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

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

moved that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to commence debate on Bill C-16. Before I begin, I want to wish everyone a happy new year. I hope everyone had a restful holiday. It is wonderful to see folks from all parties back to debate some of the most important issues facing Canadians.

Before I begin with the specifics of the bill we are here to debate today, I want to spend a moment placing the bill in the appropriate context. It is one in which public safety has become a major priority for Canadians and, indeed, a major priority for the Government of Canada. The feedback we received over the course of the election campaign and since from Canadians is demanding action from the federal government when it comes to these pressing political priorities and safety imperatives.

Though the focus of the bill is fairly narrow concerning its impact on particular issues of gender-based violence and the exploitation of children, it is essential to understand that the bill is part of a broader strategy of public safety and criminal justice reform that the federal government is pursuing assiduously. This strategy, as I have said many times, including in the House, rests upon three pillars.

The first pillar is to adopt stronger laws to help build safer communities, including new criminal legislative reforms to address hate crimes, a major overhaul of the bail and sentencing regimes that exist in the Criminal Code and, importantly, the protecting victims act.

The second pillar of this strategy involves investments in the front line, whether that is 1,000 new RCMP officers to keep our communities safe, 1,000 new CBSA officials to help combat the importation of illegal drugs and crimes or supports for the community organizations on the front line that are helping victims of crime and survivors of violence.

The third pillar, and perhaps it is the most important pillar when it comes to ending violence in the long term, demands that we make investments upstream to address the long-term challenges that communities face. This includes investments in affordable housing, transitional housing and supportive housing; investments in mental health and addictions; and investments that target at-risk youth to help build healthy people to contribute to a stronger and safer Canada.

The focus of my remarks today will be the protecting victims act.

Before I begin, it is important for me to put this debate into context. It is very important to recognize that the government has a strategy to address public safety, including a strategy to strengthen criminal laws, with investments in police forces, the organizations that protect our communities, as well as investments in affordable housing, mental health and programs that support young people.

Today's debate is about the protecting victims act. The bill includes a number of different elements that are focused on things such as gender-based violence, intimate partner violence, the protection of our children against exploitation, the criminalization of new sexual offences to keep pace with the changing world, the restoration of mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, the addressing of delays in the justice system and the better protection of victims' rights throughout the criminal trial process.

Let me begin with the pressing priority of gender-based violence in Canada. The seriousness of this issue cannot be overstated. We see a woman killed in this country every 48 hours.

There have been four femicides so far this year in Quebec alone. That is unacceptable.

We have to acknowledge this harsh reality, but we do not have to accept it as our destiny. We can implement changes to criminal law to better protect Canadians against violence that can become fatal.

What is important, although the statistics should shock the conscience of every Canadian, is that the victims of these fatal crimes are not numbers or statistics. They are real people. For some of us, they are the people who we grew up going to school with, who shared the same hallways over the course of our years as a youth. For others, they are the co-workers who we befriended but no longer see showing up at the office. For others still, they are the friends and family members whose lives have been taken.

To understand the impact of these tragedies, we cannot focus solely on the murder that has taken place. We also have to understand the pain that families endure in the years not lived with the people they cherished most dearly.

We can do something about this. In this important bill, we are proposing to move forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge for cases of femicide in this country. This would ensure a first-degree murder charge when a murder is committed in an intimate partner setting that has taken place in the context of a sexual offence. It would ensure that murders motivated by hate, including hatred toward someone because they are a woman, are treated as one of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code. It would include cases of murder that were preceded by a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

We know, through extensive engagement with people who have dedicated their lives to understanding the solutions to gender-based violence, that the majority of cases of murder that take place in the context of intimate partner violence are preceded by a predictive pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

I want to pause for a moment on this particular point because we are not only moving forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge in the context of coercive control; we are also seeking to criminalize coercive control as a stand-alone infraction. We know that the pattern of using violence in the home against other family members, children or pets to control every aspect of a person's life can often offer predictive value on whether someone is at risk of a far more serious experience with violence that could become fatal.

We know that we need to take action to combat violence against women, and to protect women and girls across the country.

We need to take action. By criminalizing coercive control, there is an opportunity for the criminal justice system to intervene before relationships become violent and before violence becomes deadly. This provision has the opportunity to save lives in this country.

I want to express my gratitude to our former parliamentary colleague Laurel Collins for her work in advancing a private member's bill on this specific issue. I want to thank the work of the parliamentarians on the status of women committee, who have urged us to take action on these kinds of issues. It is essential that we do what we can to intervene, not just after a person has been killed, but in the first instance, to save lives.

I want to read a short statement from the Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes that speaks to this particular provision.

Criminalizing coercive control is also a critical milestone. This type of violence, which often goes unseen, is one of the main determinants of femicide. Naming it and criminalizing it will help us better understand the dynamics that lead to extreme violence. It will also help us detect high-risk situations sooner and strengthen prevention measures.

If we have the opportunity to save lives before these horrific crimes take place, we must do everything we can to do so.

In addition, there are a range of other offences we are modernizing to keep pace with changes in technology, including the crime of criminal harassment, by ensuring that we recognize the modern ways this crime can be committed, including through the use of technology to track a person's presence, for example, on a cellphone.

We are also expanding the definition to ensure it is an objective standard that would be easier to prove in a court of law. Rather than demonstrating that a person in fact felt fear, which comes with obvious evidentiary hurdles, we want a complainant to be able to demonstrate that a reasonable person in their position, based on the facts at hand, would have felt fear.

Another issue that is garnering much attention these day is the use of artificial intelligence to create deepfakes and the sharing of intimate images that have been created with that technology. A gap exists in the law today that we must address by expanding the definition of an intimate image to those created through artificial intelligence. Deepfake technologies are expanding rapidly, and we have to ensure that our laws evolve rapidly to address this emerging threat.

Changing the rules as technology evolves is crucial. There is currently a problem because the law does not reflect the technologies that exist today.

So many of us are walking around with extraordinary technology in our pockets. Our phones have the ability to not only take pictures but also create images from nothing. They can also send messages to people in our community and around the world. By changing the definition of an intimate image to include AI deepfakes, we can better protect people against this emerging threat. In addition, we will be changing the law to expand the definition to ensure that not only the distribution of these images constitutes a crime, but also the threatened distribution, which could be used, for example, to embarrass or extort a person.

We also seek to expand the definition of the distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material. I will pause here before I get into some of the specifics. It is hard to imagine a more morally reprehensible behaviour than that of taking advantage of a young person for sexual purposes. Children are amongst the most vulnerable members of our community as they depend on the adults in their lives for their well-being. That someone would exploit a young child in this way deserves condemnation from all members of the House and all Canadians more broadly.

By expanding the definition of distribution to include the threatened distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, we can prevent the kind of behaviour that often leads to deep trauma and enormous embarrassment, which again, can sometimes lead to fatal consequences.

We need not recite the many examples that have played out in the news. Suffice it to say there are parents living in this country today without their children, who have taken their own lives as a result of being exploited this way, for fear of the embarrassment they may live through.

We also seek to modernize the offence of child luring to ensure that the offences that would be considered include sextortion when it comes to demonstrating that the threshold has been met for the crime of child luring. We would be expanding the definitions when it comes to child sex tourism, to ensure that a Canadian abroad who commits a crime of a sexual nature against a child would face penalties when they come home. We will be working to ensure there is a mandatory reporting aspect when it comes to certain platforms that hold illicit sexual material on their websites, to help prevent crime from leading to such dire consequences. We would be expanding different offences to include invitation to sexual touching or invitation to expose oneself to an adult.

It is important that we reflect not only on the substance of these crimes that we are seeking to expand but on the penalties that should befall a person who has committed them. This bill seeks to increase the maximum penalty for a range of sexual offences, including sexual assault, sextortion, voyeurism, exposure and obtaining sexual services from a minor. It seeks to reduce the ability of people to rely on defences such as mistaken belief in age unless they have actually taken reasonable steps to ascertain a person's age.

In addition to increasing the maximum penalty for a range of sexual offences, we have to address the mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down by the Supreme Court. In some ways, the changes embedded in Bill C-16 follow on the heels of the Senneville decision, which left a gap in Canada's law when it came to mandatory minimum penalties for the distribution, possession and accessing of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, but frankly, this is an issue that has been chipped away at over years in the context of different crimes, where certain provisions have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Senneville decision relied on a hypothetical situation, which, the court viewed, would constitute a grossly disproportionate penalty should a person face a year in jail. That particular example relied upon a teenager who may have been 16 or 17 who sent an image to someone who shares it with their friend who may not have even asked for it. I can understand the court's perspective, but striking down that provision leaves a gap in the law where there are serious crimes committed against children that deserve serious punishment.

Now, thankfully, the court provided some direction on how this issue can be addressed and remedied. Thankfully, the court's direction reflects perspectives that I have heard advocated for in this House, including by members of the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party of Canada, and that are now embedded in the bill I am presenting on behalf of the Liberal government.

What we seek to do is establish a safety valve that would, in very limited circumstances where the penalty would be grossly disproportionate, permit the court to offer some other penalty that would still result in a period of incarceration. The measure we are putting forward would deal not only with the mandatory minimums that have been struck down in the Senneville decision but with the many cases that have struck down other mandatory minimum penalties for various serious crimes. It would not only restore the mandatory minimum penalties for those other serious crimes; it would protect the existing mandatory minimum penalties that are on the books today, which are constitutionally vulnerable.

If we have laws in our books that cannot be enforced by our law enforcement and our courts, then our Criminal Code is not worth the paper on which it is written. We have a duty to Canadians to protect them against these kinds of harm. By working with members of different parties and following the advice of the court, we can advance mandatory minimum penalties in a way that is constitutionally compliant and offers real protection to people and communities in every part of this country.

Not only do we need to address the changes I have canvassed, which are are more substantive in nature or address crimes and penalties, but we have to take a long look at the appropriate process through which these cases can be adjudicated. Canada has been experiencing a decades-long problem when it comes to delays in the criminal justice system.

Delays, in the best case scenario, still lead to a bad outcome. Delayed justice serves neither the accused nor the victim. It does not serve the court or society. Justice delayed is justice denied, so to speak. We have a unique consequence that has stemmed from another Supreme Court decision, just a few years ago. In the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has created space for cases to be stayed, effectively terminated before they are brought to their natural conclusion. There have been nearly 10,000 cases in this country that have been thrown out, not because someone has overcome the accusation against them in a court of law, not because the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof, but because the case took too long.

In my view, it does not feel like justice when a perpetrator who has committed a crime is able to walk free in our communities simply because the court took too long to arrive at a decision. Victims who have to live in the community of their assailant, who may see them in their everyday lives living in their neighbourhoods, do not feel that this decision has delivered justice.

Now, we are going to address this concern directly in a few ways. One is by demanding that the court consider remedies other than a stay of proceedings should the period of time outlined in the Jordan decision elapse. In addition, we will be clarifying for the court certain cases that are more complex, that deserve a longer period of time before they would run into such an issue. We also want to do what we can to improve the underlying problem by speeding up the process to get decisions in a timely way and ensure that there is timely access to justice. This will demand that we keep pace with our judicial appointments. It will involve the changes built into Bill C-16, which would streamline the process of introducing evidence in criminal justice trials. Importantly, it will engage responsibilities of other levels of government that have the jurisdiction over the administration of justice to appoint provincial court judges and Crown prosecutors and to ensure that their courts run smoothly.

In this conversation, it is important as well to ensure that victims understand they have certain rights when it comes to the criminal trial process. Too often, people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves engaged in a lengthy and challenging court proceeding can feel lost through the process. The Victims Bill of Rights provides some clarity, ensuring that victims are treated with respect and timely access to justice, but it can help outline more concrete ways in which victims can participate in the process with full information and ensure that victims have the information they are entitled to, such as where they may appear, where they may offer a victim's impact statement, where they could benefit from testimonial aids or supports that allow them to participate fully in the criminal justice process and have their voice reflected, potentially in the sentencing or even when people may be transferred post-conviction from one level of security facility to another. Doing a better job of incorporating the voices of victims in this process is essential if we are going to build trust in the process among those who find themselves participating in it.

As I come to the conclusion, it is essential and incumbent upon all members of this House to recognize the seriousness of the problem facing those who have experienced violence and the families who continue to live without their loved ones. We cannot assume that solutions will automatically present themselves. Although we have seen encouraging data over the past couple of years when it comes to a reduction in the rate of crime, and violent crime in particular, we know there is more work to do. This progress does not happen by accident; we have to take decisions to strengthen the laws and put supports in place.

I thank those who have informed the national action plan to end gender-based violence. I thank the many commissions that have been struck, in particular, the Renfrew County inquest and, in my home province of Nova Scotia, the Mass Casualty Commission. I thank the ombudsperson for victims of crime, members of the status of women committee and, most importantly, the many advocates and survivors of violence, including sexual violence, whose perspectives are reflected in this bill.

Bill C-16 has garnered the support of law enforcement, victims' advocates and Canadians in every part of the country. My only ask of members of this House is that they loan their support to this important bill as well.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and, in this context, the greater Canadian public. I want to wish a warm welcome back to this chamber to everybody.

I have a question that relates to firearms. We have seen the Liberals preside over an unprecedented proliferation of firearms usage. I checked the bill; I did a search of it. There is one provision that would deal with extortion, and it mentions an aggravating factor. The government in Bill C-5 said that people who extort with a firearm, people who do drive-by shootings, in fact, can serve their sentence on house arrest.

Does the minister not agree that people who do drive-by shootings should be subject to the previous mandatory minimum of four years for that offence, or for extortion with a firearm?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on issues that are common to this bill, as well as his own private member's bill, which I know are a priority for him. In addition to the measures he referenced, this bill contains certain measures around firearms, including the denial of licences to those who have a history of gender-based violence and the need to return a firearm if a person's licence has been revoked.

On his particular question, it is important to point out that extortion with a firearm, for example, can in fact carry a mandatory minimum in Canada. We also do not want to confuse the difference between mandatory minimums and aggravating factors, because we actually believe that extortion, in this case of a sexual nature, deserves a higher penalty.

To the extent that there are proposals that members of this House may have, the appropriate way to deal with ideas they support that may be outside the scope of this bill is to have those advanced and debated at committee. To the extent that we receive advice from our parliamentary colleagues who will be considering this bill through the committee process, members should know that I would consider them in good faith.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I do not think the hon. minister would like to mislead the House, but in Bill C-5, the previous government actually removed mandatory minimum sentences—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member knows that would be a matter of debate.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to wish you, my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé and all of my colleagues here a happy new year.

We are starting on a rather positive note, and the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. Of course, we will have some serious and conscientious work to do at committee.

Among other things, we are pleased to see provisions related to delays in the justice system. Because of these delays, many serious crimes are not going to trial, which is outrageous, but something is finally being done about that. That is extremely important.

We agree with the new offences related to the recruitment of young people to commit crimes. We might have even gone a little further than what is set out in the bill. We will see. We will work on that in committee.

The same goes for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and violence. The bill also includes a provision that would enable judges to always use their discretion. There is a reason why justice is administered by human beings and not by software that determines which sentence corresponds to which offence.

Will the minister be open to the intelligent and thoughtful amendments that the Bloc Québécois will propose in committee?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would say the short answer is yes.

The measures set out in the bill did not happen by accident. We are holding discussions with national organizations and with opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois critics, who are suggesting ideas, like the one my colleague just put forward to the House. In addition, if members from any party have ideas they would like to suggest, and if the majority of the committee agrees with these amendments, that is a good thing.

If we get a chance to improve the quality of the bill, that would be the best outcome. No single person has all the good ideas. By working together, I hope we can improve the bill.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a mother, but also as a survivor of domestic violence, to clearly state how important this legislation is and point out how intricate and challenging it is to create such important legislation. I know first-hand what it is like to navigate the criminal justice system as a single mother, with the fear that one lives with every day from one's experience.

I am rising today to implore our colleagues across the aisle to support the tireless work of the minister, the status of women committee and the women's caucus in their consultation with survivors, who know first-hand exactly what is needed to protect the generations to come, and the people who are willing to rise, to stand in their fear, as they want to protect those who may come after them.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague for her tremendous courage in sharing that experience and for her support for the measures included in this bill.

The only point of correction I have for her statement is that she cited the tireless work of the minister in this case, but it is the tireless work of survivors and advocates that we have to express our gratitude for. This bill is a result of collaboration with many people who, unfortunately, have been through experiences of violence and tried to navigate the criminal justice system at a time of enormous trauma and difficulty in their lives. Those people's voices can be empowered through interventions such as the one we have just heard, which can bring their real-life experience to bear in the debates that play out in the committee process and in this chamber.

I want to thank all members of this House, regardless of their party, for the support they may lend to this bill and the solutions they may contribute to improve its quality.

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

Madam Speaker, gender-based violence is rampant across our country, across the world and in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills. It is not just an isolated, out-of-the-blue act of violence; it is often a mindset that is nurtured and fostered, often systemically, within families and communities, in the workplace and online. I thank the minister for addressing this generational issue.

There are myths around the crime of coercive and controlling behaviour that say it brings policing into intimate partner relationships. Can the minister expand on how that crime would be enforced within our communities and what the positive impacts would be for our families and communities like Mississauga—Erin Mills?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is essential that we understand, through the extensive research done by people who have dedicated their lives to discovering the solutions to gender-based violence, particularly in an intimate partner violence context that ends with violence or, potentially, the murder of an innocent person, that there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that repeats itself time and time again.

We have the opportunity to have the criminal justice system more closely explore when there is violence inside a household. We have the opportunity to have the criminal justice system intervene when there is a pattern that may be predictive in nature, and to understand that the criminal justice system can not only address crimes after someone has been killed, but also intervene before a relationship becomes violent or someone actually dies. It is one thing to talk about an agenda that more harshly penalizes criminals, but if we have the opportunity to stop crime before it happens, we have to take it. This bill, as indicated by the statements of support from advocacy organizations, would do precisely that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know that the minister has often been slow to appoint judges, even though there is no shortage of Liberal donors who are willing to take those jobs. As a result, with the Jordan decision, some criminals have been released. We know the story behind the Jordan decision.

Did the minister ever consider using the notwithstanding clause to get around the Jordan decision in order to get justice for victims, if only while waiting for this bill, which broadens the criteria that judges will have to consider when applying Jordan?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I disagree with the claim that there have been delays in making appointments. There was a problem for a few years, but over the past two or three years, judicial positions have been filled very quickly and there are not many vacancies in the country right now.

To answer my colleague's question, I would say that he is presenting an interesting idea, but I worry that the courts would reject it, and we have found another way to address that concern.

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

Madam Speaker, welcome back to the House. I welcome all of my friends on the other side, as well as my colleagues, and I wish every member of the House a very happy new year. I hope to have a really productive winter and spring session in the 45th Parliament.

I start by reflecting on what Bill C-16 would and would not do. At the outset, I can state that the bill is largely supported by the Conservative Party of Canada, but there are some red lines, which I will elaborate on, that need to be discussed. We can start that debate as early as today.

When Parliament legislates on criminal law, it does not engage in abstraction, but exercises the most serious power entrusted to a democratic legislature: the power to define wrongdoing, protect the public, including victims, and impose meaningful consequences on those who harm others. Bill C-16 fails in that responsibility, not because it is too firm but because it is too careless. It continues a troubling pattern we have seen time and time again of laws that sound tough in press releases, but are drafted so loosely, so vaguely and so defensively that they hand the control of criminal sentencing to the courts by default.

Bill C-16 claims to modernize sentencing. In reality, it would open the door to a constitutional crisis, chaos, further litigation and a steady erosion of Parliament's role in defining the moral boundaries of criminal law.

I want to remind the House that what we are debating today is simply not new. More than four years ago, during debate on Liberal Bill C-5, I stood in the chamber and warned of exactly where this approach would lead. Bill C-5 stripped away 14 mandatory minimums for very serious criminal offences, including drug charges, that Parliament had deliberately put in place to ensure the denunciation of and deterrence for serious crimes. At that time, I said that removing mandatory minimum penalties under the banner of compassion would not make our justice system fairer; it would make it weaker, less predictable and less capable of protecting the public. Four years later, that warning has not only aged well but sadly been proven correct.

Mandatory minimum penalties were never about denying judicial discretion. They were about ensuring that Parliament spoke loudly and clearly about the gravity of that danger. As I said then, and as I say today, this is not a partisan issue. Mandatory minimum penalties have been around since the very first Criminal Code in 1892 and were brought in by consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments.

Bill C-5 deliberately silenced the message reflecting the gravity of the danger that certain offences cause. Bill C-16 would do nothing to restore it. Sadly, it would continue down the same path. This is not evidence-based reform; it is policy-making driven by ideology, insulated from the real-world harm it causes.

For victims of crime, the justice system is not an academic exercise and it is not a theoretical debate about hypotheticals; it is about whether the law means what it says and whether consequences are real. That is where the bill gets it wrong. Bill C-16 tells victims one thing, yet it would deliver another. It claims to modernize sentencing, while it would reopen every door the House has tried to close.

The Liberal government wants credit for being tough on crime, but it refuses to do the hard work of writing laws that actually withstand constitutional scrutiny, protect communities and respect Parliament's role in setting punishment. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the mid-nineties and in 2016, released two landmark decisions that provided a road map to the Liberal government, under then prime minister Justin Trudeau, to do exactly these things, and nothing was done.

My views on this issue are not theoretical. They are shaped by decades of working inside the criminal justice system and my nearly 30 years as a lawyer, including many as a Crown prosecutor. I have stood in courtrooms with victims. I have seen their anguish and their fears. I have seen the aftermath of serious violent crimes, including gun violence.

I have watched judges struggle to impose meaningful consequences within the frameworks the Liberals chose to weaken. When legislators strip away sentencing certainty, they do not empower justice; they inject inconsistency and unpredictability into a system that depends on public confidence to function.

The charter does not prohibit mandatory minimum penalties. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that repeatedly in a number of decisions. Section 12 prohibits “cruel and unusual...punishment”. The test is not whether a sentence is harsh but whether it is grossly disproportionate. That is an exacting standard, and intentionally so.

Supreme Court jurisprudence has emphasized that gross disproportionality is reserved for punishment that is “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency”, not merely sentences that some judges might view as excessive or unnecessary. That distinction matters, because Parliament is constitutionally entitled to impose punishment that reflects denunciation, deterrence and moral condemnation, even when courts might prefer a lighter sentence.

The Liberal narrative pretends that any mandatory minimum risks unconstitutionality. That is simply false. It is the narrative we heard in the 44th Parliament. What creates constitutional vulnerability is careless breadth, missing guardrails and deliberate legislative ambiguity, all of which are present in Bill C-16.

Bill C-16 continues a now familiar Liberal strategy, which is drafting legislation not to withstand constitutional scrutiny but to invite it. The government legislates, knowing and, in some cases, hoping that courts will be asked to fix what Parliament refuses to resolve.

Academic literature has warned for years that overly broad criminal provisions, combined with a rigid sentencing framework, create fertile ground for section 12 litigation, particularly when Parliament fails to include clear guardrails or safety valves. The Supreme Court's section 12 jurisprudence allows courts to assess mandatory minimum penalties using reasonable hypothetical scenarios. They are not absurd and fanciful scenarios, but ones that could realistically arise under the law.

This is where Bill C-16 becomes dangerous, because once Parliament enacts a mandatory minimum penalty without explicit statutory guardrails, it invites defence counsel to construct hypotheticals designed to stretch the law to its constitutional breaking point. This will lead to courts invalidating mandatory minimums incrementally, case by case. The Macdonald-Laurier Institute has warned that this cycle has systematically hollowed out Parliament's authority over sentencing, not because mandatory minimums are inherently unconstitutional, but because the Liberals refused to draft them responsibly. Bill C-16 repeats this mistake.

The Liberals claim that removing mandatory minimum sentences, expanding judicial discretion and hollowing out sentencing floors are required by the charter and demanded by the Supreme Court. That is false. The Supreme Court has never said that mandatory minimum penalties are illegal. It has never said that Parliament lacks the authority to impose them. What it has said repeatedly is that Parliament must legislate carefully. Bill C-16 would not do that. Instead, it would use a single, deeply divided decision as justification for dismantling sentencing law far beyond what the court required.

Nowhere is that misrepresentation made clearer than in the Attorney General of Quebec v. Senneville. In that case, the majority of the court struck down mandatory minimum penalties for child pornography offences, relying not on the actual facts before it but on a constructed hypothetical scenario, a scenario that Parliament never intended to capture when it enacted those sentencing provisions. The hypothetical imagined an 18-year-old who briefly received or possessed an image without evidence of predatory behaviour, coercion or exploitation. That scenario was then used to invalidate sentencing floors that were designed to address the most serious and harmful forms of child sexual exploitation, offences that involve deliberate conduct, repeat behaviour and profound harm to victims.

This is not a reasonable hypothetical in any meaningful legislative sense. Parliament does not draft criminal law to address fleeting, technical-edged cases. It legislates for the heartland of an offence, the conduct that motivated Parliament to act in the first place. Stretching a law aimed at combatting child sexual exploitation to hypothetical outliers fundamentally distorts legislative intent. That is precisely why the dissent in Senneville matters so much and why the Liberals would rather the House not talk about it.

The dissenting justices issued a clear and forceful warning not only to the courts but to Parliament. They rejected the idea that section 12 of the charter requires lawmakers to sentence for the least serious imaginable application of an offence. They emphasized that mandatory minimums are constitutionally permissible where they reflect Parliament's judgment about the gravity of core criminal conduct. The dissent cautioned that using hypotheticals to strike down laws would transform section 12 of the charter into a weapon against democratic decision-making, allowing courts to invalidate Parliament's choices based on speculative scenarios rather than real-world harm.

Instead of responding to Senneville without discipline, by clarifying offence definitions, narrowing the application or adopting a narrowly tailored safety valve, the government chose a very different path. Bill C-16 does not correct a problem identified by the court. It uses Senneville as political cover to advance a long-standing ideological goal: the systematic dismantling of mandatory minimum penalties altogether. In other words, a contested, deeply divided Supreme Court decision, a five-four split, has now become the excuse for a sweeping legislative retreat.

Bill C-16 is not in careful compliance with the charter. It is a capitulation, a surrender of Parliament's authority based on the most expansive reading of judicial power, even while the court warned against it. This is not what responsible law-making looks like and not what Canadians expect from the House.

As Chief Justice Wagner warned, alongside Côté, Rowe and O'Bonsawin, using far-removed hypotheticals to dismantle Parliament's sentencing choices risks undermining democratic accountability itself. The dissent stated plainly that Parliament is not constitutionally required to sentence for the least serious imaginable case. That sentence alone dismantles the Liberal theory of criminal law.

The dissent went further, warning that the majority's approach risks converting section 12 into a rolling licence to invalidate democratically enacted penalties untethered from real-world harm. The dissent emphasized that minimums serve expressive and denunciatory functions. They communicate society's moral judgment, not merely actuarial risk assessments. Crucially, the dissent recognized that judicial discretion already exists in the criminal process in charging decisions, prosecutorial elections, plea negotiations and sentencing ranges above the minimum. In other words, these judges acknowledged what the government refuses to admit: The system already has safety valves and Parliament is allowed to rely on them. This is where Bill C-16 collapses under its own weight.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that carefully drafted safety valves can preserve mandatory minimums while protecting against gross disproportionality. The dissent in the Supreme Court decision of Nur, from 2015, made this explicit, pointing to hybrid offences and prosecutorial discretion as legitimate mechanisms to prevent unjust outcomes.

Bill C-16 involves no clear statutory safety valve, no proportionality override, no exceptional circumstance clause and no direction to courts on how Parliament expects minimums to operate. It is unserious to claim that a Liberal crime bill protects victims when it systematically weakens sentencing. Victims do not experience crime as a hypothetical. They do not experience it as a charter seminar. They experience it as fear, loss, trauma and lasting harm. Mandatory minimums are about certainty, denunciation and public trust, which is sadly lacking after 10 years of failed Liberal policies. When the government undermines Parliament's ability to set clear consequences, it sends a message to communities that criminal accountability is negotiable.

The House has a choice. We can continue down the Liberal path, drafting criminal law that collapses under constitutional pressure, inviting litigation and leaving victims behind, or we can reaffirm a basic democratic truth: Parliament sets law, courts apply it and the charter guards against true excess, not political discomfort. Bill C-16, as written, fails that test.

We must also consider the context in which Bill C-16 is being debated. Canadians are not imagining things. They are not misinformed. They are responding to reality. After nearly a decade of catch-and-release bail policies, the repeal of mandatory minimums and a long line of Liberal criminal justice reforms, Canadians are scared. They have every reason to be. Since 2015, trafficking has increased by over 80%. Sex assaults are up nearly 76%. Violent crime overall has increased by more than 50%. These are not talking points. These are StatsCan figures.

Mandatory sentencing is not optional and never should be. Parliament did not impose these penalties casually or accidentally. They were put in place precisely because certain crimes are so grave, so dangerous and so destructive that Parliament determined that incarceration must be the baseline, not the exception. That is why it is so troubling that even where Bill C-16 contains measures we can acknowledge as constructive, the government insists on embedding them inside a broader, soft-on-crime framework that undermines their effectiveness.

There are elements of the bill that move in the right direction. Banning the creation and distribution of deepfake images is necessary and long overdue. We are pleased that the government finally adopted the substance of my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill's private member's bill, Bill C-216, to protect Canadians from this new and insidious form of exploitation. Likewise, the inclusion of mandatory reporting requirements for child sex abuse material, also drawn from that private member's bill, is a necessary step.

I am also pleased to see the government finally adopting an approach that Conservatives have been calling for all along, recognizing the murder of an intimate partner as first degree, a reform championed by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola in his private member's bill.

