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.

Jail Not Bail Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about the issues of crime and safety in our communities. I thought the parliamentary secretary who spoke prior to me spoke exceptionally well about why what is being proposed is, in fact, not necessarily to the benefit of public safety.

However, I will give the Conservatives credit to the extent that they can encapsulate an issue, turn it into a bumper sticker and ultimately make money on it through social media and spreading what I would suggest is misinformation. They are using it as a fundraising tool. I give them full credit. They are really good at doing that when it comes to the crime file.

What about the reality of it? The member who spoke before me talked about public safety. Let there be absolutely no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that the Government of Canada, every Liberal member of Parliament, understands the issue of community safety. We all want our communities to be safe and for people to feel safe in the communities in which they live. We want people to realize that there are consequences to crime. If someone commits a crime, there will be a consequence.

We have a system in Canada that ensures a high sense of co-operation between the different levels of government. The Conservatives have brought forward legislation. If there were a question and answer period for the presentations being made today, I would have asked to what degree have the Conservatives gained the support of the different premiers, mayors and councillors in bringing forward this particular legislation. To what degree are they looking at the judicial system as something that is independent from government? I think these are valid questions, and I believe the Conservatives need to be truthful and open with Canadians.

The federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution. If someone were to listen to what the speakers from the Conservative Party are saying, they would begin to believe that it is the Conservatives' ace in the hole and that they would have absolutely no reservations in using it. No matter what legislation the Conservatives bring forward, even if it were to be ruled as being unconstitutional and against the charter, the charter that provides rights to every Canadian, the Conservatives would be very comfortable overriding those rights.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives have made it very clear that, under their current leadership, there is no reservation whatsoever. They are saying that they would use the notwithstanding clause to get what they want because what they want is not necessarily in the public's best interest. It is to satisfy the far right.

The last Conservative member said, “put public safety first”. That is exactly what the government has done. If we were to contrast the bumper sticker bills on crime provided by the Conservatives, we would see that this bill has a lot of similarities with Bill C-14. It deals with issues such as the principle of restraint. First and foremost, it deals with the issue of public safety. When we look at Bill C-14, we will find that it has virtually unanimous support coming from all regions of the country. I should not say “unanimous”, but we are getting close to it.

Every premier, law enforcement agencies and many stakeholders have recognized that Bill C-14 is the way to go. There are 80 targeted reforms within it, many of which have been incorporated into Bill C-242, the bill we are debating today. That is a substantial change.

I remember standing in this very same spot, back in November and December, challenging the Conservative Party to pass Bill C-14. It was the only political entity in the country back then that wanted to postpone its passage. All one needs to do is reflect on the amount of filibustering the Conservatives were doing back then. No matter how much we shamed them, they did not respond to the public interest.

The principle of restraint does not mean an automatic release. Public safety has been and will continue to be taken into consideration before release. Bill C-14 would help to address that. It would provide a bit more detail on that issue. The Conservatives believe that they would ultimately have control, through the notwithstanding clause, to dictate what judges hand out. I think that is a very dangerous path.

That is why I challenge members of the Conservative party who will be speaking, particularly the mover of the legislation, to give a clear indication of which premiers are supporting the legislation they are proposing. What major city mayors, or mayors in general, are in support of this legislation, Bill C-242? I can say that the New Democrats, the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives, even the Saskatchewan Party, see the true value of legitimate bail reform, something the Prime Minister committed to for Canadians in the last federal election. We understand the need for bail reform. We do not question that. Where we differ is that we have done our homework on the issue, and our first priority is the people of Canada and providing good, sound public policy for the different stakeholders who are lining up in support of Bill C-14, which is currently at the Senate. Hopefully, it will be out of the Senate soon so we can implement it into law.

The good news is that the government has not just ended this with Bill C-14. There is also other substantial legislation to deal with things, such as femicide. I think of Bill C-16 and the reinstatement of mandatory minimums. These are the types of things that are before the House.

Under the new Prime Minister and new government, which were elected less than a year ago, we have brought forward a suite of legislative amendments to do what the last member of the Conservative Party said, which was to put public safety first. That is what every member of the Liberal caucus strives to do through supporting substantial legislation, in consultation, that would not be an assault against the judicial system. When I say the judicial system, I am talking about stakeholders, first ministers, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and so much more.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government is taking very important measures to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. We have Bill C-14, which would address the issues around bail and sentencing, the issues the member opposite is talking about. We also have Bill C-16, which is about supporting victims and ensuring the administration of justice.

