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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C‑16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C‑16.

Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C‑16, in Clause 28, be amended by deleting lines 9 and 10 on page 18.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

I am happy to rise today on Bill C-16, as this is a very far-reaching bill.

My colleague and I have studied this bill very carefully and sought to amend it significantly while it was reviewed by the justice and human rights committee. The amendments were submitted by women's legal organizations, including NAWL and LEAF, and Senator Kim Pate. I thank them for their participation in trying to strengthen the bill.

As noted in the title, the government claims that the bill is about protecting women and children, but this is very difficult because, I have to say, although the bill is a response to violence, it fails to actually address what women's organizations and gender-diverse organizations have been wanting: more money and more support in trying to prevent violence before it occurs. It was those very amendments that were submitted to try to improve the bill, based on the advice of organizations representing women and gender-diverse people, nearly all of which the Liberals and the Conservatives together voted down. It is unfortunate.

It is also important to note, and make people aware of, the failing record of the Liberal government when it comes to upholding the safety and well-being of women, children and gender-diverse people. Instead of prioritizing this crisis facing women and children across the country, the government has been fast-tracking legislation that undermines our safety.

In fact, just yesterday, the CCPA published a report on behalf of the National Family and Survivors Circle demonstrating that the Liberals' failure to adequately fund programs surrounding the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, and their failure to advance any progress toward implementing the 231 calls for justice, is actually placing indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks in more difficult and violent situations.

This is very personal to me because the very riding of Winnipeg Centre has been noted as “ground zero” for the ongoing genocide of indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks.

This is the very government that right now is stalling Bill S‑2 at committee, stalling on taking sexism out of the Indian Act, sexism that has been perpetrated against indigenous women, something that was noted by the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal at the UN as one of the resulting impacts of what it called the “ongoing genocide [of] Indigenous Peoples” in Canada.

We know that since the pandemic, rates of gender-based violence have actually increased, not decreased, and the government has allowed, in the middle of an ongoing crisis of violence, prevention programs to expire by doing things like cutting funding to the Department of Women and Gender Equality. Meanwhile, this year's child poverty report by Campaign 2000 states that child poverty has increased for the third consecutive year and has more than doubled since 2020, reaching 10.7%, or 802,000 children. At this rate, the report says, it will take almost 400 years to eliminate child poverty in Canada.

It is one the reasons that since being elected, I have tried to fight for a guaranteed livable basic income to be implemented. We know that income guarantees in this country are not livable, and we know that women's organizations across the country have indicated that a guaranteed livable basic income is one of the most foundational programs that the government could put in place to assist with the elevating crisis of violence against indigenous women and girls, all women, in this country.

Instead of finding programs or investing in prevention programs, the Liberals have joined the Conservatives in advancing carceral approaches to public safety that fail to address the roots of the crisis of violence against women and children in this country. Investing in prevention before the crime happens, before the femicide happens, is something that would create meaningful change so that we would never have to hear about the unfortunate circumstance of violence that occurs because of a lack of investment in violence prevention programs. It is really sad that the government only wants to deal with the crisis after the fact, after the murder or the violence has taken place. We need to invest in prevention, and that is something that has been echoed strongly by women's organizations and gender-diverse organizations across the country. Investing at the latter end without dealing with prevention means we will not see, unfortunately, a significant decrease in violence.

The NDP has always taken seriously the safety and well-being of women, gender-diverse people and children. We welcome a formal acknowledgement of femicide in the Canadian Criminal Code. We are advancing solutions to get at the root of the problem we face rather than simply dealing with it after it is too late.

Take, for example, what I worked on with families and advocates with the implementation of the red dress alert system, something the government fails to fund, to ensure that should somebody go missing, they must be found. Where is the funding? Where is the support for that initiative?

One of the critical problems that women's organizations brought up, which is under the purview of the Minister of AI, is the problem of deepfakes being used and benefiting media giants like Elon Musk through AI platforms like Grok. These sexualized deepfakes are appalling and violate the safety, well-being and fundamental rights of those impacted. That is why the NDP listened to researchers and legal experts from women's organizations who strongly suggested that the language surrounding deepfakes in Bill C-16 be strengthened, since there are currently loopholes that let big tech companies off the hook and allow platforms like Grok that promote sexualized deepfakes to continue doing so.

How did the Liberal government members vote on this amendment? They sided with big tech companies, failing to introduce regulations that would actually prevent sexualized deepfakes.

I would like to note that in March, I requested information in an Order Paper question concerning meetings the Minister of AI has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI. Can members guess how many meetings he has taken? He has taken zero meetings with women and gender-diverse people.

