Debates of Jan. 26th, 2026

Protecting Victims Act

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this, Mr. Speaker. Let me take a step back.

Conservatives tried, in December, at the justice committee 19 times for the government to let us focus on Bill C-14, to allow us to focus on bail. The Liberals on the justice committee denied that while this very member was speaking in this House of Commons asking why the justice committee was not focusing on bail. We tried. Finally, today, we were able to break that impasse and set aside the divisive Bill C-9 to focus on Bill C-14. If Bill C-16 is coming before the justice committee soon, this is also an issue that we agree is very important.

However, I note that we should not be taking our cues from the courts on matters that are so very clear to members of this chamber and to Canadians. We are the ones responsible. We have a tremendous honour to be in this chamber. I have not been here as long as the member has, but I appreciate the honour it is to be here and actually be able to respond to the concerns of Canadians on justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he tried on 19 separate occasions to work on Bill C-14 on bail. With all due respect to my colleague, who usually works in good faith, I find that comment disingenuous. On the 19 occasions in question, the request was to stop our study of Bill C-9, which deals with hate. I know because I was there.

The Conservatives did not want us to continue working on the bill dealing with hate because they wanted us to focus on Bill C-14. However, the role of a committee is to study all bills and vote on each one. This is true for Bill C-9, just as it is true for Bill C-14 and Bill C-16.

My question for my colleague is this: Can he guarantee that the Conservative Party will act in good faith, that all filibustering at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will cease at once, and that the Conservatives will agree to work with us? They will vote as they see fit, for or against, but will they agree to work together rather than prevent the committee from functioning?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your great work and it is good to see you after a lengthy winter break.

Conservatives always stand ready, in good faith, to deal with the criminal justice priorities of Canadians. We have been saying that since the justice committee was convened, I have been saying it since I was placed on the justice committee and we have been saying it as the justice committee has worked through legislation, including the bill the member opposite raises, which Canadians have been clear they do not want. We stand in good faith, as always, to deal with the real criminal justice priorities of Canadians, and I am glad we are finally moving forward in that vein. I welcome the Liberals to the team that we have been on for a while, which is the team that wants to get serious about bail.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain. Today's debate on Bill C-16 brings us to a topic that is both difficult and essential, a simple and fundamental question: Do our laws really protect women and children who are victims of violence as much as they should?

One of the Canadian values that is close to my heart is how we protect the most vulnerable. That is what we are talking about today. We must ask ourselves whether our justice system fully recognizes that gender-based violence is not always loud, that it is not always visible and, above all, that it is almost never a one-time event. Bill C-16 asks us to face this reality head-on.

Over the next few minutes, that is what I would like to explain. Why is this bill necessary? What does it change, in a meaningful way? Above all, why does the bill finally respond to what survivors across the country, including in regions like mine, have been telling us for far too long?

For too long, our criminal law has failed to grasp the true nature of gender-based violence, especially when it comes to domestic violence, which is, in fact, one of the most common forms. Even today, our legal framework focuses on isolated acts: a specific assault, threat or incident. However, in doing so, it misses the point, in that it misses the overall pattern of behaviour that defines most abusive situations. Survivors have made it clear that domestic violence, as I also said earlier, is almost never a single or sudden act. It is a gradual increase of control. It means isolation from loved ones, constant monitoring, financial dependence, humiliation, intimidation and manipulation. When we look at these actions individually, it is already unacceptable. However, taken together, it destroys a person's freedom, security and dignity.

These forms of violence remain largely absent from the Criminal Code. That is what we want to correct with Bill C-16. At the heart of the bill is an essential recognition: gender-based violence is not limited to physical abuse. It also impacts autonomy, freedom and dignity. The reforms we are proposing today are aimed at better preventing violence before it escalates, better supporting victims when they seek help and improving the justice system's response to their reality.

