House of Commons Hansard #73 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-16.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act Second reading of Bill C-228. The bill aims to increase parliamentary scrutiny and transparency for international treaties. Proponents, like the Bloc Québécois, argue it ensures a democratic ratification process by requiring systematic tabling, a 21-day waiting period, and committee review for major treaties. Opponents, including the Liberals and Conservatives, contend it would burden Parliament, create gridlock, and hinder the government's ability to respond to global developments, viewing it as a "burden without benefit". 8100 words, 1 hour.

Protecting Victims Act Second reading of Bill C-16. The bill Bill C-16 amends criminal and correctional matters to enhance public safety. It addresses gender-based violence by criminalizing coercive control and elevating femicide to first-degree murder. The bill also protects children from exploitation, strengthens victims' rights, and tackles justice system delays. A key debate point is the bill's approach to mandatory minimum penalties, which includes a judicial safety valve to address constitutional concerns, drawing criticism from Conservatives. 40600 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives criticize the Liberal government for Canada's highest food inflation in the G7, which has doubled since the Prime Minister took office. They demand the government scrap inflationary taxes and deficits, including the industrial carbon tax and fuel standards tax. They also address rising extortion cases, forestry job losses, and propose a Canadian sovereignty act to boost the economy.
The Liberals focus on affordability for Canadians, championing the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit which provides up to $1,900 for families to help with living expenses. They highlight their investments in social programs like childcare and dental care, and seek support for the Budget Implementation Act to attract a trillion dollars in investment. They also discuss public safety and support for forestry workers.
The Bloc criticizes the Prime Minister for rewriting Quebec history, specifically his characterization of the Plains of Abraham as a "great partnership" rather than a conquest. They demand he learn Quebec's true history and stop presenting alternative facts.
The NDP demands immediate help for Canadians facing high grocery costs, proposing to remove GST, impose price caps, and tax excess profits.

Petitions

Adjournment Debates

Youth unemployment and training Garnett Genuis cites rising youth unemployment and criticizes the government's plan to limit grant access for career college students. Annie Koutrakis defends the government's investments in youth employment skills, student grants and loans, and apprenticeship programs, arguing that these measures support young people.
Canada-China relations Jacob Mantle questions why the government is pursuing a strategic partnership with China, which he describes as Canada's greatest security threat. Ali Ehsassi responds that Canada is building stronger ties with a range of trading partners and defending key industries, while still seeking solutions with the U.S.
Canada's international trade and pipelines Tamara Jansen questions the Prime Minister's statements at Davos versus his actions at home, particularly regarding pipelines and trade relations with the U.S. Corey Hogan defends the government's energy policies and trade efforts, citing increases in oil production and ongoing negotiations to diversify trade, noting a new MOU with Alberta.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her great speech. It was quite touching. I hear the same concerns in my community of Cambridge after the 10 years of soft-on-crime Liberal policies.

In the conversations my colleague has had with people in her community, what has she heard with respect to what is needed for people to feel safe again, especially when it comes to strengthening the consequences for repeat violent offenders, restoring confidence in our justice system and ensuring that victims will finally be protected?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, with respect to ensuring that people feel safe again, I think there is only one thing that will make that happen, which is that, after another election, we have a Conservative government, because we are the only government to put forward the types of legislation needed to protect victims.

The member opposite also asked me a question about when the last time was that we saw this kind of good legislation coming forward for public safety and justice. I would say that it was somewhere between 2006 and 2015, when Mr. Harper was our prime minister, and victims were finally starting to see some of the same rights that criminals have. However, for the last 10 or 11 years, that has deteriorated. People in Oshawa, in Cambridge and in Winnipeg I am sure, simply do not feel safe anymore. They feel like the government is simply not listening.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could share her thoughts with the House as to what she believes the provincial and municipal governments' role is with respect to crime, or does she assert that all of the blame should go to Ottawa?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is typical for the member opposite to place blame on the provinces and municipalities. I believe that 95%, if not all of the blame, belongs not just to Ottawa, but the Liberal government.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon South, SK

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting comment by the Liberal member from Winnipeg.

I had a conversation with the Saskatoon City Council. When we talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars in the City of Saskatoon budget, 25% is going to the Saskatoon police department. Members can let that sink in a little bit. We have about 300,000 or so people in Saskatoon, and 25% of the budget is for the Saskatoon police force. It is because of the action, or no action actually, from the Liberal government in the last 10 years that now 25% of every dollar goes to the Saskatoon police department.

