Debates of June 10th, 2026

Protecting Victims Act

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

I just wanted to remind the hon. member that I do not think, but the hon. member for Moncton—Dieppe will.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate working with my friend and colleague on the other side on the NSICOP committee. I appreciate his service as an RCMP member for more than three decades over the years. Hats off to him for a job very well done.

I have to say that there is no black and white situation when it comes to this type of situation. I met with probably thousands of victims of intimate partner violence. These were very difficult situations when people came forward to make a complaint to the police. I think the inclusion of safety valves within Bill C-16 to allow judges, in exceptional circumstances, to use their discretion is absolutely a good idea.

I really think it is important to make sure that when we are meeting with victims and survivors, they know that the decision they make is going to have an impact and also that there are going to be serious consequences for the offenders if and when a charge is laid.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my full support to our colleague from the riding of Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, who, unfortunately, cannot be called by his name in the House. It would have been much simpler, as his riding has a very long name. We all heard about what happened today. We are all very concerned and wish him a very speedy recovery. We need his passion here in the House.

I congratulate my colleague opposite on her speech. There are a number of provisions in Bill C‑16 that we like. It contains very important measures to protect victims, especially victims of domestic violence.

However, the Bloc Québécois believes that coercive control should not be assessed by a single factor. A combination of factors should be considered. The Bloc Québécois tried to include provisions in the bill that would have judges consider a range of factors, meaning the situation as a whole.

That amendment was rejected by the Liberals, and I wonder why, because it was something very reasonable, very responsible and very respectful of victims and what they go through in these situations. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that at this stage of our study of the bill.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree. My colleague's riding has a very long name. I had to practise saying it many times before today. To answer my colleague's question about coercive control, I think that, once again, it is important to recognize all the circumstances that lead to this type of intimate partner violence.

As a frontline worker, I often met with people who would tell me a bit about their situation, and I think that before laying charges, it is absolutely essential to understand the full situation. Again, that is to determine the most appropriate charges to lay before the case is brought before the court.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I, too, want to wish our dear colleague from Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata a speedy recovery. I would also like to thank my colleague from Moncton—Dieppe for her speech.

My question relates to amending the Criminal Code to make it illegal for intimate, non-consensual images to be shared. As the member spoke about, and as I know from participating in committee work, this is a particularly terrible scourge for women who have deepfake images or non-consensual sexual images distributed by former partners.

Can the member talk about the importance of having this issue corrected and made illegal in Bill C-16?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague indicated in his question, it is imperative that we move forward with Bill C-16 as quickly as possible. These types of images can really ruin the lives of individuals and create chaos within their lives. As a result—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Pickering—Brooklin.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to be here today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to contextualize this legislation within Canada's broader efforts to confront and prevent gender-based violence.

Gender-based violence is a persistent and measurable reality affecting women, girls and gender-diverse people across this country. In 2024, 187 women were killed violently in Canada. That represents one woman every two days. Women are far more likely than men to experience severe forms of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and criminal harassment. More than one-quarter, about 28%, of all victims of violent crimes in 2024 were victimized by an intimate partner.

These are not isolated incidents, and our justice system has struggled to effectively address these crimes given the complex realities of gender-based violence and the patterns of coercive behaviour that often define abuse. The rate of intimate partner violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence experienced by women and girls, is more than 3.5 times higher than it is for men and boys. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and young women face even higher risks.

The Government of Canada has recognized that addressing gender-based violence requires a comprehensive and coordinated response. In 2017, the federal government released a federal gender-based violence strategy and has since invested over $800 million, about $44 million per year, to coordinate federal actions under three pillars: preventing gender-based violence, supporting survivors and their families, and promoting a responsive justice system.

Since 2022, the federal government has invested in a national action plan to end gender-based violence, a 10-year framework aiming to end gender-based violence in Canada by supporting victims and survivors of crime and their families and improving their experiences with the criminal justice system. Significant efforts have been undertaken in this area. For example, the federal victims strategy works to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system and to increase their access to justice.

