Bill C-16

Protecting Victims Act

An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures)

This enactment amends various Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters.
It amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner;
(b) provide that, in the following circumstances, murder — known as femicide when committed against a female person — is murder in the first degree:
(i) the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct,
(ii) the murder is committed in the context of sexual violence,
(iii) the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking, or
(iv) the murder is motivated by hate;
(c) provide that, if an offender commits manslaughter in those circumstances, the court must consider whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on the offender and, if that sentence is imposed, an adult offender is ineligible for parole for 10 to 25 years;
(d) remove from the criminal harassment offence the requirement to prove that the victim subjectively feared for their safety and replace it with a requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe that someone’s safety is threatened;
(e) amend the offence of non-consensual distribution of an intimate image to include, among such images, a visual representation showing an identifiable person depicted as nude, as exposing their sexual organs or as engaged in explicit sexual activity, if the depiction is likely to be mistaken for a visual recording of that person;
(f) amend certain existing child sexual offences to include prohibiting a person from inviting a child to expose their own sexual organs for a sexual purpose;
(g) criminalize the distribution of visual representations of bestiality;
(h) create a new offence relating to the recruitment of a person under 18 years of age to be a party to an offence;
(i) provide that victims of certain offences, such as offences in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against an intimate partner, are entitled to testimonial aids;
(j) permit courts to order that an offender serve a period of imprisonment below a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, but only if the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that particular offender;
(k) create a new Part establishing a framework for applying alternative measures and restorative justice processes in appropriate cases;
(l) create a new Part in respect of unreasonable delay that requires a court to consider specific factors in relation to case complexity, directs a court to exclude time periods in respect of specific applications and requires that a stay of proceedings be ordered only if a court is satisfied, taking into account a list of factors, that no other remedy would be appropriate and just;
(m) streamline and strengthen the procedural rules in sexual offence trials that govern when evidence of a complainant’s past sexual activity can be adduced and when certain private records, including therapeutic records, can be produced or adduced; and
(n) allow the possibility of using affidavit evidence for certain cases involving identity theft and identity fraud.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that it better reflects the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights with respect to the rights and interests of victims;
(b) modernize the principle requiring consideration of the needs of young persons, including by requiring particular attention to those of Aboriginal and Black young persons; and
(c) allow youth justice courts to order that a young person enter into a recognizance if there is a reasonable fear that the young person will commit a child sexual offence.
The enactment also amends the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to
(a) modify the preamble to affirm the importance of victim-centred and trauma-informed approaches;
(b) provide victims with the right to be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness;
(c) enable victims to receive information without being required to make a request;
(d) provide that victims have the right to receive information about their rights under that Act and the protection measures that are available to them;
(e) broaden the information that victims have the right to receive about available restorative justice processes; and
(f) clarify the right of victims to present a victim impact statement at sentencing and a victim statement for consideration when decisions regarding parole or corrections are made about the offender who harmed them.
The enactment also amends the National Defence Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that victims of certain offences, such as offences in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against an intimate partner, are entitled to testimonial aids;
(b) create a new Division in respect of unreasonable delay that requires a court martial to consider specific factors in relation to case complexity, directs a court martial to exclude time periods in respect of specific applications and requires that a stay of proceedings be ordered only if a court martial is satisfied, taking into account a list of factors, that no other remedy would be appropriate and just;
(c) streamline and strengthen the procedural rules to align with the Criminal Code procedural rules in sexual offence trials that govern when evidence of a complainant’s past sexual activity can be adduced and when certain private records, including therapeutic records, can be produced or adduced;
(d) provide victims with the right to be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness;
(e) provide that victims have the right to receive information about their rights under the Division of the National Defence Act entitled “Declaration of Victims Rights” and information about the protection measures that are available to them; and
(f) enable victims to receive information from authorities in the military justice system without being required to make a request.
The enactment also amends An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child sexual abuse and exploitation material by persons who provide an Internet service to, among other things,
(a) clarify the types of Internet services covered by that Act;
(b) require that transmission data be provided with the mandatory notification in cases where the material is manifestly child sexual abuse and exploitation material;
(c) extend the period of preservation of data related to an offence; and
(d) extend the limitation period for the prosecution of an offence under that Act.
The enactment also amends the Firearms Act to clarify that an individual whose firearms licence or registration certificate has been revoked is required to deliver their firearm to a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer and to provide that an individual is not eligible to hold a licence under that Act if the chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual may have engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking.
The enactment also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, among other things, enhance the disclosure of information to victims and other components of the criminal justice system and provide for the submission of victim statements in certain instances.
Finally, the enactment also amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to facilitate legal assistance between Canada and supranational bodies with responsibility for criminal investigations or prosecutions.

