Debates of Jan. 26th, 2026

University—Rosedale

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Ms. Freeland, member for the electoral district of University—Rosedale, by resignation effective Friday, January 9.

Pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

The House resumed from October 21, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (prior review of treaties by Parliament), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously cannot give the first speech of 2026 without wishing you a happy new year. This will be a very promising year, particularly for Quebec. I think that this will be a very important year in terms of the fate of the Quebec nation. Many of us have just returned from the Parti Québécois's policy convention and we can feel a change in the air.

There was also a palpable buzz at the international level at the beginning of 2026. It began with Donald Trump's invasion of Venezuela, and there was also a speech given at Davos that left quite an impression on people. Will it have a lasting and positive impact? That remains to be seen.

What we are seeing is that the Prime Minister of Canada went first to the Middle East to talk with countries whose concept of human rights and whose economic priorities are sometimes questionable, in my opinion, whether we are talking about Saudi Arabia or Qatar.

Then he went to China. Why go to China if not to sell our soul? It is beyond me. We know what a disastrous impact China has had on the global economy. We know that it takes a very colonial approach to its relations with various countries. It appropriates resources by promising to build infrastructure, but essentially plunders resources in order to appropriate them later. What was Canada doing there? Why did it want to rekindle this relationship? I do not know.

Then the Prime Minister went to Davos. We know where the Prime Minister is coming from. He is part of the great global elite that likes to control the masses and tell them how to think. That is essentially what he reiterated. The global dichotomy has changed. The United States now has a different relationship with Canada because the Prime Minister never followed through on his promises.

The Prime Minister promised to snap his fingers and do something about the tariffs. A year later, relations have never been so frosty. Let me be clear: I have no sympathy for the American president. However, relations with the United States are fundamental. The Prime Minister wants to be able to say that war is coming everywhere, that things have changed and that we must adapt. He even goes so far as to say that if we are not at the table, then we are on the menu. To me, that is a way of provoking our ally to the south, the United States, which is normally our main trading partner. What is Mark Carney up to? Would he have us believe—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member is well aware that members should not be referred to by their first names.

The member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister have us believe that we need to ally ourselves with Europe for a war? Who are we at war with, the United States? We could very well lose everything. The sense of security we enjoy in Canada is clearly directly linked to the United States and our continental approach. That needs to be reflected in our trade relations. A partnership with China risks provoking the United States, likely resulting in surtaxes on our purchases, which the U.S. has been threatening for a year. I think we could all have done without that. It will have an impact on the trade agreements covered by this bill.

On that note, I want to mention the leadership of the Bloc Québécois, which is trying to bring a little more transparency, a little more democracy, a little more accountability into the picture. Foreign policy and international policy cannot be rooted in emotions. We have seen that too often. We see what Donald Trump is doing and the damage it is causing. It is impacting all of our industries. Instead of constantly looking for solutions, why not strengthen our relations with the United States and many others?

What we do know is that Canada has more than 4,400 international treaties of all kinds. These are treaties, agreements, protocols, conventions and amendment agreements to existing treaties. They impact many aspects of people's lives, like taxation, investments, expropriations, environmental protection, human rights and labour rights. That is what is in these treaties. The Bloc Québécois wants to ensure that these treaties are tabled systematically in the House of Commons and that there is a period of at least 21 days after tabling before they are ratified so that the House has an opportunity to consider them. In the interest of transparency, which is sorely lacking in this government, the Bloc Québécois also wants these documents to be published in the Canada Gazette and on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

As for major treaties, we want to establish an obligation to seek advice from the House before they are ratified, of course, and to consult our civil society through a parliamentary committee, because major treaties affect everyone. We need to ensure that decisions are made and that they are sustainable.

In fact, treaties basically involves five stages. A mandate is created, which goes without saying. However, where does the mandate come from? It would be nice if it came from parliamentarians, given their role as elected representatives of the people. Next come negotiations. I realize that this requires some give and take, but the signing stage is important, and that is where Bill C-228 comes in. It requires that the text be tabled in the House of Commons and that the House, after a study in committee, provide its advice on these treaties.

Major treaties are treaties that require the enactment of an act of parliament, change the government's powers, impose a significant financial obligation, result in changes to Canada's boundaries, impose economic sanctions or transfer jurisdiction to international institutions, affect government jurisdictions or deal with international trade. Before reaching the implementation stage and, of course, the formal ratification stage, these treaties would all be ratified by Parliament. I think that makes sense.

