Debates of June 3rd, 2026

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question, because that question exposes the severe hypocrisy of the Liberal government, which claims to actually give a damn about being tough on crime. When Bill C-5 was introduced, the Liberals claimed that it would address the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimum penalties. Here is an opportunity, and now they are saying mandatory minimum penalties work. This was an opportunity to reinstate them. I asked the justice minister several times why they did not, and not one—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters in regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures.

This bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is the result of extensive deliberation and numerous studies on violence against women, including studies conducted by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Something definitely needed to be done about the Criminal Code. Even the Government of Quebec was asking us to intervene in that respect.

Quebec's report on rebuilding trust addressed violence against women. Quebec forged ahead and became a pioneer. It implemented measures, such as specialized courts and electronic bracelets, but some measures fell under the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction. I have had a number of discussions with members from Quebec, people who contributed to that report and who asked us to take action. This is an important bill.

Obviously, we support Bill C-16. As I mentioned, several provisions take in proposals that have long been defended by the Bloc Québécois. What is more, the bill makes important advances for victims of domestic and sexual violence and in terms of child protection.

Today, I will talk about the progress made for victims, but I still want to point out some of the ways that Bill C-16 falls short. I will end by talking about some of the Bloc Québécois's concerns.

First, there is the issue of femicide, which is finally being acknowledged. In 2024, around 81 women were killed by an intimate partner in Canada. Now, there are even some municipalities that are describing this situation, these femicides, as an epidemic. They are saying that femicide is an epidemic. In Quebec, 25 femicides were recorded in 2024. Since the beginning of 2026, there have already been 10 suspected femicides reported in Quebec. These are chilling figures.

The bill recognizes that some murders committed in the context of coercive control, sexual violence or hatred must be considered femicides. As we know, every femicide represents the collective failure of a system that was unable to protect a woman. Shelters and women's groups have been calling for this recognition for years.

It was also important to address the issue of coercive control. In fact, that was something that women's shelters and the community had been calling for. The good thing about the bill, the thing that is a step forward, is that it addresses the issue of coercive control so that it is possible to intervene before it is too late. Coercive control often occurs long before physical abuse starts. Violence may not always be physical, but it always hurts. Some examples include isolation, monitoring, intimidation, threats and financial control. Violence rarely begins with a physical assault. The Bloc Québécois therefore welcomes the creation of a specific offence for coercive control. Prevention is better than seeing the impacts of a tragedy or having one more victim.

There is also the issue of court delays. Putting an end to mistrials is a good thing, because justice delayed sometimes becomes justice denied. Here is the number of criminal trials that were stayed for unreasonable delay: in 2021, there were 13; in 2022, there were 18; in 2023, there were 96; and as of June 30, 2024, there had been 62. That is far too many. Behind those numbers are victims of sexual assault, intimate partner violence and other serious crimes. These were serious cases, but they were dismissed due to court delays.

The Bloc Québécois supports measures designed to increase consideration of case complexity in order to prevent prosecutions from being thrown out solely for procedural reasons. The Bloc Québécois even introduced a bill on this subject in the previous Parliament. Clearly, we have long been committed to this cause, so we welcome this initiative.

The Bloc Québécois had also called for a discussion on the issue of organized crime recruiting young people. Criminal gangs are now recruiting people directly on social media, and those being recruited are getting younger and younger. Young people are being used to carry out crimes because they are perceived as more vulnerable and are punished less severely. The Bloc Québécois has long been calling for the creation of a specific offence for the recruitment of minors. This measure is intended to target the real perpetrators, the adults who manipulate and exploit young people. I am thinking in particular of the tragic case of Mohamed-Yanis Seghouani, who was recruited by organized crime when he was just 14.

With regard to sexual violence and protecting victims, victims of sexual assault must be able to seek justice without being revictimized. The bill tightens the rules around access to medical records and provides greater protection for victims, while maintaining the right to a full and fair defence.

Pornographic deepfakes are being expressly addressed by legislation. The non-consensual distribution of intimate images is a growing phenomenon that demanded a clear legislative response.

