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.

Sexual Violence Prevention Month

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May is Sexual Violence Prevention Month in Ontario. Every day, news stories show how widespread and devastating intimate partner and sexual violence is across Canada. These are not isolated incidents. They are not private matters. They are part of a systemic crisis with real human and social costs.

In Canada, a recent report shows that sexual violence costs nearly $15 billion every year in lost wages, counselling, investigation, courts and more. About one in three police-reported violent incidents involves IPV, and we know that this is the tip of the iceberg.

Bill C-16 would expand protections, increase access and help address systemic vulnerability, but cops, courts and counselling are all after the fact. Prevention must be the goal, through education, early intervention and addressing root causes, including gender inequality, racism and discrimination.

I thank Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis, support teams at the University of Guelph and Guelph General Hospital, Victim Services Guelph, Guelph Police Service, and groups like them across Canada. Ending sexual violence is not just their work. It must be all of ours and it must be done every day.

Justice and Human Rights

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in relation to Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters regarding child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Justice

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals, it is more crime, more fear and more chaos, simply more of the same. Extortion is raging across this country, and victims are living in a state of perpetual terror. Homes are being burned, businesses are being shot at and communities are under attack, yet the Liberal Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe that the Liberals are tough on crime, when Bill C-16 would actually make our justice system weaker.

When will the Liberal government repeal its failed soft-on-crime laws and finally make criminals who do the crime do their time?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her leadership. Violence driven by control and fear leaves deep and lasting harm, and far too many women and children are living with those consequences. That is why we introduced Bill C-16, one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. It would criminalize coercive control before violence turns lethal and would strengthen protections against sexual exploitation, including AI deepfakes.

Every day we delay in passing this bill, we are delaying protecting victims. I urge all members to support Bill C-16.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in communities across this country, intimate partner violence is not an abstract idea. Survivors have been clear that they need our justice system to act earlier and more effectively to keep them safe. I am proud to be part of this new government's commitment to taking tangible action to better protect Canadians.

Will the parliamentary secretary please tell this House how Bill C-16 would strengthen protections for victims of violence, and why it is so important that we move forward without delay?

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which would strengthen the Criminal Code to better protect victims of violence and abuse.

When I was elected as the member of Parliament for Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, I committed to protecting those experiencing violence and abuse. Today, I reaffirm that commitment. More must be done to address the rise in toxic and harassing behaviour, particularly online. Like many Canadians, I have received persistent, abusive communications. It is harassment and it is unacceptable.

All Canadians, including every elected official in this House of Commons, have the right to a harassment-free home and work environment. Together, we must empower a public culture of respect, safety and dignity for all.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, right now, in communities across this country, there are women living in fear inside their own homes. Intimate partner violence is not some theoretical problem to be discussed in the abstract. It is happening at the kitchen table, in the grocery store parking lot and in a text message sent at 2 a.m. It is fuelled by misogyny, and misogyny unchecked can kill.

Bill C-16 would take action in service of the victims of such intimidation, harassment and abuse. It would strengthen our Criminal Code to better protect victims, standing for women and with women all across Canada. Bill C-16 is an example of how we can work together to reject misogyny and insist on dignity and safety for all Canadians.

[Zoe Royer, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-16, because safety in Canada is not a privilege, but a fundamental right.

Intimate partner violence isolates people in fear and in silence. It erodes dignity and weakens communities, and it calls on every single one of us to respond with clarity and resolve.

We are also seeing a rise in harassment, including online. Too many people are experiencing it, especially women.

Each of us deserves to feel safe at home, at work and in public life. Bill C-16 would move us forward. It would reinforce something fundamental, which is that in Canada, safety, dignity and respect must be upheld for everyone.

National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, getting into politics means choosing to serve and advance our democracy. Personal attacks, intimidation and hatred have no place in our institutions or our society.

It is up to every one of us to foster an environment in which all people can contribute to public discourse with dignity and kindness. As we mark the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, we must continue to promote a society based on listening, respect and safety for all.

