Debates of Jan. 26th, 2026

Protecting Victims Act

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague for her tremendous courage in sharing that experience and for her support for the measures included in this bill.

The only point of correction I have for her statement is that she cited the tireless work of the minister in this case, but it is the tireless work of survivors and advocates that we have to express our gratitude for. This bill is a result of collaboration with many people who, unfortunately, have been through experiences of violence and tried to navigate the criminal justice system at a time of enormous trauma and difficulty in their lives. Those people's voices can be empowered through interventions such as the one we have just heard, which can bring their real-life experience to bear in the debates that play out in the committee process and in this chamber.

I want to thank all members of this House, regardless of their party, for the support they may lend to this bill and the solutions they may contribute to improve its quality.

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

Madam Speaker, gender-based violence is rampant across our country, across the world and in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills. It is not just an isolated, out-of-the-blue act of violence; it is often a mindset that is nurtured and fostered, often systemically, within families and communities, in the workplace and online. I thank the minister for addressing this generational issue.

There are myths around the crime of coercive and controlling behaviour that say it brings policing into intimate partner relationships. Can the minister expand on how that crime would be enforced within our communities and what the positive impacts would be for our families and communities like Mississauga—Erin Mills?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is essential that we understand, through the extensive research done by people who have dedicated their lives to discovering the solutions to gender-based violence, particularly in an intimate partner violence context that ends with violence or, potentially, the murder of an innocent person, that there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that repeats itself time and time again.

We have the opportunity to have the criminal justice system more closely explore when there is violence inside a household. We have the opportunity to have the criminal justice system intervene when there is a pattern that may be predictive in nature, and to understand that the criminal justice system can not only address crimes after someone has been killed, but also intervene before a relationship becomes violent or someone actually dies. It is one thing to talk about an agenda that more harshly penalizes criminals, but if we have the opportunity to stop crime before it happens, we have to take it. This bill, as indicated by the statements of support from advocacy organizations, would do precisely that.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that the minister has often been slow to appoint judges, even though there is no shortage of Liberal donors who are willing to take those jobs. As a result, with the Jordan decision, some criminals have been released. We know the story behind the Jordan decision.

Did the minister ever consider using the notwithstanding clause to get around the Jordan decision in order to get justice for victims, if only while waiting for this bill, which broadens the criteria that judges will have to consider when applying Jordan?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I disagree with the claim that there have been delays in making appointments. There was a problem for a few years, but over the past two or three years, judicial positions have been filled very quickly and there are not many vacancies in the country right now.

To answer my colleague's question, I would say that he is presenting an interesting idea, but I worry that the courts would reject it, and we have found another way to address that concern.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, welcome back to the House. I welcome all of my friends on the other side, as well as my colleagues, and I wish every member of the House a very happy new year. I hope to have a really productive winter and spring session in the 45th Parliament.

I start by reflecting on what Bill C-16 would and would not do. At the outset, I can state that the bill is largely supported by the Conservative Party of Canada, but there are some red lines, which I will elaborate on, that need to be discussed. We can start that debate as early as today.

When Parliament legislates on criminal law, it does not engage in abstraction, but exercises the most serious power entrusted to a democratic legislature: the power to define wrongdoing, protect the public, including victims, and impose meaningful consequences on those who harm others. Bill C-16 fails in that responsibility, not because it is too firm but because it is too careless. It continues a troubling pattern we have seen time and time again of laws that sound tough in press releases, but are drafted so loosely, so vaguely and so defensively that they hand the control of criminal sentencing to the courts by default.

Bill C-16 claims to modernize sentencing. In reality, it would open the door to a constitutional crisis, chaos, further litigation and a steady erosion of Parliament's role in defining the moral boundaries of criminal law.

I want to remind the House that what we are debating today is simply not new. More than four years ago, during debate on Liberal Bill C-5, I stood in the chamber and warned of exactly where this approach would lead. Bill C-5 stripped away 14 mandatory minimums for very serious criminal offences, including drug charges, that Parliament had deliberately put in place to ensure the denunciation of and deterrence for serious crimes. At that time, I said that removing mandatory minimum penalties under the banner of compassion would not make our justice system fairer; it would make it weaker, less predictable and less capable of protecting the public. Four years later, that warning has not only aged well but sadly been proven correct.

Mandatory minimum penalties were never about denying judicial discretion. They were about ensuring that Parliament spoke loudly and clearly about the gravity of that danger. As I said then, and as I say today, this is not a partisan issue. Mandatory minimum penalties have been around since the very first Criminal Code in 1892 and were brought in by consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments.

Bill C-5 deliberately silenced the message reflecting the gravity of the danger that certain offences cause. Bill C-16 would do nothing to restore it. Sadly, it would continue down the same path. This is not evidence-based reform; it is policy-making driven by ideology, insulated from the real-world harm it causes.

