Bill C-75 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) modernize and clarify interim release provisions to simplify the forms of release that may be imposed on an accused, incorporate a principle of restraint and require that particular attention be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal accused and accused from vulnerable populations when making interim release decisions, and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner;
(b) provide for a judicial referral hearing to deal with administration of justice offences involving a failure to comply with conditions of release or failure to appear as required;
(c) abolish peremptory challenges of jurors, modify the process of challenging a juror for cause so that a judge makes the determination of whether a ground of challenge is true, and allow a judge to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;
(d) increase the maximum term of imprisonment for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence and provide that abuse of an intimate partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing;
(e) restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more and strengthen the justice’s powers to limit the issues explored and witnesses to be heard at the inquiry;
(f) hybridize most indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, increase the default maximum penalty to two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months;
(g) remove the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of certain out-of-province warrants and authorizations, expand judicial case management powers, allow receiving routine police evidence in writing, consolidate provisions relating to the powers of the Attorney General and allow increased use of technology to facilitate remote attendance by any person in a proceeding;
(h) re-enact the victim surcharge regime and provide the court with the discretion to waive a victim surcharge if the court is satisfied that the victim surcharge would cause the offender undue hardship or would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the offender; and
(i) remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, repeal section 159 of the Act and provide that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid.
The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to reduce delays within the youth criminal justice system and enhance the effectiveness of that system with respect to administration of justice offences. For those purposes, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) set out principles intended to encourage the use of extrajudicial measures and judicial reviews as alternatives to the laying of charges for administration of justice offences;
(b) set out requirements for imposing conditions on a young person’s release order or as part of a sentence;
(c) limit the circumstances in which a custodial sentence may be imposed for an administration of justice offence;
(d) remove the requirement for the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; and
(e) remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence, as well as the requirement to determine whether to make such an order.
Finally, the enactment amends among other Acts An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) so that certain sections of that Act can come into force on different days and also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-14, as well as the Senate amendments that have come forward. I will start off by talking about the importance of passing this legislation quickly and getting it into law. I will then give a bit of detail about the Senate amendments and my thoughts on those before I sum it up.

First of all, I want to say that this is not a partisan issue. Every Canadian wants to be safe in their community and safe in their home. It does not matter which party we come from; we all think that. Every Canadian is tired of seeing violent repeat offenders out on the streets when they should be behind bars.

In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, we had a very tragic incident happen recently at Lambton College, where an innocent student, Dane Nisbet, was shot by someone who has been involved in crime previously, and he died. He was 20 years old. People in my community are outraged now because the perpetrator has been let out on bail. This is why Bill C-14 needs to go into play. Bill C-14 would prevent these things from happening, and I will talk a little about how it would do that.

Over the last few years, there have been unintended consequences, from Bill C-75, for example, with the principle of restraint. The principle of restraint was making judges think that they had to let people out at the earliest possible opportunity with the least possible punishment. Bill C-14 would actually clarify this. It would clarify how police and courts apply the principle of restraint to specify that it does not mean automatic release where detention is justified to protect public safety. This is an incredibly important part of Bill C-14 and something that we definitely are going to need.

Also, Bill C-14 would add aggravating factors, making sure we do not have sentences that are too light in extreme cases. When the offence is committed against victims who are first responders, it would be an aggravating factor in sentencing, as well as repeat violent offenders with previous convictions within the last five years and organized retail theft. I heard a question earlier about auto theft. This kind of thing would be an aggravating factor in sentencing, as well as offences interfering with essential infrastructures, which we see in copper theft and some of the drug-trafficking offences. All of those things are very good measures.

One of the other things that was an unintended consequence of Bill C-5 was that house arrest was being allowed for perpetrators of sexual assault. That would be reversed here in Bill C-14. That is a very good measure. It is something that is needed, and we heard lots about that.

The other thing this bill would do is align to the military justice system to make sure both systems are consistent.

With respect to the Senate amendments that have come forward, some are good, and some we would prefer not to have. I think the one that would allow the measures for the youth justice system to come into force, that would allow some time to get that right, would be very, very important.

I have heard discussion from the Conservatives today that they do not like the measures that the Senate has submitted on sureties, but one of the things that Conservatives continue not to understand is that when an independent court is making a decision, it has to have discretion. We have seen mandatory minimum penalties fail at the Supreme Court because they do not give the judges discretion and the judges are independent. Therefore, this is an important principle that we see represented here.

It is only part of the story. When it comes to preventing violent crime in our neighbourhoods and in our communities, we have to have the laws, and then we have to enforce the laws. There is an opportunity to do a better job on enforcement. We have to also look at where we are going to put the people. A lot of times, people are being released because there is no room in the prisons. That is a shared responsibility, federally and provincially, and something that we need to look at. However, if we can get the deterrence to crime right and enforce the law, we are going to see fewer people in the prisons, which is what we saw previously.

That, in a nutshell, is why it is critical that we get this legislation passed. The sooner it is passed and gets royal assent, the sooner it would get into law. Then we can stop seeing these repeat and violent offenders out on the streets and getting sentences that I consider to be inadequate.

I am very proud of the government for the measures that it put in place, and not just Bill C‑14, as Bill C‑16 is exactly what we asked for at the status of women committee, which I am a part of. It addresses coercive control, femicides, deepfakes and a lot of the things that we brought forward. I think the government is serious about addressing crime in this country.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks about the Liberal commitment to bail reform, justice reform and listening to police and constituents. Would he not agree that we are here today because of Liberal policies that are soft on crime? We are here today because of Bill C‑75, the principle of restraint and bail reform; Bill C‑5 on mandatory minimums; and Bill C‑83, the “least restrictive environment”, which allows Paul Bernardo to be in a medium-security institution. The Liberal backbench voted against my legislation, Bill C‑232, so Paul Bernardo is allowed to stay in medium security. The Liberals talk a good game, but we know, truly, who they are.

