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 Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives support the parts of the bill that protect women and children, address coercive control and deal with deepfake exploitation. In fact, many of those ideas came from the Conservatives in the first place. The problem is clause 63. The government wrapped good measures around a poison pill that would let judges go below mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. Victims deserve protection, but they also deserve consequences for the people who hurt them. That is why Conservatives tried to fix the bill.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, there is something to be said about the time when there was a minority government. We were able to strike a sort of balance between a more progressive vision of the justice system, championed by the Bloc Québécois, and a more traditional vision focused on law and order, with harsher penalties, advocated by the Conservatives. Unfortunately, the Liberal majority means that the government will be able to impose various measures, notably an amendment that unduly broadens the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards. Taken together, these elements create conditions in which the criterion of violence, usually used to justify harsher sentences, is removed.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this. Does this create an additional risk for women and victims?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been very clear from the beginning. We support stronger protections for women, children and victims. We support action on coercive control. We support action on deepfake exploitation. We support stronger tools to protect children online.

What we do not support is using those victims as a political cover for a clause that attacks mandatory minimum sentences. The government did not have to attach clause 63 to those protections. It chose to do that, and it chose to reject every Conservative attempt to fix it.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Bow River always appreciate when I have an opportunity to speak in the House or ask questions.

More than a decade of having Liberal-appointed, soft-on-crime judges who follow the tone and tenor set by the government has really eroded the confidence of people on the disposition or the delivery of justice. I wonder if the member can speak to how bills passed need to be explicit in terms of mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences and how, otherwise, judges will erode the system and public confidence in the judicial system.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have been able to tackle some of that in my speech, but the arguments we have heard from the Liberal side do not explain why they rejected every reasonable safeguard Conservatives proposed in order to define things. If their release valve or get-out-of-jail-free card is truly only for rare and exceptional cases, why do they not say that in the bill? Why not limit it to first-time offenders? Why not prevent sentences from dropping below half the mandatory minimum? Why not exclude a child sexual offence, aggravated sexual assault or extortion? The answer is simple. The Liberals wanted this power to be broad, and Canadians should be very concerned about it.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Conservative Party is being completely self-serving and does not recognize that the changes in Bill C‑16 would make sure that it is constitutionally compliant. Mandatory minimums would be restored.

Why is the Conservative Party attempting to deceive Canadians by trying to spread misinformation on important crime-fighting legislation?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Speaker, if mandatory minimums can be ignored, then they are not mandatory anymore. The government says there would be jail time, but that misses the point. Parliament sets mandatory minimums because some crimes are so serious that there must be a clear floor.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Chi Nguyen Liberal Spadina—Harbourfront, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act. I do so as a woman and as someone who has spent years listening to women, survivors and frontline advocates describe the gap between their lived realities and the protections our laws have provided.

When I was 13 years old, I was given a rape whistle. It was a quiet but unmistakable signal that my presence in the world came with a risk and that my safety was ultimately my own responsibility to manage. Nearly 30 years later, much has changed: We have a deeper understanding of gender-based violence, of power, control and harm; we speak more openly about experiences that were once pushed into silence. However, for far too many women and girls, violence remains a daily part of their reality.

Before I speak about statutes and sections of the Criminal Code, I want to speak about a young person whose experience illustrates exactly why the bill matters. She was 16 years old. She thought she was in a relationship, but what she did not yet have language for was that she was being controlled. Her boyfriend decided who she could speak to, where she could go, what she should wear and how quickly she was expected to respond to messages. When she resisted, he did not always hurt her directly. Instead, he was violent toward others in her life so that he could intimidate and isolate her. While there was no physical evidence she could point to, what she understood very well was the constant and escalating fear. No single incident clearly met the threshold for legal intervention, and there was not a system that could yet name what was happening to her, let alone stop it from happening. Her story is not rare; it is painfully familiar.

Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence are not new problems in Canada. The government and the minister understand this reality, and the provisions in Bill C‑16 address what has been legislatively absent in our response to gender-based violence and intimate partner violence.

In 2024 alone, 187 women were killed in this country, with one woman killed every two days. Behind each statistic is a life ended too soon, a family broken needlessly and a community changed forever. As the bill makes clear, violence does not begin with a punch or a final act of femicide; it begins much earlier, with fear, control, threats, isolation, humiliation and the slow erosion of a person's autonomy. For far too long, the legal system has struggled to name that reality, let alone respond to it. Survivors have told us time and time again that the law intervenes too late. By the time physical violence appears, the warning signs have long been there. The system asks them to wait for bruises, for broken bones, for tragedy. Only then, but perhaps not even then, are they offered justice.

