House of Commons Hansard #129 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-16.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Veterans Affairs Members debate a report from the Veterans Affairs committee recommending an independent review board for military honours. Conservative Blake Richards demands justice for veterans, especially regarding Afghan valour. Liberals, including Pauline Rochefort, signal support for the initiative. The Bloc Québécois backs the proposal, criticizing the government for delayed action on past recognition requests. The House subsequently adopts the motion unanimously. 11600 words, 2 hours.

Bill C-16—Time Allocation Motion Members debate a time allocation motion concerning Bill C-16 on criminal and correctional matters. Conservatives argue the government is stifling debate and breaking promises of collaboration, while Liberals defend the measure as essential to save lives amidst opposition filibustering. After a contentious question period regarding transparency and parliamentary process, the House initiates a recorded vote to limit further discussion. 5400 words, 35 minutes.

Premature Disclosure of a Bill and its Elements to a Third Party—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules that there is no prima facie case of privilege regarding the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-31 provisions to Air Canada, determining that government consultations with stakeholders did not infringe privileges. 600 words.

Minister Statement During Committee of the Whole Kevin Lamoureux argues that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship did not mislead the House regarding Palestinian student visas and asserts that the question of privilege was raised incorrectly without following established procedure. 1400 words, 10 minutes.

Protecting Victims Act Report stage of Bill C-16. The bill, known as the protecting victims act, aims to modernize criminal law by targeting gender-based violence, including coercive and controlling conduct, and enhancing protection for children against sexual exploitation. While Liberals argue the legislation ensures constitutional compliance through a mandatory minimum "safety valve," Conservatives label this provision a poison pill that undermines sentencing consistency and deterrence for violent offenders. The Bloc Québécois expresses cautious support, focusing on improvements to victim-centered justice and addressing court procedural delays. 28400 words, 3 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives emphasize that Canada is the only G20 economy in recession, blaming the Prime Minister's poor economic management. They condemn extravagant catering costs and government bonuses while Canadians struggle with food insecurity and housing affordability. Additionally, they demand the deportation of violent criminals and the repeal of bad Liberal laws.
The Liberals highlight Canada's strong economic growth and defend their investments in infrastructure and green technology. They emphasize affordability through the groceries and essentials benefit and dental care. Furthermore, they advocate for criminal justice reforms and a national eye care strategy, while criticizing the Opposition Leader’s unaccounted-for office expenditures.
The Bloc accuses the government of sacrificing Quebec culture by exempting digital platforms from levies and shifting costs to taxpayers. They also criticize the Prime Minister’s climate record and his shift toward oil.
The NDP criticizes the reckless AI strategy, demanding stronger regulations to protect Canadians from surveillance, fraud, and job losses.
The Greens question the “AI for all” slogan, demanding better protection for children and prioritizing safety over promotion.

Fair Representation Act Second reading of Bill C-259. The bill amends the Canada Labour Code to curb employer-dominated unions. The NDP argues this prevents fake unions, but Conservatives warn the proposed low threshold for investigations could induce instability. Liberals emphasize their record of supporting unions while reviewing the bill's mechanics, and the Bloc Québécois supports the measure as necessary to ensure free, independent unions. 7400 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

PrescribeIT program accountability Dan Mazier questions why Liberal MPs are blocking the health minister from testifying on the PrescribeIT program. Leslie Church defends the government's record, asserting that current funding is under review, while accusing Conservatives of spreading misinformation and blocking urgent committee studies on HIV, prioritizing political games over policy.
Youth unemployment and labor strategy Garnett Genuis criticizes the government's response to youth unemployment, arguing for payroll tax relief and calling Liberal programs recycled. Leslie Church defends the government's investments in labor market agreements and a new $6-billion trades recruitment plan, criticizing Genuis for voting against these measures.
Government spending and youth employment Cathay Wagantall criticizes the federal government for reckless spending, high national debt, and rising youth unemployment. Leslie Church defends the government's fiscal management, citing a strong fiscal position within the G7, declining deficit projections, and new investments in trades training to support young workers.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, in terms of improving the bill, I wonder how the member feels about a proposal that the Conservatives, in fact, it was me, brought to the justice committee in response to the Senneville decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography. Instead of going with the safety valve to potentially undermine mandatory minimum sentences, the Conservatives proposed the invocation of the notwithstanding clause to preserve the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography.