Basically, Bill C-228 will ensure that the ratification process is democratic, so that we are no longer threatened by global events in high finance. It is important to solidify those foundations.

I want to point out that Quebec has also stipulated that the National Assembly must ratify international agreements and decrees. The National Assembly has a role to play here. Bill C-228 follows the example set by Quebec. The same thing exists in most countries in Europe. In the United States, Congress has given itself the mandate to negotiate. In Europe, the European Commission cannot enter into trade negotiations without the authorization of the European Parliament. These kinds of practices are common these days and considered normal for maintaining the essence of what is known as democracy.

However, this democracy is fragile. The Prime Minister has talked about this, and I agree with him. When we see countries arming themselves more and more, it raises some questions.

We see that the Prime Minister is going to China and opening the door to Chinese EVs. I have an electric vehicle myself, but I would never want to use a Chinese EV. First of all, I have no confidence in how it was manufactured. We know nothing about the traceability of the materials used, where they come from or, more importantly, the human rights that were violated in order to build these vehicles. These EVs may cost $10,000 or $20,000 less, but at what cost? I am talking about the lives of the workers, the children, who manufacture these vehicles and about mineral mining and the appropriation of global supply chains for strategic critical minerals. I think we all know that, once a vehicle is manufactured, imported and used, the consumer's data no longer belongs to them. I am talking about travel data, as well as all any conversations that may take place inside the vehicle. I do not trust the Chinese regime at all. When we buy from the United States, we are dealing with companies. When we buy a Chinese product, we are dealing with the Chinese government. For me, this is a real threat to democracy. We have opened the door to an agreement with China to have our data stolen. I think that the Prime Minister is setting an extremely dangerous precedent.

Afterwards, he went to Davos and said that we would be on the menu and that we need to wake up because the world has changed. Then he went to Quebec City and said that it turns out that we all misunderstood what happened 400 years ago, because it was actually the beginning of a partnership. I imagine that English Canadians are now telling themselves that, when their farms were burned down, it was the start of a warm relationship. When their wives were raped, it was perhaps the start of a relationship by blood tie, a friendly relationship. That is the message the Prime Minister delivered last week when he twisted history. I look forward to seeing how this all plays out. In the meantime, if we want things to change the right way and in a democratic fashion, the bill tabled by the Bloc Québécois should be passed by the House.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleagues, particularly my colleague from Jonquière, who proposed this piece of legislation and exposed some of the issues that underlie it, which are very important in our world today. He has stressed the importance of international treaties, which are now as important as they have ever been.

I want to reiterate the comments made by my colleagues and thank the member for Jonquière for raising the issues addressed in the bill. Our government is a strong advocate for integrity, transparency and accountability in the treaty-making process.

However, I assert that the current processes that we use in the House, in our Parliament and in our governments strike a very good balance between, on the one hand, ensuring respect for all the principles we have in the House, including processes that allow the opposition to initiate debate on any given treaty, and on the other hand ensuring the continued functioning of Parliament and timely response to a changing world. Both items are imperative for a well-functioning Canada in a very turbulent world.

The resumption of debate on this bill comes at a very critical time, after we have spent a great deal of time away from the House contemplating global events and our place in them and while we watch a world that changes every day.

Last week in Davos the Prime Minister laid out the challenges we face. We are clear-eyed about the facts. The global order has been ruptured, and Canada's posture and assumptions must change with it. We are also clear-eyed about our priorities. We will remain grounded in Canadian principles and Canadian values while, at the same time, building issue-based coalitions that will drive our economic growth and create opportunities for Canadians.

As Canada diversifies its global partnerships to protect jobs and stimulate economic growth, we cannot afford to have our efforts derailed. We are rapidly diversifying our activities abroad. In just six months, we have signed roughly 12 trade and security agreements on four continents, all of which have been or will be tabled in the House, along with any legislative measures required to ratify them.

As our speed ramps up and as the world continues to change, we cannot afford to create new burdensome processes in Parliament that would simply result in gridlock that would derail the hard work that is going on to build these new partnerships for Canadians and Canadian businesses. To that end, I share the concerns already raised in the House by the members for Wellington—Halton Hills North and Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga about the impact this bill would have on the work of Parliament and the undue burden, without benefit, that a study for each treaty would create for committee work and for debate in the House.

