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 towards 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 nearly 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 committed 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 committed 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

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

Madam Speaker, in the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court established reasonable time limits in which trials must be held. I understand that, in the bill, the minister is expanding the criteria that the court will have to consider when it redefines what constitutes reasonable time limits.

I am wondering about the possibility that, ultimately, at the end of the exercise, with these new criteria, the Supreme Court will again propose reasonable time limits that will be difficult to meet. I am wondering whether this might be a bit of an exercise in futility and whether, sooner or later, we will be forced into having another debate on the use of the notwithstanding clause to put an end to the abuses that have been caused by the Jordan decision.

To what extent does my colleague believe that the minister's approach will address this issue from a legal perspective, even beyond the issue of budgets?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mirabel. I also really enjoy working with him. He is a brilliant man who excels at numbers, which is not my forte.

I agree with him on that point. I also believe that, despite Bill C-16, this is not going to succeed in the short or medium term. Again, we can lie to ourselves and pass 300 bills on the issue, but the only way to resolve the problem of trials being held within a reasonable time frame is to ensure proper funding.

We see the current state of our roads and it is appalling. We wait in our hospitals endlessly, from 24 to 48 hours in the emergency room, just to be seen. Children in schools have next to no services, because we lack the funds to hire specialized staff. When the government passes a budget, that obviously comes first. It is also obvious that justice is not quite as compelling. The government is going to put money into roads, schools and hospitals first. I would never blame anyone for that. However, we are going to have to tackle the justice problem, because if we cannot administer justice within a reasonable time frame, people are going to get fed up and take action in a way that no one here would want to see happen.

Bill C-16 and its time calculation method will help for a while, yes. I certainly hope so. Deviating from the time limits set for serious crimes is what we proposed, and I still agree. However, we must never lose sight of the fact that these are temporary proposals meant to last only until we really manage to get the problem under control and until it never again takes longer than 18 or 30 months to hold a trial anywhere in Quebec or Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things we need to recognize is that the federal government plays a critical role, obviously. That is why we have come together with a crime package, a series of bills. Bill C-16 is one of them. It also involves and incorporates the need for provinces, which are often appointing the judges and providing the funds for courts. There are police and law enforcement agencies that go beyond the RCMP. It is multi-faceted. We all have a responsibility, in terms of the different levels of government.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts. Yes, we bring forward legislation. We do, through equalizations and so forth, provide support for the Crown. We also need the provinces and, to a certain degree, all levels of government to step up to the plate as the Prime Minister has done.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I agree with him: The provinces have an important role to play, as does Quebec. The problem that I was raising is that Quebec and the provinces do not have any money. People send money to the federal government, and the federal government says that it will send it back to the provinces, but with conditions, and that does not suit anyone.

We fight for months and years, and nothing gets done on the ground. If we resolve the issue of funding for the justice system, then a lot of the problems will be solved.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, first I want to say happy new year to everyone. It is a real pleasure to be back in the House with all my colleagues to do the important work for Canadians.

I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, one of the most consequential updates to Canada's criminal code in generations.

As the member of Parliament for Davenport, a diverse downtown Toronto riding with families from every corner of the world, I hear regularly from constituents who are deeply concerned about safety in their communities: parents who worry about their children's safety online, women who tell me they do not feel safe walking alone at night and survivors of intimate partner violence who share their stories of living in fear even after leaving abusive relationships. These are not abstract policy questions; they are lived experiences of people I represent. The legislation would respond directly to their concerns.

Bill C-16 is the third major piece of criminal justice legislation introduced by our Minister of Justice. Last year, in September, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which would protect communities of faith from hate crimes and intimidation. In October we introduced Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which would ensure that repeat violent offenders face tougher bail conditions and stronger sentences. Both of these bills have received strong support from the local police in my hometown of Toronto, both from the Toronto Police Service and the Toronto Police Association. They have called for the bills' rapid passage to give law enforcement the tools it needs to keep our communities safe.

I hope members of the House will join me in supporting the swift passage of all three of these critical pieces of legislation. I did hear the good news earlier today that the justice committee is already moving very swiftly through Bill C-14. This is great news indeed. Together with Bill C-14, these reforms would send a clear message that our government is keeping Canadians safe, protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that criminals face the full force of the law.