For victims of crime, the justice system is not an academic exercise and it is not a theoretical debate about hypotheticals; it is about whether the law means what it says and whether consequences are real. That is where the bill gets it wrong. Bill C-16 tells victims one thing, yet it would deliver another. It claims to modernize sentencing, while it would reopen every door the House has tried to close.

The Liberal government wants credit for being tough on crime, but it refuses to do the hard work of writing laws that actually withstand constitutional scrutiny, protect communities and respect Parliament's role in setting punishment. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the mid-nineties and in 2016, released two landmark decisions that provided a road map to the Liberal government, under then prime minister Justin Trudeau, to do exactly these things, and nothing was done.

My views on this issue are not theoretical. They are shaped by decades of working inside the criminal justice system and my nearly 30 years as a lawyer, including many as a Crown prosecutor. I have stood in courtrooms with victims. I have seen their anguish and their fears. I have seen the aftermath of serious violent crimes, including gun violence.

I have watched judges struggle to impose meaningful consequences within the frameworks the Liberals chose to weaken. When legislators strip away sentencing certainty, they do not empower justice; they inject inconsistency and unpredictability into a system that depends on public confidence to function.

The charter does not prohibit mandatory minimum penalties. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that repeatedly in a number of decisions. Section 12 prohibits “cruel and unusual...punishment”. The test is not whether a sentence is harsh but whether it is grossly disproportionate. That is an exacting standard, and intentionally so.

Supreme Court jurisprudence has emphasized that gross disproportionality is reserved for punishment that is “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency”, not merely sentences that some judges might view as excessive or unnecessary. That distinction matters, because Parliament is constitutionally entitled to impose punishment that reflects denunciation, deterrence and moral condemnation, even when courts might prefer a lighter sentence.

The Liberal narrative pretends that any mandatory minimum risks unconstitutionality. That is simply false. It is the narrative we heard in the 44th Parliament. What creates constitutional vulnerability is careless breadth, missing guardrails and deliberate legislative ambiguity, all of which are present in Bill C-16.

Bill C-16 continues a now familiar Liberal strategy, which is drafting legislation not to withstand constitutional scrutiny but to invite it. The government legislates, knowing and, in some cases, hoping that courts will be asked to fix what Parliament refuses to resolve.

Academic literature has warned for years that overly broad criminal provisions, combined with a rigid sentencing framework, create fertile ground for section 12 litigation, particularly when Parliament fails to include clear guardrails or safety valves. The Supreme Court's section 12 jurisprudence allows courts to assess mandatory minimum penalties using reasonable hypothetical scenarios. They are not absurd and fanciful scenarios, but ones that could realistically arise under the law.

This is where Bill C-16 becomes dangerous, because once Parliament enacts a mandatory minimum penalty without explicit statutory guardrails, it invites defence counsel to construct hypotheticals designed to stretch the law to its constitutional breaking point. This will lead to courts invalidating mandatory minimums incrementally, case by case. The Macdonald-Laurier Institute has warned that this cycle has systematically hollowed out Parliament's authority over sentencing, not because mandatory minimums are inherently unconstitutional, but because the Liberals refused to draft them responsibly. Bill C-16 repeats this mistake.

The Liberals claim that removing mandatory minimum sentences, expanding judicial discretion and hollowing out sentencing floors are required by the charter and demanded by the Supreme Court. That is false. The Supreme Court has never said that mandatory minimum penalties are illegal. It has never said that Parliament lacks the authority to impose them. What it has said repeatedly is that Parliament must legislate carefully. Bill C-16 would not do that. Instead, it would use a single, deeply divided decision as justification for dismantling sentencing law far beyond what the court required.

Nowhere is that misrepresentation made clearer than in the Attorney General of Quebec v. Senneville. In that case, the majority of the court struck down mandatory minimum penalties for child pornography offences, relying not on the actual facts before it but on a constructed hypothetical scenario, a scenario that Parliament never intended to capture when it enacted those sentencing provisions. The hypothetical imagined an 18-year-old who briefly received or possessed an image without evidence of predatory behaviour, coercion or exploitation. That scenario was then used to invalidate sentencing floors that were designed to address the most serious and harmful forms of child sexual exploitation, offences that involve deliberate conduct, repeat behaviour and profound harm to victims.

This is not a reasonable hypothetical in any meaningful legislative sense. Parliament does not draft criminal law to address fleeting, technical-edged cases. It legislates for the heartland of an offence, the conduct that motivated Parliament to act in the first place. Stretching a law aimed at combatting child sexual exploitation to hypothetical outliers fundamentally distorts legislative intent. That is precisely why the dissent in Senneville matters so much and why the Liberals would rather the House not talk about it.