Just today, I had the opportunity to introduce Bill C-22, on lawful access, an important tool that all in law enforcement have been asking for. I am going to ask the members opposite if they will support this. Will they pass this bill today?

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to maybe provide a bit of a different perspective and, at the same time, to recognize that sexual violence in all forms is, in fact, a horrific crime. The victims of this particular crime all deserve justice. That is one of the motivating factors in regard to why, over the last number of months, the government has brought forward a series of legislative initiatives that are, in part, dealing with the types of issues that are being raised with Bill C-246.

The primary difference is that the legislation we are proposing is constitutional. There is a strong, valid argument that if we take a look at Bill C-246, we will find that it is in fact unconstitutional.

I can appreciate that all members of the House would recognize the desire and the need to act on the issue of sexual violence. There are opportunities for us to be able to do that. In some legislation, what we have seen is movement in the same sort of direction that is being suggested in Bill C-246. I would cite, for example, Bill C-14. I will go over all aspects of the legislative agenda, but if we take a look at Bill C-14, as an example, that is the bail reform legislation. It took a little longer than I would have liked to ultimately pass through the House, but we did get it passed through the House, and it is in the Senate.

It actually takes a look at sexual violence and says that we are going to be eliminating conditional sentences for sexual offences. It is a positive measure in terms of bail reform. It also ensures that a judge will have constitutional authority, for repeat sexual offenders, to impose consecutive sentences. This is something I would encourage members opposite to recognize.

I say that in a very encouraging way, in the sense that we were finally able to deal with Bill C-14. It is currently in the other place. We are hoping they will pass it as it is, so that we can ultimately give it royal assent, but at the end of the day, there is reason for members to say that on the issue of sexual assault, there is something very tangible there.

It is more than that. We take more of a holistic approach in terms of what the Prime Minister and the government have actually brought forward to the chamber for debate. We are hopeful, as we have a substantive crime agenda, of being able to pass it all.

We can talk about Bill C-2 and how Bill C-2 has the potential to empower our prosecutors to potentially even prevent some sexual assaults from happening. That is one of the reasons we see a great deal of commentary that comes from the government benches, asking for the official opposition to recognize the value of Bill C-2, much in the same fashion as we saw value in the bail reform legislation.

For me, I think we should take a look at Bill C-16. Bill C-16 is legislation that I would argue is just as important as bail reform. Bail reform is very important. Let us just say I would not want to have to decide which one is more important than the other. Bill C-16 is before the House in second reading. When we talk about a private member's bill, Bill C-246, we know there is a cap. The debate will end today. It is programmed.

I would love to see Bill C-16 advance because, when we look at it, there are some new initiatives dealing with coercive control. The idea of femicide has been around for a long time. I would suggest that Bill C-16 really raises the bar, and not just here in Canada. I suspect other nations would take note of that because there are significant things within it. I can say that it ultimately brings back mandatory minimum sentences for sexual interference, in particular and as an example, with respect to the sexual touching of a child. That is something for which these mandatory minimums could receive support from all sides of the House. The bill would reinstate mandatory jail time for the sexual exploitation of a child, including abuse by people in positions of trust. That is a very positive aspect of the legislation.

We are making sure, to the nth degree, that when we bring forward the legislation, it is charter compliant so that our courts can look at the laws being proposed and understand the severity of them. Bill C-16 does just that, as does Bill C-14. If we think of intimate partner violence and the issue of coercive control, it is something that I would say does not get enough attention when we talk about sexual violence in our communities today. However, it is very real and being dealt with.

The bill deals with issues such as stalking. What about the emotional and psychological abuse that takes place, not to mention the economic abuse? These are substantial and very real. There is also physical abuse and a lot of cyber violence. These are the impacts of sexual violence. If we add in the issue of femicide, we have elevated that to first-degree murder in certain situations. That is where I think the legislation really puts justice for victims of violence upfront and makes our communities safer. It sends a very strong and powerful message.

I look across the way and ask members to put some of the partisan politics to the side. I would suggest that the legislative crime agenda the government has brought forward since the last federal election is substantive. There are many aspects of several bills that deal directly with the issues of sexual violence and justice for victims. The biggest barrier for legislation ultimately passing is the political will of the chamber.

