Bill C-16

Protecting Victims Act

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

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

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Grande Prairie.

I said in my maiden speech, when I got to this august chamber, that this seat does not belong to me. Indeed, it belongs to the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I am a mere custodian of it. I say that to make the point that Parliament itself, this House of Commons, these institutions, are bigger than any of us as individuals. They are bigger than all of us even as a collective. These institutions matter more. This place matters more than the political ambitions, motivations and decisions of the people who get to come here every election.

I have always venerated this institution. Indeed, I have always been fascinated by it. Even going back to when I was a university student involved in politics, I loved partaking in model parliament. I loved taking the opportunity to learn more. Perhaps it is why I have never been reprimanded for not addressing my comments through the chair or not doing some of those other conventions: I have been a student of parliamentary history.

It was an honour the first day I walked into this chamber, and it remains the honour of a lifetime to be here.

It has been saddening in that same vein to see how, for the Liberal government and specifically the Prime Minister, Parliament is a mere annoyance. We have seen the ignorance in this place: the fact that the Prime Minister has a question period attendance rating that is a fraction of that of his predecessors; the fact that he loves “showboating”, to use a word he is fond of, with fake executive orders that have no legal standing in our country; and the fact that he has been doing everything but governing in this place, governing in this chamber.

To govern in this chamber is to be held accountable to Parliament as the collective body representing the will of the Canadian people. Parliament is a body comprising fellow custodians of this chamber, who are sent here with very similar mandates from each of their respective constituencies and constituents. However, we see in the motion before us today that the government does not believe it can win the game, so to speak, so it is changing the rules. It is changing the rules to suit its political ambitions, irrespective of the will of the Canadian people and irrespective of the norms, conventions and traditions of this place.

It should be known to everyone here that Canadians do not, in fact, elect a government; they elect a Parliament. Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary since Canadians elected me, alongside all of my colleagues from all parties. Canadians elected a minority Parliament. The message Canadians sent in doing that was that they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term. I question why they would do that. However, while they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term, Canadians wanted their power to be checked by a strong, robust opposition.

Now, my Conservative colleagues and I have held up our end of the bargain as His Majesty's loyal opposition. We supported and improved legislation such as Bill C-5, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, which is before the justice committee right now. We opposed dangerous bills, such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-9, which the Liberals wanted to wave through without scrutiny and accountability. We worked collaboratively across party lines. We represented the will of Canadians, who elected MPs to champion, for those of us on the Conservative side of the aisle, the values of liberty, personal responsibility and, yes, fiscal discipline.

However, what we have seen over the last year is that when the Liberals do not get their way, they scream obstruction. Opposition is not obstruction. We have seen this in a minority Parliament. I recall when Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had one just a few years ago. A minority Parliament requires the government to find dance partners, so to speak, to find collaboration and earn collaboration from opposition parties. The idea of holding opposition parties hostage to support bad legislation, which is what the Liberal government has tried to do, is not what a minority Parliament is supposed to be.

We have seen under this arrangement, specifically at committees, a situation in which the Bloc has held the balance of power. I have seen votes in which Bloc and Conservative support was enough to pass a motion against the will of the Liberals. I have seen Liberal and Bloc members pass motions against the will of Conservatives. On a rare occasion, I might have even seen Liberals and Conservatives vote together, with the Bloc being the odd party out.

Even when we have lost a vote, frustrating as that may be, I can take comfort in the knowledge that the Liberals were forced to co-operate with someone. They had a check, however modest, on their power. Today, the Liberals would enshrine their desire for a legislative blank cheque, stacking parliamentary committees to reflect their morally illegitimate majority. I say illegitimate majority because it was crafted not by the democratic will of Canadians but by the Prime Minister sending out his cabinet ministers to peel away the unscrupulous and the shameless opposition MPs who hold the will of the Canadian people in as little esteem as the Liberals do.

This morally illegitimate majority is the consequence of that which they now seek to ratify by stacking the deck on committees. Committees are not the property of the government. They are creatures of Parliament. In many ways, they are where the real work happens, where scrutiny can happen, where amendments can happen and where real vigorous debates on the merits or lack thereof of legislation happen.

If the government can manufacture a majority at will, scrutiny is merely choreography. They are seeking to not have a check on their power and to not have scrutiny of their legislation but rather to have a rubber stamp on anything they want to do.

I am reminded of a quote from John Diefenbaker. In April 1957, he was speaking at Massey Hall in Toronto, and he said, “The sovereignty of the people is delegated to Parliament, not to the Executive.”

The Prime Minister could learn a great many things from John Diefenbaker. One of the lessons is that government is about accountability, not control. Another lesson is that parliamentary scrutiny should be welcomed and not scorned. As evidence that these Liberals are uninterested in accountability and collaboration, one need only look at how they rejected our modest amendment to the very motion we are debating today, which would have preserved the status quo on oversight committees such as ethics, government operations and estimates, among others, committees that are not responsible for reviewing legislation but are tasked with being a watchdog on the government.

Why the Liberals do not want to cede control on a committee overseeing ethics, I think, is becoming more apparent by the day. That is precisely what we are looking at here: a government that does not wish to engage in Parliament, a Prime Minister who holds this institution in contempt and a government that does not want to engage in something so seemingly beneath it as seeking and preserving the will of the Canadian people to enact its legislative agenda.

The motion that we have before us today, which I will be opposing, does not strengthen Parliament. It sidelines it. That is something that every member of the House should reject.

I go back to the comment I made earlier about when the Liberals try to invoke obstruction as a narrative. We have given them much of what they asked for when they sought permission to do things that will build the country up. Bill C-5 is a great example of this. They said they wanted monumental, sweeping authority to approve major projects. We said we would love to see major projects. We gave them permission to do this and the framework to do it. No major projects have materialized. Here we are a year later: The Liberal government has promised much and has delivered little.

The one mechanism that could be preserved to ensure that Parliament remains in keeping with what Canadians elected was a committee structure that would force members of Parliament and would force government members to do what the Liberals claim they have wanted this whole time, which is collaboration. No, they are laying their demands bare today with the motion. They do not want collaboration. They do not want co-operation. All they want is capitulation. We say no.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for the third reading of Bill C-225, Bailey's law, an important step forward in Canada's response to intimate partner violence.

Before I go further, I would like to acknowledge once again that the bill has been titled “Bailey's law” in honour of Bailey McCourt, a woman from Kelowna, B.C., who was tragically killed by her estranged intimate partner in July of last year. Members of Bailey McCourt's family were present at committee, and their advocacy inspired multiple parts of this bill. It is important that we say survivors' names, and it is important for them, as well as for countless other survivors and families of those who have suffered intimate partner violence, that we continue our efforts to advance this most important work.

At its core, the bill responds to a reality that is far too present in communities across this country. Intimate partner violence remains one of the most pervasive and dangerous forms of violence in Canada, and in too many cases, it escalates to lethal outcomes. This is not an abstract policy issue but a lived reality for survivors, families and frontline service providers who see the consequences every day. That is why this legislation matters.

What makes Bill C-225 particularly significant is not only its substance but the way it was developed. This is a bill that benefited from serious, sustained and good-faith collaboration between the sponsor of the bill, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola; the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; the Minister of Women and Gender Equality; and members across the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Through that work, the bill was refined in a meaningful way.

A total of 18 government amendments and three opposition amendments were adopted at committee stage, reflecting a process that was focused less on partisan positioning and more on ensuring that the legislation is effective, constitutionally sound and responsive to the realities of intimate partner violence. That collaborative approach is something we should take seriously. It demonstrates that when Parliament works constructively, we can improve legislation in a way that better protects victims while maintaining fairness and coherence in criminal law.

