Bill C-16

Protecting Victims Act

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

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

Protecting Victims Act

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

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 third time and passed.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by seeking unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Prescott—Russell—Cumberland.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. This legislation reflects a simple but important principle: Our laws must keep pace with the realities that Canadians face today. Crime evolves. Technology evolves. The experiences of victims evolve—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we have no interpretation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is working now?

The hon. parliamentary secretary can pick up from where he left off. The interpretation is working again.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, crime evolves. Technology evolves. The experiences of victims evolve. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that our criminal laws evolve as well.

The protecting victims act responds to the realities of modern victimization. It strengthens protections for victims and survivors. It addresses emerging forms of abuse and exploitation. It increases accountability for serious offenders. It provides law enforcement and the courts with additional tools to help keep Canadians safe.

Throughout the debate, we have discussed public safety, violence against women, child protection, online exploitation and victims' rights. These are not abstract issues. This is about real people. This affects families in every part of the country. They deserve a meaningful response from Parliament.

The protecting victims act directly addresses the concerns of victims, survivors, community organizations and justice system experts across the country. It aims to better protect vulnerable people and ensure that our laws reflect today's realities.

One of the most significant measures in the legislation would be the creation of a new offence of coercive control. For many years, survivors and advocates have told us that abuse begins long before physical violence occurs. Very often it begins with intimidation, isolation, manipulation or threats. It begins with a pattern of behaviour designed to dominate another person's life. Victims may be cut off from family and friends. Their finances may be controlled, their communications may be monitored, and their independence may gradually be taken away.

Taken together, these actions can create an environment of fear and control that has devastating consequences, yet too often, intervention occurs only after violence has escalated. Too often, warning signs are recognized only after a tragedy has occurred.

The protecting victims act would represent an important step forward. By creating a new offence of coercive control, Parliament would recognize that abuse is not defined only by physical violence, but that psychological abuse, emotional abuse and patterns of domination and control matter, and that victims deserve protection before violence escalates.

All too often, victims wonder why no one intervened sooner. Creating a new offence related to coercive control finally recognizes a reality that survivors have been describing for years. This measure gives authorities an additional tool to intervene earlier and better protect those at risk.

Another major focus of the protecting victims act is the protection of children. I believe that every member of the House can agree that children deserve to be safe, protected, and free from exploitation. Unfortunately, criminals increasingly use digital platforms to groom victims, distribute exploitative materials, engage in sextortion and facilitate abuse. The Internet has created tremendous opportunities, but it has also created new risks. The law must keep pace with those risks.

The protecting victims act would strengthen the legal framework related to child sexual exploitation and online abuse. It would make reporting requirements mandatory for social media companies when child sexual abuse material and exploitative content are identified. Canadians rightly expect digital platforms to act responsibly and to co-operate in protecting children from exploitation. Parents expect Parliament to respond when criminals use modern technology to target young people. The legislation would be exactly that response.

Protecting children should never be a partisan issue. The fight against the sexual exploitation of children should never be a partisan issue. We all have a responsibility to act when the safety of young people is at risk.

The protecting victims act would also respond to the growing threat of sexually explicit deepfakes and image-based abuse. Technology continues to evolve at an extraordinary pace. Artificial intelligence has created remarkable opportunities, but it can also be misused. We have seen disturbing images of sexually explicit images being created and distributed without consent. Women and girls have been disproportionately targeted by these harmful practices.

No one should have to fear that their likeness will be manipulated and weaponized against them. No one should have to endure the trauma of discovering that sexually explicit images have been created or shared without their consent. The protecting victims act would modernize the Criminal Code to address these realities and ensure that victims are protected, regardless of whether abuse occurs online or off-line.

Accountability is another important principle underlying the legislation. Canadians expect serious consequences for serious crimes. That expectation is reasonable and is reflected in the protecting victims act. The legislation would restore more than a dozen mandatory minimum penalties related to serious child sexual offences, would increase penalties for child predators and would strengthen the criminal justice response to some of the most serious crimes in our society. Children who experience sexual exploitation often carry that trauma throughout their life. Families are devastated. Communities are shaken. The consequences extend far beyond the immediate offence. Our justice system must respond accordingly.

The legislation would also recognize that victims need support throughout the justice process. For many victims, the crime itself is only the beginning of a difficult journey. Participating in criminal proceedings can be intimidating, stressful and retraumatizing. The protecting victims act would expand access to testimonial aids and support measures to help victims and witnesses participate more fully in the justice process.

The act would also expand access to support services for victims and witnesses. It would help make the justice system more accessible, more compassionate and more attuned to the needs of people who have already been through traumatic experiences.

These reforms would help improve the experience of victims, while supporting the broader goal of ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done.

Yesterday, some members of the House voted against the protecting victims act at report stage. That was their decision, but they will have to explain to Canadians why they opposed legislation that would create a new offence of coercive control, strengthen protections for children and victims and restore minimum mandatory penalties for serious child sexual offences.

For our part, we are proud to support the legislation. We are proud to support victims, we are proud to support survivors, and we are proud to support safer communities. At the end of the day, the questions before us are straightforward: Do we believe victims deserve stronger protections? Do we believe children deserve greater safeguards against exploitation? Do we believe survivors deserve to be heard? Do we believe our laws should evolve to meet emerging threats? Do we believe Parliament should act when change is needed? I believe that the answer to all these questions is yes, and that is why I encourage everyone in this place to support the bill at third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate how the member for Mount Royal set out the bill in such a manner that one would think it is very straightforward. We often hear members in the official opposition say that they want the government to deal with crime in a stronger way, and they talk about the importance of victims. Based on what we heard from the member for Mount Royal, one can easily come to the conclusion that this is legislation that one would expect the Conservative Party not only to vote in favour of but also to be anxious to have become law.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts regarding how we would have a better and healthier society by passage of the legislation.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the parliamentary secretary's questions.

The goal of the current government is for people to both be safe and feel safe, and for communities to be safer. That is why the government brought forward an ambitious agenda of criminal reforms that would make it tougher for bad people and repeat offenders to get bail, would make sure victims of hate crimes have better access to police tools to prosecute those hate crimes, and, in this case, would make sure victims are protected, particularly women and children, who, in many different instances, disproportionately bear the threat of coercive control or exploitation.

The bill is an important piece of the tool kit, a tool in the tool kit for police and prosecutors. It is important for victims and other Canadians, and I encourage everyone to get on board and vote for the bill.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that we need to keep our communities safe and to protect victims of any sort of violence and criminality in Canada, so I am going to ask a very simple question: If this is the true intent of the bill, why would the Liberals make mandatory minimum penalties optional?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no reasonable way that the bill can be interpreted as making mandatory minimums optional. What the bill would do is prevent courts from striking down minimum mandatory sentences based on hypotheticals. This should be exactly the type of bill Conservatives would support. Conservatives have railed against what the courts have done to strike down minimum mandatory sentences based on hypotheticals.

I refer to the Senneville decision last year. This bill would restore minimum mandatory sentences and prevent courts from doing what was done in Senneville, by allowing courts to assess only the individual before them and not to strike down the entire category based on one hypothetical situation. The hon. member should read the bill again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's thoughts about the study in committee of Bill C-16. The Conservatives made a lot of deliberate attempts to obstruct the work. While purporting to bring amendments beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues engaged in endless filibustering.

Considering that we made some progress and that we support the bill, even though it may not be perfect, what does my colleague think of the Conservatives' behaviour?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague said, this legislation is a step forward. Everyone needs to be pragmatic. We will never get everything we want, but this bill is very good news for everyone who wants safer communities in Canada. It was unfortunate to have to sit in committee hour after hour as our colleagues tried to derail this bill.

Like the other justice bills that we introduced, this is something very important to Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments the member shared. I know we do not have a lot of time before the next member speaks, so I would just ask the member to perhaps use this time to share with Canadians what the bill would do, so we can minimize the misinformation or disinformation out there.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one easy example is that of an AI-created sexual image of a person. Our previous law had not advanced to the point of addressing a person's having sexual images of them shared from AI. The bill would now cover that circumstance to make sure we can prosecute people doing something like that.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about an issue that demands not only our highest attention but also our sustained and collective action: violence against women and girls, and the protection of victims and survivors across Canada.

Violence against women is not abstract. It is not rare. It is not confined to headlines or statistics. It is happening in our communities, in our neighbourhoods and too often behind closed doors. It affects women of all ages, backgrounds and regions, including in my riding of of Prescott—Russell—Cumberland. This is why the protecting victims act would represent one of the most significant and necessary updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations.

While broad in scope, the legislation can be clearly understood through four core pillars: first, tackling gender-based and intimate partner violence; second, protecting children from predators; third, strengthening victims' rights; and fourth, addressing court delays and strengthening system integrity. Together, these reforms would modernize the Criminal Code to respond to contemporary threats, intervene earlier to prevent violence and ensure that the justice system works faster, more fairly and more compassionately for victims and survivors.

Gender-based violence is rarely an isolated act. It is more of a cycle of control, fear and intimidation. This bill recognizes coercive and controlling behaviour, strengthens offences related to criminal harassment and modernizes the offence of non-consensual distribution of an intimate image to reflect the real harm caused by online sexual violence. It also recognizes the most tragic outcome of this violence by classifying femicide as first-degree murder, sending a clear message. Hate crimes and gender-based crimes will face the full extent of the law.

Children face growing risks in a digital world where predators increasingly use technology to exploit and harm. Police-reported child sexual abuse and exploitation offences are now more than 12 times higher than in 2008. This legislation would strengthen protections by expanding child luring offences and sextortion offences, addressing youth recruitment and restoring mandatory minimum penalties for the most serious child sexual offences, with a safety valve to ensure just and constitutional sentences. It would send a clear message: Crimes against children will always be treated with the utmost seriousness.

Justice is not just about convictions. It is also about how victims are treated at every step of the process. Too many survivors feel invisible, experience delays and are retraumatized by complex procedures. This bill strengthens the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by building a trauma-informed, victim-centred justice system. It affirms victims' rights to respect and fairness, ensures the proactive disclosure of information, expands access to testimonial aids and clarifies victims' right to submit impact statements throughout the sentencing, parole and correctional system stages. It also improves information sharing so that victims are not left in the dark about decisions that affect their safety.

Delays in the justice system have serious consequences. Too often, cases involving sexual assault and violent crime collapse before they are ever heard. The protecting victims act would respond directly by requiring that courts consider alternatives before dismissing cases for delay, modernizing how unreasonable delay is assessed and streamlining procedures in sexual offence trials. It would also expand the use of alternative and restorative measures where appropriate and where public safety is not at risk, ensuring accountability while preserving fairness.

The urgency of this legislation cannot be overstated. In 2024 alone, 187 women were violently killed in Canada, which is nearly one woman every two days. Behind every number is a life lost, a family devastated and a community forever changed. Victims continue to face barriers, retraumatization, a lack of information, procedural complexity and delays that erode confidence in the justice system. National inquiries, provincial inquests and the national action plan to end gender-based violence have all called for stronger protections, earlier interventions and a more reliable justice process. This legislation would answer those calls.

Laws are important, but what happens on the ground is just as important. In my riding, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, organizations like Maison Interlude show us what concrete, effective support looks like. For over 40 years, Maison Interlude has placed women who are victims of domestic violence and their children at the heart of its mission. Thanks to the leadership of pioneering feminists and the dedication of its staff, Maison Interlude has become a true lifeline for families fleeing violence.

That is why, last November, I was proud to announce, on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, more than $17 million in federal funding through the affordable housing fund to support the construction of 35 safe housing units in Embrun. This second-stage housing project will provide women and children fleeing violence with a safe, stable, and supportive living environment, an essential bridge between emergency shelter and long-term self-sufficiency. Each resident will receive personalized support to rebuild her life, regain her independence, and plan for a safer future. We will not only provide these women with a roof over their heads; we will offer them the stability and dignity they deserve. This is how policies come to life. This is how justice becomes tangible.

The protecting victims act is about accountability. It is about prevention, and above all, it is about dignity. It builds on earlier reforms and represents the next major step in strengthening safety and justice for Canadians. It reflects a clear commitment to protecting women, children and all victims of violence, in law, in practice and in our communities.

As we work to build Canada strong, we must ensure that strength is measured not only by economic independence, but also by how we protect the most vulnerable among us. I urge all members of the House to support this legislation and to stand with victims and survivors across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment that would correct a mistake and improve legal support.

I would like to know why the government members voted against that amendment when the rationale behind our proposal was sound and justified.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great question.

The bill establishes national standards under the Criminal Code while respecting provincial jurisdictions. The legislation already supports the provincial efforts in question.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are saying that they are putting forward legislation in an attempt to make Canada safer, to be harder on criminals and to support victims of crime. However, in my own city of Calgary, in the last 10 days alone, we have had four shootings. What this is indicating to me is that Canada, under Liberal rule, is not any safer. I am really beginning to question, as I am sure many Canadians are, and I know certainly Calgarians are, if the legislation that the Liberal government has been putting forward for 10 years now is really contributing to a safer Canada.

I would like to know what the member thinks about that.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be honest. So much more has to be done to protect women and children from violence and from domestic violence and abuse. There is no question that more needs to be done.

This bill is bringing forward and would essentially be providing a generational approach to reforming the Criminal Code to do, as much as possible, more than has been done in the past generation to support these issues. It never stops. We have to continue addressing the issues as they evolve, as technology evolves, as the judicial systems evolve and as instances of violence evolve. We have to keep going, but I do see in this legislation that the most we could do would be done, and that does not stop today.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for her eloquence and for the way she presented this bill and its various provisions. I would like to highlight a very important aspect of this bill, and that is the support it provides to municipalities and police forces.

I would like to ask my colleague if she could elaborate on the issue of victims' rights, expand on her thoughts on that and, obviously, tell us how this bill will provide more protection for survivors of violence.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is built on four fundamental pillars to support victims: combatting gender-based violence and intimate partner violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims' rights and reducing court delays.

Together, these reforms modernize the Criminal Code to address contemporary threats, intervene earlier to prevent violence and ensure that the justice system operates more quickly and more fairly for victims and survivors.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a very short question.

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

Mr. Speaker, the protecting victims act would remove mandatory minimums. It would give judges that freedom. My question for the member opposite is very short. When a victim's offender walks out of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I did say a very short question.

The hon. member for Prescott—Russell—Cumberland has 15 seconds or less.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I did not actually understand the question, but I thank everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my intervention by asking for unanimous consent to split my time with my colleague, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise on behalf of the good people of my riding.

This is now the third, or possibly the fourth, substantive intervention I have made on Bill C-16, not to mention the numerous interventions during our study at the justice committee and our extensive discussions during clause-by-clause consideration. I want to take this opportunity to pivot in a new direction. I want to take this opportunity to explain to Canadians the truth behind the bill, not the fiction and not the utopian world that the Liberal government is trying to portray.

We have heard so often that it is like Chicken Little. The new Liberal government says that it is so serious about community safety and victim rights and that it is taking its responsibilities seriously. I have always said, during the numerous town halls I have conducted across this country, that the number one responsibility for the tired Liberal government is to keep Canadians safe. Why is it that after the 2025 election, there are three pieces of criminal legislation that would only move the needle so far but would not complete what is necessary to restore balance in our criminal justice system?

We could take, for instance, Bill C-9. Everything was progressing reasonably at committee on Bill C-9 until a backroom deal was brokered between the justice minister and the Bloc Québécois to remove a 52-year-old statutory defence in the Criminal Code and potentially criminalize preachers and faith leaders who read out passages from their religious texts. That is Bill C-9.

On Bill C-14, the government heard from all major stakeholders in this country for years. They were pleading and begging the government to give them the tools to keep violent repeat criminals off the streets. They were terrorizing communities and terrorizing victims. The government claims that it listened to those calls. It introduced Bill C-14. We talked about the principle of restraint in Bill C-14, which the government introduced under Justin Trudeau in 2019. It mandated that all accused were to be released at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. We Conservatives said that we needed to put the appropriate brakes on those who would terrorize our communities repeatedly. We needed to replace the principle of restraint with the principle of protection of the community.

