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

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that this is a step forward. I think it is very important that we take people at their word. It reminds me of legislation the previous member for Oshawa tried to bring forward in this House regarding human trafficking and convicting human traffickers. The Crown had to prove that the victim felt fear in order to get a conviction. We have such a low conviction rate on human trafficking because we cannot prove the victim felt fear. This bill very much parallels that. I hope if a bill like that comes forward again in this Parliament, the member will support it.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her great speech. It was quite touching. I hear the same concerns in my community of Cambridge after the 10 years of soft-on-crime Liberal policies.

In the conversations my colleague has had with people in her community, what has she heard with respect to what is needed for people to feel safe again, especially when it comes to strengthening the consequences for repeat violent offenders, restoring confidence in our justice system and ensuring that victims will finally be protected?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to ensuring that people feel safe again, I think there is only one thing that will make that happen, which is that, after another election, we have a Conservative government, because we are the only government to put forward the types of legislation needed to protect victims.

The member opposite also asked me a question about when the last time was that we saw this kind of good legislation coming forward for public safety and justice. I would say that it was somewhere between 2006 and 2015, when Mr. Harper was our prime minister, and victims were finally starting to see some of the same rights that criminals have. However, for the last 10 or 11 years, that has deteriorated. People in Oshawa, in Cambridge and in Winnipeg I am sure, simply do not feel safe anymore. They feel like the government is simply not listening.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could share her thoughts with the House as to what she believes the provincial and municipal governments' role is with respect to crime, or does she assert that all of the blame should go to Ottawa?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is typical for the member opposite to place blame on the provinces and municipalities. I believe that 95%, if not all of the blame, belongs not just to Ottawa, but the Liberal government.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting comment by the Liberal member from Winnipeg.

I had a conversation with the Saskatoon City Council. When we talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars in the City of Saskatoon budget, 25% is going to the Saskatoon police department. Members can let that sink in a little bit. We have about 300,000 or so people in Saskatoon, and 25% of the budget is for the Saskatoon police force. It is because of the action, or no action actually, from the Liberal government in the last 10 years that now 25% of every dollar goes to the Saskatoon police department.

I would like the member for Oshawa to comment on that, because I am sure every community is facing that.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely every single community is facing that. Durham region has told me on multiple occasions over the last many years of the astronomical amount it is having to spend on policing and keeping our communities safe in the Durham region. The Durham regional chair and the mayors of the eight municipalities in the Durham region have reached out to this Liberal government time and time again asking it to change its policies on this revolving door that we have. They are not asking it to introduce new policy; they are asking it to please repeal some of the really bad stuff it has put in place in policy over the last 10 years, because it is making their job difficult. I believe the number one thing that Durham region is spending money on now is community safety, and it is a direct result of the failed policies of the Liberal government.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for identifying some of the strengths and weaknesses of the bill. In particular, our hon. colleague, the shadow minister on this file, proposed a solution, which was for the government to split the bill in two: take the part where we have consensus across all parties to actually get public safety as a priority for victims here in Canada, and move those aspects where there is no agreement, that are going to take longer to debate, to the side.

Funnily enough, the government has sort of a track record of this. We saw it with Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. Could the member comment on this important solution?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members of the House and I know members on the justice committee would be happy to see the bill split in two. There are major portions of the bill that we can get behind and would like to support, but we cannot get behind empowering judges to literally ignore every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code. It is simply not acceptable. Splitting the bill in two would make it pass more quickly and efficiently through the House. It is the smart thing to do, and I think it is what Canadians would want.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for York—Durham, International Trade; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Natural Resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it truly amazing at times. I question whether the Conservative Party of Canada today, which is so far to the right, has any shame at all, with the types of things its members say and how far away from reality they actually are.

Back in December, which was not that long ago, I challenged the Conservative Party to pass Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. I virtually pleaded with the Conservative Party and asked for unanimous consent to sit for extra time here in the House of Commons. The government went out of its way to try to accommodate it. There was no reason not to have passed bail reform back in December, but there is one reason, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Conservative members talk as if they are genuinely concerned about the crime file. We heard it in the last federal election, but we also heard the current Prime Minister and Liberal candidates from coast to coast to coast talk about the issue of crime and having safer communities.