Protecting Victims Act

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

moved that Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to commence debate on Bill C-16. Before I begin, I want to wish everyone a happy new year. I hope everyone had a restful holiday. It is wonderful to see folks from all parties back to debate some of the most important issues facing Canadians.

Before I begin with the specifics of the bill we are here to debate today, I want to spend a moment placing the bill in the appropriate context. It is one in which public safety has become a major priority for Canadians and, indeed, a major priority for the Government of Canada. The feedback we received over the course of the election campaign and since from Canadians is demanding action from the federal government when it comes to these pressing political priorities and safety imperatives.

Though the focus of the bill is fairly narrow concerning its impact on particular issues of gender-based violence and the exploitation of children, it is essential to understand that the bill is part of a broader strategy of public safety and criminal justice reform that the federal government is pursuing assiduously. This strategy, as I have said many times, including in the House, rests upon three pillars.

The first pillar is to adopt stronger laws to help build safer communities, including new criminal legislative reforms to address hate crimes, a major overhaul of the bail and sentencing regimes that exist in the Criminal Code and, importantly, the protecting victims act.

The second pillar of this strategy involves investments in the front line, whether that is 1,000 new RCMP officers to keep our communities safe, 1,000 new CBSA officials to help combat the importation of illegal drugs and crimes or supports for the community organizations on the front line that are helping victims of crime and survivors of violence.

The third pillar, and perhaps it is the most important pillar when it comes to ending violence in the long term, demands that we make investments upstream to address the long-term challenges that communities face. This includes investments in affordable housing, transitional housing and supportive housing; investments in mental health and addictions; and investments that target at-risk youth to help build healthy people to contribute to a stronger and safer Canada.

The focus of my remarks today will be the protecting victims act.

Before I begin, it is important for me to put this debate into context. It is very important to recognize that the government has a strategy to address public safety, including a strategy to strengthen criminal laws, with investments in police forces, the organizations that protect our communities, as well as investments in affordable housing, mental health and programs that support young people.

Today's debate is about the protecting victims act. The bill includes a number of different elements that are focused on things such as gender-based violence, intimate partner violence, the protection of our children against exploitation, the criminalization of new sexual offences to keep pace with the changing world, the restoration of mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, the addressing of delays in the justice system and the better protection of victims' rights throughout the criminal trial process.

Let me begin with the pressing priority of gender-based violence in Canada. The seriousness of this issue cannot be overstated. We see a woman killed in this country every 48 hours.

There have been four femicides so far this year in Quebec alone. That is unacceptable.

We have to acknowledge this harsh reality, but we do not have to accept it as our destiny. We can implement changes to criminal law to better protect Canadians against violence that can become fatal.

What is important, although the statistics should shock the conscience of every Canadian, is that the victims of these fatal crimes are not numbers or statistics. They are real people. For some of us, they are the people who we grew up going to school with, who shared the same hallways over the course of our years as a youth. For others, they are the co-workers who we befriended but no longer see showing up at the office. For others still, they are the friends and family members whose lives have been taken.

To understand the impact of these tragedies, we cannot focus solely on the murder that has taken place. We also have to understand the pain that families endure in the years not lived with the people they cherished most dearly.

We can do something about this. In this important bill, we are proposing to move forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge for cases of femicide in this country. This would ensure a first-degree murder charge when a murder is committed in an intimate partner setting that has taken place in the context of a sexual offence. It would ensure that murders motivated by hate, including hatred toward someone because they are a woman, are treated as one of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code. It would include cases of murder that were preceded by a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

We know, through extensive engagement with people who have dedicated their lives to understanding the solutions to gender-based violence, that the majority of cases of murder that take place in the context of intimate partner violence are preceded by a predictive pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

I want to pause for a moment on this particular point because we are not only moving forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge in the context of coercive control; we are also seeking to criminalize coercive control as a stand-alone infraction. We know that the pattern of using violence in the home against other family members, children or pets to control every aspect of a person's life can often offer predictive value on whether someone is at risk of a far more serious experience with violence that could become fatal.

We know that we need to take action to combat violence against women, and to protect women and girls across the country.

We need to take action. By criminalizing coercive control, there is an opportunity for the criminal justice system to intervene before relationships become violent and before violence becomes deadly. This provision has the opportunity to save lives in this country.

I want to express my gratitude to our former parliamentary colleague Laurel Collins for her work in advancing a private member's bill on this specific issue. I want to thank the work of the parliamentarians on the status of women committee, who have urged us to take action on these kinds of issues. It is essential that we do what we can to intervene, not just after a person has been killed, but in the first instance, to save lives.

