to this brave Hamiltonian, a class-A reservist of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. I was flooded with memories from the day he died when I spoke with many Hamiltonians in my capacity as a journalist, and the anguish was intense across the city. When I arrived at the memorial, I found myself amid a throng of Argylls from Hamilton here in Ottawa to continue their duty. Some of them had been close to Corporal Cirillo and knew him well. Again, we were overcome with emotion. Hamilton will never forget. I want to thank the Argylls for their ongoing service to our country, and I look forward to seeing them again on Sunday for the Garrison Parade.

Mr. Speaker, our government will always stand up for a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, which is why we have introduced new legislation to ensure that, when a woman seeks reproductive care, she is not unwittingly walking into a clinic that tries to dissuade her from options like abortion. According to the Abortion Rights Coalition, about 157 so-called pregnancy crisis centres in Canada are actually fronts for the anti-choice movement where, women tell us, they are deceived and made to feel more shame and extra distress at pivotally difficult times in their lives. More than 90% of these anti-choice centres have enjoyed status in Canada as registered charities. Now, they must clearly and fulsomely explain to clients what services they offer or they will lose their charitable status. Also, according to the Abortion Rights Coalition, there are no pro-choice MPs in the Conservative Party. We know one member left to sit as an independent due to the growing anti-choice caucus. When will the Conservatives stop hiding their misogynistic agenda?