Debates of June 3rd, 2026

Motions in Amendment

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg Centre for raising this important issue in the House today regarding Bill C‑16. We sat together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know that she cares deeply about this issue.

I also want to thank her for pointing out that services have to form part of a continuum, and that the situation of women has to be addressed proactively, especially their financial situation, their vulnerability, and how these factors can keep them trapped in a cycle of violence.

My question is as follows. We recently conducted studies on the rise of homelessness among women, especially indigenous women who have a hard time finding housing. The witnesses also talked to us about the importance of applying the 230 recommendations arising from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. What does my colleague think about that?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, call for justice 4.5 calls for the immediate implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income as one of the key calls for justice to deal with the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls.

I want to remind the Liberals that they agreed to implement the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, but where are they? They are nowhere, and they have responded to only three. Why do they not work on that if they are worried about dealing with the crisis of femicide in the country, and invest in services and support that actually keep women and gender-diverse people safe?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of very important points and amendments that should have been considered but were not, at the committee.

I wonder, because she was running out of time to finish her comments, if she could further elaborate on some other issues that she thinks members of Parliament should hear.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about deepfakes. In spite of the fact that the minister responsible for AI has been asked by several womens organizations and by people impacted by deepfakes, the government has voted to support media giants such as Elon Musk in programs such as Grok. I would like to note that this is a problem under the purview of the minister of AI, who has failed completely to address the widespread concerns and fears of folks across Canada about the social media consequences of AI.

In March of this year, I requested information on the Order Paper question concerning meetings the minister has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI, and I learned that he has taken absolutely zero meetings. Instead, the Liberals have been more concerned with—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, an essential and comprehensive piece of legislation situated on a broader strategy to keep communities safe.

The last time the bill was in the House, our hon. colleagues voted to send it to committee so it could be studied, tested and improved. I am pleased to report that this is precisely what has happened. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has done serious and careful work. Members on all sides heard from witnesses, asked hard questions, proposed amendments and engaged with the substance of the bill in a way that Canadians expect their Parliament to.

The legislation has returned to the chamber today and is stronger for that work. I want to begin by thanking every member of the committee on every side of the aisle for the seriousness they brought to it.

Over several months, the committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received over 60 briefs from survivors of violence, advocates working to end gender-based violence, law enforcement, legal experts, child protection organizations and the provincial and territorial partners that administer justice every day. What was striking was not the disagreement but the breadth of the consensus that something must be done and that the bill would do a great deal of it.

While the bill may have changed in the process, the seriousness of the issue has not. In Canada, a woman is killed every 48 hours. There have been femicides in every part of this country, and behind each one is a family that grieves. I have met many of these families and heard from them first-hand as to the impact it has left on their lives. These are not statistics. They are people who shared our hallways at school, who sat beside us at work, and who were loved.

The protecting victims act would respond to that reality by moving forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge in cases of femicide. It would ensure a first-degree murder charge where murder is committed in an intimate partner setting; where it takes place in the context of a sexual offence; where it is motivated by hatred, including hatred of a person because she is a woman; and where it is preceded by a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

As the Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes put it, the automatic requalification of these homicides as first-degree murder would put an end to the inconsistencies in the current law and finally recognize these killings for what they are: femicides that exist within a continuum of domination. That is the language of people who have studied this violence for decades, and we should listen to them.

We know through extensive engagement with experts and survivors that the pattern of using violence and intimidation to control every aspect of a person's life is one of the strongest predictors that a relationship may turn deadly. By naming this conduct and criminalizing it in its own right, we would give the justice system the ability to intervene before a relationship becomes violent and before violence becomes fatal. This provision would have the power to save lives.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank the members of the status of women committee who have urged action on this for years.

The world does not stand still, and neither can our laws. The protecting victims act would modernize a range of offences to keep pace with the way harm is now inflicted. We would be modernizing the events of criminal harassment to recognize that a person can now be stalked through technology, including the tracking of someone's location through their phone.

We are also confronting the rapid spread of artificial intelligence used to create deepfakes. There is a gap in our law today, and the bill would narrow it by expanding the definition of an intimate image to include images created through artificial intelligence. We would also be criminalizing the threats of distributing sexual explicit images, a tactic regularly used to humiliate and control victims.

That same principle of confronting threats before they become tragedies runs through the child protection measure in the bill. The protecting victims act would expand the definition of a list of offences that threaten our children and would increase maximum penalties for a range of those offences.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has been unequivocal about the stakes. It has told us that online sexual violence against Canadian children, including online luring, has reached unprecedented levels, and that confronting it is not optional. I would ask every member of the House to sit with the word “unprecedented”. We would be legislating not against a hypothetical but against an epidemic of the most reprehensible acts, which is unfolding on devices in the hands of children right now.