On the bill before us, the opposition bill, we have two hours of debate and then it would go to committee. I would love to see some of the other issues dealing with sexual violence also advance to committee sooner as opposed to later. The reason I say that is that the bail reform legislation could be law today had we done it back in December. Therefore, I encourage members to look at the government agenda to see that the legislation being proposed would arguably be unconstitutional.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all members who spoke to the bill today and those who spoke during the first hour of second reading on November 18, 2025. Their contributions and support are sincerely appreciated, not just by me but by all victims of crime and those who have worked on this bill.

When Canadians are victimized by crime, they often carry psychological and emotional burdens for life. This private member's bill proposes common-sense, realistic measures aimed at reducing the stress victims experience in dealing with the parole and release process of those who have victimized them. The legislation before us today deserves to be passed because it would deliver relief for victims of crime. It would lighten the burdens they carry by providing them explanations about how parole and release dates have been calculated in relation to the offenders who victimized them.

Debates of this bill, and of a previous bill that proposed the same measures, have reflected how these measures are supported by victims of crime and those who support them and advocate for their rights. As I have articulated in previous debates, the proposals in this bill were brought to Parliament by Lisa Freeman of Oshawa, Ontario.

Ms. Freeman's personal experience of losing her father and spending years navigating Canada's corrections and parole systems in dealing with her father's killer were excruciating for her. When the burden of losing her father to a violent murderer was compounded by the frustration of dealing with government bureaucracies, Lisa resolved to advocate for legislative measures to alleviate the burdens and frustrations that victims of crime carry.

I send my heartfelt thanks to Lisa Freeman. I thank Lisa for her courage, her determination and the hard work that has moved this legislation forward.

The proposals of this private member's bill have been introduced in four consecutive Parliaments, spanning six and a half years. I also thank those who have worked with Ms. Freeman in previous Parliaments to move those proposals forward. I would like to thank the Hon. Lisa Raitt, who tabled Bill C-466 in the 42nd Parliament; Senator Boisvenu, who tabled Bill S-219 in the 43rd Parliament; and Dr. Colin Carrie, who tabled Bill C-320 in the 44th Parliament. I thank them all for their efforts to improve Canadian law.

It is good to see that the government has formally acknowledged the merit and necessity of the bill's proposals and included them in the government's bill, Bill C-16. These measures supporting victims of crime need to be passed as soon as possible. Canadians count on parliamentarians to make Parliament work, and I invite all parliamentarians to join me in moving my private member's bill toward completion, because the outcome of Bill C-16 remains uncertain in a minority government and these changes are worth pursuing through all possible avenues.

These measures could have and should have been passed years ago, and they were very close to being passed just over a year ago. Clause 205 of the government's bill, Bill C-16, contains coordinating amendments that anticipate the possibility of my bill passing before Bill C-16 does. I appreciate the government acknowledging this possibility and drafting those coordinating amendments in the event that my bill passes before the government's bill does.

Now is the time for us, as legislators, to do our part and pass these amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the changes that Lisa Freeman and other victims of crime deserve. I ask all parliamentarians to support victims of crime across Canada by swiftly passing Bill C-221.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this private members' bill presented by my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, Bill C-221, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding the disclosure of information to victims. The bill seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that victims receive clear explanations about how an offender's eligibility and review dates for temporary absences, release and parole are determined.

Every Canadian has the right to feel safe in their community, and I am proud to be a member of a party that values a justice system that serves victims of crime. It follows that if an offender is being released, victims deserve to have an understanding of the decisions leading to the release of the offender and a transparent and accountable explanation of how the decision was reached.

This amendment to the law would ensure that victims would know when offenders could be released, and would then be provided the reasons for why officials determined those eligibility dates.

The contents of this bill are not new. Conservatives have proposed this amendment dating back to the 42nd Parliament. It is such a sensible amendment that it has received widespread support from all sides of this chamber.

Every one of us knows someone who has been a crime victim, unfortunately. The impacts are felt far beyond the individual, to a family, loved ones and eventually, to every community.

Respect for victims should be the standard, not the exception. In order to truly support victims, our legislation has prioritized their rights and well-being. This means giving victims a chance to prepare themselves and understand the rationale that led to the release of the criminal who abused or harmed them or one of their loved ones. This transparency has absolutely no downside at all.

We have witnessed an alarming trend with the current government that all too often, the rights of victims are overshadowed by the rights of offenders. That has to change in this country.

I will give a statistic. In my city of Saskatoon, crime rates, unfortunately, are climbing. From January 2025 to January 2026, violent crime in my city, unfortunately, is up by 13%, and property crimes in the city of Saskatoon are up year to year by 16.5%.