As chair of the women's caucus, I also want to emphasize women's significant contribution to public and political life in our country and our support for Bill C‑16. A strong democracy is one in which everyone is encouraged to participate and get involved.

Justice

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today again, and as well, to support Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.

The bill is grounded in a simple but powerful principle: that abuse and harassment are not acceptable, no matter whom they target, and we are not going to normalize that any longer. Bill C-16 puts the safety and dignity of victims first, especially women, children and survivors, by modernizing the Criminal Code to address coercive control and online exploitation.

Violence and harassment seldom start with a single act. They emerge through patterns of intimidation. I have experienced personally, as have many of my colleagues, deliberate middle-of-the-night calls meant to intimidate, using a number shared widely by email with incitement to harass. That is not civic engagement.

Bill C-16 recognizes those patterns and gives our justice system the tools to intervene earlier and to act. It also strengthens victims' rights and helps ensure that serious cases are not lost to delay. Bill C-16 helps ensure that safety—

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. The bill would give our justice system the tools to act before violence escalates and before it is too late.

Women are being hurt, controlled and isolated, most often by the very people they should feel the safest with. In Peel Region alone, police respond to roughly 16,000 incidents of family and intimate partner violence every year. That is 16,000 calls for help and 16,000 moments of fear.

Those are only the ones we hear about. Behind closed doors, in silence, there are countless more. Sometimes, that silence ends in tragedy. We call it femicide. Bill C-16 says clearly that this must stop. It recognizes femicide as first-degree murder and it acknowledges that abuse is not only physical. It is coercion, control and fear.

The need is urgent. I urge every member of the House to stand with victims, to stand for justice and to support Bill C-16.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise today to speak about an issue that Canadians are no longer willing to tolerate: the surge of extortion that is targeting our communities, our businesses and our families.

Crime has evolved, and frankly, our laws did not keep pace quickly enough. That is a reality, but unlike the members opposite, we are not interested in pointing fingers and walking away. We are taking responsibility and fixing the issue. This is why we introduced Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, and Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, two of the most consequential proposed reforms to the Criminal Code in a generation.

Bill C-14 would give tools to provincial judges and police officers to put repeat and violent extortionists in jail, where they belong. It would mandate strict bail conditions for people accused of extortion and organized crime, including weapons prohibitions and geographic restrictions. It would introduce a reverse onus for extortion involving violence, shifting the burden so that the people accused must justify their release instead of the Crown having to justify their detention, and it would ensure that sentences for extortion and arson are served consecutively, because escalating violence deserves escalating consequences, period.

Bill C-16 would go even further by addressing how criminal networks operate. It would create a new stand-alone offence to target people who recruit young people into committing crimes like extortion. These criminals are not just breaking the law; they are grooming young people to do their work for them. We are shutting that pipeline down before more lives are pulled into it.

Here is something Canadians must know. These bills were introduced last fall, last year. Canadians expected urgency, but what they got from the Conservatives is delay, obstruction and political gamesmanship, all while they stood in the House pretending to be tough on crime.

Now the same pattern is repeating itself in the Senate, where a Conservative senator has recently claimed there is no timeline to pass Bill C-14 and bring it back to the House for final stage. This is despite overwhelming support from all 10 premiers, from police chiefs across the country, from frontline officers I have talked to and from business leaders across this country who are dealing with extortion in real time.

Let us be clear: The only thing standing between Canadians and stronger protections right now is Conservative delay. If the member opposite truly cared about victims of extortion, she would use her rhetoric and her actual influence inside her party to make sure these bills get passed. Tonight when she goes home, we hope she will pick up the phone and tell her Conservative colleagues in the Senate to stop blocking these bills, which she has been doing, and urge them to pass Bill C-14 both at committee and at third reading, before this Friday, or she will continue to say one thing here while her colleagues ensure that nothing actually gets done.

The legislation is here. The solution is here. The only question is whether the members opposite will finally stop their obstruction and start standing with Canadians and the victims of extortion.

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Grande Prairie.