I want to read a short statement from the Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes that speaks to this particular provision.

Criminalizing coercive control is also a critical milestone. This type of violence, which often goes unseen, is one of the main determinants of femicide. Naming it and criminalizing it will help us better understand the dynamics that lead to extreme violence. It will also help us detect high-risk situations sooner and strengthen prevention measures.

If we have the opportunity to save lives before these horrific crimes take place, we must do everything we can to do so.

In addition, there are a range of other offences we are modernizing to keep pace with changes in technology, including the crime of criminal harassment, by ensuring that we recognize the modern ways this crime can be committed, including through the use of technology to track a person's presence, for example, on a cellphone.

We are also expanding the definition to ensure it is an objective standard that would be easier to prove in a court of law. Rather than demonstrating that a person in fact felt fear, which comes with obvious evidentiary hurdles, we want a complainant to be able to demonstrate that a reasonable person in their position, based on the facts at hand, would have felt fear.

Another issue that is garnering much attention these day is the use of artificial intelligence to create deepfakes and the sharing of intimate images that have been created with that technology. A gap exists in the law today that we must address by expanding the definition of an intimate image to those created through artificial intelligence. Deepfake technologies are expanding rapidly, and we have to ensure that our laws evolve rapidly to address this emerging threat.

Changing the rules as technology evolves is crucial. There is currently a problem because the law does not reflect the technologies that exist today.

So many of us are walking around with extraordinary technology in our pockets. Our phones have the ability to not only take pictures but also create images from nothing. They can also send messages to people in our community and around the world. By changing the definition of an intimate image to include AI deepfakes, we can better protect people against this emerging threat. In addition, we will be changing the law to expand the definition to ensure that not only the distribution of these images constitutes a crime, but also the threatened distribution, which could be used, for example, to embarrass or extort a person.

We also seek to expand the definition of the distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material. I will pause here before I get into some of the specifics. It is hard to imagine a more morally reprehensible behaviour than that of taking advantage of a young person for sexual purposes. Children are amongst the most vulnerable members of our community as they depend on the adults in their lives for their well-being. That someone would exploit a young child in this way deserves condemnation from all members of the House and all Canadians more broadly.

By expanding the definition of distribution to include the threatened distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, we can prevent the kind of behaviour that often leads to deep trauma and enormous embarrassment, which again, can sometimes lead to fatal consequences.

We need not recite the many examples that have played out in the news. Suffice it to say there are parents living in this country today without their children, who have taken their own lives as a result of being exploited this way, for fear of the embarrassment they may live through.

We also seek to modernize the offence of child luring to ensure that the offences that would be considered include sextortion when it comes to demonstrating that the threshold has been met for the crime of child luring. We would be expanding the definitions when it comes to child sex tourism, to ensure that a Canadian abroad who commits a crime of a sexual nature against a child would face penalties when they come home. We will be working to ensure there is a mandatory reporting aspect when it comes to certain platforms that hold illicit sexual material on their websites, to help prevent crime from leading to such dire consequences. We would be expanding different offences to include invitation to sexual touching or invitation to expose oneself to an adult.

It is important that we reflect not only on the substance of these crimes that we are seeking to expand but on the penalties that should befall a person who has committed them. This bill seeks to increase the maximum penalty for a range of sexual offences, including sexual assault, sextortion, voyeurism, exposure and obtaining sexual services from a minor. It seeks to reduce the ability of people to rely on defences such as mistaken belief in age unless they have actually taken reasonable steps to ascertain a person's age.

In addition to increasing the maximum penalty for a range of sexual offences, we have to address the mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down by the Supreme Court. In some ways, the changes embedded in Bill C-16 follow on the heels of the Senneville decision, which left a gap in Canada's law when it came to mandatory minimum penalties for the distribution, possession and accessing of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, but frankly, this is an issue that has been chipped away at over years in the context of different crimes, where certain provisions have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Senneville decision relied on a hypothetical situation, which, the court viewed, would constitute a grossly disproportionate penalty should a person face a year in jail. That particular example relied upon a teenager who may have been 16 or 17 who sent an image to someone who shares it with their friend who may not have even asked for it. I can understand the court's perspective, but striking down that provision leaves a gap in the law where there are serious crimes committed against children that deserve serious punishment.

Now, thankfully, the court provided some direction on how this issue can be addressed and remedied. Thankfully, the court's direction reflects perspectives that I have heard advocated for in this House, including by members of the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party of Canada, and that are now embedded in the bill I am presenting on behalf of the Liberal government.

