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

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point from my colleague. We warned the Liberals during the debate on Bill C-5 that repealing mandatory minimums would increase crime and undermine trust, but we were mocked by them four years ago.

Since then, crime is up and fear is up, and Bill C-16 would not correct the course; it would accelerate it. There are some changes, but the bill could be a lot better if the Liberals would take some of our amendments and apply them, and Canadians would be better off because of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. This is my first time rising substantially in the House since the winter break, so before I begin, I do want to recognize a number of people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I want to recognize a life well lived by Rocco Russo, who recently passed. He was a member of my Italian cultural centre, known colloquially as the Colombo Lodge. Left to mourn him are his wife, Cheryl; his children, Christopher, Michael and Robert; and his siblings Sam, Aldo and Sylvia. Rocco gave a great deal to the Colombo Lodge and to the community. He was beloved in the community. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I also learned that, regrettably, Ms. Helen Barnett passed away over the Christmas break. Helen was somebody I got to know when I worked at my first law firm after articling, where I worked with her husband, Francis. Helen gave a tremendous amount to the city of Kamloops, sitting on council and school boards, and working with all sorts of community organizations. She had a vivacious personality, and I am so grateful to have known her. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I was saddened to learn over the holidays of the death of Antonio Spada at 97 years old. Antonio leaves behind to mourn him his wife, Serafina; his children, Joseph and Angie; and his sister Felicia. I have gotten to know the Spada family through the Potestio family, and I can say that Antonio leaves behind a tremendous legacy. If legacy is demonstrated based on what we see following someone's death, following a tremendous life well lived, then we can say that Antonio lived a tremendous life and will be missed. I extend my deepest condolences to Antonio's family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I was saddened to learn over the holidays that Alice Desmond passed away. The Desmond family members were pillars of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. In fact in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola there is a street called Desmond Street. I actually worked as a prosecutor with one of Alice's children, Lynett, before she was elevated to the bench. She is now Judge Jung. The family legacy of Alice and her late husband, Pat, cannot be overstated.

Alice leaves to mourn her sisters Evelyn, Edith and Brenda; and her daughters Nola, Tannis, Lynett and Shannon and their families. In fact my best man was named Desmond Sanesh after Alice Desmond and the Desmond family. May perpetual light shine upon her. I extend my deepest condolences to her family.

I was deeply saddened to learn of the death of “Dar” Hastings in the 100 Mile House area. She was 83 years old. She gave so much work to the public and to democracy, and she was a great help. She delivered on what she believed, standing up for her values in so many ways. I cannot overstate all that she did. I had the opportunity to visit her in hospital some time ago, which I am grateful for. She really contributed to the life and vitality of the 100 Mile House area, which was part of my riding when I was first elected. She leaves behind her partner, Al Smith; her children, Paige and Tom, as well as Wade and Brian; and her sisters Candice and Jane. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I have a lot to say. Far be it from me to have a lot to say; I am sure a lot of people do, and I often do have a lot to say here.

So much of what the government is doing comes down to trust. I was reflecting on trust in criminal justice, and I do not have a lot of trust in the government when it comes to justice. I do not have a lot of trust in the government, period, and I will give the following example.

In pre-budget consultations, I sent the Minister of Finance nine letters about Sun Peaks, a community in my riding that has tremendous housing issues. I sent the minister a letter about the housing. In fact, I have sent three emails to the Minister of Housing. This was in private email; for the people at home, I will explain that we have a back channel for private emails, which members communicate with but we do not make public. However, not once has he even given the courtesy of a reply. In fact, I asked him whether he even got my emails, to which he gave what I would call a lame excuse.

How do we trust a government on criminal justice, when we cannot trust them on the basics like housing? The people of Sun Peaks are wondering when they will get their answer.

What about the people of Merritt? Again, we talk about trust in the government, and the Liberals say to trust them on justice, but they would not respond to my letter about Merritt, which experienced tremendous, catastrophic, flooding prior to becoming part of my riding. The provincial government pledged well over $100 million. The then prime minister and a number of ministers here, some of whom are ministers from Justin Trudeau's government, went there and told the people of Merritt that they would have their back.

How much have the Liberals contributed? It is $5 million; that is it. They were going to have their back for the photo op, but when it came to giving money, they were nowhere to be seen. That is why, when we think about examples of the government and trust, there is an erosion of trust.

I want to turn to something that has been mentioned in the House: the notion of filibustering the bill. In my view, this is the worst kind of politics, because it is actively misleading the public, and here is why. We as Conservatives have been accused of filibustering this and other crime legislation—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, the member just said that I have been. Let us talk about that.

