Bill C-16

Protecting Victims Act

An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures)

This enactment amends various Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters.
It amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct towards an intimate partner;
(b) provide that, in the following circumstances, murder — known as femicide when committed against a female person — is murder in the first degree:
(i) the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct,
(ii) the murder is committed in the context of sexual violence,
(iii) the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking, or
(iv) the murder is motivated by hate;
(c) provide that, if an offender commits manslaughter in those circumstances, the court must consider whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on the offender and, if that sentence is imposed, an adult offender is ineligible for parole for 10 to 25 years;
(d) remove from the criminal harassment offence the requirement to prove that the victim subjectively feared for their safety and replace it with a requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe that someone’s safety is threatened;
(e) amend the offence of non-consensual distribution of an intimate image to include, among such images, a visual representation showing an identifiable person depicted as nude, as nearly nude, as exposing their sexual organs or as engaged in explicit sexual activity, if the depiction is likely to be mistaken for a visual recording of that person;
(f) amend certain existing child sexual offences to include prohibiting a person from inviting a child to expose their own sexual organs for a sexual purpose;
(g) criminalize the distribution of visual representations of bestiality;
(h) create a new offence relating to the recruitment of a person under 18 years of age to be a party to an offence;
(i) provide that victims of certain offences, such as offences committed against an intimate partner, are entitled to testimonial aids;
(j) permit courts to order that an offender serve a period of imprisonment below a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, but only if the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that particular offender;
(k) create a new Part establishing a framework for applying alternative measures and restorative justice processes in appropriate cases;
(l) create a new Part in respect of unreasonable delay that requires a court to consider specific factors in relation to case complexity, directs a court to exclude time periods in respect of specific applications and requires that a stay of proceedings be ordered only if a court is satisfied, taking into account a list of factors, that no other remedy would be appropriate and just;
(m) streamline and strengthen the procedural rules in sexual offence trials that govern when evidence of a complainant’s past sexual activity can be adduced and when certain private records, including therapeutic records, can be produced or adduced; and
(n) allow the possibility of using affidavit evidence for certain cases involving identity theft and identity fraud.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that it better reflects the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights with respect to the rights and interests of victims;
(b) modernize the principle requiring consideration of the needs of young persons, including by requiring particular attention to those of Aboriginal and Black young persons; and
(c) allow youth justice courts to order that a young person enter into a recognizance if there is a reasonable fear that the young person will commit a child sexual offence.
The enactment also amends the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to
(a) modify the preamble to affirm the importance of victim-centred and trauma-informed approaches;
(b) provide victims with the right to be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness;
(c) enable victims to receive information without being required to make a request;
(d) provide that victims have the right to receive information about their rights under that Act and the protection measures that are available to them;
(e) broaden the information that victims have the right to receive about available restorative justice processes; and
(f) clarify the right of victims to present a victim impact statement at sentencing and a victim statement for consideration when decisions regarding parole or corrections are made about the offender who harmed them.
The enactment also amends the National Defence Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that victims of certain offences, such as offences committed against an intimate partner, are entitled to testimonial aids;
(b) create a new Division in respect of unreasonable delay that requires a court martial to consider specific factors in relation to case complexity, directs a court martial to exclude time periods in respect of specific applications and requires that a stay of proceedings be ordered only if a court martial is satisfied, taking into account a list of factors, that no other remedy would be appropriate and just;
(c) streamline and strengthen the procedural rules to align with the Criminal Code procedural rules in sexual offence trials that govern when evidence of a complainant’s past sexual activity can be adduced and when certain private records, including therapeutic records, can be produced or adduced;
(d) provide victims with the right to be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness;
(e) provide that victims have the right to receive information about their rights under the Division of the National Defence Act entitled “Declaration of Victims Rights” and information about the protection measures that are available to them; and
(f) enable victims to receive information from authorities in the military justice system without being required to make a request.
The enactment also amends An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child sexual abuse and exploitation material by persons who provide an Internet service to, among other things,
(a) clarify the types of Internet services covered by that Act;
(b) require that transmission data be provided with the mandatory notification in cases where the material is manifestly child sexual abuse and exploitation material;
(c) extend the period of preservation of data related to an offence; and
(d) extend the limitation period for the prosecution of an offence under that Act.
The enactment also amends the Firearms Act to clarify that an individual whose firearms licence or registration certificate has been revoked is required to deliver their firearm to a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer and to provide that an individual is not eligible to hold a licence under that Act if the chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual may have engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking.
The enactment also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, among other things, enhance the disclosure of information to victims and other components of the criminal justice system and provide for the submission of victim statements in certain instances.
Finally, the enactment also amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to facilitate legal assistance between Canada and supranational bodies with responsibility for criminal investigations or prosecutions.