As amended, Bill C-225 would advance four key pillars.

First, it would clarify how the criminal law treats intimate partner homicide in situations involving coercive and controlling conduct. By linking the most serious homicide classification to patterns of coercive control, the bill would ensure that the law better reflects the reality of sustained abuse while also guarding against unintended consequences for survivors who may have acted in response to prolonged violence.

Second, it would create a single, comprehensive intimate partner violence offence. Rather than relying on a fragmented set of offences, this approach recognizes the full spectrum of violent conduct that can occur in an intimate relationship, from threats and assault to more serious forms of violence. The bill would also support consistency in charging and clear recognition of patterns of abuse.

Third, it would modernize the treatment of seized property under section 490 of the Criminal Code by extending the initial detention period to 180 days. This adjustment reflects a balance between individual rights and the need for an effective and efficient justice system.

Fourth, it would strengthen the bail framework by introducing a targeted reverse onus for certain repeat or high-risk intimate partner violence situations, particularly when there is a demonstrated history of prior violence or breach of court-ordered conditions. This would ensure that the courts have the tools necessary to appropriately assess risk while maintaining judicial discretion and charter compliance.

Taken together, these amendments reflect a careful balancing exercise, strengthening protections for victims while ensuring the framework remains fair, proportionate and constitutionally sound.

Importantly, Bill C-225 does not exist in isolation. It is part of a broader set of reforms that this Parliament has been advancing to address violence, coercive control and systemic gaps in the criminal justice response.

For example, Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, takes a broader approach to coercive control, femicide and emerging forms of technology-facilitated violence, including deepfake sexual imagery and sextortion. It reflects a recognition that patterns of abuse are evolving and that the law must evolve with them. Similarly, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, would strengthen the response to repeat violent offending, particularly in cases involving sexual violence and serious harm. It would reinforce the principle that bail decisions must reflect public safety and victim protection.

When viewed together, these measures form a more coherent and modern framework for addressing intimate partner violence and gender-based violence more broadly. What Bill C-225 demonstrates is that progress is possible when we approach these issues seriously and collaboratively. It is encouraging that despite political differences, members were able to come together in committee to improve this legislation and move it forward in a way that reflects both accountability and fairness.

At the same time, we must be clear that no single bill will solve intimate partner violence on its own. Legislative reform is one part of a broader response that must also include prevention, early intervention, housing supports, mental health services and resources for frontline organizations. However, legislation does matter. It sets the tone for how the justice system understands and responds to violence. It signals to survivors that their experiences are recognized. It ensures that offenders are held accountable in a way that reflects the seriousness of the harm caused.

That is what Bill C-225 would do. It would strengthen the criminal law's ability to respond to intimate partner violence. It would improve coherence in how offences are prosecuted. It would enhance protection for victims. It would do so in a way that reflects careful committee work and cross-party engagement, so today I want to acknowledge the constructive role played by the sponsor of the bill, and the willingness of members from all parties to engage seriously with amendments that improve the legislation. That kind of work is not always easy in the House, but it is essential.

As we move forward, I would encourage all members to continue in that same spirit of collaboration as we consider related reforms, including Bill C-16, which is now before the justice committee and which we hope will be passed as soon as possible, and Bill C-14, which is now in committee study at the Senate and which we hope senators will help advance swiftly. Together, these reforms represent a broader effort to modernize Canada's criminal justice response to violence and exploitation.

Ultimately, the objective is not partisan. It is about safety, prevention and ensuring that when violence occurs in the most intimate of relationships, the justice system is equipped to respond effectively and fairly. For those reasons, I am proud to support Bill C-225 at third reading, and I encourage all members of the House to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑225 for the second time in this Parliament.

However, this topic is nothing new. I had already spoken to this bill a few times. In 2020 and 2021, our colleague from Victoria and members for several other ridings had already introduced similar bills, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently completing its study of the government's Bill C‑16, which deals in part with the same issue.

Bill C‑225 is, I believe, the fifth bill dealing with the same issue. The reason for that is not that we are doing a bad job and need start over all the time, but that bills die on the Order Paper when Parliaments end. When we start over, we often like to wear both a belt and suspenders, as we say back home. We want so badly for something to work out that we often give it two or three tries.

As I was saying, what we are studying right now is Bill C‑225. As for Bill C‑16, we will very likely complete the clause-by-clause consideration on Wednesday, at which point we will finally be able to begin third reading of the bill, which also addresses the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour. It is a major problem.

I am obviously not the only one who thinks that this is a major problem. Our society is continuously undergoing major changes. That has always been the case and likely always will be. Certain behaviours that may have been acceptable 50 or 75 years ago, or even in the last century, are no longer acceptable, and I am sure some behaviours that we think are acceptable today no longer will be in 50 or 100 years. That is why we need to be continually reviewing the legislation that applies to certain situations, even though we may have done so a while back.

All types of violence are on the rise in Quebec, Canada and throughout the world. We now have to deal with extremist groups that have resources that they never used to have and that are spreading around the world and throughout our society. There is also domestic violence, another form of violence that may seem insignificant because each case involves fewer people.

Domestic violence usually involves two individuals, the violent individual and the victim of their violence. However, it also affects the couple's children, their whole families and society as a whole, which must find a way to address this issue. Education is needed to bring about change. We can pass as many laws as we want in the House, but we can never prevent somebody somewhere from becoming violent and committing regrettable acts of violence without even thinking about it, without even making a conscious decision.

In my riding, last fall, Gabie Renaud was murdered. Her murder caused a lot of outrage, not only in my riding but across Quebec, Canada and the U.S. as well. The accused was an individual who had previously been convicted several times for domestic violence. I believe he had been convicted over a dozen times. I do not have the exact numbers but it was multiple convictions. He served his time in jail and was released. He paid his debt to society, as they say. He got out of jail, found a new spouse, abused her and then murdered her.

It is appalling. Although it may only affect a few close individuals, I believe it is an issue for society as a whole. As parliamentarians, this is primarily our responsibility, since it is up to us to establish a legal framework, or a body of laws, that will ensure these kinds of harmful situations are prevented.

Would locking someone up for the rest of their life when they are violent with their partner solve the problem? It probably would, but that is not what we want. We believe in lofty principles such as the presumption of innocence and people's rights and freedoms. They are enshrined in our charters, both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, and we must maintain them.

However, we must also work to ensure that this does not happen again. Bill C-225 proposes criminal measures. It proposes harsher sentences and consequences for such crimes in the hope that society as a whole will become more aware of how serious the situation is. There is also the hope that this may prevent more cases of domestic violence like this one. Does it work? I do not know. So far, the results have not been very encouraging. As I said earlier, cases of domestic violence are on the rise in Quebec, across Canada and just about everywhere.

I think we need to pass Bill C-225 and Bill C-16 and support the fight against these crimes through tougher penalties. However, I also think we need to invest more in rehabilitating inmates and educating young people to prevent this from continuing to happen. Education programs are already being provided to young people in schools. The goal is to try to prevent violence. Given that my wife was a teacher for her entire career, I can say that the situation is definitely not getting any better, despite everyone's efforts. Violence in schools is on the rise. I am not a sociologist, and for reasons I do not understand, unfortunately, people are obeying the established rules less and less, and they are disrespecting one another more and more. We cannot ignore the problem and we should all be extremely concerned about this. We may not be the ones teaching in our schools, but we create the legislative framework in which society as a whole operates.