These positive measures do not excuse what comes next. Despite these additions, Bill C-16 continues the Liberal pattern of weakening accountability. The bill would empower judges to disregard virtually every mandatory prison sentence in the code, with the exception of two: murder and treason. That includes mandatory penalties for aggravated sexual assault with a firearm, human trafficking, extortion with a firearm, drive-by shootings and multiple firearm offences. If judges are permitted to simply opt out of these penalties, then nothing about these sentences is mandatory, full stop. This is not reform. This is an abdication of our responsibility. If the government were serious about public safety, it would split the poison pill from the bill and allow Parliament to work constructively on the provisions that genuinely protect Canadians.

Conservatives believe that Parliament must stand with victims, not with legal loopholes. We believe accountability must be real, not optional. We believe that the role of the House is to protect Canadians, not to explain away its own inaction. The bill can be made better, but only if the Liberals are prepared to abandon their soft-on-crime reflex and take public safety seriously for a change.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has had conversations with the Minister of Justice.

There are sections of Bill C-16 that Greens will support, but there are other sections that we would like amended. Does the hon. member have a sense from the government as to whether amendments will be entertained and if we could move swiftly on the parts we all agree on, such as proper sentencing, and move quickly against intimate partner violence?

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

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. I am very hopeful that 2026 ushers in a positive change in the House of Commons.

Today the Prime Minister and the government House leader gave press conferences setting out their purpose for the winter and spring session. They want to prioritize the quick passage of Bill C-14 and Bill C-16. We are currently debating that. In fact, it may have already been passed at justice committee, which started at 11 o'clock. We want to prioritize Bill C-14, because this is what Canadians want.

I had a conversation with the justice minister, but we did not get to the point where he would actually admit to any willingness to accept reasonable amendments. In the spirit in which the Prime Minister and the government House leader made their comments today, I would hope that would be predictive of his approach and instructions to his parliamentary secretary and his colleagues on the justice committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in a number of the comments that the member put on the record today. I took, in good faith, what the leader of the Conservative Party indicated.

On the importance of the crime agenda, the member knows full well what happened back in December. Canadians could have had bail reform. We could have had better bail laws had the Conservative Party taken a different approach in dealing with crime legislation. Bill C-16, which deals with issues like gender-based violence and child predators, is very important legislation. There was an expectation that the Conservatives would show more co-operation with the government to pass these important pieces of legislation.

Will the member give a clear indication on whether or not the Conservatives would like to see the bill sent to committee, where it could have further debate?

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

Madam Speaker, I can answer the question very affirmatively. It is yes.

Ideally, we want this bill to be split in order to focus in on those areas that have been long overdue for 10 years. Victims, law agencies and victim advocacy groups have all been asking for additional reforms to prioritize the needs of victims, to recalibrate the focus on bail and to take a look at community safety, while at the same time upholding the constitutional rights of the accused.

Where was the Liberal government? The government would say it was all in our minds. In fact, Arif Virani, literally minutes after his swearing-in at Rideau Hall, answered a number of press reporters by simply indicating that the whole concept of Canada being a dangerous place was all fictitious and was all in the minds of Canadians.

I read the justice minister's end-of-term report to a national reporter saying that he is listening to Canadians. It is absolutely about time. As Conservative Party members, including me and my former colleague who is a Crown prosecutor, we have been pushing and advocating for sentencing and justice reforms to reflect what the Canadian public wants. I have invited—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We will go to more questions.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to much of my colleague's speech, but I am having a hard time understanding some of his arguments.

From what I see, this bill is intended to close loopholes and ensure that serious crimes are prosecuted, including cases that did not go to trial because of the Jordan decision. The Bloc Québécois had said that the notwithstanding clause should be used because that makes no sense.

My colleague generally agrees with the idea of minimum sentences. However, from what I understand so far, more such sentences will be imposed. I am therefore having a hard time understanding the opposition. Could my colleague clarify his position on this? I am interested in hearing it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear about something. Bill C-16 would make available the possibility that all the mandatory minimum penalties that were ruled unconstitutional by appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, get reopened. This would include the most recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Senneville, which was on the possession of child sexual abuse material. This bill would bring back all the mandatory minimum penalties that were ruled unconstitutional but not removed from the Criminal Code.

That would provide an overly broad safety valve to any judge, without any instruction from Parliament. There would be no guardrails for a justice on their own or when hearing from the accused offender at sentencing, or from the defence counsel. There would be an argument that the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty could lead to cruel and unusual punishment. That is the test. That is what Bill C-16 would do. It would invite more litigation. It would slow the process, which is still trying to catch up from the aftermath of the pandemic.

We do not need more litigation. We need clarity from Parliament. That is why we hope Bill C-16 will be studied as soon as possible at the justice committee, in order to make it better.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I thank my hon. colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for his very compelling intervention.

The question I have for my hon. colleague is the same one I asked the Minister of Justice, but I do not feel we got a satisfactory answer. In their 10 years of government, with Bill C-5, the Liberals legislated that people who do drive-by shootings and extortion with a firearm can serve their sentences on house arrest.

Why is it that we are not addressing the ferocious gun crime? We have seen extortion go up over 300%. Why are we not addressing this? That is what is killing people, among other things.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question because it is important that legislation reflect not only the will of the public but also a rigorous debate in the House of Commons.

My friend commented on the rising level of gun crime and the outrageous extortion numbers, particularly in British Columbia. I was out there recently, giving a press conference. I was shocked to learn that there were 30 cases of extortion involving firearm usage in 21 days. There was nary a word from the Prime Minister, nary a word from the justice minister and, particularly, nary a word at all from the Liberal MPs from Surrey.

Yes, this is an invitation. It is a wake-up call. The justice minister said that he is listening to Canadians. Canadians want tougher penalties and want them now. They do not want any activist judges to determine what is a fit and proper sentence.

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

Madam Speaker, I find this interesting. I know the member opposite is very well versed in the law and the different jurisdictions that operate in our country. Drafting laws is a federal responsibility. Implementing them is a provincial responsibility. Local police are involved as well.

Speaking of local police, the Canadian Police Association has stated:

It is encouraging to see the federal government respond quickly when concerns arise about how the justice system manages serious public safety issues. Courts must operate independently, but there are times when outcomes naturally raise questions for the public and for front line officers about whether the process reflects the gravity of the offences involved. Legislative action such as Bill C-16 helps reinforce confidence that the system can adapt when needed to protect the most vulnerable.

We have police associations across the country agreeing that Bill C-16 is a solid bill. Can the member please put his politics aside and get behind this bill?

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

Madam Speaker, clearly, my colleague opposite did not listen to a word I had to say, because I indicated that the vast majority of the provisions that deal with trial delays and victims are going to be supportable by the Conservative Party of Canada.

Where we differ, and I would beg to differ with her, is with respect to the position of law enforcement. They want meaningful sentences. They do not want activist judges or clever defence counsel now arguing without the appropriate guardrails or any instruction from Parliament as to what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

At the very least, they should define it in Bill C-16. They have not done that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to this important bill today. I am torn between being happy and surprised by the speech by the colleague who spoke before me. He does remarkable work in many ways at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Unfortunately, our Conservative colleagues have been slowing down the committee's work for months by filibustering Bill C-9.

They are against Bill C-9. We understand that and that is their right, but we still need to keep moving forward. They are holding up the work on Bill C-14. They are also holding up the work that we need to do on Bill C-16. These are three important bills and there are more. The committee is rather spoiled this year to have three major pieces of government legislation. They are being held up because our Conservative colleagues, who say that we need to pick up the pace, are actually slowing things down in committee.

I feel like picking up on what my colleague was saying in his speech: We need to put our money where our mouth is, or at least, set the rhetoric aside for a moment. We need action. I want to see my Conservative colleagues take action because I want to see Bill C-9 and Bill C-14 pass. I think that Bill C-16, which we are studying today, is just as important as the other two.

I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support passing Bill C-16 here at second reading so that we can study it in committee and pass it as quickly as possible. That is why our voters elected us, regardless of our party affiliation, and that is what the Bloc Québécois wants us to do.

Bill C-16 is what we might call a sweeping bill. If memory serves, I think it is 166 pages long and covers a wide range of topics. We have identified some that I think deserve the attention of the House.

To begin, the issue of coercive or controlling conduct has previously been the subject of a number of bills that, regrettably, were unsuccessful for all sorts of good or bad reasons. The most recent one died on the Order Paper last spring because of the elections in April 2025 before it could be passed in the Senate, where it went after being passed here in the House of Commons.

Now the government has come back with a bill that addresses this issue. I hope that this time, despite our Conservative colleagues' delay tactics at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we will be able to get to work and pass this bill. Quebeckers and Canadians, all our constituents, are asking us to do so, and they have a right to expect serious and diligent work on our part.

When it comes to controlling and coercive behaviour, we know that society is changing. It is changing for the better in many ways, but this also brings a number of new challenges. Intimate partner relationships have evolved over time for all sorts of reasons. I am not a sociologist, so I will not attempt to explain all the changes in society. In any case, this issue has evolved, and today we are seeing an increase in cases where one partner in a relationship exercises control over the other to the point of not only violating the other person's rights and freedoms, but also undermining their security and peace of mind, and sometimes even threatening their physical safety. This cannot be tolerated in a free and democratic society.

I do not want to repeat what has already been said many times over the past few years on this issue, but I think it is high time that we exert a measure of control over this problem, that we criminalize this behaviour and deal with it as much as possible. Obviously, some of the work will have to be done by the executive branch and police forces. Provincial parliaments, such as the National Assembly in Quebec City, will all have to address these problems. The federal government can still send a clear message by amending the Criminal Code.

I am therefore very pleased to see that this issue is being addressed again. Bloc Québécois members agree that this is important, and we will support the bill.

There is also the issue of femicide. We will have to agree on a definition of what constitutes femicide. Dictionaries offer a definition that goes something like this: a crime committed against a woman for the sole reason that she is a woman. That obviously makes no sense.

Evidently, we are in favour of fighting against such a backward and narrow-minded attitude, which should in no way be tolerated in our society.

There is also the other definition of femicide, which encompasses all crimes against women. Obviously, the problem can be quite different. I have no solution to propose. I am just saying that we should consider calling a spade a spade. I am thinking of the Polytechnique tragedy, which happened a long time ago. Someone walked into a classroom and killed women who were strangers to him simply because they were women. In my opinion, this is clearly a femicide.

Now, there are other situations where people kill their female partners. This is often due in large part to a history of controlling and coercive conduct toward their partner. The individual feels like he is going to lose that power, so he kills her in a fit of anger, or for some other reason. That is not acceptable either. We need to address both of these behaviours. Bill C-16 will create clear, significant criminal provisions. However, there is also a problem, or at least a challenge, with regard to education in our societies.

My wife was a teacher for her entire career. People who see my grey hair will probably assume that she is retired, and they are right. However, she still has many years of experience. She told me that the way children relate to each other in the classroom and on the playground changed over the course of her career. I can say that in 2026, things are no longer the way they were in 1980 or even in 1960. Relationships are much more complex.

Social media is now an integral part of children's daily, even hourly, lives. Kids are suggestible, and they experience the repercussions, both good and bad, of this vast communication network that they access on their phones. They are being influenced. We have worked long and hard on legislation to control what circulates on the Internet. That work will have to continue. Bill C-16 proposes measures to protect intimate images, including visual representations, which are also a new phenomenon.

When we look at Facebook and similar sites on our phones and we see these short videos, we get really scared, but I found out that half of these videos, if not more, are fake. They are edited. If these videos can influence me and rile me up, imagine how a six-year-old girl, a 12-year-old boy or an eight-year-old boy feels watching these videos. It can have a significant influence on them and, unfortunately, it is often a negative one.

This bill would prohibit the distribution of not only intimate images but also visual representations showing an identifiable person depicted as nude. These are important measures in Bill C‑16. There are also all sorts of other measures that focus on control.

I would like to return to the issue of femicide. We need to crack down on femicide. Bill C-16 indicates that these crimes will be treated as first-degree murder. That is good news. If a person kills his partner because he has been controlling her for months or years and feels like he is going to lose that control because she wants to break up, for example, I think we can easily equate that with premeditation and consider it first-degree murder. I welcome this measure, and the Bloc Québécois as a whole welcomes this provision.

There is also the question of the definition of harassment. Previously, in order for harassment to be considered criminal harassment, it had to be proven that the victim subjectively feared for their safety. Obviously, this led to lengthy questioning and cross-examination of victims. It had to be proven that the victim had really been afraid or that she had not been afraid but had thought afterwards that she could have been afraid. Victims were subjected to lengthy cross-examination in an attempt to cast doubt on their fears.

I think that it is practically indecent to do that to a victim of a behaviour that can be likened to criminal harassment. I think there needs to be more compassion for victims. Under Bill C-16, if the conduct of the individual in question can reasonably be interpreted as harassment or if it could cause the victim to believe that their safety or that of someone known to them is threatened, this constitutes evidence of criminal harassment. In our opinion, this is also good news, and we will fully support this provision.

There is also the issue of recruiting people under the age of 18. That is a major problem and another issue. Bill C-16 could have been split up into several bills. Our Conservative colleague said that it could have been split. I agree to some extent, but we need to act quickly. We need to address these problems. We have already discussed them at length a number of times. It is time to act. I applaud the minister 's decision to take action on these issues.

The recruitment of individuals under the age of 18 was still being discussed last year. I have raised this issue with the minister on a number of occasions. We have seen cases of 13- or 14-year-olds, sometimes kids even younger, being recruited by criminal organizations to commit crimes. They are told that they can earn money easily, simply by committing a certain crime or doing a certain thing, and they will get paid. They are told not to worry if they get caught, because sentences for minors are less severe than adult sentences. Criminals do not have to face the consequences of the crimes they want to commit because they get young people under the age of 18 to commit them for them. It is despicable and unacceptable. We need to crack down on this. I suggested to the minister that individuals who recruit young people to commit crimes should face double the sentence that would have been imposed if they had committed the crime themselves. The penalties must be severe.

The bill does not go that far; the maximum sentence is five years. We will discuss this in committee. I may have some amendments to propose, but we are moving in the right direction. We must fight this problem. The Bloc Québécois stands with the minister in this fight, and we may propose even tougher penalties, as I said.

There is the issue of minimum prison sentences, which is a whole saga. I cannot speak to what happened before, but for the 10 years I have been here, I have seen a kind of conflict of values or vision raging between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Liberals are in favour of releasing people accused of criminal offences at the earliest opportunity. I tend to agree with that approach. However, Conservatives argue the opposite, saying that the accused should be kept in custody until their trial, after which their guilt or innocence will be determined. I do not entirely agree with that.

Yes, we need to make our streets safer. Something needs to be done to make people feel safer on the streets of Quebec and Canada. The minimum sentences provided for in the Criminal Code can have an impact.

I proposed an idea that I heard from an expert witness I had asked to appear at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights two or three years ago. She was a university professor, and I had asked her a question. As we have seen, the Supreme Court prohibited or overturned the minimum sentences imposed by the Conservatives when they were in power. The Liberals abolished them, and rightly so, since the Supreme Court had told them to do so. Now, the government wants to reinstate them.

I asked this expert whether there was a middle ground, a compromise between the two. I asked her if we could set minimum sentences in situations where we think it would be a useful way to send a clear message to criminals that this is unacceptable, while allowing the judges and courts hearing the evidence to deviate from the minimum sentences in certain cases, but only in special circumstances that warrant such an exception.

This forces the court to defend its decision. If it deviates from a minimum sentence of five or 10 years, for example, it must give its reasons. In a few paragraphs or even a few pages, it has to explain why the minimum sentence is inappropriate in that specific case. I am very happy to report that the minister chose to go that route. The provision in the bill is is not exactly what I had suggested, but I think it is a good approach. The court will be able to make an exception if the minimum sentence would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The concept of cruel and unusual punishment already exists, and now it is going to be applied to exceptions to mandatory minimum sentences. I certainly welcome that.

We will see how things go in committee. I will very likely have some amendments to suggest there as well. We will see what our Conservative and Liberal colleagues have to say because I think that, when there are good discussions at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the light often shines through. Perhaps after hearing from other witnesses and from our colleagues, we will come up with other solutions or approaches, and that will be a good thing. We will see. However, we need to work on it and I am really pleased to see that the minister is addressing this problem.

Then there is the issue of unreasonable delay. As we know, trials often used to take far too long. Eventually, the Supreme Court decided to put an end to the delays with the infamous Jordan decision. It ruled that a trial before the Quebec court must be held within 18 months and that a trial before a superior court must be held within 30 months. These standards were established by the Supreme Court, and they make sense. I will be the first to agree with those time limits. I think we owe it to both the victim and the criminal to resolve the question of guilt within a relatively short period of time, without being overly hasty. No one wants to charge someone with a crime and hang them the following week. There needs to be enough time to hold a trial, hear witnesses, gather all the evidence and render a fair and reasonable decision. However, that needs to happen within a fair and reasonable time frame.

When the victim of a crime sees the trial against their assailant drag on for three, four or five years, at some point, they have the right to say that justice has not been served. They have the right to say that, whatever the decision may be, it is not justice. Decisions must be handed down within a much more reasonable time frame. Individuals accused of a crime that they have actually committed and who are likely to be found guilty do not mind so much if the trial takes time, especially since, if they are detained during that period, that time will count towards their sentence. It used to count as double the time. Now it counts as two-thirds. In any case, that may suit the offender. However, let us imagine that an individual is charged with a crime they did not commit and that, at the end of the trial, they are found not guilty and thus acquitted. That individual could have had to wait three or four years, for example, before being found not guilty. That makes no sense either. It makes no sense for the victims, it makes no sense for the accused and it makes no sense for society. We need to work towards being more effective.

The Bloc Québécois proposed deviating from the reasonable time frame by using the notwithstanding clause, which allows us to override the charter. We must not forget that being tried within a reasonable time is a charter right. The Supreme Court established what a reasonable time frame is, but the concept of a reasonable time is in the charter. We therefore proposed using the notwithstanding clause for specific crimes that are more serious. The minister rejected our suggestion and said that, instead, delays would be calculated based on factors that might not always be taken into account, such as case complexity and other things.

My time is up, but I would like to close by saying that I welcome this proposal in Bill C-16. We will discuss it and try to find ways to ensure that the entire population of Quebec, the provinces and Canada can be proud of our work and feel safe in our society.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the feedback we have been hearing from the Bloc. I know the minister responded relatively positively to the idea that we should try to get it to committee and have the healthy discussion. Hopefully, we will see some legislation ultimately pass in a form that would make all Canadians proud.

The member made reference to intimate images. It is currently an offence for non-consensual images to be put on the Internet or distributed. The member also emphasized, in his comments, the issue of deepfakes. Like the member, I have seen all sorts of deepfakes that very much look real. We are seeing a growing industry in that area on the Internet.

I wonder if the member could provide further comment with respect to that. Is he comfortable with what the government is proposing? Could he also provide his thoughts in regard to, from my perspective, getting it to the committee sooner as opposed to later?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments.

As I said, I support this bill, but it needs to be reworked. There are things that can and must be amended. I agree with him about deepfakes. This is a serious issue that also needs to be addressed. It is a new problem, a problem that society has in 2026, and we need to address it.

That said, I do not want us to lose sight of reality. The government has certain responsibilities. The House will assume its responsibilities. I hope that we can do so because, as I said earlier, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is dealing with filibustering. I hope that we can put an end to that and quickly pass these bills.

We also need to ensure that the provinces have the necessary resources to tackle this problem at its source. We need to work on education, help our young people learn to accept differences and encourage them to participate in discussions and mediation. We must restore harmony in our schools. We are talking about simple things like speaking to and treating others with respect. We need to work hard on that. That is a provincial responsibility, not a federal one, but the federal government can play a role by providing funding, releasing money for Quebec and the provinces so that they can effectively address these issues, which lead to the problems that we are trying to resolve here by amending the Criminal Code.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed serving with the member for Rivière-du-Nord on the justice committee when I was there in the last Parliament.

I am happy the member raised the issue of the Jordan decision. From time to time, there are delays in criminal trials, and the Supreme Court weighed in with a case called Jordan and set minimum timelines. This hits home for me because there was a high-profile murder in the metro Vancouver area a few years ago. The family members lived in my riding. This is exactly what happened, although then the judge made the right decision by very much doing the calculus that this bill now sets out regarding how to measure delays.

In the hon. member's opinion, does Bill C-16 adequately answer the challenges that the Jordan decision has introduced into criminal law?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I, too, greatly enjoyed serving with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is a gentleman, an intelligent one, and it is always a pleasure to have discussions with him.

Yes, we agree on the proposal set out in Bill C-16 regarding the issue of reasonable time limits. As I said earlier, we were approaching this issue differently until the courts were able to take action. It takes money, courthouses, courtrooms, judges, bailiffs, clerks. It requires a lot of money that Quebec does not have, and neither do the Canadian provinces. Everyone is facing budget constraints. Money will have to be found. I suggested to my previous colleague that money be put into education to address these issues upstream. I think that is important.

There is also the matter of backlogs. We have to be honest with ourselves. There is only one way to fix the backlog problem. It will take judges, rooms and staff, and all of that costs money. The federal government also needs to appoint judges. When it comes to appointments, there have been good times and not-so-good times. I invite my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to work to ensure that judicial vacancies are filled within a reasonable time as well. I do not know whether the backlog is one, three or six months, but it needs to be addressed as fast as possible. That is how we are going to fight the backlog problem. In the meantime, holes need to be plugged. We have to make sure that high-profile criminals are not released at the expense of public safety and against all common sense.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-16. However, I suspect that what this bill proposes will fall short. We will keep working on that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court established reasonable time limits in which trials must be held. I understand that, in the bill, the minister is expanding the criteria that the court will have to consider when it redefines what constitutes reasonable time limits.

I am wondering about the possibility that, ultimately, at the end of the exercise, with these new criteria, the Supreme Court will again propose reasonable time limits that will be difficult to meet. I am wondering whether this might be a bit of an exercise in futility and whether, sooner or later, we will be forced into having another debate on the use of the notwithstanding clause to put an end to the abuses that have been caused by the Jordan decision.

To what extent does my colleague believe that the minister's approach will address this issue from a legal perspective, even beyond the issue of budgets?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mirabel. I also really enjoy working with him. He is a brilliant man who excels at numbers, which is not my forte.

I agree with him on that point. I also believe that, despite Bill C-16, this is not going to succeed in the short or medium term. Again, we can lie to ourselves and pass 300 bills on the issue, but the only way to resolve the problem of trials being held within a reasonable time frame is to ensure proper funding.

We see the current state of our roads and it is appalling. We wait in our hospitals endlessly, from 24 to 48 hours in the emergency room, just to be seen. Children in schools have next to no services, because we lack the funds to hire specialized staff. When the government passes a budget, that obviously comes first. It is also obvious that justice is not quite as compelling. The government is going to put money into roads, schools and hospitals first. I would never blame anyone for that. However, we are going to have to tackle the justice problem, because if we cannot administer justice within a reasonable time frame, people are going to get fed up and take action in a way that no one here would want to see happen.

Bill C-16 and its time calculation method will help for a while, yes. I certainly hope so. Deviating from the time limits set for serious crimes is what we proposed, and I still agree. However, we must never lose sight of the fact that these are temporary proposals meant to last only until we really manage to get the problem under control and until it never again takes longer than 18 or 30 months to hold a trial anywhere in Quebec or Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things we need to recognize is that the federal government plays a critical role, obviously. That is why we have come together with a crime package, a series of bills. Bill C-16 is one of them. It also involves and incorporates the need for provinces, which are often appointing the judges and providing the funds for courts. There are police and law enforcement agencies that go beyond the RCMP. It is multi-faceted. We all have a responsibility, in terms of the different levels of government.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts. Yes, we bring forward legislation. We do, through equalizations and so forth, provide support for the Crown. We also need the provinces and, to a certain degree, all levels of government to step up to the plate as the Prime Minister has done.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I agree with him: The provinces have an important role to play, as does Quebec. The problem that I was raising is that Quebec and the provinces do not have any money. People send money to the federal government, and the federal government says that it will send it back to the provinces, but with conditions, and that does not suit anyone.

We fight for months and years, and nothing gets done on the ground. If we resolve the issue of funding for the justice system, then a lot of the problems will be solved.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, first I want to say happy new year to everyone. It is a real pleasure to be back in the House with all my colleagues to do the important work for Canadians.

I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, one of the most consequential updates to Canada's criminal code in generations.

As the member of Parliament for Davenport, a diverse downtown Toronto riding with families from every corner of the world, I hear regularly from constituents who are deeply concerned about safety in their communities: parents who worry about their children's safety online, women who tell me they do not feel safe walking alone at night and survivors of intimate partner violence who share their stories of living in fear even after leaving abusive relationships. These are not abstract policy questions; they are lived experiences of people I represent. The legislation would respond directly to their concerns.

Bill C-16 is the third major piece of criminal justice legislation introduced by our Minister of Justice. Last year, in September, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which would protect communities of faith from hate crimes and intimidation. In October we introduced Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which would ensure that repeat violent offenders face tougher bail conditions and stronger sentences. Both of these bills have received strong support from the local police in my hometown of Toronto, both from the Toronto Police Service and the Toronto Police Association. They have called for the bills' rapid passage to give law enforcement the tools it needs to keep our communities safe.

I hope members of the House will join me in supporting the swift passage of all three of these critical pieces of legislation. I did hear the good news earlier today that the justice committee is already moving very swiftly through Bill C-14. This is great news indeed. Together with Bill C-14, these reforms would send a clear message that our government is keeping Canadians safe, protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that criminals face the full force of the law.

The statistics around women and girls and gender-based violence are devastating. In 2024 alone there were 100 victims of intimate partner violence in Canada, an increase from the year before. Behind each of these numbers is a daughter, a mother, a sister or a friend: someone whose life was cut short by violence that was driven by control and fear.

We know that intimate partner violence often follows a pattern. It begins with control: Isolating the victim from family and friends, monitoring every move or controlling their finances. Too often this coercive control escalates to physical violence, and too often it ends in tragedy. Bill C-16 would address this reality head-on by creating a new criminal offence for coercive control and recognizing that intimate partner violence does not begin the first time someone is physically harmed; it begins when patterns of controlling behaviour strip away someone's freedom and dignity.

The legislation also would treat femicide, the killing of women because they are women, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, as first-degree murder. When someone kills their intimate partner as part of a demonstrated pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour, that crime deserves to be treated with the utmost seriousness, and I am so happy that we have elevated this to first-degree murder. I would say that it is about time.

Bill C-16 also would strengthen the criminal harassment offence by removing the requirement to prove that the victim subjectively feared for their safety. Instead the test would be whether the harassing conduct would reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe someone's safety is threatened. This change would recognize that victims should not have to prove their fear; the conduct itself should be the focus.

Bill C-16 would also address online forms of sexual violence. Technology has created new avenues for sexual violence that our laws must address. Bill C-16 would criminalize the distribution of non-consensual sexual deepfakes, AI-generated images or videos that depict someone in sexually explicit scenarios without their consent. These deepfakes can destroy reputations, cause profound psychological harm and, in some cases, be used to extort victims. Our laws must catch up to this disturbing reality.

We would also increase penalties for sexual offences including the distribution of intimate images without consent, sexual assault exposure and voyeurism. These crimes cause lasting trauma, and our penalties must reflect their severity.

I have spent years working with families in Davenport, and nothing is more important to me than keeping our children safe. The exploitation of children, whether online or in person, is among the most horrific crimes imaginable. We know that child sexual abuse and exploitation material is proliferating online at alarming rates. We know that predators use the Internet to lure, manipulate and exploit children and that our laws have not kept pace with these threats. Bill C-16 would take strong action to reinforce mandatory minimum penalties for people who create, possess and distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material. This includes restoring 13 mandatory minimum penalties for child sexual offences that were previously struck down by courts.

I know that some people may question mandatory minimums, but let me be clear: When it comes to predators who prey on children, who create and distribute images of their abuse, there must be consequences. In the rare circumstances where applying a mandatory minimum sentence would be grossly disproportionate, courts would still have the discretion to impose an alternate term of imprisonment, but jail time would be kept for people convicted of those heinous crimes.

We would also toughen laws to crack down on child luring and online sextortion, making it illegal to threaten to distribute child sexual abuse material. This directly responds to the devastating rise in sextortion cases where predators target children online, manipulate them into sending explicit images and then threaten to share those images unless the child complies with further demands.

Bill C-16 would also criminalize the distribution of bestiality depictions used by predators to manipulate and exploit children, and we would also create a new offence targeting adults who recruit, pressure or counsel children to commit crimes, protecting our youth from being exploited into criminal activity, something I hear a lot about in my home community of Davenport. Finally, we would strengthen the obligations on Internet service providers under the mandatory reporting act to combat the distribution of child sexual abuse material. Online platforms must be part of the solution.

For too long, our justice system has retraumatized victims. Bill C-16 would create new rights for victims, including the right to be treated with respect and to have timely resolution of their cases considered. We would make testimonial aids automatically available, improving access to information and raising the bar for defence attorneys to access the therapeutic records and personal communications of victims. As the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime reported, victims of sexual violence deserve better.

With respect to court delays, we are requesting courts to consider alternatives to stays of proceedings, while streamlining procedures. We are encouraging diversion for low-risk cases to free up resources for more serious violent crimes, because justice delayed is justice denied.

I want to bring this back to my constituents in Davenport. In my riding, there are women who are afraid to leave abusive relationships because they do not believe the justice system will protect them. There are children who are being targeted by online predators. There are seniors who have been victims of extortion and intimidation. These Canadians deserve a justice system that protects them, treats them with dignity and holds perpetrators accountable. That is what Bill C-16 would deliver, not perfectly, because no single piece of legislation can solve all of the challenges our justice system has, but meaningfully and substantively.

I recognize there will be debate about specific provisions. As the bill, I hope, proceeds to committee, I encourage all members to engage constructively and to propose amendments that would strengthen the legislation. We cannot do nothing. We cannot continue to read about women killed by intimate partners. We cannot continue to read about children exploited online and about violent offenders reoffending after release.