We welcome the inclusion of femicide into—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to cut off the member. The time for debate is concluded.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-16 as very much an initiative that recognizes, as the member also recognized, the issues of femicide and coercive actions. This is something that has been, in my opinion, long overdue. I think Canada is demonstrating strong leadership on that front. It would also reinstate a number of mandatory minimums with a safety clause put in so it would be charter-compliant. These would be substantial changes to protect and continue to support women of all ages and backgrounds in Canada.

I am wondering if the member could share her thoughts on the overall principle of the legislation we are debating today.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation would not deal with the root cause. It would deal with the violence after it occurs.

In my riding, there is a crisis of gender-based violence against women and gender-diverse folks. In the midst of it, there has been a massive cutback in funding to keep people safe before the murder or violence occurs. The government, if it is serious about community safety and about dealing with the crisis of gender-based violence, will listen to the experts and will stop divesting from programs and funding to keep us safe.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg Centre for raising this important issue in the House today regarding Bill C‑16. We sat together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know that she cares deeply about this issue.

I also want to thank her for pointing out that services have to form part of a continuum, and that the situation of women has to be addressed proactively, especially their financial situation, their vulnerability, and how these factors can keep them trapped in a cycle of violence.

My question is as follows. We recently conducted studies on the rise of homelessness among women, especially indigenous women who have a hard time finding housing. The witnesses also talked to us about the importance of applying the 230 recommendations arising from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. What does my colleague think about that?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, call for justice 4.5 calls for the immediate implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income as one of the key calls for justice to deal with the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls.

I want to remind the Liberals that they agreed to implement the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, but where are they? They are nowhere, and they have responded to only three. Why do they not work on that if they are worried about dealing with the crisis of femicide in the country, and invest in services and support that actually keep women and gender-diverse people safe?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of very important points and amendments that should have been considered but were not, at the committee.

I wonder, because she was running out of time to finish her comments, if she could further elaborate on some other issues that she thinks members of Parliament should hear.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about deepfakes. In spite of the fact that the minister responsible for AI has been asked by several womens organizations and by people impacted by deepfakes, the government has voted to support media giants such as Elon Musk in programs such as Grok. I would like to note that this is a problem under the purview of the minister of AI, who has failed completely to address the widespread concerns and fears of folks across Canada about the social media consequences of AI.

In March of this year, I requested information on the Order Paper question concerning meetings the minister has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI, and I learned that he has taken absolutely zero meetings. Instead, the Liberals have been more concerned with—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, an essential and comprehensive piece of legislation situated on a broader strategy to keep communities safe.

The last time the bill was in the House, our hon. colleagues voted to send it to committee so it could be studied, tested and improved. I am pleased to report that this is precisely what has happened. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has done serious and careful work. Members on all sides heard from witnesses, asked hard questions, proposed amendments and engaged with the substance of the bill in a way that Canadians expect their Parliament to.

The legislation has returned to the chamber today and is stronger for that work. I want to begin by thanking every member of the committee on every side of the aisle for the seriousness they brought to it.

Over several months, the committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received over 60 briefs from survivors of violence, advocates working to end gender-based violence, law enforcement, legal experts, child protection organizations and the provincial and territorial partners that administer justice every day. What was striking was not the disagreement but the breadth of the consensus that something must be done and that the bill would do a great deal of it.

While the bill may have changed in the process, the seriousness of the issue has not. In Canada, a woman is killed every 48 hours. There have been femicides in every part of this country, and behind each one is a family that grieves. I have met many of these families and heard from them first-hand as to the impact it has left on their lives. These are not statistics. They are people who shared our hallways at school, who sat beside us at work, and who were loved.

The protecting victims act would respond to that reality by moving forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge in cases of femicide. It would ensure a first-degree murder charge where murder is committed in an intimate partner setting; where it takes place in the context of a sexual offence; where it is motivated by hatred, including hatred of a person because she is a woman; and where it is preceded by a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

As the Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes put it, the automatic requalification of these homicides as first-degree murder would put an end to the inconsistencies in the current law and finally recognize these killings for what they are: femicides that exist within a continuum of domination. That is the language of people who have studied this violence for decades, and we should listen to them.

We know through extensive engagement with experts and survivors that the pattern of using violence and intimidation to control every aspect of a person's life is one of the strongest predictors that a relationship may turn deadly. By naming this conduct and criminalizing it in its own right, we would give the justice system the ability to intervene before a relationship becomes violent and before violence becomes fatal. This provision would have the power to save lives.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank the members of the status of women committee who have urged action on this for years.

