Sean Fraser Liberal
In committee (House), as of Feb. 2, 2026
Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-16.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-16s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-16 amends criminal and correctional laws regarding child protection, gender-based violence, delays, and victim rights, including femicide definitions and mandatory minimums.
Liberal
Conservative
Bloc
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Madam Speaker, yes, I do appreciate that criminalizing deepfakes is in the bill and that there will be things we will work on in committee, things we agree on, but why has it taken this long to address crime when our communities have been crying for help for years? This is a move in the right direction, but why did it take a decade to get here?
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned that much of what is in the bill was requested a long time ago. I agree with her.
She addressed the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes and that is something the Bloc Québécois had asked to be reinstated. From what I understand, to ensure that the bill is consistent with the charter and the many Supreme Court decisions that struck down minimum sentences, a notwithstanding clause was included.
As far as the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes is concerned, the Bloc Québécois has proposed this amendment many times. I would like to know what that means to my colleague. Is that not something constructive that should be studied in committee?
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Madam Speaker, mandatory minimums are extremely important. When a crime is committed, such as the one that was presented to me by a mother whose child, a young person, was beaten in a playground, or extortion or the crimes that have been happening especially of late, they need to have mandatory minimums. That is what we will be pushing for in committee.
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech delved into some positive and constructive criticisms that will help improve this bill.
As it is written, Bill C-16 would allow judges to ignore every mandatory minimum prison sentence other than for murder and treason. Does my colleague feel that this will help reduce the increased crime rates, and violent crime rates specifically, that we have seen in the country?
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Madam Speaker, without mandatory minimums there is really no way that crime can be specifically addressed in our communities. Right now, municipalities are buckling under the responsibilities and the downloading they have had to take on because of the crime that has hit. It used to be just cities, but now our rural communities are being hit hard. There is no safe place to go, and mandatory minimums need to be brought forward with this bill.
Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
January 29th, 2026 / 12:35 p.m.
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member is aware, but Bill C-16 would reinstate mandatory minimums, which is something Canadians want to see. However, the Conservatives seem to want to oppose even that aspect of the legislation. They want to factor it out. Not only do they want to change the legislation, but they do not even want to see the legislation pass.
Will the member make a personal commitment that she would like to support Bill C-16, in some capacity, to pass before the end of February?
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Madam Speaker, the member has been in his seat for many years, and I wonder why it has taken so long to address these very serious issues.
Yes, we will work on this in committee.
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House to represent the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island.
I would like to take a quick moment to pay tribute to Wanda Wetteland, a 31-year navy veteran. She was a much-loved and long-time member of Branch 134 Malahat Legion. Sadly, she passed earlier this month, just the night before her wedding. We will remember her.
Before us today is Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. On January 5, Laura Gover-Basar, a 41-year-old mother from Vancouver Island, was found dead in her home. Her ex-husband has been arrested and charged with her murder. Laura held a Ph.D. and was an instructor at Camosun College, not too far from where I live. She leaves behind two young daughters who will now have neither parent around to raise them.
Allegations suggest that Laura was a victim of intimate partner violence and that her death was the result of this violence. Her ex-husband was supposed to appear in court for failing to follow a court order in a separate matter the very same day that her body was found.
Nearly 200 people gathered in Victoria to bring attention to Laura's death and highlight the long-standing problem of domestic and gender-based violence. They are calling for government action, and I believe that Bill C-16 is a good start to bringing justice for victims. Among the positive steps are changes that would make the murder of an intimate partner automatically a first-degree murder charge. This is a measure first proposed by my Conservative colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, in his private member's bill, Bill C-225, Bailey's law.
Right now, Laura's ex-husband has been charged only with second-degree murder. Under Bill C-16, the law would ensure that her alleged murderer would be charged to the fullest with a first-degree murder charge and also be sentenced to the fullest, as it would come with a mandatory life sentence, life in prison, with no parole eligibility for 25 years.
Laura's tragic case is not an isolated one. As activists pointed out when they gathered in Victoria, this is a decades-long issue that needs to be—
Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I am sorry; I have to interrupt the hon. member.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Do we have quorum?
Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
That is an excellent question. I will check.
And the count having been taken:
We did not have quorum, but we do now.
The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford may continue his intervention.
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Madam Speaker, Laura's tragic case is not an isolated one, as activists pointed out when they gathered in Victoria. This is a decades-long issue that needs to be solved.
By making femicide automatically a first-degree murder charge, we would see a vitally important step being taken to bring justice to victims like Laura and their families. It is worth noting that the term “femicide” is a little misleading, as the law would apply to intimate partner violence committed by either gender.
Another positive measure that Bill C-16 would bring forward is the banning of deepfake images of intimate partners. This would keep Canadians, especially women, safe from non-consensual intimate images' being created and shared. This proposal originally came from my colleague, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, and her private member's bill, Bill C-216. From that same bill, provisions that would bring mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse material have also been added to Bill C-16, which would help keep our kids safe from the most despicable of crimes.