Why is the member here today dictating to us about this concern when they are actually fixing the problems they created?

Public Safety

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when I rose in the House previously in question period, I asked the Minister of Public Safety about charges being stayed against two fentanyl traffickers who were arrested and in court in Swift Current. Police found 17.5 pounds of fentanyl in their car, and their charges were stayed. That 17.5 pounds of fentanyl is just under four million doses. Effectively, 17.5 pounds of fentanyl could kill close to four million people. That is enough fentanyl to kill just about all of the people in Alberta and Saskatchewan combined in one traffic stop. The individuals' charges were stayed, they were released on bail and now they are out in the general public. This is getting ridiculous. It is getting out of hand.

Let us look at the tone the government has set over the years with its soft-on-crime approach. Let us look at Bill C-75. The “earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions” is the main theme of what Bill C-75 has meant for people like drug traffickers.

Let us take a look at a few other cases in and around Saskatchewan. On April 8, another individual was found with 51 grams of fentanyl. It is not nearly as much as 17.5 pounds, but it is deadly, nonetheless. On April 16, another person was found with 282 grams of fentanyl and 556 grams of cocaine. On May 15, 227 grams of methamphetamine was found on an individual. These are deadly amounts of drugs that people have in their possession, and these people are generally released out into the public.

Just yesterday, here in Ontario, an individual who was out on bail was arrested with 30 grams of cocaine and 22 grams of fentanyl, which has a street value of about $5,200. This person was out on bail for a previous drug possession and trafficking charge for a street value of $125,000. This is getting insane. These are the kinds of things that people are seeing on the streets.

Canadians are getting sick and tired of seeing people who have large amounts of fentanyl, which is a deadly drug that can kill tons of people. We have all seen the headlines. People are getting so sick and tired of this. Fentanyl is getting into our high schools and many places where it should never be. We are seeing people overdosing in parks and public spaces. The drug epidemic is getting out of hand, and people are getting so sick and tired of it.

When on earth is the government going to actually do something to make sure that people trafficking 17.5 pounds of fentanyl will not be allowed back out on the streets?

Protecting Victims Act

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to be here today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to contextualize this legislation within Canada's broader efforts to confront and prevent gender-based violence.

Gender-based violence is a persistent and measurable reality affecting women, girls and gender-diverse people across this country. In 2024, 187 women were killed violently in Canada. That represents one woman every two days. Women are far more likely than men to experience severe forms of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and criminal harassment. More than one-quarter, about 28%, of all victims of violent crimes in 2024 were victimized by an intimate partner.

These are not isolated incidents, and our justice system has struggled to effectively address these crimes given the complex realities of gender-based violence and the patterns of coercive behaviour that often define abuse. The rate of intimate partner violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence experienced by women and girls, is more than 3.5 times higher than it is for men and boys. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and young women face even higher risks.

The Government of Canada has recognized that addressing gender-based violence requires a comprehensive and coordinated response. In 2017, the federal government released a federal gender-based violence strategy and has since invested over $800 million, about $44 million per year, to coordinate federal actions under three pillars: preventing gender-based violence, supporting survivors and their families, and promoting a responsive justice system.

Since 2022, the federal government has invested in a national action plan to end gender-based violence, a 10-year framework aiming to end gender-based violence in Canada by supporting victims and survivors of crime and their families and improving their experiences with the criminal justice system. Significant efforts have been undertaken in this area. For example, the federal victims strategy works to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system and to increase their access to justice.

Through the victims fund, which is part of the federal victims strategy, resources are made available to the provinces and territories for the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including for the development of public legal education and information material and the provision of training on the legislation for criminal justice professionals.

Considerable efforts have also been made to strengthen the criminal justice system's response to gender-based violence. Canada's Criminal Code provides a broad-based response to all forms of violence, exploitation and abuse against all persons in Canada.

Over the past year, legislative amendments in Bill C-51 and Bill C-75 clarified and strengthened sexual assault laws and the criminal justice system's response to intimate partner violence, and Bill C-233 imposed stricter conditions for people charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence. In addition, Bill S-205, which came into force in April 2025, created a new peace bond designed specifically to provide better protection for victims of intimate partner violence and for children, including by allowing conditions such as electronic monitoring to be imposed on the defendant.

All these efforts reflect an understanding that provision, protection, accountability and survivor support must work together. Today, Bill C-16 is a critical part of that continuum. It would strengthen the criminal law in ways that respond directly to what survivors, advocates and frontline professionals have long told us about how gender-based violence actually occurs.

Bill C-16 would create a new offence, criminalizing a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct in intimate partner relationships. This would address the reality that this abuse takes place over time. It would align the law with the lived reality of survivors and allow for earlier intervention before coercive or controlling conduct turns into serious physical harm or death. It would also support more accurate police and prosecutorial responses by requiring a contextual assessment of power and exploitation.

Bill C-16 would also address the most extreme manifestation of gender-based violence: the killing of women because they are women. By explicitly naming and recognizing femicide in the Criminal Code, the bill would acknowledge that women and girls are disproportionately killed in specific contexts, including intimate partner violence, sexual violence, exploitation and hate-motivated attacks.