The statistics around women and girls and gender-based violence are devastating. In 2024 alone there were 100 victims of intimate partner violence in Canada, an increase from the year before. Behind each of these numbers is a daughter, a mother, a sister or a friend: someone whose life was cut short by violence that was driven by control and fear.

We know that intimate partner violence often follows a pattern. It begins with control: Isolating the victim from family and friends, monitoring every move or controlling their finances. Too often this coercive control escalates to physical violence, and too often it ends in tragedy. Bill C-16 would address this reality head-on by creating a new criminal offence for coercive control and recognizing that intimate partner violence does not begin the first time someone is physically harmed; it begins when patterns of controlling behaviour strip away someone's freedom and dignity.

The legislation also would treat femicide, the killing of women because they are women, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, as first-degree murder. When someone kills their intimate partner as part of a demonstrated pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour, that crime deserves to be treated with the utmost seriousness, and I am so happy that we have elevated this to first-degree murder. I would say that it is about time.

Bill C-16 also would strengthen the criminal harassment offence by removing the requirement to prove that the victim subjectively feared for their safety. Instead the test would be whether the harassing conduct would reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe someone's safety is threatened. This change would recognize that victims should not have to prove their fear; the conduct itself should be the focus.

Bill C-16 would also address online forms of sexual violence. Technology has created new avenues for sexual violence that our laws must address. Bill C-16 would criminalize the distribution of non-consensual sexual deepfakes, AI-generated images or videos that depict someone in sexually explicit scenarios without their consent. These deepfakes can destroy reputations, cause profound psychological harm and, in some cases, be used to extort victims. Our laws must catch up to this disturbing reality.

We would also increase penalties for sexual offences including the distribution of intimate images without consent, sexual assault exposure and voyeurism. These crimes cause lasting trauma, and our penalties must reflect their severity.

I have spent years working with families in Davenport, and nothing is more important to me than keeping our children safe. The exploitation of children, whether online or in person, is among the most horrific crimes imaginable. We know that child sexual abuse and exploitation material is proliferating online at alarming rates. We know that predators use the Internet to lure, manipulate and exploit children and that our laws have not kept pace with these threats. Bill C-16 would take strong action to reinforce mandatory minimum penalties for people who create, possess and distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material. This includes restoring 13 mandatory minimum penalties for child sexual offences that were previously struck down by courts.

I know that some people may question mandatory minimums, but let me be clear: When it comes to predators who prey on children, who create and distribute images of their abuse, there must be consequences. In the rare circumstances where applying a mandatory minimum sentence would be grossly disproportionate, courts would still have the discretion to impose an alternate term of imprisonment, but jail time would be kept for people convicted of those heinous crimes.

We would also toughen laws to crack down on child luring and online sextortion, making it illegal to threaten to distribute child sexual abuse material. This directly responds to the devastating rise in sextortion cases where predators target children online, manipulate them into sending explicit images and then threaten to share those images unless the child complies with further demands.

Bill C-16 would also criminalize the distribution of bestiality depictions used by predators to manipulate and exploit children, and we would also create a new offence targeting adults who recruit, pressure or counsel children to commit crimes, protecting our youth from being exploited into criminal activity, something I hear a lot about in my home community of Davenport. Finally, we would strengthen the obligations on Internet service providers under the mandatory reporting act to combat the distribution of child sexual abuse material. Online platforms must be part of the solution.

For too long, our justice system has retraumatized victims. Bill C-16 would create new rights for victims, including the right to be treated with respect and to have timely resolution of their cases considered. We would make testimonial aids automatically available, improving access to information and raising the bar for defence attorneys to access the therapeutic records and personal communications of victims. As the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime reported, victims of sexual violence deserve better.

With respect to court delays, we are requesting courts to consider alternatives to stays of proceedings, while streamlining procedures. We are encouraging diversion for low-risk cases to free up resources for more serious violent crimes, because justice delayed is justice denied.