The dissenting justices issued a clear and forceful warning not only to the courts but to Parliament. They rejected the idea that section 12 of the charter requires lawmakers to sentence for the least serious imaginable application of an offence. They emphasized that mandatory minimums are constitutionally permissible where they reflect Parliament's judgment about the gravity of core criminal conduct. The dissent cautioned that using hypotheticals to strike down laws would transform section 12 of the charter into a weapon against democratic decision-making, allowing courts to invalidate Parliament's choices based on speculative scenarios rather than real-world harm.

Instead of responding to Senneville without discipline, by clarifying offence definitions, narrowing the application or adopting a narrowly tailored safety valve, the government chose a very different path. Bill C-16 does not correct a problem identified by the court. It uses Senneville as political cover to advance a long-standing ideological goal: the systematic dismantling of mandatory minimum penalties altogether. In other words, a contested, deeply divided Supreme Court decision, a five-four split, has now become the excuse for a sweeping legislative retreat.

Bill C-16 is not in careful compliance with the charter. It is a capitulation, a surrender of Parliament's authority based on the most expansive reading of judicial power, even while the court warned against it. This is not what responsible law-making looks like and not what Canadians expect from the House.

As Chief Justice Wagner warned, alongside Côté, Rowe and O'Bonsawin, using far-removed hypotheticals to dismantle Parliament's sentencing choices risks undermining democratic accountability itself. The dissent stated plainly that Parliament is not constitutionally required to sentence for the least serious imaginable case. That sentence alone dismantles the Liberal theory of criminal law.

The dissent went further, warning that the majority's approach risks converting section 12 into a rolling licence to invalidate democratically enacted penalties untethered from real-world harm. The dissent emphasized that minimums serve expressive and denunciatory functions. They communicate society's moral judgment, not merely actuarial risk assessments. Crucially, the dissent recognized that judicial discretion already exists in the criminal process in charging decisions, prosecutorial elections, plea negotiations and sentencing ranges above the minimum. In other words, these judges acknowledged what the government refuses to admit: The system already has safety valves and Parliament is allowed to rely on them. This is where Bill C-16 collapses under its own weight.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that carefully drafted safety valves can preserve mandatory minimums while protecting against gross disproportionality. The dissent in the Supreme Court decision of Nur, from 2015, made this explicit, pointing to hybrid offences and prosecutorial discretion as legitimate mechanisms to prevent unjust outcomes.

Bill C-16 involves no clear statutory safety valve, no proportionality override, no exceptional circumstance clause and no direction to courts on how Parliament expects minimums to operate. It is unserious to claim that a Liberal crime bill protects victims when it systematically weakens sentencing. Victims do not experience crime as a hypothetical. They do not experience it as a charter seminar. They experience it as fear, loss, trauma and lasting harm. Mandatory minimums are about certainty, denunciation and public trust, which is sadly lacking after 10 years of failed Liberal policies. When the government undermines Parliament's ability to set clear consequences, it sends a message to communities that criminal accountability is negotiable.

The House has a choice. We can continue down the Liberal path, drafting criminal law that collapses under constitutional pressure, inviting litigation and leaving victims behind, or we can reaffirm a basic democratic truth: Parliament sets law, courts apply it and the charter guards against true excess, not political discomfort. Bill C-16, as written, fails that test.

We must also consider the context in which Bill C-16 is being debated. Canadians are not imagining things. They are not misinformed. They are responding to reality. After nearly a decade of catch-and-release bail policies, the repeal of mandatory minimums and a long line of Liberal criminal justice reforms, Canadians are scared. They have every reason to be. Since 2015, trafficking has increased by over 80%. Sex assaults are up nearly 76%. Violent crime overall has increased by more than 50%. These are not talking points. These are StatsCan figures.

Mandatory sentencing is not optional and never should be. Parliament did not impose these penalties casually or accidentally. They were put in place precisely because certain crimes are so grave, so dangerous and so destructive that Parliament determined that incarceration must be the baseline, not the exception. That is why it is so troubling that even where Bill C-16 contains measures we can acknowledge as constructive, the government insists on embedding them inside a broader, soft-on-crime framework that undermines their effectiveness.

There are elements of the bill that move in the right direction. Banning the creation and distribution of deepfake images is necessary and long overdue. We are pleased that the government finally adopted the substance of my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill's private member's bill, Bill C-216, to protect Canadians from this new and insidious form of exploitation. Likewise, the inclusion of mandatory reporting requirements for child sex abuse material, also drawn from that private member's bill, is a necessary step.

I am also pleased to see the government finally adopting an approach that Conservatives have been calling for all along, recognizing the murder of an intimate partner as first degree, a reform championed by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola in his private member's bill.

These positive measures do not excuse what comes next. Despite these additions, Bill C-16 continues the Liberal pattern of weakening accountability. The bill would empower judges to disregard virtually every mandatory prison sentence in the code, with the exception of two: murder and treason. That includes mandatory penalties for aggravated sexual assault with a firearm, human trafficking, extortion with a firearm, drive-by shootings and multiple firearm offences. If judges are permitted to simply opt out of these penalties, then nothing about these sentences is mandatory, full stop. This is not reform. This is an abdication of our responsibility. If the government were serious about public safety, it would split the poison pill from the bill and allow Parliament to work constructively on the provisions that genuinely protect Canadians.