Naming femicide matters. It makes visible a reality that has too often been obscured and affirmed: These killings are not random tragedies but are systemic failures that demand accountability. The bill would ensure that murders occurring in these circumstances are treated as first-degree murder. It would also require judges, when sentencing for manslaughter in the same context, to consider penalties equivalent to second-degree murder, including life imprisonment and parole ineligibility for 10 to 25 years.

Importantly, Bill C-16 also recognizes that gender-based violence increasingly occurs through technology. The rise of sexually explicit deepfakes, sextortion and online harassment has created new avenues for abuse, particularly targeting women and girls. These forms of violence can destroy reputations, livelihoods and mental health, and they often silence victims through shame and fear.

The bill would address these gaps by clarifying that non-consensual distribution of intimate images includes realistic deepfakes, as well as by criminalizing threats to distribute such materials and by increasing penalties for these offences. These measures would complement existing Government of Canada initiatives aimed at addressing online harms and protecting digital safety, particularly for young people.

The bill would also modernize the offence of criminal harassment. Data shows that striking and harassment are common precursors to serious violence, yet the current requirement to prove a victim's subjective fear has made early intervention difficult.

Further, Bill C-16 proposes reforms to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to better protect victims and expand access to testimonial aids for adult victims of intimate partner violence, sexual offences and criminal harassment, offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. These measures would improve justice system outcomes for victims by recognizing that court procedures themselves can be retraumatizing and that supporting meaningful participation is essential to justice.

The bill would also build on recent reforms to peace bonds and firearms controls, reflecting clear evidence that access to firearms significantly increases the risk of lethal intimate partner violence. By strengthening preventative tools and closing enforcement gaps, Bill C-16 supports the Government of Canada's broader commitment to keeping victims and communities safe.

Bill C-16 is a necessary step in Canada's ongoing commitment to confront gender-based violence with seriousness, clarity and resolve. It reflects the hard truths that violence is rarely a single act but often a pattern, that technology has created new tools for abuse, and that too many women and girls continue to lose their lives in preventable circumstances. By criminalizing coercive control, recognizing femicide, strengthening protections against online and intimate partner violence, and reducing barriers for victims and survivors of crime within the justice system, Bill C-16 would align our laws with lived reality and evidence.

For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-16. Addressing gender-based violence is not optional. Protecting victims—

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was last speaking, I was talking about the irrefutable fact that, since 2015, when the Liberal government took power, we have seen skyrocketing rates of crime.

That is due to some deliberate actions that the government took. I am thinking, specifically, of Bill C-5, which did away with mandatory penalties for serious drug and gun crime and allowed for house arrest for serious offences like arson. It allowed someone to commit a violent crime, even burn down someone's house, and serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home and in the community where they offended.

Bill C-75 was the notorious law that was brought in, which introduced a principle of restraint that has really tied the hands of our system and forced people out on bail who have no business being out on bail. We have seen the results. What are the results? Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%. Sexual assaults are up by 76%. Violent crime is up by almost 55%.

My home province of New Brunswick is not immune to this skyrocketing crime. When I speak to my constituents, there are concerns about violent crime, property crime and all manner of crime that people have seen skyrocket, such as drug-related crime. The numbers are staggering.

The total number of violent crimes in New Brunswick alone is up over 70%. As for total violent firearms offences, this is a government that talks a talk on firearms. The problem is that every measure the Liberals take has been completely ineffective because they target law-abiding citizens, the people who I represent in my riding of Fundy Royal, while completely going soft on hardened criminals.

What is the result? Violent firearms offences are up over 150%. Extortion is up over 300%. Theft of motor vehicle offences are up over 150% since that time.

What they have done with the bill is unfortunate. There is something called a mandatory minimum penalty. It is a penalty in the Criminal Code that says that we, as parliamentarians, recognize that, sometimes, an offence is so grave that it should carry with it a certain minimum amount of time in custody.

There have been mandatory minimum penalties brought in by previous Liberal governments. There have been mandatory minimum penalties brought in by Conservative governments, and which have been constitutionally upheld, but because the Liberal government is so ideologically opposed to Parliament having its say, listening to our constituents and saying that certain crimes deserve to have a mandatory penalty if someone has committed the offence, the Liberals have introduced in the legislation a clause that would allow judges to ignore the mandatory penalty for someone convicted of these serious crimes.

One could look up the definition of “mandatory” in Webster's, but I am pretty sure that allowing someone to ignore a mandatory penalty means it is no longer a mandatory penalty,

What is the result of that? Certain mandatory penalties for offences, many of them considered by the courts and constitutionally upheld, will now be able to be ignored, offences like aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with restricted or prohibited firearms.

In the Criminal Code, there is a mandatory penalty for someone convicted of those offences. The bill would allow judges to ignore that mandatory penalty when they are sentencing.

I can tell members, having served on the justice committee, that we heard many times about how there has not been a huge increase in the number of criminals in Canada. There has been a very prolific number of criminals who do a great job at what they do. They are committing crimes non-stop because they have a system in which, once they are caught, once the police have done their job and have caught someone, once they have been tried and convicted, they are out on bail, if they are pretrial, and, once convicted, they may be serving their sentence in house arrest.

I will sum up by quoting an individual who appeared at our justice committee. She urged members to restore justice to the justice system. As a victim of crime, she said she does not feel we have a justice system anymore in Canada. She feels we have a legal system, not a justice system. I urge everyone to listen to those words and do our job.

It is, rightly, the job of parliamentarians to say we are the ones who draft the Criminal Code, set out mandatory penalties and maximum and minimum sentences, and distinguish between different offences. There is a tremendous amount of flexibility in the system when the police have discretion and prosecutors have the discretion on whether to proceed by summary conviction or indictment. At the end of the day, we, as parliamentarians, are responsible for the safety of our constituents. We must ensure that our actions illustrate this and that we take strong measures.

