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)

Sponsor

Sean Fraser  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-16s:

C-16 (2022) Law Appropriation Act No. 1, 2022-23
C-16 (2020) Law Appropriation Act No. 4, 2020-21
C-16 (2020) Law An Act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act
C-16 (2016) Law An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code

Votes

June 11, 2026 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures)
June 8, 2026 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures)
June 8, 2026 Failed C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures) (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 2)
June 8, 2026 Failed C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures) (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 1)
June 4, 2026 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures)

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act, proposes updates to the Criminal Code regarding gender-based violence, femicide, child protection, court delays, and digital safety, while introducing judicial discretion regarding mandatory minimum penalties, a provision that has sparked significant debate between parties.

Liberal

  • Addressing gender-based violence: Liberals prioritize criminalizing coercive control to enable early intervention and ensure murders involving intimate partner violence, sexual offenses, or gender-based hatred are automatically treated as first-degree murder under the specific term "femicide."
  • Protecting children online: The party seeks to modernize child protection laws by expanding luring and sextortion offenses, capturing AI-generated deepfakes, and restoring constitutionally compliant mandatory minimum penalties for grave crimes like child sexual exploitation.
  • Strengthening victims' rights: The bill updates the Victims Bill of Rights to ensure proactive information sharing, improved access to testimonial aids, and greater survivor participation throughout the criminal process to restore faith in the justice system.
  • Reducing court delays: Members support measures to address court delays by requiring judges to consider remedies other than stays of proceedings and providing clearer guidance on complex cases to prevent serious charges from being dismissed.

Conservative

  • Supports specific victim protections: The Conservatives support provisions strengthening child protections, criminalizing coercive control, and addressing AI-generated deepfakes, noting that many of these measures were originally championed by Conservative members.
  • Opposes the sentencing safety valve: The party strongly opposes Clause 63, labeling it a "poison pill" that undermines the justice system by allowing judges to bypass mandatory minimum penalties for serious crimes like human trafficking and weapons offences.
  • Criticizes lack of guardrails: Members express frustration that the government rejected amendments intended to exclude heinous acts, such as aggravated sexual assault and extortion with firearms, from the bill’s sentencing safety valve.
  • Advocates for the notwithstanding clause: The party calls for the use of the notwithstanding clause to protect mandatory minimum sentences from judicial activism, particularly concerning child exploitation material, rather than allowing judges to circumvent Parliament's sentencing laws.

NDP

  • Prioritize violence prevention funding: The NDP criticizes the bill for failing to provide adequate funding and support for prevention programs. They argue that the government focuses too much on reactive, carceral approaches rather than addressing the root causes of violence.
  • Formal recognition of femicide: While supporting the formal acknowledgment of femicide in the Canadian Criminal Code, the party emphasizes that this recognition must be accompanied by proactive solutions that prevent crimes before they occur.
  • Strengthen deepfake regulations: The NDP calls for stronger language to close loopholes that protect big tech companies from accountability for sexualized deepfakes. They argue current provisions fail to sufficiently protect women and gender-diverse people from AI-facilitated abuse.
  • Support for social safety nets: Members advocate for a guaranteed livable basic income as a foundational tool to combat the crisis of violence against women, linking economic security directly to the safety of indigenous women, girls, and gender-diverse people.

Bloc

  • Support for Bill C-16: The party supports the bill, noting that it includes several proposals championed by the Bloc Québécois to improve protections for victims of sexual violence and child abuse.
  • Femicide and coercive control: The Bloc welcomes the recognition of femicide and the criminalization of coercive control, which allows for earlier intervention in abusive situations before physical violence occurs.
  • Protecting minors from recruitment: The party supports creating a specific offence for recruiting minors into organized crime, targeting adults who exploit young people for criminal activities via social media and other means.
  • Judicial discretion and funding: The Bloc advocates for mandatory minimum sentences that permit judicial discretion in exceptional circumstances and calls for increased federal transfers to support Quebec's administration of justice services.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Rechie Valdez Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. secretary of state for sharing her perspectives, and I completely agree. The Conservatives opposite have an opportunity right now. If they really want to end gender-based violence, and if they really want to help victims and survivors, they can help move Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, forward.