Bill C-16 is about values. It values victim safety over predator convenience, recognizes intimate partner violence as a serious crime and would ensure that children grow up free from exploitation. Every Canadian deserves to live free from violence and fear. Every child deserves to grow up safe. Every victim deserves to be heard and respected. The legislation would move us closer to that Canada. Let us send a clear message: Violence against women and children will not be tolerated, predators will face consequences and victims will be heard, respected and protected.

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

Madam Speaker, among other things, this bill introduces the concept of femicide, which is in response to a shocking rise in intimate partner violence in Canada. Effectively, that provision of Bill C-16 would elevate what might otherwise be second-degree murder to first-degree murder if done in the context of intimate partner violence.

I think we are signalling that we are going to agree with this, but I wonder if the member could comment on whether it would survive an inevitable Charter of Rights challenge.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the protecting victims act, Bill C-16, would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. I heard there are concerns on the other side about there being a court challenge. As the minister said this morning, he has taken into consideration what has happened in the Supreme Court. This has provided some guidance on how we can avoid these types of constitutional challenges in the future.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and a fairly simple question came to mind.

Bill C-16 seeks to put an end to automatic dismissals of cases under the Jordan decision, which was handed down 10 years ago. Who has been in power for the past 10 years? It has been the same Liberal Party all that time. My question is quite simple: Why did the government wait 10 years to fix a problem that we already knew about 10 years ago?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think this year is going to be a year of action. I want to say to the hon. member that I was very hopeful when I heard some of the speeches this morning. There is a spirit of co-operation, a spirit of positivity and a spirit that shows we will work together to make sure we are passing legislation that will protect Canadians.

I am very proud of the legislation being introduced today, and I hope all members will pass it quickly through the House.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned as well. I am glad to see Bill C-16 debated in this place after having been introduced in December. I think we need to move more quickly on legislation. We have not had a very full legislative package since the election. This is one bill I feel very strongly about.

I want to say a name out loud here. She is one of the more recent victims of alleged intimate partner violence. Her former husband is awaiting trial. I want to say the name of Laura Gover, who died not long ago in Saanich. She was a mom. She was much loved in the community and a victim, we believe, of intimate partner violence.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for recognizing this extraordinary woman.

I am going to repeat something the minister said this morning after he gave his speech. There is work behind Bill C-16, which, as I mentioned before, would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system. It is very aggressive in ensuring that we modernize the Criminal Code to respond to the most contemporary threats, to intervene earlier, to prevent violence and to make sure the justice system works faster and more fairly for victims and survivors. This work was not just done because we talked to a number of legislators. This is because of the work of the status of women committee. This is because of the work of advocate groups. This is because of all the victims of violence in this country.

It is perhaps too long in the making, but it is finally here. Let us get going and let us pass this legislation.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in complete support of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to speak about why this legislation matters so much. It is profoundly important to people in Nova Scotia and in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets.

I am also going to speak today as a former educator and high school principal. Everyone in this chamber can imagine some of the things I have seen in my riding in regard to children.

This bill represents one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. It is broad in scope, but its purpose is clear: to respond to modern forms of violence and exploitation, to intervene earlier, to protect victims and survivors, and to ensure our justice system works faster and more fairly. Bill C-16 does this through its four pillars: tackling gender-based violence and intimate partner violence; protecting children from predators; strengthening victims' rights; and addressing court delays.

That work is urgently needed in Nova Scotia. Our province has some of the highest rates of gender-based violence in the country. Intimate partner violence, criminal harassment and coercive control are persistent realities, particularly in the rural and coastal communities I help represent. In recognition of this, Nova Scotia became the first province in Canada to declare intimate partner violence an epidemic. That declaration reflected what survivors, advocates and frontline workers already knew. This violence is systemic, patterned and too often predictable.

Bill C-16 meets that reality head-on. Under its first pillar, the bill takes decisive action that would prevent violence before it becomes lethal. For the first time in Canadian law, it would create a new offence for a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. Survivors have told us repeatedly that abuse is rarely about one single incident. It is about isolation, intimidation, surveillance, financial control and psychological manipulation. These patterns strip away safety and autonomy long before physical violence appears. By naming coercive control as a criminal offence, Bill C-16 would give law enforcement and the courts a tool to intervene earlier, when lives can still be saved.

This bill also recognizes the severity of violence driven by control and fear. It would provide that murders committed in the context of coercive control, sexual violence, human trafficking or hate are femicides committed against a woman and would be treated as first-degree murders, even where traditional planning and deliberation are difficult to prove. This reflects the lived reality of many intimate partner homicides that are not spontaneous acts but rather the end point of long, documented patterns of abuse. This bill would further require courts to consider life imprisonment for manslaughter committed in those same circumstances.

These reforms closely align with the work being done on the ground by organizations like the Be the Peace Institute in Nova Scotia. Be the Peace focuses on root causes of gender-based violence, unequal power, rigid gender norms and systems that fail to centre survivors. This trauma-informed, feminist and intersectional approach reminds us that prevention requires structural change, not just punishment after harm has occurred. Bill C-16 reflects the same understanding by recognizing patterns of control and exploitation as violence in their own right.

I am also proud to have served on the board of directors of the Second Story Women's Centre in my riding, which supports women, girls and gender-diverse people across the south shore. The Second Story Women's Centre provides counselling, advocacy, safety and support within its community. I have seen first-hand how many survivors endure years of coercive control, which has never quite fit legal definitions before. Bill C-16 would help close that gap by aligning the Criminal Code with the realities that survivors and frontline workers have always understood. It would modernize the offence of criminal harassment. It would remove the requirement that a victim must prove they subjectively fear for their safety, and replace it with a reasonable personal standard.

This change matters. It matters deeply for victims who are stalked, monitored or intimidated, and for those whose fears have been minimized or questioned in the past.

In terms of my being an educator of youth, under the second pillar, Bill C-16 would strengthen protections for children and youth, particularly in an increasingly digital world. As a former educator, I want to speak clearly about this. In classrooms, we see the consequences of online exploitation every day: anxiety, shame, isolation and fear.

The bill would update the Criminal Code to address harms that barely existed when many of our laws were written. It would expand the offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images to include AI-generated sexual deepfakes, recognizing how technology is being weaponized against young people, especially young girls. It would criminalize threats to distribute sexual abuse material. It would directly address sextortion, which is one of the fastest-growing forms of online exploitation of children.

Bill C-16 would also expand child-luring and sextortion offences. It would create a new offence for recruiting a person under 18 into criminal activity. This is something I have seen hands-on, with boots on the ground, during my time as a principal. The bill seeks to strengthen mandatory reporting and data-driven preservation obligations for online service providers. These measures reflect how predators groom, manipulate and exploit children today, often across multiple platforms and jurisdictions. The bill would restore mandatory minimum penalties for child sexual offences while adding a safety-valve clause to ensure constitutional fairness. This would respond to years of legal uncertainty that weakens deterrence and accountability for the most serious crimes committed against children.

The third pillar of Bill C-16 focuses on strengthening victims' rights. The bill would enhance the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by affirming that victims be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. “Fairness” is a key word. The bill would provide victims with information proactively, without requiring them to navigate complex systems or make formal requests. It would expand access to testimonial aids, clarify victims' rights in order to protect impact statements at sentencing and parole, and improve information sharing under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

These changes respond directly to what victims have been telling us on all sides of this chamber: The justice system can be retraumatizing, confusing and isolating. Organizations in my riding like Thriving Twogether, a grassroots non-profit working in southwestern Nova Scotia, see this every day. Thriving Twogether supports individuals and families affected by gender-based violence, addiction and human trafficking, recognizing—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am sorry to interrupt the member.

The member will have an opportunity to finish her speech and answer questions after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South and, I will also say, as a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and as a representative of an issue that has become a galvanizing one for many Canadians. It is an issue around which I saw tremendous attention, with issues pertaining to justice. We have seen very clearly the rise in crime in Canada over the last decade. This is why today the House of Commons justice committee passed a motion that I am very proud we were able to pass, one that would prioritize the study of bail and sentencing reform, an issue for which there has been a near-unanimous call among large swaths of society, from municipal governments to law enforcement agencies and victim advocacy groups, that something needs to change.

We are talking about Bill C-16. I want to drill down into a subset of crime that has also not been immune to the increases we have seen across the board in violent and serious crime. In particular, since 2015, human trafficking has increased 84%. Sexual assaults are up almost 76%. Violent crime is up almost 55%. We have heard testimony from victims' rights advocates about the ways in which women in particular are disproportionately affected by these and other offences.

We have also seen in recent months a very concerning trend in the way that courts and, in some cases, I will say, even politicians view legal theory and the way they prioritize legal theory above the real-world experiences of victims and the real-world implications of our laws on victims. I want to make sure that everything we do as a chamber that deals with matters of crime and justice is not relegated to the realm of the abstract, that we are not making legal theory the priority of what we are doing and that we are actually putting victims and public safety front and centre.

I spoke before the justice committee not that long ago about the idea of mandatory minimum sentences. This is probably a prime example of where we have seen a desire to disregard victims because of what can often be abstract concepts. I can give a very real and very shameful recent example of this, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, regarding mandatory minimums for people who traffic in child sexual abuse and exploitation material, which was referred to as child pornography in the court ruling, that “cruel and unusual punishment” is the description for mandatory minimums. The two cases that came up in that Supreme Court ruling involved men who each had hundreds of videos and images depicting heinous, vile things that I do not want to utter in the chamber, the most heinous acts we can imagine against children as young as, I believe, four and five years old.

What we saw in the trial judge's ruling on these cases was an application of the bare minimum and even, in one case, below the bare minimum, because they thought that these cases did not meet the standard of what was already a paltry mandatory minimum for these offences, which was 12 months. One of the offenders got 90 days. This is why mandatory minimums have to exist. There is a current within parts of the judiciary in which judges are exceedingly lenient on cases that Canadians and, I would say, the fundamental laws of nature would find deplorable.

This is so important because the Supreme Court decided to rule on mandatory minimums in an abstract way. Instead of dealing with the case at hand, they talked about some absurd hypothetical that had nothing to do with the case at hand, in order to talk about why a mandatory minimum for child sexual abuse and exploitation material could be cruel and unusual punishment. In doing so, they undermined the idea that we as lawmakers have to send the strongest possible message to people who commit the worst possible offences. There is no justification for giving a slap on the wrist to someone who abuses children, as a fundamental example of this.

I shared in committee a story that was very personal to me as someone who is a survivor of sexual abuse as a child. I do not talk about it often, because it is difficult, and it is difficult for so many other people who have been victimized by something or other in their life, but I share this so people know there is a human face to these things. We cannot simply look at the perpetrator of a crime without acknowledging the victim. We cannot simply look at the sentence applied to a perpetrator without considering the effect that the person's crimes have had on the victim, whoever it is, whether it is a defenceless child, a defenceless woman, an intimate partner or someone else.

Crime has a collective cost for society. It also has an individual cost. In some cases the scars of criminality, often preventable criminality if the justice system were doing its job, run deep and can run forever.

I will share one example that comes from London, Ontario, where Breanna Broadfoot was killed by an intimate partner at the age of 17. Her family has taken this horror, this tragedy, and they have turned it into advocacy. I cannot imagine the strength someone requires when they lose their 17-year-old and are still able to face a parliamentary committee and face the community around them, but that is exactly what the Broadfoots have done.

Breanna's father, Brett Broadfoot, testified at committee. In his testimony he spoke about how the system itself has a role. I would like to quote Mr. Broadfoot:

...I'm here to speak for my family, and most importantly, for my beautiful and now deceased daughter Breanna. I hope also to speak on behalf of other victims of intimate partner violence, for all the women who continue to live in fear of their abusers because they are still out on the streets after being charged with no accountability for the violent acts they have committed. I would like to share my family's personal experience at this time.

On March 15, 2024, my daughter Breanna was brutally attacked by her boyfriend. She was left with two black eyes, a fractured orbital bone, several other broken bones in her cheeks and severe bruising around her neck from his hands having been wrapped around them in strangulation. She was only 16 years old at the time.

Her attacker, age 18, was arrested on March 15 and charged with assault plus assault with choking and suffocation or strangulation. He was released from custody on the same day he was arrested.

He was released the same day. If we fast-forward, we find out that Breanna ended up dying at the hands of her abuser.

Victims have rights. We have an obligation to stand up for victims and to speak for victims. It was not long ago in the chamber that the House of Commons unanimously passed a private member's bill brought by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, Bailey's law. In the gallery at the time that we voted on the bill was the family of Bailey McCourt, another family that will never be able to undo the harm that it has suffered.

Again, laws bear a level of responsibility for this. It is not the same degree of responsibility that the perpetrators of crimes bear, but laws are meant to protect the most vulnerable in our society from the most dangerous in our society. When we lose sight of that in the creation of our laws, we do not have the ability to fulfill the fundamental and most important role of a government, which is to protect its citizens from harm.

As we look at Bill C-16 and the context in which the Liberals have presented the bill, we see that there is much in it that should be agreeable across party lines. There is much in the bill I am grateful for and for which the Liberal government has actually taken its cues from proposals that we have been championing for, in some cases, many years. This is an example where I do not care who gets the credit; I just want the right thing to be done. I want people in this country to have the protections they desperately need and desperately deserve.

However, we can also point to areas of the bill where critical protections are being watered down, and I am referring specifically to mandatory minimums. When I mentioned the Supreme Court decision regarding mandatory minimums for offences dealing with child sexual exploitation and abuse material, I gave an example of, even with a mandatory minimum being in effect, there being judges who want to do the bare minimum and in some cases go below that standard. That is why mandatory minimums must exist. There is a place for them, and we need to have a law and a judiciary that respect that, because for certain offences there should not be an ability for leniency below what is already an incredibly low standard.

The laws of this nation, the Criminal Code, dictate maximum penalties, so why is it so egregious and offensive to some people to have a minimum penalties? How are these two things fundamentally at odds with each other? It is because when we look at parameters and constraints that exist around sentencing, we understand that there are some penalties where a sentence could be too severe. No one supports a life sentence for speeding or for running a red light, for example. Similarly, we also need a minimum standard to understand that there is no earthly justification to not put someone behind bars for certain offences. I am thinking especially of offences against children, of murder and of some of the other offences we talk about often in the context of rising crime that are continuing to terrorize communities.

Bill C-16 would actually empower judges to ignore mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimum sentences have a very operational word in them, “mandatory”, which means they are to be mandatory. They are mandated. I cannot stress this enough. Under Bill C-16 there would be an escape valve. A judge could decide on a case-by-case basis that they believe a particular application of the mandatory minimum in a given case would be cruel and unusual.

We have already seen examples where judges in this country have given sentences that were more lenient than what they should have been, in order to protect someone's immigration status. We have seen an example, and this is something our Conservative team has tried to rectify in the system, where someone takes into consideration an external factor, even though the criminal has committed a crime and been found guilty. I cannot stress that enough. We are talking about sentencing. We are talking about people who have already been found to have committed the crime and are now facing the question of whether they will have to pay the time, and if so, how much. However, there are judges who have said that if they sentence someone to a certain amount of time, it would jeopardize their immigration status. That is egregious.

We also consider this in the context where a judge could look at a case and say, as one did in Quebec, that they think that maybe a one-year mandatory minimum for child sexual exploitation and abuse material, which is already, in the eyes of most Canadians, offensively low, should not apply to someone. We know that every single offender in this country who is found guilty of a crime that warrants a mandatory minimum sentence under the law would try to avail themselves of this escape hatch. Why would they not?

Bill C-16 would now say that a mandatory minimum sentence should not in fact be mandatory and that there should be no minimum sentence. We would be baking leniency in, and in doing so undermining the very idea of having a mandatory minimum sentence in the first place.

I would like to share what are the offences we are talking about that have mandatory minimums: aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, trafficking in weapons, and drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm. These are not benign cases. I was just in Surrey, British Columbia, and I was also just in Brampton, Ontario. These are two communities that have had exceedingly high rates of extortion in recent years, and this is something that has actually caused people in these communities to feel fearful.

There is one cudgel the state has available to it when people who are guilty of these crimes are finally arrested and convicted. This is assuming they have not been released on bail several times over, which we know is happening. The one tool available is a mandatory minimum sentence that will force a criminal to be behind bars and off the streets. There are some things we can debate, and there are some things on which there are differing opinions in politics, in law and in policy. However, one thing we can be very clear on is that someone cannot be doing a drive-by shooting if they are in jail; they cannot be trafficking in weapons, trafficking in humans or trading in child sexual exploitation and abuse material online if they are locked up.

This is something that should not be, and to most Canadians it is not, a partisan issue. We have been talking about the calls for reform of our justice system. They have been coming from Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives at the provincial level. The federal Liberals have been slow to respond to this. They have put forward Bill C-16, a bill that has many things in it that we are entirely supportive of, but we cannot undermine the very nature of why these laws and provisions exist.

Parliament set mandatory minimums for a reason. The passage of the provision would undermine that, as we would be saying to every victim in the country. The mandatory minimum sentences were put in place ostensibly to protect victims, and not just as a deterrent. Ideally, with many of these offences, we want to stop the offences from taking place in the first place, which means we want a penalty on the books that someone would think twice about before they violate.

We also know that the Liberal government has ended a lot of mandatory minimums in the case of Bill C-75. We have seen a series of justice bills from the government that it often claims would rectify a problem, but in the end these bills create a new problem or even a host of new problems.

I return to the testimony we heard from victims and people who work in the space of victims. There is one woman I have had the great privilege of meeting. She has become a tremendous advocate for victims' rights, not because she set out to do that with her life, but because she herself was a victim and saw that she had no one speaking for her. That is Cait Alexander, who has founded a tremendous organization called End Violence Everywhere. I was very pleased to meet her when she was testifying before the justice committee a little while ago. Cait Alexander almost lost her life because of delays in court. She has shared online photos that are so painful to see of her body covered in bruises, scrapes and scars because of vicious abuse in an attempted murder by an intimate partner. That person walked free because of the Jordan principle, because of the justice system's inability to fulfill its core basic mandate of protecting people from harm and punish those who inflict harm when protection and prevention could not happen.

We also heard, to use another local example, from Jennifer Dunn of the London Abused Women's Centre, LAWC. This is an organization I know very well. My wife serves on its board. It is an organization that has been advocating for and providing respite and shelter for women dealing with abuse for many years. I asked Jennifer Dunn before committee about some of the reforms we have put through that were proposed in Bailey's law. She was enthusiastically supportive. She knew they would support women. One of the things Jennifer shared in her testimony was that so many of the women at the London Abused Women's Centre that LAWC deals with call our system the injustice system. They do not even wish to engage with our system. They do not trust it to have their backs. I would say that is a failing of all institutions. I do not lay that blame on any particular party. I think it is something we need to take as a wake-up call. It is something we need to take to heart to understand exactly how we can pass laws that are victim-centred and victim-focused, to protect children, to protect people who are being extorted and to protect women from intimate partner violence.

This is something I have never had to witness in my family, but I know people who have. The more I have learned about this, the more I have realized this needs to be an all-hands-on-deck issue. This is where I welcome some of the reforms and proposals the Liberals have adopted from things we have called for, and some of the things they are doing in Bill C-16. However, if we are to truly seek a law that upholds victims' rights, we cannot embed in this something that undermines the strength of sentencing measures that Parliament has passed, that undermines mandatory minimum sentences, that makes them discretionary minimum sentences. Mandatory and discretionary cannot exist at the same time. That is why my colleagues and I stand ready, as always, to ensure we are reforming trust in the justice system, that it is looking after public safety and victims, that people like Bailey McCourt, Cait Alexander and Breanna Broadfoot will never again be traumatized and terrorized or face a system that either allows it to happen or does not seek true justice when it does.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I do not really understand where my colleague's opposition to this bill is coming from. Bill C-16 restores mandatory minimum penalties, which is something he is advocating for.

We know that every time the government has tried to impose a mandatory minimum sentence in Canada it gets thrown out by the Supreme Court because, in some cases, it can violate a person's rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-16 gives us exactly what the Supreme Court has been asking for in those very rare cases. For example, if a 17-year-old shares an intimate photo of a 16-year-old girlfriend with his friend, does he go to prison for 25 years? It is definitely a bad thing he has done. The bill addresses all of the issues the member has just raised.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for at least sort of listening to the speech, but what she missed was me talking about the fact that by embedding a safety valve, by giving judges a tool to disregard mandatory minimums, we are not actually bolstering or expanding those mandatory minimums.

That is the crucial point that we have to acknowledge, that if mandatory minimum sentences are to be mandatory, knowing what we have seen, such as with the Senneville case, that certain judges entirely desire incredible leniency at the expense of victims and at the expense of public safety. That is what we are talking about.

By the way, I have said good things about the bill, but I also cannot turn a blind eye to things that move us further away from what we are trying to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I have a great deal of respect for him. He does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and is a respectable and intelligent man.

I understand his criticism of minimum sentences. As our Liberal colleague said a few moments ago, the Supreme Court has struck them down, and so we are left with two options. The first option is to reinstate the same minimum sentences that the Supreme Court struck down—obviously, doing the same thing will lead to the same result, and they will be struck down again. The second option is to not impose any minimum sentences at all. That would not make our Conservative colleagues very happy, which I understand.

However, there is a middle ground. We can reinstate them but allow judges to deviate from the minimum in exceptional circumstances. However, they would not be ignoring them, as my colleague said earlier. This option would require the court to justify why the case is exceptional and deserves an exemption from the minimum sentence. With all due respect, I think this is an interesting middle ground. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

Between that option and minimum sentences, which we know the Supreme Court will disallow, does it not make more sense to opt for an arrangement like this?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of working with my colleague on the justice committee. While we obviously do not see eye to eye on some issues, I know that he does have a passion for public safety. I think that is underscoring the work we need to do on this and any other justice bill.

There is a long-standing legal debate in Canada about who ultimately has the authority to make the laws. To put it glibly, I know that members of Parliament are called lawmakers for a reason. It is our job to make laws. It is the Supreme Court's job and the judiciary's job to interpret laws.

We have been very clear that there are certain things that are so imperative that if we have judges standing in the way of what Canadians clearly want and deserve, we should be open to using the notwithstanding clause to protect some of these fundamental measures. As a party, we have been very clear in saying that. Mandatory minimums for child sexual abusers is a prime example of that.

It is very important that we understand that it is our responsibility and our duty as lawmakers to set out Criminal Code penalties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his great speech on the issue.

Sometimes I feel like we do not see the forest for the trees. This particular bill does make some dramatic improvements, but what it fails to take into account is the last decade of Liberal failures on our public judiciary, but also public safety, and just the crime rates in general.

Could my hon. colleague zoom out a little and talk more broadly about the state of affairs in Canada, in terms of crime and justice?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock, my brother's former member of Parliament, for his intervention.

The issues dealing with crime across the board, and not just the crime we are dealing with in the context of Bill C-16, have been rampant. This very quickly became one of the top issues I face from constituents. In fact, after affordability and the cost of living, crime is the top issue that my constituents raise.

We have seen a string of incidents in the communities I represent, notably St. Thomas, where people on bail for serious offences commit other identical offences. The police have been throwing their hands up in the air, incredibly frustrated with this, because they have been calling for legitimate reforms to laws.

In the case of Bill C-16, we know that bad bail laws hurt women, children and people who are very vulnerable to these particular crimes. That is why we are standing up, again hoping to work across party lines to fix some of these core issues facing society and our legal system.

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

First, Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. We do not have the new bail laws because the Conservatives refused to pass the bill last year. That is the reason we do not have the new bail laws today.

Let us go on to mandatory minimums. This is what the member opposite says we need more of. That is exactly what this legislation would do. It would put in additional mandatory minimum laws.

The safety clause, as the member refers to it, is the issue. Here is what the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, the member's Conservative colleague, had to say, “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve; that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed. This is a perfect middle ground. Why will the minister not accept it?”

We have accepted it. Why will the rest of the Conservative Party not do it?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this, Mr. Speaker. Let me take a step back.

Conservatives tried, in December, at the justice committee 19 times for the government to let us focus on Bill C-14, to allow us to focus on bail. The Liberals on the justice committee denied that while this very member was speaking in this House of Commons asking why the justice committee was not focusing on bail. We tried. Finally, today, we were able to break that impasse and set aside the divisive Bill C-9 to focus on Bill C-14. If Bill C-16 is coming before the justice committee soon, this is also an issue that we agree is very important.

However, I note that we should not be taking our cues from the courts on matters that are so very clear to members of this chamber and to Canadians. We are the ones responsible. We have a tremendous honour to be in this chamber. I have not been here as long as the member has, but I appreciate the honour it is to be here and actually be able to respond to the concerns of Canadians on justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he tried on 19 separate occasions to work on Bill C-14 on bail. With all due respect to my colleague, who usually works in good faith, I find that comment disingenuous. On the 19 occasions in question, the request was to stop our study of Bill C-9, which deals with hate. I know because I was there.

The Conservatives did not want us to continue working on the bill dealing with hate because they wanted us to focus on Bill C-14. However, the role of a committee is to study all bills and vote on each one. This is true for Bill C-9, just as it is true for Bill C-14 and Bill C-16.

My question for my colleague is this: Can he guarantee that the Conservative Party will act in good faith, that all filibustering at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will cease at once, and that the Conservatives will agree to work with us? They will vote as they see fit, for or against, but will they agree to work together rather than prevent the committee from functioning?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your great work and it is good to see you after a lengthy winter break.

Conservatives always stand ready, in good faith, to deal with the criminal justice priorities of Canadians. We have been saying that since the justice committee was convened, I have been saying it since I was placed on the justice committee and we have been saying it as the justice committee has worked through legislation, including the bill the member opposite raises, which Canadians have been clear they do not want. We stand in good faith, as always, to deal with the real criminal justice priorities of Canadians, and I am glad we are finally moving forward in that vein. I welcome the Liberals to the team that we have been on for a while, which is the team that wants to get serious about bail.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain. Today's debate on Bill C-16 brings us to a topic that is both difficult and essential, a simple and fundamental question: Do our laws really protect women and children who are victims of violence as much as they should?

One of the Canadian values that is close to my heart is how we protect the most vulnerable. That is what we are talking about today. We must ask ourselves whether our justice system fully recognizes that gender-based violence is not always loud, that it is not always visible and, above all, that it is almost never a one-time event. Bill C-16 asks us to face this reality head-on.

Over the next few minutes, that is what I would like to explain. Why is this bill necessary? What does it change, in a meaningful way? Above all, why does the bill finally respond to what survivors across the country, including in regions like mine, have been telling us for far too long?

For too long, our criminal law has failed to grasp the true nature of gender-based violence, especially when it comes to domestic violence, which is, in fact, one of the most common forms. Even today, our legal framework focuses on isolated acts: a specific assault, threat or incident. However, in doing so, it misses the point, in that it misses the overall pattern of behaviour that defines most abusive situations. Survivors have made it clear that domestic violence, as I also said earlier, is almost never a single or sudden act. It is a gradual increase of control. It means isolation from loved ones, constant monitoring, financial dependence, humiliation, intimidation and manipulation. When we look at these actions individually, it is already unacceptable. However, taken together, it destroys a person's freedom, security and dignity.

These forms of violence remain largely absent from the Criminal Code. That is what we want to correct with Bill C-16. At the heart of the bill is an essential recognition: gender-based violence is not limited to physical abuse. It also impacts autonomy, freedom and dignity. The reforms we are proposing today are aimed at better preventing violence before it escalates, better supporting victims when they seek help and improving the justice system's response to their reality.

One of the key measures in the bill is the creation of a new offence that criminalizes coercive control in intimate relationships. This is a major step forward. This offence will allow us to recognize that violence often manifests itself through a series of repeated acts which, taken together, deprive a person of their independence, safety and decision-making power. Criminalizing coercive control sends a clear message: psychological domination is a serious form of violence.

The bill also addresses the most extreme form of gender-based violence: the murder of women because they are women. Bill C-16 explicitly recognizes femicide where the victim is female. It provides that murders committed under four specific circumstances will automatically be classified as first degree murder, the most serious offence in the Criminal Code, punishable by life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years. These circumstances reflect realities that women and girls disproportionately face, namely, homicides committed in situations of coercive control, sexual violence, exploitation or gender-based hatred.

We also understand that fighting gender-based violence is not just about creating new offences. It also involves making justice systems more accessible, safer and quicker to respond before the violence becomes irreversible. In this regard, former Bill S-205, which came into force in April, was an important step forward and created a new protection order, namely, a peace bond specifically designed for situations of domestic violence.

Bill C‑16 strengthens this tool. It could allow justices of the peace, who are often more available than judges in many regions of the country, to hear applications and impose protection conditions of up to two years. For women living in rural areas, like my region, where access to the courts can be limited and delays can become dangerous, this measure is especially crucial.

In my riding, I had the opportunity to welcome both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Women and Gender Equality. Together, we held round tables with organizations that are on the front lines, every day, working with women and children who are victims of violence.

I want to list those organizations, which do outstanding work in my riding. They are La Méridienne, the Haut-Saint-François Women's Center, Phelps Helps, the CDC du Haut-Saint-François, CALACS, ConcertAction Femmes Estrie and the Lennoxville & District Women's Centre. The discussions reminded us of the unique realities facing people in rural areas, including transportation problems, isolation and a lack of anonymity because everyone knows each other. They also reminded us of the essential role that multi-faceted organizations play in meeting almost every need and in providing support for women that goes well beyond helping them deal with domestic violence.

I want to share something that a worker at the Haut-Saint-François Women's Center said when I showed her Bill C-16. She said that she was very pleased to finally see a bill that seeks to criminalize coercive control, that this is an extremely important step forward, that criminal harassment is one of the most common issues experienced by the people she works with and that it is very difficult to file a complaint and to have the conditions enforced. She also said that court delays and a lack of protection are two major reasons why victims decide not to report what is happening to them. Bill C-16 responds to those exact issues.