I would reiterate that it would be without significant value for Canadians. This would be burden without benefit.

At the federal level, the imposition of an obligation to obtain the advice of Parliament for the ratification of all important treaties, as considered in this bill, would weaken the ability of any government to respond to time-sensitive international developments and opportunities and to ensure that we secure benefits from Canada's bilateral and multilateral international partners.

Canadians want action as we face global challenges, and they want that action quickly. They want a responsive government, as has been demonstrated by the Prime Minister. The Bloc Québécois has purported that the bill is, above all, designed to ensure that Parliament has a say in the trade deals that the government is negotiating, but I would emphasize that all such agreements require implementing legislation and follow due process every time they are about to be ratified.

Indeed, at this time, even as we speak, on the Order Paper we have two pieces of implementing legislation on trade deals: one with the U.K., a very important piece of legislation that would ensure Canadian businesses can engage with U.K. counterparts and that Canadian consumers would benefit from that trade; and another one with Indonesia, one of the key economic partners we have in the ASEAN world. It is an important economy that Canada and Canadian businesses need to have access to. As I said, those bills are right now before the House for members' consideration, for debate in this place and for Parliament to speak on.

Most of the Bloc Québécois's public messaging on this bill has referred to a vote on all major treaties, but I would like to point out that there is no reference to a mandatory vote in the text of the bill.

Nevertheless, under our current Standing Orders agreed to by this Parliament, there are two principal ways that a treaty could be voted on in the House. It is within the right of opposition parties to have an opposition day, and hence a motion, through which a treaty could be debated and discussed if it is important to that party. That would ensure that it comes before the House if it is something that the Bloc Québécois or the Conservative Party wants to debate.

The second way is through a concurrence motion on a committee report. There are many committee reports that do not receive concurrence motions, but an opposition member, in particular, or a government member could decide to move concurrence in a report and have a debate in the House, which takes precedence to any other business of the House.

Other members have already pointed out that the sheer number of treaties tabled in any given parliamentary session would paralyze Parliament and use up the limited number of opposition days. I will instead focus on two related issues: parliamentary autonomy and the current structure, timeline and mechanisms for votes on concurrence debates.

The bill uses the phrase “within a reasonable timeline” when setting out procedure for committee reporting. The most obvious challenge with this clause is that it is not a defined period. The less obvious challenge is that it fails to recognize the prerogative of standing committees to set their own agendas. This is critical in work that comes before committees. This parliamentary autonomy is an important aspect of our democracy and of parliamentary privilege writ large to take all the necessary time to study the matters that are important to Canadians, with a view to improving the lives of Canadians.

If we want to preserve this parliamentary autonomy, we also need to recognize that, under this legislation, a committee could choose to never study a treaty. This would have the practical effect of killing a treaty, since the bill would make it illegal to ratify a treaty before such a study has taken place.

A similar issue arises with the concurrence motion process laid out in the bill even when the study does happen and a report is generated with recommendations and tabled in the House. As we know, concurrence motions cannot be moved until after the government has tabled its response to the report, 120 days on top of the time it takes to do the study itself. This is something that will simply paralyze Parliament.

In closing, I want to say that we value the input of parliamentarians before treaties are made, while they are under discussion and as they approach ratification. We have processes in place to make sure that happens. We want to engage with everyone in the House on these treaties. This bill would not help. It is burden without benefit, and we want to ensure that everyone in the House votes against this bill.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, former prime minister Stephen Harper established a new policy on the tabling and ratification of treaties through a ministerial statement in 2008. That policy remains in place under the current government.

Under that policy, treaties are tabled in the House of Commons 21 sitting days before ratification by the minister. Treaties that require changes to domestic law go through an additional process before ratification, which is when the enabling legislation has passed in Parliament. This procedure has served Canada well. The Conservative Party supports the practice of ensuring that Parliament is fully informed and consulted before binding action is taken with regard to any major new international treaty. Transparency is something that the Canadian people expect of all of us.

Bill C-228, though, is not about transparency. An act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act regarding the prior review of treaties by Parliament does not increase transparency. Instead, it would restrict the power of the minister. The bill, should it become law, would constrain the royal prerogative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs by requiring a committee review and report back to the House and by requiring the advice of the House before ratification. This would, to put it simply, make it more difficult to ratify treaties. Is that something we want to do? Is that something we should be doing?