I just want to share, as I already said in my speech earlier, that it is not just about legislation. We are also, through Women and Gender Equality, investing significantly to make sure to end gender-based violence. In 2024 and 2025, more than 1 million people across Canada were able to access services like counselling, housing, legal information, crisis supports and community-based programs, because of the national action plan that I have already referenced. On top of this, we have delivered 27,400 prevention resources, and we are going to do everything we can to end gender-based violence.

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear the government talk about Bill C-16, they probably think it is a bill about protecting victims. They hear about protecting women from abuse. They hear about protecting children from exploitation. They hear about stopping the spread of deepfake pornography. They hear about tougher measures against coercive control in abusive relationships. Most Canadians would hear that list and say, “Who could possibly be against that?” The answer is, nobody could.

Conservatives support those objectives because we believe victims deserve protection, children deserve protection and families deserve protection. That is the fundamental job of government: protection of its citizens. The problem is that Bill C-16 is a bit like buying a house because the front porch looks beautiful, only to discover later that the foundation is compromised. The government points Canadians toward the parts of the bill everyone likes, while hoping they do not notice the parts that would change everything. Buried inside this legislation is a poison pill that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum sentence in the Criminal Code.

First, we need to understand how we got here. Consecutive Conservative governments had established mandatory minimum sentences for some of the most serious crimes in our Criminal Code. We did that because Canadians expect serious offences to carry serious consequences. Child sexual exploitation, weapons trafficking, armed extortion, drive-by shootings and human trafficking were not treated as ordinary crimes, because the harm they cause is extraordinary.

However, for 10 years, the Liberal government has systematically weakened the principle that serious crimes must carry serious consequences. Liberal Bill C-75 weakened bail laws and pushed the justice system toward release at the earliest opportunity. Liberal Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum penalties for a range of serious offences, including crimes involving firearms and dangerous drugs.

Time and again, police officers, prosecutors, victims advocates, premiers and community leaders warned that the government was moving in the wrong direction. Time and again, those warnings were dismissed. Today, Canadians are seeing the consequences. Violent crime has increased dramatically. Human trafficking has increased dramatically. Sexual assault has increased dramatically. Organized criminal networks have become stronger and more sophisticated.

Canadians are witnessing the inevitable result of a philosophy that views punishment, rather than crime itself, as the problem, that views the rights of the criminal as more important than the rights of the victim. That is why Bill C-16's “get out of jail free” card is a poison pill that Canadian communities will once again be forced to swallow. The Liberals will say that Conservatives are standing in the way of getting strong laws passed, but I can assure Canadians that Conservatives are standing in the breach, fighting to keep criminals from getting off with a slap on the wrist for serious crimes.

Understanding Bill C-16 requires a deeper understanding of the path that led us here. For years, courts have increasingly relied on what are called “reasonable hypotheticals” when reviewing mandatory minimum sentences. Rather than focusing solely on the criminal who is actually on trial, the court judges have increasingly considered hypothetical scenarios involving people who do not exist and who never committed the actual crimes in question.

That trend culminated in the Supreme Court's Senneville decision. The facts of that case were horrific. One offender possessed 475 files, including 317 images of children, most between the ages of three and six, and many depicting acts of sexual abuse I cannot bring myself to say out loud here in the House. Another offender possessed more than 800 images and videos involving children as young as five years old being subjected to sexual exploitation and abuse. That is hundreds of images documenting the abuse of vulnerable children.