I wonder if the member could comment on that.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's work on the justice committee.

Kerry Sun is a doctoral student at the University of Oxford and a member of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. I will just outline his words in the National Post on the purpose of the notwithstanding clause. He wrote that it “is a mechanism to prevent overreaching judicial interpretations of rights from undermining the common good.”

Chief Justice Wagner said that the decision could erode public confidence. This would have been the opportunity to use it. We feel it should have been used.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Burlington North—Milton West Ontario

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden LiberalSecretary of State (Sport)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading to speak in support of Bill C-16 and the Government of Canada's continued response to criminal justice system delays.

Before I start, I would like to express gratitude to all members of the committee who have worked hard and diligently on this legislation.

To start, I would like to highlight three measures proposed in Bill C-16 to address delays. First, Bill C-16 would introduce greater flexibility to courts in ordering alternative remedies to address unreasonable delays. Currently, once a court determines that there has been unreasonable delay, in breach of section 11(b) of the charter, a stay of proceedings is the only available remedy recognized by the common law.

While Bill C-16 would not preclude ordering a stay of proceedings, it would, however, direct the courts to consider it a remedy of last resort after considering whether other remedies are appropriate and just under the circumstances. Courts would need to take into account specific factors like the impact a stay of proceedings is likely to have on the victim and the interests that society has in a final decision. Requiring that a stay of proceedings be considered as a remedy of last resort would also ensure greater consistency with how charter remedies are considered in other contexts.

Alternative remedies would not be codified. Instead, it would be open to the courts to determine what would be most appropriate, depending on the circumstances of the case. Each remedy could be tailored to rectify the harm suffered by the accused while preserving the public interest in having criminal cases decided on their merits. For example, a court could make an order to expedite proceedings or the trial itself, sever charges for cases involving multiple co-accused or change the venue of the trial. Courts could also consider making an order to change the mode of trial, for example, by ordering a jury trial to proceed by judge alone where applicable and with the consent of the accused.

Second, Bill C-16 would provide courts with additional guidance on assessing case complexity. The Jordan framework recognizes that some cases are inherently more complex and may justifiably take longer to complete, for example, cases with significant disclosure or particularly complex types of evidence. Bill C-16 would preserve the existing approach, determining whether a case is complex under the Jordan framework, but would require courts to consider specific additional factors when the case involves applications or motions.

This proposal responds directly to the reality that in recent years, increased reliance on applications and motions has become a significant source of delay in some jurisdictions, for example, in cases involving sexual offences and organized crime. These proceedings can be important in ensuring the accused's right to a fair trial, but they also require time and resources that are often beyond the control of the judge.

Importantly, all existing common law factors that the courts currently consider in determining whether a case is complex would continue to apply. The intent is not to replace those factors but rather to ensure that courts are recognizing the procedural complexities of modern criminal litigation and accounting for the cascading effect that applications and motions can have on delays.

While Bill C-16 seeks to address delays in the justice system to protect victims and would ensure that justice is being served for the most egregious crimes and offences, our new government is also addressing crime by investing in upstream solutions and preventative measures.

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, investing in sport results in lower crime. This may seem implausible or unconvincing to some, but I want to emphasize what a significant and serious upstream investment sport represents in an effort to create safer communities while promoting positive social development and building resilience, particularly among at-risk youth. Sport provides a safe environment for families and youth to learn life skills, develop social capital and engage in activities that reduce the risk of crime and violence. By fostering a sense of community and providing opportunities for youth to participate in sports, societies can create safer and more stable environments.