I may not be a fan of the policies the government proposes. I may think it is mismanaging the affairs of the country, but I do not question its right to govern as it sees fit. It seems to me this is an attempt to remove that right.

If the bill were to become law, it would impose three requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs. First, it would require the minister to table major treaties along with an explanatory note in the House of Commons prior to ratification. That is already a policy and practice, but the bill would make such a tabling a legal requirement. Second, it would require that a committee of the House of Commons review the treaty and report back to the House prior to ratification. Third, the minister would be required to obtain the advice of the House prior to ratification.

The bill states that a “major treaty” is one that:

(a) requires for its implementation

(i) the enactment of an Act of Parliament,

(ii) the conferment of new powers on His Majesty in Right of Canada, or

(iii) the imposition of a tax by Parliament;

(b) imposes a significant direct or conditional financial obligation on Canada;

(c) concerns the transfer of part of Canada’s territory or any change to Canada’s boundaries;

(d) requires Canada to impose immediate or conditional economic or military sanctions on a state;

(e) concerns the territorial jurisdiction of Canada, including its jurisdiction over a maritime area or airspace;

(f) concerns international trade or investment or Canada’s position in the global economy; or

(g) concerns Canada’s participation in international institutions, including a transfer of jurisdiction to such institutions.

That covers a lot of territory. We can think of the number of proposed trade deals on the table at this time. We can think of our participation in the various international organizations we are a part of. About the only things that are not major treaties are memoranda of understanding.

This legislation does not seem to take into account the realities of Canada's place in the world and the complexity and scale of our international agreements. During the past 15 years, over 500 treaties have been signed by the government, which is a rate of more than one treaty tabled per sitting week. The level of oversight proposed by the legislation would require a significant increase in the workload of the House of Commons and its committees. Oversight of treaties would displace other business.

If the bill merely sought to codify the practice and procedure that has been in place in the House since 2008, I would have no problem with supporting it. It is the other aspects of the legislation that concern me, especially that it would add to the workload of our committees.

We are all aware that resources are limited. We are trying to serve the people of Canada in a cost-effective manner. Every committee I have served on in my more than 10 years in the House has struggled with the limited time available to it. Inevitably, there are topics and studies that many members would like to address that cannot move forward due to the limitations on time and committee resources. Can we, in good conscience, add to that workload? How long does it take to comprehensively examine a treaty, bring together witnesses and discuss its pros and cons? How would such a procedure delay the implementation of the treaty? How would this process be viewed by our international partners, who would see months or perhaps years of negotiation delayed, even after an agreement, by what they would see as unnecessary bureaucracy?

I would not be surprised to find that the bill, if passed, would lessen Canada's standing among the community of nations. We want to be known as a country that is easy to deal with, that can make deals and treaties quickly and that does not get bogged down in the process. We do not want to have a reputation as a nation that cannot make up its mind or that does not stand by its agreements.

I suspect that if this legislation were to pass, it would quickly be seen as the burden it is. In the interest of expediency, committees would, instead of reviewing the treaty, merely rubber-stamp it. They would call no witnesses and have no discussion. In which case, what would be the purpose of passing the legislation before us?

As someone who believes in the historical value of Parliament as the people's voice, I understand the intention behind someone wanting to ensure that the House of Commons would have a say in Canada's treaty process. However, there are some things that are just not practical. There is a difference between providing oversight and micromanagement. Though well intentioned, I think the bill might stray across the line from one to the other.

One of the things we must take into account when considering legislation is how easily it can be implemented. Passing new laws is the easy part; putting them into practice is an entirely different matter. It seems to me that Bill C-228, while it does have some good aspects, is one of those bills that would be easy to pass and extremely difficult to implement. We could pass it. We could also pass a bill to repeal the law of gravity. I think both have about the same likelihood of successful implementation.

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

Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I am rising to speak in 2026, I want to start by wishing you a happy new year. I wish you all the best. May you have good health and may it continue. You know you have my best wishes. I also want to take this opportunity to wish a happy new year to everyone in the beautiful riding of Mirabel, to our local businesses, some of which are going through tough times, and to our community organizations. We have witnessed a show of solidarity. We are all very compassionate. We experienced this sense of community over the holidays, and we hope that it continues. I wish everyone in my riding a happy 2026.