What we seek to do is establish a safety valve that would, in very limited circumstances where the penalty would be grossly disproportionate, permit the court to offer some other penalty that would still result in a period of incarceration. The measure we are putting forward would deal not only with the mandatory minimums that have been struck down in the Senneville decision but with the many cases that have struck down other mandatory minimum penalties for various serious crimes. It would not only restore the mandatory minimum penalties for those other serious crimes; it would protect the existing mandatory minimum penalties that are on the books today, which are constitutionally vulnerable.

If we have laws in our books that cannot be enforced by our law enforcement and our courts, then our Criminal Code is not worth the paper on which it is written. We have a duty to Canadians to protect them against these kinds of harm. By working with members of different parties and following the advice of the court, we can advance mandatory minimum penalties in a way that is constitutionally compliant and offers real protection to people and communities in every part of this country.

Not only do we need to address the changes I have canvassed, which are are more substantive in nature or address crimes and penalties, but we have to take a long look at the appropriate process through which these cases can be adjudicated. Canada has been experiencing a decades-long problem when it comes to delays in the criminal justice system.

Delays, in the best case scenario, still lead to a bad outcome. Delayed justice serves neither the accused nor the victim. It does not serve the court or society. Justice delayed is justice denied, so to speak. We have a unique consequence that has stemmed from another Supreme Court decision, just a few years ago. In the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has created space for cases to be stayed, effectively terminated before they are brought to their natural conclusion. There have been nearly 10,000 cases in this country that have been thrown out, not because someone has overcome the accusation against them in a court of law, not because the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof, but because the case took too long.

In my view, it does not feel like justice when a perpetrator who has committed a crime is able to walk free in our communities simply because the court took too long to arrive at a decision. Victims who have to live in the community of their assailant, who may see them in their everyday lives living in their neighbourhoods, do not feel that this decision has delivered justice.

Now, we are going to address this concern directly in a few ways. One is by demanding that the court consider remedies other than a stay of proceedings should the period of time outlined in the Jordan decision elapse. In addition, we will be clarifying for the court certain cases that are more complex, that deserve a longer period of time before they would run into such an issue. We also want to do what we can to improve the underlying problem by speeding up the process to get decisions in a timely way and ensure that there is timely access to justice. This will demand that we keep pace with our judicial appointments. It will involve the changes built into Bill C-16, which would streamline the process of introducing evidence in criminal justice trials. Importantly, it will engage responsibilities of other levels of government that have the jurisdiction over the administration of justice to appoint provincial court judges and Crown prosecutors and to ensure that their courts run smoothly.

In this conversation, it is important as well to ensure that victims understand they have certain rights when it comes to the criminal trial process. Too often, people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves engaged in a lengthy and challenging court proceeding can feel lost through the process. The Victims Bill of Rights provides some clarity, ensuring that victims are treated with respect and timely access to justice, but it can help outline more concrete ways in which victims can participate in the process with full information and ensure that victims have the information they are entitled to, such as where they may appear, where they may offer a victim's impact statement, where they could benefit from testimonial aids or supports that allow them to participate fully in the criminal justice process and have their voice reflected, potentially in the sentencing or even when people may be transferred post-conviction from one level of security facility to another. Doing a better job of incorporating the voices of victims in this process is essential if we are going to build trust in the process among those who find themselves participating in it.

As I come to the conclusion, it is essential and incumbent upon all members of this House to recognize the seriousness of the problem facing those who have experienced violence and the families who continue to live without their loved ones. We cannot assume that solutions will automatically present themselves. Although we have seen encouraging data over the past couple of years when it comes to a reduction in the rate of crime, and violent crime in particular, we know there is more work to do. This progress does not happen by accident; we have to take decisions to strengthen the laws and put supports in place.

I thank those who have informed the national action plan to end gender-based violence. I thank the many commissions that have been struck, in particular, the Renfrew County inquest and, in my home province of Nova Scotia, the Mass Casualty Commission. I thank the ombudsperson for victims of crime, members of the status of women committee and, most importantly, the many advocates and survivors of violence, including sexual violence, whose perspectives are reflected in this bill.

Bill C-16 has garnered the support of law enforcement, victims' advocates and Canadians in every part of the country. My only ask of members of this House is that they loan their support to this important bill as well.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and, in this context, the greater Canadian public. I want to wish a warm welcome back to this chamber to everybody.