One of the key measures in the bill is the creation of a new offence that criminalizes coercive control in intimate relationships. This is a major step forward. This offence will allow us to recognize that violence often manifests itself through a series of repeated acts which, taken together, deprive a person of their independence, safety and decision-making power. Criminalizing coercive control sends a clear message: psychological domination is a serious form of violence.

The bill also addresses the most extreme form of gender-based violence: the murder of women because they are women. Bill C-16 explicitly recognizes femicide where the victim is female. It provides that murders committed under four specific circumstances will automatically be classified as first degree murder, the most serious offence in the Criminal Code, punishable by life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years. These circumstances reflect realities that women and girls disproportionately face, namely, homicides committed in situations of coercive control, sexual violence, exploitation or gender-based hatred.

We also understand that fighting gender-based violence is not just about creating new offences. It also involves making justice systems more accessible, safer and quicker to respond before the violence becomes irreversible. In this regard, former Bill S-205, which came into force in April, was an important step forward and created a new protection order, namely, a peace bond specifically designed for situations of domestic violence.

Bill C‑16 strengthens this tool. It could allow justices of the peace, who are often more available than judges in many regions of the country, to hear applications and impose protection conditions of up to two years. For women living in rural areas, like my region, where access to the courts can be limited and delays can become dangerous, this measure is especially crucial.

In my riding, I had the opportunity to welcome both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Women and Gender Equality. Together, we held round tables with organizations that are on the front lines, every day, working with women and children who are victims of violence.

I want to list those organizations, which do outstanding work in my riding. They are La Méridienne, the Haut-Saint-François Women's Center, Phelps Helps, the CDC du Haut-Saint-François, CALACS, ConcertAction Femmes Estrie and the Lennoxville & District Women's Centre. The discussions reminded us of the unique realities facing people in rural areas, including transportation problems, isolation and a lack of anonymity because everyone knows each other. They also reminded us of the essential role that multi-faceted organizations play in meeting almost every need and in providing support for women that goes well beyond helping them deal with domestic violence.

I want to share something that a worker at the Haut-Saint-François Women's Center said when I showed her Bill C-16. She said that she was very pleased to finally see a bill that seeks to criminalize coercive control, that this is an extremely important step forward, that criminal harassment is one of the most common issues experienced by the people she works with and that it is very difficult to file a complaint and to have the conditions enforced. She also said that court delays and a lack of protection are two major reasons why victims decide not to report what is happening to them. Bill C-16 responds to those exact issues.

Beyond creating new offences, the bill also improves the courtroom experience for victims. It expands access to testimonial aids—screens, remote testimony, support persons—for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and criminal harassment. For many survivors, the courtroom can be a place of revictimization. These measures will reduce trauma and promote meaningful participation in the judicial process.

The bill also modernizes the response to technology-facilitated violence. It increases the severity of the offence related to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to explicitly include deepfakes of a sexual nature. It also adds extortion for sexual purposes, known as sextortion, as an aggravating factor and increases the maximum penalties for certain summary conviction offences. This recognizes a simple reality: digital violence can follow a woman everywhere, at all times.

Bill C-16 also modernizes the offence of criminal harassment. Rather than requiring proof that the victim actually feared for their safety, it will now suffice to demonstrate that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would also have feared for their physical or psychological safety. This change will allow for earlier intervention, before violence escalates.

The bill would also amend the Firearms Act to require chief firearms officers to deny or revoke a licence when there are concerns related to domestic violence or harassment. The data is clear. Access to firearms significantly increases the risk of death in domestic violence situations.

Lastly, the bill strengthens the rules that govern trials for sexual offences. It restricts access to therapeutic records and simplifies sexual history procedures to reduce delays, avoid duplicate hearings and ensure that decisions are based on facts rather than myths or stereotypes.

Taken together, these changes mark a turning point in how Canada understands and addresses gender-based violence. Although the scars left behind by coercive control are not always visible, they are deep. Digital violence knows no borders and when the system is slow to act, the consequences can be irreversible. Bill C‑16 responds to these realities by improving the recognition of this violence, increasing protection, providing real support for survivors and clearly recognizing the seriousness of femicide.