Conservatives believe that Parliament must stand with victims, not with legal loopholes. We believe accountability must be real, not optional. We believe that the role of the House is to protect Canadians, not to explain away its own inaction. The bill can be made better, but only if the Liberals are prepared to abandon their soft-on-crime reflex and take public safety seriously for a change.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has had conversations with the Minister of Justice.

There are sections of Bill C-16 that Greens will support, but there are other sections that we would like amended. Does the hon. member have a sense from the government as to whether amendments will be entertained and if we could move swiftly on the parts we all agree on, such as proper sentencing, and move quickly against intimate partner violence?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. I am very hopeful that 2026 ushers in a positive change in the House of Commons.

Today the Prime Minister and the government House leader gave press conferences setting out their purpose for the winter and spring session. They want to prioritize the quick passage of Bill C-14 and Bill C-16. We are currently debating that. In fact, it may have already been passed at justice committee, which started at 11 o'clock. We want to prioritize Bill C-14, because this is what Canadians want.

I had a conversation with the justice minister, but we did not get to the point where he would actually admit to any willingness to accept reasonable amendments. In the spirit in which the Prime Minister and the government House leader made their comments today, I would hope that would be predictive of his approach and instructions to his parliamentary secretary and his colleagues on the justice committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in a number of the comments that the member put on the record today. I took, in good faith, what the leader of the Conservative Party indicated.

On the importance of the crime agenda, the member knows full well what happened back in December. Canadians could have had bail reform. We could have had better bail laws had the Conservative Party taken a different approach in dealing with crime legislation. Bill C-16, which deals with issues like gender-based violence and child predators, is very important legislation. There was an expectation that the Conservatives would show more co-operation with the government to pass these important pieces of legislation.

Will the member give a clear indication on whether or not the Conservatives would like to see the bill sent to committee, where it could have further debate?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can answer the question very affirmatively. It is yes.

Ideally, we want this bill to be split in order to focus in on those areas that have been long overdue for 10 years. Victims, law agencies and victim advocacy groups have all been asking for additional reforms to prioritize the needs of victims, to recalibrate the focus on bail and to take a look at community safety, while at the same time upholding the constitutional rights of the accused.

Where was the Liberal government? The government would say it was all in our minds. In fact, Arif Virani, literally minutes after his swearing-in at Rideau Hall, answered a number of press reporters by simply indicating that the whole concept of Canada being a dangerous place was all fictitious and was all in the minds of Canadians.

I read the justice minister's end-of-term report to a national reporter saying that he is listening to Canadians. It is absolutely about time. As Conservative Party members, including me and my former colleague who is a Crown prosecutor, we have been pushing and advocating for sentencing and justice reforms to reflect what the Canadian public wants. I have invited—

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

We will go to more questions.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to much of my colleague's speech, but I am having a hard time understanding some of his arguments.

From what I see, this bill is intended to close loopholes and ensure that serious crimes are prosecuted, including cases that did not go to trial because of the Jordan decision. The Bloc Québécois had said that the notwithstanding clause should be used because that makes no sense.

My colleague generally agrees with the idea of minimum sentences. However, from what I understand so far, more such sentences will be imposed. I am therefore having a hard time understanding the opposition. Could my colleague clarify his position on this? I am interested in hearing it.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear about something. Bill C-16 would make available the possibility that all the mandatory minimum penalties that were ruled unconstitutional by appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, get reopened. This would include the most recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Senneville, which was on the possession of child sexual abuse material. This bill would bring back all the mandatory minimum penalties that were ruled unconstitutional but not removed from the Criminal Code.

That would provide an overly broad safety valve to any judge, without any instruction from Parliament. There would be no guardrails for a justice on their own or when hearing from the accused offender at sentencing, or from the defence counsel. There would be an argument that the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty could lead to cruel and unusual punishment. That is the test. That is what Bill C-16 would do. It would invite more litigation. It would slow the process, which is still trying to catch up from the aftermath of the pandemic.

We do not need more litigation. We need clarity from Parliament. That is why we hope Bill C-16 will be studied as soon as possible at the justice committee, in order to make it better.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I thank my hon. colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for his very compelling intervention.

The question I have for my hon. colleague is the same one I asked the Minister of Justice, but I do not feel we got a satisfactory answer. In their 10 years of government, with Bill C-5, the Liberals legislated that people who do drive-by shootings and extortion with a firearm can serve their sentences on house arrest.

Why is it that we are not addressing the ferocious gun crime? We have seen extortion go up over 300%. Why are we not addressing this? That is what is killing people, among other things.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question because it is important that legislation reflect not only the will of the public but also a rigorous debate in the House of Commons.