The bill is also a step forward for victims' rights. It strengthens the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Victims are entitled to respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. That is important. They are also entitled to have their cases processed within a reasonable amount of time. However, these rights must be accompanied by sufficient resources for the justice system.

Obviously, I am going to talk about the need for federal transfers to Quebec, because Quebec is responsible for administering the justice system. It is all well and good to introduce more laws, but Quebec and the provinces need to be given the resources to act. I am about to use a term that may not be exciting, but that suits our purpose here, because what we are really talking about is the fiscal imbalance.

Second, this leads me to point out some of the flaws in the bill. Shelter representatives constantly remind us that femicide rarely occurs out of the blue. It is often preceded by a history of violence, harassment and coercive control. When a woman asks for help, the system must be able to intervene before it is too late. That is why I was talking about measures to allow Quebec's system to handle this issue. We acknowledge that Bill C‑16 is a step in the right direction because it explicitly recognizes this reality. However, the government must also provide the means to take action.

Regarding the lack of resources, the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women told us clearly that needs are outpacing resources. Many shelters are turning women away because they do not have enough spots. Some women have to stay in dangerous situations because no other immediate solution is available.

As far as transitional housing is concerned, leaving an abusive partner is not simply a matter of finding a spot in a shelter. Women need a safe place to live while they rebuild their lives. Several witnesses emphasized the importance of second- and third-stage housing. Without affordable housing, some women are forced to return to their abuser. Everything gets delayed. In some cases, they stay longer in emergency shelters because they have nowhere else to go afterward. They stay there, delaying the arrival of another woman in urgent need of this resource. This delays every step of the process and delays the arrival of women who need protection. We are also seeing this in the work of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which is currently conducting a study on the issue of housing availability and the lack of resources to help women who are experiencing intimate partner violence.

I would also like to talk about children who are exposed to violence. Witnesses also noted that children are victims of intimate partner violence too. They are collateral victims. Even when they are not directly targeted, they live in a climate of fear and insecurity. Preventing violence also means protecting children.

As for prevention, all the witnesses pointed out that violence cannot be solved by the justice system alone. That means that Bill C‑16 will not solve everything. Prevention remains essential. We need to invest in education, equal relationships, mental health services, and support for young people. We also need to use federal transfers to give resources to community organizations. That is important. When we did our study on anti-feminism and the rise of masculinism, those were some of the recommendations that emerged. We need to teach boys and girls what respectful, violence-free relationships look like.

Concerning court delays, a number of organizations said that lengthy proceedings can discourage some victims. When a woman finds the courage to report her attacker, she should not be forced to wait years before justice is served. Court delays contribute to revictimization. Measures designed to avoid stays of proceedings are important to maintain trust in the justice system.

Victims demand to be heard, believed and protected. They also demand that the justice system be more humane. The provisions enhancing victims' rights in Bill C‑16 are an important step forward.

Third, the Bloc Québécois has a few reservations I will go over briefly. We support Bill C‑16, but it still contains some inconsistencies. I mentioned them earlier: Amendments meant to provide better protection for stalking victims were rejected. We believe that victims need to be given more preventive tools before the violence escalates. Some of the changes to bail conditions may also be too broad and exceed the bill's original objective.

In conclusion, Bill C‑16 is a significant step forward. It acknowledges the reality of femicide, criminalizes coercive control, better protects victims of sexual assault, addresses youth recruitment by gangs, and attempts to limit the consequences of court delays.

I would like to say one last thing: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill, but we call on the government to keep working so that victims are truly believed and placed at the heart of our justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, within the legislation there is something we should all be taking a great sense of pride in, which is the fact that we would incorporate coercive behaviour into a new offence. That is relatively unique in terms of G20 countries. The bill would also raise femicide to first‑degree murder.

I think there are a lot of positive things within the legislation. I am wondering if the member could expand on why she believes that the principles of the legislation are positive and worth moving forward on.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the first point my colleague raised, namely the issue of coercive control. Following the release of the report on rebuilding trust, I met with MNAs in Quebec City who asked me to take action. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I proposed a study on coercive control. The study was conducted, we produced a report, and we tabled it.