We have a bill before us today that is essentially about democracy. In short, what this bill does is call for more democracy. Barack Obama used to say that democracy is not self-executing. It depends on us to stand up for it, which is exactly what this bill does. In Canada, members of Parliament have no power when trade agreements are signed. Members do not have a say. In his grandiose speech at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, the Prime Minister said that if we are not at the table, we are on the menu. Right now, when a trade agreement is signed, every member of the House is on the menu. They are the roast at the dinner. They are lying on the table with an apple in their mouth. They do not have a voice at the table. This bill simply seeks to rectify this situation.

What we are asking for is the systematic tabling of treaties in the House of Commons. That is key. It is simple. We are asking that treaties be tabled in the House of Commons and that there be a requirement to wait 21 days so consultations can take place. That is only three weeks. If the Minister of Finance can wait four months to table a budget, then government members should be able to wait three weeks while the House of Commons is consulted on treaties. We also also asking that the treaties be published in the Canada Gazette. Right now, the government is asking citizens to share their opinions on CUSMA on the Canada Gazette website, but it does not to want to publish treaties in the Canada Gazette. That does not make any sense. Finally, for major treaties, we are asking that the government hold a vote in the House of Commons and consult civil society.

When I read the bill, I thought it was quite obvious that this is about a basic democratic process. If someone were to walk down the street and ask people whether they think the House of Commons has a say when it comes to treaties, the answer would almost certainly be yes. In a democracy, no one would believe that the Prime Minister and his gang do all this in secret, that treaties are imposed on us and that we vote only on their implementation. Voters expect a measure of democracy, but when we demand that democracy, what does the government say? The member for Don Valley West said something earlier that will not soon be forgotten. He said that the current situation, where there is no transparency, is a balanced situation. He added, and I quote, that democracy is a burden without benefit. He said that in English.

Our neighbours to the south have a president, Mr. Trump, who is trying to bypass the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate. He is trying to impose conditions on international trade by bypassing elected officials. Meanwhile, Canada has a Prime Minister who can negotiate a treaty without even consulting elected officials once it is finalized. That is surprising, and I do not understand how a member of the House of Commons could oppose a bill like this, especially since the Liberals, including some Liberals from Quebec, keep claiming to be the champions of consultation.

I do not believe that there was any ill intent, but the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, who is very active on social media, recently posted a video in which she tells people that consultation on trade agreements is extremely important, so much so that she invites her constituents to go to the Canada Gazette website to share their opinions on CUSMA. The member tells them that consultation is so important that they have to go to the Canada Gazette site, but how can a person, an MP, tell us that this is important when the Liberals are going to vote and essentially tell us that their own voices do not matter?

Elected members should be judged by their actions. How can the Liberal members from Quebec be promoting consultation when we know that they will be voting against this bill and basically saying that their voices do not carry any weight in Parliament? I cannot understand that. These people were elected by telling us that the world had changed, that the international trade situation had changed, that democracy was in jeopardy.

However, when given the opportunity to express their views on the new international trade conditions, they say that they prefer to mind their own business, that they will be voting fodder, that they will vote as they are told and that they are not very interested. Meanwhile, they are still telling their constituents to visit the official Canada Gazette website. It is terrible.

The idea of giving MPs the right to vote on negotiating mandates has already been endorsed this year in the area of supply management. We tabled several bills on supply management and we have been explaining to Liberal MPs for a long time that, in the United States, mandates come from the U.S. Congress. We have reached the point where the Americans are giving us lessons in democracy. They will definitely understand if Parliament says that supply management is not on the table, if that mandate comes from Parliament. They will understand that. That is their mentality. They are used to it. I remember that, at the time, the member for Compton—Stanstead, who worked for the then agriculture minister during the previous Parliament, told us that it was pointless, that we did not need supply management legislation, that we would be able to strike it out in another act anyway and that it was useless. Finally, they woke up. They realized that a vote in Parliament might be worth something after all, and that the work done by MPs might have value. In the end, the law was passed, and the negotiating mandate changed. What are elected officials for? We are not just voting fodder.

Right now, we have a situation where cabinet does everything, on its own, in secret. Even Liberal MPs do not know what is going on. A few cabinet ministers know, but Liberal members have no idea what is going on. The Prime Minister makes the rounds; the negotiators are the ones with the executive power, the ones who make all the decisions and issue all the mandates. Ultimately, they send us a treaty and tell us not to amend it or offer our advice, that we are to vote for its ratification. We are presented with a fait accompli, and that is the unacceptable part. It undermines the democratic legitimacy of treaties.