Hence, the member for Oxford, my colleague, brought the jail not bail act, a reasonable piece of legislation supported by major police associations and chiefs across this country. The government rejected it, and now we are debating Bill C-16.

Again, I want to separate fact from fiction. The fiction the government is trying to demonstrate and argue is that Conservatives were always obstructionist when it came to debating Bill C-16 in committee, when we were looking at and studying the bill. The fact of the matter is that 99% of Bill C-16 was always supported by the Conservative Party of Canada. There was a poison pill and a red line, which is contained in clause 63 of the bill, that would completely upend the effectiveness of our criminal sentencing regime. It would cause mandatory minimum penalties to no longer be considered mandatory minimum penalties by allowing judges, of their own accord or through application by the accused or their defence counsel, to argue that the application of a mandatory minimum penalty would result in cruel and unusual punishment.

Where did this discussion come from? It came from that disastrous decision by our highest court just a few blocks down from this hallowed House, the Supreme Court of Canada. It ruled in Senneville that a one-year mandatory minimum penalty for the collection and the accessing of child sexual abuse material is contrary to section 12 of the charter.

These two individuals who brought their case to the Supreme Court of Canada had amassed hundreds and hundreds of still images and videos of victims as young as three years of age engaged in the most grotesque form of sexual activity with adults. Our learned justices down the road deemed that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to subject those two sadistic perverts to serve a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty. If I were the justice minister, I would say one year is not enough. Lock them up for five years, because that is where they belong, or longer. If we were talking about a similar case a few hours away from the Ottawa region in the United States, in New York state, those two sadistic perverts would be looking at double digits in prison. That is the difference between our two justice systems. What is even more appalling about that decision, and this is the problem with Bill C‑16, is that the trial judge on their own determined that notwithstanding the size of the collection and the content, as disturbing as it is, a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty was too harsh. That trial judge gave those two perverts a 45‑day weekend sentence.

What was our reaction? The collective will of Canada was shaken at its core. What is going on with our judges? What is going on with our justice system? It is no small wonder that Canadians and victims have a lack of confidence in our criminal justice system, when they see the highest court in this country ruling in the fashion that it did. We urged and pleaded with the government to come up and deal with this and use the notwithstanding clause. Section 33 of the charter has been enshrined in our charter since 1982. We would not have a charter but for section 33, but no, the government cannot do that. No, we now have to give judges that ultimate discretion to determine on their own whether a mandatory minimum penalty is appropriate in the circumstances, and there are only a few guardrails. Condition number one is that the only two offences they cannot touch are murder and treason. Condition number two is that they have to impose a jail sentence. However, in that regard, there is nothing stopping judges across this country from imposing a one-day jail sentence or a time-served jail sentence. Under Bill C‑16, that would be a lawful sentence.

I asked the justice minister repeatedly in this House and repeatedly at committee, if they wanted to bring back mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down, why can they not go further and include everything that was eliminated by Bill C‑5? Bill C‑5 is that disastrous piece of legislation that I warned David Lametti, then justice minister, would lead to adverse consequences. Now we have drug traffickers of fentanyl and other kinds of synthetic opiates, whom the judges across this country are calling the merchants of death, enjoying conditional sentences. They were once to be locked up for years, but now they can make an argument for a conditional sentence. Our justice minister shamelessly refused to bring back mandatory minimum penalties for all the drug offences and the majority of the weapons offences, including extortion with a firearm, which is raging across this country.

For all those reasons, as indicated, I would encourage this entire House to vote against Bill C‑16.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite talks about the notwithstanding clause. Your government has said publicly that it would use the notwithstanding clause to take away the rights of Canadians, whether it is religious freedom or any others. This is why your party voted in favour of Bill C‑21, which would take rights away from Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would remind members to address their comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is completely wrong in that assessment. We have always said, as a party, and our leader has been very clear, that we will use the notwithstanding clause when it comes to absurd criminal law and absurdity that has flowed from the Supreme Court of Canada when dealing with child sexual abuse material, which is a classic example.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know that he has taken an interest in the issue of women's safety. He even participated in a few meetings of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Bill C‑16 incorporates many of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. These recommendations are based on requests from survivors and victims, particularly with regard to court delays and the criminalization of coercive control. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women made these recommendations and they have been incorporated into Bill C‑16.

Did he discuss this with his Conservative colleagues?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard a question there, but I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague. There are definite enhancements when it comes to victim safety and victim procedure in Bill C‑16, which is why I said at the outset that 99% of the bill is supportable. We would be very supportive of splitting the bill and having the good parts, that 99%, pass into the Senate, but split off that poisonous safety valve consideration in proposed section 63, which is what we would like to have taken off.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for both his compassion and his expertise.

The member examined the fine print of the bill. The party opposite stands here promising to restore mandatory minimums, and on the very next page, would hand the judges' clauses to sentence below them, and no proportionality test. The Supreme Court told us in the Senneville case exactly how to draft minimums that survive. The bill ignored that road map.

My question for my colleague is simple. When a victim's offender walks out at below the minimum sentence under the bill, who does he believe the party opposite will blame, the court or the bill that was written to let this happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would hope they would blame the justice, and more importantly, the tools that the justice relies upon, which the federal government provides, and this tool, Bill C‑16, is going to lead to absurd, obscene results across this country.

I asked the justice minister to name one accused who is not going to say that a mandatory minimum penalty is going to lead to cruel and unusual punishment. Every single accused facing criminal charges where there is a mandatory minimum penalty is entitled to use that argument.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not the defence lawyer who ultimately makes the decision. It is the judge. What is very apparent is that the Conservative Party has absolutely no confidence in judicial independence or the ability of judges to make good decisions.

It is a comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member opposite supports the trial judge's decision in Senneville that a 45‑day, weekend sentence for possessing hundreds of images of three-year-old girls being sodomized by men is entirely acceptable.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is 9:45 p.m. in the House right now. Most Canadians are putting their kids to bed, helping them fall asleep, finishing up their day, finishing their evening and getting ready to go to sleep. They are not watching the work of Parliament, and that is exactly what the Liberals want. They are very happy when people are not watching what is happening here, because what the Liberals are doing right now, this evening, is ramming through bills that should be worked on over the course of a year, in collaboration with the opposition parties, in order to finally get everyone's agreement.

It is not about getting their bills passed. It is about getting bills passed that all Canadians can relate to. Instead of doing that, they worked very hard to cobble together a majority behind the scenes, only to end up falling behind and trying to save what they can by speeding things up and making MPs sit in Parliament until midnight to try to get their bills passed.

If you want a concrete example of what is happening right now and how the government operates, then just look at what is happening at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with Bill C-22. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who is a completely independent individual, an officer of Parliament, whose job is specifically to protect the privacy rights of Canadians, has asked to testify on Bill C-22, a bill that will require electronic service providers to retain everyone's metadata for one year so that the government can access it. We are talking about Internet browsing history, phone numbers, the devices we use, and the people we are with. The commissioner said that this bill falls squarely within her mandate, that she has genuine concerns about Canadians' privacy, and that she wanted to testify.

Parliament has a procedure known as “unanimous consent”. Any member can request it. It means that we now all agree to do something. Conservative members have requested unanimous consent to have the Privacy Commissioner of Canada participate in reviewing the bill. The Liberals refused. How strange. So the Conservatives tried a different tack. They moved to suspend a study of this clause in order to study it a short time later so that the commissioner could participate. Once again, the Liberals voted against it. There were two attempts and two refusals.

The Liberals are forcing the Privacy Commissioner of Canada into silence to essentially stop her from protecting the rights of Canadians, whom she protects every day. This is not a procedural matter. This is a government that fears transparency. We see that on many issues, and we are seeing it right now with the massive Bill C-16. It contains some good things, and I am going to talk about that, but it also contains a little poison pill that needs to be discussed.

It is important to understand that, when we vote on a bill, we are not just voting on a single one of its lines. We are voting on the whole document. As I was saying, there are some good things about this bill. Making sure that the killing of an intimate partner is automatically classified as first-degree murder is a very good thing. Our colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, is the one who suggested that. The bill seeks to ban deepfakes of intimate images. Once again, it was a Conservative member who suggested that. These are good things about the bill. However, unfortunately, this bill contains clause 63, and when it comes time to vote, we have to vote on the whole bill, including that provision.

What does that provision say? As things now stand in Parliament, elected representatives have said that, if someone commits a serious crime, then they should go to prison for a predetermined minimum number of years with no exceptions. If a person commits a crime, then they know what they are facing. This is called a mandatory minimum sentence. It is the lower limit. It cannot get any lower than that. That is guaranteed. That is a promise that Parliament made to victims, that their perpetrators will have to face real consequences.

However, clause 63, which the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-16, breaks that promise by saying that, if a judge considers the minimum sentence to be too harsh for a particular defendant, then the judge can disregard it and impose a lighter sentence. The Liberals want this new approach to apply to all or nearly all serious crimes in Canada, including aggravated sexual assault with the use of a firearm, human trafficking, shootings and weapons trafficking, just to name a few. Minimum sentences will not be required in any of those cases.

Making minimum sentences optional for these crimes is really bad. Canadians are afraid, and rightly so. After a decade of Liberal government, human trafficking has increased by 84%, sexual assault has increased by 76%, and violent crime has increased by 55%. These are not just statistics on a page; these are families. These are women, these are children, these are victims. These are communities like mine, in Montmorency—Charlevoix, where people get up in the morning, work hard, raise their children and expect the government to protect them.

Meanwhile, what are the Liberals doing in response to rising violent crime across the country? They are introducing a bill that makes it easier for judges to hand down lighter sentences to people who commit serious crimes. Why are they doing all this? Do they want better incarceration statistics? Who are they doing this for? It is certainly not for victims and their families.

Why are the Liberals always telling the House that criminals have rights, but never talking about victims' rights and what happens to them? It is an awful thing to behold.

I am going to talk about what is actually happening in prisons right now. These are not theories. These are facts. Everything I am about to say is connected. Chapter one begins in 2019. With Bill C‑83, the Liberals ended the use of administrative segregation for the most violent inmates. Instead, these inmates, who are violent in prison, have comfortable living quarters and access to psychologists, nurses, even pet therapy and social support. How nice. All of this is funded by taxpayers.

Chapter two begins in 2022. With Bill C‑5, the Liberals abolished minimum sentences for crimes involving firearms. Judges began imposing community service sentences on men and women who commit crimes involving illegal weapons, as well as gun smugglers and repeat offenders. One judge even wrote that he had to hold his nose after handing down the sentence he was obligated to impose.

Now we are on chapter three. Bill C‑16 would basically make all remaining mandatory minimum sentences optional.

At Donnacona, a prison located about 40 minutes from my riding, there have been four murders in less than a year. The wardens wrote to me. I speak to them regularly. They contact me. They say that there are illegal weapons coming in and that the number of violent criminals is going up. They talk about cleaning up blood and then having to go on with their day, pretending everything is normal. They tell me about the stress they are under every day.

The correctional officers' union says that over 350 positions are vacant nationwide because officers are under so much stress at work these days that they are dropping like flies. Meanwhile, the administration wants to cut back on the number of officers on the job, but that decision would heap even more pressure on the remaining officers.

That is what is going on. Violent criminals are violent on the streets but also behind bars. Criminals who are violent when they are free are also violent when they are incarcerated, yet the Liberals want to reduce these people's sentences. What message does that send?

I was sent here to the House by the citizens of Montmorency—Charlevoix, but not to rubber-stamp bills on autopilot, nor to remain silent while the government strips away the tools that protect my constituents and the entire population of Quebec.

The federal government should excel at a few things and stay out of matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Canadian laws are certainly something citizens should be able to trust, and our work here in Ottawa is important in that regard. We should focus on those matters, the ones that are the federal government's responsibility.

The real danger to citizens, however, is not bound by ideology. When Parliament establishes a mandatory minimum sentence, it makes a promise. Elected representatives—people accountable to voters who are not appointed for life, people whom voters have chosen to send here—made a promise to defend them in Parliament.

When section 63 of the bill allows a judge to circumvent that promise, it weakens not only politics, but our entire image and the public's trust in our institutions. The important thing to understand is that it is not my point of view that matters, but that of the people. Their opinion counts. Perhaps it is time for the Liberals to start listening to the people.

I am going to tell Canadians exactly what happened in committee. We moved amendment 22. We said that, at the very least, the safety valve, the escape hatch from mandatory minimum sentences, should not apply to someone who already has a criminal record. We moved amendment 25. We said that sexual offences against children and serious drug trafficking offences should be completely excluded from the lightest sentences. Children deserve to be protected.

In moving amendments 25.2 and 25.3, we said that aggravated sexual assault and extortion should also not be eligible for this safety valve. We also moved amendment 29, which had nothing to do with sentences. We just said that when an offender is convicted of intimate partner violence and released on parole, the victim should be automatically notified. Every one of our amendments was defeated.

I will stop there. Families in Montmorency—Charlevoix are watching what is happening. Quebeckers and Canadians are watching too. The government cannot make Canada safer by making criminals more comfortable.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that through Bill C-16, we would see the reinstatement of a number of mandatory minimums that were actually ruled out of order with respect to Canada's Charter of Rights. As a result, Bill C-16 would reinstate many of those mandatory minimums. It puts in the exceptional circumstances clause in order to protect the integrity of the laws so that they would not continue to be ruled as being against the charter. In other words, it would make them charter-compliant.

It seems to me that the Conservative Party is just trying to find an excuse to justify its position.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my speech. When these people talk about rights and freedoms, they are talking about the rights and freedoms of criminals. What about the rights of victims? Where are they? Victims are afraid, and the crime rate is rising. What message is being sent? We are leaving another loophole to allow violent criminals to get off scot-free and to give judges the option not to impose minimum sentences. No, that is not what our country needs.

We need a strong justice system that makes it clear to criminals what consequences they will face if they commit a crime. The system must not give them free rein by suggesting that, in the end, they might be able to spend the rest of their lives at home while victims are forced to live in fear. That is a terrible message.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member.

At that time, I had the opportunity to introduce a motion in which I denounced the close ties between the Liberals and the lobby representing the unregulated truckers responsible for the Drivers Inc. scheme, which undermines people's working conditions and causes accidents.

The Liberals seem quite close to these people. Some of them are even Liberal activists who allegedly fund the Liberal Party. I asked that the committee look into the matter. I would like to know if I can count on the support of my colleague and the Conservative Party on this issue.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an odd question. We are talking about victims' rights. We are talking about laws being loosened. The Liberals want to loosen our laws so criminals do not have to face justice.

I cannot commit myself today and answer my colleague's question on behalf of the entire Conservative Party. His motion was tabled yesterday, and it will be analyzed. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is very strict and works very hard. We want to make sure that ethics is a central consideration in every decision. If there is work to be done and it is important that we do it, we will be there. Holding the Liberals accountable for their decisions is our daily bread and butter.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been a member of our Conservative team in the House for over a year now. I would love to hear his opinion on how the government is handling public safety and the justice system. I would love to hear what he thinks after a year in the House, compared to how he felt before being elected.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the year since I joined the House, I have had the privilege of working alongside all my colleagues and with the Conservative Party. It is clear that, over the past year, the Liberals have spent more time working behind the scenes to cobble together a majority than trying to come to an agreement with the opposition. Yet that was the mandate given to them by the people, who elected a minority government. The Liberals had a mandate to work with the opposition to ensure that legislation serving the interests of all Canadians moves forward. It was not about imposing their vision, but rather respecting our vision. Every member of Parliament is sent by their constituents to get the job done here.

That is not what the Liberals wanted to do. They did not spend their time working hard here; instead, they worked behind the scenes to cobble together a majority and then finally show up here, puff out their chests and claim that they are the ones in charge.