Through the victims fund, which is part of the federal victims strategy, resources are made available to the provinces and territories for the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including for the development of public legal education and information material and the provision of training on the legislation for criminal justice professionals.

Considerable efforts have also been made to strengthen the criminal justice system's response to gender-based violence. Canada's Criminal Code provides a broad-based response to all forms of violence, exploitation and abuse against all persons in Canada.

Over the past year, legislative amendments in Bill C-51 and Bill C-75 clarified and strengthened sexual assault laws and the criminal justice system's response to intimate partner violence, and Bill C-233 imposed stricter conditions for people charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence. In addition, Bill S-205, which came into force in April 2025, created a new peace bond designed specifically to provide better protection for victims of intimate partner violence and for children, including by allowing conditions such as electronic monitoring to be imposed on the defendant.

All these efforts reflect an understanding that provision, protection, accountability and survivor support must work together. Today, Bill C-16 is a critical part of that continuum. It would strengthen the criminal law in ways that respond directly to what survivors, advocates and frontline professionals have long told us about how gender-based violence actually occurs.

Bill C-16 would create a new offence, criminalizing a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct in intimate partner relationships. This would address the reality that this abuse takes place over time. It would align the law with the lived reality of survivors and allow for earlier intervention before coercive or controlling conduct turns into serious physical harm or death. It would also support more accurate police and prosecutorial responses by requiring a contextual assessment of power and exploitation.

Bill C-16 would also address the most extreme manifestation of gender-based violence: the killing of women because they are women. By explicitly naming and recognizing femicide in the Criminal Code, the bill would acknowledge that women and girls are disproportionately killed in specific contexts, including intimate partner violence, sexual violence, exploitation and hate-motivated attacks.

Naming femicide matters. It makes visible a reality that has too often been obscured and affirmed: These killings are not random tragedies but are systemic failures that demand accountability. The bill would ensure that murders occurring in these circumstances are treated as first-degree murder. It would also require judges, when sentencing for manslaughter in the same context, to consider penalties equivalent to second-degree murder, including life imprisonment and parole ineligibility for 10 to 25 years.

Importantly, Bill C-16 also recognizes that gender-based violence increasingly occurs through technology. The rise of sexually explicit deepfakes, sextortion and online harassment has created new avenues for abuse, particularly targeting women and girls. These forms of violence can destroy reputations, livelihoods and mental health, and they often silence victims through shame and fear.

The bill would address these gaps by clarifying that non-consensual distribution of intimate images includes realistic deepfakes, as well as by criminalizing threats to distribute such materials and by increasing penalties for these offences. These measures would complement existing Government of Canada initiatives aimed at addressing online harms and protecting digital safety, particularly for young people.

The bill would also modernize the offence of criminal harassment. Data shows that striking and harassment are common precursors to serious violence, yet the current requirement to prove a victim's subjective fear has made early intervention difficult.

Further, Bill C-16 proposes reforms to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to better protect victims and expand access to testimonial aids for adult victims of intimate partner violence, sexual offences and criminal harassment, offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. These measures would improve justice system outcomes for victims by recognizing that court procedures themselves can be retraumatizing and that supporting meaningful participation is essential to justice.

The bill would also build on recent reforms to peace bonds and firearms controls, reflecting clear evidence that access to firearms significantly increases the risk of lethal intimate partner violence. By strengthening preventative tools and closing enforcement gaps, Bill C-16 supports the Government of Canada's broader commitment to keeping victims and communities safe.

Bill C-16 is a necessary step in Canada's ongoing commitment to confront gender-based violence with seriousness, clarity and resolve. It reflects the hard truths that violence is rarely a single act but often a pattern, that technology has created new tools for abuse, and that too many women and girls continue to lose their lives in preventable circumstances. By criminalizing coercive control, recognizing femicide, strengthening protections against online and intimate partner violence, and reducing barriers for victims and survivors of crime within the justice system, Bill C-16 would align our laws with lived reality and evidence.