There was a time during Confederation, including the time when Mackenzie King was in power, that the practice was to submit treaties to Parliament. We have lost that tradition. However, the signing of the Kyoto accord was so important that Jean Chrétien said he would put it to a vote in Parliament as a matter of legitimacy. We are talking about the anti-democratic Jean Chrétien, someone who weaponized the immigration process during the referendum, who tried to influence the CBC and Radio-Canada during the referendum period, who had no qualms about toying with democracy. Even he, however, considered it important for the legitimacy of the Kyoto treaty to put it to a vote in Parliament. That says something. Personally, I think elected officials have a role to play.

The Prime Minister called an election. A fixed date election was already scheduled, but he decided to call an election anyway. The reason was that he needed a new Parliament in order to have a stronger mandate. However, it is currently a minority Parliament, at least for now. How can he come along and say that he needs a Parliament and then sign treaties behind almost everyone's back? Basically, he needs a Parliament as long as members keep their mouths shut, do not give their opinion and do not do any work on the issues.

I invite each and every member here to reconsider their position. By voting against this bill, they are voting for less democracy, less transparency and less accountability. The Liberals said it today: They feel that more democracy is a burden without benefit. I put my face on a poster during the election because I believe in democracy and because I think we have a role to play as members of Parliament.

I commend the member for Jonquière for writing and introducing this bill. It is a deeply democratic bill. I find it difficult to see how any member could vote against it.

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

Madam Speaker, first let me welcome everyone and wish them the very best in the new year. We have an exciting time ahead of us; I really and truly believe that.

The number of Canadians, whether in Liberal-held ridings or Conservative-held ridings, who see we are on the right track amazes me. They see that we have a Prime Minister who truly understands and is prepared to meet the times, as well as a government as a whole that is supporting that. All we need to do is look at what has taken place in the last six months or eight months since the last election, which was highlighted this month when the Prime Minister addressed the world at Davos. He gave a very powerful statement that has been recognized not only here in Canada but around the world.

Each and every one of us needs to realize, when it comes to trade, that Canada makes up 0.5% of the world population yet contributes 2.5% to world trade. With the agenda put into place by the Prime Minister and the government, I believe the Prime Minister's plan is working, especially when we take into consideration the other aspects of the plan of building Canada strong.

This is not to sidestep other important issues, and I will get specific about the legislation right away, but I am very proud of the fact that earlier today we announced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. It is a program that is going to put money in the pockets of Canadians, recognizing the importance of the times and affordability.

As we talk a great deal about trade in the House of Commons over the next number of weeks and months, it is also important that we do not forget about other important issues such as affordability and crime. On that note, I was pleased that the leader of the Conservative Party said he wants to co-operate. I look forward to that co-operation, because we did not witness it in December. As members will recall, the Liberals wanted bail reform legislation passed, but it was filibustered by the Conservatives. However, I am hopeful; maybe they have turned the page. We have an agenda on crime, an agenda on trade and an agenda to make sure Canadians can afford groceries and other essentials. We have a Prime Minister who is focused on building a stronger Canada.

What the Bloc is asking for today is that every treaty that the government enters into would have a thorough debate. There is a great deal of effort put into the treaties that Canada signs off on. It is not just something that happens overnight. Someone made reference to the Prime Minister's travels. It is not only the Prime Minister who travels. The Minister of Agriculture was in China representing Canadian farmers' interests. We were able to come up with an agreement with China on some issues that have been very difficult. The holistic approach taken during that particular discussion is good for Canada.

Is the Bloc suggesting that before the Prime Minister went to China we should have had a discussion on the floor of the House of Commons? Do members know how many trade discussions and treaty discussions take place on an annual basis? We are talking about dozens, more than 100, over the last number of years. The House of Commons has barely enough time to get the things that it is debating supported. As it has been pointed out, the opposition has other tools it can use if it wants to focus debate on a specific treaty or on an issue related to a specific country. We call these opposition days. The opportunities are there, and are very real, for opposition members to get more engaged. They should not give the false impression that fingers are snapped and treaties just happen.

There is a great deal of effort put in by members of Parliament who do not have portfolios, as well as by parliamentary secretaries and, of course, ministers, but the greatest ambassador Canada has in making sure we can deliver for Canadians is the Prime Minister of Canada. Never before have we had a proactive prime minister be as aggressive as we have witnessed the current Prime Minister being over the last eight months. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are recognizing that, and we are seeing how important it is.