Protecting Victims Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member opposite from the Bloc that the motivating factor for the Government of Canada, and I would suggest all members of the Liberal caucus, is in fact the issue of victims and how we can deal with and support victims. That is within Bill C-16, and I can give some examples of that. There is also providing the communities we represent a sense of security. Those are the motivating factors.

Specifically, to give a couple of examples, this legislation would provide victims with information proactively, without requiring formal requests, and would expand access to testimonial aids for victims of violent and intimate partner offences. There are a number of actions within Bill C-16 that we put in place because we can understand and we can appreciate the issues victims have to deal with, which often go on for years on end.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I worked as a family law lawyer, and I assisted women who were fleeing violence at home.

However, one of the things that I noticed, which has been very challenging to deal with, is the amount of misinformation that constituents are reaching out to me on about Bill C-16 because of what our Conservative colleagues are putting out on their social media. In fact, just tonight, a constituent of mine emailed me asking about a video he had seen posted by the former Conservative member from Peterborough, and thank God she is the former member, which was basically saying all kinds of nonsense about Bill C-16.

How does my colleague see this manipulation of information by our Conservative colleagues affecting how his constituents understand Bill C-16?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the excessive abuse by the official opposition when it comes to the issue of misinformation, whether it is inside the House of Commons, here on the floor, or through social media and emails. It is literally non-stop. For example, on the mandatory minimums that we would reinstate under exceptional circumstances, the Conservatives are trying to mislead Canadians on what that would actually do.

At the end of the day, Bill C-16 would reinstate mandatory minimums. It would protect, in particular, our children from all forms of exploitation. I see that as a positive thing, and it is really lame and sad to see the Conservative Party intentionally mislead Canadians on this issue.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. member, in response to a question from our side, very clearly distance himself from the 10 years of government that he was a part of. Here are some facts on those 10 years. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%, sexual assaults increased by 76% and violent crime increased by 55%.

I wonder if the hon. member might want to take this opportunity to express his regret for the role he played in passing laws that led to those horrific results.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what often happens with the Conservatives is that they do a great deal of research to try to justify a behaviour, which does nothing but downgrade and be disrespectful in terms of Canada and the way Canada is moving.

I can tell the member that he needs to get ahead and start looking at what has taken place over the last 13 to 14 months since Canadians made the wise decision, I would argue, to elect a new prime minister and a new government with a totally different agenda, and part of that agenda is making the communities we represent safer. I wish that members of the Conservative Party of Canada would, to use their words, get out of the way and allow the legislation, these initiatives, to become law so that our constituents would be safer.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2018, at the justice committee, we studied the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour. From that time to now, we have been trying to make sure that women are safe in our communities.

I would ask the member why he thinks we are not able to come together as a Parliament, as Canadians, as leaders in our country, to provide support to women and to make sure that their safety is paramount within our legislature and within our communities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe Bill C-16 is a wonderful piece of legislation that we could have very easily had a coming together to recognize, for example, coercive control as a new offence and to recognize femicide being elevated to first-degree murder in certain situations. These are very tangible things. Ultimately, I would liked to have seen members on all sides of the House recognize the value. We did not have to look for a false excuse in order to justify poor behaviour, which is what we have witnessed from the Conservative Party.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as my colleague for Winnipeg North was beginning his remarks, a member from the Conservative caucus yelled, “He's off his meds.” Members would never yell, “They're off their insulin.” To disparage Canadians who are dealing with mental health is unparliamentary, and it deserves an apology.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for Guelph for raising the point of order. We will review the tapes and come back to the House if necessary.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. The name of this bill sets a high standard. Protecting victims is the single most important part of any justice system. Canadians rightfully expect a system that supports those who have been harmed, protects the vulnerable and holds offenders accountable for their actions.