I said in my maiden speech, when I got to this august chamber, that this seat does not belong to me. Indeed, it belongs to the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I am a mere custodian of it. I say that to make the point that Parliament itself, this House of Commons, these institutions, are bigger than any of us as individuals. They are bigger than all of us even as a collective. These institutions matter more. This place matters more than the political ambitions, motivations and decisions of the people who get to come here every election.

I have always venerated this institution. Indeed, I have always been fascinated by it. Even going back to when I was a university student involved in politics, I loved partaking in model parliament. I loved taking the opportunity to learn more. Perhaps it is why I have never been reprimanded for not addressing my comments through the chair or not doing some of those other conventions: I have been a student of parliamentary history.

It was an honour the first day I walked into this chamber, and it remains the honour of a lifetime to be here.

It has been saddening in that same vein to see how, for the Liberal government and specifically the Prime Minister, Parliament is a mere annoyance. We have seen the ignorance in this place: the fact that the Prime Minister has a question period attendance rating that is a fraction of that of his predecessors; the fact that he loves “showboating”, to use a word he is fond of, with fake executive orders that have no legal standing in our country; and the fact that he has been doing everything but governing in this place, governing in this chamber.

To govern in this chamber is to be held accountable to Parliament as the collective body representing the will of the Canadian people. Parliament is a body comprising fellow custodians of this chamber, who are sent here with very similar mandates from each of their respective constituencies and constituents. However, we see in the motion before us today that the government does not believe it can win the game, so to speak, so it is changing the rules. It is changing the rules to suit its political ambitions, irrespective of the will of the Canadian people and irrespective of the norms, conventions and traditions of this place.

It should be known to everyone here that Canadians do not, in fact, elect a government; they elect a Parliament. Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary since Canadians elected me, alongside all of my colleagues from all parties. Canadians elected a minority Parliament. The message Canadians sent in doing that was that they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term. I question why they would do that. However, while they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term, Canadians wanted their power to be checked by a strong, robust opposition.

Now, my Conservative colleagues and I have held up our end of the bargain as His Majesty's loyal opposition. We supported and improved legislation such as Bill C-5, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, which is before the justice committee right now. We opposed dangerous bills, such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-9, which the Liberals wanted to wave through without scrutiny and accountability. We worked collaboratively across party lines. We represented the will of Canadians, who elected MPs to champion, for those of us on the Conservative side of the aisle, the values of liberty, personal responsibility and, yes, fiscal discipline.

However, what we have seen over the last year is that when the Liberals do not get their way, they scream obstruction. Opposition is not obstruction. We have seen this in a minority Parliament. I recall when Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had one just a few years ago. A minority Parliament requires the government to find dance partners, so to speak, to find collaboration and earn collaboration from opposition parties. The idea of holding opposition parties hostage to support bad legislation, which is what the Liberal government has tried to do, is not what a minority Parliament is supposed to be.

We have seen under this arrangement, specifically at committees, a situation in which the Bloc has held the balance of power. I have seen votes in which Bloc and Conservative support was enough to pass a motion against the will of the Liberals. I have seen Liberal and Bloc members pass motions against the will of Conservatives. On a rare occasion, I might have even seen Liberals and Conservatives vote together, with the Bloc being the odd party out.

Even when we have lost a vote, frustrating as that may be, I can take comfort in the knowledge that the Liberals were forced to co-operate with someone. They had a check, however modest, on their power. Today, the Liberals would enshrine their desire for a legislative blank cheque, stacking parliamentary committees to reflect their morally illegitimate majority. I say illegitimate majority because it was crafted not by the democratic will of Canadians but by the Prime Minister sending out his cabinet ministers to peel away the unscrupulous and the shameless opposition MPs who hold the will of the Canadian people in as little esteem as the Liberals do.

This morally illegitimate majority is the consequence of that which they now seek to ratify by stacking the deck on committees. Committees are not the property of the government. They are creatures of Parliament. In many ways, they are where the real work happens, where scrutiny can happen, where amendments can happen and where real vigorous debates on the merits or lack thereof of legislation happen.