Today, we are paying the price. We are here until midnight because the Liberals are trying to pull something off. They are trying to pass bills that they were unable to work on when it was actually time to do so.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of what happens behind the scenes, it certainly does look like someone is hiding behind the curtain. I will leave it at that. Bill C‑16 is the topic of discussion tonight.

In all seriousness, this bill seeks to better protect women. However, the problem I see from the outset is that this bill will not solve everything. I will be talking about that, and I know that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle, with whom I will be sharing my time, will also be talking about that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We need unanimous consent for that.

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Shefford may continue.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

This is the third time I have talked about this bill, though I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This bill ended up being extensively discussed by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I have already talked about it a lot.

I may come back to Bill C‑16, but I also want to use my speech to talk about the fact that protecting women also requires better housing and local services. I will come back to that.

The Bloc Québécois obviously supports the principle of Bill C‑16, which contains a number of important improvements for better protecting victims of violence. In particular, it recognizes coercive control. It strengthens certain victims' rights and modernizes criminal law. However, one fundamental question remains: Can a woman be truly safe if she has nowhere to go after escaping violence? Justice is essential, but our committee also heard over and over that justice alone is not enough. I will begin by talking about the housing issue. I will then move on to the improvements that Bill C‑16 contains. I will close by talking about what makes Quebec different in this domain.

A woman fleeing violence first needs a place to live. Behind every criminal record and every case file is a woman who has made the extremely difficult decision to leave her abuser. This decision often means giving up her home, leaving her job, uprooting her children and losing her financial security. Without a housing solution, many women remain trapped in their situations. What we heard at committee from survivors is that shelters are more than just places of refuge. The evidence we heard at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women served as a reminder of this. Shelters are true places of recovery. They provide shelter, psychosocial support, legal assistance, financial aid, support for children and assistance in building autonomy. For many women, it is the first night in a long time that they can sleep without fearing for their lives or those of their loved ones.

Housing is also a public safety issue. A woman who leaves an abusive partner often has to choose between returning to her abuser or living in precarious conditions. It is absolutely terrible. She has to wait months for affordable housing. As long as this reality persists, no reform of the Criminal Code will be enough. I have some telling statistics. In 2024-25, Canada had approximately 561 residential shelters for victims of violence. Despite this, officials still identify the lack of affordable housing as one of the main obstacles to a sustainable escape from violence.

Research shows that women who have access to second-stage housing are much more likely to rebuild their lives and avoid returning to their abuser. Sexual violence remains vastly under-reported. In fact, nearly nine out of 10 sexual assaults are never reported to the police. In 2024, 81 women were killed by an intimate partner in Canada, including 25 in Quebec. There have already been 10 femicides in 2026. One of the first occurred in Rougemont, in the riding of Shefford.

I also mentioned coercive control. I would like to talk about some of the progress this bill will achieve after first discussing the importance of offering abused women more extensive help. Tackling coercive control is an important step forward. The Bloc Québécois welcomes the creation of a coercive control offence. This recognition is essential. It follows on a study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women did on my suggestion following a request by the Quebec National Assembly and members who had worked on a report on rebuilding trust. However, Ottawa did not budge.

Late last year, after a number of years went by, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women held a press conference pointing out that one of the main recommendations in my report was to criminalize coercive control. This recognition is essential. Violence does not always leave visible wounds. The wounds can also be psychological, economic, social, digital or emotional.

Financial dependence is often an integral part of this type of control. Even under the best laws, a woman who cannot afford housing or food for her children remains vulnerable. We absolutely need to work toward women's economic empowerment, because we cannot break the cycle of domestic violence if a woman, even after years of trying, cannot accumulate the financial resources needed to escape that violence. She remains trapped in a cycle, in an endless spiral, where the man, to meet his own needs and expectations and to control his victim, exerts financial control over her. We must also consider women's economic empowerment and ways to ensure women can fully take control of their financial lives.

Another point that came up during the testimonies before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is that we cannot overlook older women. Coercive control also affects older adults. What is concerning is that some women endure violence perpetrated by a spouse, a caregiver, or even an adult child. Data also show that there has been a significant increase in cases of domestic violence against older adults in recent years. The system must be able to recognize these specific realities.

I also want to talk about the importance of respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, because social services, shelters and housing fall primarily under Quebec's jurisdiction. Let us not forget that. The federal government must financially support these networks without imposing its own conditions. Quebec organizations are familiar with the realities on the ground and already meeting victims' needs. It is therefore important to look at what is being transferred to help the organizations that work with victims. Staff are exhausted, and they need resources and means to care for these victims and care for survivors.

Bill C‑16 is not perfect, so the Bloc Québécois had moved some amendments, particularly regarding section 810 of the Criminal Code, which is still far too subjective. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I moved, in collaboration with my Conservative colleagues, that we conduct a study of section 810 of the Criminal Code. The Bloc Québécois wanted to take that aspect out of Bill C‑16, because it has been proven that section 810 conditions can give victims a false sense of security. We moved amendments, and there are some amendments that could have been made to Bill C‑16.

However, our chief concern is that the Criminal Code be strengthened and that new offences be created. The Criminal Code is a federal law, however, whereas the application and administration of justice are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. I said that to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality yesterday, and I asked her to discuss it with her colleague, the Minister of Justice. If the government does not arrange for money to be transferred to Quebec for the administration of justice, in acknowledgement of the fact that a much bigger burden is going to be placed on Quebec's justice system, it is going to be passing laws that cannot be enforced. There will not be enough resources to take care of victims and survivors properly.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑16. It is a real step forward for victims. However, we must guard against believing that the Criminal Code can fix everything and that it is some kind of magic wand. A woman needs effective justice, safe housing, a bed in a shelter, adequate income and quality psychosocial support.

As I told the minister yesterday, the Bloc Québécois will be here to make sure nobody forgets the amendments our party put forward at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The best way to protect women is not only to punish abusers, but also to give victims the practical means to get away and rebuild their lives with dignity.

We owe them that because there must be no more victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. She is a tireless champion in the fight against gender-based violence. We have had several opportunities to discuss this issue. Her speech conveyed her sincerity and how hard she works on this issue.

We now have the opportunity to pass a bill that will enable us to make progress. I would like to know what steps my colleague envisions taking next.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to try to avoid some of the inconsistencies we see in Bill C-16. As I said in reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code, we want the criteria to be more objective than subjective. That was one of the amendments that had been proposed by my colleague to address this situation. That is the kind of amendment we would have liked to include in the bill, but unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it. So, we will definitely have to bring it up again.

The issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code will need to be addressed, because it is clear that this section is not doing its job of ensuring that victims are safe. The Bloc Québécois will continue to closely monitor the issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the remarks made by my colleague from Shefford. We are talking about taking back control of our lives. Just a few hours ago, during the debate on Bill C-20, we were talking about building Canada.

I asked the following question: How could a program be implemented to the point of jeopardizing or suspending the activities of organizations that help abused women, even as they were in the process of setting up shelters for them? When my colleague says that the government must absolutely work in a way that is consistent with Quebec, I would like to know if there are, in fact, concrete steps that can be taken.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right: Representatives from those Quebec organizations did indeed come to testify about shelters. What we are seeing at this point in time is that wait lists keep getting longer. When I say that waving a magic wand will not fix things, Build Canada Homes is a prime example of that. We do not really know what it will amount to; it is still very unclear. We have a lot of questions.

One thing we know for sure is that wait lists are getting longer. More and more women are turning to emergency resources. Without a space in a second-stage shelter, they are stuck at the emergency shelter stage, meaning that other women who need emergency resources cannot get them, so they stay home and cannot access emergency resources. Other women who are ready for that second stage cannot access it because there is no space.

After second-stage housing, where do these women go and what do they do? Often, they have their families. We want to ensure that these people are housed safely and with dignity. Sometimes they need supportive housing to ensure follow up. In short, all the steps are being delayed. This is a key issue because it is often the reason why a woman feels she cannot get out. She feels that she is stuck in a cycle of violence because she does not know where to go with her children. It is a huge concern.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives take public safety and the justice system very seriously, and there are quite the concerns with Bill C-16 regarding the removal of mandatory minimums, with the exception of murder and treason.

I would like to ask my Bloc colleague, with the removal of mandatory minimums, how will that have a ripple effect on society?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of disinformation because the bill we are studying this evening essentially reiterates the Bloc Québécois's proposal to restore mandatory minimums for serious crimes. It also echoes the Bloc Québécois's idea about the potential recruitment of young people at earlier stages and about deepfakes. This bill is making progress on a lot of fronts.

I think we have reached the point where we need to put this to a vote. It is time to move forward. I know there is room for improvement. We will have to continue to monitor progress, as I said, because this will not be like waving a magic wand.

However, I think that the disinformation needs to stop and that we need to work on making progress, recognizing victims and helping survivors find their way and rebuild their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Shefford for her work with people experiencing homelessness, female victims of violence, seniors and vulnerable individuals in the region where both of our ridings are located.

I would like my colleague to explain which solutions for fighting coercive control are most effective in her riding, including community-led initiatives.

What is working well in her riding?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that listening to victims is what works best. As the representatives of many police forces said, the first step in addressing coercive control is to include it in the Criminal Code so that police have the tools they need. Otherwise, it is too difficult for them to act or to be proactive and act sooner. That is what this does. Recognizing coercive control means recognizing that there are warning signs and that police need be able to intervene much sooner. In order to achieve that, we need to criminalize this behaviour and listen to victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last four months of 2026, Quebec has mourned 10 victims of femicide. This number rivals the annual average for the past decade. That is horrific. I hope that my colleague on the other side of the House is aware of that, because these are tragedies. This is really an unacceptable number of domestic tragedies.

I find the increase extremely alarming, perhaps more so than my colleague across the way. Advocacy and civil society groups are reacting the same way, because at this rate, 2026 could exceed the record 16 femicides committed in 2021. We do not want that. Words matter here: “Femicide” is not a trivial matter; it is a serious societal issue.

Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters with regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures, has reached third reading. As my colleague mentioned earlier, this bill amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It also provides that murder known as femicide when committed against a female person is first degree murder in any of the following circumstances: the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour; the murder is committed in the context of domestic violence; the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking; or the murder is motivated by hatred. Now is the time to say enough is enough: no more femicide.

The Bloc Québécois will continue to support the bill. Obviously, we do have some reservations. I still think that Bill C-16 represents a very significant step forward in protecting people from intimate partner violence and sexual offences. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports the changes regarding court delays, specifically the issue of mistrials. We support the new Criminal Code offence of recruiting a young person to commit a crime, the introduction of a safety valve for minimum sentences, and the strengthening of the Criminal Code provisions regarding harassment and sexual violence, which primarily affect women.

As I said earlier, the committee study of Bill C‑16 took place despite the deliberate attempts by our Conservative colleagues to do what they think is their duty. Unfortunately, partisanship is leading to attempts to obstruct our work. By introducing a litany of amendments that are clearly beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues in the official opposition engaged in a series of delay tactics. Some were posted on social media for purely partisan purposes, effectively turning the committee's work into an election platform. What else can we expect from them? Sometimes I wonder if they even care about being constructive.

Despite it all, the work got done and that was in large part thanks to my colleagues from Rivière-du-Nord and Shefford. Protection for the loved ones of victims of coercive control has been expanded to even include pets. That is a good thing. It is good news. An aggravated sentence was also created for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault.

Two decisions made at committee leave gaps that warrant attention because they make the bill less coherent and could jeopardize the safety of the very people that Bill C‑16 seeks to protect. Let me come back to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault.

During the 43rd Parliament, I served as the vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We conducted a study on the online pornography giant Pornhub. I watched hundreds of hours of pornographic content depicting women being filmed against their will while engaging in sexual acts, whether consensual or not. These women did not even know they were being filmed, let alone that the footage would end up online.

As a mother of two young adults, I cannot tolerate the fact that there are brutes, people with no sense of decency, who seriously film videos of these women, and men too, without their consent during sexual acts. Imagine how that can destroy a person's life, career, family and self-confidence at an age when people are still developing as human beings, when they are building their self-confidence. Let me be clear: Committing such an act against people aged 37, 45 or 75 is just as reprehensible and must be deemed both criminally and ethically unacceptable.

Our society is changing, our mores are changing and our means of communication are changing. I am terrified that this could happen to any of us these days, and with complete impunity. We must act now, through other means that can address certain shortcomings.

Let us take care of ourselves, and let us ensure that justice is done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech, particularly her comments on how things went at committee. I think she gave a very good description of the situation. It is an urgent problem, one that we are taking seriously.

Given the seriousness with which this matter must be addressed, what does she think is most important in the short term?

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is some parliamentary gamesmanship going on. There are procedures that can be used to carry out or slow down our processes, but I implore my colleagues to realize that, on some issues, there is no room for partisanship. I am telling all members of the House that when it comes to issues like safety, crime or even medical assistance in dying, we must set partisanship aside and put people at the centre of our decisions.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed to hear, this evening, that Bill C‑9 passed thanks to a deal between the government and the Bloc Québécois. In my view, that is not fair. That is not really how we should be making laws.

I want to know whether my colleague thinks that this is really how she wants laws to be created here, that is, with deals, agreements and bartering, instead of being transparent with Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was just talking about partisanship.

Partisanship has its limits. Not agreeing with a decision or voting nay is one thing. In my opinion, however, using social media as an election platform is unacceptable. I do not even want to know how much money was raised.

Ultimately, what this shows is a lack of seriousness. We may think of ourselves as seasoned parliamentarians representing our constituents, but I am sorry, people are forgetting the essence of what it is to be human.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that committee members worked as non-partisanly as possible. In the course of our other proceedings, members of various parties asked questions of the victims and the witnesses who appeared. Incidentally, as part of other studies, we asked people whether Bill C‑16 should be passed.

Everyone we heard from asked us to vote in favour of Bill C‑16 and explained to us why it is such a huge step forward.

I would like to point out another step forward. During the previous Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to address the impact of the Jordan decision on court delays. Bill C‑16 addresses this issue too.

In this case as well, to avoid further delays in the court system, the government must seriously consider providing the provinces and Quebec with additional resources so they can administer this new legislative framework properly.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, this is about implementing and enforcing laws—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I think I am bothering some people in the House, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about my colleague across the way. He is coming back and bothering us. It is 10:30 p.m. We are tired.

Seriously, we are talking about respect and dignity for women, and that is what we are doing tonight. I think some of my colleagues need some interpretation, because they are not understanding what I am saying at all.

In short, the provinces and Quebec should be getting all the resources they need to implement these measures to ensure the respect, dignity and safety of women.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House of Commons this evening.

It is interesting, because I was actually looking forward to asking my friend, the member for Oxford, a question.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Any time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, he says “any time”, which is not really true.

We were having this healthy debate on Bill C-20. Remember, that is the debate the Conservatives were crying about because they wanted more time to speak to it. Do members remember that?

The member for Oxford, as he was concluding and I was all ready to ask a question, moved a motion to adjourn debate. It was truly amazing. I do not think the House leadership really understood what was taking place. Let us think about this. For the first time in years, the Conservative Party actually voted just a few hours earlier to say it was okay for the House to sit until midnight. The Conservatives made that decision. They voted in favour of the House sitting until midnight.

What did they do two hours or three hours later? The member for Oxford stood up—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Leduc—Wetaskiwin is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an ironic debate. I do not think we have quorum, because there are not very many of his colleagues around.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are more Liberals than there are Conservatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, actually, there are not. This is the Liberals' bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We do have quorum.

The hon. parliamentary secretary may resume.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if my friend opposite does not like what he is hearing, he has a choice. He can leave the chamber.

At the end of the day, it is important that Canadians see the games the Conservative Party members play day in and day out, whether they are filibustering or trying to prevent debate on important legislation that we, as a government, put forward in the House of Commons in the hope that the Conservatives will, at some point, wake up and actually do the right thing and deliver for Canadians, whether that is with Bill C-16 or Bill C-20.