Bill C-16 would also introduce an aggravating factor for sextortion. This is a step in the right direction, although in my opinion it does not go far enough. My Conservative colleague, the member for Edmonton Gateway, had proposed a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for all forms of extortion, which I would also have liked to have seen in the bill.
Further, Bill C-16 would affect the National Defence Act, and as a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I strongly recommend that we get to study this part of the bill in greater detail. The bill would enable victims to receive information from authorities in the military justice system without being required to make official requests. These changes would allow victims the ability to receive information about their rights and available protection measures, and to receive information from the military justice authorities without being required to make the request. This is a shift from the current on-request framing of the National Defence Act's declaration of victim rights for certain categories of information.
With CFB Esquimalt, the third-largest military base in Canada, neighbouring my riding on Vancouver Island, these changes are especially important to many members of my community. I believe that these measures would work hand in hand with Bill C-11, which we are currently dealing with at committee.
I am glad to see that Bill C-16 is utilizing some great Conservative concepts, and I hope that my colleagues across the aisle will also incorporate our amendments for Bill C-11, without which there would be reduced justice for survivors of military sexual trauma. We need to ensure that our responses are victim-centred and trauma-centred. Any steps that lead us in that direction are good steps.
Unfortunately, some steps are missed in Bill C-16. As it is written, Bill C-16 would allow judges to ignore every mandatory minimum prison sentence in Canada's Criminal Code, other than for murder and treason. Parliament sets mandatory minimums for heinous crimes, as is the prerogative of elected officials, but if the Liberals allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums, there would effectively be nothing mandatory about them.
Aggravated sexual assault with a gun, and human trafficking, would not have mandatory sentences. Multiple violent firearms offences, including extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm, and many other crimes would not have mandatory minimum sentencing under Bill C-16. This simply does not make sense. Are we seriously talking about extremely violent and heinous crimes without a minimum penalty?
This part of Bill C-16 is a significant step backwards for victims and their families. This is not a victim-centred approach. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased 84%, sexual assault is up almost 76% and violent crime is up almost 55%.
Canadians need Parliament to co-operatively take real steps to make our streets safe again. Simply put, removing mandatory minimums would not do that. As elected officials, we must do everything we can to keep our communities safe. It is our job as parliamentarians to set consequences for serious crimes like these. Bill C-16, as it stands, would undermine that outright authority. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their neighbourhood, and victims and their families deserve to see justice served.
There are many aspects of the bill that I agree with. The aspects that are victim-centric and the aspects that are trauma-informed are steps in the right direction that I support in the spirit of collaboration. My concern with the bill lies where victims stop being the focus. I believe that if we bring the focus back to the victims and do not take away parliamentary authority to set mandatory minimum sentences, C-16 could bring some extremely important and needed changes to our justice system.
I hope that my colleagues across the floor will embrace the spirit of collaboration we always offer and be open to our improvements to strengthen the bill to keep mandatory minimum penalties for heinous crimes. We can all agree that we collectively face significant increased crime. With some improvements to Bill C-16, we could work together to bring forward a positive solution for Canada. The ball is in their court.
Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
January 29th, 2026 / 12:45 p.m.
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I believe that the member has it wrong. Bill C-16 would reinstate numerous mandatory minimum penalties, something Canadians want to see, yet the Conservatives are opposing it.
We have a series of crime legislation. We can talk about Bill C-29, Bill C-9 and Bill C-14, which were popular pieces of bail reform legislation, or about the legislation we have today. The Conservative Party continues to deny the passage of this type of legislation, and then the Conservatives try to say they are not filibustering. That is just not true. The reason we do not have bail reform legislation passed in Canada today is the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the truth; they cannot change the facts.
Will the member not agree that it is time that the Conservative Party started listening to Canadians, those in Conservative ridings too, and allow important legislation of this nature to pass through the system? The legislation needs to get to the committee. Will the member commit to having the entire legislative agenda in terms of the crime file pass before the end of February?
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Madam Speaker, the member opposite seems to be quite angry, but I must say that the Liberals have had almost 11 years to resolve this. The committee tried 19 times to put it ahead of Bill C-9, and it was refused. That was our positive, collaborative way to try to bring this forward in a timely way.
However, the bill would take away mandatory minimum penalties for aggravated assault with a gun and for human trafficking. It would take them away for multiple violent offences, including extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm, and many others.
The point of my speech, and my answer for the member opposite, is that we would ensure that those mandatory minimum penalties, which are focused on the victims, are in the legislation.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, a part of this bill purports to address court delays, more specifically, the harmful effects of the Jordan decision. This is something the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for quite some time.
My colleague is familiar with that part of the bill. Does he believe that passing this part of the bill as drafted will negate the harmful effects of the Jordan decision?