I would like at this time to move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this evening with colleagues debating this important issue. That is what we do in the House. We debate, we discuss important issues for Canadians and we have some great discussions.

One thing, though, that is really not debatable, if we believe at all in evidence, is that the Liberals have had a failed justice policy, and the last decade has been one where Canadians have demonstrably suffered when it comes to justice.

As a former member of the justice committee, I will never forget when a witness, who was a victim of crime herself, appeared and said that in Canada now we have a legal system, but we do not have a justice system. I was very impacted by those words and determined, like many of my colleagues on this side, to listen to those voices and make a better, truly just system that Canadians could be proud of and that would make them feel safe.

I know if I asked my constituents, and I do, and if many here asked their constituents if they felt safer than they did 10 years ago, they would say that things have changed. Do they feel safe to send their kids to the mall or to walk to school? Do they feel safe when they leave their home? Do they feel safe to leave their vehicle? In the community I live in, my whole life, we did not lock our car doors. Many people did not lock their houses; they just left them unlocked. That was the kind of neighbourhood and community it was. That has now changed, and it has changed because of a failed Liberal justice system.

I heard some of the commentary this evening about mandatory minimum penalties, etc. However, where there is no debate and no doubt is that the Liberals do not know what they are doing when it comes to Canada's justice system. Some of the statistics are absolutely staggering. Since 2015, which is when the Liberals formed government, human trafficking in Canada has increased 84%, sexual assaults are up 76% and violent crime is up 55%. In just the first nine years after forming government, total homicides are up 28% and violent firearms offences are up 117%. This is nine consecutive years of increases. Extortion is up almost 400%, auto theft is up 50% and sexual violations against children are up over 100%. Forcible confinement or kidnapping, indecent harassing and communications and trafficking in persons are up almost 100%.

When we speak of these things, they are not just statistics. Each one of those represents a victim, a victim's family and a community that feels less safe than it did before. The cumulative effect of terrible pieces of legislation is the statistics and the heartbreak that has flowed from them over this last decade.

What are some of these terrible pieces of legislation? Did this happen by accident? Was it things, as the Liberal government members like to say, outside of their control? No, these were things that were very much within the control of the government, and it took active steps that made the situation demonstrably worse.

What am I talking about? There is Bill C‑75, which fundamentally changed our bail system and introduced a so-called principle of restraint that meant judges were forced to use the least onerous provisions possible when it came to decisions around bail. It led to absolutely outrageous and ludicrous situations like the one we heard about at the justice committee. The Toronto Police Service testified that individuals who had already received bail for a previous gun crime were being let out on bail again for gun crimes. They had committed a firearms offence, received bail, were then arrested again for a serious firearms offence, received bail again and had then been arrested a third time. They were out on bail both previous times. That was not an uncommon situation. Bill C‑75 changed the rules around bail, police forces and victims groups throughout our country. Provincial attorneys general have all commented and beseeched us to address the soft-on-crime bail that the government has introduced.

The other bill that comes to mind is Bill C-5. We have heard some discussion this evening about mandatory jail times. Conservatives believe that for serious offences, there should be mandatory jail time. Some of these Liberal members who are speaking positively about tougher sentencing were, just a few years ago, defending Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory jail time for importing, exporting and producing serious drugs, schedule I drugs. It eliminated mandatory jail time for offences like arson, drive-by shootings and serious firearms offences.

It not only eliminated the mandatory penalties but allowed for house arrest. Someone could burn down a person's house but serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home, playing video games, etc., as one can imagine. Individuals could commit serious violent offences, and people would be forced to see the perpetrators still in the community, even after having been sentenced, because they were sentenced to house arrest for the type of offence where someone should not get house arrest.

That brings us here to this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-16. Bill C-16 has another “get out of jail free” card. The Liberals cannot help themselves. There are many mandatory minimum penalties, mandatory sentences for crimes that Parliament deems to be serious. Even though there are many of them in the Criminal Code that have been upheld constitutionally, many of them that are sound, that are in our code and that are effective, the bill would create a release valve whereby a judge can decide not to apply the mandatory penalty, even for offences where the mandatory penalty has been upheld.

Some of the offences for which Bill C-16 would allow judges to ignore the mandatory prison time that this Parliament and previous Parliaments have seen fit to introduce include aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with restricted or prohibited firearms.

Canadians have had enough. They have had enough of violent crime and extortion. They have had enough with the assaults, sexual assaults and property crime. This bill would undermine our justice system by allowing judges to ignore the mandatory penalties that Parliament saw fit to put in place. Parliament put those penalties in place to protect the Canadians who are so deserving of that protection. It speaks to that witness who appeared at our justice committee and said we need to have not just a legal system but a justice system. That witness implored us to take steps to ensure that we have a justice system. Well, I can assure my colleagues that allowing for the elimination of all mandatory minimum penalties, as this legislation would, is not what this individual had in mind.

I want to recognize a couple of my colleagues, our justice shadow minister, the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations; our public safety shadow minister, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola; and indeed our entire team on this side. For the last decade, in areas around auto theft, drugs, extortion, violent crime and crimes against children, every area where we could protect individuals in our communities, Conservative members of Parliament have been standing up and putting forward private members' bills.