These punitive measures, which involve imprisoning people and refusing to release them until a certain period has elapsed, probably have some deterrent effect on people who have not yet been charged but who are watching to see what kind of laws we pass. However, that is not enough. We need to invest. Quebec has no money left, the roads are in bad shape, and people wait 24 to 48 hours in emergency rooms. There are little to no specialized services left in schools. This is not working anymore. People are overtaxed. In many cases, more than half of a person's salary goes to the government. Where does that money go?

I think the federal government should transfer funds to the provinces to help them address these issues. There needs to be more rehabilitation programs in prisons. There needs to be more educational initiatives for youth in schools. We need to find a way to rebuild a society that respects every individual and establish a legal framework that enables and promotes this respect and mutual awareness among all members of society.

I could go on at length about this, but I would not be adding anything substantial. We will agree on Bill C-225, but that does not preclude us from doing more to prevent crime through education and better rehabilitation in our penitentiaries, so that when people are released from prison after one year, five years, or twenty years, they come out different from who they were when they went in.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks by recognizing the critical role that the Canadian Armed Forces plays. Every single member of the Canadian Armed Forces makes a commitment to serve this country. They step forward with a willingness to protect others, often at great personal cost and sacrifice.

Because of that, we, as members of Parliament, have a responsibility to make sure that the systems around them, especially the justice system, work the way they are supposed to work and there is equality, fairness and justice. When these systems do not work, the consequences are very serious. They affect individuals, and they affect people's confidence in the institution. Ultimately, they affect the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole.

At a time when the world is changing and we cannot always rely on the same assumptions that we used to, it is more important than ever that Canada strengthen its own defence capacity. That includes making sure that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces can rely on the systems around them to create a safe workspace for them. The strength of our Canadian Armed Forces is not just about capability; it is also about whether the people serving in it have confidence in the institution itself. That is where Bill C-11 comes in.

Over the past several years, we have heard directly from survivors of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces, and what we have heard has always been consistent: The system was not always clear; accountability was difficult to navigate; and in too many cases, people lost trust in the process.

The issue has been examined closely, including through the independent review led by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. Her findings pointed to a clear problem with how sexual misconduct cases were being handled within the military justice system. In particular, she spoke to the impact this has had on trust and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces and the need for a more consistent and reliable approach.

One of her key recommendations was that Criminal Code sexual offences should be handled in the civilian justice system. Bill C-11 follows through with that recommendation. What Bill C-11 does, in practical terms, is provide clarity. It sets out that Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada involving members of the Canadian Armed Forces are to be investigated and prosecuted within the civilian system. That clarity is important. It means that individuals are not left navigating uncertainty. It means that cases are not delayed by questions of jurisdiction. It means that there is a consistent approach to how these serious matters are handled.

It is also important to recognize that this direction is already being followed in practice. Since 2021, these cases have been proceeding through the civilian system. Bill C-11 would ensure that this approach is clearly established and consistently applied moving forward.

Bill C-11 also introduces stronger, practical measures to ensure that victims are not left navigating the system by themselves. For example, it would establish victim liaison officers, who will support victims throughout the process, including during the transfer of cases between military and civilian authorities. The bill would also expand access to these supports to individuals acting on the victim's behalf, ensuring continuity and guidance at every stage.

It would improve access to information by strengthening obligations to inform victims and witnesses of their rights, including in relation to publication bans, and ensuring that their wishes are considered in the entire process. Importantly, it clarifies that victims can speak about their own experiences, while still protecting the identity of others when required.

Another important aspect of Bill C-11 is the focus on independence. It takes steps to strengthen how key roles within the military justice system are structured and appointed, so that decisions are made free from real or perceived influence from chain of command. That really matters, because confidence in the system depends not only on outcomes, but on whether people believe the process itself is fair and independent.

The opposition has put forward amendments that would reintroduce a degree of flexibility between the military and civilian systems, including allowing cases to move between jurisdictions. However, that approach, to me, raises real concerns. It would add unnecessary complexity to an already difficult process, create the potential for delays and place a greater burden on individuals at a time when clarity is most needed. It is also not a trauma-informed approach, unfortunately. It asks individuals, often in the immediate aftermath of harm and trauma, to make complex decisions about how their cases should proceed.

What we have heard is clear. People are not asking for more complexity. They are asking for a system that works. Bill C-11 is one part of a broader effort to address long-standing concerns within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is about making sure that every member of our armed forces can serve with dignity in an environment that reflects the values that we expect as Canadians.

I am just now coming from the Indonesian embassy, where we were celebrating Ms. Kartini's influence on equality of opportunity for women, not just in Indonesia but across the world. That is exactly it. What Bill C-11 would do for our community and the Canadian Armed Forces is make sure that women and men who have faced sexual violence and sexual misconduct have the ability to take various approaches toward justice, make sure that their harms are acknowledged and rectified, and make sure that the workplace they operate in, which is already a very high-stress one, is one they can function in, where their services are valued and contribute to the growth and progress of Canada. The Canadian Armed Forces provides a very important role within our country and across the world. We need to make sure, through all the measures and tools available to us, that the serving men and women have the ability to serve effectively.

With that, I do support this legislation. I hope that all members in this House will do the same and that this bill with respect to sexual misconduct, Bill C-11, along with all the other bills we have brought forward in the past few months, such as Bill C-16 to combat coercive controlling behaviour, or bail reforms and Criminal Code reforms across our country, gets quick passage so that Canadian Armed Forces members impacted by this have the swift justice they require.

I look forward to questions from members.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me just acknowledge the heinous act that the member opposite talked about. I would say that, since taking office, we have brought forward the most comprehensive criminal justice reform in a generation. Bill C-14 speaks to that. It would ensure that repeat violent offenders are off our streets and will get stiffer sentences during the sentencing period. We have Bill C-16 now going through the committee process. Again, it would protect victims.

What we need is co-operation to ensure that—

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone would question the government's commitment to gender-based violence, I would invite them to read the text of Bill C-16, the largest suite of reforms to advance more serious penalties to combat gender-based violence, which is matched with an announcement today to put $50 million more in the hands of organizations that are working to combat gender-based violence in our communities.

As I continue to be heckled talking about an issue such as gender-based violence, I will not be distracted. I will do the work.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to give that example. Hopefully, there will not be another point of order to prevent it.

There is a suite of legislative initiatives to deal with an important issue in the member opposite's riding, my riding and ridings across the country. The Government of Canada has been pushing hard for this since day one following the election, and that was to deal with the issue of crime. We brought forward Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14, Bill C-16 and Bill C-22. This is all legislation to make our communities safer, and the Conservatives, through their filibustering tactics, have denied important reforms such as bail reform, which has been supported across the country by stakeholders, law enforcement, mayors, premiers and others.

They have also prevented lawful access from being put into place, with Canada being the one and only Five Eyes nation that does not have it. That, I suggest, would deal with issues such as child sexual exploitation, extortion and repeat violent offenders. These are the types of actions that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been pushing for since the last federal election, and the Conservatives have played political games, putting the Conservative Party's interests ahead of Canadians' best interests. As a direct result, we have lost out greatly.

Talking strictly about funds to help young people acquire skill sets, $594.7 million over two years went to Employment and Social Development Canada for the Canada summer jobs program to support 100,000 summer jobs in 2026. Members can think about that. I referred to it earlier in my comments. It is for youth to acquire skill sets. Members opposite might want to minimize that program, but there is not a Liberal member of Parliament who does not recognize the true value of what that program is. It is such a valuable asset to not only the communities we serve but also the communities that Conservatives serve. Every region of the nation benefits from that program, and the Conservatives mock it today, which does not surprise me because it was Stephen Harper who cut a lot of the funding to the program. He did not cut the program, but he did cut the funding.

