Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2025

Keeping Children Safe Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in response to a question that the parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety answered.

I originally asked the question on October 3. On that date I said:

Liberal bail law, Bill C-75, unleashed crime and chaos on our streets, releasing violent criminals at the earliest opportunity. While out on bail in Kelowna, a man convicted on domestic violence charges just hours before allegedly killed Bailey McCourt with a hammer. The Prime Minister promised Liberals would flip-flop on bail, but the Liberal laws are still in place six months after he took power.

The question was, “Will the Prime Minister scrap Liberal bail or get out of the way so Conservatives can get it done?”

In response to my question, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety stated in part, “We are going to reform the bail system. It is coming. It is just around the corner. The Conservatives are dwelling on this issue, but there is no need. The legislation is coming.”

Families and victims across the country have been paying the price for the Liberals' Bill C-75 since the Liberals passed it into law in 2019. Families and victims are tired of waiting. Some are not here anymore because of what the Liberal government unleashed with Bill C-75. It is completely unacceptable for the Liberal government to tell families of victims of repeat offenders, such as that of Bailey McCourt, which we have heard about across Canada, that there is no need to dwell on the issue.

Not only is that not acceptable to me, it should also not be acceptable to members of the House and members of those families, who have been so devastatingly impacted by Liberal bail policy and the Liberal government's failure to address the problems it has created.

For months now, we as legislators have been witness to the multiple tragic cases of repeat offenders being released within hours, only to re-commit similar crimes, or in worst-case scenarios, commit even more heinous crimes, shortly after they have been released. While Canadians have waited painfully and in agony for the Liberal government to finally fix its reckless bail policies, I hope those same Canadians will see that there are people on this side of the House who are on their side, fighting for them and putting their families first.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the tragic death of Bailey McCourt shocked our communities and highlighted the urgent need to strengthen our justice system's response to domestic violence. Her life was cut short by an act of unparalleled brutality. I offer my deepest condolences to her loved ones. Today, we must honour her memory, but words are not enough. Concrete action must also be taken, and that is what this government intends to do.

Intimate partner violence is a serious and unacceptable crime that invariably has profound and lasting consequences for victims, families and communities. Between 2011 and 2021, police reported 1,125 gender-related homicides of women and girls in Canada. Of these homicides, Statistics Canada determined that two-thirds, or 66%, were committed by an intimate partner. These figures are not just data. They represent lost lives, broken families and human tragedies that demand a strong, coordinated response.

That is exactly why this government took action. As far back as 2019, through Bill C-75, the government strengthened bail provisions in cases of intimate partner violence. That legislation introduced a reverse onus at the bail stage for anyone accused of a violent offence against an intimate partner, particularly when the accused had previously been convicted of such an offence, in other words, when the accused is a repeat offender. It also required courts to consider prior convictions for intimate partner violence when determining whether the accused could be released and, if so, under what conditions. Finally, the law expanded the definition of intimate partner to include not only married and common-law spouses, but also dating partners. It is shameful that the Conservatives want to repeal that legislation.

Our government's efforts do not stop there. Today, the federal government tabled Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. This bill proposes sweeping reforms to make bail laws stricter and toughen sentencing laws for violent and repeat offenders. It is also designed to support law enforcement and invest in long-term prevention. These reforms are the outcome of extensive consultations with the provinces, territories and key stakeholders, including police departments, law societies and victim support organizations.

Bill C‑14 focuses on offenders who pose a serious danger to public safety. When an accused person is seeking bail, in certain situations, the onus will now be on them to prove that they do not pose a risk to the victim or to society. This is known as a reverse onus. It applies to certain offences where the accused choked, suffocated or strangled the victim.

The police must deny release if it is contrary to the public interest or if detention is necessary to protect victims and witnesses. Courts will also have to take into account specific factors, such as whether the violence was random or unprovoked, and whether there are any outstanding charges.

Bailey McCourt's death is a stark reminder that, behind every court case, there is a family and a community forever marked by the loss of a loved one. The—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is still really no answer. At least the member is recognizing that there is a problem and that there has been a real risk to public safety.

However, the real risk to public safety has been the Liberal government. Victims have waited multiple years and multiple Parliaments to get something restored in terms of keeping violent and repeat offenders behind bars. There is no reason they should have had to wait this long. Violent crime is up 50% and extortion has skyrocketed 330%. We are seeing almost daily or weekly drive-by shootings in our cities.