Our government's recent generational investment of $755 million in sport will support sport development for youth and also offer families more opportunities to learn and grow their skills and to meet new friends and mentors. According to experts, sociologists, psychologists, crime prevention researchers and law enforcement across Canada, sport will also help build a stronger, safer Canada for all.

To conclude, Bill C-16 takes a careful and balanced approach to addressing criminal justice system delays. It responds to the real and lasting harm caused by stays of proceedings, particularly for victims. It would also provide courts with carefully tailored tools to ensure that justice is not only swift but fair and meaningful.

Bill C-16 reflects this government's commitment to a criminal justice system that protects constitutional rights while maintaining public confidence and delivering justice on the merits. I urge all members of the House to support this important legislation.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that Monday would be an allotted day. In the French interpretation provided by the interpreters, however, Tuesday was mentioned instead.

My question is for clarification.

Could the parliamentary secretary please tell us again what the allotted day will be next week? Will it be Monday or Tuesday?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON

Mr. Speaker, it will be Monday.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

The hon. member for Drummond is rising again. Is he rising on the same point of order?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to apologize to the secretary of state, who I referred to as a parliamentary secretary. I apologize and I thank her for the answer.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, at a time when Canadians are experiencing record violence from criminal enterprises, whether it makes sense to narrow or water down mandatory minimum sentences by creating the safety valve.

Does the member have any concern that we are going to have many more situations in which courts do not follow the mandatory minimum sentences?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden Liberal Burlington North—Milton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's concerns. I am a strong believer that our job in this House is not to play judge and jury; our job is to create the framework legal system to protect people and to protect victims. That is what the bill seeks to do: protect victims, expedite the justice system, and ensure that justice is served and victims are protected.

I also strongly believe that we need to invest more in upstream solutions, because simply suggesting that everything is in place for a safe society and we could not do anything to prevent crime is also not a responsible approach. We are taking a balanced approach, investing in upstream solutions while also ensuring that the legal system has everything it needs in order to ensure that justice is served.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, there are many positive aspects to Bill C‑16, as was mentioned earlier.

There are, however, certain shortcomings and some issues that deserved to be explored in greater depth. For example, a number of amendments were proposed. Earlier, we heard the Conservatives place great emphasis on an issue close to their hearts: mandatory minimum sentences. The Bloc Québécois also had proposals to make. I am a bit concerned about the government's approach these days. They are rushing things and cutting debates short. They are requesting time allocation, which are closure motions, strictly speaking.

I wonder if the secretary of state could share his thoughts on this. Are there not important issues—such as this bill, which is extremely important to society as a whole—that warrant taking the time to show a little respect for the views of the opposition parties?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden Liberal Burlington North—Milton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the committee for their work on Bill C‑16. It is extraordinarily important and serious. We urgently need to find solutions to improve Canada's justice system.

We could debate this all summer and into the fall. However, people are urgently awaiting for the legislation to be passed. This is a long-standing issue in the court systems, and as provincial governments are seeking to expedite their processes, and invest in courts and courtrooms, we have an obligation to act as well. That expeditious approach, acting urgently, is one that I encourage all members to undertake.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the bill that I also find very interesting, and that victims groups have been advocating for, was the court delays issue and the fact that so many cases are getting dismissed from our provincial courts right now because of the delays.

This also provides an exception when cases are complex so that these cases do not get dismissed and so that victims get their day in court and get justice. This bill is about protecting victims' rights.

What is the member's opinion on that?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden Liberal Burlington North—Milton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, for her question and for all of her work on this legislation and many other pieces of legislation. It is worthwhile to mention that fully two-thirds of the legislation tabled by this government over the last year has been to address crime and to focus on fixing our justice system.

I would just highlight that the court delays are largely a provincial jurisdiction. The court in Halton region is very close to my constituency office, so oftentimes we hear from constituents who are concerned about those delays. It is an aging court. Unfortunately, it is one that does not have the capacity to deal with the growing population in Halton region and throughout Peel.