One that I put forward would restore the mandatory penalties for trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine and for those who are running meth labs. These are the mandatory penalties the Liberal government, in its wisdom, decided to remove. If we were to ask whether the drug crime and drug abuse situation in Canada is better today, under the Liberal policies, than it was 10 years ago, there is not a person in this room, in this chamber, who would say things have gotten better. Unless they are willing to deny the evidence that comes to us from Stats Canada, there is not a person in this chamber who would say that the situation when it comes to violent crime, property crime, crimes against women and crimes against children is getting better.

When we look at solutions, we need to look at solutions that are going to be effective, not half measures. What this piece of legislation would do, and this is a provision I certainly cannot support, is allow judges to ignore mandatory minimum penalties that have been constitutionally upheld, that exist in the Criminal Code and that were put in there for a reason, because they recognize the seriousness of the offences that are covered.

I often hear in this place that the number one thing, the most important thing we can do, is to protect our fellow Canadians. I take that challenge very seriously. For a number of people I know in this chamber, colleagues I have talked to, improving our criminal justice system is one of the principal drivers of why they got involved in politics and why they were eventually elected as members of Parliament.

We need to ensure that we are doing our very best. Some mandatory minimums have been struck down, but to allow judges to ignore those that have been upheld in the past would be a major fault. We must stand up for the victims of crime.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets.

I am grateful to rise today on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Peterborough to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to contextualize the legislation within Canada's broader effort to confront and prevent gender-based violence.

Gender-based violence is a persistent and measurable reality affecting women, girls and gender-diverse people across this country. In 2024, 187 women and gender-diverse people were killed violently in Canada. That represents one woman every two days. Women are far more likely than men to experience severe forms of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and criminal harassment. More than one-quarter of all victims of violent crime in 2024 were victimized by an intimate partner.

These are not isolated incidents, and our justice system has struggled to effectively address these crimes, given the complex realities of gender-based violence and the patterns of behaviour that often define abuse. The rate of intimate partner violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence experienced by women and girls, is more than three and a half times higher compared to men and boys. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and young women face even higher risks.

The Government of Canada has recognized that addressing gender-based violence requires a comprehensive and coordinated response. In 2017, the federal government released a federal gender-based violence strategy and has since invested over $800 million a year to coordinate federal actions under three pillars: preventing gender-based violence, supporting survivors and their families and promoting a responsive justice system.

Since 2022, the federal government has invested in a national action plan to end gender-based violence, a 10-year framework aiming to end gender-based violence in Canada by supporting victims and survivors of crime and their families and improving their experiences with the criminal justice system. Significant efforts have been undertaken in this area. For example, the federal victims strategy works to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system and increase their access to justice. Through the victims fund, which is part of the federal victims strategy, resources are made available to the provinces and territories for the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including for the development of public legal education and information material, and the provision of training on the legislation for criminal justice professionals.

Considerable efforts have also been made to strengthen the criminal justice system's response to gender-based violence. Canada's Criminal Code provides a broad-based response to all forms of violence, exploitation and abuse against all persons in Canada. Over the past years, legislative amendments in former Bill C-51 and Bill C-75 clarified and strengthened sexual assault laws and the criminal justice system's response to intimate partner violence, and former Bill C-233 imposed stricter conditions for those charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence. In addition, former Bill S-205, which came into force last April, created a new peace bond designed specifically to provide better protections for victims of intimate partner violence and their children, including by allowing conditions such as electronic monitoring to be imposed on the defendant. All of these efforts reflect an understanding that prevention, protection, accountability and survivor support must work together.

Today, Bill C-16 is a critical part of that continuum. It strengthens the criminal law in ways that respond directly to what survivors, advocates and frontline professionals have long told us about how gender-based violence actually occurs. Bill C-16 creates a new offence criminalizing a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct in intimate partner relationships. This addresses the reality that abuse takes place over time. It aligns the law with the lived reality of survivors and allows for earlier intervention, before coercive or controlling conduct turns into serious physical harm or death. It also supports more accurate police and prosecutorial responses by requiring a contextualized assessment of power and exploitation.

Bill C-16 also addresses the most extreme manifestation of gender-based violence: the killing of women because they are women. By explicitly naming and recognizing femicide in the Criminal Code, the bill acknowledges that women and girls are disproportionately killed in specific contexts, including intimate partner violence, sexual violence, exploitation and hate-motivated attacks. Naming femicide matters. It makes visible a reality that has too often been obscured and affirms that these killings are not random tragedies but systemic failures that demand accountability.

The bill would ensure that murders occurring in these circumstances are treated as first-degree murder. It would also require judges, when sentencing for manslaughter in the same context, to consider penalties equivalent to second-degree murder, including life imprisonment and parole ineligibility for 10 to 25 years.

Importantly, Bill C-16 also recognizes that gender-based violence increasingly occurs through technology. The rise of sexually explicit deepfakes, sextortion and online harassment has created new avenues for abuse, particularly targeting women and girls. These forms of violence can destroy reputations, livelihoods and mental health, and they often silence victims through shame and fear.

The bill would address these gaps by clarifying that non-consensual distribution of intimate images includes realistic deepfakes, as well as criminalizing threats to distribute such material and increasing penalties for those offences. These measures would complement existing Government of Canada initiatives aimed at addressing online harms and protecting digital safety, particularly for young people.

The bill would also modernize the offence of criminal harassment. Data shows that stalking and harassment are common before acts of serious violence, yet the current requirement to prove a victim's subjective fear has made early intervention difficult.

Further, Bill C-16 proposes reforms to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to better protect victims and expand access to testimonial aids for adult victims of intimate partner violence, sexual offences and criminal harassment, offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. These measures would improve justice system outcomes for victims by recognizing that court systems can be retraumatizing and that supporting meaningful participation is essential to justice. The bill would also build on recent reforms to peace bonds and firearms control, reflecting clear evidence that access to firearms significantly increases the risk of lethal intimate partner violence. By strengthening preventive tools and closing enforcement gaps, Bill C-16 would support the Government of Canada's broader commitment to keeping victims and communities safe.