Most Canadians would think that the court would consider those offenders and apply the appropriate mandatory minimum sentence. Instead, the court chose this moment to question mandatory minimums altogether. Judges based their decisions on a hypothetical story of a teenager sending a hypothetical intimate photo to a hypothetical boyfriend or girlfriend, and that hypothetical photo was later shared with a hypothetical someone. The court claimed concern that the same mandatory minimum law could apply, even though the case before them was very real and very serious. Because of that hypothetical case, the court struck down Parliament's mandatory minimum sentence.

The government then had a choice. It could have changed the law to deal with that specific concern while keeping strong penalties in place for serious child sexual exploitation offences. Instead, the Liberals used that court decision as the reason for creating the new get-out-of-jail-free card in Bill C-16. That is why Canadians should look carefully at what the bill would actually do rather than what the Liberals say it would do.

The government wants Canadians to believe that Bill C-16 is a major public safety initiative. It points to provisions dealing with deepfake pornography. It points to provisions dealing with coercive control. It points to provisions dealing with intimate partner violence. All those measures are designed to attract support. However, while Canadians are focused on those headlines, the Liberal government has inserted this poison pill. It calls it a safety valve, a phrase carefully chosen because it sounds limited, reasonable and harmless. The government insists this power will be used only in exceptional cases, yet when Conservatives proposed reasonable safeguards to ensure that outcome, every safeguard was rejected. Canadians should ask themselves a simple question: If the government truly intended that this be used only rarely, why did it refuse every attempt to define what “rarely” actually means? The answer is obvious. The government is presenting Canadians with one bill while pursuing a very different objective beneath the surface.

That objective became even clearer during committee study. Conservatives approached the legislation constructively, because we recognize that there are very good measures that are worth preserving. Our goal is not to destroy the bill; our goal is to strengthen it and ensure that victims remain at the centre of the legislation. We proposed safeguards that would have limited access to the safety valve to offenders with no prior record. We proposed ensuring that sentences would not be reduced below half of Parliament's mandatory minimum. We proposed excluding extortion offences. We proposed excluding aggravated sexual assault. We proposed excluding serious child sexual offences. We proposed excluding some of the most serious crimes that Parliament has already determined deserve firm sentencing consequences. Every one of those amendments was rejected.

Conservatives also proposed stronger notification requirements so that victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control would be informed about release decisions affecting offenders. Those amendments were rejected as well. The significance of those votes cannot be ignored. The government did not accidentally create an overly broad get-out-of-jail-free card but deliberately defended it. It did not overlook the concerns raised by Conservatives. It considered those concerns and voted against them. The result is legislation that speaks passionately about victims while systematically rejecting measures that would strengthen their protection.

Conservatives support stronger protections for women and children, stronger measures against deepfake exploitation and stronger recognition of the devastating harm caused by coercive control. Those objectives are important and need support. Unfortunately, the poison pill at the heart of Bill C-16 undermines all of those goals, because it continues with the same failed philosophy that has contributed to the crime and chaos Canadians are experiencing today.

At a time when communities are demanding greater accountability, the government is creating new opportunities for offenders to avoid consequences. At a time when victims are asking to be heard, the government is focusing its attention on a get-out-of-jail-free card for criminals. At a time when public confidence in the justice system is already fragile, the government is asking members of Parliament to weaken one of the few tools designed to ensure serious crime receives serious punishment.

Canadians deserve better than legislation that says one thing and does another. They deserve a justice system that places victims first, supports police officers, protects communities and recognizes that public safety is a fundamental responsibility of government. If the Liberals truly believed in the good parts of the bill, protecting women and children against deepfake exploitation, why did they insist on attaching a poison pill that creates yet another get-out-of-jail-free card for serious offenders?

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:45 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the member uses the words “poison pill” over and over again makes me wonder whether the Conservatives plan on voting against the bill. They prolonged the amount of time the bill took to get studied. There were some good improvements made. I think the members of the committee eventually worked well together.

Victims are looking for relief. They want mandatory minimum penalties, of course, and we have restored 12 mandatory minimum penalties in this bill.