I would also just highlight that we have seen in the news lately that Premier Doug Ford is very concerned about how 156 criminals were released from prison without an explanation. It is very easy to blame one level of government or another, but we are working together to solve these problems.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

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 Riding Mountain, Health; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Finance.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters, is what I am going to be discussing tonight, including child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures that are part of the bill. It is a broad justice omnibus bill that combines victim protection and criminal law modernization measures, but it also has a fundamental restructuring of mandatory minimum sentences.

Also, there are some good parts to this. Banning deepfakes of intimate partners will keep Canadians, especially women, safe from having non-consensual intimate images created and shared. I am thankful the government has adopted the proposal from the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill in her bill, Bill C‑216, to do exactly that.

The bill also criminalizes coercive or controlling conduct within intimate relationships. This is something that I have been very concerned about. I believe the behaviours that are the precursors to serious injury and death of women in those relationships often happen when women are most vulnerable. The government has basically failed to mention that when women are especially vulnerable is when they are pregnant and expecting a child.

Provisions from the same bill to bring in mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse materials have also been taken up, helping our kids feel safe from the most despicable crimes, and I hope it will keep them safer from those crimes.

I applaud the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, whose calls have been heard to make the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder.

Sadly, the Liberals opposed the member of Parliament for Edmonton Gateway's bill to introduce a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for all forms of extortion. However, at the very least, Bill C‑16 introduces an aggravating factor for sextortion. It is a step in the right direction, but it is not anywhere near enough.

There are some good things in Bill C‑16, but of course, as we are hearing today, there are some very serious concerns with it specifically. Despite the positive additions, it continues with the Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda. It would empower judges to ignore literally every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code other than for murder and treason.

The Liberals want to empower judges to ignore mandatory sentences for such things as aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearm offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm. These are some of the things that the government is prepared to declare are not violent crimes worthy of further mandatory sentences.

By creating a general safety valve, Bill C‑16 introduces a sweeping sentencing change, allowing courts to impose sentences below mandatory minimum capabilities when applying the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. I have nowhere to put this. If mandatory is not mandatory, then we have an issue with our judicial system's being given the opportunity to play around with this. This provision would apply to nearly all mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code and other federal statutes, effectively converting mandatory minimums from binding sentence floors into discretionary benchmarks.

While custodial sentences would still be required, Parliament's ability to set firm baseline consequences for serious violent crimes would be significantly weakened, encouraging lighter sentences for violent and repeat offenders, as well as the long-term erosion of mandatory minimum sentencing as a policy tool. This would result in more, not less, violent criminal activity on our streets. Victims, advocacy groups and the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime are in disbelief.

In 2021, instead of fulfilling the responsibility to review the Victims Bill of Rights, as was outlined, the Liberals began a study through the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. According to the ombud for victims of crime, the committee eventually produced a December 2022 report titled, “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”. Critics, including the ombud, argued that the review was not as comprehensive as the legislation warranted. Although 13 recommendations were made, many of the most significant remain outstanding to this day. The federal ombud continues to argue that victims rights remain largely symbolic rights that are not enforced.

Let us comment on the fact that this is what is happening to the victims, but look at what is happening with respect to the sentencing of those who perform violent crimes against those victims. In 2024, it was stated that many of the recommendations could significantly improve victims' experiences if they were implemented.

Many of the more significant recommendations remain outstanding, such as the automated notification of rights. One of the biggest complaints is that victims are still generally required to seek out information themselves. Victims are still not automatically informed of their rights and services, or of offender status, parole processes and restitution options, yet the accused are informed of theirs. What is wrong with this scenario?

Also outstanding is stronger enforcement of victims' rights. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights gives victims the right to information and whatnot. However, there is still no broad mechanism allowing them to go to court and obtain a remedy when those rights are violated.