Together with my colleagues on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we had to pressure the government for months, even years. Finally, after our press conference last fall, the government took action. That is good, and we welcome the move, but the government could have acted sooner.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Shefford, who really knows her stuff, as members can see. She always speaks so eloquently and focuses on the common good. She is well versed in this issue. I would like to learn more about the amendments the Bloc Québécois would have liked to see adopted to further improve the situation. Can she explain to me why, in her view, the government rejected these amendments?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and comments about my speech. I also want to commend her for fighting for the feminist cause.

Regarding the Bloc Québécois's amendments, as I mentioned earlier, there are some inconsistencies. For example, the offence of criminal harassment is supposedly being modernized by the introduction of objective criteria. However, when we talk about sureties to keep the peace—the infamous peace bonds under section 810 of the Criminal Code, which is another study that I worked on for the Bloc Québécois, together with my Conservative colleagues—it is clear that, in this case, the criteria are subjective.

That creates inconsistencies. The Bloc Québécois wanted to see fewer of them. Our amendments sought to remove these inconsistencies from Bill C‑16.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the amendment stage, the Conservative Party put forward CPC‑13. It would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under sections 7 and 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve.

Does the Bloc Québécois believe that the government has done enough to prosecute individuals who look at child pornography in Canada?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is another issue that the Bloc Québécois wants to tackle. Obviously, I am talking about this material, the distribution of this material depicting children, especially with the increase in deepfakes and the fact that images of children can be used.

That is one of the things the Bloc Québécois is calling for. This violence against children should not exist. We could do better and we could do more.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely concerned about the number of femicides committed each year in Quebec and across Canada. There have already been 10 in Quebec this year. This bill will take a step toward reducing them, but I feel it is insufficient. What does my hon. colleague and friend think?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I invite the hon. member to respond in less than 20 seconds.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my response will be brief. This is an important step. It is good to strengthen the Criminal Code, but if the government does not give Quebec the financial resources to address these new offences within its legal system, if the government does not provide community organizations with the necessary resources, and if the government does not look at the bigger picture, as part of a continuum of services, it simply will not succeed.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is great to see you in the chair.

I am pleased today to rise in support of Bill C-16 the protecting victims act. At its core, this legislation reflects something very fundamental: that our justice system must do much more to protect those who are the most vulnerable, especially children and survivors of violence; and that it must adapt to reflect the realities that they face today.

Before I speak to the details of the bill, I do want to begin by acknowledging the strength and the courage of survivors. The member for Niagara South, last week or the week before, hosted a meeting that many of us were invited to and we listened to half a dozen women who were victims. They were there to speak of their position as being victims of sexual violence and so on, but also of their concerns that the perpetrators were not getting strong enough sentences. The victims have a life sentence because they will carry that abuse for their entire life, whereas the abusers seem to get very minimal sentences of 18 months or two years, which seem so very minimal. I very much agree with those individuals who were speaking. They were still very distraught about what had happened to them many years before and frustrated by the lack of penalties for the abusers.

Whether the issue for those who came forward to tell stories is intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation or abuse of children, they want change and that is what Bill C-16 would bring. Their experiences were deeply moving and their points were well received. They are a powerful reminder that our justice system must continue to evolve, not in theory but in practice, so that it truly meets the needs of those it is meant to protect.

Bill C-16 represents one of the most significant updates to our criminal justice system in generations. It would do so through four clear objectives: tackling gender-based violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims' rights and addressing court delays. Each of these pillars speaks directly to issues that the survivors I heard from two weeks ago, advocates and experts have been raising for years.