The parliamentary secretary made reference to Indonesia, Northern Ireland and England. Treaties with those countries are before the House right now, waiting to be debated. Let us have the debate on those pieces of legislation.

However, it goes a lot further than those treaties. The Prime Minister of Canada met with the President of the Philippines, and they talked about getting an agreement in 2026. The Prime Minister also had discussions with India about getting an agreement in 2026. That is not to mention the many other countries with which we are not only talking but making agreements happen.

Through these agreements, we are bringing investments to Canada. There are billions of dollars of investment from the Middle East coming into Canada because we have a Prime Minister who understands the importance of jobs and of building a stronger and healthier economy. That is what we are witnessing with our current Prime Minister, that jobs do matter. When we talk about the issue of affordability, jobs are important. The Prime Minister and the government unveiled a program earlier today that is going to deliver money to the pockets of Canadians that will help pay for groceries and those essentials. That is great, but we are also realizing how important it is, in supporting the economy, that we create jobs.

The world is changing. We see that, and we know that. Look at what has happened in the last year between the U.S.A. and Canada. As a government, we have recognized that, whether it is the Prime Minister or any member of Parliament from the Liberal caucus, we are not going to accept just any deal coming from the United States; we are going to get the best deal we can for all Canadians and for all regions of the country. In the interim, we need to expand those trade opportunities, because they build a stronger economy here in Canada and they create jobs. We want to create good, solid jobs for Canadians, which means we have to be proactive on trade.

There was a time when the Conservatives supported trade. I remember that they talked a lot about trade when they were in government. If the Conservatives really believed in trade, as opposed to criticizing the Prime Minister for going out and bringing to Canada investments and trade opportunities for small and large businesses alike, they would be applauding the actions of the Prime Minister, the government and its ministers for taking the initiative and aggressively pursuing trade opportunities that go beyond the United States-Canada border. That is how we build a stronger, healthier Canada and provide the jobs that Canadians want and desire.

We are committed on this side of the House, week after week, to building Canada strong by providing the tools that will make it happen. Trade is a very important aspect of that.

There are plenty of opportunities to debate the treaties. The current bill is something we cannot support, but I would encourage all members to recognize that Canadians, even those in Conservative ridings, want to see support for the government initiatives that we are—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to welcome everyone back to this place, including Canadians who are watching at home. I am pleased to rise on our first day back to contribute to this debate on Bill C-228.

I want to start by thanking my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague who introduced this bill.

The context for this bill is important, because it concerns how we, as parliamentarians, understand our role in relation to international commitments that can bind Canada for decades, shape domestic law, and affect the lives of Canadians in very real ways. It is particularly timely as Canada seeks to forge new relationships during a precarious time in international affairs, development and trade.

Bill C-228 proposes a new statutory framework for parliamentary scrutiny of treaties before ratification. It would require treaties to be formally tabled here in Parliament, along with an explanatory memorandum, before Canada can ratify them. It would establish a mandatory waiting period of at least 21 sitting days between tabling and ratification. It would define major treaties and require them to receive additional review and advice from our committees. It would also impose additional transparency obligations, including publication of treaties and related documents, while allowing for limited exceptions in urgent or exceptional circumstances provided that Parliament is informed afterwards.

These are significant proposals, and they raise important questions about balance: balance between efficiency and accountability, balance between executive authority and parliamentary oversight, and balance between Canada's need to act decisively on the world stage and Parliament's responsibility to scrutinize commitments made in Canada's name before they happen.

One strength of this bill is its attempt to bring clarity and consistency to a process that often feels opaque. Canada's current treaty policy, enacted in 2008 and updated in 2020, requires that treaties be tabled not before signature but only before ratification. This policy provides some visibility to the House but little formal influence. Ultimate authority remains with the Prime Minister and cabinet. This policy is known as the Ponsonby rule, and it was adopted from the U.K., where it has been in place since 1924. It was codified there into a law not dissimilar to this bill by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

The information provided here when treaties are tabled varies, and the opportunities for meaningful debate are often limited by time or by competing priorities here in the House. Our current process does not provide Parliament with much of a say, let alone a veto. The executive branch, through the Prime Minister and cabinet, retains authority to make, really, all the decisions. The goal of giving Parliament a chance to have more input and debate is therefore worthy. Transparency is not an abstract principle in the world we currently live in. It is the foundation of democratic consent, particularly when treaties affect domestic law, public spending or regulatory authority.

