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

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the bill is not about the Jordan decision; although it could have impact, the bill is about mandatory minimum penalties, and certainly it is worth exploring the potential impact of the Jordan decision that the bill could have. That is why I have suggested that we need to look further into it and make improvements, including consideration for the Jordan decision.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised the case, and I raised it earlier in the debate on Bill C-16 because it is so fresh in our minds: Laura Gover was murdered on January 5. It is a very recent case. We operate under the principle of innocent until proven guilty, but her former partner is under arrest and charged with the murder. It certainly appears to be a case of intimate partner violence, in fact a murder, that took the life of Laura Gover, a much-loved mother and educator.

I want to thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for raising this case. I part company with him at that point just to ask whether he has looked at the vast literature and research that show that mandatory minimum penalties do not work. They do not deter crime. They do not deter violent crime. There are many places we need to work, and Bill C-16 would deal with some of them in terms of fighting coercive control and doing more in a preventative fashion.

I just ask my friends across the way, including those on the government benches who brought forward the legislation, to look at the evidence before assuming mandatory minimum penalties work.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that the terrible murder that we speak of happened in or very close to her riding. There is much research that shows that mandatory minimums do reduce the impacts and effects of, specifically, very violent and heinous crimes. It is worth looking at all sources and information as we look to improve the bill. I certainly believe that mandatory minimums are a key part of the prevention of—

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

We are out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River.

Today we are debating Bill C-16, which means we are talking about court delays, sexual violence and protecting victims. I am speaking today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

First of all, my party and I would like to extend our deepest condolences to those affected by what is already the fourth femicide in Quebec in 2026. I want to express my sympathy to the family and loved ones of Véronic Champagne, a mother who was killed in Rougemont, in the riding of Shefford.

I was especially moved by the vigil organized by the municipality of Rougemont. Times like these make it clear that it is more than just the loved ones and family members of a victim of femicide who are affected. The entire community is in shock. I have seen that for myself, and I wish Rougemont, a close-knit community, a collective healing. At least this vigil, this moment of gathering, allowed us to begin the mourning process for the entire Rougemont community and the region.

What we want to see with Bill C-16 is a justice system that truly protects victims. This bill seeks to address a crisis of confidence in the criminal justice system. All too often, victims, most of whom are women, children, and even seniors, experience violence and then are revictimized by the justice system. I get messages about that. That means that our justice system is failing to protect victims and letting them down. This system reproduces the violence that it claims to combat.

I want to give a few statistics and then I will talk about the positive measures included in this bill. I will also point out a few concerns that I have near the end of my speech.

Let us look first at a few statistics. We see that some criminals are never brought to justice because of court delays. As a result of the Jordan decision, serious criminal cases have been dismissed because of unreasonable delays. Here are some actual numbers: Thirteen cases were dismissed in 2021, 18 in 2022, 96 in 2023 and 62 in 2024, and that is just looking at partial data. These cases included sexual assault, domestic violence, crimes against children and criminal harassment. That has a direct impact on victims, who are retraumatized by this and by the fact that offenders get to enjoy a form of judicial impunity.

That is why action had to be taken. The Bloc Québécois made several requests. Bill C-16 now makes corrections, particularly with regard to the Jordan decision, which the Bloc Québécois strongly supports, clearly. During the previous Parliament, we even introduced a bill that sought to provide a framework for the Jordan decision. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, our justice critic, spoke about it and worked on this issue.

Bill C-16 clarifies the criteria for determining the complexity of cases. Certain time limits are excluded from the calculation, judges have the option of ordering remedies other than discontinuing proceedings and there is a new key element, namely that the court will have to consider the impact on victims of public confidence. We welcome these positive steps.

Now, I want to focus our attention on violence against women. I am going to present some more figures that compel us to act. Sexual violence is massively under-reported. Almost 90% of sexual assaults are never reported. In 2024, femicides in Canada took the lives of 81 women killed by an intimate partner, 25 of them in Quebec. A number of cases have already been reported since the start of 2026. I talked about that earlier. I also want to acknowledge the loved ones of Susana Rocha Cruz, Mary Tukalak Iqiquq and Tajan'ah Desir. That is already far too many.

Now I want to address a new critical piece of information. I received a letter from the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability. Fifty-five per cent of senior women killed by a family member were killed by their own sons. This statistic comes from a letter sent to us by the observatory explaining its position on Bill C-16.