Bill C‑16 exists because waiting is no longer acceptable. The legislation recognizes that intimate partner violence and gender-based violence are systemic problems that require systemic responses from the federal government. It recognizes that technology and the digital world have changed how harm occurs, and it recognizes that justice delayed or denied retraumatizes survivors and erodes public trust in our judicial system.

Criminal justice is, of course, a shared responsibility. Provinces must adequately resource courts, victim services, Crown prosecutors and the police, and the federal government has a clear responsibility to modernize and enact criminal law, which is precisely what Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act, seeks to do.

Since the bill was introduced, it has been carefully studied at committee, where members have heard from survivors, advocates, legal experts and law enforcement. Bill C‑16 would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in a generation. While broad in scope, its purpose is clear: to intervene earlier, respond more effectively and protect those at greatest risk.

First, the bill would create a new Criminal Code offence for coercive and controlling conduct in intimate relationships. This is a critical shift. Coercive control reflects how abuse actually operates through monitoring, isolation, financial control, threats and intimidation. This would enable police and courts to intervene before violence escalates to lethal outcomes. This would save women's lives.

Second, Bill C‑16 would strengthen how the law treats the most serious forms of violence against women. Murder committed in the context of coercive control, sexual violence, exploitation, trafficking or hate would be treated as first-degree murder. When a killing in those same circumstances results in a manslaughter conviction, courts would be required to consider life imprisonment with parole ineligibility, comparable to second-degree murder. Sentencing must reflect the gravity of violence rooted in power and control.

Third, the bill would modernize our response to criminal harassment and stalking. Survivors would no longer be required to prove subjective fear. Courts would instead assess whether the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause someone to believe their safety is threatened. This trauma-informed shift would recognize that harassment is cumulative and that early intervention saves lives.

Fourth, Bill C-16 would update sexual exploitation offences to reflect the digital world we all live in. We know technology is not neutral infrastructure. It is increasingly used as a tool to manipulate, monitor and harm women and gender-diverse people. While the non-consensual distribution of intimate images is already illegal, this bill would clarify the law and explicitly include sexual deepfakes, which would be closing a gap that offenders are already exploiting.

Committee amendments would strengthen these provisions further. The bill would now explicitly capture a broader range of AI-generated images, ensuring the law keeps pace with rapidly evolving technologies and the realities of online harm. A digital violation is still a violation, and the law must say so clearly.

Fifth, the bill would strengthen protections for children, both off-line and online. It would expand child-luring offences, criminalize child sextortion, address grooming tactics involving explicit material, restore and reinforce mandatory minimum penalties for serious child sexual offences with a constitutional safety valve and require online platforms to preserve evidence longer so offenders cannot escape accountability.

Finally, Bill C-16 has been informed through a victim-centred and trauma-informed lens. It would strengthen the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, improve access to information and testimonial aids, clarify the right to present impact statements and modernize procedures so serious cases are less likely to collapse due to delay.

Together, these reforms would bring the Criminal Code into alignment with lived experience, modern technology and the urgent need for prevention. This bill is grounded in evidence and what many advocates have called for, for years. Women's organizations across the country have welcomed the criminalization of coercive control as a long overdue step. Frontline organizations working with survivors have described this bill as historic, recognizing that patterns of control are deeply harmful and that survivors deserve stronger legal protections. Child protection advocates have warned that online sexual violence against children has reached unprecedented levels. They have welcomed the provisions in this bill that would strengthen online child protection.

As this debate has unfolded, some misinformation has followed. Let me address a few of these myths directly. Criminalizing coercive control is not untested. It reflects years of research, survivor testimony and expert input. It represents the hard work that went into Bill C-332, sponsored by former NDP MP Laurel Collins, which received cross-party support at committee.

This government would not only be criminalizing the distribution of intimate images; that offence already exists. Bill C-16 would clarify that it includes sexual deepfakes, which would be closing a gap that offenders are already exploiting.

As well, Bill C-16 would protect children online. It would expand child-luring and sextortion offences. As a mother of two young kids, I know how important this change would be. These are not symbolic measures. They are targeted, enforceable and urgently needed.

Bill C-16 is a vital pillar of our response to gender-based violence, but it is not the entire solution. Legislation alone cannot change culture. It cannot house a woman fleeing violence. It cannot staff a crisis line at three in the morning. It cannot replace the trust built by frontline workers who walk alongside survivors every day. That crucial work is done by the incredible frontline organizations across this country.