Bill C-16 attempts to address a number of serious issues, including intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation, sexual violence, victims' rights and delays in our justice system. That expectation has not always been met in our justice system. Too often, victims feel like an afterthought. Too often, families are left waiting for justice. Too often, Canadians are left to wonder whether our justice system is putting the rights of offenders ahead of the safety of communities.

Many Canadians saw that in a recent case in Kitchener, where a former neurologist was acquitted on 48 sexual assault charges. Dozens of victims gathered the courage to come forward and share their stories, and the justice system left them feeling unheard and brushed aside. We can agree in this place that it takes a tremendous amount of courage for a victim to come forward with their experience. When they do, it is important that we treat them with dignity, listen to their concerns and ensure that their voices are heard. That is why, when legislation like this comes forward, we must hold it to a high standard.

There are parts of this bill that would be steps in the right direction. One of the biggest changes would be the creation of a new offence relating to coercive and controlling behaviours in intimate partner relationships. Many people think that the abuse begins when someone is physically assaulted, but it often starts long before that. It starts with manipulation, isolation and threats. It starts with controlling where a person goes, who they see, who they spend their time with, what they spend their money on or how they live their daily lives. These behaviours slowly chip away at one's independence and leave people feeling trapped in dangerous situations. By the time physical violence occurs, the warning signs may have been there for months, sometimes even years. Recognizing those warning signs in law is an important step. If interventions can come earlier, lives may be protected and future violence may be prevented.

Another story from my riding is of a woman who was strangled by her husband in front of their daughter. Today, she and her daughter are living in a domestic violence shelter, trying to rebuild their lives and find safety, yet despite a guilty plea, the man responsible remains here in Canada illegally. When victims and their families are left in situations like this, they are left asking simple questions: Where is the accountability?

That is why getting legislation like Bill C-16 is incredibly important. Victims need more than words. They need to know that the justice system will protect them, support them and hold offenders accountable for the harm that they have caused.

This bill also includes measures aimed at combatting child exploitation. This, especially, is an area where Parliament should be united. Technology has created incredible opportunities but also real dangers. For all the parents in this place, we can agree that we are raising children in a world that looks very different from the one we grew up in. Predators can reach children so easily through social media, phones, computers and gaming platforms. These threats are real and our children need to be protected.

This bill would also update the law surrounding intimate images and digitally altered sexual images. Whether an image is captured with a camera or generated with AI, the impact to victims is devastating. Reputations can be destroyed. Careers can be damaged. Mental health can suffer, and relationships can be affected. Victims deserve protection regardless of how that image was created.

For many victims, navigating the justice system can be overwhelming while they are already dealing with the trauma that it has caused. They may not understand what is happening with their case or how decisions are being made. They may feel lost in a process that can seem focused on everyone except the victim. That needs to change. Victims deserve information and respect, and they deserve to know that they matter.

The Conservatives have worked constructively on this bill. We supported measures that would better protect victims, address cohesive control, combat child exploitation and strengthen victims' rights. However, despite these positive measures, the bill also includes a major change to sentencing that deserves attention. The government says this change is about flexibility and discretion, but Canadians deserve to understand what it would actually do. This bill would allow a judge to bypass every mandatory minimum sentence in the Criminal Code, with a few exceptions. In other words, it would make mandatory sentences optional, and “mandatory” is not supposed to be optional.

Why does this matter? It matters because mandatory minimum sentences exist for the most serious crimes. They represent the basis that certain crimes are so serious that there must be a minimum consequence when someone is convicted. It cannot be a suggestion. If a crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence, Canadians expect that to mean consistency and accountability across the board. There is no room for victims to wonder if the punishment will fit the crime.

If mandatory sentences become optional, confidence in our justice system would be weakened even further. That is why the issue deserves serious attention. Our justice system already contains flexibility. Police officers use discretion when determining whether or not charges should be laid. Crown prosecutors exercise discretion when determining how cases should proceed. Prosecutors make decisions every day about what charges to pursue and what position to take before the court.

When Parliament created a mandatory minimum sentence, it did so because Canadians expect a certain level of accountability for a serious crime, and we did not do that by accident. Canadians may disagree on what that line should be, but they understand that there should be a line. What they do not understand is why Parliament would establish a line and then create a way around it.