National minimal service standards are also outstanding. The committee and ombudsperson called for more consistent national standards, but the government has not provided those national standards, leaving victims to try to navigate services that vary significantly between provinces and territories. Why has the Liberal government treated the Victims Bill of Rights as largely symbolic and failed to strengthen victims' rights in a meaningful way? Why instead are victims seeing the insertion of this poison pill in the form of a safety valve in Bill C‑16, which is dangerously weakening Liberal criminal justice policies and giving more leniency to criminals, in sentencing reforms? That is what is happening here.

This poison pill is antithetical to preventing violent crimes. It would be giving more leniency. There should be one track in Bill C‑16 for victim protection, coercive control, deepfake offences and trial efficiency measures. It is typical of the federal government members to bring forward such a bill. Quite honestly, they know that much of it was put forward by our members, yet they put something in there that is antithetical to the goodness that could be done on behalf of victims while lessening the amount of violent crime that continues to grow in this country. That is because of the laws it has allowed, such as bail and not jail and lowering the sentencing requirements for those committing very serious violent crimes.

Each component should be studied on its merits. Let us study the bill separately from the desire that the Liberals have to basically remove mandatory minimums from our judicial system. We would be able to support the victim protection and procedural component of Bill C‑16, but the mandatory minimum sentencing safety valve is definitely something that should not be part of the bill.

Why does it even matter? Parliament sets mandatory minimum sentences for these heinous crimes for a reason. If the Liberals allow judges to ignore them, there would be nothing mandatory about it. The vast number of mandatory minimum sentences have already been deemed constitutional, and now the Liberals would be putting them in jeopardy when they have already passed that test of constitutionality. They would be allowing judicial activism. As a matter of fact, they are encouraging it toward lesser sentencing. On top of that, they are using hypotheticals rather than the real situation in front of them to make decisions that are actually causing more harm to victims and creating more violent crime in our country.

The court's responsibility is to interpret and use the laws created by parliamentarians that are in the best interests of those who face the terrible conditions of violent crime. We have heard about many of those today. We continue to see the erosion of Canadians' safety when criminals' rights are put ahead of victims' rights. This is part of the problem with this approach to the charter. We have already indicated that a vast number of mandatory minimum sentences have been deemed constitutional, yet the government would be giving the judicial system, an activist judicial system, a window to go out and make huge changes to that.

The passage of this provision would be a total abolition of our duty as elected representatives to keep Canadians and their communities safe. The Liberals should split this poison pill out of the bill so that parliamentarians can work together to pass Bill C‑16.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, I have met many victims across this country and families who have lost loved ones to femicide, and they are very eager to see this bill go forward. There has been a lot of co-operation at the committee level, as well as amendments that have been accepted. Some were outside of the scope, however.

I really wanted to know whether the Conservatives will be supporting this bill, which would be a large change and protect women's rights and the rights of children.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I was really pleased to see some of the items in this bill with regard to protecting women when they are being attacked, and I am a little surprised, because when the government had opportunities to support private members' bills, two of them mine, that would have given protections to women and recognized when they were being attacked simply because they are pregnant or, in a case where the attacker, a third party, knows they are pregnant, there was no recognition at all of that circumstance. I call that a poor failure on the part of the government.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, according to my research, two trials were halted in my own riding in 2023 because of incessant defence motions. Clearly, the Jordan decision ended up being applied.

Is that a problem with our justice system? Is there a lack of resources?

Ultimately, will this bill help address that, or are we basically still leaving victims to fend for themselves when justice is not taking its course because of a lack of resources?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, no victim should face a situation where they do not get justice from our courts. It is very frustrating to see the limitations, in a lot of ways, of our court system.

At the same time, I am really frustrated with the fact that the federal government continues to pass the buck to our provinces. As one member was saying, we have had growth in populations and immigration has gone far beyond our capacity as a country to handle schooling, housing, jobs and education. I would also say, it has gone beyond our capacity for dealing with individuals who come to our country who perhaps add to the challenge of those court systems getting through all of their cases.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the poison pill. First of all, mandatory sentences, obviously, as my other colleague pointed out much earlier, do in fact stop crime because it is very hard to commit a crime when in jail.