I would like the member for Oshawa to comment on that, because I am sure every community is facing that.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, absolutely every single community is facing that. Durham region has told me on multiple occasions over the last many years of the astronomical amount it is having to spend on policing and keeping our communities safe in the Durham region. The Durham regional chair and the mayors of the eight municipalities in the Durham region have reached out to this Liberal government time and time again asking it to change its policies on this revolving door that we have. They are not asking it to introduce new policy; they are asking it to please repeal some of the really bad stuff it has put in place in policy over the last 10 years, because it is making their job difficult. I believe the number one thing that Durham region is spending money on now is community safety, and it is a direct result of the failed policies of the Liberal government.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for identifying some of the strengths and weaknesses of the bill. In particular, our hon. colleague, the shadow minister on this file, proposed a solution, which was for the government to split the bill in two: take the part where we have consensus across all parties to actually get public safety as a priority for victims here in Canada, and move those aspects where there is no agreement, that are going to take longer to debate, to the side.

Funnily enough, the government has sort of a track record of this. We saw it with Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. Could the member comment on this important solution?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members of the House and I know members on the justice committee would be happy to see the bill split in two. There are major portions of the bill that we can get behind and would like to support, but we cannot get behind empowering judges to literally ignore every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code. It is simply not acceptable. Splitting the bill in two would make it pass more quickly and efficiently through the House. It is the smart thing to do, and I think it is what Canadians would want.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for York—Durham, International Trade; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Natural Resources.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I find it truly amazing at times. I question whether the Conservative Party of Canada today, which is so far to the right, has any shame at all, with the types of things its members say and how far away from reality they actually are.

Back in December, which was not that long ago, I challenged the Conservative Party to pass Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. I virtually pleaded with the Conservative Party and asked for unanimous consent to sit for extra time here in the House of Commons. The government went out of its way to try to accommodate it. There was no reason not to have passed bail reform back in December, but there is one reason, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Conservative members talk as if they are genuinely concerned about the crime file. We heard it in the last federal election, but we also heard the current Prime Minister and Liberal candidates from coast to coast to coast talk about the issue of crime and having safer communities.

We have, I believe, just over 60 new Liberal members of Parliament. We also have a new Prime Minister, who talked about and is initiating the hiring of hundreds of new RCMP officers and hundreds of Canada border control agents, which was brought forward by the minister and the government. We have seen participation from Liberal MPs from every region of the country, who are sharing concerns about the crime file. We have a government that has focused a great deal on the crime file because we understand that this is an issue on which our constituents want to see action.

Canadians in Conservative ridings want to see action on this file, and the only action they are getting from the Conservative Party is filibustering. The Conservatives are not allowing legislation that even Canadians in Conservative ridings want to see passed. I listened today when they talked about Bill C-16, and based on the comments I heard, I question whether they have any concept of what judicial independence or jurisdictional responsibility is.

The Conservatives want to talk about minimum sentencing. Liberal members of Parliament support minimum sentencing. All one needs to do is read the legislation. It is restoring numerous minimum sentences. The Conservatives say that they support minimum sentences, which is exactly what this bill does. It reintroduces many aspects to change the law and reinstate mandatory minimum sentences.

Taking a look at the bigger picture, I could talk about Bill C-2. The Conservatives absolutely refuse to pass the bill. They will not even let it pass out of second reading. Lawful access is a major part of that legislation. Talking about issues such as extortion, which they like to talk about, we see we need Bill C-2. They will not even allow it to go to committee.

We also have Bill C-9, which is to combat hatred. The Conservative Party has made the decision that it can probably make more money fundraising by opposing the bill than seeing it become law.

When I talk about lawful access under Bill C-2, I would point out that Canada is the only country out of the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access.

I can tell members that a piece of legislation combatting hate, saying that one should not be able to harass people or prevent people from being able to go to a church, a mosque or a gurdwara, to prevent the religious hatred that is being spread, is an important piece of legislation. I have spoken to it, as I spoke to Bill C-2.

I already talked about Bill C-14 and how important that legislation is. The only thing I would add is that, much like with Bill C-16, the Conservatives do not realize the amount of support that is out there in our communities. I can tell members that it is substantial. It comes from every region of the country. Whether it is for Bill C-14 or Bill C-16, there is support from provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies, victim advocacy groups and individuals.

The people we represent want the type of legislation we are bringing forward in the House, even, as I said, Canadians living in Conservative ridings. Conservatives need to listen to their own constituents. What they will find is that there is substantial support for changing and making our laws better, so we can deal with things such as violent repeat offenders, which is dealt with in Bill C-14.

It seems to me that the leader of the Conservative Party had a flash, or at least a thought, that the Conservative Party of Canada would co-operate with the government in passing the legislation it feels is important. I appreciated what the Attorney General had to say earlier when introducing Bill C-16, which is that the legislation is not about one political party. It is here because this is what Canadians want. When I was listening to the Attorney General, he was challenging all members of the House, members of all political entities, to recognize the phenomenal effort and work that has been put into the legislation for the benefit of Canadians.