Why have victims had to wait for this through multiple Parliaments? Criminals are being released at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. Victims and their families deserve an answer.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government has already taken decisive action to protect victims of intimate partner violence.

Bill C‑75 made it harder for repeat offenders to get bail. Under Bill C‑48, anyone previously convicted of intimate partner violence is required to demonstrate why they should be released, even if they had previously received a discharge.

Our government is not stopping there. Today, we are introducing new reforms that target repeat violent offenders. They were developed following extensive consultations with the provinces and territories. These measures demonstrate our government's steadfast commitment to strengthening public safety and ensuring an effective justice system.

Housing

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to get up and close things off today. I am looking forward to a good discussion here that is beneficial to the people of Canada, particularly the people of Northumberland—Clarke.

I rose on June 9 to ask a question with respect to housing. I said, “In 2015, housing costs were an average of 38% of Canadian household budgets. Today, it is overwhelming. It is 52%.” This is a dramatic increase upward of over 20%. We are now sitting here in a housing crisis, which continues.

The housing crisis, in some ways, has actually worsened, because we are now seeing people who are facing the renewal of their mortgages, and they cannot afford to stay in their houses. We are seeing an uptake in foreclosures and power of sales, and that has a devastating impact on many families across Canada. However, at the same time, we are seeing people lose equity in the value of their house. We have a problem that, really, only Liberals created. There are people who cannot afford to keep their house, people who cannot afford to buy a house and people who are seeing a decline in the value in their house all at the same time.

The heart of this issue comes down to some fundamental economic issues that have arisen over the last 10 years. We have seen an incredibly bad economy over the last 10 years. If members do not believe me, they can just ask the Prime Minister. In his speech, he talked about how bad the economy has been managed over the last 10 years and how badly his party has done. It almost reads like a Monty Python skit with the former minister of industry now being the Minister of Finance. The one who helped direct us into this economic quagmire has been put in charge of the future, and somehow this is supposed to be a new government, a government that has woken up. I agree with some of the Prime Minister's criticism of the past 10 years, because there can be no doubt, what we need is a new direction where people can afford houses again.

I will run through a couple of the economic numbers in case people out there are unaware of just how challenging the economy has become over the last decade. We had the third-lowest growth in the OECD among 30 nations, dropping well below the OECD average. In fact, GDP per capita, which is simply the economic output per person, has dropped to almost 0% over the last 10 years. It has really been an economic lost decade, which has put Canadians in a position of earning less and things costing more. At the end of the day, it is not the amount of money we print, it is how many goods we produce and how efficiently. In Canada, we have seen a market loss relative to the rest of the world, which has created an economic nightmare where people are unable to afford the basic necessities of life, everything from food to housing.

Now, we have an entire generation that has nearly given up on the hope of owning a house. What is this Prime Minister's response? He says that we have to make sacrifices. Well, why does he not make some sacrifices? Why does he not donate the billions of dollars he has invested in Brookfield and other countries? Why does he not make some sacrifices instead of telling our young people, “Well, we know you can't afford houses, suck it.” This is his response to them. We need to do better.

When will this government finally wake up, change direction and make housing affordable again?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is taking action to solve Canada's housing crisis. We are making housing more affordable and attainable for Canadians because everyone deserves a place to call home.

Too many Canadians across the country are struggling with the high cost of housing, and the federal government is focused on solutions. We are starting to put money back into Canadians' pockets by reducing middle-class taxes and saving two-income families up to $840 a year.

We are cutting the goods and services tax on new homes at or under $1 million for first-time homebuyers, delivering savings of up to $50,000. We are also lowering the GST on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. We have also made it easier for Canadians to save for their first home by raising the limit on the tax-free home savings account.

Young families and first-time homebuyers deserve the same opportunities to own a home that their parents had. Restrictive planning policies, rising municipal fees and insufficient support for housing at all levels of government have contributed to higher costs, construction delays and a lack of affordable housing.

The Government of Canada is committed to lowering housing costs and restoring affordability. Since 2017, funding delivered through the national housing strategy has reduced or eliminated housing needs for more than 655,000 households. We have created or committed to more than 170,000 new housing units, but we know there is still more work to do, and we are not stopping there.