Bill C-16 is a necessary step in Canada's ongoing commitment to confront gender-based violence with seriousness, clarity and resolve. It reflects the hard truth that violence is rarely a single act but often a pattern, that technology has created new tools for abuse, and that too many women and girls continue to lose their lives in preventable circumstances. By criminalizing coercive control, recognizing femicide, strengthening protections against online and intimate partner violence, and reducing barriers for victims and survivors of crime within the criminal justice system, the bill would align our laws with lived reality and evidence.

For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-16. Addressing gender-based violence is not optional, protecting victims is non-negotiable and justice must be delivered before more lives are lost.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing her time.

Before I get into Bill C-16, I would like to acknowledge that last weekend the great people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek commemorated the 213th anniversary of the Battle of Stoney Creek, one of the most important victories in Canadian history. In June 1813, a determined force of British soldiers, local militia and loyal settlers faced a much larger American army and won in what served as the Stalingrad of the War of 1812. Their courage helped turn the tide in the defence of Upper Canada and demonstrated that the people of this land would not be intimidated by a larger neighbour.

More than two centuries later, the Battle of Stoney Creek remains a powerful reminder of the Canadian spirit: resilient, independent and determined to stand up for our national interests. As Canadians continue to face economic uncertainty and challenges beyond our borders, the lessons of Stoney Creek remain as relevant as ever. Our strength has always come from our unity, our perseverance and our confidence in Canada. May we always honour those who defended this country and continue building a free, proud and sovereign Canada.

I rise today also to speak about Bill C-16 and against a major flaw hidden inside it, specifically clause 63, the safety valve. First, it is a fact that after 11 years of Liberal government, Canadians are less safe. Violent crime is up 55%, and extortion is up 330% across Canada. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%. Sexual assaults are up almost 76%, and Canadians can see this. They see other Canadians feeling scared and threatened. They see crime becoming more common. They see repeat offenders arrested one day and back on the streets the next. In a country that used to feel safe, this is completely out of the ordinary. Canadians are desperate for change. They want to feel safe again.

After all that, what is the Liberal answer? It is more of the same. The Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe he is tough on crime, but Bill C-16 proves otherwise. While Liberals are trying to sell the bill as a crackdown on criminals, buried inside is a loophole that would allow judges to bypass almost every mandatory minimum sentence left in the Criminal Code.

Bill C-16 would amend the general sentencing principles that require courts to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum, where applying the minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. This would apply to all mandatory minimum penalties currently in the Criminal Code, with the only exceptions being murder and high treason. What it actually means is that the mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory. A custodial sentence would still be required, but the length of the imprisonment would be up to the judge's judgment.

The Liberals spent the last 11 years slowly eroding the laws that are keeping Canadians safe from criminals by keeping them behind bars. Now they want judges to ignore many of the ones that remain. Hidden inside a bill called the “protecting victims act” is a proposed get-out-of-jail-free card that claims it would protect victims. That is not getting tough on crime. That is getting softer on criminals.

The Liberals voted against the following Conservative bills that would have created stricter bail laws and tougher penalties for violent and repeat offenders. Bill C-381 would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-220 would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-246 would have required criminals convicted of multiple sexual offences to serve consecutive sentences, but the Liberals voted against it.

The Liberals also weakened bail laws through Bill C-75. Police chiefs, premiers, and Conservatives warned them, but the Liberals ignored everybody. What was the result? It was the principle of restraint: letting criminals out at the earliest reasonable opportunity on the least onerous conditions, a catch-and-release justice system where violent repeat offenders cycle through our courts and back into our communities.

In 2022, the Liberals' Bill C-5 struck down 14 mandatory minimums, including on possession and discharging of weapons and firearms. As a direct result of these Liberal laws, there have been multiple examples of firearms smugglers, gun traffickers and violent criminals receiving no jail time for crimes that should have put them behind bars. In Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, police have repeatedly laid firearms charges against individuals who are already on probation, under release conditions or subject to firearms probation.

Canadians are asking why people who have already demonstrated that they will ignore court orders continue finding themselves back with the police on new charges. Canadians are losing confidence in a justice system that seems more focused on giving offenders another chance than giving victims peace of mind. When someone is arrested for a serious firearms offence while already under a court order, Canadians do not see that as a mistake. They see a system that is failing to protect them, which the Liberals have created. Every time a violent repeat offender is released only to commit another crime, another family, business owner or community pays the price. The consequences and the fear are real, and the frustration Canadians feel is completely justified.

It is no surprise that under the Liberal government, crime is increasing at alarming rates. Now the Liberals are making the same mistake again. Canadians want to feel safe. Criminals are becoming more aggressive. They are targeting businesses and using intimidation and violence. The Liberal response is a bill that could allow offenders convicted of extortion with a prohibited firearm to receive a sentence below the current mandatory minimum. That makes no sense. If someone uses a gun to terrorize a business owner, Canadians expect serious consequences, not loopholes and leniency. They certainly do not expect the Liberal government to make it easier for criminals to avoid punishment. It does not make any sense.

We have a mandatory duty as elected officials to make our communities and Canada at large safer. This is not optional. Conservatives believe the justice system should stand with victims, not criminals; that mandatory minimum sentences should actually be mandatory; and that organized criminals, repeat violent offenders and sexual offenders should stay behind bars where they belong, not be treated like they are entitled to endless second chances. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to fix this bill.