No law alone will end violence against women. However, laws shape culture. They show what we are willing to tolerate and where we draw a red line. When survivors come forward, they are not seeking compassion only. They want a system that understands the reality of the situation and acts before it is too late, as we are doing with Bill C-16.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite on her speech.

I am pleased that we are talking about Bill C-16, because I have a concern about victims, especially victims of aggravated and violent sexual assault. I spoke just last week with one such victim, the survivor of an extremely violent sexual assault by a repeat offender who recently completed his federal sentence and is now out of the system, so to speak. The victim, this woman, is finding it terribly hard to feel safe because she cannot get any information, like where this assailant lives, an assailant who, as I said, has been released with very limited control. What I mean is that, despite the availability of an ombudsman for victims of crime, the service is not perfect. These victims understandably experience distress.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that we are doing enough for women victims of violent sexual assault. How could we improve their conditions?

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

It is completely unacceptable for women and children to end up in violent situations. As I said, it leaves lasting marks and scars that can stay with them throughout their lives. Are we doing enough? I would say that we can never do enough. We are taking a really meaningful step here to support these women, to reassure them, to better help them. We must continue to do more.

I would like to thank the organizations in my riding, which I mentioned earlier, that support these women on a daily basis. They are doing an exceptional job. As I said, it is never enough, and we must continue to help these organizations and support women. However, I think that we are taking meaningful steps to support them.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many portions of my hon. colleague's speech that I agree with completely. My colleague sat with me on the public safety committee for a number of weeks previously, and I think she knows that we can agree on a lot of things.

Pretty much all of my colleague's speech was about the things needed in this bill that the Conservatives can agree with. We have asked for these things for probably 10-plus years, I am quite sure, and some of them are commendable.

I wonder if she would comment on the fact that this bill would empower judges to ignore literally every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code, such as those for aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking and other multiple violent firearms offences that are harming and hurting women in our community.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to take this bill for what it is: a bill that will support victims, that respects the legal framework and that will not be challenged before the Supreme Court. I think what we are doing is extremely important. I am speaking in the strongest possible terms.

My colleague and I have worked very well together. I think we share the same concerns about women, children and victims of violence. I truly believe we have some good solutions.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I also want to thank her for saying a few words about feminist organizations. I have also heard that police associations support this bill. I would like to know whether my colleague has heard the same thing.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have. Not only do police associations support this bill, but so do victims' rights organizations, as well as the provinces and territories. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities also applauded this bill. Yes, police forces across the country welcome the bill. We have a bill that has achieved consensus across all spheres.

I really hope that my colleagues on the other side of the House will support it because there is a consensus across this country.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and the government's ongoing efforts to protect children and ensure that child sex exploitation is unequivocally denounced, deterred and prevented.

Colleagues may know that I also have a private member's bill coming up for second reading in a couple of days, the keeping children safe act. I feel that this bill works in the criminal context to do what my bill does in the family courts. It protects children, it gives them a voice and it protects them from coercive control after a relationship is done.

I served as a journalist for more than 20 years. I spent a lot of that time in criminal court, so I know a lot of victims of really heinous crimes. I know that they expect a justice system that does not tolerate things like sexual exploitation, that protects victims and that hands serious consequences to people who commit serious crimes. Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, reflects the government's commitment to ensure that our criminal law is strong, principled and capable of meeting that responsibility.

I will start by addressing the mandatory minimums that we have heard so much about here in this chamber today. I know it has been a controversial topic. I have covered criminal court, and it has been a controversial topic for decades.

Mandatory minimum penalties, for those who are not aware, mean that a judge cannot impose a sentence any lower than the prescribed minimum penalty, regardless of the circumstances. They can impose a longer sentence, but they can never impose a shorter sentence. It does not matter what the evidence was that they heard. Victims like mandatory minimum penalties because they clearly denounce serious crimes. They can be a deterrent for some offenders, but they can also be unfair in some circumstances. That is what we have heard from the Supreme Court. Judges currently do not have any discretion, even if they feel that a mandatory minimum is too harsh for the particular case that is in front of them.