On September 14, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Housing launched Build Canada Homes. This new federal agency is part of a broader series of federal measures to double housing construction, restore affordability and reduce homelessness. It will focus on using Canadian-made materials and modern construction methods, such as factory-built housing, to catalyze an entirely new Canadian housing industry, one that builds faster and more sustainably.

Build Canada Homes complements the national housing strategy and Canada's housing plan by adding a bold new federal approach to building affordable housing. It will build on the success of these initiatives while focusing primarily on non-market housing and catalyzing a more productive homebuilding industry.

The Government of Canada is working closely with builders, investors, indigenous partners and all levels of government to implement innovative solutions to address these complex issues. We are using every tool at our disposal and taking coordinated action to help ensure that more Canadians have access to affordable and attainable housing.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill once said that if a country tries to tax itself into prosperity, it is analogous to a man or woman standing in a bucket, pulling on the handles as hard as they can and wondering why they do not go up.

If, in fact, more government spending were the answer, we would have one of the best economies in the world and we would have affordable housing. The reality is, we have a tremendous amount of expenditures. They said not to take their word for it, to take the Prime Minister's word; he said, just last night, that government expenditures have grown by more than 7% on the operational side over the last decade. The Liberals spent and spent and spent.

In fact, the former housing minister, who is now the justice minister, was in front of committee. I asked him how many houses the housing accelerator had built. His answer was zero. That is what government will accomplish. It will spend millions of dollars, but the problem will remain the same.

When will the government finally wake up and get out of the way so that home builders can build homes?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is building on our successes and continuing to make historic investments in housing. Build Canada Homes will leverage public lands, offer flexible financial incentives, attract private capital, facilitate large portfolio projects and support manufacturers to build the homes Canadians need.

We encourage the opposition to work with us so that we can build the homes Canadians need. As the Prime Minister has said, it is time to build. That means building housing at a scale and pace not seen in generations. That is exactly what we are going to do.

Public Safety

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday last week I asked a question regarding automated external defibrillators, AEDs as they are called. I asked about placing them in RCMP cruisers. I just want to talk for a while about some of the things that are hard to discuss in the 35 seconds allocated for a question in question period, in order to explain some of the benefits that would accrue from RCMP cruisers' having defibrillators.

The RCMP, of course, is the largest police force across Canada. It is the de facto provincial police force in every province except Ontario and Quebec, and even in Ontario and Quebec it has a limited presence, in national parks, the national capital region and so on. RCMP cruisers are not equipped with AEDs. By contrast, the City of Ottawa police, the City of Toronto police and the City of Kingston police, in the local area, have defibrillators.

The City of Ottawa police have had defibrillators for over 20 years. In the case of the Toronto municipal police, the defibrillators were installed when the former minister of national defence was the chief of police in Toronto. I spoke to him once about it. He said that he was very proud of the fact that he got them put in. He said that they have saved a lot of lives. Indeed they have.

I, likewise, am responsible for putting defibrillators in a much smaller police force. The last independent police force in my constituency is in Smiths Falls, and I arranged the fundraising drive that allowed defibrillators to be placed in all its cruisers in 2005. In the cruisers of that small police force, they have been used on a number of occasions and have saved some lives, nowhere near the number of lives saved in Toronto because that has a very large police force.

However, whether it is a small police force or a large one, the cops are frequently first responders. When an emergency call goes out, not just for a crime in progress but also for a health emergency, the paramedics are notified, the fire departments are notified and so are the police, and there is a bit of a lottery. Sometimes the police have the closest vehicle. Sometimes they arrive first.

If I talk to an experienced police officer, they will usually be able to say that they were the first person on site at some kind of cardiac emergency. If they are from the City of Ottawa police, the Toronto police, the Smiths Falls police or literally any of 100 other municipal police forces across Canada, they will be able to say they had an AED at their disposal and were able to attempt to save a life. It does not necessarily mean they saved it, but it might mean they did.

The fact is that a significant number of lives are saved, and based on the save rate for various municipal police forces in Canada, we can take that and multiply it by the number of cruisers the RCMP has. If the RCMP had defibrillators, they would perform, on average, 300 saves every year. The cost to equip every police cruiser in the RCMP would be about $10 million. It would be a one-time cost, although the defibrillators have a finite life of about 10 years, and there is some upkeep, but it is minor.