This bill must be understood alongside continued federal investment in women's shelters, transitional housing, legal aid, trauma counselling and prevention programs. This work must be in concert with the national action plan to end gender-based violence with provincial and territorial partners, indigenous nations and local organizations. Ending gender-based violence requires culture change in how we understand power, entitlement, masculinity and control.

Bill C-16 reflects years of advocacy, hard conversations and courage in particular from survivors who spoke when it was extremely difficult to speak up. It would recognize harm earlier so systems can intervene faster. It would treat victims with dignity while modernizing our justice system to meet the realities Canadians are living with today.

These changes might have made a difference for the 13-year-old handed a whistle instead of protection and for the 16-year-old unable to name coercion. They would make a difference for the women who have lived in silence and for all children who deserve safety.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to continue the work beyond the chamber that our country deserves and demands.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, there is clearly something important in this bill.

However, in committee, the Liberals decided to vote against a Bloc Québécois amendment that would have applied mandatory conditions to any offence against an intimate partner, including purely financial disputes, such as fraud. These included a no-contact order, a ban on cross-examination, house arrest and a ban on possessing firearms.

Evidence that a female victim could legally rely on to strengthen her defence is being rejected by the Liberals. Why is that?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Chi Nguyen Liberal Spadina—Harbourfront, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have just become a member of the status of women committee. I am really thrilled that we are working at a systems level to start to address some of these challenges that we are seeing in the laws and to hearing from some of the folks who are doing the work on the front lines to identify some of these challenges.

I cannot speak to the question that the member brought up specifically, but I want to say that this work needs to be happening with a much more systematic approach.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague.

This is a first-of-a-kind legislation on the whole issue of coercive actions, femicide being advanced to first-degree murder and the reinstatement of a number of mandatory minimums. These are all important things that will make our communities healthier.

Could the member expand on why it was important that the government bring in not only this legislation, but a series of pieces of legislation to make the communities we represent safer for all?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Chi Nguyen Liberal Spadina—Harbourfront, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was recently in Strasbourg as part of a parliamentary delegation, and one of the issues that we were exploring was around gender violence and the need to take more explicit actions. I am very proud to be part of a government that has recognized femicide as part of the wave of violence that women experience in our communities.

What we are achieving here with this legislation, alongside a whole host of other interventions and changes to our criminal system, is a balanced approach. There are really important measures that also think about prevention and culture change. This work is happening across several pillars, and it is work that I am very proud to be speaking to.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-16 would create the so-called safety valve that would allow judges to essentially ignore a mandatory minimum sentence.

Is the member concerned that, by virtue of this Liberal safety valve, at a time when we are experiencing record crime, judges will ignore the mandatory minimum sentences more often and let repeat violent offenders out on the street when they should be in jail?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Chi Nguyen Liberal Spadina—Harbourfront, ON

Mr. Speaker, one of the testimonies we heard earlier this week at the status of women committee was about the concept of restorative justice and finding other approaches to respond to these challenges.

We live in a patriarchal society in which there is a whole host of really challenging views around the place for women, women's safety and women's role in our society. We are thinking about other ways to respond here because of the wave of this kind of violence.

I want to make sure we recognize that sometimes the justice system is not the right place for the responses we need and it is not the healing that some survivors have asked for.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Doly Begum Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was very eloquent in speaking about the ways that gender-based violence is addressed and how important it is. This legislation is a significant step forward in understanding the different types of violence and the need for very comprehensive responses to it.

You talked about first responders and those who are on the front lines. I would ask if you could elaborate a little and talk about how important it is for us to understand the uniqueness and how victims should be—

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

I have to cut the member off to give a chance to the member for Spadina—Harbourfront to respond.

I know the member is new, but she cannot use the word “you” because it is directly addressing the Speaker. I will not be responding, but I invite the member of Spadina—Harbourfront to respond in 20 seconds or less.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Chi Nguyen Liberal Spadina—Harbourfront, ON

Mr. Speaker, centering the experiences and voices of survivors is critical to getting this right. It is how we move forward and ensure that there is real justice for women who have suffered.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to engage in this very important debate we are having about the Liberals' bill, Bill C-16, which comes in light of quite significant violent crime statistics in the country over the last 10 years. For example, sexual assaults have increased by 76% and violent crimes by 55%. That comes after 10 years of the Stephen Harper government, when there was a 26% decline in violent crime, but over the last 10 years of Liberal government, there has been a 55% increase in reported violent crime. Sexual violations against children in that decade as well are up by well over 100%. Human trafficking is up by over 84%, so the bill is arriving at a very dire time in violent crime against women, against children and against the most vulnerable in Canada.

