Bill C-16

Protecting Victims Act

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

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

Justice

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are with Darren, his family and his community.

I will just assure my colleague opposite that we are working with victims, survivor groups and those representing families in order to strengthen our parole process. This is an issue, as I have indicated in the past, that requires collaboration among all the parties. This is not to be politicized.

It is important that we work together toward strengthening victims' rights. That is exactly what we did with Bill C-16 that passed this spring. It is the same thing we did with Bill C-14 on sentencing and bail reform.

Criminal Code

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many of us know the quiet satisfaction of spending a weekend puttering around fixing things: repairing a broken window sash, resetting a shifting stone in the garden, repainting a door or securing fresh glass. However, when the paint covers graffiti on a mosque or gurdwara, when the stones being reset are headstones knocked over in a churchyard or when the door being repaired is the one set fire to at a synagogue and the glass has bullet holes in it, there is nothing quiet and nothing satisfying about it.

Churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras, mandirs, kingdom halls, shrines, temples and meeting houses, for people of faith, are places to pray, but they are also where our communities go for weddings, funerals, Scouts, craft sales, concerts, recovery groups, community meetings, food banks, pancake breakfasts and commemorations of all kinds. When these places are damaged for any reason, our community lives are interrupted and many people feel a great sense of anxiety and unease.

Right now, the Criminal Code has a specific offence for mischief against religious property, but only when the Crown can prove that the mischief was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. If the police know that somebody smashed the windows of a synagogue or deliberately damaged or disrupted the use of a church but they cannot prove why that person did it, the case generally falls back into the category of ordinary mischief and often escapes prosecution entirely, which is the answer to my hon. colleague's question about why appeals are not the answer and discretion for judges is not sufficient for this kind of incident. This is the gap.

Motive can be very difficult to prove. A person can smash every window in a mosque and say nothing. They can damage a church during a break-in or make a synagogue unusable without leaving a manifesto or shouting a slur. However, it is not ordinary mischief when that place of worship is used for the community writ large. It is extraordinary mischief, and in proposing this bill, my colleague is seeking to close that gap for communities such as mine where there is simply a shortage of places where large crowds can gather.

Bill C-255 says that the place itself deserves special protection. If a person deliberately commits mischief against a place of worship, the Crown would not also have to prove that what was going on inside that person's head was hatred towards the specific group that runs the place, before the special penalty regime proposed by the bill would apply, because the harm to these places is not purely the dollar value of the damage.

If someone breaks a $1,500 window in an ordinary commercial building, “ordinary mischief” may describe the outcome perfectly well. However, if somebody breaks the same window in a place of worship on a Saturday night, the congregation cannot hold services Sunday morning, a bake sale cannot happen that afternoon and the AA group cannot meet in the evening. The consequences of damage to these buildings extend well beyond that pane of glass. Bill C-255 would fill the space between ordinary vandalism and a provable hate crime by saying that deliberately attacking a certain kind of building deserves special treatment in the Criminal Code even when prosecutors cannot prove the offender's motive.

Now, listening to my colleagues, despite support from the Canadian Police Association for the objectives of the bill, the government's answer to all this appears to be that Bill C-255 is redundant. I do not think that is an adequate answer. The various offences passed by the Carney Liberals this session deal inadequately with intimidation and obstruction. Blocking a door is not breaking a window, and intimidating worshippers is not burning down a hall.

Bill C-9 created a general hate crime offence, but that offence still requires proof of hate motivation. None of these provisions does what Bill C-255 would do: create a specific property mischief offence for buildings used widely in our communities for so much more than religious services, which would not depend on proving motive.

As for the comments by my colleagues about mandatory minimum penalties, the government claims to have removed that issue as an obstacle through its constitutional safety valve in Bill C-16.

Since 2014, the Criminal Code has treated mischief against a war memorial, cenotaph or cemetery as its own offence, with penalties that are very similar, identical in fact, to those being proposed by my colleagues. Nobody has to prove that the vandal hated veterans, or the people buried there, if they desecrate a cenotaph. Parliament decided that the character of the property itself justified special treatment. Bill C-255 takes essentially the same approach to buildings used as places of worship.