I want to bring this back to my constituents in Davenport. In my riding, there are women who are afraid to leave abusive relationships because they do not believe the justice system will protect them. There are children who are being targeted by online predators. There are seniors who have been victims of extortion and intimidation. These Canadians deserve a justice system that protects them, treats them with dignity and holds perpetrators accountable. That is what Bill C-16 would deliver, not perfectly, because no single piece of legislation can solve all of the challenges our justice system has, but meaningfully and substantively.

I recognize there will be debate about specific provisions. As the bill, I hope, proceeds to committee, I encourage all members to engage constructively and to propose amendments that would strengthen the legislation. We cannot do nothing. We cannot continue to read about women killed by intimate partners. We cannot continue to read about children exploited online and about violent offenders reoffending after release.

Bill C-16 is about values. It values victim safety over predator convenience, recognizes intimate partner violence as a serious crime and would ensure that children grow up free from exploitation. Every Canadian deserves to live free from violence and fear. Every child deserves to grow up safe. Every victim deserves to be heard and respected. The legislation would move us closer to that Canada. Let us send a clear message: Violence against women and children will not be tolerated, predators will face consequences and victims will be heard, respected and protected.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, among other things, this bill introduces the concept of femicide, which is in response to a shocking rise in intimate partner violence in Canada. Effectively, that provision of Bill C-16 would elevate what might otherwise be second-degree murder to first-degree murder if done in the context of intimate partner violence.

I think we are signalling that we are going to agree with this, but I wonder if the member could comment on whether it would survive an inevitable Charter of Rights challenge.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the protecting victims act, Bill C-16, would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. I heard there are concerns on the other side about there being a court challenge. As the minister said this morning, he has taken into consideration what has happened in the Supreme Court. This has provided some guidance on how we can avoid these types of constitutional challenges in the future.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and a fairly simple question came to mind.

Bill C-16 seeks to put an end to automatic dismissals of cases under the Jordan decision, which was handed down 10 years ago. Who has been in power for the past 10 years? It has been the same Liberal Party all that time. My question is quite simple: Why did the government wait 10 years to fix a problem that we already knew about 10 years ago?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think this year is going to be a year of action. I want to say to the hon. member that I was very hopeful when I heard some of the speeches this morning. There is a spirit of co-operation, a spirit of positivity and a spirit that shows we will work together to make sure we are passing legislation that will protect Canadians.

I am very proud of the legislation being introduced today, and I hope all members will pass it quickly through the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned as well. I am glad to see Bill C-16 debated in this place after having been introduced in December. I think we need to move more quickly on legislation. We have not had a very full legislative package since the election. This is one bill I feel very strongly about.

I want to say a name out loud here. She is one of the more recent victims of alleged intimate partner violence. Her former husband is awaiting trial. I want to say the name of Laura Gover, who died not long ago in Saanich. She was a mom. She was much loved in the community and a victim, we believe, of intimate partner violence.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for recognizing this extraordinary woman.

I am going to repeat something the minister said this morning after he gave his speech. There is work behind Bill C-16, which, as I mentioned before, would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system. It is very aggressive in ensuring that we modernize the Criminal Code to respond to the most contemporary threats, to intervene earlier, to prevent violence and to make sure the justice system works faster and more fairly for victims and survivors. This work was not just done because we talked to a number of legislators. This is because of the work of the status of women committee. This is because of the work of advocate groups. This is because of all the victims of violence in this country.

It is perhaps too long in the making, but it is finally here. Let us get going and let us pass this legislation.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in complete support of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to speak about why this legislation matters so much. It is profoundly important to people in Nova Scotia and in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets.

I am also going to speak today as a former educator and high school principal. Everyone in this chamber can imagine some of the things I have seen in my riding in regard to children.

This bill represents one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. It is broad in scope, but its purpose is clear: to respond to modern forms of violence and exploitation, to intervene earlier, to protect victims and survivors, and to ensure our justice system works faster and more fairly. Bill C-16 does this through its four pillars: tackling gender-based violence and intimate partner violence; protecting children from predators; strengthening victims' rights; and addressing court delays.

That work is urgently needed in Nova Scotia. Our province has some of the highest rates of gender-based violence in the country. Intimate partner violence, criminal harassment and coercive control are persistent realities, particularly in the rural and coastal communities I help represent. In recognition of this, Nova Scotia became the first province in Canada to declare intimate partner violence an epidemic. That declaration reflected what survivors, advocates and frontline workers already knew. This violence is systemic, patterned and too often predictable.