I have a question that relates to firearms. We have seen the Liberals preside over an unprecedented proliferation of firearms usage. I checked the bill; I did a search of it. There is one provision that would deal with extortion, and it mentions an aggravating factor. The government in Bill C-5 said that people who extort with a firearm, people who do drive-by shootings, in fact, can serve their sentence on house arrest.

Does the minister not agree that people who do drive-by shootings should be subject to the previous mandatory minimum of four years for that offence, or for extortion with a firearm?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on issues that are common to this bill, as well as his own private member's bill, which I know are a priority for him. In addition to the measures he referenced, this bill contains certain measures around firearms, including the denial of licences to those who have a history of gender-based violence and the need to return a firearm if a person's licence has been revoked.

On his particular question, it is important to point out that extortion with a firearm, for example, can in fact carry a mandatory minimum in Canada. We also do not want to confuse the difference between mandatory minimums and aggravating factors, because we actually believe that extortion, in this case of a sexual nature, deserves a higher penalty.

To the extent that there are proposals that members of this House may have, the appropriate way to deal with ideas they support that may be outside the scope of this bill is to have those advanced and debated at committee. To the extent that we receive advice from our parliamentary colleagues who will be considering this bill through the committee process, members should know that I would consider them in good faith.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I do not think the hon. minister would like to mislead the House, but in Bill C-5, the previous government actually removed mandatory minimum sentences—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member knows that would be a matter of debate.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to wish you, my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé and all of my colleagues here a happy new year.

We are starting on a rather positive note, and the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. Of course, we will have some serious and conscientious work to do at committee.

Among other things, we are pleased to see provisions related to delays in the justice system. Because of these delays, many serious crimes are not going to trial, which is outrageous, but something is finally being done about that. That is extremely important.

We agree with the new offences related to the recruitment of young people to commit crimes. We might have even gone a little further than what is set out in the bill. We will see. We will work on that in committee.

The same goes for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and violence. The bill also includes a provision that would enable judges to always use their discretion. There is a reason why justice is administered by human beings and not by software that determines which sentence corresponds to which offence.

Will the minister be open to the intelligent and thoughtful amendments that the Bloc Québécois will propose in committee?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would say the short answer is yes.

The measures set out in the bill did not happen by accident. We are holding discussions with national organizations and with opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois critics, who are suggesting ideas, like the one my colleague just put forward to the House. In addition, if members from any party have ideas they would like to suggest, and if the majority of the committee agrees with these amendments, that is a good thing.

If we get a chance to improve the quality of the bill, that would be the best outcome. No single person has all the good ideas. By working together, I hope we can improve the bill.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a mother, but also as a survivor of domestic violence, to clearly state how important this legislation is and point out how intricate and challenging it is to create such important legislation. I know first-hand what it is like to navigate the criminal justice system as a single mother, with the fear that one lives with every day from one's experience.

I am rising today to implore our colleagues across the aisle to support the tireless work of the minister, the status of women committee and the women's caucus in their consultation with survivors, who know first-hand exactly what is needed to protect the generations to come, and the people who are willing to rise, to stand in their fear, as they want to protect those who may come after them.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague for her tremendous courage in sharing that experience and for her support for the measures included in this bill.

The only point of correction I have for her statement is that she cited the tireless work of the minister in this case, but it is the tireless work of survivors and advocates that we have to express our gratitude for. This bill is a result of collaboration with many people who, unfortunately, have been through experiences of violence and tried to navigate the criminal justice system at a time of enormous trauma and difficulty in their lives. Those people's voices can be empowered through interventions such as the one we have just heard, which can bring their real-life experience to bear in the debates that play out in the committee process and in this chamber.

I want to thank all members of this House, regardless of their party, for the support they may lend to this bill and the solutions they may contribute to improve its quality.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, gender-based violence is rampant across our country, across the world and in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills. It is not just an isolated, out-of-the-blue act of violence; it is often a mindset that is nurtured and fostered, often systemically, within families and communities, in the workplace and online. I thank the minister for addressing this generational issue.

There are myths around the crime of coercive and controlling behaviour that say it brings policing into intimate partner relationships. Can the minister expand on how that crime would be enforced within our communities and what the positive impacts would be for our families and communities like Mississauga—Erin Mills?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is essential that we understand, through the extensive research done by people who have dedicated their lives to discovering the solutions to gender-based violence, particularly in an intimate partner violence context that ends with violence or, potentially, the murder of an innocent person, that there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that repeats itself time and time again.