The Liberals' current approach to stopping damage to these buildings is not working. Churches continue to burn, synagogues continue to be vandalized, and mosques and gurdwaras continue to be defaced, all at an alarming rate. According to Statistics Canada's March 30 release, police reported that hate crimes targeting religion rose 154% between 2020 and 2023, from 530 incidents to a jaw-dropping 1,345 incidents, and remained essentially unchanged through 2024. Mischief accounted for 59% of them, but those are police-reported hate crime statistics. Cases that are not identified by police as hate-motivated are not captured by those numbers, so the very cases that Bill C-255 is trying to reach, where the damage is obvious but there is no evidence establishing a hate motive, are difficult to see in the statistics.

In their speeches today, my colleagues have raised some technical issues with Bill C-255 that deserve to be addressed. Whether compensation floors should apply where the damage is minor is a fair question for committee. So are questions about mandatory penalties and how they would operate across the full range of conduct caught by the offence. However, I would remind the government members that they have argued that Bill C-16's safety valve addresses this problem. They cannot have it both ways.

The member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek brought this bill forward because she wants to protect these places for religious and secular Canadians alike. In communities like mine, where places to gather are in short supply, this is a worthy objective. If the government members are truly interested in the collaboration they so often tell the House is necessary at this time, there is an obvious opportunity here for them to work with her to make this bill satisfactory to all parties.

I was at a wonderful little community craft market just this weekend in the hall of St. Andrew's church, run by Volunteer Nanaimo. This craft market is totally secular and provides a terrific benefit to our community. There is a tea vendor and soaps, crafts, knitted baby clothes and tea towels, Halloween and Christmas decorations, kids' crafts and one business with two budding entrepreneurs selling their 3D-printed wares: a little boy, who is six, overseen by his sister, who is seven. There is even homemade nail polish. Every year, I get my husband a new winter hat from this particular market, and this weekend was no exception. I got him a soft forest green knitted cap that will keep him warm this winter.

We should remember who we are protecting when we protect these buildings. Certainly, we are protecting people of faith, their prayers, weddings and funerals, but we are also protecting AA meetings on Tuesday nights and food banks on Wednesday mornings. A mosque may run a youth program or collect food for families who have never set foot in its prayer hall. Gurdwaras feed people regardless of faith. We do not have to believe in what happens at the altar, the bimah or the prayer mat to have an interest in protecting these buildings.

When someone deliberately attacks these places, the law should look at what was done and where, not require prosecutors to prove motive before an offence with meaningful consequences applies. The current approach has not filled the gap. We see ample evidence of that on the news on a regular basis, but what we do not see often enough are convictions. That is the reason to examine Bill C-255 seriously, amend what needs amending and see whether Parliament can produce something stronger together for the benefit of all our communities.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

moved that Bill C-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief—religious property), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, having served in this place over numerous Parliaments, I know what an honour it is to have the opportunity not only to introduce a private member's bill but to have it debated at second reading. I am very pleased to be able to rise today and speak to Bill C-255, the protecting Canada's places of worship act.

Over the past three years, the Holy Rosary Church in Edmonton, Alberta, was the target of three acts of vandalism. On December 23, 2023, a nativity scene in front of the church was set on fire. On September 18, 2024, two individuals spray-painted a church security camera before being startled and running away. On September 20, 2024, a man was filmed spray-painting the church's statue of Pope John Paul II.

Last year, the Ar-Rehman Islamic Centre in Mississauga, Ontario, was vandalized when an individual with a skateboard smashed the front glass doors of the building. In January 2023, the Shri Gauri Shankar Mandir temple in Brampton, Ontario, was defaced when someone spray-painted anti-Hindu messaging on its exterior walls. In April 2025, the Khalsa Diwan Society gurdwara in Vancouver, B.C., was targeted by vandals who spray-painted exterior walls and parking lot perimeters with graffiti. On August 2, 2025, a man wrote anti-Semitic messages on the Congregation Emanu-El synagogue in Victoria, B.C.

Sadly, I could go on and on with more examples.

In 2015, Statistics Canada reported that there were 66 cases of hate-motivated mischief relating to property used by identifiable groups. In 2025, there were 263. The current peak was in 2024, when there were 274 incidents. This represents a more than 300% increase over the past 10 years.