The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for the following: aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with a restricted, prohibited firearm. Parliament set mandatory minimums for these heinous crimes for a reason. If the Liberals allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums, there will be nothing mandatory about them, full stop. Mandatory is not optional, and that is what Conservatives are fighting for.

We are happy with the positive changes in the bill. Banning deepfakes of intimate partners and bringing in mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse material would help Canadians and would keep our kids safe. Despite these changes, Bill C‑16 still fails to reverse the dangerous soft-on-crime agenda that the Liberals have spent the last 11 years enacting. Conservatives were defeated or ruled out of scope on 30 amendments that would have tightened or restored mandatory minimums for violent and serious crimes and repeat violent offenders. Those amendments would have kept our streets safer by removing the safety valve from crimes including extortion, aggravated assault and child sexual offences, and they would have kept criminals who commit these heinous acts behind bars, where they belong.

The safety valve would be a dangerous clause to include in this otherwise positive bill. This is another example of Liberal half measures. We have come this far with a good bill that would protect Canadians from serious crimes, but keeping the safety valve provision would completely contradict the principles of keeping victims safe. The Liberals should simply split this provision off so that Parliament can work to make this bill better to keep victims safe.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a theatrical performance and what a great piece of gaslighting by the Liberals, but I do have some facts here.

It is because of that actual member's voting on Bill C-75 that Daniel Senecal was out on bail in Welland for a horrific crime. Most of those members voted for that. That is the actual result of bad Liberal policy that they voted on with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Now he is going to stand here and gaslight us.

Here is another thing that is an actual fact: All those members over there voted against Bill C-381, which would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion; Bill C-220, which would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences; and Bill C-246. They voted against all that just a couple of months ago. It is a great piece of gaslighting—

Instruction to Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, he said that was pre-this government.

Who is in power now? It is the current Liberal government. Who is not acting on Bill C‑75? It is the Liberal government. Who is allowing the status quo to be maintained on Bill C‑75 with a majority? It is the Liberal government. Spare us the rhetoric on Bill C‑75's being tough on crime, until the government is prepared to deal with the least onerous measures bail provisions in Bill C‑75.

The member should take a seat, because we put forward legislation on this, the jail not bail act. The Liberals voted against it.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us talk about Bill C‑75. The member across the way from Winnipeg talks about being tough on crime as Liberals, but there is more. If someone is accused of an offence, Bill C‑75 says they get bail on the least restrictive conditions at the earliest possible opportunity. Why will the member not rise—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, we just heard from the member for Winnipeg North, who has sat in the House, in government, for 11 years but has done nothing to crack down on crime. The Liberals brought in Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75, which do everything within their power to put violent criminals back out on the streets, yet now he hectors Conservatives for not doing enough for the Liberals while they are in government.

What does the member think of the government's pontificating again about being tough on crime?

Protecting Victims Act

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear the government talk about Bill C-16, they probably think it is a bill about protecting victims. They hear about protecting women from abuse. They hear about protecting children from exploitation. They hear about stopping the spread of deepfake pornography. They hear about tougher measures against coercive control in abusive relationships. Most Canadians would hear that list and say, “Who could possibly be against that?” The answer is, nobody could.

Conservatives support those objectives because we believe victims deserve protection, children deserve protection and families deserve protection. That is the fundamental job of government: protection of its citizens. The problem is that Bill C-16 is a bit like buying a house because the front porch looks beautiful, only to discover later that the foundation is compromised. The government points Canadians toward the parts of the bill everyone likes, while hoping they do not notice the parts that would change everything. Buried inside this legislation is a poison pill that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum sentence in the Criminal Code.

First, we need to understand how we got here. Consecutive Conservative governments had established mandatory minimum sentences for some of the most serious crimes in our Criminal Code. We did that because Canadians expect serious offences to carry serious consequences. Child sexual exploitation, weapons trafficking, armed extortion, drive-by shootings and human trafficking were not treated as ordinary crimes, because the harm they cause is extraordinary.

However, for 10 years, the Liberal government has systematically weakened the principle that serious crimes must carry serious consequences. Liberal Bill C-75 weakened bail laws and pushed the justice system toward release at the earliest opportunity. Liberal Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum penalties for a range of serious offences, including crimes involving firearms and dangerous drugs.

Time and again, police officers, prosecutors, victims advocates, premiers and community leaders warned that the government was moving in the wrong direction. Time and again, those warnings were dismissed. Today, Canadians are seeing the consequences. Violent crime has increased dramatically. Human trafficking has increased dramatically. Sexual assault has increased dramatically. Organized criminal networks have become stronger and more sophisticated.

Canadians are witnessing the inevitable result of a philosophy that views punishment, rather than crime itself, as the problem, that views the rights of the criminal as more important than the rights of the victim. That is why Bill C-16's “get out of jail free” card is a poison pill that Canadian communities will once again be forced to swallow. The Liberals will say that Conservatives are standing in the way of getting strong laws passed, but I can assure Canadians that Conservatives are standing in the breach, fighting to keep criminals from getting off with a slap on the wrist for serious crimes.

Understanding Bill C-16 requires a deeper understanding of the path that led us here. For years, courts have increasingly relied on what are called “reasonable hypotheticals” when reviewing mandatory minimum sentences. Rather than focusing solely on the criminal who is actually on trial, the court judges have increasingly considered hypothetical scenarios involving people who do not exist and who never committed the actual crimes in question.