Mandatory minimums risk violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They can result in grossly disproportionate sentences. Unlike what we have heard from the Conservatives so far today, “grossly disproportionate” is a really high threshold. It means that it must outrage our society's sense of decency and that Canadians would find the sentence abhorrent or intolerable. That is the only time a judge would be allowed to use this mechanism, because there is no mechanism like this. Mandatory minimums have been declared unconstitutional by courts across Canada, including in child sex offence cases.

However, the government agrees that mandatory minimums can be a good thing. They can denounce and deter some of the most serious crimes. That is why we have these provisions in Bill C-16. That is why we see this decisive, immediate action and these reforms in Bill C-16, where we would amend the Criminal Code to restore mandatory minimum penalties that have been found unconstitutional by the courts. We would do this by including a provision that provides judges the ability to have some discretion. They could order a sentence of imprisonment lower than the statutory mandatory minimum, but in very narrow situations.

In most cases, the mandatory minimum would still apply, but if the court is sentencing an offender for something where the mandatory minimum will be found to be grossly disproportionate, should we just let it go to the Supreme Court to be thrown out and not have that law at all? With Bill C-16, the court does not need to do that. It does not need to throw it out. It does not need to find a mandatory minimum unconstitutional, and there would always still be a prison sentence. A conditional sentence would not apply in these circumstances.

We would strike a balance, as the Supreme Court suggested. This is an approach that is responsive to stakeholders and suggestions that have been made repeatedly by the courts. When Bill C-16 comes into force, all the mandatory minimums that were found unconstitutional but that remain on the federal statute book would be considered restored. They would all come back into force.

The courts would once again be required to impose mandatory minimum penalties for all the offences for which the penalty has not been repealed from the law, except in the rarest cases where the mandatory minimum penalty would result in cruel and unusual punishment for the offender before the court. It is a very high bar.

I know victims will appreciate these measures, and I applaud the government for finding this middle ground. I also want to say that, as a feminist, I am so proud of this legislation. I am so proud that Canada is bringing this legislation forward. We know that gender-based violence and sexual exploitation are growing in this country. Around the world, they are growing. Online and off-line, predators are increasingly using digital tools to target our children. Bill C-16 addresses that.

We heard about the victims who did not have their cases heard at all in court because of Jordan's principle. Bill C-16 would deal with those delays we have seen in court. That means that more cases would actually be heard in court. The bill addresses and calls out femicide. It addresses criminal harassment and the non-consensual sharing of images, particularly deepfake images produced by AI.

As we have heard, which makes my heart sing, Bill C-16 would criminalize coercive control. I was here in the last Parliament when former NDP member Laurel Collins brought the coercive control bill to Parliament. I remember the impassioned speech that she gave about why we need this law on our books. Bill C-16 takes that private member's bill, the amended version of it that was meant to pass in the House, and incorporates it.

Too many women and children are living in fear in this country. My private member's bill and Bill C-16 address a lot of their concerns, and I encourage all members of the House to support them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled about this debate around mandatory minimum sentences. When I read the proposed legislation, it definitely sounded like a back door for judges to be able to determine, with respect to a situation in front of them, that it would amount to cruel and unusual punishment to impose the minimum sentence. That is exactly the argument that judges have been using all along to declare mandatory minimum sentences to be unconstitutional. Therefore, I do not know how we are getting any further ahead, with this legislation, in handling the challenge that the court has thrown at us.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to explain. It has not been happening all over. It has been happening at the Supreme Court when a case comes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decides that we cannot have a mandatory minimum sentence if it is too broad, if it encompasses a situation where Canadians would find it abhorrent for the mandatory minimum sentence to be applied.