In light of this trend, I introduced Bill C-255, which would amend the Criminal Code as it relates to mischief to religious property.

As I began to develop this bill, I discussed with my caucus colleagues and subsequently every stakeholder I met with how my sole purpose in introducing this bill was to provide additional tools to protect faith communities across Canada. I was, and remain, convinced that this is not a partisan issue, and that this bill and the broader issue of protecting places of worship in Canada are things that members of Parliament on both sides of this place can and should support.

The freedom of religion and belief is an important fundamental freedom. It is one that the authors of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms understood.

All across our nation, places of worship, including synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, mosques, churches and many more, serve as vital centres in our communities. They are gathering places that provide hope and solace, a sense of meaning and a place of belonging for millions of Canadians. Many of us regularly attend a place of worship and gather with our fellow adherents for fellowship, to worship and to practise our faith.

Both as a Canadian and as a Christian, it distresses me to see a gurdwara, temple, mosque or synagogue vandalized just as much as it does when a church is vandalized. As a person whose faith is an integral part of who I am, I understand the fear and the feeling of vulnerability that would grip someone whose place of worship has been defaced. Finally, as a parliamentarian, I believe I owe it to Canadians, Canadian families and our communities to defend the protection of our freedom to worship in our own way.

By amending the Criminal Code to enhance the protection of places of worship, we send a clear message to faith communities and, indeed, all Canadians that we value this freedom and that vandalizing places of worship is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Let me outline how the protecting Canada's places of worship act proposes to change the Criminal Code of Canada.

First, and I think most consequentially, the bill proposes to eliminate the need for police and prosecutors to prove that a crime of mischief committed against a place of worship was motivated by hate. Section 430 of the Criminal Code addresses crimes of mischief. While subsection 430(4.1) addresses crimes of mischief relating to religious property, educational institutions and other properties, it applies only to the commission of mischief if it is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. Bill C-255 would not eliminate any of these sections; rather, it would add new subsection 430(4.12) to address mischief relating to places of worship that does not require proof that the vandalism was hate motivated.

It is structured this way for two reasons.

First, there is no reason or need to remove the crime of hate-motivated mischief directed against religious property.

Second, mostly by way of background, I was working with the legislative drafters throughout the summer and early fall of 2025 to develop a bill to address this issue. When Bill C-9 was first introduced in this place on September 19, 2025, it proposed repealing subsections 430(4.1) and (4.101) of the Criminal Code, which I was planning to amend. Therefore, I rescued the definition of a place of worship from subsection 430(4.101) as the drafters and I had every reason to believe it was being eliminated through the government's bill.

As we are all aware, over time, Bill C-9 was amended, and subsections 430(4.1) and (4.101) remained in place. I am glad they did, as I believe they provide much-needed protection to property used by identifiable groups.

While there are similarities between what is proposed in this bill and what remains in the Criminal Code after Bill C-9 was eventually adopted, the differences are consequential and clear. Removing the requirement that police and prosecutors prove that a crime of mischief was hate motivated would make it easier for police and prosecutors to obtain convictions. Bias, prejudice or hate can be difficult to prove. A video camera can capture the evidence to prove who did it, but what it cannot capture is motivation.

In my opinion, it should not matter what motivated the act. The impact on the victim is still the same. In fact, I would argue that the victims of these crimes would find it more reassuring that someone has been charged and convicted for the offence than they would if they were told the perpetrator was not charged because the police could not prove the suspect's motivation.

The second change this bill proposes to make to the Criminal Code is to implement new penalties for mischief directed at places of worship. Similar to the provision in the Criminal Code that outlines punishments for mischief directed at war memorials, this bill proposes mandatory compensation to the victim for the first offence and mandatory minimal jail time, as well as compensation to the victim, for subsequent offences.

I want to state up front that I am aware that the concept of compensation to the property owner, which I am proposing to add, is novel. The Criminal Code includes provisions which mandate fines. However, fines are paid to the Crown, and in cases of mischief committed against places of worship, the Crown is not the victim. The Criminal Code also extends discretion to judges to impose restitution in their sentencing decisions. So as not to conflate a judge's discretionary restitution with a mandatory requirement, with the assistance of our amazing legislative drafters, I termed the monetary penalty proposed in the bill as compensation to “the property owner”. This is not a duplication but an intentional differentiation. Practically, the process of compensating the property owner would function the same as or similar to the process followed by the courts when a judge imposes a sentence of restitution.