Let me get back to what I was trying to highlight about the Conservative Party. It supported sitting late. A couple of hours later, the member for Oxford said, “Let us adjourn debate.” What does that do? It stops the debate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Oxford is rising on a point of order.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member has a tendency to go off on his own tangents. We are discussing very important legislation today, with a focus on protecting victims, yet he is not talking about the issue at hand.

I understand that he will play games—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Nothing could be more relevant to the debate than an action that happened during the debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There is broad latitude in these types of debates. I know the member will get himself back on topic.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really somewhat sad and pathetic that the members opposite have stood up on a point of order twice now. They do not want Canadians to see the silliness that we witness on the floor of the House of Commons coming from the Conservatives. Shame on them.

At the end of the day, let us realize that all they did by moving that motion to adjourn was make a couple of statements to Canadians. One is that the Conservatives really do not want to sit late. That is what it really comes down to. They are taking us back to their lazy attitudes of the past. The other statement is that while they say they want to debate bills, instead of actually debating the bill, they used the bells to use up the debate time, thereby denying more Conservatives the chance to speak on the legislation—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, it is truly amazing. The Conservatives need to calm down a little.

They had the opportunity to have more debate on Bill C-20, but they intentionally chose not to because it was night-night time for them. I do not say that lightly. We had to have a vote. We voted on the Conservatives' motion to call it quits for the night because it was getting late, and 13% of their caucus did not even show up to vote. Even their leader decided not to vote on this.

We have this great brain thrust coming from the Conservatives, saying they want to play this game. It is time to try to trick the Liberals and maybe get home a bit earlier tonight so they can get to bed a little earlier. What did that do? Even their leader did not show up to vote, let alone 13% of their caucus. What a game. This might be a game for the Conservative Party of Canada, but I would like to tell those who are following the debate that we take it very seriously—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Regina—Wascana is rising on a point of order.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member have anything at all relevant to say about Bill C-16, which we are debating?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have already addressed the issue of relevance. There is broad latitude on this matter.

The hon. parliamentary secretary may resume.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, even though the Conservatives might want to make a joke of this evening and not necessarily fully participate on the issue of crime, let me assure those who are actually following the debate at home that we have a Prime Minister and a Liberal caucus that just last year went through an election, and we made a commitment to Canadians that we would take the crime file seriously. In fact, that was part of our platform.

We have brought forward a suite of legislative initiatives to actually address making our communities safer for all Canadians. The biggest roadblock for making that happen, for seeing the legislation pass, is the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives come up with excuses as to why they do not want to see legislation passed, and then they put in whatever mechanism they can, even if it is silly, in order to prevent legislation from passing.

Let me give a good example of that. Here is a good example on Bill C-16. If we listened to the debate and the complaints coming from Conservative Party members, we would draw the conclusion that the primary reason why they do not support this legislation is that they had a bit of a flip-flop on the issue of having a safety valve for mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums are something the Prime Minister and this government are taking very seriously. That is the reason why we have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums. There are a number of them, and I will go through a few of those, but the Conservatives say they cannot support it because there is a safety valve.

Let me give a quote. The member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations is actually the new Conservative justice critic. He replaced the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Let me tell colleagues something about the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola when he was the justice critic for the Conservative Party of Canada. Now, in fairness, the Conservatives have gone even further to the right since the replacement of this particular member, but here is what he 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.” Seriously, we have the former Conservative justice critic actually recommending to the government that we need to invoke a safety valve, yet today, they have had a change in policy. Why? It is not because it makes sense, but because they want to use that as an excuse in order to filibuster the legislative agenda that this Prime Minister and this government have for making our communities safer. I say shame on the Conservative Party.

At the end of the day, we had to bring in time allocation because the Conservative Party has absolutely no intentions whatsoever to allow Bill C-16 to pass. It is because it does not fit their political agenda. Their political agenda has more to do with self-interest and promotion.

Take a look at the reality of what the Conservative Party members like to do. They like to talk tough on crime. They love to talk tough on crime. What did we talk about today during private members' hour? We listened to Conservative after Conservative be critical of the government on the issue of transferring from maximum-security to medium-security prisons. They try to give the impression that the Liberals are soft.

If we look over the last 15 years, the record high in terms of transfers from maximum to minimum security was actually when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. The Conservatives actually had the highest number of transfers from maximum- to medium-security prisons. Colleagues might not have thought that. What did the Conservatives do at the time? They did absolutely nothing. On that issue, they did exactly what they did in regard to restoring mandatory minimums: absolutely nothing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I am going to ask for the back-and-forth to stop. There will be a 10-minute question and comment period afterwards if we keep the back-and-forth down. It has taken us about 12 minutes to get through 10 minutes of the speech.

I am going to ask the member to resume his comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Conservatives like to talk tough on crime, but the reality is that their actions speak louder than words, because when it came to those mandatory minimums, we witnessed that the Conservative Party did absolutely nothing under the leadership of today's Conservative leader, even when he sat in the Conservative caucus in a majority government. The Conservatives had the opportunity. They chose not to do anything. The Prime Minister and this government are moving forward and reinstating mandatory minimums, but not with help from the Conservative Party. It is a roadblock, but let us go on.

What is the motivating factor for the Conservative Party? Do not tell me it is about good public policy. It is far from that, because at the end of the day, the Conservatives are more concerned about using this issue for two things. Number one is to try to give a false impression that they are tough on crime. Number two, they are using it as a fundraising tool. They like to be able to say how bad things are in Canada. I could bring some wonderful quotes of how those members take these extreme radical thoughts and try to raise money on them.

I have actually been a recipient of Conservative fundraising letters, where they try to make money off the issue of crime. I say to my Conservative friends across the way that it is time they stopped thinking about the leadership of the Conservative Party and the Conservative right wing dominating that party more and more every day. I think it is time they started putting the interests of the Canadian public ahead of the Conservative Party leadership and the far-right movement here in Canada.

The amount of misinformation literature that constantly flows from the Conservative Party of Canada to Canadians is disgraceful. It really and truly is. It needs to stop. There is misinformation after misinformation, whether it is inside the chamber or outside the chamber.

Let us take a look at what Bill C-16 would actually do. Around the world, I suspect we would get some recognition that we are, for the first time, talking about coercive actions by a spouse and elevating that to make it a new offence in Canadian law. That is what the Conservative Party is holding up because of its behaviour. Bill C-16 would deal with the issue of femicide. Show me another country in the world that actually has legislation that would elevate femicide to first-degree murder. The Conservatives talk tough, but in reality, once again, they just do not want to see the legislation pass, even though it is a substantial piece of legislation that would have a serious impact on our communities.

Members talk about bringing back mandatory minimums. Let me give a sense of what those mandatory minimums are. First of all, the bill would bring back mandatory minimum sentences for sexual interference with a child and invitation to sexual touching. This is a very serious issue. At least on this side of the House, we have a Prime Minister and a government that recognize this is something that should have a mandatory minimum. That is why, within the legislation, we would be reinstating that as a mandatory minimum.

Let me give another example.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few examples, so the member should calm down and listen to them. The member will learn something here and hopefully change his attitude and vote in favour of the legislation.

Second, the bill would reinstate mandatory jail time for sexual exploitation of a child, including abuse by people in a position of trust. This is the type of legislation that I would expect the Conservative Party would be excited to get behind and support.

Let us take a look at another restoration. The bill would restore mandatory minimums for making, possessing, accessing or distributing child sexual abuse material. The bill goes on. There is a lot more within the legislation, but day after day, we see Conservative member after Conservative member looking at the holistic approach of the suite of crime legislation that we have brought forward, and this is not the first time that I have had to try to shame the Conservatives into doing the right thing and delivering for their constituents.

Let me give another example. The legislation brings back mandatory minimum jail time for online child luring and child sextortion, crimes that devastate children and families. These are the types of mandatory minimums that would actually be reinstated so that we could have safer communities. If the Conservatives want to talk about having safer communities, it is about time they put action to their words and got behind what the Prime Minister and the government are putting on the floor of the House of Commons. It is time for them to stop playing games and vote in favour of the legislation.

Whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons or in our standing committees, the Conservatives need to recognize that at the end of the day, as the Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus has indicated very clearly, we want to build a stronger, healthier Canada, a Canada that is there for all Canadians. When we talk about building a healthier and stronger Canada, that includes the issue of community safety. That is the reason we have a suite of legislative actions.

Let us remember Bill C‑2, the first action we took. We had a minority situation, and we could not get co-operation from any political entity in the House. They did not want that legislation to pass. I had the opportunity to talk about that legislation. I was discouraged. The legislation talked about issues like fentanyl, lawful access, protecting our borders, asylum seekers and stabilizing the issue of immigration. There was a great deal of substance within that legislation. However, the combined unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives made the decision that they would not allow Bill C‑2 to move forward.

As a government in a minority situation, we had to break up the bill. We brought in Bill C‑12, where we could at least build somewhat of a consensus that would enable us to pass the legislation. However, it meant we had to leave a lot out. We made a commitment back then to attempt to bring it back at some point. On the asylum issue and the issue of safer borders, we brought that back in the form of Bill C‑12. We were able to get that passed, but it was not easy, much like Bill C-14.

When we talk about Conservative delays on Bill C‑16, let us look at what took place on Bill C‑14. Bill C‑14 was all about bail reform legislation. We had law enforcement officers, the citizens we represent, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and many other stakeholders all onside saying they wanted Bill C‑14 on bail reform.

I remember standing in this very spot last year, back in November, making a very clear statement: Would it not be nice if we could actually pass this legislation and deliver it out of the House of Commons before Christmas? That was a very real opportunity. We could have done it. The only thing that prevented us from doing it was the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what prevented us from being able to pass through bail reform legislation. It was very unfortunate.

If members consulted and listened to what law enforcement, other jurisdictions and stakeholders were saying, I think it would be virtually unanimous in terms of the poor performance of the Conservative Party of Canada in denying Canadians the opportunity to have legislation that would make our communities safer. They had the opportunity.

Then we go to Bill C‑22, which, again, comes out of Bill C‑2. It deals with issues like extortion and, again, child-related criminal activities. Now we have the Conservative Party saying, “Absolutely, no way. We do not want it.” They want nothing to do with it. Even though, in talking to the law enforcement agencies, there is phenomenal support for Bill C‑22 out there in our communities, the Conservative Party will not, in any fashion, lend support for lawful access legislation.

On the one hand, they jump up like jumping beans at times, talking about the issue of extortion. They like to talk about it, but when we bring forward legislation to deal with it, what they do is filibuster again. That is fine. They want to focus on character assassination. That is their primary focus. The government and the Prime Minister are going to be focused on delivering sound public policy through legislation and budgetary measures. We will find, whether it is legislation or the budget, it is nothing but a reflection of what came out of the last election and what Canadians are telling Liberal members they want.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a theatrical performance and what a great piece of gaslighting by the Liberals, but I do have some facts here.

It is because of that actual member's voting on Bill C-75 that Daniel Senecal was out on bail in Welland for a horrific crime. Most of those members voted for that. That is the actual result of bad Liberal policy that they voted on with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Now he is going to stand here and gaslight us.

Here is another thing that is an actual fact: All those members over there voted against Bill C-381, which would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion; Bill C-220, which would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences; and Bill C-246. They voted against all that just a couple of months ago. It is a great piece of gaslighting—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Why do you—

[An hon. member]

You don't have the floor anymore.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

You should be ashamed—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. When the Chair is standing, no one else should be speaking.

The hon. member may respond.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is relatively new to the House of Commons, but he is not alone. There were over 70 Liberals who were also elected in the last election. Canadians made the decision, and I would suggest it was a good decision, when they compared the leadership of all the political entities and elected a new prime minister.

The new Prime Minister and the new government have brought in substantial pieces of legislation. The Conservatives need to get off the thinking of previous governments and focus on the current government and the actions that are being taken to make our communities safer. They need to take responsibility not only for their voting record but also for their behaviour inside the House. It is the Conservative Party that is denying Canadians safer communities because of their attitudes, filibusters and games here on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to restore some calm because I am ashamed right now. Unfortunately, I am reliving a scene I witnessed at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where, instead of listening to victims, my Liberal and Conservative colleagues were bickering back and forth. The victims left in tears, and I am reliving that moment. Members on both sides can laugh and argue about this, but Bill C-16 addresses an issue that is far too important to victims for me to be witnessing what I am seeing right now. I feel ashamed on behalf of victims and survivors.

I would like to come back to something. During the study of Bill C-16, the Conservatives filibustered while the Bloc Québécois was trying to be constructive and propose amendments. For example, we consulted legal experts to try to fix a mistake in this bill. The Bloc Québécois wanted to include provisions regarding an objective test. Such provisions would have enabled the judge to take into account the full context, the abuser's history, coercive behaviour and threats against loved ones and pets. That is what the offence itself does. However, even though the amendments we proposed were logical, the Liberals voted them down.

I would suggest that everyone calm right down because, seriously, the way we are handling Bill C‑16 right now is not at all in the public interest. Let us keep in mind that the purpose of Bill C‑16 is to find real solutions so there will be no more victims.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

Has there been any progress?

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

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

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about some of the consequences of not defining what sentencing should be. Because of Bill C-5, there is a drug smuggler, caught with 55 grams of cocaine while on bail, awaiting sentencing for previous gun offences. He received a sentence of only 12 months, half of what the judge said his crimes deserved, partially because of his immigration status.

The Ontario judge cut the sentence in half for the offender, who was facing the significant likelihood of deportation because he was already serving a six-year prison sentence in Canada for trafficking fentanyl and for gun-related offences. The judge wrote in their decision, “Mr. Rush is not a Canadian citizen and he is likely to be deported as a result of these offences. This is a significant collateral consequence.” It is. The consequence should have been served, and he should have been removed.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing her time.

Before I get into Bill C-16, I would like to acknowledge that last weekend the great people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek commemorated the 213th anniversary of the Battle of Stoney Creek, one of the most important victories in Canadian history. In June 1813, a determined force of British soldiers, local militia and loyal settlers faced a much larger American army and won in what served as the Stalingrad of the War of 1812. Their courage helped turn the tide in the defence of Upper Canada and demonstrated that the people of this land would not be intimidated by a larger neighbour.

More than two centuries later, the Battle of Stoney Creek remains a powerful reminder of the Canadian spirit: resilient, independent and determined to stand up for our national interests. As Canadians continue to face economic uncertainty and challenges beyond our borders, the lessons of Stoney Creek remain as relevant as ever. Our strength has always come from our unity, our perseverance and our confidence in Canada. May we always honour those who defended this country and continue building a free, proud and sovereign Canada.

I rise today also to speak about Bill C-16 and against a major flaw hidden inside it, specifically clause 63, the safety valve. First, it is a fact that after 11 years of Liberal government, Canadians are less safe. Violent crime is up 55%, and extortion is up 330% across Canada. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%. Sexual assaults are up almost 76%, and Canadians can see this. They see other Canadians feeling scared and threatened. They see crime becoming more common. They see repeat offenders arrested one day and back on the streets the next. In a country that used to feel safe, this is completely out of the ordinary. Canadians are desperate for change. They want to feel safe again.

After all that, what is the Liberal answer? It is more of the same. The Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe he is tough on crime, but Bill C-16 proves otherwise. While Liberals are trying to sell the bill as a crackdown on criminals, buried inside is a loophole that would allow judges to bypass almost every mandatory minimum sentence left in the Criminal Code.

Bill C-16 would amend the general sentencing principles that require courts to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum, where applying the minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. This would apply to all mandatory minimum penalties currently in the Criminal Code, with the only exceptions being murder and high treason. What it actually means is that the mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory. A custodial sentence would still be required, but the length of the imprisonment would be up to the judge's judgment.

The Liberals spent the last 11 years slowly eroding the laws that are keeping Canadians safe from criminals by keeping them behind bars. Now they want judges to ignore many of the ones that remain. Hidden inside a bill called the “protecting victims act” is a proposed get-out-of-jail-free card that claims it would protect victims. That is not getting tough on crime. That is getting softer on criminals.