Over 10 years, the Liberal government has paid little or even no attention to victims in this country. I have gone on numerous ride-alongs with police and paramedics in my city. Each ride-along brings new experiences. There are so many repeat offenders that police know the criminals by name. They pick them up on a Monday afternoon, and they are released later in the day.

Two weeks ago, the release of a Saskatoon man with 70 prior convictions of voyeurism, indecent acts and trespassing at night sent shockwaves through a city of over 300,000. Kyle Hameluck was rearrested just hours after being released and was found to be breaching the conditions of his release.

I have received emails from constituents with grave concerns. In fact, I even had one who was victimized in my riding by Hameluck. It is understandable that she is horrified that this man was allowed out after an incredible 70 prior convictions. Victims should not have to relive their nightmares. He had 70 convictions, yet he was released, only to be found breaching the conditions of his release less than 24 hours later.

A known offender was set free to terrorize a community all over again, and it did not take him long to find new victims. Thankfully he is again behind bars, and I sincerely hope that when he is sentenced, his victims will one day be given the courtesy of knowing how his release was decided.

A truly just system protects its own citizens. Many victims are left in the dark when it comes to parole decisions. They deserve an explanation of how parole dates are determined. The amendment would benefit victims of crime by making the justice system in this country more transparent. Bill C-221 would stand up for the rights of victims to understand exactly how parole dates and eligibility are set for offenders.

I am proud to support the bill. This has been in the House previously. In fact, this is the fourth time the bill has been introduced in this place. It was introduced in the 42nd, 43rd and 44th parliaments, and now the Liberals are rumbling that they are going to include this in Bill C-16.

It is time to get this bill over the line to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that victims receive clear explanation about how an offender's eligibility and review dates are determined. The bill is just one small yet very consequential change which would demonstrate a measure of respect that victims deserve from our justice system in this country. Therefore it is my pleasure to lend my total support to my colleague and his private member's bill, Bill C-221.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C‑221. This bill would ensure that victims of crime are informed about the offender's parole eligibility dates, including an explanation of how those dates were determined. The bill would require the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada to explain to victims how parole eligibility, review and release dates are determined.

This bill is consistent with our government's commitment to supporting victims of crime and their families. We believe that disclosing information to victims shows transparency and that their right to information about the people who harmed them must be respected at all stages of the correctional and parole process. More broadly, the proposed amendments are in keeping with our government's overall approach of putting victims' best interests at the heart of our justice system.

Moreover, our government's Bill C-16 has the same objectives as the private member's bill we are considering today, namely to broaden the scope of the information available to victims, strengthen their right to receive clear explanations, and ensure their impact statements are taken into account not only at sentencing, but also when decisions regarding parole or corrections are made.

However, the methodologies are different. Rather than repeating the same explanation requirement in several separate disclosure provisions, our Bill C-16 establishes a single, clear rule. This rule states that any disclosure to victims regarding release or eligibility for parole must include an explanation of how the applicable dates were determined. This approach applies consistently to all disclosures, reduces repetition in the law and limits the risk of inconsistencies.

The amendment broadening the scope of the information available to victims is part of one of the most significant updates to the Criminal Code in generations, which the government has undertaken with Bill C-16. This reform aims to respond to modern threats, protect victims of domestic violence, defend our children and strengthen victims' rights.

To strengthen our response to intimate partner violence, we have proposed several legislative amendments in Bill C-16. We will create a new offence to prohibit coercive or controlling behaviour toward an intimate partner. The goal is to give the justice system the tools it needs to intervene before violence escalates. We know that abuse often stems from controlling behaviours long before physical violence occurs. We must therefore criminalize coercive control in order to facilitate early intervention before intimate partner violence escalates or, in some cases, becomes fatal.

“Coercive behaviour” refers to a combination or repetition of three types of behaviour: violent behaviour, coercive sexual behaviour, or behaviour that could reasonably lead a victim to believe that their physical or psychological safety is threatened. For this last category, a non-exhaustive list of problematic behaviours will be developed based on the experiences of survivors. Their testimonies will help us better understand the subtle means used by abusers to exert control over their intimate partners.

Bill C‑16 also seeks to make it easier to prove criminal harassment. Currently, this offence requires the prosecution to prove that the victim feared for their safety, which often involves the victim having to testify. This puts victims in a situation where they are forced to relive traumatic events. We therefore propose replacing the requirement that the victim fear for their safety with an objective requirement, namely, whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have had such fears. That is an important distinction. It allows the prosecution to establish that criminal harassment has occurred without requiring the victim to testify.