The bill protects victims. It respects the Charter. It helps keep mandatory minimum penalties on the books rather than having them struck down by courts, with victims out of luck. We are there to protect victims. We are protecting children with the bill. I hope the Conservatives can find it within themselves to support this, because I am starting to really wonder who they are here for.

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives support the parts of the bill that protect women and children, address coercive control and deal with deepfake exploitation. In fact, many of those ideas came from the Conservatives in the first place. The problem is clause 63. The government wrapped good measures around a poison pill that would let judges go below mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. Victims deserve protection, but they also deserve consequences for the people who hurt them. That is why Conservatives tried to fix the bill.

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, there is something to be said about the time when there was a minority government. We were able to strike a sort of balance between a more progressive vision of the justice system, championed by the Bloc Québécois, and a more traditional vision focused on law and order, with harsher penalties, advocated by the Conservatives. Unfortunately, the Liberal majority means that the government will be able to impose various measures, notably an amendment that unduly broadens the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards. Taken together, these elements create conditions in which the criterion of violence, usually used to justify harsher sentences, is removed.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this. Does this create an additional risk for women and victims?

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been very clear from the beginning. We support stronger protections for women, children and victims. We support action on coercive control. We support action on deepfake exploitation. We support stronger tools to protect children online.

What we do not support is using those victims as a political cover for a clause that attacks mandatory minimum sentences. The government did not have to attach clause 63 to those protections. It chose to do that, and it chose to reject every Conservative attempt to fix it.

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:45 p.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Bow River always appreciate when I have an opportunity to speak in the House or ask questions.

More than a decade of having Liberal-appointed, soft-on-crime judges who follow the tone and tenor set by the government has really eroded the confidence of people on the disposition or the delivery of justice. I wonder if the member can speak to how bills passed need to be explicit in terms of mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences and how, otherwise, judges will erode the system and public confidence in the judicial system.

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have been able to tackle some of that in my speech, but the arguments we have heard from the Liberal side do not explain why they rejected every reasonable safeguard Conservatives proposed in order to define things. If their release valve or get-out-of-jail-free card is truly only for rare and exceptional cases, why do they not say that in the bill? Why not limit it to first-time offenders? Why not prevent sentences from dropping below half the mandatory minimum? Why not exclude a child sexual offence, aggravated sexual assault or extortion? The answer is simple. The Liberals wanted this power to be broad, and Canadians should be very concerned about it.

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Conservative Party is being completely self-serving and does not recognize that the changes in Bill C‑16 would make sure that it is constitutionally compliant. Mandatory minimums would be restored.

Why is the Conservative Party attempting to deceive Canadians by trying to spread misinformation on important crime-fighting legislation?

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Speaker, if mandatory minimums can be ignored, then they are not mandatory anymore. The government says there would be jail time, but that misses the point. Parliament sets mandatory minimums because some crimes are so serious that there must be a clear floor.

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Chi Nguyen Liberal Spadina—Harbourfront, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act. I do so as a woman and as someone who has spent years listening to women, survivors and frontline advocates describe the gap between their lived realities and the protections our laws have provided.

When I was 13 years old, I was given a rape whistle. It was a quiet but unmistakable signal that my presence in the world came with a risk and that my safety was ultimately my own responsibility to manage. Nearly 30 years later, much has changed: We have a deeper understanding of gender-based violence, of power, control and harm; we speak more openly about experiences that were once pushed into silence. However, for far too many women and girls, violence remains a daily part of their reality.

Before I speak about statutes and sections of the Criminal Code, I want to speak about a young person whose experience illustrates exactly why the bill matters. She was 16 years old. She thought she was in a relationship, but what she did not yet have language for was that she was being controlled. Her boyfriend decided who she could speak to, where she could go, what she should wear and how quickly she was expected to respond to messages. When she resisted, he did not always hurt her directly. Instead, he was violent toward others in her life so that he could intimidate and isolate her. While there was no physical evidence she could point to, what she understood very well was the constant and escalating fear. No single incident clearly met the threshold for legal intervention, and there was not a system that could yet name what was happening to her, let alone stop it from happening. Her story is not rare; it is painfully familiar.

Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence are not new problems in Canada. The government and the minister understand this reality, and the provisions in Bill C‑16 address what has been legislatively absent in our response to gender-based violence and intimate partner violence.

In 2024 alone, 187 women were killed in this country, with one woman killed every two days. Behind each statistic is a life ended too soon, a family broken needlessly and a community changed forever. As the bill makes clear, violence does not begin with a punch or a final act of femicide; it begins much earlier, with fear, control, threats, isolation, humiliation and the slow erosion of a person's autonomy. For far too long, the legal system has struggled to name that reality, let alone respond to it. Survivors have told us time and time again that the law intervenes too late. By the time physical violence appears, the warning signs have long been there. The system asks them to wait for bruises, for broken bones, for tragedy. Only then, but perhaps not even then, are they offered justice.

Bill C‑16 exists because waiting is no longer acceptable. The legislation recognizes that intimate partner violence and gender-based violence are systemic problems that require systemic responses from the federal government. It recognizes that technology and the digital world have changed how harm occurs, and it recognizes that justice delayed or denied retraumatizes survivors and erodes public trust in our judicial system.

Criminal justice is, of course, a shared responsibility. Provinces must adequately resource courts, victim services, Crown prosecutors and the police, and the federal government has a clear responsibility to modernize and enact criminal law, which is precisely what Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act, seeks to do.

Since the bill was introduced, it has been carefully studied at committee, where members have heard from survivors, advocates, legal experts and law enforcement. Bill C‑16 would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in a generation. While broad in scope, its purpose is clear: to intervene earlier, respond more effectively and protect those at greatest risk.

First, the bill would create a new Criminal Code offence for coercive and controlling conduct in intimate relationships. This is a critical shift. Coercive control reflects how abuse actually operates through monitoring, isolation, financial control, threats and intimidation. This would enable police and courts to intervene before violence escalates to lethal outcomes. This would save women's lives.

Second, Bill C‑16 would strengthen how the law treats the most serious forms of violence against women. Murder committed in the context of coercive control, sexual violence, exploitation, trafficking or hate would be treated as first-degree murder. When a killing in those same circumstances results in a manslaughter conviction, courts would be required to consider life imprisonment with parole ineligibility, comparable to second-degree murder. Sentencing must reflect the gravity of violence rooted in power and control.

Third, the bill would modernize our response to criminal harassment and stalking. Survivors would no longer be required to prove subjective fear. Courts would instead assess whether the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause someone to believe their safety is threatened. This trauma-informed shift would recognize that harassment is cumulative and that early intervention saves lives.

Fourth, Bill C-16 would update sexual exploitation offences to reflect the digital world we all live in. We know technology is not neutral infrastructure. It is increasingly used as a tool to manipulate, monitor and harm women and gender-diverse people. While the non-consensual distribution of intimate images is already illegal, this bill would clarify the law and explicitly include sexual deepfakes, which would be closing a gap that offenders are already exploiting.

Committee amendments would strengthen these provisions further. The bill would now explicitly capture a broader range of AI-generated images, ensuring the law keeps pace with rapidly evolving technologies and the realities of online harm. A digital violation is still a violation, and the law must say so clearly.

Fifth, the bill would strengthen protections for children, both off-line and online. It would expand child-luring offences, criminalize child sextortion, address grooming tactics involving explicit material, restore and reinforce mandatory minimum penalties for serious child sexual offences with a constitutional safety valve and require online platforms to preserve evidence longer so offenders cannot escape accountability.

Finally, Bill C-16 has been informed through a victim-centred and trauma-informed lens. It would strengthen the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, improve access to information and testimonial aids, clarify the right to present impact statements and modernize procedures so serious cases are less likely to collapse due to delay.