As such, I am very honoured to engage in this debate, and frankly, there are a number of measures in the bill that we personally support, notably things that the Conservatives on this side of the House have brought forward over recent years and have championed in recent years. While we welcome those things being adopted in this bill, we have other concerns, which I will get into shortly.

For example, there is Bill C-225 from the Conservative member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, our public safety shadow minister. That bill is currently in the Senate and would make the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder. In fact, that would build on a bill from the Senate from about four years ago, which I helped champion, from former Conservative senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who is a nationally renowned champion for fighting against violence against women. It is great to see that is part of this bill. I appreciate that.

Bill C-216 from the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill aimed to ban deepfakes of intimate partners to keep Canadians safe, especially women, from non-consensual intimate images being created and shared. Bill C-16 also includes provisions from that same bill to bring in mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material, so that has been taken up as well.

There are a number of measures that we have championed and that we welcome seeing in the bill. Also, it would update mandatory reporting requirements concerning child exploitation material, but also the bill would criminalize coercive or controlling conduct within intimate partner relationships, which we support. I used to serve on the status of women committee, and we have long been hearing that this is an area that needs very early intervention, so I welcome that in this piece of legislation.

However, there is a very divisive piece that we need to discuss. It is clause 63 in Bill C-16, which the Liberals have included. It makes it very difficult for us to support the bill. Despite all the good work that we have done that is reflected in it, there is a very clear red line in clause 63. It is what the justice minister has called a safety valve for mandatory minimum penalties. This really emphasizes the trend in this country of judicial activism and concessions by the Liberal government to that, and would undermine Parliament's role in setting sentencing policy.

Ultimately, it would allow courts to impose sentences below mandatory minimums set by the House. It would provide discretion to a judge to determine that a sentence should be less than a mandatory minimum penalty under circumstances the judge deems cruel and unusual punishment. This sounds like quite a significant hurdle, but recent court cases make me question if we should be allowing judges the discretion to determine what exactly that is.

In fact, the Liberal government has linked this provision in the bill to a recent Supreme Court decision that I think really rocked the nation. For me, when it came out, it made me feel sick to my stomach. It was the Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville decision in the fall. For those who may not be familiar with that ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for the offences of possessing and accessing child pornography is unconstitutional. Our Supreme Court of Canada, the supreme judicial body in this country, ruled that a one-year mandatory prison sentence may be unconstitutional in certain hypothetical extreme scenarios for possessing and accessing child pornography. In the case in particular, the two offenders had 475 and 805 files, respectively, depicting child pornography, mostly of girls between the ages of three and six years old undergoing horrific, unimaginable sexual abuse.

During this case, the Supreme Court said that, maybe not in that scenario, but in another potential scenario of a 17-year-old sending an 18-year-old an intimate image, if maybe that 18-year-old shared it and that was ever charged by police, prosecuted by the Crown and then brought all the way up to the courts, an MMP could be cruel and unusual punishment in that hypothetical scenario.

This is why there is no longer a one-year mandatory minimum, based on this decision. Now they are bringing this forward, saying that this helps that situation. It gives the judges what is basically an out. I guess this is what they are allowing. We would have used the notwithstanding clause on that judicial ruling and been very proud of that.

There are a number of other rulings as well in recent years that have us really just questioning the morality we are seeing in this country and, again, the judicial activism. For example, two years ago, in R. v. Bertrand Marchand, the Supreme Court ruled that a one-year mandatory minimum for child luring was cruel and unusual punishment. In R. v. Hills, it struck down the four-year mandatory minimum for reckless discharge of a firearm. These are very dangerous crimes, very horrific crimes in many cases, where the mandatory minimum is being struck down by the Supreme Court. Most egregiously, in R. v. Bissonnette, involving the man who opened fire and killed six people in a mosque, the court decided it was unconstitutional to impose consecutive life sentences on murderers like that. I disagree strongly with all of those rulings.

Now Bill C-16, with clause 63, is providing more opportunity for judges to decide, despite Parliament having ruled that certain offences are so egregious that they require mandatory minimum prison time, like child pornography, for example. I look at this, and it is difficult to wrap my head around it when I think about some of the worst examples we have seen. We cannot go a week in this country without seeing some ridiculous ruling by a judge who ruled that someone could be let out on bail despite 50 violent crimes, some including sexual assault, breaking and entering, violent assault. They say, “Oh, yes, you can go out on bail,” over and over and over. There are light sentences for sexual abuse. We see this all the time.