Beyond creating new offences, the bill also improves the courtroom experience for victims. It expands access to testimonial aids—screens, remote testimony, support persons—for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and criminal harassment. For many survivors, the courtroom can be a place of revictimization. These measures will reduce trauma and promote meaningful participation in the judicial process.

The bill also modernizes the response to technology-facilitated violence. It increases the severity of the offence related to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to explicitly include deepfakes of a sexual nature. It also adds extortion for sexual purposes, known as sextortion, as an aggravating factor and increases the maximum penalties for certain summary conviction offences. This recognizes a simple reality: digital violence can follow a woman everywhere, at all times.

Bill C-16 also modernizes the offence of criminal harassment. Rather than requiring proof that the victim actually feared for their safety, it will now suffice to demonstrate that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would also have feared for their physical or psychological safety. This change will allow for earlier intervention, before violence escalates.

The bill would also amend the Firearms Act to require chief firearms officers to deny or revoke a licence when there are concerns related to domestic violence or harassment. The data is clear. Access to firearms significantly increases the risk of death in domestic violence situations.

Lastly, the bill strengthens the rules that govern trials for sexual offences. It restricts access to therapeutic records and simplifies sexual history procedures to reduce delays, avoid duplicate hearings and ensure that decisions are based on facts rather than myths or stereotypes.

Taken together, these changes mark a turning point in how Canada understands and addresses gender-based violence. Although the scars left behind by coercive control are not always visible, they are deep. Digital violence knows no borders and when the system is slow to act, the consequences can be irreversible. Bill C‑16 responds to these realities by improving the recognition of this violence, increasing protection, providing real support for survivors and clearly recognizing the seriousness of femicide.

No law alone will end violence against women. However, laws shape culture. They show what we are willing to tolerate and where we draw a red line. When survivors come forward, they are not seeking compassion only. They want a system that understands the reality of the situation and acts before it is too late, as we are doing with Bill C-16.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite on her speech.

I am pleased that we are talking about Bill C-16, because I have a concern about victims, especially victims of aggravated and violent sexual assault. I spoke just last week with one such victim, the survivor of an extremely violent sexual assault by a repeat offender who recently completed his federal sentence and is now out of the system, so to speak. The victim, this woman, is finding it terribly hard to feel safe because she cannot get any information, like where this assailant lives, an assailant who, as I said, has been released with very limited control. What I mean is that, despite the availability of an ombudsman for victims of crime, the service is not perfect. These victims understandably experience distress.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that we are doing enough for women victims of violent sexual assault. How could we improve their conditions?

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

It is completely unacceptable for women and children to end up in violent situations. As I said, it leaves lasting marks and scars that can stay with them throughout their lives. Are we doing enough? I would say that we can never do enough. We are taking a really meaningful step here to support these women, to reassure them, to better help them. We must continue to do more.

I would like to thank the organizations in my riding, which I mentioned earlier, that support these women on a daily basis. They are doing an exceptional job. As I said, it is never enough, and we must continue to help these organizations and support women. However, I think that we are taking meaningful steps to support them.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many portions of my hon. colleague's speech that I agree with completely. My colleague sat with me on the public safety committee for a number of weeks previously, and I think she knows that we can agree on a lot of things.

Pretty much all of my colleague's speech was about the things needed in this bill that the Conservatives can agree with. We have asked for these things for probably 10-plus years, I am quite sure, and some of them are commendable.

I wonder if she would comment on the fact that this bill would empower judges to ignore literally every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code, such as those for aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking and other multiple violent firearms offences that are harming and hurting women in our community.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to take this bill for what it is: a bill that will support victims, that respects the legal framework and that will not be challenged before the Supreme Court. I think what we are doing is extremely important. I am speaking in the strongest possible terms.

My colleague and I have worked very well together. I think we share the same concerns about women, children and victims of violence. I truly believe we have some good solutions.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I also want to thank her for saying a few words about feminist organizations. I have also heard that police associations support this bill. I would like to know whether my colleague has heard the same thing.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have. Not only do police associations support this bill, but so do victims' rights organizations, as well as the provinces and territories. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities also applauded this bill. Yes, police forces across the country welcome the bill. We have a bill that has achieved consensus across all spheres.

I really hope that my colleagues on the other side of the House will support it because there is a consensus across this country.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and the government's ongoing efforts to protect children and ensure that child sex exploitation is unequivocally denounced, deterred and prevented.

Colleagues may know that I also have a private member's bill coming up for second reading in a couple of days, the keeping children safe act. I feel that this bill works in the criminal context to do what my bill does in the family courts. It protects children, it gives them a voice and it protects them from coercive control after a relationship is done.

I served as a journalist for more than 20 years. I spent a lot of that time in criminal court, so I know a lot of victims of really heinous crimes. I know that they expect a justice system that does not tolerate things like sexual exploitation, that protects victims and that hands serious consequences to people who commit serious crimes. Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, reflects the government's commitment to ensure that our criminal law is strong, principled and capable of meeting that responsibility.

I will start by addressing the mandatory minimums that we have heard so much about here in this chamber today. I know it has been a controversial topic. I have covered criminal court, and it has been a controversial topic for decades.

Mandatory minimum penalties, for those who are not aware, mean that a judge cannot impose a sentence any lower than the prescribed minimum penalty, regardless of the circumstances. They can impose a longer sentence, but they can never impose a shorter sentence. It does not matter what the evidence was that they heard. Victims like mandatory minimum penalties because they clearly denounce serious crimes. They can be a deterrent for some offenders, but they can also be unfair in some circumstances. That is what we have heard from the Supreme Court. Judges currently do not have any discretion, even if they feel that a mandatory minimum is too harsh for the particular case that is in front of them.

Mandatory minimums risk violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They can result in grossly disproportionate sentences. Unlike what we have heard from the Conservatives so far today, “grossly disproportionate” is a really high threshold. It means that it must outrage our society's sense of decency and that Canadians would find the sentence abhorrent or intolerable. That is the only time a judge would be allowed to use this mechanism, because there is no mechanism like this. Mandatory minimums have been declared unconstitutional by courts across Canada, including in child sex offence cases.

However, the government agrees that mandatory minimums can be a good thing. They can denounce and deter some of the most serious crimes. That is why we have these provisions in Bill C-16. That is why we see this decisive, immediate action and these reforms in Bill C-16, where we would amend the Criminal Code to restore mandatory minimum penalties that have been found unconstitutional by the courts. We would do this by including a provision that provides judges the ability to have some discretion. They could order a sentence of imprisonment lower than the statutory mandatory minimum, but in very narrow situations.

In most cases, the mandatory minimum would still apply, but if the court is sentencing an offender for something where the mandatory minimum will be found to be grossly disproportionate, should we just let it go to the Supreme Court to be thrown out and not have that law at all? With Bill C-16, the court does not need to do that. It does not need to throw it out. It does not need to find a mandatory minimum unconstitutional, and there would always still be a prison sentence. A conditional sentence would not apply in these circumstances.

We would strike a balance, as the Supreme Court suggested. This is an approach that is responsive to stakeholders and suggestions that have been made repeatedly by the courts. When Bill C-16 comes into force, all the mandatory minimums that were found unconstitutional but that remain on the federal statute book would be considered restored. They would all come back into force.

The courts would once again be required to impose mandatory minimum penalties for all the offences for which the penalty has not been repealed from the law, except in the rarest cases where the mandatory minimum penalty would result in cruel and unusual punishment for the offender before the court. It is a very high bar.

I know victims will appreciate these measures, and I applaud the government for finding this middle ground. I also want to say that, as a feminist, I am so proud of this legislation. I am so proud that Canada is bringing this legislation forward. We know that gender-based violence and sexual exploitation are growing in this country. Around the world, they are growing. Online and off-line, predators are increasingly using digital tools to target our children. Bill C-16 addresses that.

We heard about the victims who did not have their cases heard at all in court because of Jordan's principle. Bill C-16 would deal with those delays we have seen in court. That means that more cases would actually be heard in court. The bill addresses and calls out femicide. It addresses criminal harassment and the non-consensual sharing of images, particularly deepfake images produced by AI.

As we have heard, which makes my heart sing, Bill C-16 would criminalize coercive control. I was here in the last Parliament when former NDP member Laurel Collins brought the coercive control bill to Parliament. I remember the impassioned speech that she gave about why we need this law on our books. Bill C-16 takes that private member's bill, the amended version of it that was meant to pass in the House, and incorporates it.

Too many women and children are living in fear in this country. My private member's bill and Bill C-16 address a lot of their concerns, and I encourage all members of the House to support them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled about this debate around mandatory minimum sentences. When I read the proposed legislation, it definitely sounded like a back door for judges to be able to determine, with respect to a situation in front of them, that it would amount to cruel and unusual punishment to impose the minimum sentence. That is exactly the argument that judges have been using all along to declare mandatory minimum sentences to be unconstitutional. Therefore, I do not know how we are getting any further ahead, with this legislation, in handling the challenge that the court has thrown at us.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to explain. It has not been happening all over. It has been happening at the Supreme Court when a case comes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decides that we cannot have a mandatory minimum sentence if it is too broad, if it encompasses a situation where Canadians would find it abhorrent for the mandatory minimum sentence to be applied.

It is a very high bar. A case the Supreme Court talked about, for example, was if a 17-year-old shared an intimate picture of his 16-year-old girlfriend with a friend. It is a terrible thing. It is illegal and he should not do that, but should he spend his entire life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years? Most Canadians would say no, and that is why the Supreme Court said that we need to have an off-ramp. We need to give judges discretion. They have to be able to hear all of the evidence.

In the worst cases, yes, we need a mandatory minimum. We need people to know that these crimes are intolerable in Canada. However, for those cases, if we want the Supreme Court not to throw out the mandatory minimum penalties, we need this off-ramp.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑16 as a whole. It includes several of our recommendations.

We see that the Liberals want to strengthen certain laws in order to undercut the Conservatives. For example, we rose several times on the issue of the Jordan decision because prosecutions for serious crimes, like murder or sexual assault, were dropped as a result of delays. Fortunately, Bill C‑16 will help establish the conditions for going over the deadlines set out in the Jordan decision.

Why did the government wait so long before taking action?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the government waited. I believe that the government was already working on it in the previous Parliament. However, there is an opposition that does not want us to pass legislation in this country. That is why, to date, we have not been able to get this bill passed.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C-16 and turn to mandatory minimums, I am concerned. As someone who stood in the House repeatedly to oppose the mandatory minimums brought in during the Harper administration in, at that time, Bill C-10, I remember going through the academic articles and the reviews by experts in criminal law. One of the things they found throughout the United States, where mandatory minimums were used widely, was that it did not deter criminal activity. It actually overcrowded jails. It was not working to deter criminal activity.

Does the member know if, in doing this, it is in response to a rallying cry that is more partisan-based or whether it is evidence-based?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not involved in the drafting of this bill, but I am certain it was evidence-based. We do know that Canadians want mandatory minimums when they are appropriate and that they can deter crimes.

I have sat in criminal courts too long not to understand the member's skepticism and to feel it a bit. It is hard to imagine that a criminal would be deterred from committing a horrific crime if they know the sentencing threshold if they get caught. It is hard to imagine. The principle in court, I believe, is that a mandatory minimum can denounce a crime and also deter it from happening.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a very heavy heart to share with members on all sides that our dear friend, Kirsty Duncan, has passed.

I thought it would be most appropriate for the House to have a moment of silence, in love and prayers, and to offer our condolences.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House today on behalf of my resilient neighbours in Oshawa.

As this is the first sitting day back in the House of Commons, I want to wish everyone here a happy new year and thank the many Oshawa residents, community organizations and local businesses I had the privilege of spending time with over the winter break, listening, learning and reconnecting. Those conversations were not brief or superficial. They were long, honest and deeply personal. They spoke to me as parents and grandparents, as workers, and as neighbours who care deeply about the future of our community. Those conversations will also continue to guide my work here as I focus on the issues that matter most to the people I represent.

Across those conversations, one concern was raised consistently and without hesitation, and that concern was public safety. Families in Oshawa are worried about violent crime. Seniors are worried about repeat offenders being released back into their neighbourhoods. Women are worried about intimate partner violence, online exploitation and whether the justice system will truly protect them. Quite frankly, they have lost faith in our failing so-called justice system.

These concerns are not theoretical; they are not driven by headlines alone. They are grounded in lived experience and in what people are seeing happen around them every single day. However, we must note that these concerns did not appear overnight. They are the result of deliberate political choices made by the Liberal government over more than a decade. It is in that real and lived context that I rise today to speak to Bill C-16.

Canadians are not judging this Parliament by the titles of our bills or the intentions behind our bills. They are judging us by the results they see in their daily lives. They are judging us by whether they feel safer today than they did 10 years ago. For far too many Canadians, the honest answer is no.

After a decade of Liberal catch-and-release bail policies, the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences and a series of laws that consistently place the interests of offenders ahead of those of victims, Canadians are understandably concerned and afraid. Since 2015, under the Liberal government, human trafficking has increased by 84%, sexual assaults are up nearly 76% and violent crime overall has increased by almost 55%. Those numbers are staggering. They are not abstract statistics pulled from thin air but represent real people in our communities. They represent victims whose lives have been changed forever, families whose sense of safety has been shattered, and communities that no longer feel protected by the justice system that is supposed to serve them.

When violent crime rises by more than half in less than a decade, that is not bad luck; it is policy failure. Crime did not rise by accident. It rose after the Liberals introduced bail reform, their version of it, which actually weakened bail, repealed mandatory minimum sentences and repeatedly signalled that incarceration should be the last resort, even for serious and violent offenders.

When a government lowers consequences, crime rises and Canadians are forced to live with the results of that approach every day. This is the backdrop against which Bill C-16 must be assessed.

I want to pause here to speak directly about what rising crime looks like in Oshawa, because national statistics tell only part of the story. Oshawa is my home, where I was born and raised and where I have raised my children. Our neighbours still believe in looking out for one another. Oshawa is a community built on hard work, responsibility and fairness, and it is a community that deserves to feel safe.

Over the past several years, that sense of safety has been steadily eroding. Parents tell me they think twice before letting their children walk to school or play outside. Over the break, I learned of a couple of teenagers up the street from where I live and where my daughter walks to school, who were brutally attacked by an older teenager who is about 16 or 17. Mothers are crying on the phone with me for almost an hour as they talk about their children's brutal attack and stabbing and not knowing whether their assailant is back out or whether their child can walk safely up the street, the same street my child walks up to her high school. Seniors tell me they no longer feel comfortable answering the door unless they are expecting someone. Small business owners speak about theft, vandalism and break-ins that were once rare but are now routine in the Oshawa downtown core.

What troubles people most is not that the crime has increased, but that the same offenders seem to return again and again. Oshawa residents see individuals arrested on serious charges and released back into the community with little delay, and victims retraumatized when offenders cycle through the system. When I speak with officers and civilian members of the Durham Regional Police Service in Oshawa, they speak with professionalism and dedication, but also with a great deal of frustration. They do their job, make arrests and answer the life-changing calls of so many, but often they see the same individuals back on the street shortly after, not because the police failed but because Liberal policy made accountability optional. This is not the fault of frontline officers; it is the result of decisions made in the House by the Liberal government.

The government claims this bill is about protecting victims. Canadians have heard that promise before, have we not? We heard it when the Liberals passed, for instance, Bill C-75, which made it easier for repeat and violent offenders to obtain bail. We heard it again when the Liberals repealed mandatory minimum sentences for firearms and drug trafficking offences through Bill C-5. Each time, the result was the same: More offenders were released, more victims were terrorized and there was more fear in our communities.

The creation of a new offence targeting coercive or controlling conduct in intimate relationships is sensible and a preventive measure. It finally acknowledges what victims and frontline workers have known, which is that abuse rarely begins with a single act of violence. It usually escalates over time. It isolates and controls, and when governments intervene earlier, lives can be saved. What took the government so long?

We also support making the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder, a reform proposed by my Conservative colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola in his private member's bill, Bill C-225, which I proudly jointly seconded. This change acknowledges the seriousness of the epidemic of intimate partner violence and the reality that these crimes are rarely spontaneous.

The bill's expansion of the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to include sexually explicit deepfakes is also welcome. This measure is similar to the measures first proposed in Bill C-216, which was introduced by my conservative colleague for Calgary Nose Hill, and it would respond to the growing misuse of technology to humiliate, control and exploit victims, particularly women and girls.

Strengthening mandatory reporting requirements for child sexual exploitation material also builds on work originally done by a previous Conservative government and reflects a shared commitment to protecting children from the most horrific forms of abuse imaginable. Conservatives agree that these measures are positive, necessary and deserve support, but they do not excuse what comes next. Bill C-16 includes a sweeping change that would allow judges to impose sentences below mandatory minimum penalties for nearly all Criminal Code offences, except murder and high treason. These mandatory minimum penalties are not, then, worth the paper they are written on, because they are not really mandatory at all. In practical terms, mandatory minimum sentences could result in lighter sentences for serious and repeat offenders over time.

Weakening those penalties sends a message, whether the government admits it or not, that accountability is negotiable. Criminals pay attention to that message. The Liberals would like Canadians to believe this change is narrow and very technical, but it is not; it is part of a consistent pattern. The government has repeatedly chosen to make the system more lenient on offenders while communities pay the price. Warnings from police chiefs, police associations, provincial governments and victims' advocates have been repeated hundreds of times and ignored just as often.

Parliament has a responsibility to stand with victims. Public safety is not a theoretical construct. It is when a woman feels safe walking home after her shift; it is when parents trust that violent offenders will not be released back into their communities; it is when my neighbours in Oshawa believe their government takes their safety seriously, and I promise that they just do not believe the government takes their safety seriously. Each time concerns were raised, the Liberals dismissed them; each time crime rose, they denied responsibility; and each time Canadians felt less safe, they were told to trust the same approach that caused the problem in the first place.

I want to speak now not only as a member of Parliament but as a mom. Like every parent in this country, I worry about the world my children are growing up in. I worry about whether they will be safe walking to school, riding public transit or navigating an online world that can be just as dangerous as the streets. We want our children to grow up in a country where laws protect the innocent, where laws protect the victims and not the criminals, where criminals face real consequences and where safety is not something we have to think about every time our children leave the house and walk to school. When violent crime rises, when offenders are repeatedly released and when penalties are weakened, it is families who pay the price, it is members who lie awake at night worrying, and it is parents who feel they must constantly shield their children from dangers that government policy has simply made worse.

I also want to take a moment to speak to my neighbours in Oshawa. When people ask how we arrived at this moment, how crime has been allowed to rise year after year after year, the answer is not complicated: It is this same Liberal Party, it is the same government and it is this same set of choices. The policies that weakened bail, repealed mandatory minimum sentences and prioritized ideology over public safety did not end with Justin Trudeau. They continue today under the current Liberal Prime Minister, defended by this very familiar Liberal cabinet and guided by the same approach.

Canadians were told that if they waited, things would improve. Conservatives have offered bill after bill, idea after idea and motion after motion that would protect Canadians, and the Liberal government, time and time again, said, “No, no; that's a bad idea. Just wait, because we are going to come up with the best thing you have ever seen. Just wait, and we will look after you.” After 10 years of waiting, Canadians are tired. They are tired of waiting to see if the government is going to have their backs. Police officers have our backs every day, and they are also tired of waiting to see if the government will have their backs, because it does not.

The people of Oshawa measure governments by results, not reassurance. They measure it by whether their streets feel safer today than they did 10 years ago. They measure it by whether repeat offenders are being held accountable or released. On those measures, the Liberal record is clear. For nearly a decade, the Liberal Party has been responsible for public safety. Over that time period, crime has risen and confidence has fallen. At some point, it is no longer credible to call that coincidence. It is simply cause and effect.

When the same party continues to govern, Canadians are entitled to ask what exactly is supposed to change if nothing else does, especially as our Conservative team has, as I have said, proposed countless measures in this House and at committee to increase public safety. However, the Liberals continue to opt out, delay or vote down these measures. What have they been waiting for? How many violent crimes and deaths could have been avoided? What is the threshold for finally implementing desperately needed change? What will it take?

The Liberals have introduced this bill, which has all sorts of wonderful things that we have been asking for for 10 years. They brought it forward with a little caveat that they know is a poison pill and needs to go: Mandatory minimum sentences are not really going to be mandatory any longer because there will be a safety valve. It is not really worth the paper it is written on anymore.

Parliament has a responsibility to stand with victims. That responsibility does not end with good intentions or a well-worded bill title. A bill cannot claim to protect victims while at the same time weakening the consequences for those who harm them. A government cannot claim to be tough on crime while repeatedly making life easier for criminals. The Liberals cannot have both.

Conservatives believe there is a better path forward. Parliament should pass the victim-focused measures that have broad support and real merit, and it should remove the provisions that weaken sentencing and continue the Liberal soft-on-crime agenda. I honestly do not know why these folks have this soft-on-crime agenda. It does not make a lot of sense to me.

One time I was sitting beside the Leader of the Opposition here in this House. I was listening to him as he was asking questions and the government came back with answers. I said to him, “I do not understand. Do they not see what is happening in our communities? Do they not care?” That is what I kept coming back to. It just feels like the Liberals do not care. Every time they take two steps forward, or one step forward, they seem to take two steps back. There are great provisions, things we want to see, but at the same time the Liberals are making life easier for criminals and giving unelected judges roles they are not supposed to have.

We believe there is a better path forward. Parliament should pass the victim-focused measures that have broad support and real merit, and it should remove the provisions that weaken sentencing and continue this Liberal soft-on-crime agenda.

Canadians deserve a justice system, not an injustice system. We deserve a justice system that deters crime, delivers real consequences and finally puts victims first. Until that happens, Conservatives will continue to hold the government accountable for the crime and chaos that it has created.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with a lot of what the member across the way has said. In good part, it is very misleading to Canadians.

If we take a look at the crime agenda that the Prime Minister and this government have brought in since the last election, I would challenge her to tell me when the last time was that we had such substantial legislation. We have not one, two or three pieces of legislation, but we are probably talking somewhere in the realm of four or five pieces of legislation that deal with making our communities safer.

The Conservative Party of Canada is preventing the legislation from passing. The best example of that is the bail reform legislation. I stood in my place back in December, begging for leave and asking for us to stay late into the evening so that we could have the necessary debates. We could have already passed the bail reform legislation.

If the member opposite truly wants to make our communities safer, then why does the Conservative Party continue to prevent substantive legislation from passing?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Quite frankly, it was expected. I knew it would be coming from him and I was prepared with these few thoughts.

On this side of the House, we feel it is very rich for the Liberals to say that we are holding back progress on public safety when for 10 years the opposition put forward motion after motion, private member's bill after private member's bill, and amendments at committees to make our public more safe and for 10 straight years they have continued to shoot them down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech.

I want to talk to her about one specific aspect of Bill C-16, which is a bill that we support. There is one measure that I believe will make a difference, and it involves criminal harassment.

I was a legal aid lawyer for 10 years. I had clients who came to me who were victims of criminal harassment. However, because of the way the offence is currently worded in the Criminal Code, in order for a charge to be laid, the harasser had to know that my client feared for her safety. I had to write a formal notice, find the perpetrator's address and send it to him, saying that my client feared for her safety and that he had to stop or else there would be further penalties.

Women are often the victims of harassment. This bill will allow women who are victims of harassment to go directly to the police and have charges laid. This will ultimately reduce the victims' suffering and also give them a sense of freedom, because victims often felt trapped.

Does my colleague agree that this is a step forward for victims of criminal harassment?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that this is a step forward. I think it is very important that we take people at their word. It reminds me of legislation the previous member for Oshawa tried to bring forward in this House regarding human trafficking and convicting human traffickers. The Crown had to prove that the victim felt fear in order to get a conviction. We have such a low conviction rate on human trafficking because we cannot prove the victim felt fear. This bill very much parallels that. I hope if a bill like that comes forward again in this Parliament, the member will support it.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her great speech. It was quite touching. I hear the same concerns in my community of Cambridge after the 10 years of soft-on-crime Liberal policies.

In the conversations my colleague has had with people in her community, what has she heard with respect to what is needed for people to feel safe again, especially when it comes to strengthening the consequences for repeat violent offenders, restoring confidence in our justice system and ensuring that victims will finally be protected?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to ensuring that people feel safe again, I think there is only one thing that will make that happen, which is that, after another election, we have a Conservative government, because we are the only government to put forward the types of legislation needed to protect victims.

The member opposite also asked me a question about when the last time was that we saw this kind of good legislation coming forward for public safety and justice. I would say that it was somewhere between 2006 and 2015, when Mr. Harper was our prime minister, and victims were finally starting to see some of the same rights that criminals have. However, for the last 10 or 11 years, that has deteriorated. People in Oshawa, in Cambridge and in Winnipeg I am sure, simply do not feel safe anymore. They feel like the government is simply not listening.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could share her thoughts with the House as to what she believes the provincial and municipal governments' role is with respect to crime, or does she assert that all of the blame should go to Ottawa?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is typical for the member opposite to place blame on the provinces and municipalities. I believe that 95%, if not all of the blame, belongs not just to Ottawa, but the Liberal government.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting comment by the Liberal member from Winnipeg.

I had a conversation with the Saskatoon City Council. When we talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars in the City of Saskatoon budget, 25% is going to the Saskatoon police department. Members can let that sink in a little bit. We have about 300,000 or so people in Saskatoon, and 25% of the budget is for the Saskatoon police force. It is because of the action, or no action actually, from the Liberal government in the last 10 years that now 25% of every dollar goes to the Saskatoon police department.

I would like the member for Oshawa to comment on that, because I am sure every community is facing that.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely every single community is facing that. Durham region has told me on multiple occasions over the last many years of the astronomical amount it is having to spend on policing and keeping our communities safe in the Durham region. The Durham regional chair and the mayors of the eight municipalities in the Durham region have reached out to this Liberal government time and time again asking it to change its policies on this revolving door that we have. They are not asking it to introduce new policy; they are asking it to please repeal some of the really bad stuff it has put in place in policy over the last 10 years, because it is making their job difficult. I believe the number one thing that Durham region is spending money on now is community safety, and it is a direct result of the failed policies of the Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for identifying some of the strengths and weaknesses of the bill. In particular, our hon. colleague, the shadow minister on this file, proposed a solution, which was for the government to split the bill in two: take the part where we have consensus across all parties to actually get public safety as a priority for victims here in Canada, and move those aspects where there is no agreement, that are going to take longer to debate, to the side.

Funnily enough, the government has sort of a track record of this. We saw it with Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. Could the member comment on this important solution?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members of the House and I know members on the justice committee would be happy to see the bill split in two. There are major portions of the bill that we can get behind and would like to support, but we cannot get behind empowering judges to literally ignore every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code. It is simply not acceptable. Splitting the bill in two would make it pass more quickly and efficiently through the House. It is the smart thing to do, and I think it is what Canadians would want.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for York—Durham, International Trade; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Natural Resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it truly amazing at times. I question whether the Conservative Party of Canada today, which is so far to the right, has any shame at all, with the types of things its members say and how far away from reality they actually are.

Back in December, which was not that long ago, I challenged the Conservative Party to pass Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. I virtually pleaded with the Conservative Party and asked for unanimous consent to sit for extra time here in the House of Commons. The government went out of its way to try to accommodate it. There was no reason not to have passed bail reform back in December, but there is one reason, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Conservative members talk as if they are genuinely concerned about the crime file. We heard it in the last federal election, but we also heard the current Prime Minister and Liberal candidates from coast to coast to coast talk about the issue of crime and having safer communities.

We have, I believe, just over 60 new Liberal members of Parliament. We also have a new Prime Minister, who talked about and is initiating the hiring of hundreds of new RCMP officers and hundreds of Canada border control agents, which was brought forward by the minister and the government. We have seen participation from Liberal MPs from every region of the country, who are sharing concerns about the crime file. We have a government that has focused a great deal on the crime file because we understand that this is an issue on which our constituents want to see action.

Canadians in Conservative ridings want to see action on this file, and the only action they are getting from the Conservative Party is filibustering. The Conservatives are not allowing legislation that even Canadians in Conservative ridings want to see passed. I listened today when they talked about Bill C-16, and based on the comments I heard, I question whether they have any concept of what judicial independence or jurisdictional responsibility is.

The Conservatives want to talk about minimum sentencing. Liberal members of Parliament support minimum sentencing. All one needs to do is read the legislation. It is restoring numerous minimum sentences. The Conservatives say that they support minimum sentences, which is exactly what this bill does. It reintroduces many aspects to change the law and reinstate mandatory minimum sentences.

Taking a look at the bigger picture, I could talk about Bill C-2. The Conservatives absolutely refuse to pass the bill. They will not even let it pass out of second reading. Lawful access is a major part of that legislation. Talking about issues such as extortion, which they like to talk about, we see we need Bill C-2. They will not even allow it to go to committee.

We also have Bill C-9, which is to combat hatred. The Conservative Party has made the decision that it can probably make more money fundraising by opposing the bill than seeing it become law.

When I talk about lawful access under Bill C-2, I would point out that Canada is the only country out of the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access.

I can tell members that a piece of legislation combatting hate, saying that one should not be able to harass people or prevent people from being able to go to a church, a mosque or a gurdwara, to prevent the religious hatred that is being spread, is an important piece of legislation. I have spoken to it, as I spoke to Bill C-2.

I already talked about Bill C-14 and how important that legislation is. The only thing I would add is that, much like with Bill C-16, the Conservatives do not realize the amount of support that is out there in our communities. I can tell members that it is substantial. It comes from every region of the country. Whether it is for Bill C-14 or Bill C-16, there is support from provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies, victim advocacy groups and individuals.

The people we represent want the type of legislation we are bringing forward in the House, even, as I said, Canadians living in Conservative ridings. Conservatives need to listen to their own constituents. What they will find is that there is substantial support for changing and making our laws better, so we can deal with things such as violent repeat offenders, which is dealt with in Bill C-14.