Bill C-16 meets that reality head-on. Under its first pillar, the bill takes decisive action that would prevent violence before it becomes lethal. For the first time in Canadian law, it would create a new offence for a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. Survivors have told us repeatedly that abuse is rarely about one single incident. It is about isolation, intimidation, surveillance, financial control and psychological manipulation. These patterns strip away safety and autonomy long before physical violence appears. By naming coercive control as a criminal offence, Bill C-16 would give law enforcement and the courts a tool to intervene earlier, when lives can still be saved.

This bill also recognizes the severity of violence driven by control and fear. It would provide that murders committed in the context of coercive control, sexual violence, human trafficking or hate are femicides committed against a woman and would be treated as first-degree murders, even where traditional planning and deliberation are difficult to prove. This reflects the lived reality of many intimate partner homicides that are not spontaneous acts but rather the end point of long, documented patterns of abuse. This bill would further require courts to consider life imprisonment for manslaughter committed in those same circumstances.

These reforms closely align with the work being done on the ground by organizations like the Be the Peace Institute in Nova Scotia. Be the Peace focuses on root causes of gender-based violence, unequal power, rigid gender norms and systems that fail to centre survivors. This trauma-informed, feminist and intersectional approach reminds us that prevention requires structural change, not just punishment after harm has occurred. Bill C-16 reflects the same understanding by recognizing patterns of control and exploitation as violence in their own right.

I am also proud to have served on the board of directors of the Second Story Women's Centre in my riding, which supports women, girls and gender-diverse people across the south shore. The Second Story Women's Centre provides counselling, advocacy, safety and support within its community. I have seen first-hand how many survivors endure years of coercive control, which has never quite fit legal definitions before. Bill C-16 would help close that gap by aligning the Criminal Code with the realities that survivors and frontline workers have always understood. It would modernize the offence of criminal harassment. It would remove the requirement that a victim must prove they subjectively fear for their safety, and replace it with a reasonable personal standard.

This change matters. It matters deeply for victims who are stalked, monitored or intimidated, and for those whose fears have been minimized or questioned in the past.

In terms of my being an educator of youth, under the second pillar, Bill C-16 would strengthen protections for children and youth, particularly in an increasingly digital world. As a former educator, I want to speak clearly about this. In classrooms, we see the consequences of online exploitation every day: anxiety, shame, isolation and fear.

The bill would update the Criminal Code to address harms that barely existed when many of our laws were written. It would expand the offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images to include AI-generated sexual deepfakes, recognizing how technology is being weaponized against young people, especially young girls. It would criminalize threats to distribute sexual abuse material. It would directly address sextortion, which is one of the fastest-growing forms of online exploitation of children.

Bill C-16 would also expand child-luring and sextortion offences. It would create a new offence for recruiting a person under 18 into criminal activity. This is something I have seen hands-on, with boots on the ground, during my time as a principal. The bill seeks to strengthen mandatory reporting and data-driven preservation obligations for online service providers. These measures reflect how predators groom, manipulate and exploit children today, often across multiple platforms and jurisdictions. The bill would restore mandatory minimum penalties for child sexual offences while adding a safety-valve clause to ensure constitutional fairness. This would respond to years of legal uncertainty that weakens deterrence and accountability for the most serious crimes committed against children.

The third pillar of Bill C-16 focuses on strengthening victims' rights. The bill would enhance the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by affirming that victims be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. “Fairness” is a key word. The bill would provide victims with information proactively, without requiring them to navigate complex systems or make formal requests. It would expand access to testimonial aids, clarify victims' rights in order to protect impact statements at sentencing and parole, and improve information sharing under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

These changes respond directly to what victims have been telling us on all sides of this chamber: The justice system can be retraumatizing, confusing and isolating. Organizations in my riding like Thriving Twogether, a grassroots non-profit working in southwestern Nova Scotia, see this every day. Thriving Twogether supports individuals and families affected by gender-based violence, addiction and human trafficking, recognizing—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am sorry to interrupt the member.

