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

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I also want to thank her for saying a few words about feminist organizations. I have also heard that police associations support this bill. I would like to know whether my colleague has heard the same thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have. Not only do police associations support this bill, but so do victims' rights organizations, as well as the provinces and territories. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities also applauded this bill. Yes, police forces across the country welcome the bill. We have a bill that has achieved consensus across all spheres.

I really hope that my colleagues on the other side of the House will support it because there is a consensus across this country.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and the government's ongoing efforts to protect children and ensure that child sex exploitation is unequivocally denounced, deterred and prevented.

Colleagues may know that I also have a private member's bill coming up for second reading in a couple of days, the keeping children safe act. I feel that this bill works in the criminal context to do what my bill does in the family courts. It protects children, it gives them a voice and it protects them from coercive control after a relationship is done.

I served as a journalist for more than 20 years. I spent a lot of that time in criminal court, so I know a lot of victims of really heinous crimes. I know that they expect a justice system that does not tolerate things like sexual exploitation, that protects victims and that hands serious consequences to people who commit serious crimes. Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, reflects the government's commitment to ensure that our criminal law is strong, principled and capable of meeting that responsibility.

I will start by addressing the mandatory minimums that we have heard so much about here in this chamber today. I know it has been a controversial topic. I have covered criminal court, and it has been a controversial topic for decades.

Mandatory minimum penalties, for those who are not aware, mean that a judge cannot impose a sentence any lower than the prescribed minimum penalty, regardless of the circumstances. They can impose a longer sentence, but they can never impose a shorter sentence. It does not matter what the evidence was that they heard. Victims like mandatory minimum penalties because they clearly denounce serious crimes. They can be a deterrent for some offenders, but they can also be unfair in some circumstances. That is what we have heard from the Supreme Court. Judges currently do not have any discretion, even if they feel that a mandatory minimum is too harsh for the particular case that is in front of them.

Mandatory minimums risk violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They can result in grossly disproportionate sentences. Unlike what we have heard from the Conservatives so far today, “grossly disproportionate” is a really high threshold. It means that it must outrage our society's sense of decency and that Canadians would find the sentence abhorrent or intolerable. That is the only time a judge would be allowed to use this mechanism, because there is no mechanism like this. Mandatory minimums have been declared unconstitutional by courts across Canada, including in child sex offence cases.

However, the government agrees that mandatory minimums can be a good thing. They can denounce and deter some of the most serious crimes. That is why we have these provisions in Bill C-16. That is why we see this decisive, immediate action and these reforms in Bill C-16, where we would amend the Criminal Code to restore mandatory minimum penalties that have been found unconstitutional by the courts. We would do this by including a provision that provides judges the ability to have some discretion. They could order a sentence of imprisonment lower than the statutory mandatory minimum, but in very narrow situations.

In most cases, the mandatory minimum would still apply, but if the court is sentencing an offender for something where the mandatory minimum will be found to be grossly disproportionate, should we just let it go to the Supreme Court to be thrown out and not have that law at all? With Bill C-16, the court does not need to do that. It does not need to throw it out. It does not need to find a mandatory minimum unconstitutional, and there would always still be a prison sentence. A conditional sentence would not apply in these circumstances.

We would strike a balance, as the Supreme Court suggested. This is an approach that is responsive to stakeholders and suggestions that have been made repeatedly by the courts. When Bill C-16 comes into force, all the mandatory minimums that were found unconstitutional but that remain on the federal statute book would be considered restored. They would all come back into force.

The courts would once again be required to impose mandatory minimum penalties for all the offences for which the penalty has not been repealed from the law, except in the rarest cases where the mandatory minimum penalty would result in cruel and unusual punishment for the offender before the court. It is a very high bar.

I know victims will appreciate these measures, and I applaud the government for finding this middle ground. I also want to say that, as a feminist, I am so proud of this legislation. I am so proud that Canada is bringing this legislation forward. We know that gender-based violence and sexual exploitation are growing in this country. Around the world, they are growing. Online and off-line, predators are increasingly using digital tools to target our children. Bill C-16 addresses that.