The Liberals voted against the following Conservative bills that would have created stricter bail laws and tougher penalties for violent and repeat offenders. Bill C-381 would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-220 would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-246 would have required criminals convicted of multiple sexual offences to serve consecutive sentences, but the Liberals voted against it.

The Liberals also weakened bail laws through Bill C-75. Police chiefs, premiers, and Conservatives warned them, but the Liberals ignored everybody. What was the result? It was the principle of restraint: letting criminals out at the earliest reasonable opportunity on the least onerous conditions, a catch-and-release justice system where violent repeat offenders cycle through our courts and back into our communities.

In 2022, the Liberals' Bill C-5 struck down 14 mandatory minimums, including on possession and discharging of weapons and firearms. As a direct result of these Liberal laws, there have been multiple examples of firearms smugglers, gun traffickers and violent criminals receiving no jail time for crimes that should have put them behind bars. In Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, police have repeatedly laid firearms charges against individuals who are already on probation, under release conditions or subject to firearms probation.

Canadians are asking why people who have already demonstrated that they will ignore court orders continue finding themselves back with the police on new charges. Canadians are losing confidence in a justice system that seems more focused on giving offenders another chance than giving victims peace of mind. When someone is arrested for a serious firearms offence while already under a court order, Canadians do not see that as a mistake. They see a system that is failing to protect them, which the Liberals have created. Every time a violent repeat offender is released only to commit another crime, another family, business owner or community pays the price. The consequences and the fear are real, and the frustration Canadians feel is completely justified.

It is no surprise that under the Liberal government, crime is increasing at alarming rates. Now the Liberals are making the same mistake again. Canadians want to feel safe. Criminals are becoming more aggressive. They are targeting businesses and using intimidation and violence. The Liberal response is a bill that could allow offenders convicted of extortion with a prohibited firearm to receive a sentence below the current mandatory minimum. That makes no sense. If someone uses a gun to terrorize a business owner, Canadians expect serious consequences, not loopholes and leniency. They certainly do not expect the Liberal government to make it easier for criminals to avoid punishment. It does not make any sense.

We have a mandatory duty as elected officials to make our communities and Canada at large safer. This is not optional. Conservatives believe the justice system should stand with victims, not criminals; that mandatory minimum sentences should actually be mandatory; and that organized criminals, repeat violent offenders and sexual offenders should stay behind bars where they belong, not be treated like they are entitled to endless second chances. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to fix this bill.

The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for the following: aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with a restricted, prohibited firearm. Parliament set mandatory minimums for these heinous crimes for a reason. If the Liberals allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums, there will be nothing mandatory about them, full stop. Mandatory is not optional, and that is what Conservatives are fighting for.

We are happy with the positive changes in the bill. Banning deepfakes of intimate partners and bringing in mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse material would help Canadians and would keep our kids safe. Despite these changes, Bill C‑16 still fails to reverse the dangerous soft-on-crime agenda that the Liberals have spent the last 11 years enacting. Conservatives were defeated or ruled out of scope on 30 amendments that would have tightened or restored mandatory minimums for violent and serious crimes and repeat violent offenders. Those amendments would have kept our streets safer by removing the safety valve from crimes including extortion, aggravated assault and child sexual offences, and they would have kept criminals who commit these heinous acts behind bars, where they belong.

The safety valve would be a dangerous clause to include in this otherwise positive bill. This is another example of Liberal half measures. We have come this far with a good bill that would protect Canadians from serious crimes, but keeping the safety valve provision would completely contradict the principles of keeping victims safe. The Liberals should simply split this provision off so that Parliament can work to make this bill better to keep victims safe.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke so passionately about such a serious and important issue, this piece of legislation, but I cannot help reflecting on the fact that earlier this evening, the Conservatives put forward a motion to adjourn the House so that this debate would have ended. He would not have had the opportunity to speak on the bill like he did now.

As a matter of fact, whereas every Liberal voted on that adjournment motion, 18 Conservatives did not vote, including the Leader of the Opposition. They did not even vote on the motion they put forward. They would have had all the time to plan this. They could have been planning it since noon today, preparing for the moment. They could have told all their members, “At this specific time, we're going to pull this game. Please make sure to vote,” but they did not. It is more of an indication that this is nothing but a game to the Conservatives.

Why are they doing this? Why did he vote in favour of that motion to adjourn?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very concerning that I am up here speaking to a bill to keep Canadians safe, a bill I have said is very positive in a sense but that has a release valve in it that would allow judges to not enact mandatory minimums, and the member does not even want to talk about it. He just wants to deflect. Let us get serious here for a second. Canadians want a safer Canada, and the sooner the Liberals realize that and work with us and look at our amendments, the sooner we can keep Canadians safe.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. Before I get started, I want to give a shout-out to Laurel Collins, the former MP for Victoria, who, as you might recall, was a champion in tackling gender-based violence and laid the groundwork for today.

If Bill C-16 is about protecting women and children, we need to get it right. We need to listen to the experts, and many of them, including women's organizations, survivor groups and legal advocates, have repeatedly called for greater investments in prevention, housing, income security and violence protection programs, yet we have seen Liberals and Conservatives continually vote against amendments that we put forward, especially from the member for Winnipeg Centre.

Maybe my colleague can speak about why the Conservatives voted against those amendments instead of focusing on stopping violence before it happens, because that is a critical component.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, but I want to be clear. Conservatives want mandatory minimums for heinous crimes. For criminals who attack women and children, we do not want a “get out of jail free” card. We are tough on crime.

That is what I believe in. It is why I was elected and why I wanted to become a politician. I wanted to make change. I also want to make sure that when criminals get to court, they get a mandatory minimum for sexually abusing children and for violence against women. We should not have a clause that would allow the judge to see otherwise. That is what Conservatives want, and if the Liberals could just work with us on this, this would be a good bill.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, based on what I heard tonight in this debate, I am not sure if my Conservative colleague has consulted with his colleagues. There are two things I have taken away from the testimony we heard at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's recent meetings on the issue of violence against women.

First of all, the victims said that Bill C-16 was a necessary step. They said that we needed to take action and make the Criminal Code more effective. Earlier, I heard someone say that we were 99% in agreement. Once we get there, the remaining 1% can be addressed and worked out in a non-partisan manner. The other thing, of course, is that this bill does not solve everything. I acknowledge that, the Bloc Québécois acknowledges it too, and I told the minister so. We will come back with the amendments we proposed.

Why not say that we will pass this bill and then work to propose additional measures? We could also address the broader ecosystem, in other words support groups, tackle the housing issue, and continue to work on the Criminal Code. We really need to look at this as a continuum of services.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we can all come into the House, talk about it and feel good about ourselves, but unless we get strict on mandatory minimums, it is all for nothing. That is the real truth. If we leave a loophole in there where a judge can let criminals go, like the Supreme Court did in a child-sensitive material or child pornography case, all is lost. Mandatory minimums are needed, full stop. That is what the Conservatives believe in.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets.

I am grateful to rise today on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Peterborough to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to contextualize the legislation within Canada's broader effort to confront and prevent gender-based violence.

Gender-based violence is a persistent and measurable reality affecting women, girls and gender-diverse people across this country. In 2024, 187 women and gender-diverse people were killed violently in Canada. That represents one woman every two days. Women are far more likely than men to experience severe forms of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and criminal harassment. More than one-quarter of all victims of violent crime in 2024 were victimized by an intimate partner.

These are not isolated incidents, and our justice system has struggled to effectively address these crimes, given the complex realities of gender-based violence and the patterns of behaviour that often define abuse. The rate of intimate partner violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence experienced by women and girls, is more than three and a half times higher compared to men and boys. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and young women face even higher risks.

The Government of Canada has recognized that addressing gender-based violence requires a comprehensive and coordinated response. In 2017, the federal government released a federal gender-based violence strategy and has since invested over $800 million a year to coordinate federal actions under three pillars: preventing gender-based violence, supporting survivors and their families and promoting a responsive justice system.

Since 2022, the federal government has invested in a national action plan to end gender-based violence, a 10-year framework aiming to end gender-based violence in Canada by supporting victims and survivors of crime and their families and improving their experiences with the criminal justice system. Significant efforts have been undertaken in this area. For example, the federal victims strategy works to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system and increase their access to justice. Through the victims fund, which is part of the federal victims strategy, resources are made available to the provinces and territories for the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including for the development of public legal education and information material, and the provision of training on the legislation for criminal justice professionals.

Considerable efforts have also been made to strengthen the criminal justice system's response to gender-based violence. Canada's Criminal Code provides a broad-based response to all forms of violence, exploitation and abuse against all persons in Canada. Over the past years, legislative amendments in former Bill C-51 and Bill C-75 clarified and strengthened sexual assault laws and the criminal justice system's response to intimate partner violence, and former Bill C-233 imposed stricter conditions for those charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence. In addition, former Bill S-205, which came into force last April, created a new peace bond designed specifically to provide better protections for victims of intimate partner violence and their children, including by allowing conditions such as electronic monitoring to be imposed on the defendant. All of these efforts reflect an understanding that prevention, protection, accountability and survivor support must work together.

Today, Bill C-16 is a critical part of that continuum. It strengthens the criminal law in ways that respond directly to what survivors, advocates and frontline professionals have long told us about how gender-based violence actually occurs. Bill C-16 creates a new offence criminalizing a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct in intimate partner relationships. This addresses the reality that abuse takes place over time. It aligns the law with the lived reality of survivors and allows for earlier intervention, before coercive or controlling conduct turns into serious physical harm or death. It also supports more accurate police and prosecutorial responses by requiring a contextualized assessment of power and exploitation.

Bill C-16 also addresses the most extreme manifestation of gender-based violence: the killing of women because they are women. By explicitly naming and recognizing femicide in the Criminal Code, the bill acknowledges that women and girls are disproportionately killed in specific contexts, including intimate partner violence, sexual violence, exploitation and hate-motivated attacks. Naming femicide matters. It makes visible a reality that has too often been obscured and affirms that these killings are not random tragedies but systemic failures that demand accountability.

The bill would ensure that murders occurring in these circumstances are treated as first-degree murder. It would also require judges, when sentencing for manslaughter in the same context, to consider penalties equivalent to second-degree murder, including life imprisonment and parole ineligibility for 10 to 25 years.

Importantly, Bill C-16 also recognizes that gender-based violence increasingly occurs through technology. The rise of sexually explicit deepfakes, sextortion and online harassment has created new avenues for abuse, particularly targeting women and girls. These forms of violence can destroy reputations, livelihoods and mental health, and they often silence victims through shame and fear.

The bill would address these gaps by clarifying that non-consensual distribution of intimate images includes realistic deepfakes, as well as criminalizing threats to distribute such material and increasing penalties for those offences. These measures would complement existing Government of Canada initiatives aimed at addressing online harms and protecting digital safety, particularly for young people.

The bill would also modernize the offence of criminal harassment. Data shows that stalking and harassment are common before acts of serious violence, yet the current requirement to prove a victim's subjective fear has made early intervention difficult.

Further, Bill C-16 proposes reforms to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to better protect victims and expand access to testimonial aids for adult victims of intimate partner violence, sexual offences and criminal harassment, offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. These measures would improve justice system outcomes for victims by recognizing that court systems can be retraumatizing and that supporting meaningful participation is essential to justice. The bill would also build on recent reforms to peace bonds and firearms control, reflecting clear evidence that access to firearms significantly increases the risk of lethal intimate partner violence. By strengthening preventive tools and closing enforcement gaps, Bill C-16 would support the Government of Canada's broader commitment to keeping victims and communities safe.

Bill C-16 is a necessary step in Canada's ongoing commitment to confront gender-based violence with seriousness, clarity and resolve. It reflects the hard truth that violence is rarely a single act but often a pattern, that technology has created new tools for abuse, and that too many women and girls continue to lose their lives in preventable circumstances. By criminalizing coercive control, recognizing femicide, strengthening protections against online and intimate partner violence, and reducing barriers for victims and survivors of crime within the criminal justice system, the bill would align our laws with lived reality and evidence.

For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-16. Addressing gender-based violence is not optional, protecting victims is non-negotiable and justice must be delivered before more lives are lost.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated this speech and all the things the member said about violence against women. Woman to woman, I have to understand here a couple of things about the word “mandatory”. The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for aggravated sexual assault with a gun, where victims are primarily women; human trafficking, where victims are primarily women; and multiple firearms offences.

As an educator, I have to look up the word “mandatory”, which says very clearly that it is required or commanded by a law, rule or authority. If judges are allowed to ignore so-called mandatory sentences, and this bill claims it is strengthening mandatory minimum sentences, can the member maybe describe for me what she thinks the word “mandatory” means?

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important when we are talking about these bills to be very careful with the words we are using and what we are spreading online. This bill would reinstate 15 mandatory minimum sentences. It is really important too that the judges who are appointed to proceed over these crimes have the discretion. They are chosen for a reason; they are chosen because they are smart and they care. I think it is really important for the opposition to understand that the misinformation that you are spreading is not helpful to victims anywhere across Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

Questions and comments, the hon. Secretary of State for Seniors.

[Stephanie McLean, Liberal, Secretary of State (Seniors)]

Mr. Speaker, we know that 76% of appellate-level challenges to Harper-era mandatory minimum sentences were successful. We also know that the Conservatives are saying that they will not support this bill without the addition of mandatory minimum sentences, but more than 217 challenges to the constitutionality of these since 2021 have been made. When the courts frequently strike down mandatory minimum sentences, why do members think the Conservatives want the government to include clauses that would weaken the legislation, increase the likelihood of it being struck down, and take up precious court time and costs on unconstitutional clauses? What do you think their real reason is for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would just remind the Secretary of State of Seniors to address her questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Peterborough.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did a beautiful job of painting the picture of what is really going on here. I would like to take a moment to speak as a survivor of domestic violence and how critically important this legislation is.

It is hard to truly put into words how challenging it is to navigate a justice system after having been a victim of crime. This bill would address that. It would address coercive control, which is incredibly important. It is very hard to understand what it is like for victims of intimate partner violence and what they go through for years on end. This bill would address that.

I would like for the Conservatives to understand, get out of the way, as they like to say, support this bill for victims and show survivors that we are listening.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C‑16, tabled late last year. What still impresses me, however, is the timeline.

For months, if not years, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has been calling for progress on a number of issues: court delays, the criminalization of coercive control and, as the Bloc Québécois and other stakeholders have also urged, the issue of intimate AI-generated images and deepfakes. People have been calling for all that for weeks, months and years.

It took a press conference by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women where we displayed non-partisanship, where members from all political parties sitting on that committee called on the government to criminalize coercive control and take action on violence against women.

It is an important first step, but why did it take so long?

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can both agree that this bill addresses the issues that have been brought forward and does so in a really thoughtful way, in consultation with survivors and groups that work with survivors and victims. Although I agree with the member that this is long overdue, we are here now. We have an opportunity, but the Conservatives are standing in the way of making sure this bill passes. We can prevent deaths and crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show strong support for Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. This legislation represents one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. It reflects a clear understanding that our laws must evolve to meet the realities that Canadians are facing today, realities that include rising intimate partner violence cases, online exploitation, coercive control and gender-based violence and growing concerns about public confidence in the justice system.

At its heart, Bill C-16 is about protection. It is about protecting women, children and survivors and ensuring that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and fairness throughout the justice process.

Across Canada and certainly in my province of Nova Scotia, we are witnessing a growing crisis of gender-based and intimate partner violence. Women continue to be harmed, controlled, terrorized and, too often, killed by intimate partners. In 2024, 187 women were violently killed in Canada. That is nearly one woman every two days. These are not isolated incidents.