It seems to me that the leader of the Conservative Party had a flash, or at least a thought, that the Conservative Party of Canada would co-operate with the government in passing the legislation it feels is important. I appreciated what the Attorney General had to say earlier when introducing Bill C-16, which is that the legislation is not about one political party. It is here because this is what Canadians want. When I was listening to the Attorney General, he was challenging all members of the House, members of all political entities, to recognize the phenomenal effort and work that has been put into the legislation for the benefit of Canadians.

I honestly thought he was being very apolitical in bringing it forward, encouraging members to get onside with it, recognizing that, if one has issues with the legislation, there are alternatives. We can allow legislation to go to committee, where it can be further debated. We are not saying we have to pass it today through second reading, committee, third reading and so forth, but given the legislative agenda, there could be some value, and I would suggest to members, a great deal of value if one puts Canadians first, in seeing Bill C-16 pass.

When I read the article from the leader of the Conservative Party, I had a little flicker of hope that we will maybe see some co-operation. Maybe we will see a different Conservative Party in the year of 2026. It does not mean one has to concede to everything the government of the day wants, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing legislation to go to committee.

What we heard today from the critic for the Conservative Party, who they call the shadow minister, was that they want to take the bill and split it into two parts. That is the problem with Bill C-2 today. They did not want to do anything with Bill C-2 unless it was broken into two parts, yet there are substantive issues being addressed within Bill C-2 that could not be addressed because of the Conservative positioning.

Once again, I am seeing the Conservative Party coming up, through back doors, with ways they can ultimately try to justify their emails that spread information that we do not have a legislative agenda that deals with crime. Let us be very clear that there has been a substantial effort made by the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister, since the election, to bring in substantive legislation to reform our Criminal Code and other pieces of legislation to make the communities we represent safer. There has been a great deal of effort in bringing forward this legislation.

I will quote some of the individuals or the lobby groups on the type of support that is out there if I have enough time towards the end.

The theme coming from the Conservative Party today, and why it is that the members are so offended by this legislation, is mandatory minimums. Let us be very clear that this legislation would reinstate mandatory minimums in a number of different areas. It is not taking them away. The Conservatives tell us that it is taking them away.

I want to read a quote, and I have it here on my phone. The font is a little small for me, but I will try. What is important about this quote is that it is actually from a Conservative member of Parliament, and it is not just any Conservative member of Parliament. It is the member who often talks about justice and the issue of crime.

This member has private members' bills dealing with these issues, and he often says he wants his private members' bills passed lickety-split. He has even stood up to ask for unanimous consent to get everything all the way through the system, to heck with any debate in second reading, committee stage or third reading. He wanted it passed all the way through.

He sits on the front bench of the Conservative Party. Of course, Conservatives probably know who I am talking about. It is the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Here is what he has to say, and I will put this into the proper context. The Conservative Party—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Oh, did they moved him back?

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, from the Conservative perspective, this debate is about allowing judges in certain situations to not have to apply the mandatory minimum. This is the biggest problem. This is the issue that Conservative after Conservative after Conservative has stood up to speak to.

Before we tabled this legislation, what did the Conservative member actually have to say about it? He said, “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve”. Members know what a safety valve is, I am sure.

The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola continued, “that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed. This is a perfect middle ground. Why will the minister not accept it?” I think that member, who is held in very high esteem within the Conservative Party, needs to express himself more in the Conservative caucus.

The reason they are in opposition to Bill C-16 is that they are having an allergic reaction to judges having the ability to understand when they should not use a mandatory minimum penalty. We have the debate with respect to mandatory minimum penalties because, as parliamentarians both present and past, we have seen the value of mandatory minimum sentences and that is why we make the law. However, courts, on many occasions, have ruled against mandatory minimum penalties in one area or another, and have actually said that they are not constitutional.

Right away, then, the Conservative Party members are saying, “No problem. That is why we have the notwithstanding clause.”

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, someone said, “hear, hear.” If they were to use the notwithstanding clause every time there was an issue related to a mandatory minimum penalty, they would have used it 12, 15 or 20 times, no problem. Actually, there is a difference and this is the contrast between the government and the opposition. If I were to use the words of the Conservative member opposite, it is having that safety valve.

Let us understand that there are certain situations that come before a court where a judge makes a decision, and there might be a situation that should be exempted from that mandatory minimum. There are Crown attorneys, provincially appointed judges and appeal courts. Nothing prevents a situation where a judge at a lower court makes a decision that the Crown cannot make an appeal, or it can be brought up in other ways if in fact a mandatory minimum was inappropriately used. They do not need the notwithstanding clause. They do not have to fear independent judiciary by saying, “We do not trust all judges in this situation.”

Therefore, within the legislation, we would restore those areas where mandatory minimum sentences have been struck down. That is a good thing. We know that at least one Conservative member has recognized that. I do not quite understand why others do not see the value of that unless, of course, one believes, as I believe, that once again the Conservative Party of Canada is looking at ways in which it can prevent legislation from passing. The Conservatives are not responding to what Canadians are saying they want.

With respect to femicide in Canada, I would suggest that through this legislation Canada could play a leadership role in the world. This legislation deals with bumping up the crime of femicide murder to first-degree murder. There are other aspects to this legislation that deal with child exploitation.

I spent all my time talking about the mandatory minimum penalties because of the ridiculous comments coming from the Conservative Party, but within this legislation, Bill C-16, we see substantive changes that would protect Canadians.

The Conservatives have a choice. They can either listen to what Canadians are saying or stay with the politicization of the Conservative Party of Canada—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, since January 1, there have been four femicides in Quebec, and nine in total in Canada. It is unacceptable that we live in a country where women and girls experience this violence. It has been proven and studied: There are several stages leading up to femicide. Ultimately, there is a kind of inner anger for which no solution has been found.

Since my colleague asked me the question, I would like to know whether the Bloc Québécois will support making coercive control a criminal offence. This will allow for much earlier intervention in cases of intimate partner violence.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has been a very powerful advocate through the women's caucus, and I applaud that.

In terms of femicide being elevated to first-degree murder, that is something relatively unique here in Canada. Could the member provide her thoughts on how Canada could play an important role, setting an example?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I am very pleased to be back here in the House with my colleagues.

Elevating femicide to first-degree murder also allows us to set an international example, particularly for democratic countries with justice systems similar to ours. I will say it again: it is unacceptable for this to be considered an ordinary murder. The victims' families must also be supported during the process. This is important if we want them to be able to find some semblance of peace in their lives.

I will continue if there is time.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House again as the member of Parliament for London West. I want to wish all members a happy new year and wish my colleagues a very successful session as they return to represent those who sent them here.

It is a great honour and opportunity for me to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and the government's ongoing efforts to protect children and ensure that child sexual exploitation is unequivocally denounced, deterred and prevented. Protecting children and standing firmly with victims are among the most fundamental responsibilities of Parliament. Canadians expect a justice system that sends a clear message that sexual exploitation will not be tolerated, that victims will be protected, and that those who cause serious harm will face serious consequences. Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, reflects the government's commitment to ensuring our criminal law is strong, principled and capable of meeting this responsibility.

In particular, I will focus on Bill C-16's proposed reforms that address mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, in the Criminal Code.

To set the stage, when an offence is punishable by an MMP, it means that, absent an explicit statutory exception, a judge cannot impose a sentence that is lower than the prescribed minimum penalty, regardless of the circumstances. They can impose a longer sentence, but not a shorter one, so MMPs are the subject of a fierce debate. Some stakeholders support them for offering a clear denunciation for serious offences. Others, in other circumstances, have criticized them as potentially being an unfair limit on judicial discretion in sentencing, which can result in significantly harsher sentences for some offenders.

In particular, MMPs have raised the most concerns when they are attached to offences that apply to a wide range of conduct or circumstances. In such a scenario, a lengthy MMP can apply to conduct that involves relatively little risk to the public or lower moral blameworthiness. Because of this, MMPs are constitutionally vulnerable under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, because they can result in what are called “grossly disproportionate sentences”. Gross disproportionality is a high threshold and has been described by the courts as being “merely excessive” or “disproportionate”. It must outrage our society's sense of decency, such that Canadians would find it abhorrent and intolerable.

Over the years, MMPs have been declared unconstitutional by the courts across Canada on this basis. Most of the MMPs invalidated to date are for child sexual offences, including those struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Senneville case or the Bertrand Marchand case. In both of these cases I just mentioned, the Supreme Court struck the MMPs down on the basis of a reasonably foreseeable scenario, meaning that the court considers whether the penalty is unconstitutional because of its effect on hypothetical offenders, not the actual offender before the court. In many cases, the court finds that proportionate sentences for the offender before them should be equal to or more than the MMP, but many MMPs are struck on the basis of a hypothetical offender whose conduct is captured by a broad offence but falls at the low end of risk regarding public moral fault. Because of this potential for a grossly disproportionate sentence, the court must find these penalties to be of no force or no effect.

Most recently, following the Senate bill decision, significant concerns have been raised by stakeholders across Canada and the public about the inability of Parliament to denounce and deter some of these more serious offences using MMPs. The government agrees, which is why we are taking decisive and immediate action by proposing reforms to Bill C-16. These changes are going to address this issue by amending the Criminal Code to restore the MMPs that have been found unconstitutional by the courts.

They would do this by enacting a provision that would give judges the discretion to order a sentence of imprisonment lower than the statutory MMP in very narrow situations. It is expected that, in most cases, the stated MMP would still be applied. However, if a court is sentencing an offender for whom the mandatory penalty would be a grossly disproportionate punishment, the court would not need to impose the stated MMP, nor would it have to find the MMP unconstitutional.

It is important to emphasize that even though an individual may not be subject to a specific MMP, it is only in exceptional cases. In every case, the judge will still be required to impose a sentence of imprisonment.

Some people have raised questions about this, arguing that it does not reflect the guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada. I respectfully disagree. Requiring the imposition of a jail sentence in all cases would not only, in my view, create a risk of grossly disproportionate sentences, for the reasons I discussed earlier, including the fact that this standard is significant. Maintaining this aspect does something important; it excludes the option of a conditional sentence order for these very serious offences.

In my view, the proposed approach aims to strike an essential balance. We are aiming to ensure that courts impose serious consequences for serious offences, particularly those that harm our children and our communities, and to also ensure that judicial discretion is available for those exceptional cases that warrant lower sentences. I would also add that this approach is responsive both to requests from stakeholders and to suggestions that have been repeatedly made by the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, which suggested that such a judicial discretion clause could resolve most of the constitutional challenges associated with MMPs.

In making these comments, the Supreme Court made it clear that there would be only one requirement for such provisions: that it allow for a lower sentence where a specific MMP would violate the charter. This guidance is clearly reflected in the proposed amendments, and I am confident that they are a sound approach to maintaining appropriate MMPs while offering flexibility.

I would like to spend the remainder of my time elaborating on how the enactment of the judicial discretion clause would apply to existing MMPs. If Bill C-16 comes into force, by operation of the common law, all MMPs that had been found unconstitutional but that remain on the federal statute book would be considered restored. This would include recently invalidated MMPs for the possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material, among many others. In addition, to ensure that this point is clearly understood by the legal community and the public, clause 87 of the bill provides that, for greater certainty, following the enactment of the judicial discretion clause, the operation of the existing minimum punishments would also be affirmed.

In practice, as a result of the proposed amendments, the courts would once again be required to impose MMPs for all offences where that penalty has not been repealed from the law, except in the rarest of cases where the MMP would result in cruel and unusual punishment for the offender before the court. This would enable Parliament to ensure that serious offences resulting in significant harm to victims and communities continue to attract severe sentences, while allowing courts to avoid imposing disproportionate punishments in exceptional cases.

I firmly believe that all members of the House can agree that this approach represents a sound compromise to ensure that a vast majority of MMPs remain available and actionable by the courts. In my view, this approach represents a positive evolution of the law that ensures that our legal frameworks remain effective and responsive to the concerns of the day.

In closing, I would like to highlight that the approach of Bill C-16 would complement the sentencing reforms proposed by our government in Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. Taken together, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16 reflect a clear and deliberate choice by the government to strengthen sentencing laws, protecting children and ensuring that the people who commit serious sexual offences face real, meaningful consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked quite a bit about mandatory minimums and addressing the concern that our courts have had, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, in declaring mandatory minimum penalties to be unconstitutional, contrary to section 12 of the charter. The problem we are facing is that courts have recently come out with the concept of hypothetical fact scenarios. Rather than dealing with the facts in front of them, they conjure up a hypothetical fact scenario and judge the constitutionality of the legislation against that hypothetical fact scenario.

If Bill C-16 is an improvement, should it prohibit judges from being able to use hypothetical fact scenarios?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the fact that whether they are hypothetical or not, we should deal with them. This is what Bill C-16 is offering, which is that we deal with the issue at hand. It is a solution, and it is what I think the courts and Canadians would want us to do.

I would put a question back to the member opposite: What would he propose that we do better in this situation?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that crime and violence are changing all the time with the introduction of technology. We know that this bill embeds pieces around deepfakes and different online protections.

Has the member had conversations with people in her community about any of the provisions within this bill, and what were those conversations like?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is something that a lot of people are talking about, especially parents. I am a mother. I have a teenage son who is navigating online. Many people want to talk about how this affects younger women and the conversations and education that are needed when we have our kids online.

One of the questions the member asked was about what our stakeholders were saying. As I mentioned earlier, there is a bit of a divide. We can never have a bill where all parties agree, but the life of this bill is that we want to make sure we are dealing with the important issues that harm our communities and harm our children and, as was mentioned, deepfakes. We saw recently on X that it is unable to address the issues that are affecting young women on the platform. This is an important issue that we continue to have in our communities.

Maybe the House can pass Bill C-16 and Bill C-14 quickly, things that Canadians sent us here to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for asking me a question, and I am going to answer it now.

What would I do? We are talking about mandatory minimum sentences and a judge's inclination to conjure up hypothetical fact situations. I was reading section 63 of the proposed act, which would introduce proposed section 718.4 to the Criminal Code. It says that courts may steer around a minimum sentence if the minimum punishment would “amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender.”

I was optimistic and thinking that “for that offender” would rule out hypotheticals. Is that what that section means, just for clarification?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the specific member's riding name, but the member does have a colleague who agrees with the scenario where mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, would be unconstitutional. That member said, “Conservatives have faced push-back because we want mandatory minimums for an offence for which the victim is serving a psychological life sentence. People will say that it failed in the Harper era. It failed in the Harper era because all we needed was a safety valve to say 'except in exceptional circumstances'. That is what one of the member's colleagues said. They agreed with this bill, and I hope the member also gets on board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too join my voice to the debate around Bill C-16. This bill comes in the wake of a decade of the Liberal soft-on-crime agenda. Now the Liberals seem to want to be the solution to the problems they have caused.

Over the last decade, we have seen crime across the country. If violent crime in Canada were to be plotted on a graph, we would see that it was steadily going up until about 2010. Then it declined until about 2014, when it started to go up again. It is interesting to lay over that the elections and the election results of that time.

That is entirely what this comes down to, which is the enforcement of the law and the general sentiment the Liberals project when it comes to law enforcement. A number of years back we heard of some tacit support from the Liberal Party for the movement to defund the police. We have seen legalized drugs across the country. We have seen exemptions to the Criminal Code in certain jurisdictions. Over the last decade, we have watched crime climb clear across the country.

I remember when I came to Ottawa back in 2007. The people of Ottawa were very proud of how clean their city was. That is no longer the case. Crime and chaos have come to Ottawa. Drug use is a big problem, particularly in the downtown core. As well, murders are up 45% this year. This is right here in Ottawa, our capital city. That speaks to the challenges of our country.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Niagara South, although I am certain that will be on another day.

In my neck of the woods, auto theft has been a major challenge for a long time. I am pleased the Liberal government seems to have taken action on that, but that was only after Toronto and Montreal started to complain about it aggressively.

Now, the other thing I wanted to talk about with this bill is how we got here. We got here after a decade of Liberals being soft on crime. We also got here because of a specific Supreme Court decision. My colleague from Langley Township—Fraser Heights touched on this just before I spoke, and this is the kind of thing that really galls me.

The court did not deal with the case that was in front of them. It dealt with a hypothetical situation, and I highly doubt that particular hypothetical situation would ever make it to court. The police would never lay charges in that case. Even if the police did lay charges, the prosecutor would say there was not really a case. Even if the prosecutor said that they probably did have a case, his supervisor would say that it was crazy.

The hypothetical case the Supreme Court judged a mandatory minimum sentence to be too egregious for was not the case that was in front of the court. It was a totally made-up case. The individuals in that case do not even exist. Here we are, with the Supreme Court striking down the law based on a severely hypothetical case.

It comes down to the fact that these courts do not like mandatory minimum sentences, and these are political decisions. Whether we like them or not is a political decision. The court wants to run around and say that it does not get involved in politics and that the government cannot interfere with the court's decisions. The courts are making a political decision by saying that they do not like mandatory minimum sentences, after mandatory minimum sentences have been duly debated and passed in this place. It should not be the judges' opinions on these things that matter. That goes to the hypothetical situation that it struck down.

We could have gotten around this mandatory minimum sentence challenge had the government just invoked the notwithstanding clause. The Liberals say that is an undermining of the Constitution. They say that all the time, that using the notwithstanding clause undermines the Constitution.

The reality is that the notwithstanding clause is in the Constitution. It is the Constitution. There is no undermining of the Constitution by using the notwithstanding clause. The Constitution would never have become the Constitution had the notwithstanding clause been put into it.

The other thing is that the court can get it wrong sometimes, and that this place gets to then be the arbiter of whether the court got it wrong. That is why the notwithstanding clause exists, and particularly in this case, I think the court got it wrong in terms of whether mandatory minimums for heinous crimes, such as they are, should stand. They got it wrong in the fact that they used a hypothetical situation to strike down the mandatory minimum sentence. If they were prepared to strike down the mandatory minimum sentence, they should have done it on the merits of the case that was before them and on the merits of the individuals who were standing there before them to be tried.

However, they did not do that. They knew that the public would never stand for the striking down of that mandatory minimum sentence given the heinous crimes of these individuals, so they came up with another hypothetical situation, and that is not appropriate. That is beyond the scope of our entire system.

A constituent came by the other day, and he pointed out to me an interesting thing. I think I will leave it here today. He said that it feels to him like the system no longer defends the interests of the citizen. He said that when his stuff goes missing, there is a half-hearted attempt to find it and charge somebody, but on the flip side, the system is very keen to defend itself and to defend the interests of the system.

We see this over and over again. When the system is under threat, suddenly the Liberals spring into action and say to not use the notwithstanding clause, to arrest that protester or to go after an organized group of folks. When the interests of the system are being threatened, suddenly there is action taking place, but when a private individual citizen's stuff goes missing, then the system seems unable to find the stolen stuff, to bring the perpetrator to justice, to go after a trespasser, or any of these kinds of things. The system seems quite lethargic, but when it comes to the interest of defending the system, suddenly the system seems to be able to spring into action.

I thought that was a profound insight. When we go forward to the next bill that we deal with, I am going to see if it is a defence of the system or a defence of the interests of the citizen that we are debating here today. I think we are debating the defence of the system.

The House resumed from January 26 consideration of the motion that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite something that after 10 years of tearing down our criminal justice system and throwing victims of crime under the bus, suddenly the Liberals want to appear to be the heroes of their own story.

One crime I regularly speak about is human trafficking. It is a heinous and growing crime right here in Canada, and it is having an impact on victims all across Canada. Non-government organizations and law enforcement have been devastated by the changes the Liberals have made over the last number of years.

In December a trafficker was arrested in Lethbridge, Alberta, after the police responded to a girl in medical distress. They found a 14-year-old girl, along with two other girls, ages 15 and 16. All had been confined for days, and the youngest had been drugged and exploited by other men. At his court hearing, Skye Atoa was released on bail thanks to the Liberal bail system. Thankfully the police were waiting and rearrested him 30 minutes after his court hearing, for breaching the conditions of his bail.

More recently the Alberta RCMP arrested a man from Brooks, Chad Jensen, for sex trafficking offences. He is facing eight charges, including two counts of sexual assault and two counts of trafficking, and the police believe there are more victims. Guess what happened. He was immediately given bail.

I do not think it is too much to ask that we could live in a country that does not release child traffickers on bail. A Conservative government would fix these bail problems and ensure that human traffickers face justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, what we have witnessed from the Conservatives is their not responding to what Canadians are asking them to do, including Canadians in Conservative ridings. What we have witnessed over the last number of months is a Conservative Party that continues to want to filibuster. Interestingly enough, they finally say they are going to pass Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation, which is a very important part of the government's agenda. We could have passed it in December. Fingers are crossed; hopefully they will pass it.

Does the member not recognize this as an important part of the whole crime package? Canadians want it. Can he give his personal assurance that he would like the legislation to pass before the end of February?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find that incredibly rich coming from the member, who adamantly defended Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 in previous Parliaments and also defended the carbon tax. Now, with a new leader in front of the Liberal Party, suddenly he and the Liberals are going to do a complete 180° on all these things and change them.

The reality is that the Liberals had the opportunity to pass Bill C-14, the bail reform bill that would fix their own problems, in the last Parliament. They did not bring it forward at committee; therefore, there was no opportunity to pass it in the last Parliament.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, emotions are running high in this debate. We are thinking about all the women who have been victims of femicide and the fact that femicides are on the rise. The bill does contain one measure that women's groups have long been calling for. On their behalf, I spearheaded a study on the criminalization of coercive control at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Bill C-16 paves the way. What does my colleague think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I recall that in the last Parliament there was a bill precisely to deal with coercive control. I seconded that bill and am disappointed that the government has not adopted it wholesale. I know this has been an ongoing issue over the last number of years. There was another bill in the last Parliament that the Liberals voted against as well that I was hoping they would take on; it was around the element of fear required in order to press charges for human trafficking. We should not have to examine the heads of victims to determine whether they are being human trafficked.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the intervention from the member for Winnipeg North requires a little more unpacking.

I will put it to the member for Peace River—Westlock that it is in fact the government. The member for Winnipeg North is the parliamentary secretary to the House Leader. The government House leader has tremendous control over the agenda of this place, and the fact that the government cannot get or have not yet had Bill C-14 approved says everything about the priorities of the government, which was more content to have protracted debate around Bill C-9 than to get on with Bill C-14.

Would the member for Peace River—Westlock like to further unpack where the responsibility is for the absence of meaningful bail reform to fix the system that the Liberals broke?

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberals are the government. They do control the agenda of this place. It is incumbent entirely upon them to schedule these things.

I would like to remind the Liberals, in addition, that they have a minority government and that they should be working with opposition parties to pass things we mutually agree upon. Fixes to Liberal bail has been something that, apparently, the Liberals agreed with us on. It should have been the first thing they put on the agenda, rather than muddying the waters with a bunch of other bills.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. I at one time asked if we could sit for a couple extra weeks until midnight, and the Conservatives said no. The Conservative Party of Canada is the reason we do not have bail reform or bail legislation today.

Will the member apologize for misleading Canadians on that point?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is bullocks. The Liberals entirely have the control of this place in terms of scheduling. The member should look in the mirror, and perhaps he should figure out which way he is going, as he has reversed his position on a number of things over the last years.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to recognize Waves of Changes for Autism, a charity in Vaughan that is celebrating its 10th anniversary. I would like to congratulate Ellen Contardi and her entire board for all their efforts over the years.

Waves of Changes for Autism helps families that have children with autism. It helps them offset the cost of therapies. It has funded over 700 applications and has raised over $2.5 million since 2016. Since its inception, it has made sure that every single dollar has had an impact. In 2026 we dedicate this milestone by marking a decade of hope, a decade of opportunity and a decade of giving. Again, I congratulate Waves of Changes for Autism.

It is an honour to rise today to discuss a very important issue in our country related to public safety. Canadians expect Parliament to approach criminal law with seriousness and humility. Our decisions have the utmost real-life impacts on Canadians. They determine how we protect victims, how we hold offenders to account and whether people feel safe in their home and in their community. That responsibility demands clarity, discipline and honesty. Bill C-16 would meet that standard in many important respects. In others, it would not.

I want to be clear from the outset. I have witnessed, upon returning to Ottawa in this winter session, the falsehoods coming from the Liberal government: that Conservatives are obstructing legislation on public safety. Many of the victim-focused provisions come directly from legislation introduced by my Conservative colleagues prior to the introduction of Bill C-16.

Making the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree was a measure first proposed by my Conservative colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola in Bill C-225. Expanding the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to capture sexually explicit deepfakes draws directly from my Conservative colleague's bill, the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill's bill, Bill C-216. Of course, updating the mandatory reporting requirements for child sex exploitation material legislation was originally enacted by a previous Conservative government and later modernized through Conservative initiatives.

We support these measures. We have supported them consistently. We have called for them long before the government had decided that public safety had become politically inconvenient to ignore. That context matters because Canadians are being told a story by the Liberal government. They are being told that Conservatives are blocking progress. They are being told that we are unwilling to move legislation forward, and they are being told that democratic debate amounts to indifference toward victims. That narrative collapses under even modest scrutiny.

Allow me to highlight the case of Bill C-14, the Liberals' bail reform legislation. We all know that for years Conservatives have been calling on the government to get tough on crime and tough on repeat offenders. Bill C-14, while not going far enough, is better than what we have now. It would not address the underlying issue of removing the principle of restraint from Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which is leading to the catch-and-release issues we are plagued with today.

Since the Liberals are making their rounds in the media, suggesting we are obstructing bail reform, for the people watching at home let me highlight how the Liberals play politics with crime. The Liberals finally introduced their bail reform legislation on October 23. On November 18 they went to committee. Instead of advancing the legislation at committee so it could get expert testimony and be sent back to the House of Commons for a vote and be passed, from November 18 all the way to January 27 they chose to prioritize a different bill, Bill C-9, and support a Bloc amendment that attacks freedom of expression and religious freedom, an amendment they knew we could not support.

We asked 20 times before the Christmas break for bail reform to be moved ahead, but this was denied. Why? The Liberals did so in order to advance a narrative that because we are fighting back against Bill C-9 and their attacks on freedom of expression, we are therefore obstructing bail reform. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of how Liberals are playing politics with public safety.

Conservatives have been calling for stronger responses to violent crime, which is up 55%; to human trafficking, which is up 84%; and to sexual assaults, which have gone up 76% in this country since the Liberal government took office. We did so when the government dismissed rising crime as a perception problem. We still have former Liberal members of Parliament, like the one from Vaughan—Woodbridge, suggesting that crime is just a perception problem by using year-over-year statistics instead of a multi-year average to look at the actual trends. We did so while Liberals repealed mandatory penalties, expanded constitutional sentences and pursued a bail framework that has left communities, including Vaughan, less safe.

Bill C-16 combines measures that strengthen public safety with a sweeping restructuring of sentencing law that is fundamentally weakening Parliament's role. That is the problem and that is why the bill should, indeed, be split. The creation of coercive or controlling conduct offences within intimate relationships is a serious and necessary reform. Earlier intervention before abuse escalates into severe violence or homicide is very important. Conservatives support this approach. The expansion of deepfake offences is necessary to respond to modern forms of sexual exploitation. Conservatives support this as well. The procedural reforms aimed at reducing trial delays deserve careful study. Justice delayed serves neither the accused nor the victim. Conservatives are prepared to engage constructively on those provisions.

However, embedded within the bill is a sentencing provision that does not belong with the rest. It is a provision that would transform mandatory minimum penalties into discretionary suggestions. It is a provision that would apply across almost the entire Criminal Code. It is a provision that would fundamentally alter how Parliament expresses denunciation for the most serious crimes. Under Bill C-16, judges would be required to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum whenever applying the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. That provision would apply to nearly every mandatory minimum in federal law, excluding only murder and high treason.

In practical terms, mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory at all. That includes offences such as aggravated sexual assault with a firearm, human trafficking, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings and multiple other firearms offences. Parliament set these penalties deliberately, not casually or symbolically, because certain conduct is so dangerous, so destructive and so harmful that incarceration was deemed to be the baseline, not the exception.

The Supreme Court has never held that mandatory minimum penalties are unconstitutional per se. It has never stripped Parliament of its authority to impose them. Section 12 of the charter prohibits punishment that is “grossly disproportionate”. The House should pay close attention to what the court actually said, particularly in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville. In that case, the court was sharply divided. The majority relied on hypothetical scenarios to invalidate mandatory minimum penalties for child sex exploitation offences, but the dissent, led by Chief Justice Wagner, issued a warning that Parliament would be reckless to ignore.

That dissent reaffirmed a foundational principle. Hypotheticals must be reasonable. They must have a real, factual and legal connection to the offence before the court. Parliament is not required to legislate for the least serious imaginable application of an offence. Using remote or extreme hypotheticals to dismantle sentencing floors risks undermining democratic accountability itself. Those words matter.

Bill C-16 ignores that warning entirely. Instead of responding to Senneville with discipline by clarifying offence definitions or crafting a narrow and targeted safety valve, the government chose the most expansive option available. It used a contested decision as justification for wholesale retreat from Parliament's sentencing authority. The government will point to law enforcement organizations and victim advocacy groups that have welcomed parts of the bill. Conservatives respect those voices. We listen to them and we agree with them on many of the reforms contained within the bill. However, broad support for certain provisions does not mean Parliament should abandon its duty to scrutinize the whole.

Millions of Canadians voted for the official opposition to do precisely that: Hold the government to account, improve legislation and demand excellence, especially on matters of public safety. Conservatives stand ready to work. We stand ready to improve this legislation. Of course, we stand firmly on the side of victims, communities and public safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The Conservatives have not been supportive of getting legislation passed. I will give us the ideal example of Bill C-14. The Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal members were elected. The government said that bail reform legislation was critically important. We did the consultations, and the provinces, law enforcement and other stakeholders brought forward the legislation. The Conservative Party of Canada is the reason it has never passed. It is as simple as that.

We are now talking about Bill C-16, which is, again, important crime legislation. The Conservatives are coming up with excuses as to why they do not want to see it pass.