We have, I believe, just over 60 new Liberal members of Parliament. We also have a new Prime Minister, who talked about and is initiating the hiring of hundreds of new RCMP officers and hundreds of Canada border control agents, which was brought forward by the minister and the government. We have seen participation from Liberal MPs from every region of the country, who are sharing concerns about the crime file. We have a government that has focused a great deal on the crime file because we understand that this is an issue on which our constituents want to see action.

Canadians in Conservative ridings want to see action on this file, and the only action they are getting from the Conservative Party is filibustering. The Conservatives are not allowing legislation that even Canadians in Conservative ridings want to see passed. I listened today when they talked about Bill C-16, and based on the comments I heard, I question whether they have any concept of what judicial independence or jurisdictional responsibility is.

The Conservatives want to talk about minimum sentencing. Liberal members of Parliament support minimum sentencing. All one needs to do is read the legislation. It is restoring numerous minimum sentences. The Conservatives say that they support minimum sentences, which is exactly what this bill does. It reintroduces many aspects to change the law and reinstate mandatory minimum sentences.

Taking a look at the bigger picture, I could talk about Bill C-2. The Conservatives absolutely refuse to pass the bill. They will not even let it pass out of second reading. Lawful access is a major part of that legislation. Talking about issues such as extortion, which they like to talk about, we see we need Bill C-2. They will not even allow it to go to committee.

We also have Bill C-9, which is to combat hatred. The Conservative Party has made the decision that it can probably make more money fundraising by opposing the bill than seeing it become law.

When I talk about lawful access under Bill C-2, I would point out that Canada is the only country out of the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access.

I can tell members that a piece of legislation combatting hate, saying that one should not be able to harass people or prevent people from being able to go to a church, a mosque or a gurdwara, to prevent the religious hatred that is being spread, is an important piece of legislation. I have spoken to it, as I spoke to Bill C-2.

I already talked about Bill C-14 and how important that legislation is. The only thing I would add is that, much like with Bill C-16, the Conservatives do not realize the amount of support that is out there in our communities. I can tell members that it is substantial. It comes from every region of the country. Whether it is for Bill C-14 or Bill C-16, there is support from provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies, victim advocacy groups and individuals.

The people we represent want the type of legislation we are bringing forward in the House, even, as I said, Canadians living in Conservative ridings. Conservatives need to listen to their own constituents. What they will find is that there is substantial support for changing and making our laws better, so we can deal with things such as violent repeat offenders, which is dealt with in Bill C-14.

It seems to me that the leader of the Conservative Party had a flash, or at least a thought, that the Conservative Party of Canada would co-operate with the government in passing the legislation it feels is important. I appreciated what the Attorney General had to say earlier when introducing Bill C-16, which is that the legislation is not about one political party. It is here because this is what Canadians want. When I was listening to the Attorney General, he was challenging all members of the House, members of all political entities, to recognize the phenomenal effort and work that has been put into the legislation for the benefit of Canadians.

I honestly thought he was being very apolitical in bringing it forward, encouraging members to get onside with it, recognizing that, if one has issues with the legislation, there are alternatives. We can allow legislation to go to committee, where it can be further debated. We are not saying we have to pass it today through second reading, committee, third reading and so forth, but given the legislative agenda, there could be some value, and I would suggest to members, a great deal of value if one puts Canadians first, in seeing Bill C-16 pass.

When I read the article from the leader of the Conservative Party, I had a little flicker of hope that we will maybe see some co-operation. Maybe we will see a different Conservative Party in the year of 2026. It does not mean one has to concede to everything the government of the day wants, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing legislation to go to committee.

What we heard today from the critic for the Conservative Party, who they call the shadow minister, was that they want to take the bill and split it into two parts. That is the problem with Bill C-2 today. They did not want to do anything with Bill C-2 unless it was broken into two parts, yet there are substantive issues being addressed within Bill C-2 that could not be addressed because of the Conservative positioning.