We have the opportunity to have the criminal justice system more closely explore when there is violence inside a household. We have the opportunity to have the criminal justice system intervene when there is a pattern that may be predictive in nature, and to understand that the criminal justice system can not only address crimes after someone has been killed, but also intervene before a relationship becomes violent or someone actually dies. It is one thing to talk about an agenda that more harshly penalizes criminals, but if we have the opportunity to stop crime before it happens, we have to take it. This bill, as indicated by the statements of support from advocacy organizations, would do precisely that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know that the minister has often been slow to appoint judges, even though there is no shortage of Liberal donors who are willing to take those jobs. As a result, with the Jordan decision, some criminals have been released. We know the story behind the Jordan decision.

Did the minister ever consider using the notwithstanding clause to get around the Jordan decision in order to get justice for victims, if only while waiting for this bill, which broadens the criteria that judges will have to consider when applying Jordan?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I disagree with the claim that there have been delays in making appointments. There was a problem for a few years, but over the past two or three years, judicial positions have been filled very quickly and there are not many vacancies in the country right now.

To answer my colleague's question, I would say that he is presenting an interesting idea, but I worry that the courts would reject it, and we have found another way to address that concern.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, welcome back to the House. I welcome all of my friends on the other side, as well as my colleagues, and I wish every member of the House a very happy new year. I hope to have a really productive winter and spring session in the 45th Parliament.

I start by reflecting on what Bill C-16 would and would not do. At the outset, I can state that the bill is largely supported by the Conservative Party of Canada, but there are some red lines, which I will elaborate on, that need to be discussed. We can start that debate as early as today.

When Parliament legislates on criminal law, it does not engage in abstraction, but exercises the most serious power entrusted to a democratic legislature: the power to define wrongdoing, protect the public, including victims, and impose meaningful consequences on those who harm others. Bill C-16 fails in that responsibility, not because it is too firm but because it is too careless. It continues a troubling pattern we have seen time and time again of laws that sound tough in press releases, but are drafted so loosely, so vaguely and so defensively that they hand the control of criminal sentencing to the courts by default.

Bill C-16 claims to modernize sentencing. In reality, it would open the door to a constitutional crisis, chaos, further litigation and a steady erosion of Parliament's role in defining the moral boundaries of criminal law.

I want to remind the House that what we are debating today is simply not new. More than four years ago, during debate on Liberal Bill C-5, I stood in the chamber and warned of exactly where this approach would lead. Bill C-5 stripped away 14 mandatory minimums for very serious criminal offences, including drug charges, that Parliament had deliberately put in place to ensure the denunciation of and deterrence for serious crimes. At that time, I said that removing mandatory minimum penalties under the banner of compassion would not make our justice system fairer; it would make it weaker, less predictable and less capable of protecting the public. Four years later, that warning has not only aged well but sadly been proven correct.

Mandatory minimum penalties were never about denying judicial discretion. They were about ensuring that Parliament spoke loudly and clearly about the gravity of that danger. As I said then, and as I say today, this is not a partisan issue. Mandatory minimum penalties have been around since the very first Criminal Code in 1892 and were brought in by consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments.

Bill C-5 deliberately silenced the message reflecting the gravity of the danger that certain offences cause. Bill C-16 would do nothing to restore it. Sadly, it would continue down the same path. This is not evidence-based reform; it is policy-making driven by ideology, insulated from the real-world harm it causes.

For victims of crime, the justice system is not an academic exercise and it is not a theoretical debate about hypotheticals; it is about whether the law means what it says and whether consequences are real. That is where the bill gets it wrong. Bill C-16 tells victims one thing, yet it would deliver another. It claims to modernize sentencing, while it would reopen every door the House has tried to close.

The Liberal government wants credit for being tough on crime, but it refuses to do the hard work of writing laws that actually withstand constitutional scrutiny, protect communities and respect Parliament's role in setting punishment. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the mid-nineties and in 2016, released two landmark decisions that provided a road map to the Liberal government, under then prime minister Justin Trudeau, to do exactly these things, and nothing was done.

My views on this issue are not theoretical. They are shaped by decades of working inside the criminal justice system and my nearly 30 years as a lawyer, including many as a Crown prosecutor. I have stood in courtrooms with victims. I have seen their anguish and their fears. I have seen the aftermath of serious violent crimes, including gun violence.

I have watched judges struggle to impose meaningful consequences within the frameworks the Liberals chose to weaken. When legislators strip away sentencing certainty, they do not empower justice; they inject inconsistency and unpredictability into a system that depends on public confidence to function.

The charter does not prohibit mandatory minimum penalties. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that repeatedly in a number of decisions. Section 12 prohibits “cruel and unusual...punishment”. The test is not whether a sentence is harsh but whether it is grossly disproportionate. That is an exacting standard, and intentionally so.