First, with respect to gender-based violence, this bill would recognize something that has too often been overlooked: that violence does not begin with physical harm. It often begins, as my other colleagues have mentioned, with patterns of control, including coercion, intimidation and manipulation, that escalate over time. By introducing a new offence for coercive and controlling conduct, this legislation would allow earlier intervention before violence becomes lethal. This is critical. It reflects again what survivors and frontline organizations have told us, which is that warning signs are often present but we have not always had the legal tools to respond to them. The bill would also ensure that murders committed in contexts such as coercive control, sexual violence or exploitation are recognized with the seriousness that they warrant. These are not isolated acts. They are part of a continuum of violence. This legislation would begin to reflect that reality in law.

Second, with respect to protecting children, the need for action is urgent. We know that the nature of exploitation has changed. Predators are increasingly using digital platforms to groom, manipulate and extort children. Bill C-16 responds directly to those threats. It would strengthen offences related to child luring and sextortion; criminalize emerging forms of abuse, including the use of threats and digital content; and reinforce accountability through stronger penalties. It would also ensure that law enforcement and the justice system would be equipped to respond to the new technologies, including the use of AI-generated sexual deepfakes, which can be used to exploit and harm victims. For children and families navigating these deeply traumatic experiences, these measures are not abstract. They are essential protections.

Third, this legislation would strengthen victims' rights. We know that, for many victims, the justice system can be overwhelming. Victims often struggle to access information, to understand processes and to have their voices heard. Bill C-16 would build on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by improving access to information, expanding participation and ensuring that victims are treated with dignity and respect. It would also expand access to supports such as testimonial aids, helping reduce the risk of retraumatization when individuals come forward. These are practical changes, but they are also deeply meaningful. They would help ensure that victims are not simply observers in the justice process, but participants whose experiences matter.

Fourth, and critically, the bill addresses court delays. Delays are not just procedural issues. They have real consequences. We have seen serious cases, including those involving sexual violence, collapse entirely because of delays. For victims, this can be devastating. It can mean that after coming forward, after reliving their trauma, there is no resolution and no accountability. Bill C-16 introduces measures to reduce these outcomes, requiring courts to consider alternatives before stays of proceedings, streamlining procedures and clarifying just how these delays are assessed. These changes in Bill C-16 are about ensuring that cases are heard and that justice is not lost to process.

What is important about this legislation, as well, is not just any single measure, but its collective impact. The bill recognizes that violence today is complex and evolving. It reflects the rise of digital exploitation affecting our children, the realities of coercive control, the vulnerabilities of children online and the ongoing challenges victims face within the system. It also responds to what we have heard from commissions, experts and communities across the country that earlier intervention, stronger protections and a more responsive justice system are needed.

At the same time, it is important to ground this work in principle. We must ensure that victims are treated with care, dignity and compassion. We must ensure that those who come forward are supported, informed and respected throughout the process. We must continue building a system where survivors can have confidence not only that they will be heard, but that the system will respond in an appropriate manner.

No single piece of legislation will resolve all the challenges. We know there are gaps that will remain. We also know that continued investment in prevention, in services and in supports will always be essential, but legislation like Bill C-16 is a critical part of that work. It provides the tools. It sets the standards and it signals clearly that protecting victims, especially children, is not optional. It is a fundamental responsibility of us all.

I am proud to be part of a government that is taking meaningful steps, both in law and in practice. I appreciate the fact that the opposition is supporting this bill and has helped move it along.

In closing, this bill is more than legal reform. It is about ensuring that survivors are heard, victims are protected, and those women who I met from Niagara South two weeks ago can look at Bill C-16 and know that we were thinking of them when we put this forward.

It is about ensuring that those who are the most vulnerable are not overlooked, but supported with care, dignity and action. For all of these reasons, I am proud to support Bill C-16 and appreciate the support of all of the opposition.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the amendment stage, Conservatives put forward CPC-13, which would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under sections 7 and 12 by enacting a notwithstanding clause, while also preventing those offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve.