We heard about the victims who did not have their cases heard at all in court because of Jordan's principle. Bill C-16 would deal with those delays we have seen in court. That means that more cases would actually be heard in court. The bill addresses and calls out femicide. It addresses criminal harassment and the non-consensual sharing of images, particularly deepfake images produced by AI.

As we have heard, which makes my heart sing, Bill C-16 would criminalize coercive control. I was here in the last Parliament when former NDP member Laurel Collins brought the coercive control bill to Parliament. I remember the impassioned speech that she gave about why we need this law on our books. Bill C-16 takes that private member's bill, the amended version of it that was meant to pass in the House, and incorporates it.

Too many women and children are living in fear in this country. My private member's bill and Bill C-16 address a lot of their concerns, and I encourage all members of the House to support them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled about this debate around mandatory minimum sentences. When I read the proposed legislation, it definitely sounded like a back door for judges to be able to determine, with respect to a situation in front of them, that it would amount to cruel and unusual punishment to impose the minimum sentence. That is exactly the argument that judges have been using all along to declare mandatory minimum sentences to be unconstitutional. Therefore, I do not know how we are getting any further ahead, with this legislation, in handling the challenge that the court has thrown at us.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to explain. It has not been happening all over. It has been happening at the Supreme Court when a case comes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decides that we cannot have a mandatory minimum sentence if it is too broad, if it encompasses a situation where Canadians would find it abhorrent for the mandatory minimum sentence to be applied.

It is a very high bar. A case the Supreme Court talked about, for example, was if a 17-year-old shared an intimate picture of his 16-year-old girlfriend with a friend. It is a terrible thing. It is illegal and he should not do that, but should he spend his entire life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years? Most Canadians would say no, and that is why the Supreme Court said that we need to have an off-ramp. We need to give judges discretion. They have to be able to hear all of the evidence.

In the worst cases, yes, we need a mandatory minimum. We need people to know that these crimes are intolerable in Canada. However, for those cases, if we want the Supreme Court not to throw out the mandatory minimum penalties, we need this off-ramp.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑16 as a whole. It includes several of our recommendations.

We see that the Liberals want to strengthen certain laws in order to undercut the Conservatives. For example, we rose several times on the issue of the Jordan decision because prosecutions for serious crimes, like murder or sexual assault, were dropped as a result of delays. Fortunately, Bill C‑16 will help establish the conditions for going over the deadlines set out in the Jordan decision.

Why did the government wait so long before taking action?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the government waited. I believe that the government was already working on it in the previous Parliament. However, there is an opposition that does not want us to pass legislation in this country. That is why, to date, we have not been able to get this bill passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C-16 and turn to mandatory minimums, I am concerned. As someone who stood in the House repeatedly to oppose the mandatory minimums brought in during the Harper administration in, at that time, Bill C-10, I remember going through the academic articles and the reviews by experts in criminal law. One of the things they found throughout the United States, where mandatory minimums were used widely, was that it did not deter criminal activity. It actually overcrowded jails. It was not working to deter criminal activity.

Does the member know if, in doing this, it is in response to a rallying cry that is more partisan-based or whether it is evidence-based?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not involved in the drafting of this bill, but I am certain it was evidence-based. We do know that Canadians want mandatory minimums when they are appropriate and that they can deter crimes.

I have sat in criminal courts too long not to understand the member's skepticism and to feel it a bit. It is hard to imagine that a criminal would be deterred from committing a horrific crime if they know the sentencing threshold if they get caught. It is hard to imagine. The principle in court, I believe, is that a mandatory minimum can denounce a crime and also deter it from happening.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a very heavy heart to share with members on all sides that our dear friend, Kirsty Duncan, has passed.

I thought it would be most appropriate for the House to have a moment of silence, in love and prayers, and to offer our condolences.

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.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House today on behalf of my resilient neighbours in Oshawa.

As this is the first sitting day back in the House of Commons, I want to wish everyone here a happy new year and thank the many Oshawa residents, community organizations and local businesses I had the privilege of spending time with over the winter break, listening, learning and reconnecting. Those conversations were not brief or superficial. They were long, honest and deeply personal. They spoke to me as parents and grandparents, as workers, and as neighbours who care deeply about the future of our community. Those conversations will also continue to guide my work here as I focus on the issues that matter most to the people I represent.

