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

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I specifically said that we should be fixing this bill at committee.

Here is something that I really do not appreciate about the members' remarks and generally his conduct in this chamber. I stood here for the last 20 minutes making a legal argument, not a political argument. There was no bravado or nonsense. I cited the precise scenario that was contemplated by the framers of the charter. I referred to days when I used to lecture part time on constitutional law and said that if there was a time that demanded the invocation of the notwithstanding clause, it would be this situation in Senneville in order to protect children who are being sodomized by pedophiles.

We have this manufactured anger from the member for Winnipeg North. It is not constructive to this debate, and I would ask him to behave himself.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that my colleague raised the Senneville case, which is very problematic. To my reading of that case, the problem is that the Supreme Court of Canada thinks that it can make up hypothetical, imaginary fact situations rather than just dealing with the fact situation that is in front of it.

Would it be an improvement to this bill if we were to prohibit that sort of rationalizing by the Supreme Court?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I will say with respect to hypotheticals is that one can always come up with a hypothetical wherein the Supreme Court would deem a provision absurd. A first-year law student would be able to come up with a hypothetical that would make the situation absurd. What happens in these situations is that the police do not prosecute and the Crown attorneys do not proceed.

If we have absurdity, or not just no reasonable prospect of conviction but no need in process or conviction, it will not happen. How that hypothetical had anything to do with what was before the court at that moment, which was the possession of 274 videos of little girls being raped, and how it was relevant to the court's consideration is beyond me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague thinks it is very important to pass these bills, which will help make our streets safer. I am referring to Bill C-9, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16.

I would like to ask him whether we can count on him and his colleagues to stop obstructing our work at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and allow us to adopt these three bills quickly, because we have a lot of work to do and a lot on our plates.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks now, the Conservative members on the justice committee have been imploring the government to prioritize bail and sentencing, which Canadians so sorely deserve. Finally today, after this morning, the Prime Minister and the government House leader said that they wanted to move on with Bill C-14. We said, “Wait a minute. The Conservatives have been asking the government to move on with Bill C-14 for about a month and a half now.” Finally today, we had consensus at the justice committee, and we are going to be prioritizing bail for the next couple of weeks.

I look forward to a constructive debate and to fixing what is now a somewhat deficient bill by the Liberals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear from the Conservative member that they are going to prioritize bail and that we will finally get the bail reform legislation passed. It is something that should have passed last year, but I am glad the Conservatives are finally letting loose on that particular aspect.

Now we are on Bill C-16. Even the member who represents Kamloops in British Columbia says that a safety clause is a good thing. He recommended a safety clause in previous legislation. Was the member from Kamloops wrong to have recommended or suggested in any way that a safety clause is actually good? Has the Conservative Party changed its position because it is trying to position itself on this legislation?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was a safety valve, not a safety clause. I would recommend that the member study his own legislation. Second of all, I would ask that he respect all members of the House and give them due respect by not taking their own words out of context.

Here what is clear about the safety valve: It would completely dilute the mandatory minimum sentencing regime, it would grant judges discretion and it would codify the ability of judges to ignore the mandatory minimum. This is not what Canadians are looking for. This is not what the Conservative Party stands for.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a phenomenally informative speech. I learned a ton just listening to it, especially on the good parts of the bill about needed reforms within our justice system to ensure that victims have public safety.

Our shadow minister has made a recommendation to split the bill into two. Let us take the good parts that we have consensus on across all parties so the bill can get to the justice committee and can be studied properly and passed, and take out the contentious issues that are going to slow down the bill's passage and create issues. Does the hon. member agree that this is a good way to actually get public safety addressed for victims here in Canada?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree with the member, and I agree with the Conservative justice critic.

I hope that the members opposite were here for the majority of my remarks. There are quite a few good elements of the bill, many of them incorporated from previous proposals by various Conservative members on this side of the aisle. Canadians voted for a minority government. They voted for us to have good parliamentary process to arrive at the right balance. We already had good precedents for this. Conservatives took a principled opposition to Bill C-2, which infringed on constitutional freedoms and gave us a lot of cause for concern. The House leaders got together, and the Liberals agreed to separate the bill. The bill before us should probably follow the same course, which would help us get it through faster or let us fix the bill quickly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to be very clear on the issue, does the member believe that the second reading of the legislation should allow it to go to committee sooner as opposed to later so Canadians would be able to see it and the member would be able to present his arguments at the committee stage?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is the first day of debate on the bill. It was introduced during the last week of the sitting of the current Parliament in 2025. There are some good elements to the bill, but Conservatives have serious reservations with respect to the safety valve and the effective elimination of mandatory minimum sentences. Right now, if someone wants to challenge a law as cruel and unusual, they bring a constitutional charter application. The bill would do that automatically and dilute the mandatory minimum sentence. Let us have a thoughtful discussion about what we want to do here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for London West.