Instead of doubling down and asserting our rights of Parliament, the government would allow a “safety valve”, as per the Minister of Justice, for judicial discretion with mandatory minimums. We cannot support that. I will just describe one example: aggravated sexual assault. This is how the Criminal Code defines aggravated sexual assault. It occurs if the person who is being sexually assaulted is wounded, maimed, disfigured, beaten or in danger of losing his or her life. That action at gunpoint has a current mandatory minimum of four years, which, quite frankly, I think is not nearly enough, but that is what it is. At least it is there. Why is it that the Liberals voted against our amendment at committee to ensure that provision is not part of this safety valve? They allow it for treason and murder but not aggravated sexual assault with a firearm?

What about sexual abuse against children? We also put forward amendments to ensure that those offences were excused, that those were not included, that those would be in the same category as the treason and the murder, so that this would not apply. That was also voted down. We worked collaboratively in that committee to provide opportunities so that these mandatory minimums would remain, and they voted them down. I would like to hear Liberal members describe to us in what scenario they morally believe a judge should be permitted the authority to allow less than four years for an aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint. If they cannot think of a scenario, why did they not support our amendment?

It is so frustrating because there is stuff in this bill that we worked hard to push forward. I have been here for almost seven years. I cannot tell the House how much we have been banging on these tables demanding more justice for women, for children, for victims of sexual abuse, tougher sentencing, jail not bail for repeat violent offenders. Now the Liberals are getting up on their high horse, pretending they have the higher ground, and they are allowing this provision to give more discretion to judges to allow lesser sentences for aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint. I cannot get on board for that, and it is very upsetting.

As members can tell, I get quite animated, because there is stuff in this bill we would like to support. We gave them every opportunity to take this out of the bill to ensure that these protections, this justice for victims, remain in our Criminal Code, and they voted them down. It is very disappointing but, unfortunately, not surprising.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that next Monday shall be an allotted day.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, with every speech I hear, I am starting to feel more and more worried that the Conservatives may vote against one of the most ambitious changes in criminal reform when it comes to protecting victims in this country.

This bill would create incredible changes. It would account for new technology. It would implement 12 mandatory minimum penalties. The Conservatives are fixated on making sure that it is all or nothing, so that victims do not get heard in court, so that perpetrators get away with their crime. We do not want them to get away. What we want is for them to have to serve mandatory minimum penalties. This is why the lesson from the Senneville case is not that Parliament should abandon this but that Parliament—

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

I have to cut the member off to give the member for KIldonan—St. Paul a chance to respond.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear any of that coming from Liberal members. What we are fixated on is rights for women against their abusers.

For example, there was my bill from a few years ago that was from the Senate, from Senator Boisvenu. In that bill, there was the opportunity for a peace bond for two years. A peace bond is something that a woman who has been abused can get as protection against her abuser. It takes a lot of courage and a lot of time to go before the courts, through the process, to get it; in essence, it is a type of restraining order. In that bill, a woman would have had two years when she could relax for a moment with that protection. Liberal members diluted that to one year.

I will take no lectures, no ivory tower from these Liberal members about protecting women and what is best for them.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech by my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul. Her passion for this issue was evident in her remarks. I know she has worked tirelessly and with great dedication on these issues over the years.

I see in Bill C‑16 many improvements in terms of compassion and fairness for victims. There are also many improvements regarding the recognition of deepfakes. I therefore see very positive developments. My colleague is right to say that the collaboration that took place in committee left something to be desired. The committee rejected amendments and refused to discuss amendments from the opposition parties that were entirely constructive.

Even if we can agree that we could be stricter on certain points—that we could place greater emphasis on minimum sentences, for example—does my colleague not think that there is still some improvement in Bill C‑16, that it is better than nothing, and that we can work on the rest later? Would that not be something worth considering?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

I thank my colleague for the question, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate it.

Again, I outlined in my speech a number of things we like in this bill, a number of things we have put forward and advocated for. That is why it is so frustrating that there is a provision in here that allows the opportunity for more judicial activism for lesser sentencing. It is very difficult for us because, again, there is a lot of our work represented in there, but how can we in good conscience support something that is going to provide more opportunity for judicial discretion to lower sentencing for violent repeat offenders? It is very difficult.

I have outlined our position on this. I appreciate the member's work, as well, on this. Again, what is most frustrating, I think, is that we gave them every opportunity to get on board for this. We brought forward concrete, clear amendments to ensure that the most egregious offences, for example, aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint, are removed from that safety valve, and the Liberals voted them down. They are not interested in working on this together. They want to play politics.