I now want to turn to two of the more technical but no less consequential parts of the protecting victims act: mandatory minimum penalties, and delays in our justice system. These are the areas where the committee's scrutiny was most searching, and the bill is better for it. With respect to mandatory minimums, a series of Supreme Court decisions, including the Senneville decision, left real gaps in our law concerning child sexual exploitation and abuse material, among other serious crimes, but the courts also offered guidance on how these gaps could be remedied.

The bill would establish a carefully bounded safety valve, allowing a court, in the rare case where a minimum would be grossly disproportionate, to impose a different penalty that still results in incarceration. It would not simply restore the minimums that were struck down. It would shore up those on our books today that are constitutionally vulnerable. It is a measure that has received support from several parties in the House.

With respect to delays, nearly 10,000 cases in this country have been thrown out for the sole reason that they took too long, thrown out not because an accused was acquitted but because the clock ran out. There is no version of that outcome that feels like justice to a victim who must live in the same community as the person who harmed them. The bill would require the courts to consider remedies other than a stay when the Jordan timelines are at risk, give clearer guidance on which complex cases warrant more time, and streamline the introduction of evidence at trial.

Our law enforcement partners feel this too. The Canadian Police Association described how demoralizing it is for officers to build a complex case over months or years, only to watch it collapse on a timeline divorced from the realities of modern policing. They have called the bill a meaningful step toward restoring confidence in our justice system.

Finally, the protecting victims act would do more to recognize the rights of victims throughout the criminal process. Too often, people who, through no fault of their own, are drawn into a long and difficult proceeding feel lost within it. The bill would build on the Victims Bill of Rights to ensure that victims have the information they are entitled to. Building the voices of victims into this process is essential if we want them to have faith in it.

I would ask the House to hold in mind the words of Kelly Favro of Beyond the Verdict, a survivor advocate who said something during this process that I have not been able to set down. She said that survivors do not have the luxury of waiting until the theatrics in the chamber come to an end. She is right. While we debate, the violence does not pause. A woman is still killed every 48 hours. A child is still being targeted online tonight.

The cost of delay in this file is not measured in sitting days. It is measured in lives. The legislation has earned the support of survivors, advocates, child protection organizations, police associations and provinces. It has been studied, it has been tested, and it has been strengthened. My ask of the House at report stage is simple: Let us not be the reason it waits any longer. Let us adopt the bill at report stage and send it to third reading so we can give Canadians the protections they have asked us for and that they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an important bill.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Barreau du Québec's response to this bill. The Barreau du Québec agrees with the principles, but it has some reservations. It describes the objectives of protecting against gender-based violence, improving evidentiary procedures and modernizing criminal law as commendable. However, the Barreau du Québec believes that incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that could hinder their analysis, review and practical application.

Could the member comment on that?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to talk to Crown counsel, advocates and members of the bar. However, this government has a mandate to protect Canadians, and we are trying to pursue that mandate as quickly as possible. There are other areas where we are investing, but it is crucial that we update our laws quickly and not stall anymore. Lives are on the line. We heard it from the testimony that witnesses delivered before committee. In my personal opinion, we should not be waiting anymore.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the secretary of state for the description of the bill. I agree fully, and I have agreed fully for 20 years as an aboriginal leader, as an MLA and now as an MP. However, I do have a specific question about the Gladue principle. Would that principle survive, or would it get struck down with this bill?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would not override any existing principles that are already mandated by the Supreme Court.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my friend and colleague that I have always put the residents of Winnipeg North first regarding the issue of crime. The Prime Minister, in the last election, talked about how important it is that we have a higher sense of security, and this particular secretary of state, who has been dealing with crime, has brought forward and commented on a series of legislative changes that would make our communities safer in many ways.

What I like about Bill C‑16 is that it would do such things as create strong national leadership on issues such as femicide. Bill C‑16 would reinstate a number of mandatory minimum penalties. The secretary of state has also been a very strong advocate through putting into place bills to deal with bail reform and other legislative needs. I would just like to get her thoughts on why it has been so important for the government to deal with the crime file in a very holistic fashion.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since being elected last year in this new government, we have had a very ambitious agenda on that front. We have put forward approximately nine pieces of legislation that deal with different aspects of crime. That is the most ambitious that any government has been in this Parliament.

We are changing and updating the Criminal Code so that it keeps up with the issues that we are seeing in our communities, the issues that police are confronted with and the issues that victims are speaking out about. We are making sure that we are doing our part at the federal level.