These tragedies occur in large cities, urban neighbourhoods and rural communities, like my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets. We know these realities all too well. While our communities are strong, compassionate and deeply connected, rural communities like mine also face unique barriers when it comes to escaping violence and accessing support. Survivors may live far away from shelters or counselling services. Transportation can be limited. Accessing legal support might require hours of travel. In smaller communities, anonymity can be difficult, and many victims fear not being believed or fear retaliation if they come forward.

I have had conversations with frontline organizations in my riding, advocates, survivors and service providers throughout South Shore—St. Margarets. We have made one thing abundantly clear: Our systems must do more to protect victims before violence escalates. This is exactly what Bill C-16 seeks to do.

One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the recognition of coercive and controlling behaviour. For years, survivors and advocates have been telling us that abuse is not always physical. It can be emotional. Abuse can be psychological. Abuse can be financial and it can be technical. It can involve intimidation, surveillance, isolation, threats, humiliation, manipulation and fear. We know that coercive control is one of the strongest predictors of lethal violence.

Bill C-16 would create a new Criminal Code offence prohibiting patterns of coercive and controlling conduct towards intimate partners. This would allow intervention before violence becomes deadly. “Before” is the key piece that matters, because too often the justice system will react after someone has already been seriously harmed.

Organizations throughout South Shore—St. Margarets understand these realities intimately. Be the Peace Institute in my riding has done extraordinarily exceptional work in helping young people and communities build healthier relationships and prevent cycles of violence before they begin. Second Story Women's Centre, where I was a director before becoming a parliamentarian, continues to provide advocacy, education and support for women navigating violence, inequalities and trauma. The Thriving Twogether Society has become an important community voice in Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby and Queen's County, focused on well-being, trauma-informed care and strengthening supports for survivors and their families. Harbour House, a women's shelter in my riding, continues to provide essential shelter and outreach services for women and children fleeing violence in our communities.

These organizations have long understood what this legislation now recognizes in law: Violence is only physical, and intervention must happen earlier.

Bill C-16 would also modernize Canada's laws to address the very real challenges posed by technology-enabled abuse. Remember, I said “technical” earlier. Predators are increasingly using online platforms to exploit women and children. We talk about deepfakes. Before becoming a parliamentarian, I was a teacher, educator and principal, and members can think about some of the cases I had to deal with and talk to parents and survivors about. Deepfake technology is being weaponized to create non-consensual sexual images. For a young girl in the classroom or a young child, members can imagine the trauma for them, their families and these small-knit communities.

Children are being targeted through sextortion, online luring and exploitation. Police reported that child sexual exploitation offences are now dramatically higher than they were just over a decade ago. Parents across Canada are deeply concerned, and rightly so. In response, Bill C-16 would strengthen protections against child exploitation, expand offences related to online luring and sextortion, criminalize sexual deepfakes and reinforce some of these mandatory penalties for serious child sexual offences. Our laws must keep pace with technological predators.

Another critical pillar within this legislation is strengthening victims' rights. Too many victims continue to be retraumatized by the justice system. They feel uninformed, ignored, excluded or treated as though they are simply witnesses to their own trauma rather than people deserving dignity and respect. Bill C-16 would strengthen the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by affirming that victims' rights would be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. It would that ensure that victims receive information proactively, it would strengthen access to testimonial aids and it would recognize victims' interests in a timely resolution of proceedings. These changes matter, because justice delayed is often justice denied, especially for survivors of sexual violence and intimate partner violence.

Many Canadians have watched serious criminal cases collapse due to court delays. How can people get help and move on when these delays in court make them relive their trauma or when perpetrators change lawyers time and time again, restarting proceedings and restarting that trauma? Victims are forced to relive trauma for years sometimes, only to see these proceedings stayed before accountability is ever reached. That undermines confidence in our justice system. Bill C-16 would take practical steps to address these delays while fully respecting charter rights and judicial independence. The proposed legislation would require courts to consider alternatives before imposing stays of proceedings. It would streamline procedures in sexual offence trials. It would also improve efficiency in many of our complex cases. It would help ensure that serious offences are heard on their merits rather than collapsing because of these procedural delays. This is about balancing fairness with accountability, which is something our government stands for.

I am wondering why, at report stage, Conservatives are voting down these amendments and this bill. The justice committee heard from dozens of witnesses and reviewed more than 100 amendments. We heard from survivors, advocates—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the compassionate words from the member opposite, and I acknowledge that much of the bill is going in the right direction and, indeed, is good. However, in one part, the bill promises to restore mandatory minimums, but then later it hands judges a clause to sentence below mandatory minimums.

My question is simple: When a victim's offender walks out below the mandatory minimum sentence under the bill, who will the member opposite tell the victim to blame: the court or the bill that was written to let this happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize that it is same piece of paper that the member has stood up and read from tonight, asking the exact same question about one little piece of an amendment on a huge proactive bill.

I would like to tell him about all the people and organizations that we have heard from. I was a member of FEWO with the member across the way when we heard from the hundreds of victims and hundreds of different witnesses. On child protection, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and other organizations are in favour of this bill. On victims' rights, we have the Domestic Violence Prevention Society, Humane Canada and Niki Sharma, the attorney general for B.C. I could go on. There are the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Police Association. I can go on all night.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleague. The main concern that we have been having as New Democrats is that we see the Liberals right now, and they are cutting critical programs that are essential for prevention. They are also letting programs expire. Maybe my colleague can explain how the government expects to reduce violence against women and victims of intimate partner violence when they are cutting the very programs that are critical for prevention. We have heard from the experts time and time again that not only do they need to be maintained, but the investment needs to be increased significantly. It is essential to this conversation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also have a lot of admiration and respect for that colleague across the way, but in this case, I have to challenge. We talked earlier today about mis- and disinformation, and I feel that this is a case of misinformation. We know that some of the projects and funding streams that we have will sunset. That does not mean that they go away. That means that they get reinvigorated as we pass bills in the House within our economic budget. I would like to say, regarding the member's question, that it is part of our economic strategy each time we re-fund these programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a heartfelt speech from my colleague. I am so glad I was here to hear it.

I have mentioned in the House before that I worked as a family law lawyer. I worked in the violence against women sector, and I worked with women who were fleeing violence at home. Oftentimes, more than once, I would have a woman in my office who would just stop and say, “Gosh, I really do not know how I got here. This is not how I pictured my life.” When she would look back, she would see that the beginning steps were almost imperceptibly small, and it usually started with what we now call coercive control, whether it was financial, emotional or social.

I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on how Bill C-16 seeks to address criminalizing coercive control and making women feel more confident in coming forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her work as a family lawyer, because sometimes they are the unsung heroes in helping women who are fleeing violence manoeuvre through systems that sometimes have failed them. We talk about the coercive control piece, and the bill would help women. It would protect them and help protect children when they are navigating some of these systems. It would help with some of these delays. It is nice that we are seeing so many of our different crime bills coming here from the government. That has not been done in 20 years, 30 years or 40 years, so it is good that we are making progress on that measure.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that people often view a legal ruling as a magic wand that will fix everything.

What we keep hearing in committee is how important it is to focus on prevention. I mentioned this just yesterday to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality. I also told her about an important study on the rise of masculinism and anti-feminism, and that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will hold a press conference and eventually release its report. I asked her if she would be interested in seeing the recommendations included in that report.

Could my colleague comment on the importance of working proactively on prevention?

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

Mr. Speaker, I served with my colleague across on the status of women committee briefly while I was subbing in for another member and looking at this report. She mentioned prevention. It is the focus of organizations in my riding, like Be the Peace, the Second Story Women's Centre, Harbour House and Thriving Twogether. They offer preventive measures so that if or when some of these court cases come forward, they have the support systems they deserve.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this evening with colleagues debating this important issue. That is what we do in the House. We debate, we discuss important issues for Canadians and we have some great discussions.

One thing, though, that is really not debatable, if we believe at all in evidence, is that the Liberals have had a failed justice policy, and the last decade has been one where Canadians have demonstrably suffered when it comes to justice.

As a former member of the justice committee, I will never forget when a witness, who was a victim of crime herself, appeared and said that in Canada now we have a legal system, but we do not have a justice system. I was very impacted by those words and determined, like many of my colleagues on this side, to listen to those voices and make a better, truly just system that Canadians could be proud of and that would make them feel safe.

I know if I asked my constituents, and I do, and if many here asked their constituents if they felt safer than they did 10 years ago, they would say that things have changed. Do they feel safe to send their kids to the mall or to walk to school? Do they feel safe when they leave their home? Do they feel safe to leave their vehicle? In the community I live in, my whole life, we did not lock our car doors. Many people did not lock their houses; they just left them unlocked. That was the kind of neighbourhood and community it was. That has now changed, and it has changed because of a failed Liberal justice system.

I heard some of the commentary this evening about mandatory minimum penalties, etc. However, where there is no debate and no doubt is that the Liberals do not know what they are doing when it comes to Canada's justice system. Some of the statistics are absolutely staggering. Since 2015, which is when the Liberals formed government, human trafficking in Canada has increased 84%, sexual assaults are up 76% and violent crime is up 55%. In just the first nine years after forming government, total homicides are up 28% and violent firearms offences are up 117%. This is nine consecutive years of increases. Extortion is up almost 400%, auto theft is up 50% and sexual violations against children are up over 100%. Forcible confinement or kidnapping, indecent harassing and communications and trafficking in persons are up almost 100%.

When we speak of these things, they are not just statistics. Each one of those represents a victim, a victim's family and a community that feels less safe than it did before. The cumulative effect of terrible pieces of legislation is the statistics and the heartbreak that has flowed from them over this last decade.

What are some of these terrible pieces of legislation? Did this happen by accident? Was it things, as the Liberal government members like to say, outside of their control? No, these were things that were very much within the control of the government, and it took active steps that made the situation demonstrably worse.

What am I talking about? There is Bill C‑75, which fundamentally changed our bail system and introduced a so-called principle of restraint that meant judges were forced to use the least onerous provisions possible when it came to decisions around bail. It led to absolutely outrageous and ludicrous situations like the one we heard about at the justice committee. The Toronto Police Service testified that individuals who had already received bail for a previous gun crime were being let out on bail again for gun crimes. They had committed a firearms offence, received bail, were then arrested again for a serious firearms offence, received bail again and had then been arrested a third time. They were out on bail both previous times. That was not an uncommon situation. Bill C‑75 changed the rules around bail, police forces and victims groups throughout our country. Provincial attorneys general have all commented and beseeched us to address the soft-on-crime bail that the government has introduced.

The other bill that comes to mind is Bill C-5. We have heard some discussion this evening about mandatory jail times. Conservatives believe that for serious offences, there should be mandatory jail time. Some of these Liberal members who are speaking positively about tougher sentencing were, just a few years ago, defending Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory jail time for importing, exporting and producing serious drugs, schedule I drugs. It eliminated mandatory jail time for offences like arson, drive-by shootings and serious firearms offences.

It not only eliminated the mandatory penalties but allowed for house arrest. Someone could burn down a person's house but serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home, playing video games, etc., as one can imagine. Individuals could commit serious violent offences, and people would be forced to see the perpetrators still in the community, even after having been sentenced, because they were sentenced to house arrest for the type of offence where someone should not get house arrest.

That brings us here to this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-16. Bill C-16 has another “get out of jail free” card. The Liberals cannot help themselves. There are many mandatory minimum penalties, mandatory sentences for crimes that Parliament deems to be serious. Even though there are many of them in the Criminal Code that have been upheld constitutionally, many of them that are sound, that are in our code and that are effective, the bill would create a release valve whereby a judge can decide not to apply the mandatory penalty, even for offences where the mandatory penalty has been upheld.

Some of the offences for which Bill C-16 would allow judges to ignore the mandatory prison time that this Parliament and previous Parliaments have seen fit to introduce include aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with restricted or prohibited firearms.

Canadians have had enough. They have had enough of violent crime and extortion. They have had enough with the assaults, sexual assaults and property crime. This bill would undermine our justice system by allowing judges to ignore the mandatory penalties that Parliament saw fit to put in place. Parliament put those penalties in place to protect the Canadians who are so deserving of that protection. It speaks to that witness who appeared at our justice committee and said we need to have not just a legal system but a justice system. That witness implored us to take steps to ensure that we have a justice system. Well, I can assure my colleagues that allowing for the elimination of all mandatory minimum penalties, as this legislation would, is not what this individual had in mind.

I want to recognize a couple of my colleagues, our justice shadow minister, the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations; our public safety shadow minister, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola; and indeed our entire team on this side. For the last decade, in areas around auto theft, drugs, extortion, violent crime and crimes against children, every area where we could protect individuals in our communities, Conservative members of Parliament have been standing up and putting forward private members' bills.

One that I put forward would restore the mandatory penalties for trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine and for those who are running meth labs. These are the mandatory penalties the Liberal government, in its wisdom, decided to remove. If we were to ask whether the drug crime and drug abuse situation in Canada is better today, under the Liberal policies, than it was 10 years ago, there is not a person in this room, in this chamber, who would say things have gotten better. Unless they are willing to deny the evidence that comes to us from Stats Canada, there is not a person in this chamber who would say that the situation when it comes to violent crime, property crime, crimes against women and crimes against children is getting better.

When we look at solutions, we need to look at solutions that are going to be effective, not half measures. What this piece of legislation would do, and this is a provision I certainly cannot support, is allow judges to ignore mandatory minimum penalties that have been constitutionally upheld, that exist in the Criminal Code and that were put in there for a reason, because they recognize the seriousness of the offences that are covered.

I often hear in this place that the number one thing, the most important thing we can do, is to protect our fellow Canadians. I take that challenge very seriously. For a number of people I know in this chamber, colleagues I have talked to, improving our criminal justice system is one of the principal drivers of why they got involved in politics and why they were eventually elected as members of Parliament.

We need to ensure that we are doing our very best. Some mandatory minimums have been struck down, but to allow judges to ignore those that have been upheld in the past would be a major fault. We must stand up for the victims of crime.

The House resumed from June 9 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 third time and passed.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was last speaking, I was talking about the irrefutable fact that, since 2015, when the Liberal government took power, we have seen skyrocketing rates of crime.

That is due to some deliberate actions that the government took. I am thinking, specifically, of Bill C-5, which did away with mandatory penalties for serious drug and gun crime and allowed for house arrest for serious offences like arson. It allowed someone to commit a violent crime, even burn down someone's house, and serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home and in the community where they offended.

Bill C-75 was the notorious law that was brought in, which introduced a principle of restraint that has really tied the hands of our system and forced people out on bail who have no business being out on bail. We have seen the results. What are the results? Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%. Sexual assaults are up by 76%. Violent crime is up by almost 55%.

My home province of New Brunswick is not immune to this skyrocketing crime. When I speak to my constituents, there are concerns about violent crime, property crime and all manner of crime that people have seen skyrocket, such as drug-related crime. The numbers are staggering.

The total number of violent crimes in New Brunswick alone is up over 70%. As for total violent firearms offences, this is a government that talks a talk on firearms. The problem is that every measure the Liberals take has been completely ineffective because they target law-abiding citizens, the people who I represent in my riding of Fundy Royal, while completely going soft on hardened criminals.

What is the result? Violent firearms offences are up over 150%. Extortion is up over 300%. Theft of motor vehicle offences are up over 150% since that time.

What they have done with the bill is unfortunate. There is something called a mandatory minimum penalty. It is a penalty in the Criminal Code that says that we, as parliamentarians, recognize that, sometimes, an offence is so grave that it should carry with it a certain minimum amount of time in custody.

There have been mandatory minimum penalties brought in by previous Liberal governments. There have been mandatory minimum penalties brought in by Conservative governments, and which have been constitutionally upheld, but because the Liberal government is so ideologically opposed to Parliament having its say, listening to our constituents and saying that certain crimes deserve to have a mandatory penalty if someone has committed the offence, the Liberals have introduced in the legislation a clause that would allow judges to ignore the mandatory penalty for someone convicted of these serious crimes.