For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-16. Addressing gender-based violence is not optional. Protecting victims—

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

We are over time. It is time for questions.

The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep telling Canadians that their safety valve measure in the bill, or, more accurately, a poison pill, a get-out-of-jail-free card, will be used only in rare and exceptional cases. If that is true, why were they unwilling to exclude serious offences such as aggravated sexual assault, extortion, and child sexual offences? If it is truly meant to be narrow, why is it written so broadly?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill that is in front of the House today and that we are debating is progressive. The changes we are proposing today would progress the Criminal Code more than the changes in all other years when we added so many measures to it did. The protecting victims act would be one of the most significant updates to the criminal justice system in generations, as I said. It has a broad scope. It would give judges the right to make decisions, and the safety valve would be there so they could make those decisions appropriately.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for my colleague.

Why did the Liberals refuse to consider objective criteria when it comes to peace bonds? It would have been one way to better prevent criminal harassment.

This is an important issue, particularly for victims.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, criminal harassment is a very big and important part of the bill. The bill would remove the subjective requirement to prove a victim's fear for their safety and replace it with the requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause a victim to believe that their safety is threatened, thereby removing the victim's need to testify. This would allow victims to better trust our system and ensure that the proposed offence captures harassing conduct committed through modern technology.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals tell us that the judicial safety valve is necessary to ensure flexibility. However, the criminal justice system already has safety valves in it. Police officers exercise discretion and lay charges, and the prosecutor has discretion on how they are going to handle a case and what that will look like for them. To me, the judicial safety valve would create an additional layer of discretion that would allow courts to effectively override Parliament's decision. However, Parliament is supposed to be the one that makes these decisions.

We know that clause 63 in the bill would go much further by allowing judges to completely disregard mandatory minimums, except for treason and murder. Why is that?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill would strengthen mandatory minimums for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation materials, restoring 12 mandatory minimums for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by the court. The safety valve would be there so judges could use their own discretion and so they would have the leeway, when necessary, to make the right decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why the Conservatives' former critic of justice seemed to be of the opinion that a safety valve was necessary. We had a number of mandatory minimums that were ruled to be unconstitutional. By having the safety valve, we were able to reinstate mandatory minimums. That is a good thing. The Conservative former critic agreed to that.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons is that when the bill came to the status of women committee, one of the requirements was that we have the option in some cases.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to be able to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan, and to be able to do so here in the month of June.

We know June is the graduation season for all of the kids in elementary school who are moving up to high school. The kids who are in high school and have the whole world in front of them are graduating and looking to either start their first job or go on to university, or whatever the next step of their life is. June is an exciting time for them. There are a lot of exciting things happening in their lives.

We also know that generation of people is, for many of us here in the House of Commons, why we are here and why we do what we do. I think this is also very relevant when we talk about Bill C-16, the victims bill.

I want to start with a couple of things. There is a bit of a scourge happening in society. There are many people who are victims of sexual assault and violence. It is getting out of hand. I am sure that my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, whom I am going to split my time with, is going to be able to elaborate on that a bit more. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Saskatchewan, in particular, has some of the highest rates of domestic violence in the country per capita, for example. We know this is a scourge on society, so I applaud the government's attempts to try to take a few steps and measures that would rein some of this in and get things under control.

However, at the same time, we see with this bill that the government has put forward a measure around the inclusion of clause 63, which would essentially allow mandatory minimums to be ignored. I find that to be very egregious. Here is why.

I am going to read these out. I have to google them really quickly. I typed in “man caught with child sexual exploitation and assault material” and a plethora of headlines come up. Here is one from today. This one is from 47 minutes ago. It reads, “Man Arrested in Sexual Assault Investigation”. This one is from six hours ago. It reads, “Niagara Falls man accused of breaching order to stay away from children”. This one reads, “Markham Man Arrested for Using Social Media to Sexually Lure and Extort Youth”. That is from five hours ago. This one is from one day ago. It reads, “Male Arrested Following Child Luring and Sexual Exploitation Investigation in Whitby”. It goes on and on and on.