It is a very high bar. A case the Supreme Court talked about, for example, was if a 17-year-old shared an intimate picture of his 16-year-old girlfriend with a friend. It is a terrible thing. It is illegal and he should not do that, but should he spend his entire life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years? Most Canadians would say no, and that is why the Supreme Court said that we need to have an off-ramp. We need to give judges discretion. They have to be able to hear all of the evidence.

In the worst cases, yes, we need a mandatory minimum. We need people to know that these crimes are intolerable in Canada. However, for those cases, if we want the Supreme Court not to throw out the mandatory minimum penalties, we need this off-ramp.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑16 as a whole. It includes several of our recommendations.

We see that the Liberals want to strengthen certain laws in order to undercut the Conservatives. For example, we rose several times on the issue of the Jordan decision because prosecutions for serious crimes, like murder or sexual assault, were dropped as a result of delays. Fortunately, Bill C‑16 will help establish the conditions for going over the deadlines set out in the Jordan decision.

Why did the government wait so long before taking action?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the government waited. I believe that the government was already working on it in the previous Parliament. However, there is an opposition that does not want us to pass legislation in this country. That is why, to date, we have not been able to get this bill passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C-16 and turn to mandatory minimums, I am concerned. As someone who stood in the House repeatedly to oppose the mandatory minimums brought in during the Harper administration in, at that time, Bill C-10, I remember going through the academic articles and the reviews by experts in criminal law. One of the things they found throughout the United States, where mandatory minimums were used widely, was that it did not deter criminal activity. It actually overcrowded jails. It was not working to deter criminal activity.

Does the member know if, in doing this, it is in response to a rallying cry that is more partisan-based or whether it is evidence-based?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not involved in the drafting of this bill, but I am certain it was evidence-based. We do know that Canadians want mandatory minimums when they are appropriate and that they can deter crimes.

I have sat in criminal courts too long not to understand the member's skepticism and to feel it a bit. It is hard to imagine that a criminal would be deterred from committing a horrific crime if they know the sentencing threshold if they get caught. It is hard to imagine. The principle in court, I believe, is that a mandatory minimum can denounce a crime and also deter it from happening.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a very heavy heart to share with members on all sides that our dear friend, Kirsty Duncan, has passed.

I thought it would be most appropriate for the House to have a moment of silence, in love and prayers, and to offer our condolences.

Hon. Kirsty Duncan

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would invite all members to rise and observe a moment of silence in memory of our late colleague, Kirsty Duncan.

[A moment of silence observed]

I will say on behalf of all parliamentarians that we send our deepest love and respect to Kirsty's loved ones and family on her passing. I know that those of us who had the privilege of serving with her in this place will never forget her hard work, her courage, her compassion and, above all, her kindness.

We send our love and support to all who knew Kirsty Duncan.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

Protecting Victims Act

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House today on behalf of my resilient neighbours in Oshawa.

As this is the first sitting day back in the House of Commons, I want to wish everyone here a happy new year and thank the many Oshawa residents, community organizations and local businesses I had the privilege of spending time with over the winter break, listening, learning and reconnecting. Those conversations were not brief or superficial. They were long, honest and deeply personal. They spoke to me as parents and grandparents, as workers, and as neighbours who care deeply about the future of our community. Those conversations will also continue to guide my work here as I focus on the issues that matter most to the people I represent.

Across those conversations, one concern was raised consistently and without hesitation, and that concern was public safety. Families in Oshawa are worried about violent crime. Seniors are worried about repeat offenders being released back into their neighbourhoods. Women are worried about intimate partner violence, online exploitation and whether the justice system will truly protect them. Quite frankly, they have lost faith in our failing so-called justice system.

These concerns are not theoretical; they are not driven by headlines alone. They are grounded in lived experience and in what people are seeing happen around them every single day. However, we must note that these concerns did not appear overnight. They are the result of deliberate political choices made by the Liberal government over more than a decade. It is in that real and lived context that I rise today to speak to Bill C-16.

