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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

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

Mr. Speaker, something I have brought up over and over in this debate is around trend lines and crime in general. Over the last decade, we have watched mandatory minimum sentences be reduced by the Liberal government. We watched, under Bill C-5, many crimes be hybridized so that human traffickers could just stay home under house arrest. More broadly, I think there is a sentiment that the Liberals are light on crime or not very tough on crime, and we have watched crime creep up over the time that the Liberals have been in power.

I am just wondering if the member has a good reason for why, under the Liberals' tenure, the 10 years of Liberal rule, crime rates have increased pretty much in every measure.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the last federal election, where Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and at least 60, I believe, Liberal members of Parliament. Canadians want parties to work together in this chamber to deal with the important issues that they want action on. This Prime Minister and every member of this Liberal caucus understand what Canadians want to see.

Bill C-16 is a reflection of what Canadians are saying. This government, which was elected just months back, understands the needs of Canadians, and we are trying our best to work with opposition parties to bring forward and pass this legislation. We just need the Conservative Party to start—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems a little presumptuous to think that we members of the House can foresee every possible scenario or that we can see things clearly from here that we can establish a rule that would be safe from any exceptions, in any scenario.

The truth is that life in society is very complex, and all kinds of stories are uncovered in courtrooms. If judges are allowed to deviate from a minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances, I believe this is a way of ensuring that justice is better adapted to reality and that decisions are made in line with reality.

Does my colleague not agree that we must ensure that judges retain a degree of discretion that allows them to deliver human justice?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer by profession, but I genuinely believe that by having a safety valve, which is what the Conservative member across the way called it, we would be able to see mandatory minimums in our law not only stay within the law books but that it would take away the unconstitutionality of bringing in a mandatory minimum. The legislation would reinstate many aspects of mandatory minimums and allow for that safety valve, which would enable us to be protected by the Constitution. I do have more confidence in our judicial system, in particular our judges, to deal with this issue.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that if we speak to Canadians, to folks in Scarborough—Woburn, that they will tell us violence and crime are changing constantly.

Bill C-16 is about realigning our realities today to take on the challenges that we have when it comes to crime and violence. For some reason, it seems the Conservatives want to delay and hold up these types of bills that I would say the majority of Canadians, probably 99.9% of all Canadians, agree with.

Why does the member think the Conservatives are holding up such an important piece of legislation in the House of Commons?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the best example I could give my friend and colleague is to reflect back a few weeks ago to December, when we were talking about bail reform legislation. My colleague knows full well that we had wide support for the legislation. Provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and all the different stakeholders wanted bail reform legislation.

I remember standing up and saying to members, “Let us pass it. We will sit until midnight. We will do it for the next couple of weeks, if necessary, to pass it.” The Conservatives were heckling from their seats, saying that they would do that. I then asked for unanimous consent. They put their hands underneath their seats, being shy and saying, “No, no. We do not want that.”

The Conservative Party is more interested in what is in the interest of the Conservative Party of Canada than in the interest of actual Canadians. That is why Canadians in Conservative ridings are not happy with the tactics the Conservative Party of Canada is using.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been voting against Conservative motions for the past 10 years. We have been fighting to protect Canadians for all that time.

This bill has a safety valve. When it comes to mandatory minimum sentences, could the member give us a simple definition of what “mandatory” actually means? If it has a safety valve, is the bill not just suggestion?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a gross way to try to describe it, in such a fashion where a judge would actually just decide to throw it out.

There is a parliamentary mandate that is given through the passage of laws. I have confidence that decisions are being made. I want our laws to be constitutional. I recognize this and the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized it; it has thrown out mandatory minimum statements because we did not have a safety valve.

I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that the laws we are passing adhere to the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights. I do not have the same sort of fear. There is at least one Conservative member across the way, who I quoted extensively, who believes likewise. A safety valve is something that is absolutely critical. You should be supporting it and the reinstatement of mandatory minimums that this legislation is putting in place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would just remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what my colleague thinks about the part of Bill C‑16 that says the government will address the issue of criminal organizations that recruit minors to commit crimes.

I have already suggested in committee that a person who recruits a minor to commit a crime should get double the sentence they would have faced if they had committed the crime themselves. Bill C‑16 proposes a way to address this issue, but it provides for a minimum sentence of five years, I believe. This approach seems a bit weak to me.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Should we not be tougher on people who recruit minors to commit crimes for the benefit of criminal organizations?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the position the Bloc has taken on Bill C-16, recognizing that, in principle, it is legislation they would like to see go to committee.