An Alberta man, for example, was recently caught with over 500,000 images of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. In Quebec, 23 men had over four million files of sexual exploitation and abuse material of children. This is disgusting. It is ridiculous.

The fact is that there is now a provision that would allow somebody to escape a mandatory minimum. Let me be clear. Part of the reason why the bill came forward is that the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum for child sexual abuse and exploitation material. It is absolutely disgusting that this happened as well.

When we see in the news the number of files that are out there and just how many people continue to access them, and when we see that there is the ability for a soft-on-crime approach to be taken because of this clause, it is just absolutely disgusting. If we want to try to signal to people that we actually care about victims and that we are going to prioritize the needs of victims, taking some of these very heinous crimes seriously, establishing a floor and making sure that nobody, under any circumstance, will serve below that minimum would be acceptable.

In the court case that was referenced with the bill, a hypothetical case was presented. That is why the mandatory minimum I am referring to was struck down. It was completely made up. It was not a story based on any evidence. It was not even the case that should have been referenced, which was very different from what was used to determine why they should strike down the mandatory minimum.

If we are going to take things seriously in this country, we need to value our citizens. We need to value people who have been victimized. Allowing people to get off easy is not how we are going to deal with this.

There are many other examples of this. I pulled up examples of people who were let off. Here is another one. It reads, “Calgary man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl gets reduced sentence”. I am sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. We do not want to see them anymore.

Establishing mandatory minimums and having them in place shows that we take these kinds of crimes very seriously. The prosecution and the judges have discretion and can use leniency. They can increase a sentence if they want to, or they can go with the minimum, but establishing those minimum sentences shows that we take these things very seriously.

There are many other charges that people can get away with very easily, and I am going to highlight a few more. For example, another one says a scam victim says Canadian sentences are a joke after a fraudster got house arrest. That is another one of these issues. Seniors are being victimized over and over again. In fact, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre says between 17,000 or even 20,000 direct fraud and financial abuse reports come in regularly in Canada. Also, 7.8% of the Canadian population aged 15 and over has experienced fraud in some shape or form. We know seniors are targeted. I think it comes to about $137 million annually. Seniors are being victimized when it comes to fraud. This is the kind of thing for which a person is able to get only house arrest.

In the case that I referenced, this person was sentenced to only 18 months of house arrest, but there were exceptions. They were allowed to leave the house multiple times a week to go to the gym and, after six months, the conditions required them to be home only between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. If someone who is actively defrauding people is given house arrest, that means they can continue to carry out the very crimes they were committing in the comfort of their own home. Those kinds of people should be in jail. They are preying on the people who are the most vulnerable.

Going back to seniors, my wife's grandpa was a victim of fraud. He sincerely thought somebody in tech support was helping him out, but they were not. He was defrauded out of thousands of dollars. He was targeted because he is a senior, and seniors generally tend to be far more trusting and tend to believe something like that, as in that particular case. Fortunately, he was able to eventually get his money back, but this happens over and over again. When these people are caught, they are given house arrest.

These are the kinds of things we are seeing, and we do not want to see them happening any longer.

Let me take another look at some of the other areas where mandatory minimums would be allowed to be circumvented. There is aggravated sexual assault with a gun. It is bad enough that people accessing, selling, recording and making child sexual abuse and exploitation material would be able to avoid a mandatory minimum. Aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings are the kinds of things for which mandatory minimums would be looked over and discarded because of clause 63.

If we are going to have a serious discussion about dealing with the issue of crime and the fact that so many people end up with bail instead of jail, establishing and re-establishing some basic mandatory minimums in this bill would have been great. Not including a clause that would allow mandatory minimums to be completely disregarded would have been great as well. That shows we are not taking victims' concerns seriously.

I get lots of emails to my constituency office and my Hill office from people wanting a tough-on-crime approach. People want to see mandatory minimums become a thing because they set the tone. They let the criminals know we take these crimes seriously and there will be a punishment if they are caught. When they find out they can get just house arrest or a reduced sentence, they are going to keep doing what they are doing.