It has taken the Prime Minister and the government to recognize the value, understand the need for it and support it. That is why we will have close to 100,000 young people, and the types of jobs they will get will allow them to enhance their skill sets in many different ways, possibly opening doors to them for future jobs.

I think of the types of jobs that come to Winnipeg North, such as child care. I amplify the importance of child care. Many summer students who have gone through this program are working in child care today. I think of places such as Stanley Knowles School using the lunch program. There is another $307 million over two years for the horizontal evaluation of the youth employment and skills strategy to provide employment, training and wraparound supports. There is mentorship, transportation and mental health counselling. It is estimated that there are literally thousands of youth who will benefit from it, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000.

There is $40 million over two years going to Employment and Social Development Canada to create the youth climate corps and to provide paid skills training for young Canadians. They will be trained to quickly respond to climate emergencies, support recovery and strengthen resilience in communities across the nation. We are thinking of training the next generation of Canadian builders by providing $75 million over three years, starting in 2026-27, to Employment and Social Development Canada to expand the union training and innovation program, which supports union-based apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades.

That gives us a sense of what it is and how the government is dealing with young people today. We recognize the importance of the issue, but the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that we recognize it year-round. We are focused on building a strong economy that works for all Canadians. That is our goal, and we will achieve that. We will get the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. I believe that is an admirable goal.

The Conservative Party continues to want to play games on the floor of the House of Commons, not deal with the issues that are a priority for Canadians. They only want to deal with what is a priority for the Conservatives. That is fine. We will be focused on delivering tangible results for Canadians because that is the right thing to do. A part of that means encouraging my opposition friends to stop playing games and be more creative. They can be a critic of the government and be more cooperative. That is what Canadians want—

Lawful Access Act, 2026

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

Mr. Speaker, in a word, wow. We can talk about conspiracy theories. We can talk about misinformation. When we want to talk about safety in our communities, we have a new Prime Minister from less than a year ago, as well as a new government.

Bill C-9 deals with hate propaganda. Bill C-14 deals with bail reform. Bill C-16 actually restores mandatory minimums. We have Bill C-22 that deals with sensitive issues such as national security, terrorism, extortion and child exploitation. They are all substantive pieces of legislation.

On the other hand, the biggest thing the Conservatives have done to date has been to filibuster and slow down the progress of legislation because, in the minds of some, there is a giant conspiracy that the Government of Canada wants to take over the world.

Does the member support the principle of lawful access?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague expressed some concerns about public safety, and I want to reassure her. On this side of the House, we take these commitments to make our communities safer seriously. The purpose of Bill C-14 is to ensure tougher sentences for repeat violent offenders, while Bill C-16 seeks to better protect victims. Finally, the purpose of Bill C-22 is to provide law enforcement with the tools they need to properly investigate various crimes being committed using more modern technology.

Her colleague, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, even said that the bill would better assist law enforcement in their investigations and that he welcomed this legislation. He urged us to send Bill C-22 to committee. I would like to know whether the member agrees with her Conservative colleague that the bill is a step in the right direction for law enforcement in this country. Does she also agree that it should be sent to committee?

Youth Criminal Justice Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to private member's Bill C‑231, which would amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. For brevity's sake, I will refer to the act by its acronym, the YCJA.

I would like to salute the work of my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, whose riding neighbours mine. Tragic circumstances led him to work on this incredibly important bill. I would like to thank him for working on it and for his remarkable dedication to our young people and to changing lives, families and communities.

I would like to show that the bill's underlying goal is entirely commendable, considering that its aim is to amend the YCJA to strengthen the approach to addiction treatment program in its enforcement framework. Bill C-231 reflects the lived realities and daily challenges facing certain young Canadians. In Canada, youths aged 15 to 24 are more likely to experience mental health and substance-related disorders than any other age group.

According to the Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey, 37% of students in grades 7 to 12—secondary school to residents of Quebec—reported that they had consumed alcohol in the past year. Over the same period, 18% of students had used cannabis, 6% had used prescription drugs in a manner other than prescribed, and 7% had used illegal drugs. Even more troubling was the fact that 22% of students reported having used two substances at the same time during their lifetime, while 18% had done so in the previous 12 months. Those are big numbers. In our ridings, what they represent are the effects of substances on young lives, families and communities, and some people looking for solutions.

I want to salute the work of organizations in my riding, such as Virage Santé mentale, L'Éveil, Phelps Aide, Mental Health Estrie and addiction rehab centres. Despite having very few resources, these folks work miracles to help young people. This is essential work, and it is even more desperately needed in the regions, where resources are limited, everyone knows everyone and accessing available resources is not always easy. Having more legislative tools to support youth and families is, as I said, of tremendous importance.

In this context, Bill C‑231 proposes to highlight and, in some cases, clarify the measures governing addiction treatment programs for teenagers. For example, it would require police officers to consider whether it would be appropriate to refer a young person suspected of a drug offence to an addiction treatment program before initiating or pursuing legal proceedings against that individual. The bill also proposes to allow, in certain cases, the youth court to delay sentencing to give the individual the opportunity to participate in an addiction treatment program. It also proposes to amend the YCJA to authorize the youth court to include, in certain orders, an obligation to participate in such a program. Finally, it provides that a mere failure or refusal to comply with this condition shall not result in a custodial sentence.

As we all know, the YCJA establishes a separate legal framework for young persons who have committed or are accused of committing a criminal offence, a framework that takes into account that they are more vulnerable, are still developing, and are still dependent on adults. One of the fundamental principles of the YCJA is to protect the public while promoting the rehabilitation and social reintegration of young offenders. It also emphasizes the importance of preventing crime by referring young offenders to community programs or organizations to address the underlying causes of their behaviour.

Bill C-231 is consistent with these fundamental principles of the youth criminal justice system, and the government intends to support it while proposing certain amendments in committee. In my view, this bill would benefit from certain amendments to better achieve its objectives.

For example, one of the changes proposed in Bill C‑231 would impose a new requirement for police officers to determine whether it would be appropriate to refer a young person, with their consent, to an addiction treatment program before initiating or pursuing legal proceedings. Bill C‑231 could be slightly expanded so that this requirement also applies to Crown prosecutors. This would further encourage the use of addiction treatment programs and referrals to those programs.

This approach would also be consistent with Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which proposes to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to specify that prosecutors must consider extrajudicial measures before initiating or pursuing legal proceedings. This requirement already exists for police officers under section 6 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The YCJA also recognizes that diversion measures are often considered the most appropriate and effective solution for addressing youth crime. They allow for prompt and tailored interventions aimed at addressing the root causes of delinquent behaviour. Extending this requirement to the prosecutor could help further encourage the use of substance abuse treatment programs both before and after charges are laid.

That said, it is important for the youth justice system to adopt a targeted approach to diversion for drug-related offences. The offences for which police officers and prosecutors should be required to consider referral to a substance use treatment program should be simple possession offences. More specifically, they should be limited to the possession offences set out in subsection 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and subsection 8(1) of the Cannabis Act. This would align the proposed amendments to the YCJA with the diversion measures added to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in 2022. More specifically, these measures include issuing a warning or referring the person, with their consent, to a program or organization that can help them. However, these measures may only be applied to persons suspected of having committed a simple possession offence.

The bill also proposes amending certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to add guidelines and orders that apply exclusively to substance abuse treatment programs. This more restrictive approach carries certain risks. On the one hand, it could lead to unintended and adverse interpretations that might limit access to other types of treatment programs, particularly those focused on mental health or on behaviour modification and skills development.