In terms of coercive control, although the bill is making significant progress, there is room for improvement. In fact, I launched a study in committee to look into the possibility of criminalizing coercive control following a request from elected representatives who had worked on the report “Rebâtir la confiance” in the Quebec National Assembly and who told us that they could not take action because the matter fell under the Criminal Code. I then proposed a study on the subject. I have been pushing for this for several months, if not years. We therefore welcome the creation of the offence of coercive control. This recognition is key because violence is not just physical. It can be psychological, financial, social and invisible. Violence, in these forms, often starts much earlier.

I also want to mention an interview I heard following the murder of Véronic Champagne. One of her friends said that femicide was one of the most preventable crimes; she was referring to coercive control. There are often warning signs of what is to come, but unfortunately, as long as it is not included in the Criminal Code, the police do not have the tools they need to act sooner, to act upstream. That is really what the recognition of coercive control is for.

Again, the Elder Justice Coalition report states that coercive violence also affects seniors, dependant individuals, and women living with cognitive disorders. According to this organization, domestic violence against seniors has increased by 49% since 2018 in Canada. Our position is that recognizing coercive control is a real step forward, but we must ensure that no victim is left behind. That needs to be the next step, so we will be monitoring its implementation.

When it comes to sexual violence, deepfakes and cybercrime, it is clear that AI does have an impact. The Bloc Québécois supports the ban on pornographic deepfakes. We also support broadening the definition of intimate images. We also want to see tougher penalties and we would like to point out that, ultimately, young women and teenage girls are the main targets of these new forms of violence. I hope that a study will be conducted. In fact, it is possible that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will soon be studying the impact of AI on violence against women. A motion to that effect could be presented in the near future. It might be worthwhile in terms of proposing other possible solutions. We know that legislation is an important step, but it is rarely the last one. We will need to continue to monitor its implementation and the consequences of all this.

Bill C-16 addresses another interesting issue, namely young people being recruited into organized crime. We know that organized crime is recruiting more and more young people, at increasingly younger ages, using social media to exploit their vulnerabilities. We in the Bloc Québécois support the creation of a specific offence to target the real perpetrators. It is important to remember that many of these young people are unfortunately being killed after having been recruited, as was the case with Mohamed-Yanis Seghouani, who was 14 years old. That is unacceptable. The message is that young people must be truly protected, not used as cannon fodder, which is what is happening right now. Regarding the recruitment of young people into organized crime, I know that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has also advocated for this measure and lamented the fact that too many young people are still being recruited into organized crime.

Nevertheless, I would like to raise a few concerns. When it comes to victims' rights and restorative justice, we have to be careful about the means used. The Bloc Québécois welcomes, among other things, strengthening the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Quebec strongly supports restorative justice mechanisms, but has issued a clear warning: Without judges, resources and adequate funding, these rights will remain theoretical.

In closing, we support the bill, but we must still remain vigilant. If Bill C-16 is passed, we will have responsibilities regarding its implementation. We support Bill C-16 because, as we said, it reflects several of the Bloc Québécois's positions. It strengthens victim protection and finally recognizes forms of violence that have long been ignored. However, we will remain vigilant to eliminate any blind spots and ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions are respected. We will be vigilant in committee and elsewhere.

I would like to quickly come back to something. The appointment of judges is a federal responsibility. We need judges for this bill to be implemented properly, but the appointment process is slow. Quebec is responsible for the administration of justice, but the problem is the fiscal imbalance. We therefore need to see how much funding will be transferred to Quebec because, obviously, the administration of justice costs money. The federal government needs to provide funding for that. Finally, the government also needs to improve protection for seniors and vulnerable people.

In closing, we need to keep the following in mind when it comes to this bill, which is so important and contains so many measures: The justice system must not only punish crime; it must also protect the victims of crime. That is what should and will guide us when we study this bill in committee. Then, we will have to see how Bill C-16 will be implemented to determine whether it really meets victims' needs.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank our colleague who has just summarized so well the challenge posed by this terrible situation in our ridings. These are exactly the same realities we are experiencing throughout Quebec, and the concerns she raised are also the same in my own riding.

I also thank her for her collaboration in committee, because we need to work together to advance legislation like Bill C-16. We must prevent and reduce the risks.