Where was the member on Bill C-14 when we were at committee studying Bill C-9, which is a highly contentious bill that I bet the government does not have the guts to bring forward again? It was so contentious and so divisive that we, as Conservatives, asked to shelve Bill C-9 so we could move to Bill C-14, a bail bill. We actually asked the government to move forward on that bill. What did the Liberals do? They stuck with Bill C-9. How are we filibustering bills, when we are asking them to bring forward bills?

I am the last of four speakers today. We are debating the bill. Last time I checked, in the House of Commons, we debate. We could put up more speakers, because I bet no one else is going to rise to debate it, so again, why is there a narrative about filibustering? At the end of the day, we are actually saying that Bill C-16 has elements we are agreeable to and elements that we do not necessarily agree with.

However, in a democratic society, it is so important to debate these ideas, such as mandatory minimum sentences, which I have been quoted on. It was quite complimentary to hear that, and I would love to further debate the idea of a mandatory minimum sentence with a safety valve for cruel and unusual punishment, and what that means.

Would we adopt the common law definition of “cruel and unusual”? Would Parliament itself legislate something about cruel and unusual punishment, to do exactly what we need to do, which is to say that mandatory minimums should apply 99.99% of the time, and this is what the other 0.01% of the time looks like? That is what we want to do. That is why the bill would go to committee.

I really hope the Liberals stop with their rhetoric, because it is wrong and it is incorrect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged, to a certain degree, because it takes a lot of bravery for the member to go against what his leader is saying. He believes that a safety valve is an effective tool. That is what he has said on the record. I can appreciate that his leader and the entire Conservative caucus disagree.

On the issue of filibustering, let us be very clear that we would have bail legislation today, had it not been for the filibustering the Conservative Party has done on Bill C-14. There are four substantial pieces of legislation dealing with the crime file, which is important to the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of the House. Canadians are also concerned about getting crime bills passed.

The Conservative Party continues to filibuster. Why?

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

Just because somebody says it, and says it loudly, that does not make it true, Mr. Speaker.

At the end of the day, there is a minority government. Its job is to put legislation forward that makes sense. God forbid that we in this place debate legislation. It is our job to debate legislation. What the member calls filibustering, I call the democratic process. How dare the Liberals accuse us of filibustering when we are doing our job?

They think we should walk in here and give them their agenda without question. That is what the NDP did with Bill C-5, and look where that got us.

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

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Jordan decision, when the Supreme Court determined what constituted a reasonable time frame in which to try an accused, criminals who have committed serious crimes have been released into the community due to a lack of judicial resources. This is unacceptable.

Under the bill, relaxed criteria would allow judges to reassess the reasonable time frame issue. Ultimately, we need to understand that the provinces lack the financial resources to build more courtrooms, hire more prosecutors, hire more clerks, hire more stenographers and have more resources. This bill is not a permanent solution to the problem, but it is a good temporary step.

Does my colleague agree that the federal government needs to do more since it is responsible for the Criminal Code, but the provinces have to pay for the administration of justice?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec for the question.

I actually have something here regarding Jordan. I have a great deal of time for my colleague.

As somebody who practised criminal law for 15 to 18 years, my view is that the Jordan issue is a substantial one. It has to be addressed by the House of Commons for the reasons my colleague mentioned. The other reason is disclosure. In 1988, I think, when the Stinchcombe case came out, which is the leading case on disclosure, it was not addressed. The House needs to address disclosure, and it needs to address Jordan.

Judicial vacancies are a huge problem, and something we discussed at our convention.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was correct. As we know, the Conservatives are not putting up many speakers here, but we would like to get this issue resolved.

As a new MP, I have heard all of the stories here about the victims, the testimony and what our citizens are going through, but the Liberals seem to want to debate the rights of offenders or how we should not debate the bill. All of us want to debate it to be fair to all Canadians.

Can the member expand on exactly what the protecting victims act would do, and how we would get there?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to drop it. I would love to drop the bill, because it is thick, but it would make a thud, and I do not want to hurt the interpreters' ears.

It is an expansive bill. The Liberals say we are filibustering. Should we not be talking about a bill of this substance? It is a bill that would do a lot of things, yet forgets a lot of things, like addressing parts of Bill C-75 with respect to bail and parts of Bill C-5 that say people who do drive-by shootings or commit extortion with a firearm or robbery with a firearm can serve their sentences on house arrest.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

The Liberals are laughing at that, Mr. Speaker. Is it not wonderful that the Liberals think drive-by shootings, robbery with a firearm and things like that are funny?

My time is up. Let us get this done.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)