I would now like to address how I arrived at the amount of $1,000 for mandatory compensation.

First, this amount aligns with the $1,000 fine imposed in subsection 430(4.11) of the Criminal Code, dealing with mischief directed at war memorials.

Second, the cost to the victim to professionally remove spray paint or replace broken windows or a door is very likely to be at least $1,000, if not more. It is my belief that a minimum of $1,000 is reasonable and would not be unduly punitive to the perpetrator of the crime.

Lastly, the wording in the bill states that compensation is to be “not less than $1,000”, which is again consistent with subsection 430(4.11). This means that a judge would have the discretion to impose a greater amount of compensation to the property owner should it be reasonable, given all of the extenuating circumstances.

To wrap up this portion of my remarks addressing the proposed changes within Bill C-255, I would like to highlight the recent coming into force of Bill C-16. Setting aside my personal views and lack of support for that bill, its passage, I believe, has eliminated the need to defend the mandatory minimums as prescribed in Bill C-255.

In closing, I hope my fellow parliamentarians from all parties will support Bill C-255. Reports of places of worship being vandalized have become all too frequent. They are so frequent that they have become commonplace. It is critical that we address this issue. Regardless of whether or not we are part of a faith-based community, I believe we should not ignore the increase in cases of mischief directed at places of worship.

As parliamentarians, the ability to amend legislation is one of our primary tools to improve the safety, security and, ultimately, lives of Canadians. By passing this bill, we would be signalling to criminals that their actions have real consequences. We would be signalling to victims that we recognize that acts of mischief are deeply hurtful, fear-inducing and costly. We would also be signalling to Canadians that we continue to value our fundamental freedom of religion or belief. Finally, we would be providing law enforcement with a new tool that would make their job of protecting society easier.

On that important note, I am pleased to advise my colleagues in this place that the Canadian Police Association, which represents 60,000 frontline civilian and sworn police personnel across Canada, stated in a recent letter that it supports the objectives of Bill C-255. It said Bill C-255 reflects an important principle. Offences involving religious property should be treated seriously. Those responsible should be held meaningfully accountable, and the people and organizations left to repair the damage should not be forgotten. The association particularly welcomes the bill's emphasis on compensation for the property owners, as well as stronger consequences for repeat offenders.

I have met with organizations across the spectrum of faiths in Canada and from different regions, and to date, everyone I have met with has supported this bill. Between now and the second hour of debate, I encourage all members to meet with faith communities in their riding to talk about the measures proposed in this bill.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe this issue is not a partisan one. I believe it is a small but important change to the Criminal Code that could make a big difference. I look forward to the debate and to any suggestions about how this bill might be improved upon. I understand that sometimes compromise is necessary to make progress.

I thank members for their time and attention, and I look forward to answering any questions my colleagues might have.

Public Safety

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, the bail and sentencing reform act, the combatting hate act, the protecting victims act and the act respecting lawful access, every single one of these pieces of legislation strengthens our public safety and enhances our national security. They have been supported by our national security apparatus and by every major police organization in the country. The only group of people who have not supported these pieces of legislation are members of the Conservative Party of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians are aware, the Liberals are talk, talk, talk, but no results, but people in Richmond Hill want to know when they will actually feel safe in their own homes. Conservatives have called for tougher bail and sentencing rules, and real consequences for violent repeat offenders, burglars, car thieves, extortionists and violent criminals, to keep Canadians safe. Instead, the Liberals are doing the opposite. This spring, they made mandatory minimum prison time optional with Bill C-16, and earlier this year, each and every Liberal voted down our Conservative jail not bail act.

When will Canadians finally see a justice system where victims are not the ones feeling like they are being held in house arrest?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, earlier this year we passed an amount of transformational legislation that speaks to criminal justice reform. First and foremost, we have Bill C-14, which strengthens bail as well as sentencing, and Bill C-16, which ensures the rights of victims are protected. We will continue to support public safety and invest in our frontline officers, including hiring 1,000 new RCMP personnel, as well as 1,000 CBSA officers.