As far as the poison pill goes, when I raised my kids and told them to clean their rooms, I did not say at the end of it, “Unless you don't feel like it.” This, I believe, is what is happening with this bill: If we do not feel like it, we do not have to obey the law. I would like my colleague to expand on that, if she would.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that observation. That is part of the problem we have. The government has introduced, over this last five to 10 years, bills that basically give more and more leniency than the expectations of citizens and people in our country to obey the laws of our land, treat other people with respect and not create scenarios where violence is allowed. It is not only allowed but also seems to be encouraged.

“Poison pill” is something we use in the House to describe the Liberal government's legislation over and over again. As a matter of fact, my constituents are starting to use this term, because they see the good in a bill, but then they recognize when something has been interjected that is contrary to the value of a bill and is going to harm citizens rather than protect them.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, every day, we hear news stories about how widespread and devastating intimate partner and sexual violence is in Canada. Frequently in the House, members stand to talk about a tragedy that has occurred in their community. According to the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, 147 women and girls were killed in Canada in 2025 in cases classified as femicide. That is one woman every two days.

At December 6 vigils in my community, we read the names of the women killed in Ontario and we hear their stories. These are not isolated incidents or private matters; they are part of a systemic crisis with costs in our homes, in our schools, in our communities, in our court systems, in this place and across Canada.

About one in three police-reported violent incidents involves intimate partner violence, and we know that is the tip of the iceberg, because the last thing somebody wants to do in the worst moment of their life is pick up the phone, call the police and have the cars outside with maybe kids in the house. In Ontario, nearly 100 municipalities have declared intimate partner violence an epidemic. I am proud to say Guelph is one of them.

A recent report shows that sexual violence costs nearly $15 billion every year in Canada. Members can think about the lost wages of the victims and the costs of the lawyers, the counselling, the investigation, the courts, all of it, not to mention the deep social costs, which can last for generations through individual, family and community trauma and adverse childhood experiences. Could there be a more adverse childhood experience than sexual abuse and exploitation?

Police have reported that child sexual abuse and exploitation material offending is now more than 12 times higher than it was in 2008. From prevention to prosecution and community support, we need to address this epidemic in many ways. Bill C-16 is part of the legislative solution. It is one part, but it is urgent and important progress.

The protecting victims act would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. While broad in scope, the bill can be clearly understood through four core pillars: tackling gender-based and intimate partner violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims' rights and addressing court delays. Together, these reforms would modernize the Criminal Code to respond to contemporary threats, intervene earlier to prevent escalating violence and ensure that the justice system works faster and more fairly for victims and survivors. What I hear from some women is that the justice system is in service to the law and not in service to victims.

The bill would take decisive action to prevent violence before it becomes lethal and reflect the gravity of modern forms of abuse. It would address femicide, coercive and controlling conduct, criminal harassment and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, including AI-generated sexual deepfakes. We know there has been a story in the news in the last couple of days of women who have been subjected to this type of abuse.

These reforms would recognize patterns of control and exploitation that often precede physical violence and would ensure they are treated seriously under the law. This means creating a new offence prohibiting coercive control, which is a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. If people missed it, I would refer them to the remarks provided by the member for Spadina—Harbourfront, who described it very well. We need to get to a place where there is no more “awful but lawful” when it comes to controlling someone's behaviour. Let it be known that coercive control will become a crime.

Bill C-16 recognizes femicide as automatic first-degree murder, and provides the following circumstances for what would be murder in the first degree, known as femicide when committed against a female person:

(i) the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct,

(ii) the murder is committed in the context of sexual violence,

(iii) the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking, or

(iv) the murder is motivated by hate;

All of these would require the courts to consider life imprisonment for manslaughter committed in those circumstances.

Bill C‑16 would address criminal harassment by removing the requirement to prove that the victim subjectively feared for their safety and replacing it with a requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe that someone’s safety is threatened, removing the need for victim testimony. We have all seen news stories where a woman is not believed until it is tragically much too late.