First, I would like to offer my best wishes for a happy new year to all my colleagues in the House and especially to all my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, whom I proudly represent, whether they are from Deux-Montagnes, Saint-Eustache, Boisbriand or Rosemère. I would like to wish everyone a safe and healthy 2026, and if possible, I would love for us to achieve world peace, so that everything going on around us could calm down somewhat.

I rise today as a member of Parliament, but also as chair of the Liberal women's caucus, to express my strong support for Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. This bill is ambitious. It is necessary. Above all, it is deeply rooted in the lived reality of too many women, too many children and too many survivors in this country.

For a long time, our criminal law has been designed to intervene after the fact, after the blows, after the attack, after the tragedy, sometimes even after death. Bill C-16 marks a fundamental change. It finally recognizes what survivors, advocates and experts have been telling us for years: Violence does not always begin with physical harm; it often begins with control, fear and isolation.

Coercive control is an insidious form of violence. It does not always leave visible marks. It sets in slowly. It is exercised through hurtful words, monitoring, humiliation, financial restriction, and implicit or explicit threats, yet it is one of the strongest predictors of serious violence and femicide.

Women told us that they did not recognize their own lives, that they had to ask permission to see their families. Can my colleagues imagine being forced to ask permission to see their families? These women told us that they no longer had access to their money, that they lived in constant fear without any clear criminal offence that could be invoked. Until now, the Criminal Code has not had the tools to address this reality. Bill C-16 corrects that.

By creating a specific offence relating to coercive or controlling conduct in the context of an intimate relationship, our government is sending a clear message: This type of violence is real, it is serious and it deserves a serious criminal response. Let me be clear. This offence is carefully worded. It requires a pattern of behaviour and clear intent, and it takes into account the power imbalance within the relationship. It is aimed at protecting victims, not criminalizing them. It is a preventive measure, an early intervention measure, a measure that can save lives.

Bill C‑16 also recognizes a painful reality. Too often, when the violence culminates in death, the justice system fails to name what actually happened. When a homicide is committed in a context of coercive control, sexual violence, exploitation or hate, it is not an isolated incident. It is the culmination of ongoing violence.

Bill C‑16 now recognizes these homicides as the most serious crimes. It elevates these murders to first-degree murder. It also requires the courts to consider imposing a life sentence if manslaughter is committed those circumstances. For victims' families, this legal recognition has been a long time coming.

The bill also modernizes our response to contemporary forms of violence. It includes intimate images generated by artificial intelligence. These sexual deepfakes are used to humiliate, control and extort victims. The problem disproportionately affects women and girls.

As chair of the Liberal women's caucus, I also want to point out that this bill is not limited to gender-based violence. It also strengthens protections for children against sexual exploitation, online grooming and sextortion. Predators use sophisticated technology these days. Our criminal law must keep pace. The bill restores mandatory minimum penalties for the most serious sexual offences committed against children, while providing a judicial safety valve to ensure charter compliance.

Bill C-16 clearly affirms the right of victims to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion. It improves access to information, expands access to testimonial aids, and recognizes the right of victims to participate fully in a process that concerns them.

Finally, this bill addresses another major problem: court delays. Too many serious cases are being dropped. Too many survivors look on while their cases collapse, not because the violence was not real, but because the system did not act fast enough. Bill C-16 requires the courts to consider alternatives before ordering a stay of proceedings. It simplifies certain rules of evidence and endeavours to restore public trust in our justice system.

This bill is the outcome of consultations, expertise and testimony. It is supported by women's rights organizations, child protection groups, police forces and several provinces. This bill represents a major step forward. Most importantly, it sends an essential message to victims: We believe them, we see them and we are taking action.

On behalf of the Liberal women's caucus, I support Bill C-16, and I encourage all parliamentarians to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses, in part, the shocking rise of intimate partner violence in Canada and it introduces the concept of femicide, which is the murder of a woman in the context of an intimate partner violent crime. Effectively, what that would do is classify any murder, whether it was manslaughter or second-degree murder, as first-degree murder if it were done in the context of intimate partner violence. I wonder if our colleague would have any comment on whether that would survive the inevitable charter challenge in the first case before the courts.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a subject we have discussed many times. Intimate partner violence is one of our priorities. As I explained earlier, there are many coercive behaviours that tend to be seen before a femicide occurs. There are many measures that can be put in place regarding the intimate partner who is using psychological violence in the context of coercive control. Violence also includes preventing women from accessing their financial resources.

Say a woman is trapped in a domestic violence situation. She has children and cannot just leave home. She has no resources. If she is killed, it would be first-degree murder. Several steps have already been taken by that point. When the intimate partner takes that drastic step, the least we can do is ensure that he is charged with first-degree murder.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish my colleague a happy new year and a happy return to Parliament. Let us talk a bit about femicide, because the start of the year has been tragic. There have been several femicides, in Quebec at least. This bill will impose harsher sentences and make it possible to charge those who commit these heinous crimes with first-degree murder.

Can my colleague tell us what this wave of femicides means to her? How can we come up with solutions together to work proactively to reduce violence against women?