We will also ensure that criminal harassment offences expressly include harassing behaviour committed using modern technologies. With the technological advances made in recent years, a growing number of troubling situations have come to light, specifically with respect to electronic surveillance. Victims must be fully protected from harassment committed by these means. Bill C‑16 also allows us to take action in this area.

Another major improvement is that murders committed in situations of control, hate, violence or sexual exploitation will be processed as first-degree murders, even in the absence of premeditation or deliberation. This is important because first-degree murder is the most serious type of homicide under the Criminal Code.

With these changes, femicide committed in the context of domestic violence will be treated as first-degree murder. This is a major step forward. This is important because it addresses a problem we are facing in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, women continue to account for a disproportionate number of homicide victims at the hands of an intimate partner. In 2024, according to Statistics Canada figures, nearly one in six homicide victims in Canada was killed by a spouse or intimate partner. We cannot tolerate this type of crime in our country, and we need to crack down on those who perpetrate it.

We will also tackle deepfakes. The Criminal Code already prohibits the distribution of intimate images without the individual's consent. However, this offence does not apply to sexually explicit deepfakes. As we know, with the rise of artificial intelligence, it is becoming increasingly easy to create fake images that look like real images. When these are shared, it can have devastating consequences for the people involved. As a government, we need to better protect victims against these new threats, which are based on recently developed technologies.

Another issue is that the Criminal Code currently does not have provisions against making threats to share intimate images. As I mentioned, it is a crime to share an intimate image without the consent of the person depicted, but there is no section in the Criminal Code on threatening to do so. This means that victims are less protected, especially those who are being blackmailed under the threat that intimate images or sexually explicit images will be released if the victim does not comply with the requirements of the person making the threat. We need to protect victims from this type of threat, and we will do so because it is unacceptable. This will apply to the threat of sharing real images as well as sharing deepfakes created using artificial intelligence.

Together, these reforms will help create a justice system that is quicker and earlier to act and offers stronger protection to those facing domestic violence and sexual violence, all while keeping our children safe. As legislators, we must ensure that the best interests of victims are at the heart of our justice system, and that is what we are doing through this ambitious Criminal Code reform, as set out in Bill C‑16.

I would like to mention that this reform is part of a series of bold and decisive public safety measures that our new government has put in place since taking office. With Bill C-14, we will make our bail laws stricter and impose tougher sentences for repeat and violent offenders. This bill proposes over 80 targeted amendments to the Criminal Code. These changes make it more difficult to get bail, particularly for repeat and violent offences, and ensure that those who commit serious crimes face real consequences. That is what Canadians expect of us. We have listened and we are acting on what we have heard.

What is more, Bill C-12 seeks to strengthen security at our borders. We are making crucial changes to give law enforcement and border security the tools and resources they need to disrupt the activities of increasingly sophisticated criminal groups, including those involved in fentanyl and weapons trafficking.

We also made investments in public safety in budget 2025, specifically to hire more RCMP and border services officers. We also invested in prevention and mental health services in order to be proactive about preventing crime before it is committed. The safety of our communities is an issue that we, on this side of the House, take very seriously.

I hope we can count on the co-operation of our opposition colleagues to support us in passing our various bills on fighting crime and protecting victims, namely Bills C-16, C-14 and C-12, as well as all of the measures we are proposing in the House to make our communities safer. It is in that same spirit of co-operation that we will be supporting the private member's bill before us today.

We understand that keeping Canadians safe and protecting victims of crime must transcend party lines and should be a concern for all of us. On our side of the House, we understand that safe and resilient communities are the backbone of a strong Canada. They attract people, families, businesses and investment, and promote security and prosperity. We must take action to keep our communities safe and help protect victims of crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a private member's bill sponsored by my good friend and colleague, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

It is a great piece of legislation that will amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with a focus on victims. It is a simple bill that will have a significant and positive impact on our justice system. Unlike other criminal bills, this one does not create a new crime or further define an existing crime. It does not create new penalties for something that already is illegal. It will have no impact on people who have been convicted of a crime and who are incarcerated. However, it will have a very big and positive impact on victims of crime.

At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, when I served on that committee in the last Parliament, we conducted a study on victims of crime. We learned from many victims and their families that, from their perspective, Canada's criminal justice system feels more like a criminal system than a justice system. That is because the focus is on the criminal: Are they guilty? Do we have enough evidence to convict them in a court beyond a reasonable doubt? What would be the appropriate sentence if they are found guilty, or the appropriate release conditions?