I believe the Minister of Justice was open to listening to the critic from the Bloc in regard to listening and potentially taking action. We look forward to the committee actually dealing with those four core elements of the legislation. There is just not enough time to go into great detail. It tackles gender-based violence, especially intimate partner violence, protects children from predators and strengthening victims' rights. It also addresses court delays. This is substantial legislation.

I would ultimately argue that if we want to serve Canadians and deal with the issue of crime and safety in our communities, and the important issues, such as feminine issues, this is the type of legislation we should be passing and getting to committee, where we could hear what so many others, including law enforcement officers, other jurisdictions, individuals and advocacy groups, are actually saying. They like this legislation and want to see it move forward.

The Conservatives need to get on the Canadian agenda as opposed to the Conservative agenda.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-16. It is good to be back after the winter break. It certainly got colder. I welcome back all of my colleagues and wish everyone a very happy and healthy new year.

On December 9, 2025, the government introduced Bill C-16, known as the protecting victims act. The bill proposes reforms to the Criminal Code “to protect victims and survivors of sexual violence, gender-based violence, and intimate partner violence, and to keep our kids safe from predators.” That is certainly a very worthy goal. I thank the Attorney General for making an effort here.

The act includes a reclassification of femicide as a first-degree crime. It would criminalize coercive control, increase penalties for sexual assault, ensure better protection for sexual deepfakes and outline new guidelines on stays of proceedings under Jordan's principle. It would provide some new measures to assist victims. However, the bill fails on mandatory minimum penalties. Even worse, it misses a key opportunity to tell the Supreme Court that it cannot strike down a mandatory minimum penalty when it comes to possession and distribution of child pornography.

I will take some time today to talk about Bill C-16, the good, the bad and the ugly. I want to start by talking about child protection. Protecting our nation's children should be the highest order for any judicial or law enforcement officer. With the evolution of technology, and criminal elements getting more vicious and more sophisticated, the law must catch up.

Bill C-16 would build on a Harper-era child protection law called the Mandatory Reporting Act. It would redefine “Internet service” to clarify that the Mandatory Reporting Act applies to all types of Internet services, including online platforms, social media and other apps, and that providers with a connection to Canada must report child sexual abuse and exploitation material to law enforcement. This is important for operators that operate outside of Canada. The bill would also require Internet service providers to include transmission data when reporting material that manifestly includes child sexual abuse in the material itself to law enforcement. That is all good.

The bill would also centralize mandatory notification to a designated law enforcement body. This is fairly important. I hope we are not going to create another bureaucracy here. We should probably do that within the RCMP. It would be good to centralize all reporting of such criminal behaviour to one body.

The bill would also extend the preservation period of computer data related to child sexual abuse from 21 days to one year. That is very important. I spoke to an RCMP officer recently, and that officer told me about the chronic delays at the RCMP. While well intentioned, sometimes the RCMP does not have the resources to move on a matter quickly. The bill would require interim providers to maintain child sexual abuse materials for at least a year to allow law enforcement to catch up.

Separately, Bill C-16 would create a new offence of inviting a child to expose his or her sexual organs for a sexual purpose. I would be surprised if that type of criminal behaviour is not already criminal. It probably is, but it does not hurt to clarify that. The bill also proposes to create a new offence of recruiting a child to be a party to a crime. All of that is good; the bill would close a number of loopholes. I welcome the child protection elements of this bill.

There is another component that would apply to children and adults but would likely help a lot of children. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to address non-consensual distribution of deepfake images. It would expand on the offence of prohibiting non-consensual distribution of intimate images to capture sexually explicit fakes. Now, the bill draws directly from a Conservative private member's bill, that of the Conservative immigration critic, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, Bill C-216.

The government is welcome to steal Conservative ideas. Technology moves fast, and the law must keep up. Between AI and virtual reality, it is hard to tell what is real or not, sometimes. This technology is out there already. It is open source, which means that anyone can basically get it off the web and access it. There is no place where this is more dangerous than in schools. Unfortunately, sometimes schoolchildren bully each other by sharing these fake images. By the time a school catches up, those images are already out there and are being picked up and distributed by predators.

I welcome this provision of Bill C-16. It is long overdue. Again, I congratulate my colleague the member for Calgary Nose Hill on the incorporation of her proposal in Bill C-16.

I will move on to talk about the much-needed protection of women.