Supreme Court jurisprudence has emphasized that gross disproportionality is reserved for punishment that is “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency”, not merely sentences that some judges might view as excessive or unnecessary. That distinction matters, because Parliament is constitutionally entitled to impose punishment that reflects denunciation, deterrence and moral condemnation, even when courts might prefer a lighter sentence.

The Liberal narrative pretends that any mandatory minimum risks unconstitutionality. That is simply false. It is the narrative we heard in the 44th Parliament. What creates constitutional vulnerability is careless breadth, missing guardrails and deliberate legislative ambiguity, all of which are present in Bill C-16.

Bill C-16 continues a now familiar Liberal strategy, which is drafting legislation not to withstand constitutional scrutiny but to invite it. The government legislates, knowing and, in some cases, hoping that courts will be asked to fix what Parliament refuses to resolve.

Academic literature has warned for years that overly broad criminal provisions, combined with a rigid sentencing framework, create fertile ground for section 12 litigation, particularly when Parliament fails to include clear guardrails or safety valves. The Supreme Court's section 12 jurisprudence allows courts to assess mandatory minimum penalties using reasonable hypothetical scenarios. They are not absurd and fanciful scenarios, but ones that could realistically arise under the law.

This is where Bill C-16 becomes dangerous, because once Parliament enacts a mandatory minimum penalty without explicit statutory guardrails, it invites defence counsel to construct hypotheticals designed to stretch the law to its constitutional breaking point. This will lead to courts invalidating mandatory minimums incrementally, case by case. The Macdonald-Laurier Institute has warned that this cycle has systematically hollowed out Parliament's authority over sentencing, not because mandatory minimums are inherently unconstitutional, but because the Liberals refused to draft them responsibly. Bill C-16 repeats this mistake.

The Liberals claim that removing mandatory minimum sentences, expanding judicial discretion and hollowing out sentencing floors are required by the charter and demanded by the Supreme Court. That is false. The Supreme Court has never said that mandatory minimum penalties are illegal. It has never said that Parliament lacks the authority to impose them. What it has said repeatedly is that Parliament must legislate carefully. Bill C-16 would not do that. Instead, it would use a single, deeply divided decision as justification for dismantling sentencing law far beyond what the court required.

Nowhere is that misrepresentation made clearer than in the Attorney General of Quebec v. Senneville. In that case, the majority of the court struck down mandatory minimum penalties for child pornography offences, relying not on the actual facts before it but on a constructed hypothetical scenario, a scenario that Parliament never intended to capture when it enacted those sentencing provisions. The hypothetical imagined an 18-year-old who briefly received or possessed an image without evidence of predatory behaviour, coercion or exploitation. That scenario was then used to invalidate sentencing floors that were designed to address the most serious and harmful forms of child sexual exploitation, offences that involve deliberate conduct, repeat behaviour and profound harm to victims.

This is not a reasonable hypothetical in any meaningful legislative sense. Parliament does not draft criminal law to address fleeting, technical-edged cases. It legislates for the heartland of an offence, the conduct that motivated Parliament to act in the first place. Stretching a law aimed at combatting child sexual exploitation to hypothetical outliers fundamentally distorts legislative intent. That is precisely why the dissent in Senneville matters so much and why the Liberals would rather the House not talk about it.

The dissenting justices issued a clear and forceful warning not only to the courts but to Parliament. They rejected the idea that section 12 of the charter requires lawmakers to sentence for the least serious imaginable application of an offence. They emphasized that mandatory minimums are constitutionally permissible where they reflect Parliament's judgment about the gravity of core criminal conduct. The dissent cautioned that using hypotheticals to strike down laws would transform section 12 of the charter into a weapon against democratic decision-making, allowing courts to invalidate Parliament's choices based on speculative scenarios rather than real-world harm.

Instead of responding to Senneville without discipline, by clarifying offence definitions, narrowing the application or adopting a narrowly tailored safety valve, the government chose a very different path. Bill C-16 does not correct a problem identified by the court. It uses Senneville as political cover to advance a long-standing ideological goal: the systematic dismantling of mandatory minimum penalties altogether. In other words, a contested, deeply divided Supreme Court decision, a five-four split, has now become the excuse for a sweeping legislative retreat.

Bill C-16 is not in careful compliance with the charter. It is a capitulation, a surrender of Parliament's authority based on the most expansive reading of judicial power, even while the court warned against it. This is not what responsible law-making looks like and not what Canadians expect from the House.