My friend commented on the rising level of gun crime and the outrageous extortion numbers, particularly in British Columbia. I was out there recently, giving a press conference. I was shocked to learn that there were 30 cases of extortion involving firearm usage in 21 days. There was nary a word from the Prime Minister, nary a word from the justice minister and, particularly, nary a word at all from the Liberal MPs from Surrey.

Yes, this is an invitation. It is a wake-up call. The justice minister said that he is listening to Canadians. Canadians want tougher penalties and want them now. They do not want any activist judges to determine what is a fit and proper sentence.

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

Madam Speaker, I find this interesting. I know the member opposite is very well versed in the law and the different jurisdictions that operate in our country. Drafting laws is a federal responsibility. Implementing them is a provincial responsibility. Local police are involved as well.

Speaking of local police, the Canadian Police Association has stated:

It is encouraging to see the federal government respond quickly when concerns arise about how the justice system manages serious public safety issues. Courts must operate independently, but there are times when outcomes naturally raise questions for the public and for front line officers about whether the process reflects the gravity of the offences involved. Legislative action such as Bill C-16 helps reinforce confidence that the system can adapt when needed to protect the most vulnerable.

We have police associations across the country agreeing that Bill C-16 is a solid bill. Can the member please put his politics aside and get behind this bill?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, clearly, my colleague opposite did not listen to a word I had to say, because I indicated that the vast majority of the provisions that deal with trial delays and victims are going to be supportable by the Conservative Party of Canada.

Where we differ, and I would beg to differ with her, is with respect to the position of law enforcement. They want meaningful sentences. They do not want activist judges or clever defence counsel now arguing without the appropriate guardrails or any instruction from Parliament as to what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

At the very least, they should define it in Bill C-16. They have not done that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to this important bill today. I am torn between being happy and surprised by the speech by the colleague who spoke before me. He does remarkable work in many ways at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Unfortunately, our Conservative colleagues have been slowing down the committee's work for months by filibustering Bill C-9.

They are against Bill C-9. We understand that and that is their right, but we still need to keep moving forward. They are holding up the work on Bill C-14. They are also holding up the work that we need to do on Bill C-16. These are three important bills and there are more. The committee is rather spoiled this year to have three major pieces of government legislation. They are being held up because our Conservative colleagues, who say that we need to pick up the pace, are actually slowing things down in committee.

I feel like picking up on what my colleague was saying in his speech: We need to put our money where our mouth is, or at least, set the rhetoric aside for a moment. We need action. I want to see my Conservative colleagues take action because I want to see Bill C-9 and Bill C-14 pass. I think that Bill C-16, which we are studying today, is just as important as the other two.

I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support passing Bill C-16 here at second reading so that we can study it in committee and pass it as quickly as possible. That is why our voters elected us, regardless of our party affiliation, and that is what the Bloc Québécois wants us to do.

Bill C-16 is what we might call a sweeping bill. If memory serves, I think it is 166 pages long and covers a wide range of topics. We have identified some that I think deserve the attention of the House.

To begin, the issue of coercive or controlling conduct has previously been the subject of a number of bills that, regrettably, were unsuccessful for all sorts of good or bad reasons. The most recent one died on the Order Paper last spring because of the elections in April 2025 before it could be passed in the Senate, where it went after being passed here in the House of Commons.

Now the government has come back with a bill that addresses this issue. I hope that this time, despite our Conservative colleagues' delay tactics at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we will be able to get to work and pass this bill. Quebeckers and Canadians, all our constituents, are asking us to do so, and they have a right to expect serious and diligent work on our part.

When it comes to controlling and coercive behaviour, we know that society is changing. It is changing for the better in many ways, but this also brings a number of new challenges. Intimate partner relationships have evolved over time for all sorts of reasons. I am not a sociologist, so I will not attempt to explain all the changes in society. In any case, this issue has evolved, and today we are seeing an increase in cases where one partner in a relationship exercises control over the other to the point of not only violating the other person's rights and freedoms, but also undermining their security and peace of mind, and sometimes even threatening their physical safety. This cannot be tolerated in a free and democratic society.

I do not want to repeat what has already been said many times over the past few years on this issue, but I think it is high time that we exert a measure of control over this problem, that we criminalize this behaviour and deal with it as much as possible. Obviously, some of the work will have to be done by the executive branch and police forces. Provincial parliaments, such as the National Assembly in Quebec City, will all have to address these problems. The federal government can still send a clear message by amending the Criminal Code.

I am therefore very pleased to see that this issue is being addressed again. Bloc Québécois members agree that this is important, and we will support the bill.

There is also the issue of femicide. We will have to agree on a definition of what constitutes femicide. Dictionaries offer a definition that goes something like this: a crime committed against a woman for the sole reason that she is a woman. That obviously makes no sense.