Underlying all of this, of course, is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the legal right everybody has to be presumed innocent. That is all important stuff and nobody is arguing about that. We want a criminal justice system that is fair, balanced and in compliance with our charter, but in all of that, where are the innocent victims whose lives have been upended by the terrible acts of the convicted criminal?

Too often the lives of the victims are a sideshow in our criminal justice system. They need to be more front and centre. We want justice after all, not just for the criminal and not just to put people away for public safety or for punishment. We want a true sense of justice for the innocent, so that they too feel that the justice system is working for them.

That is why I am so pleased that my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, brought forward this private member's bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act focusing on victims. In his speech in this chamber a couple of months ago when this bill was first introduced, he shared a personal story about how a crime committed many years ago impacted him and his family, and to this day the impact is still felt. It never goes away.

I am also very pleased that another colleague, the member for Oshawa, has seconded the bill. She too has a connection with this piece of legislation, because it was her predecessor, a member of Parliament, our friend and former colleague Colin Carrie, who introduced a similar private member's bill in the last Parliament. It was called Bill C-320.

At that time, all the parties agreed it should go ahead and it almost made it over the finish line. It went through the first, second and third readings here. Then it went to the other place for the first and second readings. It then went to committee for third reading. The only thing that was left to do was royal proclamation. What happened to it? It died on the Order Paper when Prime Minister Trudeau prorogued Parliament early last year for the sole purpose of rescuing his faltering Liberal Party from falling over the cliff. I will have more on that some other day, because that is not what we are talking about today.

We are now here in the 45th Parliament and again it appears we have all-party support for this common-sense Conservative bill that is going to have a real and positive impact on victims and their families.

In preparing my talking points for my intervention today, I took the opportunity to read the speeches published in the Hansard that were delivered by other members of other parties. It looks like the Bloc Québécois will support it. That is great. We know the Liberals will support it. As a matter of fact, they like the bill so much that they have adopted the substance of it and have incorporated it into one of their bills, Bill C-16, which is a very large criminal justice bill that runs 166 pages. It is at the justice committee right now undergoing a very thorough review. It may come back here, but in the meantime, we are going to keep pushing my colleague's private member's bill.

As an aside, I am feeling positive. We are seeing a lot of stealing of ideas in the current Parliament, with the Liberals adopting Conservative proposals and calling them their own, proposals that just a short while ago they were criticizing and scoffing at. Now I guess they have finally seen the light. Imitation is the highest form of admiration. I can tell members that it feels really good to be admired by the Liberal side of the House for a change. We do not get a lot of that.

However, I do not want to make too much of this recent and probably very temporary sense of goodwill. The chamber is a very adversarial one after all. Let us just settle on this. This is good legislation, and we should push it through as quickly as we can.

I am well into my speech and I realize I have not even said what the bill would do. I can do no better than to summarize with a sentence from the speech I referenced earlier from my friend, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. He said this on November 18, 2025: “Transparency and accountability are core principles of our democracy, and the bill we debate today seeks to enhance the application of these essential principles, specifically for the benefit of those victimized by crime.” This is a really good summary.

What would the bill do? It seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that victims receive clear explanations about how an offender's eligibility and review dates for temporary absences, release or parole are determined. Victims and their families would be told not only when those dates will be but also the rationale behind why those dates have been chosen, because we believe transparency and accountability are core principles of our democracy.

We have heard from victims of crime that Canada's criminal justice system feels deliberately opaque. They feel left in the dark. It does not have to be that way. We can do better. The bill is a small step in that direction. Let us expedite it through the House and the other place, and push Canada's criminal justice system another small step towards true justice for everyone, including victims of crime.

Justice

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, these are not our judges. These are Canadian judges appointed by provinces. Our criminal court hearings happen at the provincial level.

Conservatives would like Canadians to believe that there is some type of federal policy that is making judges make these decisions. There is absolutely no such policy. If anything, we are tightening the Criminal Code of Canada. In Bill C-16 and Bill C-14, we are making sure that we support victims of sexual assault and that we make conditional sentences no longer a thing.

Motions in Amendment

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good point. Bill C-16 is legislation that is currently in the committee process, and it does reinstate mandatory minimums in cases of sexual assault. It is very important that when we talk about protecting our children, we make sure that our systems are in place in order to do so. That is just one thing that is addressed in Bill C-16.