However, this issue is complex because it deals with different levels of government. As I stated in my speech as well, it is crucial to have provincial and territorial partners at the table and to make sure that they, too, are doing their part. I know that this issue is important to all of them because the premiers have raised it, so it will also be very, very important to make sure that cases are not dismissed, that Crown counsel pursues charges that are laid and that the necessary resources are provided at the provincial level in order for us to really see the results that Canadians expect.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler, Health; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Steel and Aluminum Industry; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, Indigenous Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the fine residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I sincerely thank them every opportunity I get for the trust they have placed in me as their representative for two consecutive elections.

Let me start my remarks today by stressing, and I cannot stress this enough, that there are significant positive measures contained within Bill C-16. It is a position that we have maintained from the outset.

Conservatives have worked constructively at committee and successfully improved the bill in several important respects. For example, we strengthened protections for children by improving provisions relating to child sexual offences. We successfully increased penalties where intimate images are knowingly created during or immediately following an aggravated sexual assault. We also successfully expanded the definition of intimate images to include AI-generated deepfakes or nearly nude images. We also required courts to order the deletion of illicit intimate image material within 48 hours. Our amendment to strengthen victims' rights by expanding access to information under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights also passed, which is a particular measure, I might add, that has been called for by victim groups and victims themselves for a number of years.

These were all meaningful Conservative amendments that were accepted by the government and, in my respectful opinion, have improved Bill C-16. All of them were worthwhile reforms. These reforms would better protect victims. These are reforms that, most assuredly, would better protect children, and these are reforms that Conservatives were proud to support.

Unfortunately, it is time to talk about the elephant in the room. It is a very large elephant, and it was a red line that we, as Conservatives, continually pushed back and tried our best to move the government to relent on because of its dangerous implications. That provision is clause 63 of the bill, which is the so-called safety valve. The government describes this as a modest safeguard, but in practical terms, it renders virtually every mandatory minimum penalty in the Criminal Code optional.

What is important to realize here is that there are dozens of mandatory minimum penalties currently within the Criminal Code that have withstood charter scrutiny and were upheld as charter compliant. The so-called safety valve, which would apply to all of those mandatory minimum penalties in the code, would weaken the Criminal Code, weaken sentencing regimes and weaken protection for victims. It would render virtually every mandatory minimum penalty optional. If they can be simply ignored, they are no longer mandatory. They merely become suggestions.

Parliament created MMPs for the most serious offences because Canadians expect certain crimes to carry certain consequences. Parliament determined that some conduct is so serious that it warrants minimum periods of imprisonment. It made that determination after consultation and hearing directly from victims, communities and the public. Bill C-16 would undermine that. Under the bill, judges would be empowered to bypass those MMPs for some of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code. This would include human trafficking, extortion involving firearms, weapons trafficking, serious firearm offences, drive-by shootings and restricted or prohibited firearms. These are serious crimes that are devastating lives, families and communities every single day.

Human trafficking victims suffer unimaginable exploitation. Victims of aggravated sexual assault carry lifelong trauma. Communities terrorized by armed extortion deserve protections. Families affected by gang violence deserve protections. Canadians simply deserve more from the weak Liberal government.

Parliament established mandatory minimum penalties for these crimes because Parliament had long recognized their gravity. The government now asks us to maintain the words while removing the substance. We ought not to be fooled by that approach. Mandatory should mean mandatory, full stop. If the government truly believes mandatory minimum penalties remain necessary, then they should remain mandatory. If it does not believe they are necessary, let us be honest with Canadians and repeal them outright.

Instead, the Liberals have chosen the worst of both worlds. They are claiming to preserve MMPs while simultaneously creating a legal mechanism to avoid them. We tried our best as Conservatives to improve this provision at committee. We proposed reasonable guardrails. We proposed limiting access to the safety valve to offenders with no prior criminal record. That was defeated. We proposed ensuring offenders could not receive less than one half of the mandatory minimum sentence. That, too, was defeated. We proposed excluding aggravated sexual assault. It was defeated. Excluding extortion offences was defeated. Excluding serious child sexual offences was defeated. Excluding major trafficking offences was defeated.

I do not know what is so funny about what I was indicating there, but the Liberals are laughing at my speech.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

The fact of the matter is that the truth hurts, Madam Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker, we proposed excluding the most serious offences that Parliament had already identified as deserving MMPs. Every one was rejected. The government rejected every safeguard and every limit. It rejected every attempt to narrow the scope of the safety valve. The result now is that the floodgates would be completely open. Let the litigation begin, and let the charter applications begin. All of those applicants will declare, “Oh, Your Honour, I can't have a mandatory minimum penalty because that would be cruel and unusual punishment.” That would happen each and every time.