Canadians are not judging this Parliament by the titles of our bills or the intentions behind our bills. They are judging us by the results they see in their daily lives. They are judging us by whether they feel safer today than they did 10 years ago. For far too many Canadians, the honest answer is no.

After a decade of Liberal catch-and-release bail policies, the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences and a series of laws that consistently place the interests of offenders ahead of those of victims, Canadians are understandably concerned and afraid. Since 2015, under the Liberal government, human trafficking has increased by 84%, sexual assaults are up nearly 76% and violent crime overall has increased by almost 55%. Those numbers are staggering. They are not abstract statistics pulled from thin air but represent real people in our communities. They represent victims whose lives have been changed forever, families whose sense of safety has been shattered, and communities that no longer feel protected by the justice system that is supposed to serve them.

When violent crime rises by more than half in less than a decade, that is not bad luck; it is policy failure. Crime did not rise by accident. It rose after the Liberals introduced bail reform, their version of it, which actually weakened bail, repealed mandatory minimum sentences and repeatedly signalled that incarceration should be the last resort, even for serious and violent offenders.

When a government lowers consequences, crime rises and Canadians are forced to live with the results of that approach every day. This is the backdrop against which Bill C-16 must be assessed.

I want to pause here to speak directly about what rising crime looks like in Oshawa, because national statistics tell only part of the story. Oshawa is my home, where I was born and raised and where I have raised my children. Our neighbours still believe in looking out for one another. Oshawa is a community built on hard work, responsibility and fairness, and it is a community that deserves to feel safe.

Over the past several years, that sense of safety has been steadily eroding. Parents tell me they think twice before letting their children walk to school or play outside. Over the break, I learned of a couple of teenagers up the street from where I live and where my daughter walks to school, who were brutally attacked by an older teenager who is about 16 or 17. Mothers are crying on the phone with me for almost an hour as they talk about their children's brutal attack and stabbing and not knowing whether their assailant is back out or whether their child can walk safely up the street, the same street my child walks up to her high school. Seniors tell me they no longer feel comfortable answering the door unless they are expecting someone. Small business owners speak about theft, vandalism and break-ins that were once rare but are now routine in the Oshawa downtown core.

What troubles people most is not that the crime has increased, but that the same offenders seem to return again and again. Oshawa residents see individuals arrested on serious charges and released back into the community with little delay, and victims retraumatized when offenders cycle through the system. When I speak with officers and civilian members of the Durham Regional Police Service in Oshawa, they speak with professionalism and dedication, but also with a great deal of frustration. They do their job, make arrests and answer the life-changing calls of so many, but often they see the same individuals back on the street shortly after, not because the police failed but because Liberal policy made accountability optional. This is not the fault of frontline officers; it is the result of decisions made in the House by the Liberal government.

The government claims this bill is about protecting victims. Canadians have heard that promise before, have we not? We heard it when the Liberals passed, for instance, Bill C-75, which made it easier for repeat and violent offenders to obtain bail. We heard it again when the Liberals repealed mandatory minimum sentences for firearms and drug trafficking offences through Bill C-5. Each time, the result was the same: More offenders were released, more victims were terrorized and there was more fear in our communities.

The creation of a new offence targeting coercive or controlling conduct in intimate relationships is sensible and a preventive measure. It finally acknowledges what victims and frontline workers have known, which is that abuse rarely begins with a single act of violence. It usually escalates over time. It isolates and controls, and when governments intervene earlier, lives can be saved. What took the government so long?

We also support making the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder, a reform proposed by my Conservative colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola in his private member's bill, Bill C-225, which I proudly jointly seconded. This change acknowledges the seriousness of the epidemic of intimate partner violence and the reality that these crimes are rarely spontaneous.

The bill's expansion of the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to include sexually explicit deepfakes is also welcome. This measure is similar to the measures first proposed in Bill C-216, which was introduced by my conservative colleague for Calgary Nose Hill, and it would respond to the growing misuse of technology to humiliate, control and exploit victims, particularly women and girls.