One of the reasons this bill is so important is that it highlights the critical intersection between the criminal justice system and public health. However, public health issues are not limited to substance abuse. For example, in Canada, people living with mental health conditions are also overrepresented in the criminal justice system. For some of the proposed amendments, referring more broadly to treatment programs rather than solely to programs for addiction or substance abuse would allow the bill's objective to be maintained while avoiding the unintended exclusion of other important forms of treatment. For example, a broader approach would clarify that youth courts may defer sentencing to allow a youth to participate in various types of treatment programs, rather than limiting this option solely to substance abuse treatment programs.

Bill C‑231 pursues an important goal: to help young people struggling with problematic substance use access treatment programs so they can receive care rather than be punished by the justice system. It supports many of our election promises, with approaches that divert youth away from crime by providing urgent and immediate support to address the overdose crisis while protecting the public. For these reasons, the government is prepared to support this bill, while proposing certain amendments to strengthen its objectives and expand its scope.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

This is an incredibly important issue, and it is one that, as lawmakers, we cannot afford to get wrong. On one hand, we are talking about ensuring that the people enforcing the laws that we set out in this place have the tools, resources and laws in place to do their jobs. On the other hand, it is about being a guardian of the most fundamental rights and freedoms Canadians have: the right to due process, the right to privacy and the right to freedom from search and seizure. I am someone who understands and greatly values both of these things.

I have the great privilege of sitting on the justice committee, where Conservative colleagues and I worked vigorously to ensure that real, tangible reforms to the bail system were put forward in the government's bail bill, Bill C-14, not so long ago. The bill was inadequate, but it did something. In fact, law enforcement officials had been telling us that they wanted more. They had been telling us that the Liberal government had actually caused the bail problems in this country and that they wanted more to fix them. We were happy to do that.

I have also been, as many people would know, very vocal, even before I was elected to the House, in calling out decisions and bills by the current government that would erode not only trust in institutions but also civil liberties of Canadians. I have seen this first-hand since I had the great privilege of being elected, just shy of one year ago.

The government's very first bill was presented to Canadians and to the House, Bill C-2, as a border security bill. Again, I have been among the people talking for years about how the government has allowed the borders of this country to become a joke. I welcomed the Liberals' recognizing that there was a problem, but when we looked into the bill, we saw that lawful access provisions had actually been snuck in.

We also saw that the bill, which, again, was presented to Canadians as being an answer to the border crisis, inexplicably had a proposed ban on transacting in cash above a certain amount. That is not something Canadians wanted and is actually something that Canadians rejected so vociferously that the Liberals, thankfully, decided to, among other things, pull it aside and not proceed with it.

Bill C-2 also would have given the ability to, without a warrant, inspect Canadians' letter mail. Even letters that Canadians send to us as members of Parliament and letters that someone might send to a loved one across the country would have been subject to warrantless scrutiny by Canada Post. Therefore, we had to look into the details of Bill C-2, and in doing so we found that it could not be supported.

Then there was Bill C-8, which, again, on the surface is something we want and welcome. It is legislation that would deal with very real threats to cybersecurity infrastructure that companies and countries face. This was something that, again, I thought we would be able to find common ground on across party lines, but the devil, as always, is in the details.

We looked at Bill C-8, and I thank my colleague from Kitchener South—Hespeler and my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for their work on this. We saw that the bill would actually give the Minister of Industry and cabinet members of the Liberal government incredible power to take people or companies off-line, with no oversight and no scrutiny.

I am so proud to be part of a team that understood that enforcing the law and protecting Canada from threats cannot and need not come at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms and at the expense of civil liberties. Conservatives worked collaboratively with our colleagues in the Bloc, and we put forward amendments that would deal with these challenges.

However, now there is Bill C-22, a bill that repackages a lot of what was already in Bill C-2, a lot of what had already been rejected by Canadians, and it puts it forward for review. Fortunately, the Liberals have finally understood the essence of some of these challenges. I am very grateful that in part 1 of the bill, they have eliminated some of the most problematic components. I will give credit where it is due. Again, the Liberals should have been more keenly aware of these things from the get-go, but there have actually been significant improvements.

That being said, the lack of oversight on some parts of Bill C-2 very much warrants scrutiny here. Why I bring this up and why it is so important is that the reason there has been such push-back with respect to Bill C-22 so far, from civil liberties groups in particular, on the left and on the right, is that the Liberal government has squandered the trust that Canadians have and can have in government, specifically in the current government, due to the way that it has eroded civil liberties in the past.

Again, as I say this, I am reminded of the fact that a few weeks ago the Liberals filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on their Emergencies Act usage just over four years ago. That is relevant because what the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal found is that the government violated the charter rights of Canadians not only by unlawfully invoking the Emergencies Act but by using the fake emergency to justify freezing people's bank accounts.

Now, this was one of the reasons that our amendments in Bill C-8 included conscience and speech protections, because recent Liberal government history has revealed precisely why those protections are necessary, and why, when people come up with scenarios, we do not actually take the Liberals seriously when they try to dismiss those scenarios by saying that would never happen and it would never get there. We have seen them go there already. We have seen them go down roads that most people never would have thought possible, using plain language that we must take at its word and at face value.

The Liberal government has not been constrained by the charter, and it has not been constrained by norms. That is why Canadians from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms have raised concerns about Bill C-22.

That being said, I do have to acknowledge the very real demands that law enforcement have made. I have taken on the responsibility, not just as a member of the justice committee but as the member of Parliament for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, to talk to law enforcement and to speak to them exactly about the shortcomings they feel exist in the current system. Now, one thing I will point out is that they welcome having expanded powers and clear authority. They welcome a lot of what is in Bill C-22.

Last week I spoke to Chief Thai Truong of the London Police Service. It is a very large police service given London's size. I also spoke to Chief Marc Roskamp of the St. Thomas Police Service. I have spoken to other frontline officers and I am happy to continue doing this work because, unlike the Liberal government, this party has a history of listening to law enforcement when they say they do not want anything to do with the Liberal government's gun confiscation scheme, when they say they need real bail reform so they are not arresting the same people over and over again, and when they say there are tools and clarifications they need to do their jobs. We will continue to do that.

The men and women of law enforcement in my riding and across the country want to take bad guys off the streets. We, as a party, want to make sure they have the tools and resources to do that. It is not entirely accurate to say that Canada has no lawful access regime. Police have been able to access subscriber data, they have been able to access electronic materials and they have been able to get warrants to search people's computers, phones and accounts. The issue is the speed they need when dealing with it. We welcome anything that provides an opportunity, lawfully and with judicial oversight, to access the type of information at play here.

We cannot look at any of these things in isolation. We cannot look at simply being able to confirm subscriber data, perhaps for an offender or a suspected offender who is possessing, producing or disseminating child sexual exploitation and abuse material, and say that that will solve the overall problems.

We have to look at lawful access in the same vein as we look at other things in the criminal justice system that would interact with that suspected offender, such as the sentence they are going to get. This week the justice committee is reviewing Bill C-16. We are saying that the Liberal government is jeopardizing mandatory minimum sentences for people who peddle in child sexual exploitation and abuse material. We believe wholeheartedly that the government needs to have robust punishments to vigorously go after these heinous predators.

What the Liberal government has been doing, and not just on lawful access but on other justice bills that have come before them, is selectively deciding when they want to listen to law enforcement and when they do not, selectively deciding when they want to hide behind this stakeholder or that stakeholder and when they do not.