Evidently, we are in favour of fighting against such a backward and narrow-minded attitude, which should in no way be tolerated in our society.

There is also the other definition of femicide, which encompasses all crimes against women. Obviously, the problem can be quite different. I have no solution to propose. I am just saying that we should consider calling a spade a spade. I am thinking of the Polytechnique tragedy, which happened a long time ago. Someone walked into a classroom and killed women who were strangers to him simply because they were women. In my opinion, this is clearly a femicide.

Now, there are other situations where people kill their female partners. This is often due in large part to a history of controlling and coercive conduct toward their partner. The individual feels like he is going to lose that power, so he kills her in a fit of anger, or for some other reason. That is not acceptable either. We need to address both of these behaviours. Bill C-16 will create clear, significant criminal provisions. However, there is also a problem, or at least a challenge, with regard to education in our societies.

My wife was a teacher for her entire career. People who see my grey hair will probably assume that she is retired, and they are right. However, she still has many years of experience. She told me that the way children relate to each other in the classroom and on the playground changed over the course of her career. I can say that in 2026, things are no longer the way they were in 1980 or even in 1960. Relationships are much more complex.

Social media is now an integral part of children's daily, even hourly, lives. Kids are suggestible, and they experience the repercussions, both good and bad, of this vast communication network that they access on their phones. They are being influenced. We have worked long and hard on legislation to control what circulates on the Internet. That work will have to continue. Bill C-16 proposes measures to protect intimate images, including visual representations, which are also a new phenomenon.

When we look at Facebook and similar sites on our phones and we see these short videos, we get really scared, but I found out that half of these videos, if not more, are fake. They are edited. If these videos can influence me and rile me up, imagine how a six-year-old girl, a 12-year-old boy or an eight-year-old boy feels watching these videos. It can have a significant influence on them and, unfortunately, it is often a negative one.

This bill would prohibit the distribution of not only intimate images but also visual representations showing an identifiable person depicted as nude. These are important measures in Bill C‑16. There are also all sorts of other measures that focus on control.

I would like to return to the issue of femicide. We need to crack down on femicide. Bill C-16 indicates that these crimes will be treated as first-degree murder. That is good news. If a person kills his partner because he has been controlling her for months or years and feels like he is going to lose that control because she wants to break up, for example, I think we can easily equate that with premeditation and consider it first-degree murder. I welcome this measure, and the Bloc Québécois as a whole welcomes this provision.

There is also the question of the definition of harassment. Previously, in order for harassment to be considered criminal harassment, it had to be proven that the victim subjectively feared for their safety. Obviously, this led to lengthy questioning and cross-examination of victims. It had to be proven that the victim had really been afraid or that she had not been afraid but had thought afterwards that she could have been afraid. Victims were subjected to lengthy cross-examination in an attempt to cast doubt on their fears.

I think that it is practically indecent to do that to a victim of a behaviour that can be likened to criminal harassment. I think there needs to be more compassion for victims. Under Bill C-16, if the conduct of the individual in question can reasonably be interpreted as harassment or if it could cause the victim to believe that their safety or that of someone known to them is threatened, this constitutes evidence of criminal harassment. In our opinion, this is also good news, and we will fully support this provision.

There is also the issue of recruiting people under the age of 18. That is a major problem and another issue. Bill C-16 could have been split up into several bills. Our Conservative colleague said that it could have been split. I agree to some extent, but we need to act quickly. We need to address these problems. We have already discussed them at length a number of times. It is time to act. I applaud the minister 's decision to take action on these issues.

The recruitment of individuals under the age of 18 was still being discussed last year. I have raised this issue with the minister on a number of occasions. We have seen cases of 13- or 14-year-olds, sometimes kids even younger, being recruited by criminal organizations to commit crimes. They are told that they can earn money easily, simply by committing a certain crime or doing a certain thing, and they will get paid. They are told not to worry if they get caught, because sentences for minors are less severe than adult sentences. Criminals do not have to face the consequences of the crimes they want to commit because they get young people under the age of 18 to commit them for them. It is despicable and unacceptable. We need to crack down on this. I suggested to the minister that individuals who recruit young people to commit crimes should face double the sentence that would have been imposed if they had committed the crime themselves. The penalties must be severe.

The bill does not go that far; the maximum sentence is five years. We will discuss this in committee. I may have some amendments to propose, but we are moving in the right direction. We must fight this problem. The Bloc Québécois stands with the minister in this fight, and we may propose even tougher penalties, as I said.

There is the issue of minimum prison sentences, which is a whole saga. I cannot speak to what happened before, but for the 10 years I have been here, I have seen a kind of conflict of values or vision raging between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Liberals are in favour of releasing people accused of criminal offences at the earliest opportunity. I tend to agree with that approach. However, Conservatives argue the opposite, saying that the accused should be kept in custody until their trial, after which their guilt or innocence will be determined. I do not entirely agree with that.