Across those conversations, one concern was raised consistently and without hesitation, and that concern was public safety. Families in Oshawa are worried about violent crime. Seniors are worried about repeat offenders being released back into their neighbourhoods. Women are worried about intimate partner violence, online exploitation and whether the justice system will truly protect them. Quite frankly, they have lost faith in our failing so-called justice system.

These concerns are not theoretical; they are not driven by headlines alone. They are grounded in lived experience and in what people are seeing happen around them every single day. However, we must note that these concerns did not appear overnight. They are the result of deliberate political choices made by the Liberal government over more than a decade. It is in that real and lived context that I rise today to speak to Bill C-16.

Canadians are not judging this Parliament by the titles of our bills or the intentions behind our bills. They are judging us by the results they see in their daily lives. They are judging us by whether they feel safer today than they did 10 years ago. For far too many Canadians, the honest answer is no.

After a decade of Liberal catch-and-release bail policies, the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences and a series of laws that consistently place the interests of offenders ahead of those of victims, Canadians are understandably concerned and afraid. Since 2015, under the Liberal government, human trafficking has increased by 84%, sexual assaults are up nearly 76% and violent crime overall has increased by almost 55%. Those numbers are staggering. They are not abstract statistics pulled from thin air but represent real people in our communities. They represent victims whose lives have been changed forever, families whose sense of safety has been shattered, and communities that no longer feel protected by the justice system that is supposed to serve them.

When violent crime rises by more than half in less than a decade, that is not bad luck; it is policy failure. Crime did not rise by accident. It rose after the Liberals introduced bail reform, their version of it, which actually weakened bail, repealed mandatory minimum sentences and repeatedly signalled that incarceration should be the last resort, even for serious and violent offenders.

When a government lowers consequences, crime rises and Canadians are forced to live with the results of that approach every day. This is the backdrop against which Bill C-16 must be assessed.

I want to pause here to speak directly about what rising crime looks like in Oshawa, because national statistics tell only part of the story. Oshawa is my home, where I was born and raised and where I have raised my children. Our neighbours still believe in looking out for one another. Oshawa is a community built on hard work, responsibility and fairness, and it is a community that deserves to feel safe.

Over the past several years, that sense of safety has been steadily eroding. Parents tell me they think twice before letting their children walk to school or play outside. Over the break, I learned of a couple of teenagers up the street from where I live and where my daughter walks to school, who were brutally attacked by an older teenager who is about 16 or 17. Mothers are crying on the phone with me for almost an hour as they talk about their children's brutal attack and stabbing and not knowing whether their assailant is back out or whether their child can walk safely up the street, the same street my child walks up to her high school. Seniors tell me they no longer feel comfortable answering the door unless they are expecting someone. Small business owners speak about theft, vandalism and break-ins that were once rare but are now routine in the Oshawa downtown core.

What troubles people most is not that the crime has increased, but that the same offenders seem to return again and again. Oshawa residents see individuals arrested on serious charges and released back into the community with little delay, and victims retraumatized when offenders cycle through the system. When I speak with officers and civilian members of the Durham Regional Police Service in Oshawa, they speak with professionalism and dedication, but also with a great deal of frustration. They do their job, make arrests and answer the life-changing calls of so many, but often they see the same individuals back on the street shortly after, not because the police failed but because Liberal policy made accountability optional. This is not the fault of frontline officers; it is the result of decisions made in the House by the Liberal government.

The government claims this bill is about protecting victims. Canadians have heard that promise before, have we not? We heard it when the Liberals passed, for instance, Bill C-75, which made it easier for repeat and violent offenders to obtain bail. We heard it again when the Liberals repealed mandatory minimum sentences for firearms and drug trafficking offences through Bill C-5. Each time, the result was the same: More offenders were released, more victims were terrorized and there was more fear in our communities.