If the government can manufacture a majority at will, scrutiny is merely choreography. They are seeking to not have a check on their power and to not have scrutiny of their legislation but rather to have a rubber stamp on anything they want to do.

I am reminded of a quote from John Diefenbaker. In April 1957, he was speaking at Massey Hall in Toronto, and he said, “The sovereignty of the people is delegated to Parliament, not to the Executive.”

The Prime Minister could learn a great many things from John Diefenbaker. One of the lessons is that government is about accountability, not control. Another lesson is that parliamentary scrutiny should be welcomed and not scorned. As evidence that these Liberals are uninterested in accountability and collaboration, one need only look at how they rejected our modest amendment to the very motion we are debating today, which would have preserved the status quo on oversight committees such as ethics, government operations and estimates, among others, committees that are not responsible for reviewing legislation but are tasked with being a watchdog on the government.

Why the Liberals do not want to cede control on a committee overseeing ethics, I think, is becoming more apparent by the day. That is precisely what we are looking at here: a government that does not wish to engage in Parliament, a Prime Minister who holds this institution in contempt and a government that does not want to engage in something so seemingly beneath it as seeking and preserving the will of the Canadian people to enact its legislative agenda.

The motion that we have before us today, which I will be opposing, does not strengthen Parliament. It sidelines it. That is something that every member of the House should reject.

I go back to the comment I made earlier about when the Liberals try to invoke obstruction as a narrative. We have given them much of what they asked for when they sought permission to do things that will build the country up. Bill C-5 is a great example of this. They said they wanted monumental, sweeping authority to approve major projects. We said we would love to see major projects. We gave them permission to do this and the framework to do it. No major projects have materialized. Here we are a year later: The Liberal government has promised much and has delivered little.

The one mechanism that could be preserved to ensure that Parliament remains in keeping with what Canadians elected was a committee structure that would force members of Parliament and would force government members to do what the Liberals claim they have wanted this whole time, which is collaboration. No, they are laying their demands bare today with the motion. They do not want collaboration. They do not want co-operation. All they want is capitulation. We say no.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for the third reading of Bill C-225, Bailey's law, an important step forward in Canada's response to intimate partner violence.

Before I go further, I would like to acknowledge once again that the bill has been titled “Bailey's law” in honour of Bailey McCourt, a woman from Kelowna, B.C., who was tragically killed by her estranged intimate partner in July of last year. Members of Bailey McCourt's family were present at committee, and their advocacy inspired multiple parts of this bill. It is important that we say survivors' names, and it is important for them, as well as for countless other survivors and families of those who have suffered intimate partner violence, that we continue our efforts to advance this most important work.

At its core, the bill responds to a reality that is far too present in communities across this country. Intimate partner violence remains one of the most pervasive and dangerous forms of violence in Canada, and in too many cases, it escalates to lethal outcomes. This is not an abstract policy issue but a lived reality for survivors, families and frontline service providers who see the consequences every day. That is why this legislation matters.

What makes Bill C-225 particularly significant is not only its substance but the way it was developed. This is a bill that benefited from serious, sustained and good-faith collaboration between the sponsor of the bill, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola; the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; the Minister of Women and Gender Equality; and members across the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Through that work, the bill was refined in a meaningful way.

A total of 18 government amendments and three opposition amendments were adopted at committee stage, reflecting a process that was focused less on partisan positioning and more on ensuring that the legislation is effective, constitutionally sound and responsive to the realities of intimate partner violence. That collaborative approach is something we should take seriously. It demonstrates that when Parliament works constructively, we can improve legislation in a way that better protects victims while maintaining fairness and coherence in criminal law.

As amended, Bill C-225 would advance four key pillars.

First, it would clarify how the criminal law treats intimate partner homicide in situations involving coercive and controlling conduct. By linking the most serious homicide classification to patterns of coercive control, the bill would ensure that the law better reflects the reality of sustained abuse while also guarding against unintended consequences for survivors who may have acted in response to prolonged violence.