Will the member opposite agree that it is time for the Conservative Party to allow Canadians' crime agenda to pass? After all, even Canadians in Conservative ridings want this type of legislation to pass. Will the Conservative Party commit to passing the legislation before the end of February?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that statement, although, unfortunately, much of it is placed in some alternate universe that must exist out there. As everyone is well aware, Conservatives have been advocating for a tough-on-crime agenda for years at this point.

We supported sending Bill C-14 to committee for study, yet it was put behind Bill C-9. Then the Liberals decided to use their time to try to ram through attacks on freedom of expression. Why? We called for that bill to be moved ahead [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We will have to pause momentarily.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10:20 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 10:31 a.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I think the problem has been sorted out. We will continue. We were on questions and comments. The question had been asked. I will invite the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge to respond to the most recent question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Protecting Victims Act

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the hon. member for his comments, although they seem to be derived from an alternate universe. The facts on the ground are that Conservatives have always supported and advocated for tougher sentencing laws and have wanted the government to get tough on crime.

Bill C-14 was introduced on October 23. We advanced that bill to committee on November 18 with the understanding that it would be moved quickly through committee so it could be passed into law. The government then decided to ram Bill C-9 through and support a Bloc amendment that attacked freedom of expression. All this is to say that, because we are defending freedom of expression, we are therefore obstructing bail reform.

Conservatives have always been in support of tougher crime laws, and what Canadians need to ask themselves is why. The Liberals broke the bail laws to begin with. We are here to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that there are a lot of measures in Bill C-16. That is why it will be important to carefully study the bill in committee.

Earlier, I spoke about the work that I did to spearhead a study in committee. I have been advocating for years about the importance of revisiting the issue of coercive control and criminalizing it. I have been waging this battle at the request of the Quebec National Assembly. Finally, we have something about that in this bill.

My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has been waging another battle, that of creating guidelines for the application of the Jordan decision. My colleague spoke about that in his speech. As a result of the Jordan decision, some offenders got away with their crimes, even in cases of assault, because of court delays. The women who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women were very critical of that.

I will close by commenting on a situation that I found very concerning. A woman came to share her experience with us. She spoke mainly about the importance of developing criteria for the application of the Jordan decision. In her case, because of unreasonable delays, her abuser got off scot-free under the Jordan decision. However, to be frank, rather than actually listening to the victim, the Liberals and the Conservatives dug in their heels and played petty politics at committee.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have supported, and are in favour of, these provisions in the bill.

Just to be clear, we think the bill needs to be split, specifically around the provisions with respect to mandatory minimums, because the bill is essentially a test. What it would do is open up for debate, again, all past rulings where a particular sentencing was deemed unconstitutional. It would remove the guardrails Parliament has, remove the instructions from Parliament and create more delays and more litigation. This is something that needs to be clarified in the bill.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Canadians, and Canadian municipalities in particular, have been crying for help from the Liberals for years. They have been burdened with crime and criminals walking the streets.

Why does the member think this is suddenly such an important issue for the Liberals? They have finally put it on the agenda, as if it were something brand new they had never heard of before.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' own ideology has finally gotten in the way because public safety has become too politically inconvenient for them to ignore.

As I said earlier, we have been advocating for tougher sentencing laws and bail reform for years at this point. We are ready to advance bail legislation. We are ready to get serious on cracking down on crime and criminals, keeping them behind bars where they belong.

Conservatives will always stand up for public safety.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-16, and in doing so, we need to first set out some of the context for why we are having this debate, how we got here and where we are right now as a society in Canada.

One of the unfortunate outcomes of this past 10 years of Liberal government has been a measurable, significant rise in the incidence of crime in Canada. This is not an opinion. This is measured by Statistics Canada and many other observers. In every category of crime, the rate is up after 10 years of the Liberal government. Some of the crimes for which the rates are up spectacularly, in such a negative way, are violent crime on transit systems in our cities, extortion and violent crime. We have seen an increased incidence in the murder of police officers. These are really serious and troubling crimes that Canadians are very concerned about.

How did we get here? Well, the government undertook very specific legislative changes that have affected the incidence of crime in our cities and towns and in all places across Canada. In the 42nd Parliament, the Liberals brought in Bill C-75, which was the catch-and-release bail law change. That is not just a clever political phrase. It is literally what that bill did to our system. The government brought in and legislated the principle of minimum restraint and compelled by law the principle that judges must always apply minimum restraint. Therefore, this plays itself out in our courts, where people are arrested and released and rearrested and released and rearrested and released and so forth.

Police forces across Canada all know who the small number of criminals who commit a disproportionate number of offences are, and they can do nothing about it other than rearrest and rearrest. Officials at the City of Vancouver say there are 40 individuals who are responsible for 6,000 annual police interactions. These are people who are arrested over and over again, literally an average of more than three times a week for this small group of criminals. This is the principle of minimum restraint working itself out in the streets of our cities, and every other city police department has a similar story. I have talked to many police officers in my city who affirm this is the case in our community as well.

During the summer before last, I spoke to people at the city police chief's office in Calgary and heard about a series of home invasions where police arrested the same person, the leader of a group of people who were breaking into homes at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning. When someone breaks into a house at four o'clock in the morning, that is a home invasion. They are expecting the homeowner to be in their bed at that hour. The police figured out who was doing it, they arrested the suspects, and they were released and were able to do the same offence the same week, were rearrested for the same offence, and on it goes.

The other concrete step the government took that has had the result of increasing, or failing to address, crime in Canada was Bill C-5 in the 44th Parliament. In that Parliament, the Liberals passed a bill that stripped away mandatory minimum penalties for a host of offences, including serious drug and firearms offences.

That is where we are today. We have a measurable, demonstrative increase in crime after decades of falling incidence of crime. We had for the first time in many decades a rise in crime over a 10-year period, and the response of the government during that time was to make it easier for criminals to get out of jail and harder for judges to send repeat violent offenders into custodial sentences.

Here we are today debating Bill C-16, and it contains measures that Canadians and Conservatives have indeed been demanding for years and that we have asked for through private members' legislation from the Conservative benches. The member for Calgary Nose Hill had a bill in the last Parliament to ban artificial deepfakes of intimate images and the circulation thereof, to include that in the Criminal Code and to compel Internet service providers to report incidents of child sex abuse material. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola proposed, through a private member's bill, the automatic first-degree charge for murder of an intimate partner.

These are things we have proactively suggested to the government, and we are pleased that it has adopted these measures. We are pleased that the government is at least talking about the bottlenecks in the system and that it is introducing legislation about coercive control and about restoring or preserving mandatory minimum penalties. Is it, though?

This bill contains a carve-out that many observers, including prosecutors, suggest would in fact do nothing to protect mandatory minimum penalties, including ones that have been upheld by the Supreme Court for decades and that have been introduced by successive Liberal and Conservative governments exercising their democratic responsibility to determine, as elected officials, what power the state would have to incarcerate somebody for serious crime.

The carve-out contained in this bill may well undo mandatory minimum penalties that currently exist and that have been upheld, while failing to reinstate them in many other cases that the public is demanding, so this bill has problems. This bill is not a panacea to deal with this problem. It really is worth reminding Canadians why we are here.

It has come to my attention that I forgot at the outset to state that I will share my time with the member for Richmond Hill South. I am thankful for the reminder of that, because I am looking forward to his remarks as well.

The carve-out in this bill would potentially take the power of the people of Canada who elect their representatives to come to this place and to determine what the penalties should be for heinous, terrible offences, and turn them into mere guidelines. There are these hypotheticals they always come up with. I was here for the debate on Bill C-5 when David Lametti came up with an outrageous, and actually quite arrogant and offensive, scenario that he imagined for why there should not be a mandatory minimum sentence for the dangerous use of a firearm with intent.

We see this from the Liberals, their trying to imagine a circumstance rather than dealing with the concrete. It goes to an approach, and we do not agree with that approach. That approach is what has gotten us here. I hope Bill C-16 will be examined thoroughly. Probably it will need to be amended, but at the end, we will get to where we need to be and restore the power of Parliament to determine mandatory minimum penalties for serious crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that Bill C-16 would actually reinstate mandatory minimums. It would put in a safety valve so that we would be charter-compliant. The Conservative member from Kamloops, who sits right in front of that member, has actually advocated in the past on the need for a safety valve.

The Conservative Party, much like it is doing with Bill C-14, wants to continue to prevent the legislative agenda from passing. I have asked one of the member's colleagues, and now I will ask the member: Would he, or the Conservative Party, agree that it is part of a crime package including Bill C-14 and make a commitment, at least a personal commitment, to allow this legislation to pass all readings before the end of February?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny how the member wants me to commit to a series of things that his own House leader has most of the control over, which is when a bill is going to pass in this place.

I do not know when the Liberals are going to call the bill. We have already seen what they have done at the justice committee with Bill C-14, which was expeditiously referred to the committee only to languish there while they played politics with Bill C-9. The member is determined to blame the opposition for the Liberals' inability to manage the parliamentary calendar.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by noting that Quebec's fourth femicide tragically took place in the riding of Shefford. My thoughts are with Véronic Champagne's family and loved ones. A vigil was held in Rougemont.

I was really struck by what one of her friends said in an interview. She said that femicide is one of the most easily preventable crimes, because there are often warning signs. This brings me back to the issue of coercive control. In committee, we heard that, until coercive control is recognized in the Criminal Code, police officers will lack the key tools to intervene more quickly and proactively, before the situation escalates to femicide.

My question is very simple, essential and important. What does my colleague think about what came out of the committee?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really have time to go through all of the bill, as it is a pretty big bill, so I am glad the member brought that portion of it to my attention in this debate and is allowing me a moment to comment on it.

Yes, we agree and stand with victims. Yes, we know there are many signs, and we never want to see scenarios where someone is murdered and everybody who knows the scenario or the family, whether it is the police or the neighbours, say they saw it coming but that the police lacked the tools to intervene. This is a very serious concern, and it is something that many of our members have talked about and commented on. We are are very concerned about this and are glad this debate is happening on Bill C-16.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to recap how things work around here, and I will ask my colleague to comment on it.

Conservatives are always way out ahead of Liberals when it comes to things dealing with justice and public safety. As a matter of fact, we warned them about the consequences of their changes in Bill C-75, Bill C-5 and a number of other changes they made. We told them crime would go up. We told them our communities would become less safe. They ignored us and did it anyway.

We then propose private members' bills, which the Liberals across the way systematically vote against every single time until public pressure gets so great that they actually then take our ideas, bundle them up in a bill, put them before the House and then claim that we are blocking them. Is that true?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent, succinct summary of exactly what has happened in this place over the last 10 years. That is exactly it. The Liberals create a problem, we propose a solution, they turn down our solution, they copy our solution, and then they blame us for it not passing fast enough. That is exactly what is going on in this place.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have become very familiar with Liberal rhetoric on public safety, unfortunately. We hear their words about combatting crime, standing with victims and protecting women and children, but words are not results, and rhetoric does not keep communities safe, unfortunately. Bill C-16 is a case study in the government's approach to justice: announce the right intentions, borrow Conservative ideas, and then quietly undermine accountability in the fine print.

We will admit that this bill contains provisions that will genuinely help victims, provisions Conservatives have long supported, proposed, and defended in this House. However, it also contains structural changes that would weaken sentencing certainty, expand judicial discretion and erode Parliament's authority, all while violent crime continues to rise.

Make no mistake. Conservatives are ready to get to work, and we will work with the Liberals. They are more than welcome to take our ideas, as they already have, but Canadians deserve honesty, not more Liberal spin. We cannot claim to be tough on crime while systemically weakening consequences for the most serious crimes.

Where C-16 is grounded in reality rather than the same old Liberal ideology, it deserves some recognition. The creation of a Criminal Code offence targeting intimate partner violence is an important first step, because we know violence rarely begins with a single act. It begins with patterns like control, isolation, intimidation, surveillance and financial pressure, all designed to dominate another person. By recognizing this behaviour as criminal before physical violence occurs, the law can intervene earlier. This approach aligns with Conservative principles of protecting victims, taking threats seriously, and deterring violence before it escalates. If the Liberals are serious about addressing intimate partner violence, Conservatives stand ready to strengthen this provision, along with this bill, not just more Liberal announcements.

Much of what the government is now promoting as progress in Bill C-16 is, in fact, a long-standing Conservative policy. Let me start by saying that making the murder of an intimate partner automatically a first-degree offence was first advanced by the Conservative member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Expanding protections against the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, like sexually explicit deepfakes, also came from Bill C-216, from the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill, which the Liberals expressed opposition to before they finally embraced it. Mandatory reporting of child sexual exploitation material was built on the laws enacted by the previous Conservative government.

We are glad that the Liberals have finally recognized the value of these Conservative proposals. They are welcome to take our ideas, because Canadians are safer every time they do so, but this record also exposes a contradiction that Canadians are noticing. If Conservatives were right about protecting victims, why does the government continue to be wrong on sentencing, bail and accountability?

This is at the heart of the problem with Bill C-16. Buried inside this omnibus bill is a so-called safety valve that would afford judges with significant discretion on sentencing for nearly every serious offence in the Criminal Code. We have seen how this has played out in several instances where the Liberals have enabled judges to give discounted sentences based on the race or immigration status of the accused. Parliament would explicitly authorize courts, because of Bill C-16, to impose sentences below mandatory minimum penalties whenever a judge concludes that applying the minimum would be cruel and unusual for that particular offender. That is not a narrow exception. It applies to nearly every mandatory minimum in the Criminal Code, excluding only murder and treason. In other words, judges could ignore mandatory sentences for crimes like various sexual offences, robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking, child sexual abuse material offences, robbery and extortion.

We know that mandatory minimums exist for a reason. They ensure the uniform denunciation of serious crimes. They provide a predictable and baseline consequence for the most dangerous crimes. They provide deterrence and incapacitation of dangerous offenders.

Bill C-16 replaces legislative certainty with subjective offender-specific assessments, thereby fragmenting sentencing across cases, courts and jurisdictions. It is another example that the Liberals are putting criminals first. If a mandatory sentence could be ignored whenever a judge disagrees with Parliament, then Parliament would no longer be setting sentencing policy. Judges would still be left to fill the gap. That is not progress, as Liberals like to describe it; it would mean a quiet erosion of democratic accountability, leaving the criminal justice system unaccountable to the Canadian electorate. The result of this is that Canadians all across the country will live with rising violence, and victims will ultimately pay the price as mandatory minimums are not enforced.

We need to take a step back and look at how we got here. Perhaps the clearest measure of the government's priorities is what it has not done. It is impossible to ignore that it has been nine months since the last election, and still, in those nine months, despite daily headlines, police warnings and community fear, the government has delivered no meaningful bail reform to scrap the weak Liberal bail and no serious action targeting repeat violent offenders, and shown absolutely no urgency in restoring public safety.

Since the Liberal Prime Minister took office, not a single public safety bill has been passed so far, despite multiple attempts by Conservatives to make concrete proposals after months of work to fix the justice system that the Liberals broke in the first place. This has resulted in violent crime being up 55%, sexual assaults up nearly 76% and human trafficking up 84%. These are not just abstract statistics. Behind these numbers are victims, families and neighbourhoods that no longer feel safe all across the country because the Liberals set into motion this catch-and-release system not too long ago.

Police officers, prosecutors and premiers have all said the same thing, that the Liberal bail system, which they are responsible for, is now broken. Repeat violent offenders are being released again and again, sometimes within hours, only to offend again. What is even worse is that, instead of scrapping the weak Liberal bail and fixing the bail system for good, the government first focused its attention on Bill C-9 back in the fall, repealing long-standing and important Criminal Code safeguards that protect religious freedom made in good faith. Without these long-standing safeguards for individuals acting in good faith that is reasonable and without malicious intent, core freedoms are put at risk. The preaching of religious doctrine or the reading of sacred texts could be swept into criminal law if a government of the day deems it objectionable.

At the same time, the proposal introduces a vague and elastic definition of “hate”, one that invites abuse and risks criminalizing lawful expression that has always been protected in a free society. Fixing bail should come before policing beliefs, and protecting communities should come before restricting liberty. Conservatives will always defend freedom of religion and expression, especially when government overreach hides behind these so-called intentions.

Conservatives are not here to obstruct. We are here to stand ready to work with the Liberals to strengthen victim protections and scrap the weak Liberal bail system, which the Liberals set in motion. We are here to restore sentencing certainty, reassert Parliament's role and make communities safer. The Liberals are more than welcome to take our ideas, as they already have, if it delivers real results for Canadians, except we know the Liberals always water down our ideas and then take the credit for it. They are free to take the credit for it if it delivers for Canadians, but rhetoric must finally match reality.

Canadians do not want speeches, Canadians do not want photo ops or press releases, and they certainly do not need another public safety summit so the Liberal government can figure out what is wrong after 10 years. They want safety, they want accountability, they want action and they want a justice system that puts victims and law-abiding Canadians first. Conservatives stand ready to deliver that.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will split my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

I am speaking today on Bill C-16, the government's proposal to address the serious issue of rising violent crime and the growing lack of public safety. Residents in communities across Canada and my riding, including those in Penticton, Oliver, Princeton and Castlegar, tell me things do not feel as safe as they used to. I am hearing this constantly. While our region is the most beautiful in Canada and a place I feel proud to call home, many do not feel safe walking our streets, shopping in our downtowns, visiting our hospitals or clinics, or even at night in their homes.

Within just the last few months, we have had a firebombing in Castlegar, an attempted break-and-enter with a shotgun in Osoyoos and a shootout in Princeton. These are things we never used to see before, especially in rural towns. Residents have good reason to be concerned. There is a growing and fundamental issue of violent crime in this country that has gone unaddressed by the Liberals for years, but I am not telling the House anything new. The time for change is long overdue. Bill C-16, I hope, can do some good here, but some concerns remain.

When I first joined municipal politics, people in the community were concerned about many issues, but crime was not top of the list. They worried mostly about parks, about job security and about taxes. In a decade, things have changed drastically. Now, it is a regular occurrence for people to say they are concerned, cautious or even afraid. In a place like Penticton, residents no longer feel safe to take a summer night stroll on our iconic Lakeshore Drive. The business associations there are clear that “crime is what we are hearing about, every single day.”

Just this month, I had a conversation with a mother who lost her son in Penticton to violence. This young man was swarmed, assaulted and beaten until he died. Many residents of Penticton will remember this vicious murder, but what they might not realize is that we are mere months away from a statute of limitations issue. Delays in getting this complex case to court could mean this case, like many others in Canada, is never going to be properly heard, and the victim's family and friends and our small town will never have proper closure or see justice. This is not just justice delayed; it is no justice at all. I urge the courts to provide full and fair proceedings to this horrific case.

Sadly, it is not the only one. Why? What has changed in this decade? I suggest it is reflecting a chronic, years-long failure to uphold public safety, the first responsibility of any government. It is reflecting a failure to demonstrate consequences, a failure to provide a swift and fair application of justice for the accused, a failure to provide closure for victims of crime, a failure exasperated by a sluggish court system, and a failure to address a broken bail system.

I appreciate that Bill C-16 tries to find solutions, finally. How does Bill C-16 address this? It is by taking on many of the ideas that the Conservatives have called for, for years. These measures are long overdue in our criminal justice system. After a decade in office, finally, the Liberals have acted.

I give credit to my Conservative colleagues for their work throughout these years to finally get the Liberals to sit up and listen. I am glad to see the Liberals take up the proposal of my Conservative colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, which would make the murder of an intimate partner automatically a first-degree offence. After the horrific murder of Bailey McCourt last summer, this is a proposal that I know the people of my riding and all of Canada can get behind.

I also see that a new Criminal Code offence has been put forth, prohibiting engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. I spoke about the importance of considering coercive control in the House just yesterday in my speech on Bill C-223, and I welcome it here as well, but the Liberals have also undermined key policies that matter for public safety and for public confidence that justice will be served, like mandatory minimum sentences. This is a policy that the public, historically this Parliament and the Conservatives have been supporting.

In my recent survey to my constituents, almost everyone who responded said they wanted violent criminals held responsible for their actions and wanted them to serve mandatory time. Instead, to appeal to soft-on-crime supporters, mandatory minimums in sentencing are undermined again in Bill C-16. Bill C-16 would amend the principles for sentencing, imposing on judges and courts the requirement to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum sentence, as adopted by Parliament as law, where applying the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. This change would enable a path to lower sentences than mandatory minimums require, even for crimes such as human trafficking, weapons trafficking and offences committed with firearms, such as extortion or drive-by shootings.

Mandatory minimum sentences for violent offenders are not cruel or unusual punishments. A violent crime itself is a cruel and unusual punishment to its victims, their families and the entire community. This cannot be forgotten. Someone who is convicted of a drive-by shooting or armed extortion deserves to be jailed with a clear sentence set by a democratic body of the House representing the desires of all Canadians. In practice, this bill, as drafted, means that mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory. That is unacceptable to me. Too many residents, families, seniors and small businesses in my riding and throughout Canada have been victimized and do not feel safe. Canadians have had enough.

I do not come to the House to say “no”, but to offer a better way forward. I hope that, across parties, we can recognize the positive measures that I have highlighted and split them into their own legislation that stands apart from these sentencing measures. Doing so would allow us to quickly implement positive changes to the Criminal Code while taking these ill-conceived sentencing proposals for fuller debate and study at the committee level.

After a decade of catch-and-release Liberal bail, repealing mandatory minimums and increasing violent crimes, Canadians want better from their government. They want their taxes and their government to deliver safer communities, to prioritize them and their families over criminals and to prioritize justice. Let us work quickly to meet the expectations that our communities are demanding.

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

Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code must meet the public's expectations and evolve with the times.

Bill C-16 proposes criminalizing the creation of deepfakes. When someone's face is manipulated to create deepfakes using tools such as AI and then disseminated, it can have a significant impact on the victim's life. Bill C-16 will criminalize that. It also criminalizes threatening to distribute non-consensual intimate images, because not only can distribution have an impact on victims' lives, so can the threat of doing so.

I think these are important changes to the Criminal Code. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. Does she also think that this is an important change to ensure that the Criminal Code meets the public's expectations and reflects today's reality?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I do appreciate that criminalizing deepfakes is in the bill and that there will be things we will work on in committee, things we agree on, but why has it taken this long to address crime when our communities have been crying for help for years? This is a move in the right direction, but why did it take a decade to get here?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned that much of what is in the bill was requested a long time ago. I agree with her.

She addressed the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes and that is something the Bloc Québécois had asked to be reinstated. From what I understand, to ensure that the bill is consistent with the charter and the many Supreme Court decisions that struck down minimum sentences, a notwithstanding clause was included.

As far as the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes is concerned, the Bloc Québécois has proposed this amendment many times. I would like to know what that means to my colleague. Is that not something constructive that should be studied in committee?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, mandatory minimums are extremely important. When a crime is committed, such as the one that was presented to me by a mother whose child, a young person, was beaten in a playground, or extortion or the crimes that have been happening especially of late, they need to have mandatory minimums. That is what we will be pushing for in committee.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech delved into some positive and constructive criticisms that will help improve this bill.

As it is written, Bill C-16 would allow judges to ignore every mandatory minimum prison sentence other than for murder and treason. Does my colleague feel that this will help reduce the increased crime rates, and violent crime rates specifically, that we have seen in the country?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, without mandatory minimums there is really no way that crime can be specifically addressed in our communities. Right now, municipalities are buckling under the responsibilities and the downloading they have had to take on because of the crime that has hit. It used to be just cities, but now our rural communities are being hit hard. There is no safe place to go, and mandatory minimums need to be brought forward with this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member is aware, but Bill C-16 would reinstate mandatory minimums, which is something Canadians want to see. However, the Conservatives seem to want to oppose even that aspect of the legislation. They want to factor it out. Not only do they want to change the legislation, but they do not even want to see the legislation pass.

Will the member make a personal commitment that she would like to support Bill C-16, in some capacity, to pass before the end of February?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member has been in his seat for many years, and I wonder why it has taken so long to address these very serious issues.

Yes, we will work on this in committee.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House to represent the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island.

I would like to take a quick moment to pay tribute to Wanda Wetteland, a 31-year navy veteran. She was a much-loved and long-time member of Branch 134 Malahat Legion. Sadly, she passed earlier this month, just the night before her wedding. We will remember her.

Before us today is Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. On January 5, Laura Gover-Basar, a 41-year-old mother from Vancouver Island, was found dead in her home. Her ex-husband has been arrested and charged with her murder. Laura held a Ph.D. and was an instructor at Camosun College, not too far from where I live. She leaves behind two young daughters who will now have neither parent around to raise them.

Allegations suggest that Laura was a victim of intimate partner violence and that her death was the result of this violence. Her ex-husband was supposed to appear in court for failing to follow a court order in a separate matter the very same day that her body was found.

Nearly 200 people gathered in Victoria to bring attention to Laura's death and highlight the long-standing problem of domestic and gender-based violence. They are calling for government action, and I believe that Bill C-16 is a good start to bringing justice for victims. Among the positive steps are changes that would make the murder of an intimate partner automatically a first-degree murder charge. This is a measure first proposed by my Conservative colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, in his private member's bill, Bill C-225, Bailey's law.

Right now, Laura's ex-husband has been charged only with second-degree murder. Under Bill C-16, the law would ensure that her alleged murderer would be charged to the fullest with a first-degree murder charge and also be sentenced to the fullest, as it would come with a mandatory life sentence, life in prison, with no parole eligibility for 25 years.

Laura's tragic case is not an isolated one. As activists pointed out when they gathered in Victoria, this is a decades-long issue that needs to be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry; I have to interrupt the hon. member.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Do we have quorum?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That is an excellent question. I will check.

And the count having been taken:

We did not have quorum, but we do now.

The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford may continue his intervention.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, Laura's tragic case is not an isolated one, as activists pointed out when they gathered in Victoria. This is a decades-long issue that needs to be solved.

By making femicide automatically a first-degree murder charge, we would see a vitally important step being taken to bring justice to victims like Laura and their families. It is worth noting that the term “femicide” is a little misleading, as the law would apply to intimate partner violence committed by either gender.

Another positive measure that Bill C-16 would bring forward is the banning of deepfake images of intimate partners. This would keep Canadians, especially women, safe from non-consensual intimate images' being created and shared. This proposal originally came from my colleague, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, and her private member's bill, Bill C-216. From that same bill, provisions that would bring mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse material have also been added to Bill C-16, which would help keep our kids safe from the most despicable of crimes.

Bill C-16 would also introduce an aggravating factor for sextortion. This is a step in the right direction, although in my opinion it does not go far enough. My Conservative colleague, the member for Edmonton Gateway, had proposed a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for all forms of extortion, which I would also have liked to have seen in the bill.

Further, Bill C-16 would affect the National Defence Act, and as a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I strongly recommend that we get to study this part of the bill in greater detail. The bill would enable victims to receive information from authorities in the military justice system without being required to make official requests. These changes would allow victims the ability to receive information about their rights and available protection measures, and to receive information from the military justice authorities without being required to make the request. This is a shift from the current on-request framing of the National Defence Act's declaration of victim rights for certain categories of information.

With CFB Esquimalt, the third-largest military base in Canada, neighbouring my riding on Vancouver Island, these changes are especially important to many members of my community. I believe that these measures would work hand in hand with Bill C-11, which we are currently dealing with at committee.

I am glad to see that Bill C-16 is utilizing some great Conservative concepts, and I hope that my colleagues across the aisle will also incorporate our amendments for Bill C-11, without which there would be reduced justice for survivors of military sexual trauma. We need to ensure that our responses are victim-centred and trauma-centred. Any steps that lead us in that direction are good steps.

Unfortunately, some steps are missed in Bill C-16. As it is written, Bill C-16 would allow judges to ignore every mandatory minimum prison sentence in Canada's Criminal Code, other than for murder and treason. Parliament sets mandatory minimums for heinous crimes, as is the prerogative of elected officials, but if the Liberals allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums, there would effectively be nothing mandatory about them.

Aggravated sexual assault with a gun, and human trafficking, would not have mandatory sentences. Multiple violent firearms offences, including extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm, and many other crimes would not have mandatory minimum sentencing under Bill C-16. This simply does not make sense. Are we seriously talking about extremely violent and heinous crimes without a minimum penalty?

This part of Bill C-16 is a significant step backwards for victims and their families. This is not a victim-centred approach. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased 84%, sexual assault is up almost 76% and violent crime is up almost 55%.

Canadians need Parliament to co-operatively take real steps to make our streets safe again. Simply put, removing mandatory minimums would not do that. As elected officials, we must do everything we can to keep our communities safe. It is our job as parliamentarians to set consequences for serious crimes like these. Bill C-16, as it stands, would undermine that outright authority. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their neighbourhood, and victims and their families deserve to see justice served.

There are many aspects of the bill that I agree with. The aspects that are victim-centric and the aspects that are trauma-informed are steps in the right direction that I support in the spirit of collaboration. My concern with the bill lies where victims stop being the focus. I believe that if we bring the focus back to the victims and do not take away parliamentary authority to set mandatory minimum sentences, C-16 could bring some extremely important and needed changes to our justice system.

I hope that my colleagues across the floor will embrace the spirit of collaboration we always offer and be open to our improvements to strengthen the bill to keep mandatory minimum penalties for heinous crimes. We can all agree that we collectively face significant increased crime. With some improvements to Bill C-16, we could work together to bring forward a positive solution for Canada. The ball is in their court.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that the member has it wrong. Bill C-16 would reinstate numerous mandatory minimum penalties, something Canadians want to see, yet the Conservatives are opposing it.

We have a series of crime legislation. We can talk about Bill C-29, Bill C-9 and Bill C-14, which were popular pieces of bail reform legislation, or about the legislation we have today. The Conservative Party continues to deny the passage of this type of legislation, and then the Conservatives try to say they are not filibustering. That is just not true. The reason we do not have bail reform legislation passed in Canada today is the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the truth; they cannot change the facts.