The member will have an opportunity to finish her speech and answer questions after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South and, I will also say, as a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and as a representative of an issue that has become a galvanizing one for many Canadians. It is an issue around which I saw tremendous attention, with issues pertaining to justice. We have seen very clearly the rise in crime in Canada over the last decade. This is why today the House of Commons justice committee passed a motion that I am very proud we were able to pass, one that would prioritize the study of bail and sentencing reform, an issue for which there has been a near-unanimous call among large swaths of society, from municipal governments to law enforcement agencies and victim advocacy groups, that something needs to change.

We are talking about Bill C-16. I want to drill down into a subset of crime that has also not been immune to the increases we have seen across the board in violent and serious crime. In particular, since 2015, human trafficking has increased 84%. Sexual assaults are up almost 76%. Violent crime is up almost 55%. We have heard testimony from victims' rights advocates about the ways in which women in particular are disproportionately affected by these and other offences.

We have also seen in recent months a very concerning trend in the way that courts and, in some cases, I will say, even politicians view legal theory and the way they prioritize legal theory above the real-world experiences of victims and the real-world implications of our laws on victims. I want to make sure that everything we do as a chamber that deals with matters of crime and justice is not relegated to the realm of the abstract, that we are not making legal theory the priority of what we are doing and that we are actually putting victims and public safety front and centre.

I spoke before the justice committee not that long ago about the idea of mandatory minimum sentences. This is probably a prime example of where we have seen a desire to disregard victims because of what can often be abstract concepts. I can give a very real and very shameful recent example of this, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, regarding mandatory minimums for people who traffic in child sexual abuse and exploitation material, which was referred to as child pornography in the court ruling, that “cruel and unusual punishment” is the description for mandatory minimums. The two cases that came up in that Supreme Court ruling involved men who each had hundreds of videos and images depicting heinous, vile things that I do not want to utter in the chamber, the most heinous acts we can imagine against children as young as, I believe, four and five years old.

What we saw in the trial judge's ruling on these cases was an application of the bare minimum and even, in one case, below the bare minimum, because they thought that these cases did not meet the standard of what was already a paltry mandatory minimum for these offences, which was 12 months. One of the offenders got 90 days. This is why mandatory minimums have to exist. There is a current within parts of the judiciary in which judges are exceedingly lenient on cases that Canadians and, I would say, the fundamental laws of nature would find deplorable.

This is so important because the Supreme Court decided to rule on mandatory minimums in an abstract way. Instead of dealing with the case at hand, they talked about some absurd hypothetical that had nothing to do with the case at hand, in order to talk about why a mandatory minimum for child sexual abuse and exploitation material could be cruel and unusual punishment. In doing so, they undermined the idea that we as lawmakers have to send the strongest possible message to people who commit the worst possible offences. There is no justification for giving a slap on the wrist to someone who abuses children, as a fundamental example of this.

I shared in committee a story that was very personal to me as someone who is a survivor of sexual abuse as a child. I do not talk about it often, because it is difficult, and it is difficult for so many other people who have been victimized by something or other in their life, but I share this so people know there is a human face to these things. We cannot simply look at the perpetrator of a crime without acknowledging the victim. We cannot simply look at the sentence applied to a perpetrator without considering the effect that the person's crimes have had on the victim, whoever it is, whether it is a defenceless child, a defenceless woman, an intimate partner or someone else.

Crime has a collective cost for society. It also has an individual cost. In some cases the scars of criminality, often preventable criminality if the justice system were doing its job, run deep and can run forever.

I will share one example that comes from London, Ontario, where Breanna Broadfoot was killed by an intimate partner at the age of 17. Her family has taken this horror, this tragedy, and they have turned it into advocacy. I cannot imagine the strength someone requires when they lose their 17-year-old and are still able to face a parliamentary committee and face the community around them, but that is exactly what the Broadfoots have done.

Breanna's father, Brett Broadfoot, testified at committee. In his testimony he spoke about how the system itself has a role. I would like to quote Mr. Broadfoot:

...I'm here to speak for my family, and most importantly, for my beautiful and now deceased daughter Breanna. I hope also to speak on behalf of other victims of intimate partner violence, for all the women who continue to live in fear of their abusers because they are still out on the streets after being charged with no accountability for the violent acts they have committed. I would like to share my family's personal experience at this time.