One could look up the definition of “mandatory” in Webster's, but I am pretty sure that allowing someone to ignore a mandatory penalty means it is no longer a mandatory penalty,

What is the result of that? Certain mandatory penalties for offences, many of them considered by the courts and constitutionally upheld, will now be able to be ignored, offences like aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with restricted or prohibited firearms.

In the Criminal Code, there is a mandatory penalty for someone convicted of those offences. The bill would allow judges to ignore that mandatory penalty when they are sentencing.

I can tell members, having served on the justice committee, that we heard many times about how there has not been a huge increase in the number of criminals in Canada. There has been a very prolific number of criminals who do a great job at what they do. They are committing crimes non-stop because they have a system in which, once they are caught, once the police have done their job and have caught someone, once they have been tried and convicted, they are out on bail, if they are pretrial, and, once convicted, they may be serving their sentence in house arrest.

I will sum up by quoting an individual who appeared at our justice committee. She urged members to restore justice to the justice system. As a victim of crime, she said she does not feel we have a justice system anymore in Canada. She feels we have a legal system, not a justice system. I urge everyone to listen to those words and do our job.

It is, rightly, the job of parliamentarians to say we are the ones who draft the Criminal Code, set out mandatory penalties and maximum and minimum sentences, and distinguish between different offences. There is a tremendous amount of flexibility in the system when the police have discretion and prosecutors have the discretion on whether to proceed by summary conviction or indictment. At the end of the day, we, as parliamentarians, are responsible for the safety of our constituents. We must ensure that our actions illustrate this and that we take strong measures.

I would like at this time to move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #149

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare the motion defeated.

Resuming debate.

I would remind members that Standing Order 17 requires members to rise in their place in order to be recognized by the Chair. Standing Order 17 provides for only three exceptions to that rule.

The hon. member for Moncton—Dieppe.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that standing order.

Before I get started, I would like to take a moment to say that I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Pickering—Brooklin.

I, too, would like to take a moment to offer my support to the member for Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata. I wish him a speedy recovery and send my best wishes to him and his family during this very difficult time.

I rise today not just as a parliamentarian, but as someone who has spent over two decades on the front lines as a social worker working with victims of crime. Before I ever walked the halls of this House, I walked the halls of RCMP detachments, emergency shelters, local hospitals, etc. I sat in cramped interview rooms. I held the hands of women shivering in police station lobbies at all hours of the day and night.

At the time, before entering politics, I was a frontline social worker with the Codiac Regional RCMP in Moncton, New Brunswick. Part of my job as a victim services coordinator was providing assistance and guidance to those dealing with very difficult situations. We provided crisis support and crisis intervention, and also ensured that victims and family members were aware of their rights and what they had to expect. I know first-hand what intimate partner violence looks like before it becomes a file on a prosecutor's desk. I also know what it looks like before it becomes a statistic in a report. Because of that lived experience, that professional experience, I stand here today to speak about Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.

When we look at this bill, we see legal text. We see legal jargon. We see clauses and so on, but as a former social worker, when I read this bill, I see the names and faces of people I worked with over the years. I see Jacqueline, which is not her real name, who was a former client of mine. She never had a black eye, never had a bruise and never had broken bones, but her husband controlled her vehicle keys, monitored how many kilometres she drove, monitored her phone location every second of the day, and also decided when she could sleep and when she could not. Under the current framework, it was agonizingly difficult to get the criminal justice system to intervene in her case, because the terror she lived under did not leave physical marks. This is why Bill C-16 is so vitally important.

The first pillar of Bill C-16 is the criminalization of coercive control. For too long, our legal system has viewed intimate partner violence as a series of isolated physical incidents. Frontline workers know the truth. As a client told me in the past, “Abuse is a continuous pattern of trapping a human being almost in an invisible cage.” By formally defining and penalizing coercive control, this bill would finally align Canadian laws with the psychological reality of intimate partner violence. Elevating intimate partner violence and femicide to first-degree murder reflects the grim truth that these tragedies are rarely sudden crimes of passion; they are predictable and escalated conclusions of long-term patterns of control within relationships.

We must also look at the structural changes this bill proposes. As someone who has accompanied survivors and also many family members through the gruelling court process, I know that delays are often a secondary victimization. When cases are thrown out due to the Jordan framework, a victim is left entirely unprotected, looking over her shoulder and feeling abandoned by the criminal justice system. Modifying these rules to prevent administrative breakdowns from collapsing an intimate partner violence prosecution is a vital step forward.

However, my background also forces me to look at this legislation with a critical and pragmatic eye. Bill C-16 reintroduces mandatory minimum sentences. Through a strictly political lens, we might see this as just being a tough-on-crime approach, but through a frontline social worker lens, I asked myself what this actually does to victims. In my years of practice, I saw many, many victims refuse to call the police because they feared the absolute destruction of their family's economic survival. If a victim knows that a call to police automatically triggers a mandatory multi-year prison sentence, they may choose silence instead of making a complaint.

The inclusion of the safety valves allowing judges discretion in exceptional circumstances, and I stress “exceptional”, is not a weakness of this bill. To the contrary, I would argue, it ensures that we punish perpetrators without inadvertently forcing vulnerable victims deeper into the shadows.

We also need to acknowledge that the nature of abuse has mutated over the years. When I began my career, many years ago, as a social worker, we worried back then about landlines. We worried about letters being sent and physical stalking, or, as we refer to it now, criminal harassment. Today, however, abusers use technology as a weapon of absolute humiliation of their victims. Provisions in Bill C‑16 address AI‑generated deepfakes and digital exploitation of minors. These are not futuristic hypotheticals. They are happening right now. Abusers are creating non-consensual, synthetically generated, explicit images to ruin a victim's career, destroy their custody cases and shatter their mental health. Our laws must evolve as fast as the technology that is used to inflict this cruelty.

Bill C‑16 is a powerful, overdue evolution of our justice system. It validates what social workers, shelter staff and victims have been saying for decades: that abuse is systematic, that psychological abuse is dangerous and that our courts must be modern, efficient and compassionate.

In closing, I would be remiss if I did not highlight the wonderful services that exist within my community in Moncton, New Brunswick. First and foremost, I have to give a shout-out to our local shelter, called Crossroads for Women, and Renée and all of her team there. Crossroads for Women has been in operation for more than four decades now. It provides emergency shelter for victims who are fleeing domestic violence. It also provides a 24‑hour crisis line for those who need support. It also provides supportive housing and services for those facing not only intimate partner violence, but also sexual violence. Let us not forget our youth in these situations. The shelter also provides child and youth support services. If we want this intergenerational cycle to cease, we have to make sure that we provide services to the young who are exposed to this. Again, I want to give a big shout‑out to our local shelter.

As well, we have another great organization, which started off just a few years ago, called Shelter Movers, in my town. Shelter Movers is just that: When victims are fleeing domestic violence and they need someone to go to their home and provide them with moving and storage services for their furniture, or whatever they need, we have volunteers who are called within our community. They may be called out at any hour during the day and night, and they provide that service free of charge. Again, hats off to them.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not speak about the Beausejour Family Crisis Resource Centre. Again, this is a wonderful organization that provides shelter and counselling services to those in need. As well, within the province of New Brunswick, they provide justice facility dogs for those who have to appear in court or those who have to meet, perhaps, with a police officer and are feeling anxiety. These facility dogs will accompany them either in the courts or in the interview rooms. It has made a huge difference for many victims within my community. Again, I have to give a shout-out to them and their team at the Beausejour Family Crisis Resource Centre. Kristal, Chantal and all of the team provide tremendous work, and for that I am very grateful.

Finally, if there are any survivors who are watching us this evening, I want to encourage them, if ever they need any help or support in the province of New Brunswick, to call 211. This is a free information and referral service that provides needed information to those who are fleeing difficult situations.

Let us not forget the 988 service that our federal government put in place just a few years ago. Again, if any folks in the entire country need any mental health supports, those essential services are there to help them along the way.

Again, with respect to Bill C‑16, this is a wonderful step forward in making sure that we are there to support victims. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to support this bill and move it forward as quickly as possible.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, whom I have worked with. I appreciate victim services, after being in the RCMP for 35 years. I am thankful for what she has done.

My question goes back to the issue of mandatory minimum penalties for individuals who commit crimes. Do you think there is enough accountability in our Supreme Court justices? Can we hold them to account so they will actually put people in jail who need to go there for those minimum penalties? I think we are a little bit weak on that.

I just wonder if the hon. member, whom I loved working with, could answer that question, please.

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

I just wanted to remind the hon. member that I do not think, but the hon. member for Moncton—Dieppe will.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate working with my friend and colleague on the other side on the NSICOP committee. I appreciate his service as an RCMP member for more than three decades over the years. Hats off to him for a job very well done.

I have to say that there is no black and white situation when it comes to this type of situation. I met with probably thousands of victims of intimate partner violence. These were very difficult situations when people came forward to make a complaint to the police. I think the inclusion of safety valves within Bill C-16 to allow judges, in exceptional circumstances, to use their discretion is absolutely a good idea.

I really think it is important to make sure that when we are meeting with victims and survivors, they know that the decision they make is going to have an impact and also that there are going to be serious consequences for the offenders if and when a charge is laid.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my full support to our colleague from the riding of Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, who, unfortunately, cannot be called by his name in the House. It would have been much simpler, as his riding has a very long name. We all heard about what happened today. We are all very concerned and wish him a very speedy recovery. We need his passion here in the House.

I congratulate my colleague opposite on her speech. There are a number of provisions in Bill C‑16 that we like. It contains very important measures to protect victims, especially victims of domestic violence.

However, the Bloc Québécois believes that coercive control should not be assessed by a single factor. A combination of factors should be considered. The Bloc Québécois tried to include provisions in the bill that would have judges consider a range of factors, meaning the situation as a whole.

That amendment was rejected by the Liberals, and I wonder why, because it was something very reasonable, very responsible and very respectful of victims and what they go through in these situations. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that at this stage of our study of the bill.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree. My colleague's riding has a very long name. I had to practise saying it many times before today. To answer my colleague's question about coercive control, I think that, once again, it is important to recognize all the circumstances that lead to this type of intimate partner violence.

As a frontline worker, I often met with people who would tell me a bit about their situation, and I think that before laying charges, it is absolutely essential to understand the full situation. Again, that is to determine the most appropriate charges to lay before the case is brought before the court.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I, too, want to wish our dear colleague from Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata a speedy recovery. I would also like to thank my colleague from Moncton—Dieppe for her speech.

My question relates to amending the Criminal Code to make it illegal for intimate, non-consensual images to be shared. As the member spoke about, and as I know from participating in committee work, this is a particularly terrible scourge for women who have deepfake images or non-consensual sexual images distributed by former partners.

Can the member talk about the importance of having this issue corrected and made illegal in Bill C-16?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague indicated in his question, it is imperative that we move forward with Bill C-16 as quickly as possible. These types of images can really ruin the lives of individuals and create chaos within their lives. As a result—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Pickering—Brooklin.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to be here today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to contextualize this legislation within Canada's broader efforts to confront and prevent gender-based violence.

Gender-based violence is a persistent and measurable reality affecting women, girls and gender-diverse people across this country. In 2024, 187 women were killed violently in Canada. That represents one woman every two days. Women are far more likely than men to experience severe forms of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and criminal harassment. More than one-quarter, about 28%, of all victims of violent crimes in 2024 were victimized by an intimate partner.

These are not isolated incidents, and our justice system has struggled to effectively address these crimes given the complex realities of gender-based violence and the patterns of coercive behaviour that often define abuse. The rate of intimate partner violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence experienced by women and girls, is more than 3.5 times higher than it is for men and boys. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and young women face even higher risks.

The Government of Canada has recognized that addressing gender-based violence requires a comprehensive and coordinated response. In 2017, the federal government released a federal gender-based violence strategy and has since invested over $800 million, about $44 million per year, to coordinate federal actions under three pillars: preventing gender-based violence, supporting survivors and their families, and promoting a responsive justice system.

Since 2022, the federal government has invested in a national action plan to end gender-based violence, a 10-year framework aiming to end gender-based violence in Canada by supporting victims and survivors of crime and their families and improving their experiences with the criminal justice system. Significant efforts have been undertaken in this area. For example, the federal victims strategy works to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system and to increase their access to justice.

Through the victims fund, which is part of the federal victims strategy, resources are made available to the provinces and territories for the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including for the development of public legal education and information material and the provision of training on the legislation for criminal justice professionals.

Considerable efforts have also been made to strengthen the criminal justice system's response to gender-based violence. Canada's Criminal Code provides a broad-based response to all forms of violence, exploitation and abuse against all persons in Canada.

Over the past year, legislative amendments in Bill C-51 and Bill C-75 clarified and strengthened sexual assault laws and the criminal justice system's response to intimate partner violence, and Bill C-233 imposed stricter conditions for people charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence. In addition, Bill S-205, which came into force in April 2025, created a new peace bond designed specifically to provide better protection for victims of intimate partner violence and for children, including by allowing conditions such as electronic monitoring to be imposed on the defendant.

All these efforts reflect an understanding that provision, protection, accountability and survivor support must work together. Today, Bill C-16 is a critical part of that continuum. It would strengthen the criminal law in ways that respond directly to what survivors, advocates and frontline professionals have long told us about how gender-based violence actually occurs.

Bill C-16 would create a new offence, criminalizing a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct in intimate partner relationships. This would address the reality that this abuse takes place over time. It would align the law with the lived reality of survivors and allow for earlier intervention before coercive or controlling conduct turns into serious physical harm or death. It would also support more accurate police and prosecutorial responses by requiring a contextual assessment of power and exploitation.

Bill C-16 would also address the most extreme manifestation of gender-based violence: the killing of women because they are women. By explicitly naming and recognizing femicide in the Criminal Code, the bill would acknowledge that women and girls are disproportionately killed in specific contexts, including intimate partner violence, sexual violence, exploitation and hate-motivated attacks.

Naming femicide matters. It makes visible a reality that has too often been obscured and affirmed: These killings are not random tragedies but are systemic failures that demand accountability. The bill would ensure that murders occurring in these circumstances are treated as first-degree murder. It would also require judges, when sentencing for manslaughter in the same context, to consider penalties equivalent to second-degree murder, including life imprisonment and parole ineligibility for 10 to 25 years.

Importantly, Bill C-16 also recognizes that gender-based violence increasingly occurs through technology. The rise of sexually explicit deepfakes, sextortion and online harassment has created new avenues for abuse, particularly targeting women and girls. These forms of violence can destroy reputations, livelihoods and mental health, and they often silence victims through shame and fear.

The bill would address these gaps by clarifying that non-consensual distribution of intimate images includes realistic deepfakes, as well as by criminalizing threats to distribute such materials and by increasing penalties for these offences. These measures would complement existing Government of Canada initiatives aimed at addressing online harms and protecting digital safety, particularly for young people.

The bill would also modernize the offence of criminal harassment. Data shows that striking and harassment are common precursors to serious violence, yet the current requirement to prove a victim's subjective fear has made early intervention difficult.

Further, Bill C-16 proposes reforms to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to better protect victims and expand access to testimonial aids for adult victims of intimate partner violence, sexual offences and criminal harassment, offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. These measures would improve justice system outcomes for victims by recognizing that court procedures themselves can be retraumatizing and that supporting meaningful participation is essential to justice.

The bill would also build on recent reforms to peace bonds and firearms controls, reflecting clear evidence that access to firearms significantly increases the risk of lethal intimate partner violence. By strengthening preventative tools and closing enforcement gaps, Bill C-16 supports the Government of Canada's broader commitment to keeping victims and communities safe.

Bill C-16 is a necessary step in Canada's ongoing commitment to confront gender-based violence with seriousness, clarity and resolve. It reflects the hard truths that violence is rarely a single act but often a pattern, that technology has created new tools for abuse, and that too many women and girls continue to lose their lives in preventable circumstances. By criminalizing coercive control, recognizing femicide, strengthening protections against online and intimate partner violence, and reducing barriers for victims and survivors of crime within the justice system, Bill C-16 would align our laws with lived reality and evidence.