Bill C‑16 would ensure that the offence captures harassing conduct committed through modern technology as well. The scope of that is mind-blowing, from abusers who are sending messages through bank transaction memo sections to those who are monitoring people's whereabouts. With respect to the new scourge of our time, sexual deepfakes, Bill C‑16 would address those by amending the offence of “non-consensual distribution of an intimate image” to include those deepfakes.

The bill would also protect children from predators. Child victims face unique vulnerabilities. Predators increasingly rely on digital tools to lure, manipulate and extort children. This includes threats to distribute images, deepfake technology and the use of explicit bestiality depictions to groom children. Let us think about that for just a minute. Current laws do not fully capture these behaviours and courts have struck down several mandatory minimum penalties for child sexual offences, creating uncertainty around sentencing and weakening deterrence. This bill would strengthen Canada's response to child sexual exploitation both online and off-line. It would update offences to reflect how predators groom, manipulate and exploit children today while reinforcing accountability and prevention.

Mandatory minimum penalties would be strengthened for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation material, including restoring more than 12 mandatory minimum penalties for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by courts. We would bring them back in a way that is constitutional.

We would criminalize the threat to distribute child sexual abuse material and the distribution of bestiality depictions used to groom children. That is child sextortion, which are two words that really should never, ever be said side by side. We would expand child luring and sextortion offences, and we would also create a new offence for recruiting a person under 18 to participate in criminal activity. This is particularly important in sex trafficking. We would strengthen the reporting of child sexual abuse and exploitation material by bolstering mandatory reporting and data preservation obligations for online service providers.

Victims' rights also require modernization. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights provides important protections, but many victims report difficulty accessing information, navigating procedures or having their interests reflected in decisions that affect them. Calls for clearer rights and expanded access to information have been consistent across provincial and federal reports. The bill would reinforce a victim-centred and trauma-informed justice system by enhancing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and improving victims' participation, protection and access to information across criminal, military and correctional systems.

We would do that by affirming victims' right to be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness, which I cannot believe we have to legislate. This means that, in other contexts, we need to ensure ongoing training for the whole spectrum of people who are in victim services, from the very first point of contact to the judges who see them in court. We need to provide victims with information proactively without requiring a formal request. We would expand access to testimonial aids for victims of offences committed by an intimate partner. The bill would clarify victims' rights to present impact statements at sentencing, parole and correction stages as well as enhance disclosure of information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Bill C‑16 would finally address court delays and strengthen system integrity. The Ottawa Citizen has reported that, in 2023 to 2024, 55% of adult criminal cases were stayed or dismissed in Ontario. Courts are struggling with serious delays. The Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Jordan established strict timelines for bringing cases to trial. While the federal government designs criminal law, the administration of justice is shared with provinces and territories, which are responsible for policing, prosecution services, court resources and provincial judges. Despite strong federal efforts to appoint judges, delays persist in many jurisdictions, including Ontario, due to resourcing pressures. These delays have resulted in cases, including sexual offences, being dismissed entirely. magine.

These reforms would build a justice system that responds earlier—

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

The member's time has elapsed.

The hon. member for Drummond.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague from Guelph discussed the perspective of victims in her speech. I think this bill is so important. It will make fundamental changes to how victims are treated during the very painful process they have to go through to obtain justice in situations that are sometimes troubling. My colleague mentioned this in a number of cases.

There are a lot of very positive points in Bill C‑16. I believe she talked about respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. She also talked about court delays. She says that Bill C‑16 will address the issue of court delays. I am not aware of any cases where a trial was halted, because of the Jordan decision, for example, and where the delay in justice, the stay of proceedings, served the interests of victims. The perpetrators are always the ones who come out ahead.

What does the government intend to do to fix this problem quickly?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the start of my remarks, I believe this requires a collective effort.

The federal government, just like the provinces, can pass legislation and then ensure it has the necessary resources for trials. That said, as everyone knows, some people continually abuse the court system, and we must absolutely stand together to oppose this.