Second, it would create a single, comprehensive intimate partner violence offence. Rather than relying on a fragmented set of offences, this approach recognizes the full spectrum of violent conduct that can occur in an intimate relationship, from threats and assault to more serious forms of violence. The bill would also support consistency in charging and clear recognition of patterns of abuse.

Third, it would modernize the treatment of seized property under section 490 of the Criminal Code by extending the initial detention period to 180 days. This adjustment reflects a balance between individual rights and the need for an effective and efficient justice system.

Fourth, it would strengthen the bail framework by introducing a targeted reverse onus for certain repeat or high-risk intimate partner violence situations, particularly when there is a demonstrated history of prior violence or breach of court-ordered conditions. This would ensure that the courts have the tools necessary to appropriately assess risk while maintaining judicial discretion and charter compliance.

Taken together, these amendments reflect a careful balancing exercise, strengthening protections for victims while ensuring the framework remains fair, proportionate and constitutionally sound.

Importantly, Bill C-225 does not exist in isolation. It is part of a broader set of reforms that this Parliament has been advancing to address violence, coercive control and systemic gaps in the criminal justice response.

For example, Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, takes a broader approach to coercive control, femicide and emerging forms of technology-facilitated violence, including deepfake sexual imagery and sextortion. It reflects a recognition that patterns of abuse are evolving and that the law must evolve with them. Similarly, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, would strengthen the response to repeat violent offending, particularly in cases involving sexual violence and serious harm. It would reinforce the principle that bail decisions must reflect public safety and victim protection.

When viewed together, these measures form a more coherent and modern framework for addressing intimate partner violence and gender-based violence more broadly. What Bill C-225 demonstrates is that progress is possible when we approach these issues seriously and collaboratively. It is encouraging that despite political differences, members were able to come together in committee to improve this legislation and move it forward in a way that reflects both accountability and fairness.

At the same time, we must be clear that no single bill will solve intimate partner violence on its own. Legislative reform is one part of a broader response that must also include prevention, early intervention, housing supports, mental health services and resources for frontline organizations. However, legislation does matter. It sets the tone for how the justice system understands and responds to violence. It signals to survivors that their experiences are recognized. It ensures that offenders are held accountable in a way that reflects the seriousness of the harm caused.

That is what Bill C-225 would do. It would strengthen the criminal law's ability to respond to intimate partner violence. It would improve coherence in how offences are prosecuted. It would enhance protection for victims. It would do so in a way that reflects careful committee work and cross-party engagement, so today I want to acknowledge the constructive role played by the sponsor of the bill, and the willingness of members from all parties to engage seriously with amendments that improve the legislation. That kind of work is not always easy in the House, but it is essential.

As we move forward, I would encourage all members to continue in that same spirit of collaboration as we consider related reforms, including Bill C-16, which is now before the justice committee and which we hope will be passed as soon as possible, and Bill C-14, which is now in committee study at the Senate and which we hope senators will help advance swiftly. Together, these reforms represent a broader effort to modernize Canada's criminal justice response to violence and exploitation.

Ultimately, the objective is not partisan. It is about safety, prevention and ensuring that when violence occurs in the most intimate of relationships, the justice system is equipped to respond effectively and fairly. For those reasons, I am proud to support Bill C-225 at third reading, and I encourage all members of the House to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑225 for the second time in this Parliament.

However, this topic is nothing new. I had already spoken to this bill a few times. In 2020 and 2021, our colleague from Victoria and members for several other ridings had already introduced similar bills, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently completing its study of the government's Bill C‑16, which deals in part with the same issue.

Bill C‑225 is, I believe, the fifth bill dealing with the same issue. The reason for that is not that we are doing a bad job and need start over all the time, but that bills die on the Order Paper when Parliaments end. When we start over, we often like to wear both a belt and suspenders, as we say back home. We want so badly for something to work out that we often give it two or three tries.

As I was saying, what we are studying right now is Bill C‑225. As for Bill C‑16, we will very likely complete the clause-by-clause consideration on Wednesday, at which point we will finally be able to begin third reading of the bill, which also addresses the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour. It is a major problem.