Once again, I am seeing the Conservative Party coming up, through back doors, with ways they can ultimately try to justify their emails that spread information that we do not have a legislative agenda that deals with crime. Let us be very clear that there has been a substantial effort made by the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister, since the election, to bring in substantive legislation to reform our Criminal Code and other pieces of legislation to make the communities we represent safer. There has been a great deal of effort in bringing forward this legislation.

I will quote some of the individuals or the lobby groups on the type of support that is out there if I have enough time towards the end.

The theme coming from the Conservative Party today, and why it is that the members are so offended by this legislation, is mandatory minimums. Let us be very clear that this legislation would reinstate mandatory minimums in a number of different areas. It is not taking them away. The Conservatives tell us that it is taking them away.

I want to read a quote, and I have it here on my phone. The font is a little small for me, but I will try. What is important about this quote is that it is actually from a Conservative member of Parliament, and it is not just any Conservative member of Parliament. It is the member who often talks about justice and the issue of crime.

This member has private members' bills dealing with these issues, and he often says he wants his private members' bills passed lickety-split. He has even stood up to ask for unanimous consent to get everything all the way through the system, to heck with any debate in second reading, committee stage or third reading. He wanted it passed all the way through.

He sits on the front bench of the Conservative Party. Of course, Conservatives probably know who I am talking about. It is the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Here is what he has to say, and I will put this into the proper context. The Conservative Party—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Oh, did they moved him back?

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, from the Conservative perspective, this debate is about allowing judges in certain situations to not have to apply the mandatory minimum. This is the biggest problem. This is the issue that Conservative after Conservative after Conservative has stood up to speak to.

Before we tabled this legislation, what did the Conservative member actually have to say about it? He said, “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve”. Members know what a safety valve is, I am sure.

The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola continued, “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?” I think that member, who is held in very high esteem within the Conservative Party, needs to express himself more in the Conservative caucus.

The reason they are in opposition to Bill C-16 is that they are having an allergic reaction to judges having the ability to understand when they should not use a mandatory minimum penalty. We have the debate with respect to mandatory minimum penalties because, as parliamentarians both present and past, we have seen the value of mandatory minimum sentences and that is why we make the law. However, courts, on many occasions, have ruled against mandatory minimum penalties in one area or another, and have actually said that they are not constitutional.

Right away, then, the Conservative Party members are saying, “No problem. That is why we have the notwithstanding clause.”

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, someone said, “hear, hear.” If they were to use the notwithstanding clause every time there was an issue related to a mandatory minimum penalty, they would have used it 12, 15 or 20 times, no problem. Actually, there is a difference and this is the contrast between the government and the opposition. If I were to use the words of the Conservative member opposite, it is having that safety valve.

Let us understand that there are certain situations that come before a court where a judge makes a decision, and there might be a situation that should be exempted from that mandatory minimum. There are Crown attorneys, provincially appointed judges and appeal courts. Nothing prevents a situation where a judge at a lower court makes a decision that the Crown cannot make an appeal, or it can be brought up in other ways if in fact a mandatory minimum was inappropriately used. They do not need the notwithstanding clause. They do not have to fear independent judiciary by saying, “We do not trust all judges in this situation.”

Therefore, within the legislation, we would restore those areas where mandatory minimum sentences have been struck down. That is a good thing. We know that at least one Conservative member has recognized that. I do not quite understand why others do not see the value of that unless, of course, one believes, as I believe, that once again the Conservative Party of Canada is looking at ways in which it can prevent legislation from passing. The Conservatives are not responding to what Canadians are saying they want.

With respect to femicide in Canada, I would suggest that through this legislation Canada could play a leadership role in the world. This legislation deals with bumping up the crime of femicide murder to first-degree murder. There are other aspects to this legislation that deal with child exploitation.

I spent all my time talking about the mandatory minimum penalties because of the ridiculous comments coming from the Conservative Party, but within this legislation, Bill C-16, we see substantive changes that would protect Canadians.

The Conservatives have a choice. They can either listen to what Canadians are saying or stay with the politicization of the Conservative Party of Canada—