Strengthening mandatory reporting requirements for child sexual exploitation material also builds on work originally done by a previous Conservative government and reflects a shared commitment to protecting children from the most horrific forms of abuse imaginable. Conservatives agree that these measures are positive, necessary and deserve support, but they do not excuse what comes next. Bill C-16 includes a sweeping change that would allow judges to impose sentences below mandatory minimum penalties for nearly all Criminal Code offences, except murder and high treason. These mandatory minimum penalties are not, then, worth the paper they are written on, because they are not really mandatory at all. In practical terms, mandatory minimum sentences could result in lighter sentences for serious and repeat offenders over time.

Weakening those penalties sends a message, whether the government admits it or not, that accountability is negotiable. Criminals pay attention to that message. The Liberals would like Canadians to believe this change is narrow and very technical, but it is not; it is part of a consistent pattern. The government has repeatedly chosen to make the system more lenient on offenders while communities pay the price. Warnings from police chiefs, police associations, provincial governments and victims' advocates have been repeated hundreds of times and ignored just as often.

Parliament has a responsibility to stand with victims. Public safety is not a theoretical construct. It is when a woman feels safe walking home after her shift; it is when parents trust that violent offenders will not be released back into their communities; it is when my neighbours in Oshawa believe their government takes their safety seriously, and I promise that they just do not believe the government takes their safety seriously. Each time concerns were raised, the Liberals dismissed them; each time crime rose, they denied responsibility; and each time Canadians felt less safe, they were told to trust the same approach that caused the problem in the first place.

I want to speak now not only as a member of Parliament but as a mom. Like every parent in this country, I worry about the world my children are growing up in. I worry about whether they will be safe walking to school, riding public transit or navigating an online world that can be just as dangerous as the streets. We want our children to grow up in a country where laws protect the innocent, where laws protect the victims and not the criminals, where criminals face real consequences and where safety is not something we have to think about every time our children leave the house and walk to school. When violent crime rises, when offenders are repeatedly released and when penalties are weakened, it is families who pay the price, it is members who lie awake at night worrying, and it is parents who feel they must constantly shield their children from dangers that government policy has simply made worse.

I also want to take a moment to speak to my neighbours in Oshawa. When people ask how we arrived at this moment, how crime has been allowed to rise year after year after year, the answer is not complicated: It is this same Liberal Party, it is the same government and it is this same set of choices. The policies that weakened bail, repealed mandatory minimum sentences and prioritized ideology over public safety did not end with Justin Trudeau. They continue today under the current Liberal Prime Minister, defended by this very familiar Liberal cabinet and guided by the same approach.

Canadians were told that if they waited, things would improve. Conservatives have offered bill after bill, idea after idea and motion after motion that would protect Canadians, and the Liberal government, time and time again, said, “No, no; that's a bad idea. Just wait, because we are going to come up with the best thing you have ever seen. Just wait, and we will look after you.” After 10 years of waiting, Canadians are tired. They are tired of waiting to see if the government is going to have their backs. Police officers have our backs every day, and they are also tired of waiting to see if the government will have their backs, because it does not.

The people of Oshawa measure governments by results, not reassurance. They measure it by whether their streets feel safer today than they did 10 years ago. They measure it by whether repeat offenders are being held accountable or released. On those measures, the Liberal record is clear. For nearly a decade, the Liberal Party has been responsible for public safety. Over that time period, crime has risen and confidence has fallen. At some point, it is no longer credible to call that coincidence. It is simply cause and effect.

When the same party continues to govern, Canadians are entitled to ask what exactly is supposed to change if nothing else does, especially as our Conservative team has, as I have said, proposed countless measures in this House and at committee to increase public safety. However, the Liberals continue to opt out, delay or vote down these measures. What have they been waiting for? How many violent crimes and deaths could have been avoided? What is the threshold for finally implementing desperately needed change? What will it take?