We are the lawmakers in this chamber. It is an honour I do not take lightly. We have to listen to all stakeholders and come to a reasoned constitutional position that balances the rights and needs of a free citizenry in this country with the practical expectations and needs of law enforcement to effectively discharge their duties. That is a balance that we need to get right, not only because it is simply our duty but also because the last thing we want to do is pass a law that we will have to somehow find a way to fix years later if a court finds it to be unconstitutional. This is the tricky thing we have to deal with here. We cannot pass law that will not withstand charter scrutiny.

Interestingly, with regard to Bill C-8, I mentioned the tremendous work of my colleagues on the public safety committee and other colleagues in caucus. Bill C-8 had been amended by Conservative efforts, with the support of the Bloc, to have judicial oversight for some decisions that the minister would make, and that was so important. In the end, it was unfortunate that this was ruled out of scope when it came back to the House because that would have been an incredibly important safeguard that would have told Canadians we are not giving unchecked power to cabinet ministers representing a government that, by the way, does not have a great track record on upholding civil liberties and that when cabinet ministers say to just trust them, we might as well play the laugh track from a 1990s sitcom because that is about as much as it is worth. We are always going to approach anything that looks like surveillance or a violation of privacy rights with a level of skepticism. When the Liberals bring forward bills that touch on these issues, they should not dismiss these very real and, I would say, good-faith concerns that people across this country are making because of that lack of distrust that I was talking about.

When we look at some of the details, there is a blanket retention of metadata, but so much of our personal information is captured and so much of what is in metadata is not as anonymized as people may think. For example, in comparing this to other jurisdictions, in the United States, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows for preservation of metadata on demand, but it does not require blanket retention. It does not even allow blanket retention. The Court of Justice of the European Union has declared that blanket retention of metadata is incompatible with the fundamental rights that Europeans have, especially when it comes to privacy.

When we look at electronic service providers, specifically the applications in part 2 of the bill, we do not have a definition of what a service provider is. We only have the expectation that the government will come up with a definition down the road. This category could actually include email providers. It could include messaging apps. It could include other cloud services and storage systems. It is not just about whether one has a Telus account or a Rogers account. It could extend to the accounts that have content. That is where accessing someone's electronic information is truly accessing a window into their lives, their most intimate experiences, thoughts, conversations and photos. Therefore, we cannot afford to not get this right.

I would much rather see a cohesive definition of what that category would be, not something that could be redefined based on the whims of not just the current government but future governments. As we well know, if we are talking about any legislated power for government, for cabinet, for law enforcement, we have to imagine what that power will look like in the hands of another government that comes beyond. This is not a partisan issue. It is where I look beyond the left versus right on this. I do not want my colleagues on the left to be concerned about how a theoretical Conservative government would abuse civil liberties, which is certainly not the Conservative governments that we are putting forward for Canadians to choose, but how another government might use it.

That is why we must always constrain government power to protect the vital privacy rights and autonomy of individual citizens, and the lack of oversight remains a very key problem in Bill C-22. It would enable secret ministerial orders to any digital service Canadians rely on, with no public registry, no parliamentary approval and no right for Canadians to even know it is happening. That is the architecture of a surveillance state. That is something that we must always protect against.

I believe we must all come to an agreement on where we go forward, because we are being told by the Liberals that this is all fine and to just pass the bill through. We have been down that road before, and again, I do support, if the bill gets to committee, vigorously scrutinizing it, debating it, calling witnesses, looking at the ins and outs and going through it line by line, but there is a very real challenge, especially if I situate my remarks today in the broader political context of our time, in that bills can go into committee and come out worse than they went in.

The government can expand its power. We saw this recently with Bill C-9, where a flawed bill went into committee and an outright dangerous one came out, so we have to be very mindful of whether the Liberals have signalled an intention that goes beyond the text of the bill. That is why we cannot look at Bill C-22 without looking at things that the Liberals failed to advance in Bill C-8 and Bill C-2. Those have actually been pretty good indicators of where the Liberals want to go, where they think they can go and perhaps, if they have unchecked majority power in this House of Commons, where they are likely to go.

I go back to the comments I have made about law enforcement and how I am fully committed to listening to the perspectives of frontline officers and the perspectives of police leadership. I actually have a meeting coming up with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which as timing worked out, I wish I had done before I had the opportunity to speak today, but it did not work out that way. However, I will listen to law enforcement, not just on lawful access, but on the whole suite of reforms to fix the last 11 years of Liberal justice legislation, which the police have been demanding, to make communities safer.

I will just end on why this is so important. I was speaking to a grade 10 class a few weeks ago about my job and about the work that we all do in Ottawa, and like anyone else speaking to a group of grade 10 students, it is not always as engaging to talk about politics. I choose to believe it was politics that was boring them and not me, but nevertheless, I was trying to make politics relatable to them. I was trying to actually come up with a way to provide them a window into why the work we do here matters to them, and I brought up two things. I brought up employment. I asked how many of them were having trouble getting a job, and every hand went up. Then I asked them how many of them feel safe walking around downtown, and they all laughed. They all laughed, truly. To them, safe streets are a punchline, and that is the record of Liberal so-called justice laws over the last 11 years.

If we are going to listen to law enforcement, let us actually listen to law enforcement and let us start opening up the door to undoing the harmful reforms that have gotten us to where we are. If the Liberals want to know why people are so skeptical of lawful access regimes coming from the government, they need to look in the mirror and see why Canadians do not trust them to not abuse power, abuse authority and violate the rights of Canadians.

We will always stand firmly behind that. We will support law enforcement, but not at the expense of the charter, as the Liberals have a record of doing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this is just not true. We have a suite of legislation dealing with the issue of crime. I make reference to lawful access, number one, in Bill C-2, which dealt with border security. Also, there is Bill C-9, on hate propaganda; Bill C-14, which is bail reform legislation; and Bill C-16, which would restore things like mandatory minimum sentences. Bill C-12 is another important aspect in the stabilization of immigration and securing Canada's borders.

There is a substantial amount of legislation. All one needs to do is read some of the debate that was taking place at the end of 2025. They will find that the Conservative Party members then, the far-right Conservative Party members I must add, were in opposition and preventing legislation from passing. The only reason we do not have lawful access today in Canada is the Conservative Party of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commenting on a question I posed to the minister who introduced the legislation. In my question, I talked about how the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg, and we met with some interested citizens with regard to lawful access and dealing with the issue of extortion. We then met with the Winnipeg police chief and the Winnipeg Police Association, all of whom were exceptionally encouraging and very supportive of the principle of lawful access. That is what this entire piece of legislation is about, in essence. That is why I believe it is so very important that we take the opportunity to recognize the legislation for what it is, an effective tool that can be used in the tool belt for law enforcement officers and CSIS, and I am concerned with some of the responses that I received.

When I posed the question to the minister, he commented that it is not just the Winnipeg police department or the chief of police, both of whom I met with, but it is throughout Canada. Law enforcement agencies in every region of the country have seen the benefits of lawful access. If we were to canvass every member of the Liberal caucus today, we would find that there is a desire to see Bill C-22 pass.

It has been less than a year since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, and he made it very clear that he wanted to establish a suite of legislative initiatives that would deal with the issue of crime. It is interesting that we now have Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-14, Bill C-16 and today Bill C-22, and I will provide a brief comment on each of those. It demonstrates the degree to which we want substantive changes to our Criminal Code and other legislation so we can provide safer homes, communities and nation.