Yes, we need to make our streets safer. Something needs to be done to make people feel safer on the streets of Quebec and Canada. The minimum sentences provided for in the Criminal Code can have an impact.

I proposed an idea that I heard from an expert witness I had asked to appear at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights two or three years ago. She was a university professor, and I had asked her a question. As we have seen, the Supreme Court prohibited or overturned the minimum sentences imposed by the Conservatives when they were in power. The Liberals abolished them, and rightly so, since the Supreme Court had told them to do so. Now, the government wants to reinstate them.

I asked this expert whether there was a middle ground, a compromise between the two. I asked her if we could set minimum sentences in situations where we think it would be a useful way to send a clear message to criminals that this is unacceptable, while allowing the judges and courts hearing the evidence to deviate from the minimum sentences in certain cases, but only in special circumstances that warrant such an exception.

This forces the court to defend its decision. If it deviates from a minimum sentence of five or 10 years, for example, it must give its reasons. In a few paragraphs or even a few pages, it has to explain why the minimum sentence is inappropriate in that specific case. I am very happy to report that the minister chose to go that route. The provision in the bill is is not exactly what I had suggested, but I think it is a good approach. The court will be able to make an exception if the minimum sentence would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The concept of cruel and unusual punishment already exists, and now it is going to be applied to exceptions to mandatory minimum sentences. I certainly welcome that.

We will see how things go in committee. I will very likely have some amendments to suggest there as well. We will see what our Conservative and Liberal colleagues have to say because I think that, when there are good discussions at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the light often shines through. Perhaps after hearing from other witnesses and from our colleagues, we will come up with other solutions or approaches, and that will be a good thing. We will see. However, we need to work on it and I am really pleased to see that the minister is addressing this problem.

Then there is the issue of unreasonable delay. As we know, trials often used to take far too long. Eventually, the Supreme Court decided to put an end to the delays with the infamous Jordan decision. It ruled that a trial before the Quebec court must be held within 18 months and that a trial before a superior court must be held within 30 months. These standards were established by the Supreme Court, and they make sense. I will be the first to agree with those time limits. I think we owe it to both the victim and the criminal to resolve the question of guilt within a relatively short period of time, without being overly hasty. No one wants to charge someone with a crime and hang them the following week. There needs to be enough time to hold a trial, hear witnesses, gather all the evidence and render a fair and reasonable decision. However, that needs to happen within a fair and reasonable time frame.

When the victim of a crime sees the trial against their assailant drag on for three, four or five years, at some point, they have the right to say that justice has not been served. They have the right to say that, whatever the decision may be, it is not justice. Decisions must be handed down within a much more reasonable time frame. Individuals accused of a crime that they have actually committed and who are likely to be found guilty do not mind so much if the trial takes time, especially since, if they are detained during that period, that time will count towards their sentence. It used to count as double the time. Now it counts as two-thirds. In any case, that may suit the offender. However, let us imagine that an individual is charged with a crime they did not commit and that, at the end of the trial, they are found not guilty and thus acquitted. That individual could have had to wait three or four years, for example, before being found not guilty. That makes no sense either. It makes no sense for the victims, it makes no sense for the accused and it makes no sense for society. We need to work towards being more effective.

The Bloc Québécois proposed deviating from the reasonable time frame by using the notwithstanding clause, which allows us to override the charter. We must not forget that being tried within a reasonable time is a charter right. The Supreme Court established what a reasonable time frame is, but the concept of a reasonable time is in the charter. We therefore proposed using the notwithstanding clause for specific crimes that are more serious. The minister rejected our suggestion and said that, instead, delays would be calculated based on factors that might not always be taken into account, such as case complexity and other things.

My time is up, but I would like to close by saying that I welcome this proposal in Bill C-16. We will discuss it and try to find ways to ensure that the entire population of Quebec, the provinces and Canada can be proud of our work and feel safe in our society.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the feedback we have been hearing from the Bloc. I know the minister responded relatively positively to the idea that we should try to get it to committee and have the healthy discussion. Hopefully, we will see some legislation ultimately pass in a form that would make all Canadians proud.

The member made reference to intimate images. It is currently an offence for non-consensual images to be put on the Internet or distributed. The member also emphasized, in his comments, the issue of deepfakes. Like the member, I have seen all sorts of deepfakes that very much look real. We are seeing a growing industry in that area on the Internet.

I wonder if the member could provide further comment with respect to that. Is he comfortable with what the government is proposing? Could he also provide his thoughts in regard to, from my perspective, getting it to the committee sooner as opposed to later?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments.

As I said, I support this bill, but it needs to be reworked. There are things that can and must be amended. I agree with him about deepfakes. This is a serious issue that also needs to be addressed. It is a new problem, a problem that society has in 2026, and we need to address it.