The bill proposes to define femicide in criminal law. Murders that meet this description would automatically qualify as first-degree murder. Those found guilty would get harsher sentences: jail with no possibility of parole for at least 25 years, rather than the 10 years for second-degree murder. This is not a new concept in our criminal law. We already prescribe first-degree murder for a number of criteria. For instance, the murder of a peace officer or a correctional officer would attract a first-degree murder charge, or a murder during a carjacking or hostage taking, murders committed during sexual assault, contract killing, killing during terrorist activity and more.

The definition of femicide would cover murder committed against an intimate partner. Over the last seven years, there were over 1,300 female deaths in Canada by intimate partners. The need to act is apparent, but this proposal is not new either. I am proud of the Conservative member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, our public safety critic, since Bill C-16 essentially draws on Bailey's law, his Bill C-225, which unanimously passed second reading just last month. Compliments to the government for picking up another Conservative bill. This legislative change would have a significant impact on how the justice system treats violence against women. It would alter how cases are prosecuted and increase accountability for offenders. Again, I congratulate another friend, this time the shadow minister for public safety, and I thank the Attorney General for copying the Conservatives yet again.

On victims' rights, the bill is also good. I am often surprised by how little standing victims have in law in Canada. They have almost no control over the criminal process. Victims are not even referred to as “victims” or the “alleged victims” during a criminal process. They are referred to as the “complaining witness”. I watched this at legal aid in law school. The Crowns are too busy, and the victims often do not understand the law or the challenges. However, Bill C-16 would take a few steps in the right direction. It would entitle victims of violent offences to testimonial aids. It would require that victims in court proceedings be treated with respect and compassion. By the way, it is important to note that this provision should not cut into the presumption of innocence, which probably needs a little bit of thinking, because a defence lawyer must be able to confront an alleged victim and test their credibility. Nonetheless, every witness, and especially the complaining witness, must be treated with compassion and respect.

The bill would require authorities to share information with victims about the status and outcomes of an investigation. It is not unusual for a victim not to know what transpired with the charges brought against a person who offended against them. It would require that the time and location of relevant court proceedings be shared, giving victims an option to request and receive information with respect to a release of an offender, and it would require authorities to tell victims about their rights. This is also good. I thank the government for looking to highlight the fact that victims require greater participation in the justice process.

I will now move to some of the more challenging elements of the bill.

I know criminal defence attorneys who have made a career out of dismissal for delay by virtue of Jordan's principle. In the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the speedy trial provisions of the charter and required that charges be suspended, stayed, if an accused had to wait for an unreasonable amount of time to be brought to justice, to face trial. The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, decided that for a summary offence in the lower court, the provincial court, such time would be 18 months, and in the Superior Court for hybrid or indictable offences, when the Crown proceeds by way of an indictment, such delay cannot exceed 30 months, or the charges would be stayed.

Bill C-16 includes measures to respond to a very high number of dismissals for delay. For example, it would direct courts to consider specific factors relating to the case's complexity. There are cases that are incredibly complex. I have witnessed a lot of white-collar cases that take a significant amount of time to investigate and prosecute. The bill may exclude certain time periods from the calculations that go into the total delay. It would require courts to consider alternative remedies before granting a stay of proceedings.

It is important to note that Jordan's principle already sets out certain criteria under which delays by the court proceedings are justifiable, so the bill would basically expand on these criteria. In 2024, 30% of sexual assault cases across Canada breached Jordan's principle. In Ontario, that number is 39%, almost 40% in the province I come from. Four out of 10 sexual assault cases are thrown out or could be thrown out due to delay. Notably, Bill C-16 proposes procedural streamlining for sexual offence trials.

This is no reason to absolve provincial governments from providing adequate resources in the courts. Too often, we read that there is not enough court staff or no courtrooms are available in the province of Ontario. Nor is it a reason to excuse the federal government from its failure to appoint enough judges. However, the practical reality is that provinces are breaching Jordan's principle far too often. That is not to say that the right to a speedy trial should be done away with, as it is a charter right, but the federal government is correct in stepping in to provide the system with some relief. That is not an unreasonable proposition. One thing I have often found odd is that delays incurred because of the accused or the defence team count in the total amount of delay. It never made sense. There is room for improvement of Jordan's principle, and I welcome further discussion about this at committee.