That is what Bill C-2 set out to do right from the get-go. Let us remember that Bill C-2 was introduced last June, within a couple of months after the election. The election was at the end of April, and the legislation was introduced in June. Bill C-2 incorporated lawful access. It incorporated things such as stabilizing immigration and strengthening Canada's borders. Unfortunately, the opposition made the decision to go all out in opposing Bill C-2. As a direct result, a lot of the initiatives that Bill C-2 would have supported were obstructed by the Conservative Party of Canada, and it is unfortunate. It is not the only piece of legislation that the Conservatives obstructed.

When we think of lawful access, I would encourage members opposite to talk to their local law enforcement agencies and the constituents they represent who feel concerned about the issue of extortion. When the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime was in Winnipeg, that was the issue that the group we met with wanted to talk about, the issue of extortion. Whether they had already gotten a phone call or they realized that a phone call could be made, there was a genuine concern. We talked about that for a good 45 minutes to an hour.

That was followed by a meeting with the law enforcement agency. The chief of police and the Winnipeg Police Association both talked about the need for Bill C-22, which was actually incorporated in Bill C-2, which could have been passed long ago, and how it would in fact have an impact on issues like extortion. Flash back to four, five, six months ago, when we had Conservatives standing up and talking about the issue of extortion. They were criticizing the government for not doing enough, when we had legislation before the House and the Conservatives were obstructing it from being able to pass. We witnessed that all of last year.

I make reference to Bill C-2 because that is where Bill C-22 comes out of. We also had Bill C-9, the hate legislation, and Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. Let us remember the bail reform legislation and how long we had to wait for that. I was standing in this very spot back in November, saying to the opposition, “Let us pass bail reform legislation. We could actually pass it before the end of the year.” That was at the end of 2025. However, the Conservatives were obstructing the passage of that legislation.

We also have Bill C-16 before the House today. We have no sense of where the official opposition is going to land on that legislation. Is it going to be their intent to oppose and prevent its passage? It is a legitimate question. That is the question I asked the Conservative critic today when he made his presentation on Bill C-22. Not once but twice I asked him that question. At the end of the day, Bill C-22 has been out there for the last couple of weeks in terms of the actual legislation, but the issue itself has been debated for months, and not necessarily just inside the House. It has been talked about inside and outside Ottawa, and in our communities. I think it was fair for me to ask the Conservative shadow minister if the Conservatives would be supporting the legislation. When I asked the question, not once but twice, there was no indication whatsoever that we could anticipate support from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is concerning. It should be concerning to all of us.

The Prime Minister has made it very clear that at times there is a need for us to work collectively and to put some of the partisan politics to the side to see if we can actually pass legislation.

All we need to do is take a look at what happened this morning. Bailey's law actually passed through the concurrence stage and is now in third reading. It has one more hour of debate, and then I expect it will pass. At the committee stage, the government moved a number of amendments, and fortunately the opposition was in agreement with those amendments. We were actually able to pass a substantive piece of legislation that I anticipate all members are now going to support.

I wish the same attitude and sense of co-operation that have been shown by the government on a Conservative private member's piece of legislation would also apply to government legislation.

That is why I would suggest to us that it is discouraging, in the sense that Bill C-2 was actually very clear. The Conservatives were not going to support it in any fashion whatsoever. It ultimately led to two other pieces of legislation having to come out as a direct result, Bill C-12 and now Bill C-22.

If we look at it, Bill C-12 has actually now passed through. That was to do with what the Prime Minister and this government committed to Canadians, which was to look at stabilizing the immigration file. It is going to go a long way in being able to assist with that. It also dealt with some border security issues that came out of Bill C-2.

We now go to Bill C-22, lawful access. We have law enforcement agencies from across our nation supporting the legislation and lawful access. Did members know that Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access? In fact, we are the only country in the G7 that does not have lawful access. Already today, in listening to the debate, I am concerned.

When, for example, the member from the Bloc spoke about it, he said that he does not know if it is overreach. This is what the Bloc is saying, that it could be overreach, where the government is going to be able to look into a person's bank account or read emails.

I raised the issue with the member opposite when it came time for a question. My concern is that we are going to see, with Bill C-22, the same thing we witnessed on Bill C-9.

Bill C-9 dealt with hate crimes. It actually put in protections for churches, mosques, gurdwaras and temples. Misinformation that flowed out about that legislation created a fear that many of my constituents and Canadians had, not based on fact but based on misinformation. We have to counter that.

I would hope that Bill C-22 would not be one of those pieces of legislation, once again, where we will see the Conservative Party putting its own interests ahead of good, sound public policy that is in the best interest of Canadians. For anyone to even imply, in any fashion whatsoever, that the government wants to read one's emails or know how much one has in one's bank account, I think, does a great disservice to the chamber.

I believe that the decision should be based on facts. There is absolutely no merit whatsoever to that argument. Remember, what we are talking about is a confirmation of service, finding out whether a particular individual or home has an IP service location. If the answer to that is yes, there is then a process to go through that incorporates our courts. There is no information provided other than a yes on an IP address.

I think that is an essential aspect to policing today. If members do not believe me, they should ask law enforcement agencies and many of the different stakeholders out there.

This is something that I believe is absolutely necessary. Those who would ask, “Is it really?” should ask themselves why it is that every other G7 country has lawful access, but not Canada. That has been a part of the frustration of minority governments over the last number of years.

Here we have good public policy to help equip law enforcement officers to do the types of things that they need to do in order to protect the public, but we have opposition members who will oppose in many ways for the sake of opposing.

I want to highlight that when we talk about enabling law enforcement, we are talking about Canadian Security Intelligence Service, RCMP and local law enforcement officers who will often take a look and have investigations that are ongoing. It would enable those to enforce legally obtaining certain information, such as data and communications, from an electronic service provider. That is what the bill is proposing to do. It would update critical investigation tools.

Earlier, there was reference to phone books, and I provided a comment on that. Things change over time. When I first was elected, it was pretty easy to identify who was in a house. People have made reference to phone books. There was also a thing called the “who called me” book. I loved it because it was just like a voters list and anyone could access it. One could take a street and it would have the phone number and the name of individual living there. One could probably identify up to 90% of a population, where they were living, their phone number and name. People had to specifically ask to have their number taken out of a phone book or the “who called me” book, and they had to pay for that service.

Things have changed a great deal. There is a default position that we have to protect the privacy of Canadians. This is a government that very much understands that and is focused on the protection of those rights.

It was the Liberal Party back in the 1980s that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The privacy of individuals is protected under this legislation.

The shadow minister, in criticizing the legislation, knows full well that if we allow the legislation to go to committee, the Conservatives will be afforded the opportunity to ask all forms of questions. The issues they have can be addressed in great detail.

Second reading is a debate on the substance and the principle of the legislation; it is not necessarily designed to go into the great details. Nothing prevents us from being able to allow legislation to get to committee stage, much like how we had two hours of debate on the private member's bill, it went to committee, amendments were made and then it came here.

We are going to have a lot more than two hours of debate on this legislation. It will go to committee, and people will be afforded the opportunity to have that dialogue. We are open to improving the legislation if the need is there.

I would encourage members of the Conservative Party to support Bill C-22. It is good, it is sound and it is in the public's interest.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise at third reading to support Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. First, I would like to congratulate him on introducing this bill. I also want to congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for their co-operation during the committee's consideration of the bill and for their efforts to significantly strengthen it through a series of amendments. We were able to work together in committee and achieve this. I would also like to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee for their valuable testimony and insights, which led to the discussion we are having today.

Before proceeding further, I would also like to note that this bill has been named “Bailey's Law” in honour of Bailey McCourt, a woman from Kelowna, British Columbia, who was tragically murdered by her former partner last July. Members of Bailey McCourt's family were present during the committee hearings, and I had the opportunity to meet them right here in the House through our colleague, the bill's sponsor. I thank him for introducing them to us. We had a good discussion with them. I would like to point out that their work has not only inspired the House but also contributed to the amendments made to the bill in preparation for the next steps.