In that line of thought, could she reiterate how best to enhance prevention and reduce the risks in order to improve what we should be doing with regard to Bill C-16?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I noted some of our concerns and some of the progress made, which we will support. However, in terms of prevention, I would like to remind members that Bill C-16 will not fix everything. Criminalizing coercive control is really something that groups on the ground are calling for. I had a conversation with people from the shelter in my riding, Maison Alice Desmarais, who shared some truly devastating stories. As I said, these crimes are often predictable and can be prevented if we give the justice system the tools it needs.

I want to conclude by saying that, when we talk about tools, that includes financial tools. As my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned, the issue facing the justice system is really the fiscal imbalance. Ottawa passes laws, but Quebec needs money to enforce them.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a passionate and hard-working member. Indeed, that is the point of my question.

In the limited time she has, I would like her to summarize the work that the Bloc Québécois has done regarding what is included in Bill C-16 and what it means to be a passionate and hard-working member like her.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. However, this bill was a team effort. Bloc Québécois members prefer to work as a team. I want to reiterate the active involvement of our colleague and fantastic critic from Rivière-du-Nord, who sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He worked very hard on the issue of the Jordan decision, in collaboration with our former colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Denis Trudel. I can mention him by name because he no longer sits in the House.

As I said, for years, the government refused to listen to Quebec's demands to criminalize coercive control. After conducting a study at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with my Conservative colleagues and holding a press conference that even Liberal MPs attended, the issue I raised became non-partisan. The entire committee held a press conference last November to call for the criminalization of coercive control. Finally, just before we left for the holiday break, the government introduced this bill, incorporating this concept.

I would also like to highlight the work that has been done with regard to young recruits, to ensure that it will no longer be possible to recruit them from the age of 14. This work was led by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.

There is something else that I did not talk about much in my speech. My colleague also called for mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes only.

We helped make all these things happen. It was high time that action was taken on behalf of victims.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate many of the comments the member has put on the record. When I think of the legislation, Bill C-16, I think about how it is dealing with the issue of deepfakes and also in regard to elevating femicide to first-degree murder. I think we are in a good position to see the bill go to committee so there can be further discussion.

Can the member provide any further thoughts she may have on the two specific issues I raise?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am running out of time.

First, on the issue of deepfakes, as I mentioned earlier, I hope that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women can conduct a study on this issue. We now know that AI and deepfake images disproportionately affect women. The consequences of that are huge.

Second, with respect to elevating femicide to first-degree murder, I know that some stakeholders called for this in committee. Once Bill C-16 is studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we will see how this aspect will be addressed. Members should stay tuned.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-16, omnibus legislation brought forward by the government.

There are some measures in the bill that are supportable to the extent that they strengthen Canada's criminal justice system and take into account and strengthen the interests of victims. Many of those measures were literally copied and pasted from private members' bills introduced by Conservative members. If the government wants to take good Conservative ideas, we welcome it doing so. There are also some additional measures in the bill that we wholeheartedly support.

That is where my compliments to the government end, because there are serious concerns and problems with the bill, starting with how the government has responded to the troubling and problematic Supreme Court decision in Senneville, which struck down the mandatory minimum sentencing law for the distribution and possession of child pornography.

The facts in Senneville are truly appalling and horrific. They involve two sadistic sexual predators who had hundreds of images of small children, made from the sexual brutalization and defilement of these innocent children. The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, applying a so-called reasonable hypothetical, determined that the one-year mandatory minimum for the distribution and possession of child pornography was grossly disproportionate and therefore contravened section 12 of the charter, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

While the Supreme Court thought it was cruel and unusual punishment to impose a measly one-year mandatory jail term for child sexual predators, I think most Canadians find the sexual exploitation, rape, brutalization and defilement of children to be cruel, unusual, evil and sadistic.

It should be noted that the Senneville decision was far from a unanimous decision of the court. There was a strong dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Wagner and a five-four split on the court. The dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Wagner laid out, in very clear terms, the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum with respect to the distribution and possession of child pornography specifically. More broadly, in no uncertain terms, it reaffirmed Parliament's constitutional authority to pass laws with respect to sentencing, including fashioning mandatory and maximum jail time.

In the face of a problematic and unjust decision by the Supreme Court, a strong dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Wagner, and the Supreme Court specifically pronouncing that child sexual crimes are among the most immoral, Conservatives called on the Liberals to do the right thing and invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the decision and reinstate the mandatory minimum with respect to the distribution and possession of child pornography. Not surprisingly, given their soft-on-crime record, the Liberals did not do that.