For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-16. Addressing gender-based violence is not optional. Protecting victims—

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

We are over time. It is time for questions.

The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep telling Canadians that their safety valve measure in the bill, or, more accurately, a poison pill, a get-out-of-jail-free card, will be used only in rare and exceptional cases. If that is true, why were they unwilling to exclude serious offences such as aggravated sexual assault, extortion, and child sexual offences? If it is truly meant to be narrow, why is it written so broadly?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill that is in front of the House today and that we are debating is progressive. The changes we are proposing today would progress the Criminal Code more than the changes in all other years when we added so many measures to it did. The protecting victims act would be one of the most significant updates to the criminal justice system in generations, as I said. It has a broad scope. It would give judges the right to make decisions, and the safety valve would be there so they could make those decisions appropriately.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for my colleague.

Why did the Liberals refuse to consider objective criteria when it comes to peace bonds? It would have been one way to better prevent criminal harassment.

This is an important issue, particularly for victims.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, criminal harassment is a very big and important part of the bill. The bill would remove the subjective requirement to prove a victim's fear for their safety and replace it with the requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause a victim to believe that their safety is threatened, thereby removing the victim's need to testify. This would allow victims to better trust our system and ensure that the proposed offence captures harassing conduct committed through modern technology.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals tell us that the judicial safety valve is necessary to ensure flexibility. However, the criminal justice system already has safety valves in it. Police officers exercise discretion and lay charges, and the prosecutor has discretion on how they are going to handle a case and what that will look like for them. To me, the judicial safety valve would create an additional layer of discretion that would allow courts to effectively override Parliament's decision. However, Parliament is supposed to be the one that makes these decisions.

We know that clause 63 in the bill would go much further by allowing judges to completely disregard mandatory minimums, except for treason and murder. Why is that?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill would strengthen mandatory minimums for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation materials, restoring 12 mandatory minimums for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by the court. The safety valve would be there so judges could use their own discretion and so they would have the leeway, when necessary, to make the right decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why the Conservatives' former critic of justice seemed to be of the opinion that a safety valve was necessary. We had a number of mandatory minimums that were ruled to be unconstitutional. By having the safety valve, we were able to reinstate mandatory minimums. That is a good thing. The Conservative former critic agreed to that.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons is that when the bill came to the status of women committee, one of the requirements was that we have the option in some cases.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to be able to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan, and to be able to do so here in the month of June.

We know June is the graduation season for all of the kids in elementary school who are moving up to high school. The kids who are in high school and have the whole world in front of them are graduating and looking to either start their first job or go on to university, or whatever the next step of their life is. June is an exciting time for them. There are a lot of exciting things happening in their lives.

We also know that generation of people is, for many of us here in the House of Commons, why we are here and why we do what we do. I think this is also very relevant when we talk about Bill C-16, the victims bill.

I want to start with a couple of things. There is a bit of a scourge happening in society. There are many people who are victims of sexual assault and violence. It is getting out of hand. I am sure that my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, whom I am going to split my time with, is going to be able to elaborate on that a bit more. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Saskatchewan, in particular, has some of the highest rates of domestic violence in the country per capita, for example. We know this is a scourge on society, so I applaud the government's attempts to try to take a few steps and measures that would rein some of this in and get things under control.

However, at the same time, we see with this bill that the government has put forward a measure around the inclusion of clause 63, which would essentially allow mandatory minimums to be ignored. I find that to be very egregious. Here is why.

I am going to read these out. I have to google them really quickly. I typed in “man caught with child sexual exploitation and assault material” and a plethora of headlines come up. Here is one from today. This one is from 47 minutes ago. It reads, “Man Arrested in Sexual Assault Investigation”. This one is from six hours ago. It reads, “Niagara Falls man accused of breaching order to stay away from children”. This one reads, “Markham Man Arrested for Using Social Media to Sexually Lure and Extort Youth”. That is from five hours ago. This one is from one day ago. It reads, “Male Arrested Following Child Luring and Sexual Exploitation Investigation in Whitby”. It goes on and on and on.

An Alberta man, for example, was recently caught with over 500,000 images of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. In Quebec, 23 men had over four million files of sexual exploitation and abuse material of children. This is disgusting. It is ridiculous.

The fact is that there is now a provision that would allow somebody to escape a mandatory minimum. Let me be clear. Part of the reason why the bill came forward is that the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum for child sexual abuse and exploitation material. It is absolutely disgusting that this happened as well.

When we see in the news the number of files that are out there and just how many people continue to access them, and when we see that there is the ability for a soft-on-crime approach to be taken because of this clause, it is just absolutely disgusting. If we want to try to signal to people that we actually care about victims and that we are going to prioritize the needs of victims, taking some of these very heinous crimes seriously, establishing a floor and making sure that nobody, under any circumstance, will serve below that minimum would be acceptable.

In the court case that was referenced with the bill, a hypothetical case was presented. That is why the mandatory minimum I am referring to was struck down. It was completely made up. It was not a story based on any evidence. It was not even the case that should have been referenced, which was very different from what was used to determine why they should strike down the mandatory minimum.

If we are going to take things seriously in this country, we need to value our citizens. We need to value people who have been victimized. Allowing people to get off easy is not how we are going to deal with this.

There are many other examples of this. I pulled up examples of people who were let off. Here is another one. It reads, “Calgary man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl gets reduced sentence”. I am sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. We do not want to see them anymore.

Establishing mandatory minimums and having them in place shows that we take these kinds of crimes very seriously. The prosecution and the judges have discretion and can use leniency. They can increase a sentence if they want to, or they can go with the minimum, but establishing those minimum sentences shows that we take these things very seriously.

There are many other charges that people can get away with very easily, and I am going to highlight a few more. For example, another one says a scam victim says Canadian sentences are a joke after a fraudster got house arrest. That is another one of these issues. Seniors are being victimized over and over again. In fact, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre says between 17,000 or even 20,000 direct fraud and financial abuse reports come in regularly in Canada. Also, 7.8% of the Canadian population aged 15 and over has experienced fraud in some shape or form. We know seniors are targeted. I think it comes to about $137 million annually. Seniors are being victimized when it comes to fraud. This is the kind of thing for which a person is able to get only house arrest.

In the case that I referenced, this person was sentenced to only 18 months of house arrest, but there were exceptions. They were allowed to leave the house multiple times a week to go to the gym and, after six months, the conditions required them to be home only between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. If someone who is actively defrauding people is given house arrest, that means they can continue to carry out the very crimes they were committing in the comfort of their own home. Those kinds of people should be in jail. They are preying on the people who are the most vulnerable.

Going back to seniors, my wife's grandpa was a victim of fraud. He sincerely thought somebody in tech support was helping him out, but they were not. He was defrauded out of thousands of dollars. He was targeted because he is a senior, and seniors generally tend to be far more trusting and tend to believe something like that, as in that particular case. Fortunately, he was able to eventually get his money back, but this happens over and over again. When these people are caught, they are given house arrest.

These are the kinds of things we are seeing, and we do not want to see them happening any longer.

Let me take another look at some of the other areas where mandatory minimums would be allowed to be circumvented. There is aggravated sexual assault with a gun. It is bad enough that people accessing, selling, recording and making child sexual abuse and exploitation material would be able to avoid a mandatory minimum. Aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings are the kinds of things for which mandatory minimums would be looked over and discarded because of clause 63.

If we are going to have a serious discussion about dealing with the issue of crime and the fact that so many people end up with bail instead of jail, establishing and re-establishing some basic mandatory minimums in this bill would have been great. Not including a clause that would allow mandatory minimums to be completely disregarded would have been great as well. That shows we are not taking victims' concerns seriously.

I get lots of emails to my constituency office and my Hill office from people wanting a tough-on-crime approach. People want to see mandatory minimums become a thing because they set the tone. They let the criminals know we take these crimes seriously and there will be a punishment if they are caught. When they find out they can get just house arrest or a reduced sentence, they are going to keep doing what they are doing.

There was a case in my home community at the local courthouse, where a person's charges were stayed for fentanyl trafficking. They had enough fentanyl in their possession to kill hundreds and thousands of people. Their charges were stayed and they were released. This is ridiculous. This is the kind of stuff people are sick and tired of seeing. They do not want clause 63, which would allow mandatory minimums to be skirted, to be included.

There are some good pieces in this bill that I wish the Liberals were serious about. I wish they would deal with the good parts of the bill. If they had accepted our amendments to put even some safeguards around clause 63, it would have been helpful, but they voted against every single measure proposed by the Conservatives at committee to protect victims, which is shameful.

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

Madam Speaker, most of what the member said is just not true, and it is somewhat misleading, quite frankly. At the end of the day, the legislation would do some wonderful things. Canada could set the stage, dealing with issues and establishing coercive behaviour as an offence. The issue of femicide, in certain situations, would be elevated to first-degree murder. We have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums.

The Conservatives, quite frankly, have come up with some bogus excuse, and it is only because they do not want to support the legislation. They used to support the idea of a safety valve. The former critic for the Conservative Party did.

Why is the Conservative Party so against making our communities safer and not allowing legislation of this nature to pass?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member says all kinds of ridiculous things. Referring to yesterday and the language the Speaker let him use, that was a dumb question from the member. The Speaker allowed him to use that word, so I am going to use it.

That was a dumb question, and this is why. If the Liberals actually truly cared about crime and if they truly cared about victims, they would not allow people to have mandatory minimums be circumvented by clause 63. That should not have been allowed to happen. At the very least, the member should have said he supported some of the safeguards we are proposing to make sure that victims would be respected and that criminals would go to jail, but that did not happen. The Liberals voted them down.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure it is very parliamentary to say that questions are dumb. I am seriously wondering about that.

That said, it is rare for me to agree with the member for Winnipeg North, but at the moment, I must admit that I am a little perplexed myself. I get the impression that the Conservatives are finding reasons not to support this bill, even though it has been requested by groups advocating for victims of crime and domestic violence.

I always hear the Conservatives bringing the issue back to mandatory minimum sentences. Our system is far from perfect, but it is quite likely the least imperfect one out there. I do not know of any studies showing that harsher sentences are more beneficial to society than rehabilitation programs for offenders.

Does my colleague have any scientific arguments or supporting data to back up his claim that mandatory minimum sentences work better than rehabilitating offenders?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that in my speech, I referenced the fact that there were 23 men in Quebec who were in possession of over four million files of child sexual assault and exploitation material. One of the reasons Bill C‑16 is here is that the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory minimum for the possession and distribution of this type of material. If the Liberals were serious about restoring mandatory minimums, they would have restored that mandatory minimum to make sure that our children are protected. The last thing I want to see is those 23 men in Quebec being put back out on the street next week so that they can continue to create, distribute and monetize child sexual abuse and exploitation material.

I do not want to see those kinds of people on the streets ever again. They belong in jail.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for opposing this bill for valid and right reasons.

I have a question. I agree with him and want to ask him if he can shed more light on this. He quoted a few recent decisions where the courts have turned down the minimum mandatory sentences. Is it not the duty of the parliamentarians sitting on this side of the House and on the government side of the House, when judges do wrong, to tell them this is not what people at large want or what Canadians want?

The real desire of the people is to impose minimum mandatory—

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

We have to give the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley the opportunity to comment.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, again, we are seeing so many different types of crimes becoming more and more prominent in our communities and on our streets. One that I referenced in my speech, for example, is extortion with a firearm. This is the kind of thing that a person can serve house arrest for, and the mandatory minimum can be circumvented because of this bill and clause 63.

People who are terrorizing our streets should not be allowed to serve house arrest. They should not be given lenient sentences. A mandatory minimum with a high threshold would make sure that those people, and their victims, get justice.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge the strength of my colleague from the riding whose name is too long to mention tonight. Everyone knows who I am talking about. He is recovering from the cardiac issues he had this morning. The entire House stands behind him. I have received numerous messages from all parties, and I want to let him know that. He is a good person who deserves all our respect. I think we absolutely must send him positive vibes tonight.

I saw him just two weeks ago, working out with my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix. He had been going strong for 20 minutes. He is usually bursting with energy, but one never knows. No one ever knows what is going on inside, when things might take a turn. I urge all men to be careful and to pay attention to the warning signs of these terrible heart diseases.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all of my colleges who reached out to me over the past few days about the matter I discussed with the media, a personal matter that happened back in 2025. Without repeating it here tonight, I simply want to thank all my colleagues from all the parties. I want to thank everyone who is going to support Bill C‑231 for David's friends.

I also want to thank all the people in their homes who agreed to tell me how things are for them now. We do not talk about it enough, or talk about it a lot. If I was able to bring certain people a little peace of mind by talking about it, then I will keep doing so. Members of the House certainly share the same desire to help and to do something for people in these kinds of situations, where drug use far exceeds our capacity as parents, or our capacity as young people, to cope with all the problems it can cause.

That brings me to Bill C-16, which is a bill that we could have almost introduced ourselves. However, I want to stress the word “almost”. This bill aligns with many of the Conservative Party's objectives, including protecting victims and putting criminals behind bars. It seeks to ensure that victims are properly recognized by the courts. It seeks to prohibit things that did not exist before but that came to be because of new technologies, including the much-discussed deepfakes.

This week, we saw in Quebec newspapers that it takes only 10 minutes to create a deepfake nude image of a young girl. That is absolutely appalling. We have to put an end to these new technologies and, more importantly, stop those who are misusing them to cause harm to others. The ban on deepfakes, particularly when they target intimate partners, seeks to protect Canadians, particularly women, from the creation and distribution of non-consensual intimate images. It is very serious to create or distribute these kinds of photos of young girls without their consent. I hope people understand that.

We are also pleased that the government picked up the proposal by my Conservative colleague contained in Bill C‑216. Some of that bill's provisions seeking to introduce mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material were also incorporated into Bill C‑16, which will help better protect our children from the most heinous crimes. So far, all of my colleagues agree with these measures. We are also delighted that the calls of our justice critic to automatically have the murder of an intimate partner deemed a first-degree murder have been heard. This is important. This bill has made progress. We have succeeded in getting essential measures included in it.

Finally, of course, we had a discussions and not all of the Conservatives' proposals were picked up, even despite the government's tendency to legislate on Conservative policy ideas since taking office, but that is another story that I will leave for the Liberals to debate among themselves. Although the government unfortunately rejected the proposal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for all types of extortion, the inclusion of an aggravating factor in sextortion cases is a step in the right direction, albeit insufficient. For the benefit of people watching at home, “sextortion” consists of using intimate images or intimate knowledge of a person to blackmail them, make them talk or make them do anything else.

We absolutely must put a stop to it, and Bill C‑16 does just that. Unfortunately, the Liberals are the Liberals. There had to be something in the bill to prevent us from passing it unanimously in the House. What is it this time? It is clause 63.

Clause 63 allows judges to avoid imposing minimum sentences and to exercise their discretion in cases of violent and serious crimes. This runs completely counter to everything I have just said. Judges will now be able to decide, based on their own discretion, experience or the circumstances, that a minimum sentence of five years, for example, will be reduced to just two or three years. As a result, certain people who should remain in prison will be released more quickly.

I urge my Liberal colleagues to think about that. I think that we are very close to an agreement and that we could get something done that is good, together. We could pass Bill C‑16 if the Liberals got rid of that section. We would all agree. We all agree on the measures in Bill C‑16, but we do not want the Liberals to do what they have been doing for 11 years, that is, making life easier for criminals and making these crimes even more common. It is not that there are more criminals; it is that criminals are committing an increasing number of crimes because they are increasingly unafraid of justice. That is a fact.

To give the Liberals time to reflect on this issue, to give them time to think about it and perhaps come back tomorrow with a clear proposal, I move: That the House do now adjourn.

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

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

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

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #150

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare the motion defeated.

It being 9:01, pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 4, 2026, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Thursday, June 11, 2026, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 10 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 third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:08 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading of Bill C-16.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #153

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.