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

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I do not really understand where my colleague's opposition to this bill is coming from. Bill C-16 restores mandatory minimum penalties, which is something he is advocating for.

We know that every time the government has tried to impose a mandatory minimum sentence in Canada it gets thrown out by the Supreme Court because, in some cases, it can violate a person's rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-16 gives us exactly what the Supreme Court has been asking for in those very rare cases. For example, if a 17-year-old shares an intimate photo of a 16-year-old girlfriend with his friend, does he go to prison for 25 years? It is definitely a bad thing he has done. The bill addresses all of the issues the member has just raised.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for at least sort of listening to the speech, but what she missed was me talking about the fact that by embedding a safety valve, by giving judges a tool to disregard mandatory minimums, we are not actually bolstering or expanding those mandatory minimums.

That is the crucial point that we have to acknowledge, that if mandatory minimum sentences are to be mandatory, knowing what we have seen, such as with the Senneville case, that certain judges entirely desire incredible leniency at the expense of victims and at the expense of public safety. That is what we are talking about.

By the way, I have said good things about the bill, but I also cannot turn a blind eye to things that move us further away from what we are trying to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I have a great deal of respect for him. He does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and is a respectable and intelligent man.

I understand his criticism of minimum sentences. As our Liberal colleague said a few moments ago, the Supreme Court has struck them down, and so we are left with two options. The first option is to reinstate the same minimum sentences that the Supreme Court struck down—obviously, doing the same thing will lead to the same result, and they will be struck down again. The second option is to not impose any minimum sentences at all. That would not make our Conservative colleagues very happy, which I understand.

However, there is a middle ground. We can reinstate them but allow judges to deviate from the minimum in exceptional circumstances. However, they would not be ignoring them, as my colleague said earlier. This option would require the court to justify why the case is exceptional and deserves an exemption from the minimum sentence. With all due respect, I think this is an interesting middle ground. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

Between that option and minimum sentences, which we know the Supreme Court will disallow, does it not make more sense to opt for an arrangement like this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of working with my colleague on the justice committee. While we obviously do not see eye to eye on some issues, I know that he does have a passion for public safety. I think that is underscoring the work we need to do on this and any other justice bill.

There is a long-standing legal debate in Canada about who ultimately has the authority to make the laws. To put it glibly, I know that members of Parliament are called lawmakers for a reason. It is our job to make laws. It is the Supreme Court's job and the judiciary's job to interpret laws.

We have been very clear that there are certain things that are so imperative that if we have judges standing in the way of what Canadians clearly want and deserve, we should be open to using the notwithstanding clause to protect some of these fundamental measures. As a party, we have been very clear in saying that. Mandatory minimums for child sexual abusers is a prime example of that.

It is very important that we understand that it is our responsibility and our duty as lawmakers to set out Criminal Code penalties.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his great speech on the issue.

Sometimes I feel like we do not see the forest for the trees. This particular bill does make some dramatic improvements, but what it fails to take into account is the last decade of Liberal failures on our public judiciary, but also public safety, and just the crime rates in general.

Could my hon. colleague zoom out a little and talk more broadly about the state of affairs in Canada, in terms of crime and justice?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock, my brother's former member of Parliament, for his intervention.

The issues dealing with crime across the board, and not just the crime we are dealing with in the context of Bill C-16, have been rampant. This very quickly became one of the top issues I face from constituents. In fact, after affordability and the cost of living, crime is the top issue that my constituents raise.

We have seen a string of incidents in the communities I represent, notably St. Thomas, where people on bail for serious offences commit other identical offences. The police have been throwing their hands up in the air, incredibly frustrated with this, because they have been calling for legitimate reforms to laws.

In the case of Bill C-16, we know that bad bail laws hurt women, children and people who are very vulnerable to these particular crimes. That is why we are standing up, again hoping to work across party lines to fix some of these core issues facing society and our legal system.

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

First, Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. We do not have the new bail laws because the Conservatives refused to pass the bill last year. That is the reason we do not have the new bail laws today.

Let us go on to mandatory minimums. This is what the member opposite says we need more of. That is exactly what this legislation would do. It would put in additional mandatory minimum laws.

The safety clause, as the member refers to it, is the issue. Here is what the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, the member's Conservative colleague, had to say, “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve; that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed. This is a perfect middle ground. Why will the minister not accept it?”

We have accepted it. Why will the rest of the Conservative Party not do it?

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

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this, Mr. Speaker. Let me take a step back.

Conservatives tried, in December, at the justice committee 19 times for the government to let us focus on Bill C-14, to allow us to focus on bail. The Liberals on the justice committee denied that while this very member was speaking in this House of Commons asking why the justice committee was not focusing on bail. We tried. Finally, today, we were able to break that impasse and set aside the divisive Bill C-9 to focus on Bill C-14. If Bill C-16 is coming before the justice committee soon, this is also an issue that we agree is very important.