For $10 million, we could save 300 lives a year. There is literally no other measure I can think of that would save that number of lives for that small an expense. This is a government that is willing to spend many billions on other issues, to create a few jobs, for example. Saving 300 lives for $10 million is a bargain. Why does the government not take action on this?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac for this very interesting, pertinent question. I thank him for the opportunity to speak to the topic of AEDs in RCMP vehicles.

While the RCMP's primary mandate is for the provision of law enforcement services, it is often called upon to support and fulfill broader first responder roles. The RCMP remains committed to doing so in its efforts to protect the safety of the public it serves, as well as its employees.

This year, the Heart and Stroke Foundation indicated, “Each year in Canada, an estimated 60,000 cardiac arrests occur outside of a hospital.” The use of a life-saving measure, such as CPR or an AED, on an individual experiencing cardiac arrest doubles their chance of survival, according to both the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

All RCMP officers are required to be trained and recertified in the use of AEDs, along with CPR and first aid certification, every three years. This important training and skills maintenance supports the broader first responder capabilities of the RCMP.

Public access to and installation of AEDs has become more prevalent across Canada in recent years, including in places such as sports and athletics facilities and recreation centres. This enables greater access to AEDs for use as a critical life-saving tool during cardiac emergencies.

While AEDs are not mandated by any federal legislation or regulation, the RCMP recognizes their benefit in specific locations and has adopted a limited AED program. AEDs have been approved for installation and use in certain facilities, including emergency medical response teams, some protective policing details, the divisional fitness and lifestyles program, and in provinces that require AEDs to be available per provincial policing standards.

While the idea is interesting, it does need to be carefully considered, as a program such as this cannot be improvised. As the member for Lanark—Frontenac very well knows, RCMP are mainly deployed in rural areas where the response time is longer than in an urban setting. Therefore, the AEDs are less useful than in urban settings.

This just means that they need to be evaluated, and a national rollout would require consultation with partners, as well as an indepth needs analysis to determine what device is needed. As well, we need to look at varying operational parameters, including climate, temperature and durability, given the vastly different operating environments in which the RCMP provides policing services across the country. Sometimes in the far north, there are below zero or sub-zero temperatures. Finally, there would also be a requirement for an assessment of financial considerations, including additional costs required for the ongoing maintenance and replacement costs of the devices.

Although the RCMP's main responsibility is law enforcement, it frequently assists in broader first responder duties. In doing so, it maintains a commitment to protecting both its personnel and the public. Nevertheless, as far as a deployment of AED in every RCMP vehicle, it cannot be endorsed at this time. Such a program needs more study, including a careful evaluation of costs and benefits.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, we should take our time and think this over carefully.

Ralph Goodale, when he was in opposition, before he became minister of public safety, when the government changed hands in 2015, put forward a private member's motion in 2013, saying:

That in the opinion of the House, the government should address the wide variation in the availability of defibrillators throughout the buildings and facilities owned, operated or regulated by the Government of Canada, and the equally wide variation in the training of appropriate personnel to use defibrillators properly, by adopting and implementing a policy of: (a) installing an appropriate number and calibre of automated external defibrillators in all such buildings and facilities; and (b) training the appropriate personnel to use such defibrillators properly, with priority being assigned to all RCMP offices and vehicles.

That was 12 years ago, when the man who went on to become one of several now Liberal ministers in his portfolio said this should be done.

How much study does it take? That is a decade, and at 300 lives per year, that is 3,000 lives. We could fill every seat in the House with 10 bodies, because the government has failed to act. That is shameful. I ask the member to defend that record.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, currently, the RCMP provides contract policing services through police service agreements. The costs for RCMP services are shared between the provincial, territorial or municipal government, and the federal government. With the exception of Ontario and Quebec, RCMP contract policing services are provided to all other provinces and territories in Canada, as well as to approximately 150 municipalities.

It is the RCMP's contract partners, the provinces, territories and municipalities, that establish the level of resourcing, budgets and policing priorities in their respective jurisdictions. Ultimately, decisions made by the government of local jurisdiction can impact the RCMP's ability to allocate funding for the purchase of new equipment. The scale and financial impact of procuring AEDs for the RCMP would need to be assessed, and may eventually be assessed, in consultation with contract partners to determine the extent to which these devices could be deployed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is 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 6:05 p.m.)