Together, these reforms would bring the Criminal Code into alignment with lived experience, modern technology and the urgent need for prevention. This bill is grounded in evidence and what many advocates have called for, for years. Women's organizations across the country have welcomed the criminalization of coercive control as a long overdue step. Frontline organizations working with survivors have described this bill as historic, recognizing that patterns of control are deeply harmful and that survivors deserve stronger legal protections. Child protection advocates have warned that online sexual violence against children has reached unprecedented levels. They have welcomed the provisions in this bill that would strengthen online child protection.

As this debate has unfolded, some misinformation has followed. Let me address a few of these myths directly. Criminalizing coercive control is not untested. It reflects years of research, survivor testimony and expert input. It represents the hard work that went into Bill C-332, sponsored by former NDP MP Laurel Collins, which received cross-party support at committee.

This government would not only be criminalizing the distribution of intimate images; that offence already exists. Bill C-16 would clarify that it includes sexual deepfakes, which would be closing a gap that offenders are already exploiting.

As well, Bill C-16 would protect children online. It would expand child-luring and sextortion offences. As a mother of two young kids, I know how important this change would be. These are not symbolic measures. They are targeted, enforceable and urgently needed.

Bill C-16 is a vital pillar of our response to gender-based violence, but it is not the entire solution. Legislation alone cannot change culture. It cannot house a woman fleeing violence. It cannot staff a crisis line at three in the morning. It cannot replace the trust built by frontline workers who walk alongside survivors every day. That crucial work is done by the incredible frontline organizations across this country.

This bill must be understood alongside continued federal investment in women's shelters, transitional housing, legal aid, trauma counselling and prevention programs. This work must be in concert with the national action plan to end gender-based violence with provincial and territorial partners, indigenous nations and local organizations. Ending gender-based violence requires culture change in how we understand power, entitlement, masculinity and control.

Bill C-16 reflects years of advocacy, hard conversations and courage in particular from survivors who spoke when it was extremely difficult to speak up. It would recognize harm earlier so systems can intervene faster. It would treat victims with dignity while modernizing our justice system to meet the realities Canadians are living with today.

These changes might have made a difference for the 13-year-old handed a whistle instead of protection and for the 16-year-old unable to name coercion. They would make a difference for the women who have lived in silence and for all children who deserve safety.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to continue the work beyond the chamber that our country deserves and demands.

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, there is clearly something important in this bill.

However, in committee, the Liberals decided to vote against a Bloc Québécois amendment that would have applied mandatory conditions to any offence against an intimate partner, including purely financial disputes, such as fraud. These included a no-contact order, a ban on cross-examination, house arrest and a ban on possessing firearms.

Evidence that a female victim could legally rely on to strengthen her defence is being rejected by the Liberals. Why is that?

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Liberal

Chi Nguyen Liberal Spadina—Harbourfront, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have just become a member of the status of women committee. I am really thrilled that we are working at a systems level to start to address some of these challenges that we are seeing in the laws and to hearing from some of the folks who are doing the work on the front lines to identify some of these challenges.

I cannot speak to the question that the member brought up specifically, but I want to say that this work needs to be happening with a much more systematic approach.

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague.

This is a first-of-a-kind legislation on the whole issue of coercive actions, femicide being advanced to first-degree murder and the reinstatement of a number of mandatory minimums. These are all important things that will make our communities healthier.

Could the member expand on why it was important that the government bring in not only this legislation, but a series of pieces of legislation to make the communities we represent safer for all?

Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Liberal

Chi Nguyen Liberal Spadina—Harbourfront, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was recently in Strasbourg as part of a parliamentary delegation, and one of the issues that we were exploring was around gender violence and the need to take more explicit actions. I am very proud to be part of a government that has recognized femicide as part of the wave of violence that women experience in our communities.

What we are achieving here with this legislation, alongside a whole host of other interventions and changes to our criminal system, is a balanced approach. There are really important measures that also think about prevention and culture change. This work is happening across several pillars, and it is work that I am very proud to be speaking to.