I am obviously not the only one who thinks that this is a major problem. Our society is continuously undergoing major changes. That has always been the case and likely always will be. Certain behaviours that may have been acceptable 50 or 75 years ago, or even in the last century, are no longer acceptable, and I am sure some behaviours that we think are acceptable today no longer will be in 50 or 100 years. That is why we need to be continually reviewing the legislation that applies to certain situations, even though we may have done so a while back.

All types of violence are on the rise in Quebec, Canada and throughout the world. We now have to deal with extremist groups that have resources that they never used to have and that are spreading around the world and throughout our society. There is also domestic violence, another form of violence that may seem insignificant because each case involves fewer people.

Domestic violence usually involves two individuals, the violent individual and the victim of their violence. However, it also affects the couple's children, their whole families and society as a whole, which must find a way to address this issue. Education is needed to bring about change. We can pass as many laws as we want in the House, but we can never prevent somebody somewhere from becoming violent and committing regrettable acts of violence without even thinking about it, without even making a conscious decision.

In my riding, last fall, Gabie Renaud was murdered. Her murder caused a lot of outrage, not only in my riding but across Quebec, Canada and the U.S. as well. The accused was an individual who had previously been convicted several times for domestic violence. I believe he had been convicted over a dozen times. I do not have the exact numbers but it was multiple convictions. He served his time in jail and was released. He paid his debt to society, as they say. He got out of jail, found a new spouse, abused her and then murdered her.

It is appalling. Although it may only affect a few close individuals, I believe it is an issue for society as a whole. As parliamentarians, this is primarily our responsibility, since it is up to us to establish a legal framework, or a body of laws, that will ensure these kinds of harmful situations are prevented.

Would locking someone up for the rest of their life when they are violent with their partner solve the problem? It probably would, but that is not what we want. We believe in lofty principles such as the presumption of innocence and people's rights and freedoms. They are enshrined in our charters, both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, and we must maintain them.

However, we must also work to ensure that this does not happen again. Bill C-225 proposes criminal measures. It proposes harsher sentences and consequences for such crimes in the hope that society as a whole will become more aware of how serious the situation is. There is also the hope that this may prevent more cases of domestic violence like this one. Does it work? I do not know. So far, the results have not been very encouraging. As I said earlier, cases of domestic violence are on the rise in Quebec, across Canada and just about everywhere.

I think we need to pass Bill C-225 and Bill C-16 and support the fight against these crimes through tougher penalties. However, I also think we need to invest more in rehabilitating inmates and educating young people to prevent this from continuing to happen. Education programs are already being provided to young people in schools. The goal is to try to prevent violence. Given that my wife was a teacher for her entire career, I can say that the situation is definitely not getting any better, despite everyone's efforts. Violence in schools is on the rise. I am not a sociologist, and for reasons I do not understand, unfortunately, people are obeying the established rules less and less, and they are disrespecting one another more and more. We cannot ignore the problem and we should all be extremely concerned about this. We may not be the ones teaching in our schools, but we create the legislative framework in which society as a whole operates.

These punitive measures, which involve imprisoning people and refusing to release them until a certain period has elapsed, probably have some deterrent effect on people who have not yet been charged but who are watching to see what kind of laws we pass. However, that is not enough. We need to invest. Quebec has no money left, the roads are in bad shape, and people wait 24 to 48 hours in emergency rooms. There are little to no specialized services left in schools. This is not working anymore. People are overtaxed. In many cases, more than half of a person's salary goes to the government. Where does that money go?

I think the federal government should transfer funds to the provinces to help them address these issues. There needs to be more rehabilitation programs in prisons. There needs to be more educational initiatives for youth in schools. We need to find a way to rebuild a society that respects every individual and establish a legal framework that enables and promotes this respect and mutual awareness among all members of society.

I could go on at length about this, but I would not be adding anything substantial. We will agree on Bill C-225, but that does not preclude us from doing more to prevent crime through education and better rehabilitation in our penitentiaries, so that when people are released from prison after one year, five years, or twenty years, they come out different from who they were when they went in.