However, I note that we should not be taking our cues from the courts on matters that are so very clear to members of this chamber and to Canadians. We are the ones responsible. We have a tremendous honour to be in this chamber. I have not been here as long as the member has, but I appreciate the honour it is to be here and actually be able to respond to the concerns of Canadians on justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he tried on 19 separate occasions to work on Bill C-14 on bail. With all due respect to my colleague, who usually works in good faith, I find that comment disingenuous. On the 19 occasions in question, the request was to stop our study of Bill C-9, which deals with hate. I know because I was there.

The Conservatives did not want us to continue working on the bill dealing with hate because they wanted us to focus on Bill C-14. However, the role of a committee is to study all bills and vote on each one. This is true for Bill C-9, just as it is true for Bill C-14 and Bill C-16.

My question for my colleague is this: Can he guarantee that the Conservative Party will act in good faith, that all filibustering at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will cease at once, and that the Conservatives will agree to work with us? They will vote as they see fit, for or against, but will they agree to work together rather than prevent the committee from functioning?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your great work and it is good to see you after a lengthy winter break.

Conservatives always stand ready, in good faith, to deal with the criminal justice priorities of Canadians. We have been saying that since the justice committee was convened, I have been saying it since I was placed on the justice committee and we have been saying it as the justice committee has worked through legislation, including the bill the member opposite raises, which Canadians have been clear they do not want. We stand in good faith, as always, to deal with the real criminal justice priorities of Canadians, and I am glad we are finally moving forward in that vein. I welcome the Liberals to the team that we have been on for a while, which is the team that wants to get serious about bail.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain. Today's debate on Bill C-16 brings us to a topic that is both difficult and essential, a simple and fundamental question: Do our laws really protect women and children who are victims of violence as much as they should?

One of the Canadian values that is close to my heart is how we protect the most vulnerable. That is what we are talking about today. We must ask ourselves whether our justice system fully recognizes that gender-based violence is not always loud, that it is not always visible and, above all, that it is almost never a one-time event. Bill C-16 asks us to face this reality head-on.

Over the next few minutes, that is what I would like to explain. Why is this bill necessary? What does it change, in a meaningful way? Above all, why does the bill finally respond to what survivors across the country, including in regions like mine, have been telling us for far too long?

For too long, our criminal law has failed to grasp the true nature of gender-based violence, especially when it comes to domestic violence, which is, in fact, one of the most common forms. Even today, our legal framework focuses on isolated acts: a specific assault, threat or incident. However, in doing so, it misses the point, in that it misses the overall pattern of behaviour that defines most abusive situations. Survivors have made it clear that domestic violence, as I also said earlier, is almost never a single or sudden act. It is a gradual increase of control. It means isolation from loved ones, constant monitoring, financial dependence, humiliation, intimidation and manipulation. When we look at these actions individually, it is already unacceptable. However, taken together, it destroys a person's freedom, security and dignity.

These forms of violence remain largely absent from the Criminal Code. That is what we want to correct with Bill C-16. At the heart of the bill is an essential recognition: gender-based violence is not limited to physical abuse. It also impacts autonomy, freedom and dignity. The reforms we are proposing today are aimed at better preventing violence before it escalates, better supporting victims when they seek help and improving the justice system's response to their reality.

One of the key measures in the bill is the creation of a new offence that criminalizes coercive control in intimate relationships. This is a major step forward. This offence will allow us to recognize that violence often manifests itself through a series of repeated acts which, taken together, deprive a person of their independence, safety and decision-making power. Criminalizing coercive control sends a clear message: psychological domination is a serious form of violence.

The bill also addresses the most extreme form of gender-based violence: the murder of women because they are women. Bill C-16 explicitly recognizes femicide where the victim is female. It provides that murders committed under four specific circumstances will automatically be classified as first degree murder, the most serious offence in the Criminal Code, punishable by life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years. These circumstances reflect realities that women and girls disproportionately face, namely, homicides committed in situations of coercive control, sexual violence, exploitation or gender-based hatred.

We also understand that fighting gender-based violence is not just about creating new offences. It also involves making justice systems more accessible, safer and quicker to respond before the violence becomes irreversible. In this regard, former Bill S-205, which came into force in April, was an important step forward and created a new protection order, namely, a peace bond specifically designed for situations of domestic violence.

Bill C‑16 strengthens this tool. It could allow justices of the peace, who are often more available than judges in many regions of the country, to hear applications and impose protection conditions of up to two years. For women living in rural areas, like my region, where access to the courts can be limited and delays can become dangerous, this measure is especially crucial.

In my riding, I had the opportunity to welcome both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Women and Gender Equality. Together, we held round tables with organizations that are on the front lines, every day, working with women and children who are victims of violence.