This really matters at a time when many Canadians feel the government is very far away and makes decisions without consulting them, and where some treaties are seen as limiting our sovereignty. Transparency builds trust, and trust is essential to governance. We seek to ensure that parliamentarians, and by extension Canadians, are not simply presented with a fait accompli.

This bill tries to distinguish between routine agreements and those that are truly consequential. This reflects a common-sense idea. The more significant the commitment, the more rigorous the scrutiny should be, but the way “major treaty” is currently defined in this bill is so broad that it risks capturing nearly every treaty Canada enters into, along with amendments. At the same time, it excludes memorandums of understanding, which can have huge consequences for Canada despite not being classified as treaties under the bill.

All of that having been said, the bill should not be dismissed out of hand. There is value in examining whether current practice reflects modern expectations of privacy and accountability. Codifying aspects of existing practice, as the U.K. has done, is not radical. Bill C-228 is well intentioned. It reflects a genuine desire to strengthen democratic oversight and public confidence in Canada's treaty process. As drafted, however, it raises real concerns about feasibility and balance.

I look forward to continuing this debate when time permits.

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

The hon. member for Jonquière for his right of reply.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, today's debate has been extremely interesting. Bill C-228 is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to put words into action.

Like many, I was captivated by the Prime Minister's speech in Davos for a number of reasons. First of all, among all the wonderful things I have read in my lifetime are the works of Jan Patočka, the person who inspired Václav Havel, a leading Czech philosopher and author of the book The Power of the Powerless. I was fascinated to see the Prime Minister quote him.

What the Prime Minister said in Davos was that the power rivalry often causes great powers to forget their duty to middle powers and that carefully calculated interests often rule the day when it comes to international relations.

I thought this was interesting because we can follow Prime Minister's lead and draw our own analogy. Instead of talking about international powers, let us talk about the federation. In the Canadian federation, it is often carefully calculated interests that drive policy and our trade agreements. Perhaps to the Prime Minister's great misfortune, Canada is not a unitary country. Within Canada, there are national minorities, such as Quebec, that are trying to defend their own economies.

I want to come back to the Prime Minister's speech. Speaking about the supposedly rules-based international order, the Prime Minister said that the strongest too often exempt themselves when convenient and that trade rules are enforced asymmetrically.

The Canadian government often exempts itself when convenient. In the current tariff crisis, I have never seen the government take concerted or significant action on the infamous softwood lumber issue. I have also never seen the government seriously address the issue of the tariffs on aluminum. Softwood lumber and aluminum are the two main economic sectors currently subject to tariffs, and they are economic sectors specific to Quebec.

I was elected in 2019 during the negotiation of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. We soon realized what the government had done. It had forgotten to protect aluminum. We were caught off-guard, and our political party had to fight hard to get protection for aluminum.

In his speech, the Prime Minister talked about living in truth, which is what Václav Havel wrote about in The Power of the Powerless. We need to stop living within a lie. The Prime Minister said, “You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination”.

What we are seeing here, regarding international treaties, is Quebec's subordination to federal power. I will not repeat the examples of the softwood lumber and aluminum sectors, but it is a reality. This bill calls for more consultation with members of Parliament and a mechanism that allows us to study these treaties in committee.

I was shocked to hear my colleague from Don Valley West say that strengthening our democratic processes would be a waste of time. I heard the Prime Minister's speech in Davos, where he said that we must clearly assert the values and rules governing international trade. Then, the Liberals come here and say that the democratic processes that enable us to assert the rules and potentially hear all sides are a waste of time.

Earlier, my Conservative colleague from Edmonton Manning said that this would significantly increase our workload. His leader spends his time saying that Liberal and Bloc Québécois MPs are lazy because they are not willing to do committee work at the discretion of the leader of the official opposition. However, when it comes to studying something as important as an international treaty, his MP says that it would add too much to our workload. In my opinion, these are considerations are erroneous, and MPs should have read the bill in its entirety.

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

The member's time is up.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, January 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Business of Supply

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I would like to designate Tuesday, January 27, as an allotted day.

Protecting Victims Act

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

moved that Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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

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

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

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

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

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