I think that is it for the good. Now let us move on to the bad: in the mandatory minimum sentences, the so-called safety valve that the government is introducing. Under the Criminal Code, mandatory minimum penalties, MMPs, apply to a range of serious offences. These mandatory minimums are designed to set the sentencing floor, a minimum term of imprisonment that Parliament deemed necessary for denunciation, deterrence and public safety in specific categories of crimes. In recent years, though, the courts have been striking down mandatory minimums under section 12 of the charter as cruel and unusual punishment more and more. That, of course, includes the Supreme Court up the street.

The Liberals frame Bill C-16 as a response to this line of jurisprudence. They are pointing to a recent decision by the Supreme Court, in Quebec v. Senneville. That is a decision from earlier in this session, just last fall, where the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography. What else do the Liberals do? They add a sweeping change by creating a safety valve. The valve would allow courts to impose sentences below the mandatory minimum when applying the minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment. Effectively, this would convert a mandatory minimum from a binding floor to a discretion and allow a judge to statutorily disregard the mandatory minimum. In practice, it means that mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory. While jail would still be required, the duration of imprisonment would be left to a judge's discretion.

In practice, that means that if a judge feels that the minimum sentence imposed by Parliament is too extreme, they can just disregard the minimum. This is outlandish. This would erode mandatory minimum sentences. It would result in lighter sentences for serious repeat offenders. The Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what Canadians have asked them to do, which is to take a bite out of crime, especially with violent repeat offenders.

Previously, a constitutional argument was required; a person could not just march in. They previously had to mount an argument that the sentence was cruel and unusual, but now it would be an automatic argument every time. This is not a political argument. This is a basic legal argument. It is common sense. The safety valve is a major concession to judicial activism. It would undermine the role of this Parliament.

This body, this Parliament, sets sentencing policy, and what is worse is that because of the wearing down and the ability to disregard a mandatory minimum sentence, the principle of deterrence, which is one of the key principles of sentencing, is lost. That is very misguided.

Now let us go from the bad to the ugly. Bill C-16 refuses to do what the Conservatives implored the Liberals to do, and that is in response to the Senneville decision and to the Supreme Court's striking down the mandatory minimum sentence for distribution and possession of child pornography. The Conservatives implored the Liberals to invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect the minimum sentences for the possession of child pornography.

This is not about the kids who were already abused, raped or exploited in these pictures or videos. This is about more kids in the future who will be raped because the courts failed to punish these perverts and deter future perverts. We have to go hard here so we can kill this industry.

What was the point of the notwithstanding clause? It was to prevent absurdity. When he was attorney general, Jean Chrétien used the clause to seal the deal on the charter, and he specifically used an example of absurdity that the Supreme Court could come up with. It was a hypothetical that Chrétien came up with that the Supreme Court would find possession of child pornography protected by the freedom of expression. I think people in this room, even the Liberals, would agree that such a finding would be absurd.

That is not the scenario we had here in Senneville, but it was close. He pleaded guilty to the possession of 300 images, mostly of girls between the ages of three and six being sexually exploited. Naud pleaded guilty to possessing 531 images and 274 videos, and in many cases the kids were subjected to rape and sodomy. I am disgusted by this. Striking down the mandatory minimum one-year sentences for either of these two counts is exactly the kind of absurdity that Chrétien had in mind.

I say this as an Ontario lawyer. This is precisely and explicitly what section 33 was meant to do. These criminals are monsters, and I am proud of the Leader of the Opposition and my party for pushing this forward. We would invoke section 33 to prevent the absurdity that the Supreme Court arrived at, but the Attorney General is refusing our suggestion.

That is why I ask my Liberal colleagues to do their jobs to safeguard the line and protect children. Let us amend Bill C-16 at committee to invoke the notwithstanding clause, to restore mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography, and to lock up these monsters who, through their actions, contribute to the rape and sodomy of more children.

I am thankful for the opportunity to address this bill. Let us do away with the safety valve. Let us really stand up for children.

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

Mr. Speaker, the far right has spoken. At the end of the day, if there is an issue with any law, they have no problem bringing in the notwithstanding clause.

Does the member know that no prime minister has actually used the notwithstanding clause, and it has been there for decades? Now we have the current leader of the Conservative Party saying not to worry and that we can use it any time we want. They do not attach any value to the importance of the Canadian Constitution or the Charter of Rights.

If the Conservative Party is so confident of its position, allow the legislation to go to committee. It is a minority government. Get the support that the Conservatives so desire to do what they want, but at least let the legislation go to committee.