That said, I do not want us to lose sight of reality. The government has certain responsibilities. The House will assume its responsibilities. I hope that we can do so because, as I said earlier, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is dealing with filibustering. I hope that we can put an end to that and quickly pass these bills.

We also need to ensure that the provinces have the necessary resources to tackle this problem at its source. We need to work on education, help our young people learn to accept differences and encourage them to participate in discussions and mediation. We must restore harmony in our schools. We are talking about simple things like speaking to and treating others with respect. We need to work hard on that. That is a provincial responsibility, not a federal one, but the federal government can play a role by providing funding, releasing money for Quebec and the provinces so that they can effectively address these issues, which lead to the problems that we are trying to resolve here by amending the Criminal Code.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed serving with the member for Rivière-du-Nord on the justice committee when I was there in the last Parliament.

I am happy the member raised the issue of the Jordan decision. From time to time, there are delays in criminal trials, and the Supreme Court weighed in with a case called Jordan and set minimum timelines. This hits home for me because there was a high-profile murder in the metro Vancouver area a few years ago. The family members lived in my riding. This is exactly what happened, although then the judge made the right decision by very much doing the calculus that this bill now sets out regarding how to measure delays.

In the hon. member's opinion, does Bill C-16 adequately answer the challenges that the Jordan decision has introduced into criminal law?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I, too, greatly enjoyed serving with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is a gentleman, an intelligent one, and it is always a pleasure to have discussions with him.

Yes, we agree on the proposal set out in Bill C-16 regarding the issue of reasonable time limits. As I said earlier, we were approaching this issue differently until the courts were able to take action. It takes money, courthouses, courtrooms, judges, bailiffs, clerks. It requires a lot of money that Quebec does not have, and neither do the Canadian provinces. Everyone is facing budget constraints. Money will have to be found. I suggested to my previous colleague that money be put into education to address these issues upstream. I think that is important.

There is also the matter of backlogs. We have to be honest with ourselves. There is only one way to fix the backlog problem. It will take judges, rooms and staff, and all of that costs money. The federal government also needs to appoint judges. When it comes to appointments, there have been good times and not-so-good times. I invite my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to work to ensure that judicial vacancies are filled within a reasonable time as well. I do not know whether the backlog is one, three or six months, but it needs to be addressed as fast as possible. That is how we are going to fight the backlog problem. In the meantime, holes need to be plugged. We have to make sure that high-profile criminals are not released at the expense of public safety and against all common sense.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-16. However, I suspect that what this bill proposes will fall short. We will keep working on that.

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

Madam Speaker, in the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court established reasonable time limits in which trials must be held. I understand that, in the bill, the minister is expanding the criteria that the court will have to consider when it redefines what constitutes reasonable time limits.

I am wondering about the possibility that, ultimately, at the end of the exercise, with these new criteria, the Supreme Court will again propose reasonable time limits that will be difficult to meet. I am wondering whether this might be a bit of an exercise in futility and whether, sooner or later, we will be forced into having another debate on the use of the notwithstanding clause to put an end to the abuses that have been caused by the Jordan decision.

To what extent does my colleague believe that the minister's approach will address this issue from a legal perspective, even beyond the issue of budgets?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mirabel. I also really enjoy working with him. He is a brilliant man who excels at numbers, which is not my forte.

I agree with him on that point. I also believe that, despite Bill C-16, this is not going to succeed in the short or medium term. Again, we can lie to ourselves and pass 300 bills on the issue, but the only way to resolve the problem of trials being held within a reasonable time frame is to ensure proper funding.

We see the current state of our roads and it is appalling. We wait in our hospitals endlessly, from 24 to 48 hours in the emergency room, just to be seen. Children in schools have next to no services, because we lack the funds to hire specialized staff. When the government passes a budget, that obviously comes first. It is also obvious that justice is not quite as compelling. The government is going to put money into roads, schools and hospitals first. I would never blame anyone for that. However, we are going to have to tackle the justice problem, because if we cannot administer justice within a reasonable time frame, people are going to get fed up and take action in a way that no one here would want to see happen.

Bill C-16 and its time calculation method will help for a while, yes. I certainly hope so. Deviating from the time limits set for serious crimes is what we proposed, and I still agree. However, we must never lose sight of the fact that these are temporary proposals meant to last only until we really manage to get the problem under control and until it never again takes longer than 18 or 30 months to hold a trial anywhere in Quebec or Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things we need to recognize is that the federal government plays a critical role, obviously. That is why we have come together with a crime package, a series of bills. Bill C-16 is one of them. It also involves and incorporates the need for provinces, which are often appointing the judges and providing the funds for courts. There are police and law enforcement agencies that go beyond the RCMP. It is multi-faceted. We all have a responsibility, in terms of the different levels of government.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts. Yes, we bring forward legislation. We do, through equalizations and so forth, provide support for the Crown. We also need the provinces and, to a certain degree, all levels of government to step up to the plate as the Prime Minister has done.