I honestly thought he was being very apolitical in bringing it forward, encouraging members to get onside with it, recognizing that, if one has issues with the legislation, there are alternatives. We can allow legislation to go to committee, where it can be further debated. We are not saying we have to pass it today through second reading, committee, third reading and so forth, but given the legislative agenda, there could be some value, and I would suggest to members, a great deal of value if one puts Canadians first, in seeing Bill C-16 pass.

When I read the article from the leader of the Conservative Party, I had a little flicker of hope that we will maybe see some co-operation. Maybe we will see a different Conservative Party in the year of 2026. It does not mean one has to concede to everything the government of the day wants, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing legislation to go to committee.

What we heard today from the critic for the Conservative Party, who they call the shadow minister, was that they want to take the bill and split it into two parts. That is the problem with Bill C-2 today. They did not want to do anything with Bill C-2 unless it was broken into two parts, yet there are substantive issues being addressed within Bill C-2 that could not be addressed because of the Conservative positioning.

Once again, I am seeing the Conservative Party coming up, through back doors, with ways they can ultimately try to justify their emails that spread information that we do not have a legislative agenda that deals with crime. Let us be very clear that there has been a substantial effort made by the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister, since the election, to bring in substantive legislation to reform our Criminal Code and other pieces of legislation to make the communities we represent safer. There has been a great deal of effort in bringing forward this legislation.

I will quote some of the individuals or the lobby groups on the type of support that is out there if I have enough time towards the end.

The theme coming from the Conservative Party today, and why it is that the members are so offended by this legislation, is mandatory minimums. Let us be very clear that this legislation would reinstate mandatory minimums in a number of different areas. It is not taking them away. The Conservatives tell us that it is taking them away.

I want to read a quote, and I have it here on my phone. The font is a little small for me, but I will try. What is important about this quote is that it is actually from a Conservative member of Parliament, and it is not just any Conservative member of Parliament. It is the member who often talks about justice and the issue of crime.

This member has private members' bills dealing with these issues, and he often says he wants his private members' bills passed lickety-split. He has even stood up to ask for unanimous consent to get everything all the way through the system, to heck with any debate in second reading, committee stage or third reading. He wanted it passed all the way through.

He sits on the front bench of the Conservative Party. Of course, Conservatives probably know who I am talking about. It is the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Here is what he has to say, and I will put this into the proper context. The Conservative Party—

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Oh, did they moved him back?

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, from the Conservative perspective, this debate is about allowing judges in certain situations to not have to apply the mandatory minimum. This is the biggest problem. This is the issue that Conservative after Conservative after Conservative has stood up to speak to.

Before we tabled this legislation, what did the Conservative member actually have to say about it? He said, “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve”. Members know what a safety valve is, I am sure.

The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola continued, “that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed. This is a perfect middle ground. Why will the minister not accept it?” I think that member, who is held in very high esteem within the Conservative Party, needs to express himself more in the Conservative caucus.

The reason they are in opposition to Bill C-16 is that they are having an allergic reaction to judges having the ability to understand when they should not use a mandatory minimum penalty. We have the debate with respect to mandatory minimum penalties because, as parliamentarians both present and past, we have seen the value of mandatory minimum sentences and that is why we make the law. However, courts, on many occasions, have ruled against mandatory minimum penalties in one area or another, and have actually said that they are not constitutional.

Right away, then, the Conservative Party members are saying, “No problem. That is why we have the notwithstanding clause.”

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Hear, hear!

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, someone said, “hear, hear.” If they were to use the notwithstanding clause every time there was an issue related to a mandatory minimum penalty, they would have used it 12, 15 or 20 times, no problem. Actually, there is a difference and this is the contrast between the government and the opposition. If I were to use the words of the Conservative member opposite, it is having that safety valve.

Let us understand that there are certain situations that come before a court where a judge makes a decision, and there might be a situation that should be exempted from that mandatory minimum. There are Crown attorneys, provincially appointed judges and appeal courts. Nothing prevents a situation where a judge at a lower court makes a decision that the Crown cannot make an appeal, or it can be brought up in other ways if in fact a mandatory minimum was inappropriately used. They do not need the notwithstanding clause. They do not have to fear independent judiciary by saying, “We do not trust all judges in this situation.”

Therefore, within the legislation, we would restore those areas where mandatory minimum sentences have been struck down. That is a good thing. We know that at least one Conservative member has recognized that. I do not quite understand why others do not see the value of that unless, of course, one believes, as I believe, that once again the Conservative Party of Canada is looking at ways in which it can prevent legislation from passing. The Conservatives are not responding to what Canadians are saying they want.