In this bill, it is so important to recognize that it addresses organized auto theft, break and enter of homes, human trafficking and smuggling, assault, sexual assault, violent extortion and many other things, including retail crime and repeat violent offenders. It is very important that we address these issues and get this bill passed from the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am pleased to see that Bill C-14 is before the House. In fact, I argued back in December that there was no reason Bill C-14 should not pass the House of Commons and the Senate before the end of the year.

In the last election, the Prime Minister and ministers came with an election platform based on crime and looking at ways we could bring in legislation. The Conservative member just made reference to mandatory minimums. Bill C-16 reinstates mandatory minimums.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on the package of crime legislation we have brought forward based on the election platform. We have seen a lot of frustration due to filibustering from the Conservative Party. It is time that we passed not only Bill C-14 but also the other aspects of legislation.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the same sentiment as my colleague from the Bloc. It has always been a pleasure working with him. I certainly enjoy all of his interventions and his contributions to the justice committee.

I think our party made it abundantly clear where we stand on Bill C-14. We wanted to prioritize Bill C-14. We tried desperately at least 19 times before Christmas to prioritize it. Unfortunately, the government chose not to agree with us.

On Bill C-9, there are still some issues that need to be hammered out. There are still some fundamental philosophical differences with respect to the Bloc amendment. We are going to work in earnest to try to overcome those differences. I have reached out to the government, offering some solutions, and I am waiting to hear back from the government.

We desperately want to get to Bill C-16 because that is what stakeholders want us to do. We will work diligently to ensure its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I commend his energy and his passion for the rule of law.

That said, we do not agree with today's motion. That is obvious. I have said so several times already.

My question relates to his passion for justice and the rule of law. Bill C‑14 is coming back to the House on Friday, I believe. Will our Conservative colleagues vote in favour, since I heard them say several times that it is a step in the right direction? Can we also hope that they will support Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act, which will be studied in committee tomorrow? Afterwards, we will be looking at Bill C‑16.

Do I take it, from this surge of passion for the law, that we will be able to make progress and pass Bills C‑14, C‑9 and C‑16 in the coming weeks?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am at a complete loss. The Liberals have known for well over a year that violent crime was on the rise, but particularly extortion, at over 330%. On the highest level of any criminal act in this country, they sat silent. If anything, they could have sent a very clear signal to law enforcement, to victims and to those who prey on and victimize individuals using extortionary tactics that they are not going to tolerate it anymore. They failed in Bill C-14, and now they are failing in Bill C-16.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

I rise today to speak to this excellent Conservative motion, which we brought forward after countless meetings across the country with small business owners, families and community leaders, where Canadians have expressed deep concern and genuine fear about the rising extortion issue now facing Canada. The House has been warned by police, premiers and victims of the consequences of inaction on extortion. Those warnings were followed by amendments, private members' bills and motions from our party that would have addressed the problem directly. Each time, the government chose not to act.

Somewhere in Canada today, a small business owner is checking their phone, before they unlock their front door, to see whether there is another message, another demand, another threat. This is what Canada looks like in 2026. It begins with fear, and that fear has spread because the Liberal government has allowed criminals to learn, adapt and exploit the system faster than Parliament has been willing to fix it.

Since these Liberals took office, extortion has risen by 330% across Canada. That figure alone would have triggered emergency action. Instead, what we have seen is the Liberals voting down common-sense Conservative proposals, weakening sentencing laws, preserving loopholes in the asylum system and maintaining a revolving-door justice system that only emboldens criminals and abandons victims.

One reason extortion has exploded is that the government deliberately removed consequences. Bill C-5 repealed mandatory jail sentences for serious crimes, including extortion with a firearm. This was not a technical adjustment; it was a policy choice that lowered the cost of committing violent organized crime.

Every law the House passes sends a signal. Sometimes it is a signal that help is coming for victims. Other times, more often, it is a signal to criminals that the system can be bent, delayed or avoided altogether.

In response, my Conservative colleague, the member for Edmonton Gateway, introduced Bill C-381 to restore mandatory jail time for extortion, strengthen penalties when firearms or organized crime are involved and recognize arson as an aggravating feature. That bill offered a direct targeted response to the crisis we are debating today. Again, the government voted it down.

On extortion, the signal from the Liberals has been clear. Organized criminals have learned that Canada's justice and asylum systems are slow, fragmented and forgiving. Extortion in Canada today is organized, violent and increasingly tied to transnational gangs. It is being fuelled by a system that criminals have learned how to exploit.

Nowhere is this more evident than in British Columbia. In Surrey alone, police tracked 36 extortion attacks in one single month. Shots were fired into businesses. Homes were targeted. Even media outlets were attacked.