Will the member not agree that it is time that the Conservative Party started listening to Canadians, those in Conservative ridings too, and allow important legislation of this nature to pass through the system? The legislation needs to get to the committee. Will the member commit to having the entire legislative agenda in terms of the crime file pass before the end of February?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite seems to be quite angry, but I must say that the Liberals have had almost 11 years to resolve this. The committee tried 19 times to put it ahead of Bill C-9, and it was refused. That was our positive, collaborative way to try to bring this forward in a timely way.

However, the bill would take away mandatory minimum penalties for aggravated assault with a gun and for human trafficking. It would take them away for multiple violent offences, including extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm, and many others.

The point of my speech, and my answer for the member opposite, is that we would ensure that those mandatory minimum penalties, which are focused on the victims, are in the legislation.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a part of this bill purports to address court delays, more specifically, the harmful effects of the Jordan decision. This is something the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for quite some time.

My colleague is familiar with that part of the bill. Does he believe that passing this part of the bill as drafted will negate the harmful effects of the Jordan decision?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the bill is not about the Jordan decision; although it could have impact, the bill is about mandatory minimum penalties, and certainly it is worth exploring the potential impact of the Jordan decision that the bill could have. That is why I have suggested that we need to look further into it and make improvements, including consideration for the Jordan decision.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised the case, and I raised it earlier in the debate on Bill C-16 because it is so fresh in our minds: Laura Gover was murdered on January 5. It is a very recent case. We operate under the principle of innocent until proven guilty, but her former partner is under arrest and charged with the murder. It certainly appears to be a case of intimate partner violence, in fact a murder, that took the life of Laura Gover, a much-loved mother and educator.

I want to thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for raising this case. I part company with him at that point just to ask whether he has looked at the vast literature and research that show that mandatory minimum penalties do not work. They do not deter crime. They do not deter violent crime. There are many places we need to work, and Bill C-16 would deal with some of them in terms of fighting coercive control and doing more in a preventative fashion.

I just ask my friends across the way, including those on the government benches who brought forward the legislation, to look at the evidence before assuming mandatory minimum penalties work.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that the terrible murder that we speak of happened in or very close to her riding. There is much research that shows that mandatory minimums do reduce the impacts and effects of, specifically, very violent and heinous crimes. It is worth looking at all sources and information as we look to improve the bill. I certainly believe that mandatory minimums are a key part of the prevention of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We are out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River.

Today we are debating Bill C-16, which means we are talking about court delays, sexual violence and protecting victims. I am speaking today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

First of all, my party and I would like to extend our deepest condolences to those affected by what is already the fourth femicide in Quebec in 2026. I want to express my sympathy to the family and loved ones of Véronic Champagne, a mother who was killed in Rougemont, in the riding of Shefford.

I was especially moved by the vigil organized by the municipality of Rougemont. Times like these make it clear that it is more than just the loved ones and family members of a victim of femicide who are affected. The entire community is in shock. I have seen that for myself, and I wish Rougemont, a close-knit community, a collective healing. At least this vigil, this moment of gathering, allowed us to begin the mourning process for the entire Rougemont community and the region.

What we want to see with Bill C-16 is a justice system that truly protects victims. This bill seeks to address a crisis of confidence in the criminal justice system. All too often, victims, most of whom are women, children, and even seniors, experience violence and then are revictimized by the justice system. I get messages about that. That means that our justice system is failing to protect victims and letting them down. This system reproduces the violence that it claims to combat.

I want to give a few statistics and then I will talk about the positive measures included in this bill. I will also point out a few concerns that I have near the end of my speech.

Let us look first at a few statistics. We see that some criminals are never brought to justice because of court delays. As a result of the Jordan decision, serious criminal cases have been dismissed because of unreasonable delays. Here are some actual numbers: Thirteen cases were dismissed in 2021, 18 in 2022, 96 in 2023 and 62 in 2024, and that is just looking at partial data. These cases included sexual assault, domestic violence, crimes against children and criminal harassment. That has a direct impact on victims, who are retraumatized by this and by the fact that offenders get to enjoy a form of judicial impunity.

That is why action had to be taken. The Bloc Québécois made several requests. Bill C-16 now makes corrections, particularly with regard to the Jordan decision, which the Bloc Québécois strongly supports, clearly. During the previous Parliament, we even introduced a bill that sought to provide a framework for the Jordan decision. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, our justice critic, spoke about it and worked on this issue.

Bill C-16 clarifies the criteria for determining the complexity of cases. Certain time limits are excluded from the calculation, judges have the option of ordering remedies other than discontinuing proceedings and there is a new key element, namely that the court will have to consider the impact on victims of public confidence. We welcome these positive steps.

Now, I want to focus our attention on violence against women. I am going to present some more figures that compel us to act. Sexual violence is massively under-reported. Almost 90% of sexual assaults are never reported. In 2024, femicides in Canada took the lives of 81 women killed by an intimate partner, 25 of them in Quebec. A number of cases have already been reported since the start of 2026. I talked about that earlier. I also want to acknowledge the loved ones of Susana Rocha Cruz, Mary Tukalak Iqiquq and Tajan'ah Desir. That is already far too many.

Now I want to address a new critical piece of information. I received a letter from the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability. Fifty-five per cent of senior women killed by a family member were killed by their own sons. This statistic comes from a letter sent to us by the observatory explaining its position on Bill C-16.

In terms of coercive control, although the bill is making significant progress, there is room for improvement. In fact, I launched a study in committee to look into the possibility of criminalizing coercive control following a request from elected representatives who had worked on the report “Rebâtir la confiance” in the Quebec National Assembly and who told us that they could not take action because the matter fell under the Criminal Code. I then proposed a study on the subject. I have been pushing for this for several months, if not years. We therefore welcome the creation of the offence of coercive control. This recognition is key because violence is not just physical. It can be psychological, financial, social and invisible. Violence, in these forms, often starts much earlier.

I also want to mention an interview I heard following the murder of Véronic Champagne. One of her friends said that femicide was one of the most preventable crimes; she was referring to coercive control. There are often warning signs of what is to come, but unfortunately, as long as it is not included in the Criminal Code, the police do not have the tools they need to act sooner, to act upstream. That is really what the recognition of coercive control is for.

Again, the Elder Justice Coalition report states that coercive violence also affects seniors, dependant individuals, and women living with cognitive disorders. According to this organization, domestic violence against seniors has increased by 49% since 2018 in Canada. Our position is that recognizing coercive control is a real step forward, but we must ensure that no victim is left behind. That needs to be the next step, so we will be monitoring its implementation.

When it comes to sexual violence, deepfakes and cybercrime, it is clear that AI does have an impact. The Bloc Québécois supports the ban on pornographic deepfakes. We also support broadening the definition of intimate images. We also want to see tougher penalties and we would like to point out that, ultimately, young women and teenage girls are the main targets of these new forms of violence. I hope that a study will be conducted. In fact, it is possible that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will soon be studying the impact of AI on violence against women. A motion to that effect could be presented in the near future. It might be worthwhile in terms of proposing other possible solutions. We know that legislation is an important step, but it is rarely the last one. We will need to continue to monitor its implementation and the consequences of all this.

Bill C-16 addresses another interesting issue, namely young people being recruited into organized crime. We know that organized crime is recruiting more and more young people, at increasingly younger ages, using social media to exploit their vulnerabilities. We in the Bloc Québécois support the creation of a specific offence to target the real perpetrators. It is important to remember that many of these young people are unfortunately being killed after having been recruited, as was the case with Mohamed-Yanis Seghouani, who was 14 years old. That is unacceptable. The message is that young people must be truly protected, not used as cannon fodder, which is what is happening right now. Regarding the recruitment of young people into organized crime, I know that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has also advocated for this measure and lamented the fact that too many young people are still being recruited into organized crime.

Nevertheless, I would like to raise a few concerns. When it comes to victims' rights and restorative justice, we have to be careful about the means used. The Bloc Québécois welcomes, among other things, strengthening the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Quebec strongly supports restorative justice mechanisms, but has issued a clear warning: Without judges, resources and adequate funding, these rights will remain theoretical.

In closing, we support the bill, but we must still remain vigilant. If Bill C-16 is passed, we will have responsibilities regarding its implementation. We support Bill C-16 because, as we said, it reflects several of the Bloc Québécois's positions. It strengthens victim protection and finally recognizes forms of violence that have long been ignored. However, we will remain vigilant to eliminate any blind spots and ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions are respected. We will be vigilant in committee and elsewhere.

I would like to quickly come back to something. The appointment of judges is a federal responsibility. We need judges for this bill to be implemented properly, but the appointment process is slow. Quebec is responsible for the administration of justice, but the problem is the fiscal imbalance. We therefore need to see how much funding will be transferred to Quebec because, obviously, the administration of justice costs money. The federal government needs to provide funding for that. Finally, the government also needs to improve protection for seniors and vulnerable people.

In closing, we need to keep the following in mind when it comes to this bill, which is so important and contains so many measures: The justice system must not only punish crime; it must also protect the victims of crime. That is what should and will guide us when we study this bill in committee. Then, we will have to see how Bill C-16 will be implemented to determine whether it really meets victims' needs.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank our colleague who has just summarized so well the challenge posed by this terrible situation in our ridings. These are exactly the same realities we are experiencing throughout Quebec, and the concerns she raised are also the same in my own riding.

I also thank her for her collaboration in committee, because we need to work together to advance legislation like Bill C-16. We must prevent and reduce the risks.

In that line of thought, could she reiterate how best to enhance prevention and reduce the risks in order to improve what we should be doing with regard to Bill C-16?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I noted some of our concerns and some of the progress made, which we will support. However, in terms of prevention, I would like to remind members that Bill C-16 will not fix everything. Criminalizing coercive control is really something that groups on the ground are calling for. I had a conversation with people from the shelter in my riding, Maison Alice Desmarais, who shared some truly devastating stories. As I said, these crimes are often predictable and can be prevented if we give the justice system the tools it needs.

I want to conclude by saying that, when we talk about tools, that includes financial tools. As my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned, the issue facing the justice system is really the fiscal imbalance. Ottawa passes laws, but Quebec needs money to enforce them.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a passionate and hard-working member. Indeed, that is the point of my question.

In the limited time she has, I would like her to summarize the work that the Bloc Québécois has done regarding what is included in Bill C-16 and what it means to be a passionate and hard-working member like her.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. However, this bill was a team effort. Bloc Québécois members prefer to work as a team. I want to reiterate the active involvement of our colleague and fantastic critic from Rivière-du-Nord, who sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He worked very hard on the issue of the Jordan decision, in collaboration with our former colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Denis Trudel. I can mention him by name because he no longer sits in the House.

As I said, for years, the government refused to listen to Quebec's demands to criminalize coercive control. After conducting a study at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with my Conservative colleagues and holding a press conference that even Liberal MPs attended, the issue I raised became non-partisan. The entire committee held a press conference last November to call for the criminalization of coercive control. Finally, just before we left for the holiday break, the government introduced this bill, incorporating this concept.

I would also like to highlight the work that has been done with regard to young recruits, to ensure that it will no longer be possible to recruit them from the age of 14. This work was led by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.

There is something else that I did not talk about much in my speech. My colleague also called for mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes only.

We helped make all these things happen. It was high time that action was taken on behalf of victims.

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

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate many of the comments the member has put on the record. When I think of the legislation, Bill C-16, I think about how it is dealing with the issue of deepfakes and also in regard to elevating femicide to first-degree murder. I think we are in a good position to see the bill go to committee so there can be further discussion.

Can the member provide any further thoughts she may have on the two specific issues I raise?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am running out of time.

First, on the issue of deepfakes, as I mentioned earlier, I hope that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women can conduct a study on this issue. We now know that AI and deepfake images disproportionately affect women. The consequences of that are huge.

Second, with respect to elevating femicide to first-degree murder, I know that some stakeholders called for this in committee. Once Bill C-16 is studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we will see how this aspect will be addressed. Members should stay tuned.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-16, omnibus legislation brought forward by the government.

There are some measures in the bill that are supportable to the extent that they strengthen Canada's criminal justice system and take into account and strengthen the interests of victims. Many of those measures were literally copied and pasted from private members' bills introduced by Conservative members. If the government wants to take good Conservative ideas, we welcome it doing so. There are also some additional measures in the bill that we wholeheartedly support.

That is where my compliments to the government end, because there are serious concerns and problems with the bill, starting with how the government has responded to the troubling and problematic Supreme Court decision in Senneville, which struck down the mandatory minimum sentencing law for the distribution and possession of child pornography.

The facts in Senneville are truly appalling and horrific. They involve two sadistic sexual predators who had hundreds of images of small children, made from the sexual brutalization and defilement of these innocent children. The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, applying a so-called reasonable hypothetical, determined that the one-year mandatory minimum for the distribution and possession of child pornography was grossly disproportionate and therefore contravened section 12 of the charter, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

While the Supreme Court thought it was cruel and unusual punishment to impose a measly one-year mandatory jail term for child sexual predators, I think most Canadians find the sexual exploitation, rape, brutalization and defilement of children to be cruel, unusual, evil and sadistic.

It should be noted that the Senneville decision was far from a unanimous decision of the court. There was a strong dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Wagner and a five-four split on the court. The dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Wagner laid out, in very clear terms, the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum with respect to the distribution and possession of child pornography specifically. More broadly, in no uncertain terms, it reaffirmed Parliament's constitutional authority to pass laws with respect to sentencing, including fashioning mandatory and maximum jail time.

In the face of a problematic and unjust decision by the Supreme Court, a strong dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Wagner, and the Supreme Court specifically pronouncing that child sexual crimes are among the most immoral, Conservatives called on the Liberals to do the right thing and invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the decision and reinstate the mandatory minimum with respect to the distribution and possession of child pornography. Not surprisingly, given their soft-on-crime record, the Liberals did not do that.

Failing to invoke the notwithstanding clause, they could have come back with a bill that brings in a modified mandatory minimum sentence by clarifying the definition and the application of the offence, but the Liberals did not do that either. Instead, they endorsed and gave the green light to the Supreme Court's Senneville decision, completely washed their hands clean of responding legislatively and, once again, surrendered the law-making power of this place to the courts.

Even worse, the Liberals have very conveniently and very deliberately used a divided court decision as a pretext to dismantle virtually every other mandatory minimum law in the Criminal Code, save for murder and treason. They have done so with a so-called escape valve that would apply to every mandatory minimum in the Criminal Code except murder and treason.

The escape valve, as it is drafted, is broadly worded. It is not targeted. It does not contain, for example, an exceptional circumstances provision. It does not clarify or provide direction to the courts on how Parliament believes mandatory minimums should be treated. Instead, it invites judges to disregard mandatory minimum laws that, I would add, have not been found to be unconstitutional. Therefore, what this will almost certainly result in is that mandatory minimums and their application at sentencing will be litigated as a matter of course. This bill completely eviscerates mandatory minimum sentences.

The Liberals will say they had no choice as they have these court decisions. They had a choice. No court has said that, writ large, mandatory minimums are unconstitutional. Certainly, the Supreme Court has not said that. Indeed, mandatory minimum penalties have been on the books since the 1890s, when the Criminal Code was passed. Mandatory minimums reflect the constitutional authority of Parliament to make laws with respect to criminal justice, including sentencing, and reflect Parliament's judgment that certain offences are sufficiently serious to warrant a minimum floor, while having regard for long-standing sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence and the need to separate certain offenders from society.

Indeed, Justice Cory wrote, as recently as 2010, in the Supreme Court Nasogaluak decision, that mandatory minimums are “a forceful expression of governmental policy in the area of criminal law.”

Back in 1990, the same Justice Cory held that a mandatory minimum sentence would only be disproportionate as to violate section 12 on “rare and unique occasions”, and that the test would be “stringent and demanding.”

It is true that in recent years we have seen that mandatory minimums have been subject to greater constitutional challenge in the face of the Nur decision, for example, of 2015, which constitutes, in my opinion, judicial overreach. I say that because the first time the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum was in the Smith decision in 1987. For nearly 30 years, until 2015, not a single mandatory minimum had been struck down by the Supreme Court. It was not until 2015. Therefore, a government worth its salt, a government that was committed to standing up for victims and putting away violent offenders, would have reasserted Parliament's constitutional authority in this domain, including in egregious instances such as in the Senneville decision and the Bissonnette decision, which struck down the discretion afforded to judges to impose mandatory consecutive parole and eligibility periods to mass murderers, and invoked the notwithstanding clause.

Of course, the current government has not done that. It has refused to do that. Now, through the back door, it has brought in this bill on the pretense of saving mandatory minimums, when in fact what it is doing is completely dismantling them. It demonstrates that the government is blinded by ideology. It is a government that time and time again puts the rights of criminals ahead of public safety and the rights of victims. This bill is a total disgrace in that regard.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree completely with the member opposite. In fact, if he were to give the bill a chance, he would see there is a reinstatement of mandatory minimums. I would highly recommend that he read of those that would be reinstated as a direct result of this legislation.

What upsets me most about the Conservative Party of Canada today is that its members like to talk tough. They like to raise a lot of money on the crime file, but we have a Prime Minister who was just elected nine months ago, along with 70 new Liberal members of Parliament. It is a new government with a very aggressive crime agenda, a series of legislation, and the Conservative Party has done nothing but stand in the way of the legislation passing. Even Canadians in Conservative ridings are getting upset with the ongoing filibustering that the Conservative Party continues to put in on crime bills.

Will the member not at least give us some sort of a commitment to see this crime legislation pass before the end of February?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I suppose the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader ignored or did not listen to my resuscitation of pronouncements of the Supreme Court as it pertains to mandatory minimums and their constitutionality.

If the government saw the need to bring forward an escape valve, then it ought to have done it in a careful and tailored fashion. However, it has not done that. The Liberals have drafted the bill in such a way that it would invite judges to effectively disregard mandatory minimums, hence eviscerating them. That is the problem.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I first want to acknowledge the passing of Ernie Fage. Ernie was an MLA and cabinet minister who served ably in Nova Scotia. Our condolences go to his family at this time.

I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. He mentioned putting the rights of criminals over the rights of everyday Canadians, and that is a theme I hear over and over in my own riding of Fundy Royal. I would ask my colleague to expand on that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have a government that has put the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims. The government is now touting bail reform, but it had weakened Canada's bail laws, which has resulted in a massive crime wave. This is a government that, according to the parliamentary secretary, supports mandatory minimums, while the bill it has brought before us eviscerates them. This is a government that, of course, has a track record of not waiting for the courts to strike down mandatory minimums but proactively removing mandatory minimums from the Criminal Code, including those for some very serious offences, including serious firearms offences.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit shocked by my colleague's comments.

My constituents, like his I am sure, say that online predation, manipulation, cyberstalking, the distribution of intimate images and even the use of AI, including deepfakes, are very real threats and that our laws need to reflect today's realities.

Why are the Conservatives dragging their feet when it is time to support this bill?

I would like to ask my colleague whether he will try to persuade his party to work with us to get this bill passed in February.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the government copied and pasted the member for Calgary Nose Hill's Bill C-216 into the bill before us with respect to criminalizing non-consensual sexual deepfakes. That is a positive.

I do not know what the member is talking about when she says that we are being obstructive. There is such a place called the House of Commons where we actually debate bills. The last time I checked, we have only had a few hours of debate on this very large bill, an omnibus bill, which has many moving parts. I do not know what the member is talking about.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to rise as the representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and speak to the government's Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters.

All of us have a solemn responsibility to provide representation and voice to those citizens who depend on us to do their bidding in Parliament. Canadians need us to see the challenges and dangers they face and to do our jobs to make necessary amendments to federal statutes in order to make life safer and more secure for Canadians.

It is no coincidence that we are here in Parliament. The word “Parliament” was derived from an 11th-century Old French word, parlement, which means “discussion” or “discourse”, and from the French verb parler, which means “to talk”. We spend a lot of time talking in this place because our forebears resolved to use words rather than swords and cannons to resolve disagreements, to establish consensus for common good and to deliver solutions for the citizens represented by every member of Parliament.

Yes, Parliament can be raucous and adversarial, but we can never let the friction and heat deter us from the duties we owe the people of Canada: our duty to represent our constituents, and our duty to engage in discussion and discourse in this place, not for the sake of merely speaking or engaging in verbal scrums but to contribute to progress for the people. Constructive discussion in Parliament can certainly lead to collaboration, and this can include the governing party adopting proposals from opposition members and including those proposals in government bills, as the government has done in Bill C-16.

On September 17, 2025, just last year, I tabled my private member's bill, Bill C-221, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, disclosure of information to victims. Currently, victims of crime can request that they be informed of the eligibility dates and review dates for the temporary absence, release or parole of the offender who victimized them. My bill, Bill C-221, proposes that when the victims are provided with such dates, they are also provided with an explanation of how the dates were determined. When Canadians are victimized by crime, they often carry psychological and emotional burdens for life. My private member's bill proposes common-sense, realistic measures aimed at reducing the stress victims experience in dealing with the parole and release processes of those who have victimized them.

After six and a half years of Conservative efforts to pass these proposals into law, it is good to see that the government has finally acknowledged the merit and necessity of these proposals and included them in a government bill, Bill C-16. My bill, Bill C-221, follows three previous Conservative bills that carried the same proposal. Those bills were Bill C-466, sponsored by the Hon. Lisa Raitt in the 42nd Parliament, Bill S-219, sponsored by Senator Boisvenu in the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C-320, sponsored by Dr. Colin Carrie in the 44th Parliament.

The legislative proposals of our bills are now included in a government bill, Bill C-16. They were initially developed and advocated for by Ms. Lisa Freeman of Oshawa, Ontario. Ms. Freeman suffered a tragic loss when her father was brutally murdered. Then she endured years of dealing with Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board while trying to keep track of the offender who murdered her father. Lisa Freeman's experience dealing with these government processes was painful and added to the burden she already carried.

I thank Lisa Freeman for her determination and bravery in persevering through the pain and trauma of losing her father to fight for the measures that increase respect for victims of crime navigating government processes. I am pleased that the Liberal government has finally recognized this as an issue and has chosen to prioritize my private member's bill's proposals by including them in Bill C-16. This means that much-needed changes could happen sooner for Canadians. This is a good thing.

Victims of crime and the people who advocate for them have stated for years that these measures are necessary, and I am glad the Conservative leadership has caused the government to finally adopt these proposals. What is important to me and to victims is that these measures get passed in order to ease the experience victims of crime have in dealing with corrections and parole processes.

Canadians count on parliamentarians to make Parliament work, and until the government passes Bill C-16, I will continue to work to move my private member's bill toward completion, because these changes are worth pursuing through all avenues possible.

Bill C-16 is an omnibus bill, and I think some proposed measures are long overdue but other clauses of the bill require amendments to be strengthened to deliver results and relief for Canadians facing real dangers. Here are some hard facts on the dangers Canadians, including my constituents in Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, are facing: Since 2015, human trafficking has increased 84%, sexual assaults are up almost 76% and violent crime is up almost 55%.

Bill C-16 has incorporated other pieces of Conservative legislation that was drafted. Bill C-16 proposes to ban deepfakes of intimate partners, and this would help keep Canadians, especially women, safe from non-consensual intimate images being created and shared.

Conservatives are glad that in Bill C-16 the government has adopted the proposal of Bill C-216, which was sponsored by the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill. Bill C-16 also incorporates Bill C-216 provisions for establishing mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material. This would help protect our children from despicable crimes and exploitation.

In Bill C-16, the government has also answered calls from my Conservative colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, whose private member's bill proposed that murder of an intimate partner be automatically treated as first-degree murder. I am glad that the Liberal government has heard the calls of my hon. colleagues and incorporated these proposals in Bill C-16.

These parts of the government's Bill C-16 are long overdue and are relevant to Canadians today. However, other components of Bill C-16 miss the mark because they simply do not go far enough to be relevant to the problems Canadians face today. For instance, Bill C-16 proposes to allow judges to ignore literally every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code, other than murder and treason.

The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for crimes such as aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violence with firearms, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings and more.

I call on the government to hear the voices of Canadians who are living with a 55% increase in violent crime and want peace and security restored in their communities. Bill C-16's proposed elimination of mandatory sentence requirements must be split and removed from the bill so that it may be thoroughly debated and allow the solid parts of Bill C-16 to proceed expeditiously for the safety of Canadians.

I call on the government to listen once again to the voices of Canadians who oppose light sentences for serious and violent crimes, and split the bill so we can advance the solid parts and work on the elements that need to be reworked.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak here today to this important subject matter.

To understand where we are today, it is important to understand where we have come from, particularly over the last decade. Over this past decade, we have seen lax Liberal laws deliberately reshape the balance of our justice system. They are deliberately going much easier on criminals and much harder on law-abiding citizens, such as the law-abiding citizens in my riding of Fundy Royal.

These are people who get up every morning, work hard, provide for their families, take their kids to hockey and volunteer in the community. Those people have the right to feel protected and safe in their communities, and for a long time, they did. I know in my hometown of Quispamsis, like many of the towns throughout Fundy Royal, up until recently, people did not even lock their homes at night. I know it is a cliché, but they also did not lock their cars. They felt safe and secure.

Now, after 10 years of Liberal governments, people in those communities no longer feel safe. They no longer feel secure, whether it is from violent crime, drug-related crime or property crime. I cannot find a person in my riding of Fundy Royal who does not know someone who has had their home, garage, car or shed broken into.

Is this because there are so many more criminals than there were 10 years ago? No, it is not. It is because there are no more consequences for the commission of these crimes. We have a failed justice system because of the steps the government has taken over the last 10 years.

This is not just my anecdotal observation. I want to share some of the facts in Canada. They are absolutely alarming, and it is no wonder Canadians have lost confidence in the justice system. In fact, when I served on the justice committee, we once heard powerful testimony from the sister of a victim of crime. She said that she does not feel like we have a justice system anymore. She said that we have a legal system, but we do not have a justice system, particularly for victims. I have to echo those concerns.

Canadians do not feel a sense of justice. They do not feel safe in their communities. Why is that? Let us look at some of the facts. Under the government, since 2015, so over the last 10-plus years, violent crime is up 54%, homicides are up 29%, sexual assaults are up 76% and gun crime is up 130%. This one is unbelievable: Extortion has skyrocketed 330% over its 2015 level. Fraud, and we all know individuals who have been touched by this, has increased by 94% over the last 10 years.

These are absolutely horrific numbers, but this is not about the numbers. Behind every one of these statistics are real people and real victims from our communities. They are our friends and our family. They are feeling the very real consequences of the soft-on-crime policies that have been undertaken by the Liberal government.

All too often we learn that the criminals committing these crimes have a lengthy criminal record, and after the commission of many of these crimes, they are out on bail. Why are they out on bail? It is so frustrating for Canadians to hear that someone who has committed a serious sexual offence or another offence is out on bail.

Why are they out on bail? How does this happen? How is it just? How is it safe? They are out on bail because the government, with Bill C-75 , changed the law. It introduced a principle of restraint, and that ties the hands of judges. It says that the will of Parliament is that individuals are to be released at the earliest possible opportunity and held under the least onerous provisions. They are held as loosely as possible, which means that rather than being in custody, they are out on the street.

This frustrates not only the victims and our communities but also the police. We can imagine arresting someone for a gun crime or auto theft, doing the work as a police officer. The individual is then brought before a judge, and before the officer has finished their shift, that person is back out on the street. That is not right, and the Liberals continue to defend the indefensible when it comes to soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 .

I just spoke about Bill C-75. Bill C-5 shockingly eliminated mandatory jail time for violent gun crimes such as robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. The government, under its so-called criminal justice legislation, eliminated mandatory jail time for those serious gun crimes.

Let us refer back to what I said a few minutes ago. Let us see how that is working. How is that approach of letting people who have committed serious crimes out on bail, under Bill C-75, working? As well, if someone is sentenced, they are not going to have mandatory jail time, under Bill C-5. What is the combined effect of that?

Maybe gun crime is down. Let us take a look. Unfortunately, gun crime is up a mere 130% under these policies. This is a serious indictment now. The facts are in. This is a serious indictment of this government's agenda.

Conservatives have put forward common-sense legislation to undo some of the damage done by Bill C-5. We introduced the protection against extortion act to restore mandatory jail time for the offence of extortion with a firearm. We introduced the combatting motor vehicle theft act so that convicted car thieves would no longer serve their time from the comfort of their home, from where they can simply walk out the door to steal another vehicle. Of course, the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-5 weakened sentences for the producers, importers and exporters of dangerous drugs. These are the drugs that are affecting people throughout all of our communities, and there have been skyrocketing deaths due to drugs.

In the last Parliament, I introduced the stronger sentences for safer streets act, which would have reinstated mandatory jail time for criminals who import, produce and export dangerous schedule 1 drugs, such as meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl, but the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies have not made anyone safer. In fact, the numbers say that it is just the opposite; they have done much worse.

That is why, in speaking to this legislation today, we have to be aware of what the Liberals have done. Embedded in this legislation is a further deterioration of the will of Parliament when it comes to serious offences. The will of Parliament has been, if there has been a serious offence, say a serious gun crime, there must be mandatory jail time associated with it. With this legislation, the Liberals would allow an override valve with which a judge would be able to not impose the mandatory minimum sentence set out by Parliament.

There is a myth out there that mandatory minimum sentences are somehow unconstitutional. I was looking at an old backgrounder on Bill C-5 that the government produced. These are not my words, but the Government of Canada's own words from its backgrounder on mandatory minimum penalties for, for example, gun crimes, serious gun crimes. It says that, when those were challenged before a court of law, 52% of them, over half, were upheld as being in line with Canadian law, the Constitution and charter values.

While there are some positive steps in the legislation, mostly things that were copied from my hard-working Conservative colleagues, with this legislation, the Liberals have said that, even for the mandatory penalties for serious gun crimes that have been upheld as being in line with the charter, a judge could give an offender less than two years for a serious gun crime, less than two years for a serious sexual offence or less than the mandatory penalty for any other serious crimes that involve a mandatory sentence.