With respect to femicide in Canada, I would suggest that through this legislation Canada could play a leadership role in the world. This legislation deals with bumping up the crime of femicide murder to first-degree murder. There are other aspects to this legislation that deal with child exploitation.

I spent all my time talking about the mandatory minimum penalties because of the ridiculous comments coming from the Conservative Party, but within this legislation, Bill C-16, we see substantive changes that would protect Canadians.

The Conservatives have a choice. They can either listen to what Canadians are saying or stay with the politicization of the Conservative Party of Canada—

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, something I have brought up over and over in this debate is around trend lines and crime in general. Over the last decade, we have watched mandatory minimum sentences be reduced by the Liberal government. We watched, under Bill C-5, many crimes be hybridized so that human traffickers could just stay home under house arrest. More broadly, I think there is a sentiment that the Liberals are light on crime or not very tough on crime, and we have watched crime creep up over the time that the Liberals have been in power.

I am just wondering if the member has a good reason for why, under the Liberals' tenure, the 10 years of Liberal rule, crime rates have increased pretty much in every measure.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the last federal election, where Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and at least 60, I believe, Liberal members of Parliament. Canadians want parties to work together in this chamber to deal with the important issues that they want action on. This Prime Minister and every member of this Liberal caucus understand what Canadians want to see.

Bill C-16 is a reflection of what Canadians are saying. This government, which was elected just months back, understands the needs of Canadians, and we are trying our best to work with opposition parties to bring forward and pass this legislation. We just need the Conservative Party to start—

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC

Mr. Speaker, it seems a little presumptuous to think that we members of the House can foresee every possible scenario or that we can see things clearly from here that we can establish a rule that would be safe from any exceptions, in any scenario.

The truth is that life in society is very complex, and all kinds of stories are uncovered in courtrooms. If judges are allowed to deviate from a minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances, I believe this is a way of ensuring that justice is better adapted to reality and that decisions are made in line with reality.

Does my colleague not agree that we must ensure that judges retain a degree of discretion that allows them to deliver human justice?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer by profession, but I genuinely believe that by having a safety valve, which is what the Conservative member across the way called it, we would be able to see mandatory minimums in our law not only stay within the law books but that it would take away the unconstitutionality of bringing in a mandatory minimum. The legislation would reinstate many aspects of mandatory minimums and allow for that safety valve, which would enable us to be protected by the Constitution. I do have more confidence in our judicial system, in particular our judges, to deal with this issue.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Coteau Liberal Scarborough—Woburn, ON

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that if we speak to Canadians, to folks in Scarborough—Woburn, that they will tell us violence and crime are changing constantly.

Bill C-16 is about realigning our realities today to take on the challenges that we have when it comes to crime and violence. For some reason, it seems the Conservatives want to delay and hold up these types of bills that I would say the majority of Canadians, probably 99.9% of all Canadians, agree with.

Why does the member think the Conservatives are holding up such an important piece of legislation in the House of Commons?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the best example I could give my friend and colleague is to reflect back a few weeks ago to December, when we were talking about bail reform legislation. My colleague knows full well that we had wide support for the legislation. Provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and all the different stakeholders wanted bail reform legislation.

I remember standing up and saying to members, “Let us pass it. We will sit until midnight. We will do it for the next couple of weeks, if necessary, to pass it.” The Conservatives were heckling from their seats, saying that they would do that. I then asked for unanimous consent. They put their hands underneath their seats, being shy and saying, “No, no. We do not want that.”

The Conservative Party is more interested in what is in the interest of the Conservative Party of Canada than in the interest of actual Canadians. That is why Canadians in Conservative ridings are not happy with the tactics the Conservative Party of Canada is using.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been voting against Conservative motions for the past 10 years. We have been fighting to protect Canadians for all that time.

This bill has a safety valve. When it comes to mandatory minimum sentences, could the member give us a simple definition of what “mandatory” actually means? If it has a safety valve, is the bill not just suggestion?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, that is a gross way to try to describe it, in such a fashion where a judge would actually just decide to throw it out.

There is a parliamentary mandate that is given through the passage of laws. I have confidence that decisions are being made. I want our laws to be constitutional. I recognize this and the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized it; it has thrown out mandatory minimum statements because we did not have a safety valve.

I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that the laws we are passing adhere to the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights. I do not have the same sort of fear. There is at least one Conservative member across the way, who I quoted extensively, who believes likewise. A safety valve is something that is absolutely critical. You should be supporting it and the reinstatement of mandatory minimums that this legislation is putting in place.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

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