Failing to invoke the notwithstanding clause, they could have come back with a bill that brings in a modified mandatory minimum sentence by clarifying the definition and the application of the offence, but the Liberals did not do that either. Instead, they endorsed and gave the green light to the Supreme Court's Senneville decision, completely washed their hands clean of responding legislatively and, once again, surrendered the law-making power of this place to the courts.

Even worse, the Liberals have very conveniently and very deliberately used a divided court decision as a pretext to dismantle virtually every other mandatory minimum law in the Criminal Code, save for murder and treason. They have done so with a so-called escape valve that would apply to every mandatory minimum in the Criminal Code except murder and treason.

The escape valve, as it is drafted, is broadly worded. It is not targeted. It does not contain, for example, an exceptional circumstances provision. It does not clarify or provide direction to the courts on how Parliament believes mandatory minimums should be treated. Instead, it invites judges to disregard mandatory minimum laws that, I would add, have not been found to be unconstitutional. Therefore, what this will almost certainly result in is that mandatory minimums and their application at sentencing will be litigated as a matter of course. This bill completely eviscerates mandatory minimum sentences.

The Liberals will say they had no choice as they have these court decisions. They had a choice. No court has said that, writ large, mandatory minimums are unconstitutional. Certainly, the Supreme Court has not said that. Indeed, mandatory minimum penalties have been on the books since the 1890s, when the Criminal Code was passed. Mandatory minimums reflect the constitutional authority of Parliament to make laws with respect to criminal justice, including sentencing, and reflect Parliament's judgment that certain offences are sufficiently serious to warrant a minimum floor, while having regard for long-standing sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence and the need to separate certain offenders from society.

Indeed, Justice Cory wrote, as recently as 2010, in the Supreme Court Nasogaluak decision, that mandatory minimums are “a forceful expression of governmental policy in the area of criminal law.”

Back in 1990, the same Justice Cory held that a mandatory minimum sentence would only be disproportionate as to violate section 12 on “rare and unique occasions”, and that the test would be “stringent and demanding.”

It is true that in recent years we have seen that mandatory minimums have been subject to greater constitutional challenge in the face of the Nur decision, for example, of 2015, which constitutes, in my opinion, judicial overreach. I say that because the first time the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum was in the Smith decision in 1987. For nearly 30 years, until 2015, not a single mandatory minimum had been struck down by the Supreme Court. It was not until 2015. Therefore, a government worth its salt, a government that was committed to standing up for victims and putting away violent offenders, would have reasserted Parliament's constitutional authority in this domain, including in egregious instances such as in the Senneville decision and the Bissonnette decision, which struck down the discretion afforded to judges to impose mandatory consecutive parole and eligibility periods to mass murderers, and invoked the notwithstanding clause.

Of course, the current government has not done that. It has refused to do that. Now, through the back door, it has brought in this bill on the pretense of saving mandatory minimums, when in fact what it is doing is completely dismantling them. It demonstrates that the government is blinded by ideology. It is a government that time and time again puts the rights of criminals ahead of public safety and the rights of victims. This bill is a total disgrace in that regard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I disagree completely with the member opposite. In fact, if he were to give the bill a chance, he would see there is a reinstatement of mandatory minimums. I would highly recommend that he read of those that would be reinstated as a direct result of this legislation.

What upsets me most about the Conservative Party of Canada today is that its members like to talk tough. They like to raise a lot of money on the crime file, but we have a Prime Minister who was just elected nine months ago, along with 70 new Liberal members of Parliament. It is a new government with a very aggressive crime agenda, a series of legislation, and the Conservative Party has done nothing but stand in the way of the legislation passing. Even Canadians in Conservative ridings are getting upset with the ongoing filibustering that the Conservative Party continues to put in on crime bills.

Will the member not at least give us some sort of a commitment to see this crime legislation pass before the end of February?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I suppose the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader ignored or did not listen to my resuscitation of pronouncements of the Supreme Court as it pertains to mandatory minimums and their constitutionality.

If the government saw the need to bring forward an escape valve, then it ought to have done it in a careful and tailored fashion. However, it has not done that. The Liberals have drafted the bill in such a way that it would invite judges to effectively disregard mandatory minimums, hence eviscerating them. That is the problem.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I first want to acknowledge the passing of Ernie Fage. Ernie was an MLA and cabinet minister who served ably in Nova Scotia. Our condolences go to his family at this time.

I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. He mentioned putting the rights of criminals over the rights of everyday Canadians, and that is a theme I hear over and over in my own riding of Fundy Royal. I would ask my colleague to expand on that.