That trend culminated in the Supreme Court's Senneville decision. The facts of that case were horrific. One offender possessed 475 files, including 317 images of children, most between the ages of three and six, and many depicting acts of sexual abuse I cannot bring myself to say out loud here in the House. Another offender possessed more than 800 images and videos involving children as young as five years old being subjected to sexual exploitation and abuse. That is hundreds of images documenting the abuse of vulnerable children.

Most Canadians would think that the court would consider those offenders and apply the appropriate mandatory minimum sentence. Instead, the court chose this moment to question mandatory minimums altogether. Judges based their decisions on a hypothetical story of a teenager sending a hypothetical intimate photo to a hypothetical boyfriend or girlfriend, and that hypothetical photo was later shared with a hypothetical someone. The court claimed concern that the same mandatory minimum law could apply, even though the case before them was very real and very serious. Because of that hypothetical case, the court struck down Parliament's mandatory minimum sentence.

The government then had a choice. It could have changed the law to deal with that specific concern while keeping strong penalties in place for serious child sexual exploitation offences. Instead, the Liberals used that court decision as the reason for creating the new get-out-of-jail-free card in Bill C-16. That is why Canadians should look carefully at what the bill would actually do rather than what the Liberals say it would do.

The government wants Canadians to believe that Bill C-16 is a major public safety initiative. It points to provisions dealing with deepfake pornography. It points to provisions dealing with coercive control. It points to provisions dealing with intimate partner violence. All those measures are designed to attract support. However, while Canadians are focused on those headlines, the Liberal government has inserted this poison pill. It calls it a safety valve, a phrase carefully chosen because it sounds limited, reasonable and harmless. The government insists this power will be used only in exceptional cases, yet when Conservatives proposed reasonable safeguards to ensure that outcome, every safeguard was rejected. Canadians should ask themselves a simple question: If the government truly intended that this be used only rarely, why did it refuse every attempt to define what “rarely” actually means? The answer is obvious. The government is presenting Canadians with one bill while pursuing a very different objective beneath the surface.

That objective became even clearer during committee study. Conservatives approached the legislation constructively, because we recognize that there are very good measures that are worth preserving. Our goal is not to destroy the bill; our goal is to strengthen it and ensure that victims remain at the centre of the legislation. We proposed safeguards that would have limited access to the safety valve to offenders with no prior record. We proposed ensuring that sentences would not be reduced below half of Parliament's mandatory minimum. We proposed excluding extortion offences. We proposed excluding aggravated sexual assault. We proposed excluding serious child sexual offences. We proposed excluding some of the most serious crimes that Parliament has already determined deserve firm sentencing consequences. Every one of those amendments was rejected.

Conservatives also proposed stronger notification requirements so that victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control would be informed about release decisions affecting offenders. Those amendments were rejected as well. The significance of those votes cannot be ignored. The government did not accidentally create an overly broad get-out-of-jail-free card but deliberately defended it. It did not overlook the concerns raised by Conservatives. It considered those concerns and voted against them. The result is legislation that speaks passionately about victims while systematically rejecting measures that would strengthen their protection.

Conservatives support stronger protections for women and children, stronger measures against deepfake exploitation and stronger recognition of the devastating harm caused by coercive control. Those objectives are important and need support. Unfortunately, the poison pill at the heart of Bill C-16 undermines all of those goals, because it continues with the same failed philosophy that has contributed to the crime and chaos Canadians are experiencing today.

At a time when communities are demanding greater accountability, the government is creating new opportunities for offenders to avoid consequences. At a time when victims are asking to be heard, the government is focusing its attention on a get-out-of-jail-free card for criminals. At a time when public confidence in the justice system is already fragile, the government is asking members of Parliament to weaken one of the few tools designed to ensure serious crime receives serious punishment.

Canadians deserve better than legislation that says one thing and does another. They deserve a justice system that places victims first, supports police officers, protects communities and recognizes that public safety is a fundamental responsibility of government. If the Liberals truly believed in the good parts of the bill, protecting women and children against deepfake exploitation, why did they insist on attaching a poison pill that creates yet another get-out-of-jail-free card for serious offenders?

Bill C-16—Time Allocation Motion

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, to listen to this minister complain about and blame Conservatives for the situation of our justice system in Canada today is laughable.

When Bill C-75 was passed, Conservatives opposed that bill because we knew the damage and the consequences that bill would wreak on our justice system. Jody Wilson-Raybould, the minister at the time, said that passing that bill would speed up all of the delays in the court system, delays that seem to still exist. Arif Virani, during the debate, defended the government's use of time allocation and argued the opposition was blocking. Randy Boissonnault did the same thing and argued that Conservatives were holding things up. We were simply trying to warn Canadians about the damage these guys were doing.

Fast-forward to Bill C-5. David Lametti, as this bill's sponsor, said that Bill C-5 needed to move forward quickly and efficiently, and again blamed Conservatives for stopping the government from removing mandatory minimum penalties. Now, fast-forward to the current public safety minister and Mark Holland arguing the same thing.

All of this is evidenced in the Hansard and the Debates of those parliaments. For this minister to stand here today and actually blame Conservatives for telling them that they were wrong and we were right all along is ridiculous.

Public Safety

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present today.

The first one is regarding the alarming increase in repeat violent offenders being released on bail. The petitioners have witnessed a sharp increase in car theft, gang violence and drug-related deaths. In fact, one constituent warned me about a car theft at my house just this week. Violent crimes have increased by 50%. Violent gun crime has surged by 116%. In 2022, 256 Canadians were tragically killed by people out on bail, thanks to Liberal catch-and-release policies under Bill C-75.

The petitioners are calling on the Minister of Justice, urgently, to reform Canada's bail laws and restore safety on our streets.