I know the member to be an hon. member. I still cannot get around the fact that the Liberals would not support these Conservative amendments, which would have protected the most vulnerable in our society and ensured a level of justice for victims of child pornography. I still cannot get my head around the fact that the government will not support these measures.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is very serious about the concerns he has, as well as the rest of us, but when members are on the government side of the House and crafting legislation, we have to make sure that it is going to withstand charter challenges. We have seen too many times that we have reacted with our hearts, not necessarily with our heads, and brought in things that ended up being challenged, with court cases thrown out completely because the legislation we introduced reflected our emotions, not necessarily our responsibility, which is to make sure that the laws of the land are charter-proof.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-16, as does the Barreau du Québec. However, in a statement, it indicated that while it feels the bill's objectives are laudable, it believes that “incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that will hinder the analysis, review and practical application of these provisions”.

What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, different people have different opinions. We are very confident that Bill C-16 would accomplish exactly what we want it to do: protect victims, encourage more people to come forward, and look after our children and protect them from the many predators who unfortunately continue to be out there.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague has many years of service in the House. Perhaps she would reflect on the changes for women that she has seen in our legislation over that time.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a ton of changes have happened, but they have all been too slow. It seems that it takes a long time to start to really understand some of the difficulties different people, women in particular, are facing.

I am very proud of what has happened in the last 10 or 12 years as, really, women's rights have been getting the attention they need as we all move forward collectively to ensure that women's rights are protected. We will make sure that women such as those I met a couple of weeks ago know that their government is concerned about them and will continue to move forward legislation that will better protect them and better protect our children.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was at the same meeting the member referred to, the heart-on-our-sleeve meeting with victims. I heard their gut-wrenching stories and witnessed their bravery in sharing their stories, so I wanted to ask this question: Why did the government vote against excluding child sexual offences from the safety valve? If mandatory minimum penalties can be ignored, what exactly is mandatory about them?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember that when I first heard about mandatory minimums, under former prime minister Harper, I thought they were a great idea. However, what is the use of bringing forward laws that are just going to get thrown out because there is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the government has to respect? We have to use more than our heart on our sleeve when we are crafting legislation. When someone is on this side of the House, they have to take that responsibility much more seriously.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Bill C-16 because it is legislation that would completely eviscerate mandatory minimum penalties, virtually every one on the books, other than murder and treason. The bill would eviscerate them with a so-called safety valve that would give judges wide ambit to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum penalty set by Parliament, regard for Parliament's judgment that certain offences are sufficiently serious to impose a minimum sentencing floor, and regard for long-standing sentencing principles, including denunciation, blameworthiness and so on. It would give them the ability to instead apply a lesser sentence.

The Minister of Justice will claim that this is about saving mandatory minimum penalties in the face of certain recent jurisprudence. He has a point up to a certain point, which is that, yes, there has been some recent jurisprudence in which the courts have been more ready to strike down mandatory minimum penalties due to an expansive application of the reasonable hypotheticals doctrine following the Nur decision of 2015. In that decision, the court lowered the threshold in which the reasonable hypotheticals doctrine could be applied, to include hypotheticals that are not merely remote or far-fetched.

What that has led to in some cases is the courts' applying reasonable hypotheticals that are in fact remote, far-fetched and unreasonable. One clear example of that was the Supreme Court's Senneville decision. It was a divided, five-four, decision, but the majority, in its infinite wisdom, struck down the mandatory minimum penalty for the possession of child pornography. The facts in the Senneville case were grotesque. It involved two offenders: violent, sadistic sexual predators who had in their possession hundreds of images of child sexual abuse and torture.

The court applied a completely remote hypothetical, that of a 17-year-old boy who received a sexually explicit image from his 17-year-old girlfriend, which he then passed on to his 18-year-old friend. It is a completely remote hypothetical, but the court said that because it hypothetically could apply, the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment and violated section 12 of the charter, no matter how far removed that hypothetical was from reality and from the facts in the case.

In the face of a decision that constitutes, frankly, naked judicial activism, the only appropriate course of action for the government to take is to use the constitutional tool it has at its disposal, which is to invoke the notwithstanding clause to reassert parliamentary supremacy and Parliament's law-making powers, but the Liberals did not do that. Instead, they accepted the Senneville decision. Not only did they accept the Senneville decision, but they used the Senneville decision as a pretext to bring the so-called safety valve, which is an escape valve, into the bill.