I want to list those organizations, which do outstanding work in my riding. They are La Méridienne, the Haut-Saint-François Women's Center, Phelps Helps, the CDC du Haut-Saint-François, CALACS, ConcertAction Femmes Estrie and the Lennoxville & District Women's Centre. The discussions reminded us of the unique realities facing people in rural areas, including transportation problems, isolation and a lack of anonymity because everyone knows each other. They also reminded us of the essential role that multi-faceted organizations play in meeting almost every need and in providing support for women that goes well beyond helping them deal with domestic violence.

I want to share something that a worker at the Haut-Saint-François Women's Center said when I showed her Bill C-16. She said that she was very pleased to finally see a bill that seeks to criminalize coercive control, that this is an extremely important step forward, that criminal harassment is one of the most common issues experienced by the people she works with and that it is very difficult to file a complaint and to have the conditions enforced. She also said that court delays and a lack of protection are two major reasons why victims decide not to report what is happening to them. Bill C-16 responds to those exact issues.

Beyond creating new offences, the bill also improves the courtroom experience for victims. It expands access to testimonial aids—screens, remote testimony, support persons—for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and criminal harassment. For many survivors, the courtroom can be a place of revictimization. These measures will reduce trauma and promote meaningful participation in the judicial process.

The bill also modernizes the response to technology-facilitated violence. It increases the severity of the offence related to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to explicitly include deepfakes of a sexual nature. It also adds extortion for sexual purposes, known as sextortion, as an aggravating factor and increases the maximum penalties for certain summary conviction offences. This recognizes a simple reality: digital violence can follow a woman everywhere, at all times.

Bill C-16 also modernizes the offence of criminal harassment. Rather than requiring proof that the victim actually feared for their safety, it will now suffice to demonstrate that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would also have feared for their physical or psychological safety. This change will allow for earlier intervention, before violence escalates.

The bill would also amend the Firearms Act to require chief firearms officers to deny or revoke a licence when there are concerns related to domestic violence or harassment. The data is clear. Access to firearms significantly increases the risk of death in domestic violence situations.

Lastly, the bill strengthens the rules that govern trials for sexual offences. It restricts access to therapeutic records and simplifies sexual history procedures to reduce delays, avoid duplicate hearings and ensure that decisions are based on facts rather than myths or stereotypes.

Taken together, these changes mark a turning point in how Canada understands and addresses gender-based violence. Although the scars left behind by coercive control are not always visible, they are deep. Digital violence knows no borders and when the system is slow to act, the consequences can be irreversible. Bill C‑16 responds to these realities by improving the recognition of this violence, increasing protection, providing real support for survivors and clearly recognizing the seriousness of femicide.

No law alone will end violence against women. However, laws shape culture. They show what we are willing to tolerate and where we draw a red line. When survivors come forward, they are not seeking compassion only. They want a system that understands the reality of the situation and acts before it is too late, as we are doing with Bill C-16.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite on her speech.

I am pleased that we are talking about Bill C-16, because I have a concern about victims, especially victims of aggravated and violent sexual assault. I spoke just last week with one such victim, the survivor of an extremely violent sexual assault by a repeat offender who recently completed his federal sentence and is now out of the system, so to speak. The victim, this woman, is finding it terribly hard to feel safe because she cannot get any information, like where this assailant lives, an assailant who, as I said, has been released with very limited control. What I mean is that, despite the availability of an ombudsman for victims of crime, the service is not perfect. These victims understandably experience distress.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that we are doing enough for women victims of violent sexual assault. How could we improve their conditions?

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

It is completely unacceptable for women and children to end up in violent situations. As I said, it leaves lasting marks and scars that can stay with them throughout their lives. Are we doing enough? I would say that we can never do enough. We are taking a really meaningful step here to support these women, to reassure them, to better help them. We must continue to do more.

I would like to thank the organizations in my riding, which I mentioned earlier, that support these women on a daily basis. They are doing an exceptional job. As I said, it is never enough, and we must continue to help these organizations and support women. However, I think that we are taking meaningful steps to support them.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many portions of my hon. colleague's speech that I agree with completely. My colleague sat with me on the public safety committee for a number of weeks previously, and I think she knows that we can agree on a lot of things.

Pretty much all of my colleague's speech was about the things needed in this bill that the Conservatives can agree with. We have asked for these things for probably 10-plus years, I am quite sure, and some of them are commendable.

I wonder if she would comment on the fact that this bill would empower judges to ignore literally every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code, such as those for aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking and other multiple violent firearms offences that are harming and hurting women in our community.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to take this bill for what it is: a bill that will support victims, that respects the legal framework and that will not be challenged before the Supreme Court. I think what we are doing is extremely important. I am speaking in the strongest possible terms.

My colleague and I have worked very well together. I think we share the same concerns about women, children and victims of violence. I truly believe we have some good solutions.