The Liberals have introduced this bill, which has all sorts of wonderful things that we have been asking for for 10 years. They brought it forward with a little caveat that they know is a poison pill and needs to go: Mandatory minimum sentences are not really going to be mandatory any longer because there will be a safety valve. It is not really worth the paper it is written on anymore.

Parliament has a responsibility to stand with victims. That responsibility does not end with good intentions or a well-worded bill title. A bill cannot claim to protect victims while at the same time weakening the consequences for those who harm them. A government cannot claim to be tough on crime while repeatedly making life easier for criminals. The Liberals cannot have both.

Conservatives believe there is a better path forward. Parliament should pass the victim-focused measures that have broad support and real merit, and it should remove the provisions that weaken sentencing and continue the Liberal soft-on-crime agenda. I honestly do not know why these folks have this soft-on-crime agenda. It does not make a lot of sense to me.

One time I was sitting beside the Leader of the Opposition here in this House. I was listening to him as he was asking questions and the government came back with answers. I said to him, “I do not understand. Do they not see what is happening in our communities? Do they not care?” That is what I kept coming back to. It just feels like the Liberals do not care. Every time they take two steps forward, or one step forward, they seem to take two steps back. There are great provisions, things we want to see, but at the same time the Liberals are making life easier for criminals and giving unelected judges roles they are not supposed to have.

We believe there is a better path forward. Parliament should pass the victim-focused measures that have broad support and real merit, and it should remove the provisions that weaken sentencing and continue this Liberal soft-on-crime agenda.

Canadians deserve a justice system, not an injustice system. We deserve a justice system that deters crime, delivers real consequences and finally puts victims first. Until that happens, Conservatives will continue to hold the government accountable for the crime and chaos that it has created.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with a lot of what the member across the way has said. In good part, it is very misleading to Canadians.

If we take a look at the crime agenda that the Prime Minister and this government have brought in since the last election, I would challenge her to tell me when the last time was that we had such substantial legislation. We have not one, two or three pieces of legislation, but we are probably talking somewhere in the realm of four or five pieces of legislation that deal with making our communities safer.

The Conservative Party of Canada is preventing the legislation from passing. The best example of that is the bail reform legislation. I stood in my place back in December, begging for leave and asking for us to stay late into the evening so that we could have the necessary debates. We could have already passed the bail reform legislation.

If the member opposite truly wants to make our communities safer, then why does the Conservative Party continue to prevent substantive legislation from passing?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Quite frankly, it was expected. I knew it would be coming from him and I was prepared with these few thoughts.

On this side of the House, we feel it is very rich for the Liberals to say that we are holding back progress on public safety when for 10 years the opposition put forward motion after motion, private member's bill after private member's bill, and amendments at committees to make our public more safe and for 10 straight years they have continued to shoot them down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech.

I want to talk to her about one specific aspect of Bill C-16, which is a bill that we support. There is one measure that I believe will make a difference, and it involves criminal harassment.

I was a legal aid lawyer for 10 years. I had clients who came to me who were victims of criminal harassment. However, because of the way the offence is currently worded in the Criminal Code, in order for a charge to be laid, the harasser had to know that my client feared for her safety. I had to write a formal notice, find the perpetrator's address and send it to him, saying that my client feared for her safety and that he had to stop or else there would be further penalties.

Women are often the victims of harassment. This bill will allow women who are victims of harassment to go directly to the police and have charges laid. This will ultimately reduce the victims' suffering and also give them a sense of freedom, because victims often felt trapped.

Does my colleague agree that this is a step forward for victims of criminal harassment?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that this is a step forward. I think it is very important that we take people at their word. It reminds me of legislation the previous member for Oshawa tried to bring forward in this House regarding human trafficking and convicting human traffickers. The Crown had to prove that the victim felt fear in order to get a conviction. We have such a low conviction rate on human trafficking because we cannot prove the victim felt fear. This bill very much parallels that. I hope if a bill like that comes forward again in this Parliament, the member will support it.