It is for these family members and countless other survivors and family members of those who have experienced intimate partner violence that we continue our efforts to advance this vital work.

I would like to focus on three points today, three key amendments made to the bill at committee that deal with first-degree murder, manslaughter and the proposed new offence of intimate partner violence.

First, Bill C-225 was amended to specify that the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as first-degree murder if the perpetrator commits the murder while engaging in, or after having engaged in, coercive and controlling behaviour. This means that, under these circumstances, the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as the most serious form of homicide, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate. Whenever someone murders their intimate partner, it will be treated the same way whether it was premeditated or not.

This is a very important measure aimed at condemning intimate partner homicides, which disproportionately target women. First-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 25 years.

At first reading, Bill C‑225 proposed to automatically designate all intimate partner murders as first-degree murders. When the bill was being studied in committee, many witnesses indicated that, even though they supported the intent behind the proposal, they were concerned that it might inadvertently penalize victims of intimate partner violence who end up killing their intimate partner in response to that violence. They wanted to make sure that the bill would not apply to persons acting in self-defence.

In response to these concerns, the bill was amended to include a safeguard: Intimate partner murders would be treated as first-degree murders only if the evidence showed that the murder was committed “in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct”.

A pattern of controlling or coercive conduct is defined in the coercion or control offence proposed in Bill C‑16. This offence was carefully designed so that it would protect victims and not be used to their detriment. It includes indicators of persistent violence that help determine who the true aggressor is in any given situation, including fatal cases of intimate partner violence, since we must consider the alleged offence in its broader context, rather than focusing only on isolated incidents of violence.

This will make it possible to distinguish between acts of abusive violence and those committed in self-defence. In short, evidence will be required to prove that the person who killed their intimate partner was also experiencing a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour. This could help to ensure that victims who kill their violent partner would not be considered to have committed first-degree murder because these victims did not necessarily have control over their partners. The goal is to protect the victims in such situations.

This amendment is therefore very important. It also seeks to protect women and is a direct response to the concerns raised by several witnesses in committee. It also complements the provisions of Bill C-16 related to femicide.

Second, Bill C-225 was amended to require the sentencing court to consider imposing a life sentence in cases involving the manslaughter of an intimate partner where the offender committed the offence in a context of coercive control. This amendment complements the one relating to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, which I just talked about, by ensuring that, even when the homicide of an intimate partner does not meet the legal threshold for murder, the law still treats it with the utmost seriousness.

Like the amendment related to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, this amendments seeks to protect victims who kill their violent partner in response to the violence they are experiencing. This provision also complements one of the aggravating factors related to manslaughter in cases of femicide already set out in Bill C-16.

The amended bill also includes a number of consequential amendments related to this amendment regarding the offence of manslaughter in the context of intimate partner violence. For example, if a court were to impose a life sentence in such a case, it would also be required to impose a parole ineligibility period of 10 to 25 years.

This amendment ensures that manslaughter committed by an intimate partner is treated in a manner that is comparable to second-degree murder for the purpose of the parole ineligibility provisions when an offender is sentenced to life imprisonment. In doing so, it recognizes that those who take the life of an intimate partner in a context of coercive control bear greater responsibility.

Lastly, Bill C‑225 was also amended to create a new offence specific to intimate partner violence that—

[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 today and address a very important, substantive piece of legislation. I look at it with a holistic approach wherein we have witnessed over the last 10 months, since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we wanted to make the whole crime file a part of that first-year agenda going forward. That is one of the reasons we saw substantial pieces of legislation come before the House dealing with the issue of crime. Whether it is things that take place in homes and in our communities or things that garner a great deal of national attention, we want people to feel safe and secure in their communities, and we recognize that the federal government has a very important role to ensure that this is taking place.

That is why, when we take a look at the bill that we have before us today, Bill C-225, which the member appropriately named “Bailey's law”, Bailey McCourt hits the heartstrings of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. How can one not formulate an opinion when they hear some of the details of that particular situation that occurred? It was very tragic and very horrific in its nature, in the consequences and impact on the family unit, the friends, the community and so many others. As such, maybe a good starting point would be to extend our prayers and best wishes to the family and those who are so familiar and have had to endure what has taken place since the murder of Bailey McCourt. I say that with all sincerity, believing that every member of the Liberal caucus, and every member of the House of Commons, recognizes the tragedy of an individual who had suffered and ultimately was assaulted. The perpetrator was arrested, but then released on bail, and ultimately the consequence was a death.

Fast-forward to the legislation that is before us today. This is why I indicated that I do believe it is appropriate to identify this piece of legislation with an individual whom people can easily relate to.

I posed a question in regard to the committee stage, to the introducer of the legislation, and I did that because I think it is important for us to recognize that private members' bills, and ours, can make a very positive difference in our communities. I use this legislation as an example, where something was brought to the floor of the House and ultimately went to a standing committee, and because we had a consensus that was building among different political entities, we were able to improve the legislation to the degree that it is getting support. Areas of concern were addressed, amendments were brought forward and, ultimately, we now have before us legislation that is not going to have an issue with being able to pass. The committee structure can work, and this is a good example of that.

Further to that, because we have a system that allows private members' business to ultimately be processed in a timely fashion, we know that legislation will pass and that time allocation, closure or unanimous consent, none of those things are necessary, because we have a process that enables bills to pass, and justifiably so.

We talked about coercive control and about how the Prime Minister and the government have talked about a new offence that would actually prohibit the pattern of coercive and controlling conduct, which is one of the reasons we brought forward Bill C-16. There is a lot of substance within Bill C-16 that would be good for our communities, just as there is in Bill C-225, which deals with the very important and sensitive issue of domestic violence.

If members were here for the second reading of the bill, as I was, we heard about domestic violence and coercive control, which is a dominant factor. We have heard this constantly over the years. The issue of stalking constantly comes up. We can think of the emotional and psychological abuse that is involved when domestic violence is taking place. However, often things like economic abuse are overlooked, which is a very real and tangible factor.

We often cite physical abuse, because we can see when a spouse has been physically abused, often to the degree that they have to seek medical attention, and things such as sexual abuse. However, more and more, one of the things that continues to grow, which we need to deal with as a legislature, is the issue of cyber-violence and the impact that cyber-violence has on our communities, especially with the issue of sexual intimidation and intimidation in many other forms, such as blackmail and extortion. The impact on the physical and mental well-being of victims is very severe.

The legislation before us today would elevate the consequence of domestic abuse, and I see that as a positive thing. During second reading of the bill, I talked more about the substance of the legislation, suggesting we would be open not only to what the member was trying to address but also to bringing other initiatives into the issue of domestic abuse and ensuring that there is an appropriate consequence to actions that are taken.

On the issue of femicide, I made reference to Bill C-16. “Femicide” is a term that is not well known, but I believe it will become better known in the years ahead, because we recognize it is something, through Bill C-16, that should be elevated to first-degree murder when put into the context of sexual violence and human trafficking. These are the types of initiatives that, if we take the same approach at committee or at debate on substantive legislation that goes beyond Bill C-225, would lead to women, in particular, as well as children and members of society, to being better protected.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that we should take a more holistic approach when looking at the legislation we have before us. Let us get the same sort of co-operation here that we witnessed in committee. Let us add strength to our legislation. The Prime Minister has provided us a substantial suite. Let us see if we can act together and make our communities a safer place to call home.