On March 15, 2024, my daughter Breanna was brutally attacked by her boyfriend. She was left with two black eyes, a fractured orbital bone, several other broken bones in her cheeks and severe bruising around her neck from his hands having been wrapped around them in strangulation. She was only 16 years old at the time.

Her attacker, age 18, was arrested on March 15 and charged with assault plus assault with choking and suffocation or strangulation. He was released from custody on the same day he was arrested.

He was released the same day. If we fast-forward, we find out that Breanna ended up dying at the hands of her abuser.

Victims have rights. We have an obligation to stand up for victims and to speak for victims. It was not long ago in the chamber that the House of Commons unanimously passed a private member's bill brought by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, Bailey's law. In the gallery at the time that we voted on the bill was the family of Bailey McCourt, another family that will never be able to undo the harm that it has suffered.

Again, laws bear a level of responsibility for this. It is not the same degree of responsibility that the perpetrators of crimes bear, but laws are meant to protect the most vulnerable in our society from the most dangerous in our society. When we lose sight of that in the creation of our laws, we do not have the ability to fulfill the fundamental and most important role of a government, which is to protect its citizens from harm.

As we look at Bill C-16 and the context in which the Liberals have presented the bill, we see that there is much in it that should be agreeable across party lines. There is much in the bill I am grateful for and for which the Liberal government has actually taken its cues from proposals that we have been championing for, in some cases, many years. This is an example where I do not care who gets the credit; I just want the right thing to be done. I want people in this country to have the protections they desperately need and desperately deserve.

However, we can also point to areas of the bill where critical protections are being watered down, and I am referring specifically to mandatory minimums. When I mentioned the Supreme Court decision regarding mandatory minimums for offences dealing with child sexual exploitation and abuse material, I gave an example of, even with a mandatory minimum being in effect, there being judges who want to do the bare minimum and in some cases go below that standard. That is why mandatory minimums must exist. There is a place for them, and we need to have a law and a judiciary that respect that, because for certain offences there should not be an ability for leniency below what is already an incredibly low standard.

The laws of this nation, the Criminal Code, dictate maximum penalties, so why is it so egregious and offensive to some people to have a minimum penalties? How are these two things fundamentally at odds with each other? It is because when we look at parameters and constraints that exist around sentencing, we understand that there are some penalties where a sentence could be too severe. No one supports a life sentence for speeding or for running a red light, for example. Similarly, we also need a minimum standard to understand that there is no earthly justification to not put someone behind bars for certain offences. I am thinking especially of offences against children, of murder and of some of the other offences we talk about often in the context of rising crime that are continuing to terrorize communities.

Bill C-16 would actually empower judges to ignore mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimum sentences have a very operational word in them, “mandatory”, which means they are to be mandatory. They are mandated. I cannot stress this enough. Under Bill C-16 there would be an escape valve. A judge could decide on a case-by-case basis that they believe a particular application of the mandatory minimum in a given case would be cruel and unusual.

We have already seen examples where judges in this country have given sentences that were more lenient than what they should have been, in order to protect someone's immigration status. We have seen an example, and this is something our Conservative team has tried to rectify in the system, where someone takes into consideration an external factor, even though the criminal has committed a crime and been found guilty. I cannot stress that enough. We are talking about sentencing. We are talking about people who have already been found to have committed the crime and are now facing the question of whether they will have to pay the time, and if so, how much. However, there are judges who have said that if they sentence someone to a certain amount of time, it would jeopardize their immigration status. That is egregious.

We also consider this in the context where a judge could look at a case and say, as one did in Quebec, that they think that maybe a one-year mandatory minimum for child sexual exploitation and abuse material, which is already, in the eyes of most Canadians, offensively low, should not apply to someone. We know that every single offender in this country who is found guilty of a crime that warrants a mandatory minimum sentence under the law would try to avail themselves of this escape hatch. Why would they not?

Bill C-16 would now say that a mandatory minimum sentence should not in fact be mandatory and that there should be no minimum sentence. We would be baking leniency in, and in doing so undermining the very idea of having a mandatory minimum sentence in the first place.