As Chief Justice Wagner warned, alongside Côté, Rowe and O'Bonsawin, using far-removed hypotheticals to dismantle Parliament's sentencing choices risks undermining democratic accountability itself. The dissent stated plainly that Parliament is not constitutionally required to sentence for the least serious imaginable case. That sentence alone dismantles the Liberal theory of criminal law.

The dissent went further, warning that the majority's approach risks converting section 12 into a rolling licence to invalidate democratically enacted penalties untethered from real-world harm. The dissent emphasized that minimums serve expressive and denunciatory functions. They communicate society's moral judgment, not merely actuarial risk assessments. Crucially, the dissent recognized that judicial discretion already exists in the criminal process in charging decisions, prosecutorial elections, plea negotiations and sentencing ranges above the minimum. In other words, these judges acknowledged what the government refuses to admit: The system already has safety valves and Parliament is allowed to rely on them. This is where Bill C-16 collapses under its own weight.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that carefully drafted safety valves can preserve mandatory minimums while protecting against gross disproportionality. The dissent in the Supreme Court decision of Nur, from 2015, made this explicit, pointing to hybrid offences and prosecutorial discretion as legitimate mechanisms to prevent unjust outcomes.

Bill C-16 involves no clear statutory safety valve, no proportionality override, no exceptional circumstance clause and no direction to courts on how Parliament expects minimums to operate. It is unserious to claim that a Liberal crime bill protects victims when it systematically weakens sentencing. Victims do not experience crime as a hypothetical. They do not experience it as a charter seminar. They experience it as fear, loss, trauma and lasting harm. Mandatory minimums are about certainty, denunciation and public trust, which is sadly lacking after 10 years of failed Liberal policies. When the government undermines Parliament's ability to set clear consequences, it sends a message to communities that criminal accountability is negotiable.

The House has a choice. We can continue down the Liberal path, drafting criminal law that collapses under constitutional pressure, inviting litigation and leaving victims behind, or we can reaffirm a basic democratic truth: Parliament sets law, courts apply it and the charter guards against true excess, not political discomfort. Bill C-16, as written, fails that test.

We must also consider the context in which Bill C-16 is being debated. Canadians are not imagining things. They are not misinformed. They are responding to reality. After nearly a decade of catch-and-release bail policies, the repeal of mandatory minimums and a long line of Liberal criminal justice reforms, Canadians are scared. They have every reason to be. Since 2015, trafficking has increased by over 80%. Sex assaults are up nearly 76%. Violent crime overall has increased by more than 50%. These are not talking points. These are StatsCan figures.

Mandatory sentencing is not optional and never should be. Parliament did not impose these penalties casually or accidentally. They were put in place precisely because certain crimes are so grave, so dangerous and so destructive that Parliament determined that incarceration must be the baseline, not the exception. That is why it is so troubling that even where Bill C-16 contains measures we can acknowledge as constructive, the government insists on embedding them inside a broader, soft-on-crime framework that undermines their effectiveness.

There are elements of the bill that move in the right direction. Banning the creation and distribution of deepfake images is necessary and long overdue. We are pleased that the government finally adopted the substance of my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill's private member's bill, Bill C-216, to protect Canadians from this new and insidious form of exploitation. Likewise, the inclusion of mandatory reporting requirements for child sex abuse material, also drawn from that private member's bill, is a necessary step.

I am also pleased to see the government finally adopting an approach that Conservatives have been calling for all along, recognizing the murder of an intimate partner as first degree, a reform championed by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola in his private member's bill.

These positive measures do not excuse what comes next. Despite these additions, Bill C-16 continues the Liberal pattern of weakening accountability. The bill would empower judges to disregard virtually every mandatory prison sentence in the code, with the exception of two: murder and treason. That includes mandatory penalties for aggravated sexual assault with a firearm, human trafficking, extortion with a firearm, drive-by shootings and multiple firearm offences. If judges are permitted to simply opt out of these penalties, then nothing about these sentences is mandatory, full stop. This is not reform. This is an abdication of our responsibility. If the government were serious about public safety, it would split the poison pill from the bill and allow Parliament to work constructively on the provisions that genuinely protect Canadians.

Conservatives believe that Parliament must stand with victims, not with legal loopholes. We believe accountability must be real, not optional. We believe that the role of the House is to protect Canadians, not to explain away its own inaction. The bill can be made better, but only if the Liberals are prepared to abandon their soft-on-crime reflex and take public safety seriously for a change.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has had conversations with the Minister of Justice.

There are sections of Bill C-16 that Greens will support, but there are other sections that we would like amended. Does the hon. member have a sense from the government as to whether amendments will be entertained and if we could move swiftly on the parts we all agree on, such as proper sentencing, and move quickly against intimate partner violence?