My question is simple: If the government trusted its own proposal, why did it refuse every safeguard the Conservatives proposed? If it believed the mechanism would only be used in exceptional cases, why refuse to define exceptional cases? The government's justification rests largely on concerns arising from constitutional litigation surrounding MMPs, yet the Supreme Court itself remains divided on that issue. In the recent Senneville decision, the dissenting judge, Chief Justice Wagner, emphasized that courts must be cautious when relying on hypothetical scenarios to invalidate legislation.

The Supreme Court warned against hypothetical scenarios that are fanciful, unrealistic, speculative, extreme or remotely connected to the actual facts before the court. It reminded us all that there are limits to what can properly be considered as reasonable hypotheticals. We proposed an amendment that would have required courts to focus on the actual offender before them, rather than hypotheticals. Again, Liberals voted against that amendment. Dissenting judges also reminded us that child sexual offences require strong denunciation and deterrence. They reminded us that society's condemnation of offences against children must be reflected consistently and rigorously in sentencing.

Parliament determined that denunciation and deterrence matters. It has determined that public safety matters and that victims matter. The Liberals are now asking Parliament to walk away from these decisions. Conservatives will not do that. It is for that reason that at this time I move an amendment, standing in my name, to delete clause 63 of Bill C-16, the provision that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum penalty in the Criminal Code. This is to be seconded by the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will clarify. When I read out the motions, Motion No. 1, Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 3, the member had submitted Motion No. 2, which was exactly the same as the motion that the member for Winnipeg Centre had submitted, and that is the one that was taken. I did notice that the member had submitted the same one. Is the member submitting a new amendment that is different from that original amendment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. I did not listen to, nor did I take note of the content of, the amendment brought forth by the NDP member.

Are you suggesting now that it is identical in every respect to what I just read out?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will consult with the Table.

Just to clarify, the motion that the member just said he was moving is out of order because Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are already under consideration. They are already actively being debated. Motion No. 2 is exactly the same as the member's motion.

That is all cleared up. There is no new amendment that is being offered by the member. It is already under debate. It is being debated right now. This will be the conclusion of the member's debate.

Finally, I wanted to say that, during the member's commentary and debate, the member made direct reference to another member of the House. I will just remind members to speak through the Chair and not directly to other members, just to tie that up in a nice little procedural bow.

Questions and comments, the hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for me to correct the record. The member's speech was extremely sensational. I know the Conservatives are trying to get a rise out of people and tell them that somehow there are going to be no penalties for anyone in any case. There are minimum penalties that are in our Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-16 also still maintains a minimum penalty. That is what, technically, the bill would do.

In the Senneville decision, there were some questions left, and we addressed those gaps and questions through the bill. That decision did not hold that all minimum sentences are unconstitutional, but it gave some examples of where they may be in violation of section 12. It was really important for us to make sure we address that so we do not risk other minimum—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was at the justice committee. I was questioning witnesses. I participated in clause-by-clause. The secretary of state did not. What she is proposing is absolutely incorrect. The only limitation of Bill C-16 is that a judge cannot deviate from a mandatory minimum penalty for two offences: homicide or murder and treason. Everything else is fair game, so long as there is a jail sentence. There is nothing preventing an activist judge, a clever defence counsel or a desperate accused to say that a one-day sentence is appropriate, as opposed to, say, a one-year mandatory minimum penalty. That is fine with the Liberal government.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague contributed to this discussion at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, but I would like to hear him elaborate further on this matter.

The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to Bill C-16, but they were rejected. This leaves a certain inconsistency in the bill.

On the one hand, the bill modernizes the offence of criminal harassment by introducing objective criteria based on the totality of the circumstances. On the other hand, the sureties to keep the peace under section 810 and subsection 810(3) of the Criminal Code are still based on a purely subjective criterium. This creates a real inconsistency.

Could my colleague comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. I did participate in one committee meeting at the status of women committee, where we were discussing the ineffectiveness and the tragic consequences of the enforcement of section 810 common law bonds. It is unfortunate that the whole concept of section 810 consideration did not find itself within the confines of Bill C-16. This would have been a glorious opportunity for the Liberal government to strengthen section 810 orders to protect women who have no recourse other than to ask for that type of protection. Again, the government claims to be tough on crime and claims to be very cognizant of victims' rights. Its actions speak to the opposite.

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

Mr. Speaker, in so many respects, the bill is not as advertised. The Liberals have advertised the bill as one of restoring mandatory minimum penalties, but one of the things the Liberals have not restored is the mandatory minimum penalties that they removed from the Criminal Code, including with respect to serious firearms offences, like robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking, among other serious firearms offences.

Would the member agree that the Liberals missed an opportunity to reinsert those mandatory minimum penalties? It is consistent with their soft-on-crime approach. This government has the dubious distinction of being the only government to remove mandatory minimums from the Criminal Code.