I would like to share what are the offences we are talking about that have mandatory minimums: aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, trafficking in weapons, and drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm. These are not benign cases. I was just in Surrey, British Columbia, and I was also just in Brampton, Ontario. These are two communities that have had exceedingly high rates of extortion in recent years, and this is something that has actually caused people in these communities to feel fearful.

There is one cudgel the state has available to it when people who are guilty of these crimes are finally arrested and convicted. This is assuming they have not been released on bail several times over, which we know is happening. The one tool available is a mandatory minimum sentence that will force a criminal to be behind bars and off the streets. There are some things we can debate, and there are some things on which there are differing opinions in politics, in law and in policy. However, one thing we can be very clear on is that someone cannot be doing a drive-by shooting if they are in jail; they cannot be trafficking in weapons, trafficking in humans or trading in child sexual exploitation and abuse material online if they are locked up.

This is something that should not be, and to most Canadians it is not, a partisan issue. We have been talking about the calls for reform of our justice system. They have been coming from Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives at the provincial level. The federal Liberals have been slow to respond to this. They have put forward Bill C-16, a bill that has many things in it that we are entirely supportive of, but we cannot undermine the very nature of why these laws and provisions exist.

Parliament set mandatory minimums for a reason. The passage of the provision would undermine that, as we would be saying to every victim in the country. The mandatory minimum sentences were put in place ostensibly to protect victims, and not just as a deterrent. Ideally, with many of these offences, we want to stop the offences from taking place in the first place, which means we want a penalty on the books that someone would think twice about before they violate.

We also know that the Liberal government has ended a lot of mandatory minimums in the case of Bill C-75. We have seen a series of justice bills from the government that it often claims would rectify a problem, but in the end these bills create a new problem or even a host of new problems.

I return to the testimony we heard from victims and people who work in the space of victims. There is one woman I have had the great privilege of meeting. She has become a tremendous advocate for victims' rights, not because she set out to do that with her life, but because she herself was a victim and saw that she had no one speaking for her. That is Cait Alexander, who has founded a tremendous organization called End Violence Everywhere. I was very pleased to meet her when she was testifying before the justice committee a little while ago. Cait Alexander almost lost her life because of delays in court. She has shared online photos that are so painful to see of her body covered in bruises, scrapes and scars because of vicious abuse in an attempted murder by an intimate partner. That person walked free because of the Jordan principle, because of the justice system's inability to fulfill its core basic mandate of protecting people from harm and punish those who inflict harm when protection and prevention could not happen.

We also heard, to use another local example, from Jennifer Dunn of the London Abused Women's Centre, LAWC. This is an organization I know very well. My wife serves on its board. It is an organization that has been advocating for and providing respite and shelter for women dealing with abuse for many years. I asked Jennifer Dunn before committee about some of the reforms we have put through that were proposed in Bailey's law. She was enthusiastically supportive. She knew they would support women. One of the things Jennifer shared in her testimony was that so many of the women at the London Abused Women's Centre that LAWC deals with call our system the injustice system. They do not even wish to engage with our system. They do not trust it to have their backs. I would say that is a failing of all institutions. I do not lay that blame on any particular party. I think it is something we need to take as a wake-up call. It is something we need to take to heart to understand exactly how we can pass laws that are victim-centred and victim-focused, to protect children, to protect people who are being extorted and to protect women from intimate partner violence.

This is something I have never had to witness in my family, but I know people who have. The more I have learned about this, the more I have realized this needs to be an all-hands-on-deck issue. This is where I welcome some of the reforms and proposals the Liberals have adopted from things we have called for, and some of the things they are doing in Bill C-16. However, if we are to truly seek a law that upholds victims' rights, we cannot embed in this something that undermines the strength of sentencing measures that Parliament has passed, that undermines mandatory minimum sentences, that makes them discretionary minimum sentences. Mandatory and discretionary cannot exist at the same time. That is why my colleagues and I stand ready, as always, to ensure we are reforming trust in the justice system, that it is looking after public safety and victims, that people like Bailey McCourt, Cait Alexander and Breanna Broadfoot will never again be traumatized and terrorized or face a system that either allows it to happen or does not seek true justice when it does.