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-209 and the government's work to protect young people from online harms as technology evolves in front of us.

I also want to begin by thanking and recognizing Senator Miville-Dechêne for bringing this initiative to Parliament and for her continued work to better protect children online. I remember the previous iteration of this bill in the last Parliament. I enjoyed very much trying to see how we could learn from what she was seeking to put forward in that bill and how that might inform the work that we were doing.

It is very clear that ensuring young people are safe online is a priority we all share in the House. It is an important thing for us to keep top of mind. As the father of two young boys, it is something I certainly think about every day.

Let me say first that the government supports the objectives of Bill S-209. Children should not be able to access content, including pornographic content, that is inappropriate for their age online. Period. At the same time, our government understands that protecting children from pornographic content is not just about separating it from the protection of their personal information. Bill C-34, the safe social media act, and Bill C-36, the protecting privacy and consumer data act, seek to address both of these critical concerns thoughtfully and place them in the hands of a regulator that would be empowered to protect Canadians online. Indeed, much of what was in Bill S-209 previously has inspired some of this work.

Digital platforms play an important role in the lives of many young Canadians, helping them stay connected to family and friends, access educational resources and discover new interests. At the same time, young people are sometimes exposed to online content that is inappropriate for their age. Recognizing both the benefits of digital technologies and the need to better protect children online, the government introduced Bill C-34, the safe social media act, and Bill C-36, an act to enact the protecting privacy and consumer data act, to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make amendments to other acts, in June 2026. Together, these initiatives establish clear rules that promote online safety, strengthen privacy protections and increase accountability and trust across the digital ecosystem.

Bill C-34 addresses directly the risks when children are exposed to pornographic content online. It would require operators of regulated services to implement age assurance measures to mitigate the risk that children would be exposed to adult content on their service.

Bill C-34 would also put strong protections in place to ensure that children's personal information is safeguarded, that it is destroyed once it is no longer needed and that any age verification or estimation measures do not unreasonably or disproportionately limit users' freedom of expression.

Young people can be harmed not only by the content they encounter online but also when their images are misused to create harmful deepfakes. We all know that generative AI has made this material easier to create and spread without consent. Our government is tackling this emerging threat by strengthening protections for victims and holding those responsible to account.

Our government has already taken strong action to address these issues through Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which expands the Criminal Code definition of an “intimate image” to include sexualized deepfakes and ensures that those who generate, distribute or threaten to distribute such content are held accountable.

Bill C-34 seeks to build on this work by tackling these issues at their source before they have the chance to spread online. Under this bill, operators of regulated chatbot services would be required to put measures in place to mitigate the risk of a chatbot communicating harmful content, which includes generating non-consensual intimate images and content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor.

As technology continues to evolve, online safety and privacy are becoming increasingly interconnected. Protecting young people requires us to address both.

That is why, along with Bill C-34, the government introduced Bill C-36, which represents the most significant modernization of Canada's Privacy Act as it applies to the private sector in over 25 years. Bill C-36 would strengthen individual protections, specifically by recognizing privacy as a fundamental right, strengthening children's privacy and creating a strong right to delete or vanish, to protect the privacy and reputation of Canadians online. These are all challenges that did not exist when the current privacy legislation was enacted.

For children, this matters. Age verification generally relies on the use of personal information. Bill C‑34 sets out privacy safeguards that age verification measures must respect. Bill C‑36 strengthens protections for children's personal information more broadly.

Together, Bill C‑34 and Bill C‑36 would also create a permanent digital safety and privacy commission. The commission's mandate would be to promote online safety in Canada while protecting Canadians' personal information in the marketplace.

Bill C‑34 and Bill C‑36 set out these protections, which are backed by robust enforcement regimes. For example, under the protecting privacy and consumer data act proposed in Bill C‑36, the commission would have the authority to issue compliance orders or impose substantial administrative monetary penalties on regulated entities that fail to meet their obligations to protect Canadians' privacy.