The world does not stand still, and neither can our laws. The protecting victims act would modernize a range of offences to keep pace with the way harm is now inflicted. We would be modernizing the events of criminal harassment to recognize that a person can now be stalked through technology, including the tracking of someone's location through their phone.

We are also confronting the rapid spread of artificial intelligence used to create deepfakes. There is a gap in our law today, and the bill would narrow it by expanding the definition of an intimate image to include images created through artificial intelligence. We would also be criminalizing the threats of distributing sexual explicit images, a tactic regularly used to humiliate and control victims.

That same principle of confronting threats before they become tragedies runs through the child protection measure in the bill. The protecting victims act would expand the definition of a list of offences that threaten our children and would increase maximum penalties for a range of those offences.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has been unequivocal about the stakes. It has told us that online sexual violence against Canadian children, including online luring, has reached unprecedented levels, and that confronting it is not optional. I would ask every member of the House to sit with the word “unprecedented”. We would be legislating not against a hypothetical but against an epidemic of the most reprehensible acts, which is unfolding on devices in the hands of children right now.

I now want to turn to two of the more technical but no less consequential parts of the protecting victims act: mandatory minimum penalties, and delays in our justice system. These are the areas where the committee's scrutiny was most searching, and the bill is better for it. With respect to mandatory minimums, a series of Supreme Court decisions, including the Senneville decision, left real gaps in our law concerning child sexual exploitation and abuse material, among other serious crimes, but the courts also offered guidance on how these gaps could be remedied.

The bill would establish a carefully bounded safety valve, allowing a court, in the rare case where a minimum would be grossly disproportionate, to impose a different penalty that still results in incarceration. It would not simply restore the minimums that were struck down. It would shore up those on our books today that are constitutionally vulnerable. It is a measure that has received support from several parties in the House.

With respect to delays, nearly 10,000 cases in this country have been thrown out for the sole reason that they took too long, thrown out not because an accused was acquitted but because the clock ran out. There is no version of that outcome that feels like justice to a victim who must live in the same community as the person who harmed them. The bill would require the courts to consider remedies other than a stay when the Jordan timelines are at risk, give clearer guidance on which complex cases warrant more time, and streamline the introduction of evidence at trial.

Our law enforcement partners feel this too. The Canadian Police Association described how demoralizing it is for officers to build a complex case over months or years, only to watch it collapse on a timeline divorced from the realities of modern policing. They have called the bill a meaningful step toward restoring confidence in our justice system.

Finally, the protecting victims act would do more to recognize the rights of victims throughout the criminal process. Too often, people who, through no fault of their own, are drawn into a long and difficult proceeding feel lost within it. The bill would build on the Victims Bill of Rights to ensure that victims have the information they are entitled to. Building the voices of victims into this process is essential if we want them to have faith in it.

I would ask the House to hold in mind the words of Kelly Favro of Beyond the Verdict, a survivor advocate who said something during this process that I have not been able to set down. She said that survivors do not have the luxury of waiting until the theatrics in the chamber come to an end. She is right. While we debate, the violence does not pause. A woman is still killed every 48 hours. A child is still being targeted online tonight.

The cost of delay in this file is not measured in sitting days. It is measured in lives. The legislation has earned the support of survivors, advocates, child protection organizations, police associations and provinces. It has been studied, it has been tested, and it has been strengthened. My ask of the House at report stage is simple: Let us not be the reason it waits any longer. Let us adopt the bill at report stage and send it to third reading so we can give Canadians the protections they have asked us for and that they deserve.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an important bill.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Barreau du Québec's response to this bill. The Barreau du Québec agrees with the principles, but it has some reservations. It describes the objectives of protecting against gender-based violence, improving evidentiary procedures and modernizing criminal law as commendable. However, the Barreau du Québec believes that incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that could hinder their analysis, review and practical application.

Could the member comment on that?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to talk to Crown counsel, advocates and members of the bar. However, this government has a mandate to protect Canadians, and we are trying to pursue that mandate as quickly as possible. There are other areas where we are investing, but it is crucial that we update our laws quickly and not stall anymore. Lives are on the line. We heard it from the testimony that witnesses delivered before committee. In my personal opinion, we should not be waiting anymore.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the secretary of state for the description of the bill. I agree fully, and I have agreed fully for 20 years as an aboriginal leader, as an MLA and now as an MP. However, I do have a specific question about the Gladue principle. Would that principle survive, or would it get struck down with this bill?