The creation of a new offence targeting coercive or controlling conduct in intimate relationships is sensible and a preventive measure. It finally acknowledges what victims and frontline workers have known, which is that abuse rarely begins with a single act of violence. It usually escalates over time. It isolates and controls, and when governments intervene earlier, lives can be saved. What took the government so long?

We also support making the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder, a reform proposed by my Conservative colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola in his private member's bill, Bill C-225, which I proudly jointly seconded. This change acknowledges the seriousness of the epidemic of intimate partner violence and the reality that these crimes are rarely spontaneous.

The bill's expansion of the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to include sexually explicit deepfakes is also welcome. This measure is similar to the measures first proposed in Bill C-216, which was introduced by my conservative colleague for Calgary Nose Hill, and it would respond to the growing misuse of technology to humiliate, control and exploit victims, particularly women and girls.

Strengthening mandatory reporting requirements for child sexual exploitation material also builds on work originally done by a previous Conservative government and reflects a shared commitment to protecting children from the most horrific forms of abuse imaginable. Conservatives agree that these measures are positive, necessary and deserve support, but they do not excuse what comes next. Bill C-16 includes a sweeping change that would allow judges to impose sentences below mandatory minimum penalties for nearly all Criminal Code offences, except murder and high treason. These mandatory minimum penalties are not, then, worth the paper they are written on, because they are not really mandatory at all. In practical terms, mandatory minimum sentences could result in lighter sentences for serious and repeat offenders over time.

Weakening those penalties sends a message, whether the government admits it or not, that accountability is negotiable. Criminals pay attention to that message. The Liberals would like Canadians to believe this change is narrow and very technical, but it is not; it is part of a consistent pattern. The government has repeatedly chosen to make the system more lenient on offenders while communities pay the price. Warnings from police chiefs, police associations, provincial governments and victims' advocates have been repeated hundreds of times and ignored just as often.

Parliament has a responsibility to stand with victims. Public safety is not a theoretical construct. It is when a woman feels safe walking home after her shift; it is when parents trust that violent offenders will not be released back into their communities; it is when my neighbours in Oshawa believe their government takes their safety seriously, and I promise that they just do not believe the government takes their safety seriously. Each time concerns were raised, the Liberals dismissed them; each time crime rose, they denied responsibility; and each time Canadians felt less safe, they were told to trust the same approach that caused the problem in the first place.

I want to speak now not only as a member of Parliament but as a mom. Like every parent in this country, I worry about the world my children are growing up in. I worry about whether they will be safe walking to school, riding public transit or navigating an online world that can be just as dangerous as the streets. We want our children to grow up in a country where laws protect the innocent, where laws protect the victims and not the criminals, where criminals face real consequences and where safety is not something we have to think about every time our children leave the house and walk to school. When violent crime rises, when offenders are repeatedly released and when penalties are weakened, it is families who pay the price, it is members who lie awake at night worrying, and it is parents who feel they must constantly shield their children from dangers that government policy has simply made worse.

I also want to take a moment to speak to my neighbours in Oshawa. When people ask how we arrived at this moment, how crime has been allowed to rise year after year after year, the answer is not complicated: It is this same Liberal Party, it is the same government and it is this same set of choices. The policies that weakened bail, repealed mandatory minimum sentences and prioritized ideology over public safety did not end with Justin Trudeau. They continue today under the current Liberal Prime Minister, defended by this very familiar Liberal cabinet and guided by the same approach.

Canadians were told that if they waited, things would improve. Conservatives have offered bill after bill, idea after idea and motion after motion that would protect Canadians, and the Liberal government, time and time again, said, “No, no; that's a bad idea. Just wait, because we are going to come up with the best thing you have ever seen. Just wait, and we will look after you.” After 10 years of waiting, Canadians are tired. They are tired of waiting to see if the government is going to have their backs. Police officers have our backs every day, and they are also tired of waiting to see if the government will have their backs, because it does not.

The people of Oshawa measure governments by results, not reassurance. They measure it by whether their streets feel safer today than they did 10 years ago. They measure it by whether repeat offenders are being held accountable or released. On those measures, the Liberal record is clear. For nearly a decade, the Liberal Party has been responsible for public safety. Over that time period, crime has risen and confidence has fallen. At some point, it is no longer credible to call that coincidence. It is simply cause and effect.