There was a case in my home community at the local courthouse, where a person's charges were stayed for fentanyl trafficking. They had enough fentanyl in their possession to kill hundreds and thousands of people. Their charges were stayed and they were released. This is ridiculous. This is the kind of stuff people are sick and tired of seeing. They do not want clause 63, which would allow mandatory minimums to be skirted, to be included.

There are some good pieces in this bill that I wish the Liberals were serious about. I wish they would deal with the good parts of the bill. If they had accepted our amendments to put even some safeguards around clause 63, it would have been helpful, but they voted against every single measure proposed by the Conservatives at committee to protect victims, which is shameful.

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

Madam Speaker, most of what the member said is just not true, and it is somewhat misleading, quite frankly. At the end of the day, the legislation would do some wonderful things. Canada could set the stage, dealing with issues and establishing coercive behaviour as an offence. The issue of femicide, in certain situations, would be elevated to first-degree murder. We have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums.

The Conservatives, quite frankly, have come up with some bogus excuse, and it is only because they do not want to support the legislation. They used to support the idea of a safety valve. The former critic for the Conservative Party did.

Why is the Conservative Party so against making our communities safer and not allowing legislation of this nature to pass?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member says all kinds of ridiculous things. Referring to yesterday and the language the Speaker let him use, that was a dumb question from the member. The Speaker allowed him to use that word, so I am going to use it.

That was a dumb question, and this is why. If the Liberals actually truly cared about crime and if they truly cared about victims, they would not allow people to have mandatory minimums be circumvented by clause 63. That should not have been allowed to happen. At the very least, the member should have said he supported some of the safeguards we are proposing to make sure that victims would be respected and that criminals would go to jail, but that did not happen. The Liberals voted them down.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure it is very parliamentary to say that questions are dumb. I am seriously wondering about that.

That said, it is rare for me to agree with the member for Winnipeg North, but at the moment, I must admit that I am a little perplexed myself. I get the impression that the Conservatives are finding reasons not to support this bill, even though it has been requested by groups advocating for victims of crime and domestic violence.

I always hear the Conservatives bringing the issue back to mandatory minimum sentences. Our system is far from perfect, but it is quite likely the least imperfect one out there. I do not know of any studies showing that harsher sentences are more beneficial to society than rehabilitation programs for offenders.

Does my colleague have any scientific arguments or supporting data to back up his claim that mandatory minimum sentences work better than rehabilitating offenders?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that in my speech, I referenced the fact that there were 23 men in Quebec who were in possession of over four million files of child sexual assault and exploitation material. One of the reasons Bill C‑16 is here is that the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory minimum for the possession and distribution of this type of material. If the Liberals were serious about restoring mandatory minimums, they would have restored that mandatory minimum to make sure that our children are protected. The last thing I want to see is those 23 men in Quebec being put back out on the street next week so that they can continue to create, distribute and monetize child sexual abuse and exploitation material.

I do not want to see those kinds of people on the streets ever again. They belong in jail.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for opposing this bill for valid and right reasons.

I have a question. I agree with him and want to ask him if he can shed more light on this. He quoted a few recent decisions where the courts have turned down the minimum mandatory sentences. Is it not the duty of the parliamentarians sitting on this side of the House and on the government side of the House, when judges do wrong, to tell them this is not what people at large want or what Canadians want?

The real desire of the people is to impose minimum mandatory—

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

We have to give the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley the opportunity to comment.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, again, we are seeing so many different types of crimes becoming more and more prominent in our communities and on our streets. One that I referenced in my speech, for example, is extortion with a firearm. This is the kind of thing that a person can serve house arrest for, and the mandatory minimum can be circumvented because of this bill and clause 63.

People who are terrorizing our streets should not be allowed to serve house arrest. They should not be given lenient sentences. A mandatory minimum with a high threshold would make sure that those people, and their victims, get justice.