The bill also requires the regulatory body to consider the best interests of children in all policy and enforcement decisions. This means stronger protections for children's data, clear rules for organizations that target or serve young users, and an ongoing commitment—

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, since Canada's new government came into place last year, it has put in an unprecedented level of criminal justice reform across the system. It starts with ensuring we have stronger sentencing as well as bail reform with Bill C-14. We are protecting the rights of victims with Bill C-16. We are also ensuring that those who are combatting hate are supported with the tools they need. We will continue to invest in law enforcement and ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.

Justice

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let us just go back over the last six months and see the record of the Conservative Party of Canada. On Bill C-8, the party opposite dragged its feet and opposed the bill initially. Regarding Bill C-9, on protecting and combatting hate, the Conservatives fought tooth and nail right until the end and blocked this legislation that is going to help vulnerable communities. On Bill C-14, which is strengthening bail and sentencing, as well as Bill C-16, on the victims' rights, again, the Conservatives dragged their feet. That is the—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely incorrect. It has not been the Conservatives' role in the current Parliament to keep Canadians safe. That is the job of the government, and that is the job we have been doing. All they have done all along is delay. They delayed lawful access. They voted against Bill C-16, the protecting victims' rights bill. They also voted against strengthening hate crime laws in this country. They are not for public safety. They are for letting criminals go free.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to remember Todd Baylis, who was killed in the line of duty in 1994. His bravery and sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Our government is committed to strengthening our criminal justice system and protecting victims' rights. That is why we passed Bill C-14, to strengthen bail and sentencing, as well as Bill C-16, to strengthen victims' rights. I continue to engage with the Toronto Police Association to ensure that we strengthen our laws.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, since taking office last year, we have undertaken unprecedented amounts of legislative change to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. Let me just enumerate some of them: Bill C-14 strengthens bail as well as sentencing. Bill C-16 ensures that victims' rights are protected. Bill C-9 ensures the safety and security of communities. In addition, we are investing in law enforcement as well as the Canada Border Services Agency. We will do everything we can to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.

Justice

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, coercive control is a pattern of abusive behaviour used to isolate and intimidate, often before or alongside physical violence. In every one of our communities today, women are being subjected to humiliation, isolation and financial and verbal abuse, which often escalate to physical and sexual violence.

Our government is taking action. Can the Minister of Justice tell the House how Bill C-16 would better protect our constituents from coercive control?

Gender-Based Violence

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge all the work done by my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, as chair of the women's caucus.

Our government is working hard to prevent gender-based violence before it even happens. Bill C‑16 makes important reforms to the Criminal Code, particularly by creating new offences for femicide and coercive or controlling conduct. Together, these reforms will result in a justice system that responds earlier and faster and provides greater protection to victims of gender-based violence.

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, these are actually quotes from emails that come from the Conservative Party of Canada. Here is another one, and members will like this one: “the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom.” Wow, that is truly amazing. It states, “Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” It goes on.

This one has, “Donate now” on the email. Here is the point: I raise these emails because that is the motivating factor when it comes to the issue of crime and making our communities safer for the Conservative Party of Canada today. The emails kind of demonstrate it. When the Prime Minister, the government and 170-plus Liberal MPs are bringing forward legislation and trying to push legislation through the House that would actually make our communities safer, the Conservative Party is filibustering and trying to prevent the legislation from passing.

Even with legislation that has a wide spectrum of support from provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and the constituents we represent, the Conservatives say no. They are trying to prevent legislation from passing that would make our communities safer. I say shame on the Conservatives for not realizing the damage they are causing. I do not blame each and every member of the party, obviously. I believe it is the leadership from within the Conservative Party that is actually driving the Conservative Party's agenda today. I am telling my friends across the way to look at the legislation. They do not have to believe everything their back room or the leader's office tells them. The bill is good, sound public policy.

I wish I had enough time to talk about Bill C-16. I cannot believe the Conservative Party is going to vote against Bill C-16, which would reinstate mandatory minimums and would bring the issue of femicide onto the table. That is something that other countries around the world have not done. It would also deal with coercive behaviour.

There is so much substance that the government is bringing on crime, in order to make our communities safer. The Conservative Party of Canada has been an absolute disaster on the issue. In fact, it has been spreading misinformation to try to mislead Canadians. I say to the Conservatives that it is time at least some of them started rethinking what the leadership of the Conservative Party is saying and—