When the same party continues to govern, Canadians are entitled to ask what exactly is supposed to change if nothing else does, especially as our Conservative team has, as I have said, proposed countless measures in this House and at committee to increase public safety. However, the Liberals continue to opt out, delay or vote down these measures. What have they been waiting for? How many violent crimes and deaths could have been avoided? What is the threshold for finally implementing desperately needed change? What will it take?

The Liberals have introduced this bill, which has all sorts of wonderful things that we have been asking for for 10 years. They brought it forward with a little caveat that they know is a poison pill and needs to go: Mandatory minimum sentences are not really going to be mandatory any longer because there will be a safety valve. It is not really worth the paper it is written on anymore.

Parliament has a responsibility to stand with victims. That responsibility does not end with good intentions or a well-worded bill title. A bill cannot claim to protect victims while at the same time weakening the consequences for those who harm them. A government cannot claim to be tough on crime while repeatedly making life easier for criminals. The Liberals cannot have both.

Conservatives believe there is a better path forward. Parliament should pass the victim-focused measures that have broad support and real merit, and it should remove the provisions that weaken sentencing and continue the Liberal soft-on-crime agenda. I honestly do not know why these folks have this soft-on-crime agenda. It does not make a lot of sense to me.

One time I was sitting beside the Leader of the Opposition here in this House. I was listening to him as he was asking questions and the government came back with answers. I said to him, “I do not understand. Do they not see what is happening in our communities? Do they not care?” That is what I kept coming back to. It just feels like the Liberals do not care. Every time they take two steps forward, or one step forward, they seem to take two steps back. There are great provisions, things we want to see, but at the same time the Liberals are making life easier for criminals and giving unelected judges roles they are not supposed to have.

We believe there is a better path forward. Parliament should pass the victim-focused measures that have broad support and real merit, and it should remove the provisions that weaken sentencing and continue this Liberal soft-on-crime agenda.

Canadians deserve a justice system, not an injustice system. We deserve a justice system that deters crime, delivers real consequences and finally puts victims first. Until that happens, Conservatives will continue to hold the government accountable for the crime and chaos that it has created.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with a lot of what the member across the way has said. In good part, it is very misleading to Canadians.

If we take a look at the crime agenda that the Prime Minister and this government have brought in since the last election, I would challenge her to tell me when the last time was that we had such substantial legislation. We have not one, two or three pieces of legislation, but we are probably talking somewhere in the realm of four or five pieces of legislation that deal with making our communities safer.

The Conservative Party of Canada is preventing the legislation from passing. The best example of that is the bail reform legislation. I stood in my place back in December, begging for leave and asking for us to stay late into the evening so that we could have the necessary debates. We could have already passed the bail reform legislation.

If the member opposite truly wants to make our communities safer, then why does the Conservative Party continue to prevent substantive legislation from passing?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Quite frankly, it was expected. I knew it would be coming from him and I was prepared with these few thoughts.

On this side of the House, we feel it is very rich for the Liberals to say that we are holding back progress on public safety when for 10 years the opposition put forward motion after motion, private member's bill after private member's bill, and amendments at committees to make our public more safe and for 10 straight years they have continued to shoot them down.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech.

I want to talk to her about one specific aspect of Bill C-16, which is a bill that we support. There is one measure that I believe will make a difference, and it involves criminal harassment.

I was a legal aid lawyer for 10 years. I had clients who came to me who were victims of criminal harassment. However, because of the way the offence is currently worded in the Criminal Code, in order for a charge to be laid, the harasser had to know that my client feared for her safety. I had to write a formal notice, find the perpetrator's address and send it to him, saying that my client feared for her safety and that he had to stop or else there would be further penalties.

Women are often the victims of harassment. This bill will allow women who are victims of harassment to go directly to the police and have charges laid. This will ultimately reduce the victims' suffering and also give them a sense of freedom, because victims often felt trapped.

Does my colleague agree that this is a step forward for victims of criminal harassment?