I hear a lot of frustration from people in Kitchener Centre, and, frankly, from people across the country, about what feels like a growing gap between what the justice system says and what it actually does. People hear that a crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence, but then they find out that the sentence might not actually be mandatory. They hear that victims are the priority, but then they watch victims spend years navigating a system that feels confusing and overwhelming. They hear that public safety comes first, but then they read stories about repeat offenders just cycling through the justice system again and again.

Whether those perceptions are fair or not, they are real, and public confidence matters. Our justice system depends on trust. People need to believe that the rules are applied fairly, that serious crimes are treated seriously and that victims matter, full stop. That is especially important when we are talking about crimes that leave lasting scars on victims, families and entire communities.

The effects of violence do not end when a court case concludes. Victims carry those experiences for years. Children carry them for a lifetime. Families carry them for a lifetime. Anyone who has sat across from a victim of violence knows that the impact reaches far beyond the courtroom. Accountability matters, not because accountability can undo the harm it caused. It cannot. Accountability matters because it tells victims that society recognizes the seriousness of what happened to them, and it tells them their suffering matters.

Canadians are increasingly concerned about public safety. Repeat offenders cycle through the system, and victims struggle to get justice, so why would we yet again weaken the consequences for offenders, while victims try to rebuild their life? Let us think about that. While victims are left traumatized, Parliament would create another pathway for offenders to avoid consequence. That is not what Canadians think of when they hear the words “protecting victims act”.

Canadians want accountability. They want consequences. They want confidence that when Parliament says a sentence is mandatory, it actually means that it is mandatory. We want a justice system that protects victims while holding offenders accountable.

I would like my community to know that I am not voting against protecting victims of intimate partner violence. I am not voting against protecting victims of child exploitation. I am not voting against victims of sexual violence. I am not voting against protecting victims' rights within delays in the justice system. What I am voting against is making mandatory minimums optional: clause 63. When it is eventually spun that I voted against protecting victims, please remember that I voted to ensure that victims are actually protected by ensuring that mandatory minimums remain, not as an option.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while there were very heartfelt emotions that came from the member, I do question why she is conflating mandatory minimums with what victims of domestic violence and intimate partner violence are facing.

In 2018, when there was a study within the justice committee about coercive control behaviour as a Criminal Code charge, the chief of police for Peel Region was very much in favour of this and said we needed it. Even now, chiefs of police are standing up in support of the bill.

I do not understand why the Conservatives are holding up a bill that would save lives. Every other day, a woman is murdered because of intimate partner violence. I do not understand the justification that the member has provided for voting against the bill.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the spin has already begun. I am not voting against protecting victims of intimate partner violence. I am absolutely not. What we cannot stand behind is making mandatory minimums optional so the judge can decide whether the perpetrator of the offence gets any time at all. That is just not what we can stand behind.

I am saying here today that I would vote in favour of the victims of intimate partner violence. We worked hard with the government to ensure that we could get these corrections made so the mandatory minimums would be taken out, but the government refused to work with us on this. That is the truth.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight, it is clear that there is a party line. I can tell what my colleague wants. There are consequences to voting against this bill because it falls short and is not broad enough.

We can analyze the situation and decide that the bill can be reassessed.

Has there been any progress?

If the answer is yes, can victims be kept safe right now?

If the answer is yes, then I beg them to please hold a free vote.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is not moving in the right direction, because it has a piece, clause 63, which would remove mandatory minimums and make it optional to put them in place. This is not a step in the right direction. Every other piece of the bill, 99% of the legislation, is a step in the right direction, but that 1% is a step backward, and that is what we cannot support.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier tonight, the parliamentary secretary said that we Conservatives play games. That is so far from the truth. On his side of the House, he can play tic-tack-toe or Scrabble. That is his business. Conservatives are here for the victims of crime. We work long hours on behalf of Canadians for public safety and for the justice system. As I said earlier, the parliamentary secretary accused us of playing games.

Why is it that the Liberal government would remove mandatory minimums and judges could use time served or just give a criminal who is found guilty a one-day sentence? The point I am getting at is, why is the Liberal government—