What about the Nur decision and the cases that have followed? I say that, yes, it is an issue, but this is not the solution. The solution, when faced with decisions such as Senneville and Bissonnette, I restate, is to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

Seeing that the Liberals have absolutely no appetite to ever invoke the notwithstanding clause, there is another path, which is to introduce legislation to bring in new mandatory minimum penalties that would clarify and narrow the application of the offence as the mandatory minimum would apply to. However, that would take hard work, and the Liberals have not availed themselves of doing that. Instead what they offer is the broad escape valve. The Liberals have characterized it as a modest safeguard. They have claimed that it would, in effect, apply only in exceptional circumstances.

If that is the case, if it is not about totally eviscerating mandatory minimum penalties, which the Liberals are on the record as consistently opposing, by the way, over the past 10 years, then at the very least what is required is reasonable guardrails. Guardrails are completely missing from the legislation. There is no direction to the courts, no exceptional circumstances clause, no direction on how Parliament would demand or assert that the courts apply mandatory minimum penalties, and no direction with respect to the circumstances in which the escape valve could be used.

Conservatives brought forward at the justice committee multiple amendments to provide guardrails, including a guardrail that could apply only when the accused does not have a prior criminal record, a guardrail that the mandatory minimum penalty could be cut only by half, a guardrail that the escape valve would not apply in cases of child sexual offences, and a guardrail that the crime not include weapons trafficking, armed extortion or aggravated sexual assault. The Liberals voted against all those guardrails.

If in fact this is a modest safeguard and would apply only in exceptional cases and circumstances, then why is it that the Liberals were so reticent to define what those exceptional circumstances would be? Could it be because this is the same Liberal government that has the dubious record of being the only government in Canadian history to bring in legislation, Bill C-5, that repealed mandatory minimum penalties, by choice, involving serious crimes, including serious gun crimes and drug offences? I am not talking about minor possession; I am talking about trafficking and producing schedule I drugs, such as fentanyl, that have killed tens of thousands of Canadians over the past 10 years.

Could that be the reason why they were so reticent, so opposed to defining safeguards or guardrails around the escape valve? Could it be that the bill is not as advertised but that, despite the protestations of the Minister of Justice that it is about saving mandatory minimum penalties, the true intent of the bill is to eviscerate them? Make no mistake about it; mandatory minimum penalties would be eviscerated. They would have no meaning. The floodgates of litigation would be opened.

It begs the question, what good are mandatory minimum penalties if they can be disregarded on an ad hoc basis? For that reason, I and my Conservative colleagues cannot support this soft-on-crime bill from the soft-on-crime Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are no floodgates here, but there is a lot of contrast between the Conservatives and the government on the issue.

There are laws in place that have been ruled as unconstitutional, in violation of the charter, so a lot of the minimum penalties have been thrown out. The current government and the Prime Minister would reinstate minimum sentences. Yes, there is the exceptional clause so the course could be stayed, we would be allowed to continue and things would not be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Conservative approach is the notwithstanding clause. How many times is the member going to have to bring in the notwithstanding clause to deal with the legislation? Is it twelve times or 20 times? What is the limit?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the solution is not to impose a blanket escape valve and leave it to judges to, at their discretion, disregard or bypass what Parliament has judged to be a minimum sentencing floor related to the seriousness of the offence. That is what the Liberals have done.

The Liberals have completely surrendered Parliament's law-making power as it relates to mandatory minimum penalties. They had many options, including the notwithstanding clause and including bringing in new mandatory minimums. At the very least, as we said, if the Liberals are insistent upon an escape valve, then there needs to be robust safeguards. We brought forward robust safeguards. They voted them down every step of the way at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, I stood up in this place and went through a bill that the then Liberal government had passed. It got rid of a number of mandatory minimum sentences. I think it was Bill C-5, if I remember correctly. It got rid of the mandatory minimums for extortion with a firearm. I said at the time, “Hey, that must be a lot of fun, having somebody shoot at your house or hold a gun to your head and extort money out of you.”

What has happened with extortion in Canada since then?