The NDP Premier of British Columbia called this situation “ludicrous”. He called for changes to federal law. In response from the government, we had crickets. When Conservatives proposed the very changes the Premier is now calling for, the Liberals voted it down. That contradiction sits at the heart of today's debate.

One of the most alarming features of the extortion crisis is how Canada's asylum system is being abused to block legal consequences. In December, for example, Surrey police arrested 15 foreign nationals suspected of extortion-related crimes. Surprisingly, all 15 claimed refugee status, not one, not two, but all 15. Those claims, regardless of their eventual outcome, halted removal proceedings and delayed consequences. That message only sends one clear signal that they can commit a serious crime, claim asylum and evade the law. That is not a failure of frontline officers; it is a failure of federal law, and these Liberals know it.

This is why the Conservatives proposed amendments to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims and to bar those with active judicial proceedings for serious crimes from doing so as well. These were narrow, targeted and reasonable amendments. Again, the Liberals voted against them. Canadians are right to ask why the government continues to preserve a loophole that allows criminals to weaponize our asylum system against public safety.

Even when non-citizens are convicted of serious crimes, judges are increasingly encouraged by Liberal legislation to impose lighter sentences in order to explicitly avoid immigration consequences. Let me give the House just a few examples. In 2023, a foreign national attempted to purchase sex from an underage girl. He arrived at the location and was arrested by an undercover officer. At sentencing, the court imposed a reduced sentence specifically to avoid affecting his immigration status. That is disgusting.

In Whitby, Ontario, Manpreet Gill caused a deadly wrong-way crash on Highway 401. A family died. He was also guilty of breaching a probation order, yet the court imposed a five-and-a-half-month sentence citing potential immigration consequences. That is a travesty. In Calgary, a 25-year-old non-citizen assaulted an 18-year-old in a nightclub. He was found guilty but, again, he received a lighter sentence to avoid deportation.

What a dangerous signal our courts are telegraphing to the public. These are not isolated incidents. They are the predictable result we warned the government about, numerous times, of the passage of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which instruct judges to prioritize restraint, minimize incarceration and consider collateral consequences for offenders.

The results are devastating. Victims see offenders walk free. Communities lose faith and trust in the justice system. Criminals learn that Canada is a place where consequences are negotiable and extortionists take note. The government may point to Bill C-14 and claim it fixed the bail problem; however, it did not. They had an opportunity to create a reverse onus provision for extortion as a serious offence in its own right, and they failed to do so. That means individuals charged with extortion, even repeat offenders tied to organized intimidation campaigns, can still be released while awaiting trial unless another qualifying charge happens to apply.

At a time when extortion is one of the fastest-growing violent crimes in the country, the government chose not to treat it with the seriousness it demands. Even subsequent Liberal criminal justice bills failed to correct this mistake. Bill C-16 does not restore mandatory minimum sentences for extortion or reverse the damage done by Bill C-5. While the government speaks about balance and modernization, extortionists continue to face weaker penalties today than they did before 2015, despite the crime being more prevalent, more organized and more violent than ever. This is not coincidence. This is a policy choice by the Liberals.

The motion before us today is clear and reasonable. It calls on the government to bar non-citizens convicted of crimes from making refugee claims, to bar those with active proceedings for serious crimes from doing the same, to end leniency in sentencing designed to avoid deportation and to repeal Liberal laws that create a catch-and-release system. None of this undermines genuine refugees. None of this targets law-abiding newcomers. In fact, it protects them because immigrant communities are often the first victims of extortion. Ask the small business owners in Surrey. Ask the families in Brampton. Ask the shopkeepers who are paying protection money, not because they want to but because they are afraid. They are begging and urging the government to act.

Canada is a compassionate country, but compassion without accountability is negligence. We can welcome newcomers, protect refugees and still enforce the law. Today, the House has a choice. We can continue with excuses, half measures and delayed action, or we can send a clear message: Canada will not be a safe haven for extortionists, violent offenders or those who abuse our asylum system.

I urge all members to support the motion, stand for once with victims and restore confidence in Canada's justice and immigration systems. Canadians are watching. Are Liberals listening?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague, as deputy leader, can provide some final clarity to the House, because I have heard nothing but exaggerated statements and mistruths in the Liberal Party's explanation about our party's being obstructionist.

Can the member provide context as to how many times the justice committee tried to prioritize Bill C-14 before Christmas and how many times the justice committee tried to prioritize Bill C-16 after Christmas?