There is some good in this bill, but we always have to be aware that the Liberals' track record is awful. Conservatives will continue to hold them to account and restore once again a justice system for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, in so many ways, the member is just wrong in many of his assertions. I would ultimately argue that the new Prime Minister and the government, in the last nine months since the last election, have put forward a substantial crime legislation agenda. We have witnessed, day after day from the Conservative Party, a filibuster of an important issue that Canadians want us to address.

Bill C-16 is yet another example. Through Bill C-16 we would see the reinstatement of many mandatory minimums. It will not weaken the process. Conservatives try to give a false impression that it would.

Does the member really believe the Conservative Party of Canada is reflecting the interests of Canadians by not allowing the legislative agenda dealing with crime to pass?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, thank goodness for our leader. Thank goodness for the Conservative Party, because we were the only ones for years standing up for the rights of law-abiding citizens and victims in this country. If the hon. member feels there is something inaccurate in anything I said, I would encourage him to be specific.

I am citing the government's own material from when Bill C-5 was introduced, when David Lametti was the former justice minister. The government's own material, the backgrounder from the Department of Justice, says that 52% of mandatory minimum penalties for firearms offences were upheld by the courts.

The member is wrong. Under this legislation, aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings would all be eligible to no longer be subject to a mandatory minimum penalty.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on his speech. He spoke at length about his criticisms and what is missing from the bill.

I would like to return to certain important aspects that a number of victims' groups have called for and that even his female Conservative colleagues are calling for. For example, in Bill C‑16, there is an openness to criminalizing coercive control, which is something that groups in Quebec have been advocating for since the publication of the “Rebuilding Trust” report. In fact, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women held a non-partisan press conference in November demanding this type of measure. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

Of course, there are still things that need to be looked at in this respect. Would it not be worthwhile to at least study it in committee?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as my friend said, there are some positive aspects to the bill, which I mentioned. The work of my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill on the issue of deepfakes is included in this legislation. Some of the work by my hard-working colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola around intimate partner violence is included in this legislation.

However, also included in this legislation is a weakening of the will of this Parliament when it comes to mandatory penalties: Even penalties that the Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional would be subject to this. Individuals charged with drive-by shootings would have available to them a reduced sentence, thanks to this legislation.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I heard the member for Winnipeg North question my colleague, who is a lawyer, about these things. I could not agree more with my colleague about the problems we have. This government took away mandatory jail time, and jail time, period, potentially, for people who do drive-by shootings.

Does my colleague agree that it was not only negligent but also reckless, given the problems we have with guns, to allow people to serve their sentence on the couch when they shoot at other houses and endanger Canadians?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work on behalf of victims. He has introduced many pieces of legislation to run counter to this Liberal agenda, which has been soft on thugs but hard on victims.

To answer the question, absolutely, Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for serious offences like drive-by shootings. In the brilliance of that legislation, what has been the result? It has been skyrocketing gang-related crime and skyrocketing firearms-related crime. We just need to read or watch the news any day, and we can see the effect of the Liberals' failed approach.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-16 today. It is timely for me and relevant to my constituency, which has recently been hit with more than our share of sexual assaults and child sexual assaults. I meet regularly with survivors of these crimes, and their stories are heartbreaking. They have informed me, educated me and inspired me. They have shared not just their insights and their tears of disappointment but tears of hope as well, hope that we can change the Criminal Code. I am humbled and proud to be their voice today in the House.

I have learned that, more often than not, perpetrators remain in the community, silently hiding, often repeating their crimes, only to be released again into the community. I have met survivors who move from place to place out of fear for themselves and for their own children. These survivors hide their identities, cannot trust people they do not know, and find it difficult to have relationships with and trust people they do know.

This is not theoretical. Survivors of child sexual abuse often live with trauma for decades, struggling with mental health, relationships, job security and trust. When repeat offenders are allowed back into communities too quickly or inconsistently, the justice system sends a devastating message to victims that their suffering is secondary to the comfort of the offender. Mandatory minimum sentences reverse that message. They say, clearly and unequivocally, that protecting children comes first.

People in the House know that I have risen countless times to talk about the horrendous assault of a three-year-old toddler in Welland, in my riding of Niagara South. The sexual assault of this little girl was an unspeakable act of cruelty that violates the most basic moral and human boundaries. What makes this crime worse is that the perpetrator had been released early from prison, after serving just one year in jail for raping a 12-year-old boy. Within just a few short weeks, this abhorrent excuse for a human being attacked little E in her own home, where she should have been safe from harm but was left for dead with horrifying and horrendous injuries. Such crimes demand not only our collective outrage but an unwavering commitment to protect children and hold offenders fully accountable.

I am not a lawyer, but my father was a Crown attorney and most of my preceding family members were police officers. My son Conrad is a first responder in Welland with the Welland Fire and Emergency Services. My entire family has witnessed atrocities from repeat offenders, and the images are forever etched in their minds and memory.

I had the opportunity to welcome my son's colleagues here on the floor of the House, shortly after the assault on this little girl in Welland. I believe it was cathartic for the firefighters, two of whom had been first on the scene of this appalling assault. We spent time in the chamber and talked about the magnitude of the tasks we undertake here. We spent over an hour talking about when legislation could be introduced to fix the system of repeat offenders being continually released.

They asked one fundamental question: Why did we tolerate a soft-on-crime approach for so long? We talked about ensuring that time in jail must be commensurate with the gravity of the crime. We talked about the relentless rise in violent crime that first responders endure while still stepping forward every day to protect and serve our communities. The emotions were high and the expectations even higher, but I fear that we have failed them yet again with Bill C-16. The legislation goes only halfway and does not provide certainty in minimum sentences for serious crimes.

There are few responsibilities more fundamental to a society than protecting its children. Children depend on adults, not only for care and guidance but for safety, especially from those who would exploit their vulnerability. When that trust is violated, the harm is profound, lifelong and often irreversible. That is why mandatory minimum sentences for repeat child sex offenders are not only justified but necessary. Little E deserves this. We owe it to her and to so many others.

Sadly, we had another arrest in my hometown of Port Colborne a few weeks ago, where the repeat offender was arrested on historic assault charges. This repeat offender actually played Santa Claus in my community and was well known as an entertainer.

Minimum sentences are not about vengeance. They are about protection, accountability and prevention. First, we must confront the hard truth that repeat child sex offenders have already demonstrated that previous punishment, supervision or rehabilitation efforts were not sufficient to stop their behaviour. The first conviction may involve some uncertainty, with questions about rehabilitation, treatment or the possibility of change. However, a second or third offence removes that uncertainty. It shows a pattern, and when a pattern involves the repeat sexual abuse of children, society has a moral obligation to respond deliberately and decisively.

Mandatory minimum sentences provide that decisive response. Subjective wiggle room in Bill C-16 is not decisive. Instead, it creates uncertainty where clarity is required and discretion where firmness is needed. Research consistently shows that repeat offenders pose a significantly higher risk of re-offending.

Second, mandatory minimums promote consistency and fairness in sentencing. Without them, sentencing outcomes can vary widely depending on the jurisdiction, the judge and the ability to have counsel who may have a more dynamic set of legal skills. It is conceivable that offenders with nearly identical records can receive drastically different sentences. That inconsistency undermines public trust in the justice system and leaves victims feeling that justice is arbitrary.

Bill C-16 allows a situation where similar crimes can end with drastically different consequences, creating uncertainty for both victims and those charged with enforcing the law. Mandatory minimums establish a clear baseline. They do not eliminate judicial discretion entirely, but they ensure that repeat offences are met with serious, predictable consequences.

Third, mandatory minimums serve as a powerful deterrent. While no law can stop every crime, the certainty of severe consequences does influence behaviour. Critics argue that mandatory minimums remove flexibility and emphasize punishment over rehabilitation. That points to the flaw in this legislation. For example, it states:

When imposing a sentence for an offence that has a minimum punishment of a specified term of imprisonment, a court shall impose a shorter term of imprisonment than the specified term if, in the circumstances, the minimum punishment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender.

In other words, if Parliament's baseline jail term for any particular crime feels too extreme, a judge can simply decide on a new minimum. The rules for what counts as cruel punishment are murky at best, and make no mistake, this will be the first argument in every trial going forward.

Finally, minimum sentences must reflect our values as a society. Laws are not just rules; they are statements of what we prioritize. When we impose minimum mandatory sentences for repeat child sex offenders, we are saying that children's safety outweighs convenience, cost or discomfort. A society is judged on how it protects those who cannot protect themselves. On this issue, we must choose clarity over hesitation, safety over leniency, and justice over excuses.

I mentioned the survivors I meet with regularly in my office in Welland. These inspirational and brave women will be coming to Ottawa on May 26 to talk to us, tell us their stories and urge further movement to ensure stricter sentencing, the removal of easy bail procedures and the necessity of minimum sentences. Most importantly, they will urge us to release the national sex offender registry as a measure to protect victims. I am looking forward to welcoming Alicia, Melissa, Liz, Tammy, Alysa, Ashley and other brave women who have survived sexual assault and who have shown extraordinary strength in their healing, resilience and willingness to stand in community with one another.

To sum up these remarks, minimum sentencing is necessary to ensure accountability and communicate that these crimes are taken seriously by the justice system. That is how we protect victims. Conservatives will continue to be the advocate for survivors like these brave women from my riding, and we will not stop until repeat offenders actually get a sentence commensurate with the crime, and the registry is made public.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really important for all members of all political parties to realize that when we talk about the issue of crime, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians in an election platform, and we have substantial legislation before us.

We can talk about Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-14 or Bill C-16, the debate that we are having today. Bill C-14 is bail reform legislation. Bill C-16 reinstates mandatory minimums. All of these are important pieces of legislation, and the Conservative Party, for whatever reason, continues to not allow that legislation, as a package, to pass. The Conservatives want to filibuster it. If the member is genuinely concerned about fighting crime in Canada, why are Conservatives filibustering this important legislation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

The hon. member for Niagara South.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could have anticipated that question before I stood up.

We are not filibustering anything. I am a new member of Parliament. I have a right to stand in this House. I am not on the justice committee, which this bill would be referred to. We are only putting up four speakers today on this bill. As a new member of Parliament, and with these crimes committed in my riding, I have a right to stand here and speak on behalf of my constituents.

The member should be ashamed of himself for suggesting I should not be standing up and talking about this on behalf of the victims in my riding. It is a shameful question, and he should be ashamed of himself.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a lot of issues related to the Criminal Code.

However, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this because it once again raises the issue of the fiscal imbalance. We can pass all the bills we want, but the bottom line is that Quebec and the provinces are the ones responsible for the administration of justice. It is important for the House to pass legislation, but it is also important to recognize that we then need to transfer funds to Quebec and the provinces so that they are able to administer their justice systems. As my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord rightly said, it is all well and good for us to pass this bill, but if the fiscal imbalance continues, then Quebec and the provinces may not have the means to implement all the laws.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point, but I would again point out that one of the issues in this legislation, the wiggle room in Bill C-16 with respect to judicial discretion on changing sentences on mandatory minimums, creates a greater imbalance.

Someone can have a very talented lawyer who knows the system better than others but may be less fortunate and not able to have adequate representation. To me, that is the bigger flaw in the system and in this bill. I hope that at committee, my colleagues on all sides will discuss this in depth because it is a serious question. If we provide counsel with wiggle room because of lawyers not being able to argue strenuously, I think we have a bigger problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a little indulgence first. I want to inform the House and all Canadians that Canada's most famous weather prognosticator for 70 years, Wiarton Willie, predicted an early spring this morning.

I want to thank my colleague for sharing the personal stories of victims across Canada, but also in his riding, who have been victimized as a result of the Liberal soft-on-bail regime over the last decade.

I do want to recognize that this bill would fix certain things and that our party has committed to working with the government. Unfortunately, the government has put in a poison pill.

Does the member think that when this bill gets to committee the government will listen to the other parties, including the Conservative side, to split the bill so that we can address those shortfalls in the legislation?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is saying we are filibustering and not co-operating.

[An hon. member]

You are.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

That is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, splitting a bill so that we can get important pieces of a bill through, so it becomes law, is not an unreasonable suggestion. We have already done it in this session. We are not filibustering or delaying. We are here to co-operate on good pieces of legislation. As my colleague said, there are good parts of this legislation, but I am hoping the committee will bring forward some amendments to make it a better bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will get a chance to speak to Bill C-16. I was initially concerned that the government had created a weakening and was going back to mandatory minimums.

If one does research on mandatory minimums, one finds that far from being effective at reducing crime rates, they are completely ineffective. We find that mandatory minimums increase disproportionate treatment within prisons. It is one of the reasons the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended we get rid of them. If we look at every report from the Department of Justice or the Parliamentary Centre, they find that mandatory minimums do not work, so I am worried about Bill C-16.

I am going to close here and ask if the hon. member has looked at the research that says mandatory minimums are simply ineffective.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tell that to the little girl's family, that when Daniel Senecal was released after serving one year for raping a 12-year-old boy, that one-year sentence was adequate. Tell that to the community that is hurting. We have to have mandatory minimums for serious repeat offenders. There is just no question about it. I do not care what the stats say. When we get down to repeat child sex offenders, there must be a mandatory minimum.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-16. It is an important bill, and it is quite disturbing to hear the Liberal parliamentary secretary saying we are filibustering. We are putting up four speakers, a one-hour debate, and he is saying we are trying to push back. We are doing our job. We are here to say where things are good and where there needs to be improvement. That is our job. The Liberals would just prefer that we do not do our job on behalf of Canada. I just wanted to begin with that.

We believe that job one for the federal government is public safety and security. Historically, Canada has been known as a peaceful and safe place to live. As a matter of fact, in the 1867 Constitution Act, the words are “Peace, Order, and good Government”. That is what Canadians should expect from the federal government: peace, for public safety; order, for rule of law; and good government, as in competent.

Canada has been known for a number of symbols internationally. The one that is probably most famous is the maple leaf. It is on our flags, everywhere. The second one that would probably be most known internationally would be the RCMP with his red serge, or her red serge, and possibly on one of the horses.

I remember the first time I visited Ottawa. This was in 1973. I came on a school trip from Chibougamau, Quebec. I was very impressed with the buildings and the city. I never dreamed of one day being able to represent the Canadian people as a member of Parliament, specifically the residents of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and Mission, whom I thank for having re-elected me for a third term. I remember in 1973, when I was here, actually getting a coin, a 25¢ coin, and it was the centennial of the formation of the RCMP, which was originally the North-West Mounted Police.

The reason I bring this up is that the North-West Mounted Police, which later became the RCMP, came and brought order in the west of Canada. There was one fort that members may be aware of, Fort Whoop-Up, where whisky traders from the United States were making a mockery of justice in that part of Canada, so the NWMP was establishing order.

Canada has been known as a peaceful place and a safe place, but this has changed dramatically under the Liberals. I have many interesting conversations with Uber drivers, including late last night. I got in, and the fellow was an immigrant; he told me he was from Brazil. I asked him why he moved here. He said he moved here about nine years ago. He said a big thing for him was safety and security; that was the first thing. I said, “Oh, really?” However, he said things have changed, things are changing here in Canada. He says he sees the crime going up, people going to stores, grabbing things, and the police do not seem to be doing anything.

It was very disappointing to hear this. Canadians are not just making this up. They are not misinformed. Let us look at Statistics Canada since 2015. I choose 2015 because that is the year the Liberals came into power. Human trafficking is up 80%. Sexual assault is up 74%. Violent crime is up more than 50%. I can roll off mathematical percentages, but those stats represent thousands, hundreds of thousands, of victims in our country.

As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I see violent crime is, again, up 50% to 85,000 incidences. Sexual assaults are up 97% to 4,396 incidences. Extortion is up 482%, almost 500%, or 2,885 cases in one year. This is under the Liberals. Government makes a difference. Brenda Locke, the mayor of Surrey, asked the government to invoke the Emergencies Act because the police are overwhelmed. People are fleeing the country. There are killings. We had never heard of this sort of thing beforehand. What is going on?

In B.C., again, sexual violations against children are up 294% since the Liberals have been in power, to 2,581 cases. Luring children on a computer has gone up 18 times, to 1,406 incidents. Distributing child pornography is up 776%. This is insane. These are Statistics Canada's numbers. People are afraid on transit, in their neighbourhoods, in their homes and the downtown core. Crime did not rise on its own. It rose because of deliberate Liberal choices and legislation. The deliberate Liberal laws have undermined public safety.

What sort of things have they done to undermine it? They say we have Bill C-16, and they are all about safety, order and criminal justice. Well, they have a track record. Under catch-and-release bail, they let criminals go under the least onerous conditions. One-third of homicides in Canada are committed by criminals out on bail. The partner of Bailey McCourt from Kelowna was charged with domestic violence and released on bail. He found the young mother of two in a parking lot and killed her in cold blood two hours later. We have talked about this at different times. The Conservatives brought forward Bailey's law. There are stories across Canada. I talked to the grandmother, who lives in my riding. She told me that she was with Bailey when she took her first breath and she was with her when she took the last breath of life. She is grieving.

The Liberals also deliberately repealed mandatory minimum sentences. They have claimed that mandatory minimums violate the charter, and the Supreme Court upheld it. There are over 100 mandatory minimums, and they are constitutional. There are weak consequences for violent offenders. There have been 50,000 apprehensions of 40 people in Vancouver in one year. It is a cycle. Police ask me: What is the use? That is under the Liberals' watch. They cannot just wave around Bill C-16 and tell Canadians that everything is good now. They have the wrong criminal justice priorities.

There is the gun buyback program. Conservatives believe in keeping Canadians safe from criminals, and the Liberals believe in keeping turkeys safe from hunters. One frontline police officer wrote me and said, “As a police officer, I don't get to voice my opinion publicly. I was hired to enforce the law, not comment on politics.” He felt compelled to email me. He said the Liberal firearm buyback program is a political distraction, a waste of resources and a danger to public safety. Those were his comments as a frontline professional. Meanwhile, those smuggling guns, repeat offenders and violent criminals walk free. That is not public safety; that is optics.

Now the Liberals wonder why Canadians have lost trust. Bill C-16 needs to be judged in this context. It does not exist in a vacuum. There is every sign of the Liberals calling a snap election, including comments by the member who said Conservatives are filibustering. They are trying to develop a line. They have their trump card, their ace card. It is like they are battering a door in an arena with a flag, getting people riled up. The thing is, though, that they realize they have some vulnerabilities, and one of their biggest vulnerabilities is that they know Canadians are very concerned about public safety.

Conservatives support some of the language, some of the things the bill has brought forward, because they are actually Conservative. However, the Liberals have a poison pill. If I had another 20 minutes, I could show how they could very well make things a lot worse for Canadians with this bill. It needs to be changed and to be split. I hope the Liberals will take our advice. We are going to pass Bill C-16 on to committee stage. I very much hope they will take the Conservative recommendations to split the bill and debate our meaningful amendments.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's mentioning the RCMP. My father-in-law, Mike Renchko, is a very proud retired RCMP member.

Of course, the protecting victims act we are debating today is about protecting people against gender-based violence and intimate partner violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims' rights and addressing court delays. If there is anything before the House that the members opposite should support, it is this.

However, with our anti-crime bills, strengthening sentencing, bail reform, the anti-hate act, and protecting women and children, when these bills go to committee, they are actively blocked over and over again by the members opposite. Why is that? It is so the members opposite can stand up in the House and continue to grandstand and to fundraise off their actions.

When will the members opposite stop the excuses and support the anti-crime legislation that is before the House right now?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like everything the Liberals do, this is about optics and about words. When we dig into it, we see that it is fake, like we are seeing with a lot of their projects. They have said that something is going to happen, but nothing is happening. The Conservatives are very concerned about this.

It is not about the language being used, because we agree with many of the concerns being brought forward. The language sounds great until we get deeper into the bill and read what is said, buried in the provisions. There is a provision that would allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums if they decide that the sentence would be cruel and unusual. That may sound compassionate, but it is not. It would invite endless litigation and a steady erosion of sentencing law.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that Ottawa writes the Criminal Code, but the provinces are the ones that administer justice. If we really want justice for victims, then we need a justice system that works. That takes courthouses, courtrooms, stenographers and bailiffs. It takes resources.

Does my colleague agree that the federal government is not doing enough to fund the justice system and to help the provinces better fund the justice system? Until Ottawa provides more funding to help the provinces better administer their justice systems, victims will be the ones who suffer, regardless of what legislation we pass and how good it may be.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

This demonstrates the importance of the economy and how the federal government manages the economy. It has been completely flat for the past ten years under the Liberals. We do not have the resources to do what we should be doing and to invest more, perhaps, in health, security, transportation and all that.

What are they doing? They are running ever-larger deficits and the debt is growing. This is terrible for Canadians.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I want to dispel the canard that is coming from the Liberal side. The Liberals say the Conservatives want to filibuster bills. However, when the Liberals were debating Bill C-9 in committee, a highly divisive bill, the Conservatives said no fewer than 20 times that we wanted to talk about bail. The Liberals have the audacity to stand up in the House and say that we are filibustering crime legislation, when we begged them to talk about crime legislation, not just in December in committee but for the last 10 years.

When will the hypocrisy end? What does my friend think?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point from my colleague. We warned the Liberals during the debate on Bill C-5 that repealing mandatory minimums would increase crime and undermine trust, but we were mocked by them four years ago.

Since then, crime is up and fear is up, and Bill C-16 would not correct the course; it would accelerate it. There are some changes, but the bill could be a lot better if the Liberals would take some of our amendments and apply them, and Canadians would be better off because of that.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. This is my first time rising substantially in the House since the winter break, so before I begin, I do want to recognize a number of people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I want to recognize a life well lived by Rocco Russo, who recently passed. He was a member of my Italian cultural centre, known colloquially as the Colombo Lodge. Left to mourn him are his wife, Cheryl; his children, Christopher, Michael and Robert; and his siblings Sam, Aldo and Sylvia. Rocco gave a great deal to the Colombo Lodge and to the community. He was beloved in the community. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I also learned that, regrettably, Ms. Helen Barnett passed away over the Christmas break. Helen was somebody I got to know when I worked at my first law firm after articling, where I worked with her husband, Francis. Helen gave a tremendous amount to the city of Kamloops, sitting on council and school boards, and working with all sorts of community organizations. She had a vivacious personality, and I am so grateful to have known her. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I was saddened to learn over the holidays of the death of Antonio Spada at 97 years old. Antonio leaves behind to mourn him his wife, Serafina; his children, Joseph and Angie; and his sister Felicia. I have gotten to know the Spada family through the Potestio family, and I can say that Antonio leaves behind a tremendous legacy. If legacy is demonstrated based on what we see following someone's death, following a tremendous life well lived, then we can say that Antonio lived a tremendous life and will be missed. I extend my deepest condolences to Antonio's family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I was saddened to learn over the holidays that Alice Desmond passed away. The Desmond family members were pillars of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. In fact in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola there is a street called Desmond Street. I actually worked as a prosecutor with one of Alice's children, Lynett, before she was elevated to the bench. She is now Judge Jung. The family legacy of Alice and her late husband, Pat, cannot be overstated.

Alice leaves to mourn her sisters Evelyn, Edith and Brenda; and her daughters Nola, Tannis, Lynett and Shannon and their families. In fact my best man was named Desmond Sanesh after Alice Desmond and the Desmond family. May perpetual light shine upon her. I extend my deepest condolences to her family.

I was deeply saddened to learn of the death of “Dar” Hastings in the 100 Mile House area. She was 83 years old. She gave so much work to the public and to democracy, and she was a great help. She delivered on what she believed, standing up for her values in so many ways. I cannot overstate all that she did. I had the opportunity to visit her in hospital some time ago, which I am grateful for. She really contributed to the life and vitality of the 100 Mile House area, which was part of my riding when I was first elected. She leaves behind her partner, Al Smith; her children, Paige and Tom, as well as Wade and Brian; and her sisters Candice and Jane. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I have a lot to say. Far be it from me to have a lot to say; I am sure a lot of people do, and I often do have a lot to say here.

So much of what the government is doing comes down to trust. I was reflecting on trust in criminal justice, and I do not have a lot of trust in the government when it comes to justice. I do not have a lot of trust in the government, period, and I will give the following example.

In pre-budget consultations, I sent the Minister of Finance nine letters about Sun Peaks, a community in my riding that has tremendous housing issues. I sent the minister a letter about the housing. In fact, I have sent three emails to the Minister of Housing. This was in private email; for the people at home, I will explain that we have a back channel for private emails, which members communicate with but we do not make public. However, not once has he even given the courtesy of a reply. In fact, I asked him whether he even got my emails, to which he gave what I would call a lame excuse.

How do we trust a government on criminal justice, when we cannot trust them on the basics like housing? The people of Sun Peaks are wondering when they will get their answer.

What about the people of Merritt? Again, we talk about trust in the government, and the Liberals say to trust them on justice, but they would not respond to my letter about Merritt, which experienced tremendous, catastrophic, flooding prior to becoming part of my riding. The provincial government pledged well over $100 million. The then prime minister and a number of ministers here, some of whom are ministers from Justin Trudeau's government, went there and told the people of Merritt that they would have their back.

How much have the Liberals contributed? It is $5 million; that is it. They were going to have their back for the photo op, but when it came to giving money, they were nowhere to be seen. That is why, when we think about examples of the government and trust, there is an erosion of trust.

I want to turn to something that has been mentioned in the House: the notion of filibustering the bill. In my view, this is the worst kind of politics, because it is actively misleading the public, and here is why. We as Conservatives have been accused of filibustering this and other crime legislation—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member just said that I have been. Let us talk about that.

Where was the member on Bill C-14 when we were at committee studying Bill C-9, which is a highly contentious bill that I bet the government does not have the guts to bring forward again? It was so contentious and so divisive that we, as Conservatives, asked to shelve Bill C-9 so we could move to Bill C-14, a bail bill. We actually asked the government to move forward on that bill. What did the Liberals do? They stuck with Bill C-9. How are we filibustering bills, when we are asking them to bring forward bills?

I am the last of four speakers today. We are debating the bill. Last time I checked, in the House of Commons, we debate. We could put up more speakers, because I bet no one else is going to rise to debate it, so again, why is there a narrative about filibustering? At the end of the day, we are actually saying that Bill C-16 has elements we are agreeable to and elements that we do not necessarily agree with.

However, in a democratic society, it is so important to debate these ideas, such as mandatory minimum sentences, which I have been quoted on. It was quite complimentary to hear that, and I would love to further debate the idea of a mandatory minimum sentence with a safety valve for cruel and unusual punishment, and what that means.

Would we adopt the common law definition of “cruel and unusual”? Would Parliament itself legislate something about cruel and unusual punishment, to do exactly what we need to do, which is to say that mandatory minimums should apply 99.99% of the time, and this is what the other 0.01% of the time looks like? That is what we want to do. That is why the bill would go to committee.

I really hope the Liberals stop with their rhetoric, because it is wrong and it is incorrect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged, to a certain degree, because it takes a lot of bravery for the member to go against what his leader is saying. He believes that a safety valve is an effective tool. That is what he has said on the record. I can appreciate that his leader and the entire Conservative caucus disagree.

On the issue of filibustering, let us be very clear that we would have bail legislation today, had it not been for the filibustering the Conservative Party has done on Bill C-14. There are four substantial pieces of legislation dealing with the crime file, which is important to the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of the House. Canadians are also concerned about getting crime bills passed.

The Conservative Party continues to filibuster. Why?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Just because somebody says it, and says it loudly, that does not make it true, Mr. Speaker.

At the end of the day, there is a minority government. Its job is to put legislation forward that makes sense. God forbid that we in this place debate legislation. It is our job to debate legislation. What the member calls filibustering, I call the democratic process. How dare the Liberals accuse us of filibustering when we are doing our job?

They think we should walk in here and give them their agenda without question. That is what the NDP did with Bill C-5, and look where that got us.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Jordan decision, when the Supreme Court determined what constituted a reasonable time frame in which to try an accused, criminals who have committed serious crimes have been released into the community due to a lack of judicial resources. This is unacceptable.

Under the bill, relaxed criteria would allow judges to reassess the reasonable time frame issue. Ultimately, we need to understand that the provinces lack the financial resources to build more courtrooms, hire more prosecutors, hire more clerks, hire more stenographers and have more resources. This bill is not a permanent solution to the problem, but it is a good temporary step.

Does my colleague agree that the federal government needs to do more since it is responsible for the Criminal Code, but the provinces have to pay for the administration of justice?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec for the question.

I actually have something here regarding Jordan. I have a great deal of time for my colleague.

As somebody who practised criminal law for 15 to 18 years, my view is that the Jordan issue is a substantial one. It has to be addressed by the House of Commons for the reasons my colleague mentioned. The other reason is disclosure. In 1988, I think, when the Stinchcombe case came out, which is the leading case on disclosure, it was not addressed. The House needs to address disclosure, and it needs to address Jordan.

Judicial vacancies are a huge problem, and something we discussed at our convention.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was correct. As we know, the Conservatives are not putting up many speakers here, but we would like to get this issue resolved.

As a new MP, I have heard all of the stories here about the victims, the testimony and what our citizens are going through, but the Liberals seem to want to debate the rights of offenders or how we should not debate the bill. All of us want to debate it to be fair to all Canadians.

Can the member expand on exactly what the protecting victims act would do, and how we would get there?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to drop it. I would love to drop the bill, because it is thick, but it would make a thud, and I do not want to hurt the interpreters' ears.

It is an expansive bill. The Liberals say we are filibustering. Should we not be talking about a bill of this substance? It is a bill that would do a lot of things, yet forgets a lot of things, like addressing parts of Bill C-75 with respect to bail and parts of Bill C-5 that say people who do drive-by shootings or commit extortion with a firearm or robbery with a firearm can serve their sentences on house arrest.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

The Liberals are laughing at that, Mr. Speaker. Is it not wonderful that the Liberals think drive-by shootings, robbery with a firearm and things like that are funny?

My time is up. Let us get this done.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)