Debates of June 4th, 2026

Bill C-16—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives ask for a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #134

Protecting Victims Act

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

Premature Disclosure of a Bill and its Elements to a Third Party—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 25, 2026, by the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères regarding the alleged premature disclosure of C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.

In raising his question of privilege, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères asserted that information about Bill C-31 had been disclosed to Air Canada before the bill was introduced in the House. He argued that the series of events starting with Air Canada's announcement of a new arbitration mechanism, followed by the government's economic statement and then the introduction of the bill, indicated that a third party had gained preferential access to information that enabled it to anticipate and implement a mechanism aligned with legislative intentions that had yet to be shared with parliamentarians. In the member's view, these events could not be a coincidence and constituted a breach of the privileges of the House and its members.

In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said that members' privileges were not breached in any way. He explained that the government can consult stakeholders and the public as part of the policy development process before a bill is finalized. In addition, he said, the announcements by Air Canada and the government were made before the period during which the contents of a bill must remain confidential, namely the period between the time a bill is placed on notice and its introduction.

In this instance, the announcements were made well before this time period. The parliamentary secretary also pointed out that on May 4, the government had tabled a notice of ways and means motion that included all the measures that were later contained in Bill C-31, consistent with the principle that the House have first access to legislative measures. He concluded that the practices and precedents of the House had been respected.

The Chair would like to begin by reiterating the importance of the convention that the House must be the first to know the details of new legislative measures. Under this convention, it is prohibited to make the contents of a bill public from the time it is added to the Notice Paper until its introduction in the House, with an exception provided for cases where the full text of a bill is included in a ways and means motion. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons did not deny that the government may have consulted with industry stakeholders.

These consultations are routine and are not in themselves a matter of privilege. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states the following in section 3.14: “the right to be the first to know the contents of a bill must coexist with the need of the government and members to hold consultations with the public and stakeholders on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation and prior to announcing the intention to introduce a bill on a specific issue.”

Indeed, Speakers of the House have often remarked that the House has to accommodate the government's need to conduct in-depth consultations with the public and affected groups before introducing legislation.

In light of the submissions heard, the Chair concludes that the House's right to be the first informed of legislative measures was not infringed by the government's consultations. Likewise, there is no basis for the Chair to hold that the government knowingly shared specific details of Bill C‑31 with Air Canada before the bill was brought to the House.

The Chair therefore cannot conclude that members were impeded in carrying out their parliamentary functions or that a contempt was committed. Consequently, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank all members for their attention.

Minister Statement During Committee of the Whole

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on June 2 by the member for Vancouver East, respecting the response from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole deliberations on Thursday, May 28.

The member alleges that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship deliberately misled members in response to her question concerning the process of study permit applications for Palestinian students.

I submit three arguments for consideration. First, the minister provided the most accurate information she had at the time and, therefore, did not in any way attempt to mislead the committee of the whole. Second, there is a long-standing practice in this House to take members at their word. Finally, the process in which the member for Vancouver East has raised the question of privilege does not follow the conventions of this place.

On the substantive question at hand, the minister did not mislead the committee in her response. During the committee of the whole deliberations, the member for Vancouver East asked a question concerning whether the minister would take the same approach as other countries in approving study visas. In her response, which is on the parliamentary record, the minister noted the application process that exists and stated that she directed officials to deal with these matters on an accelerated basis.

The member for Vancouver East has brought into question what is not captured in Hansard and not clearly audible in the video recording of the proceedings. She has alleged that the minister stated that the application decision would be completed in the next 10 days. While the inaudible answer does not form part of Hansard, upon review of the audio, the minister can be heard stating that the interviews would be completed in the next 10 days. This is an important distinction from what the member has alleged and demonstrates that the minister did not mislead the committee.

A long-standing practice of this place is to take members at their word, as noted by the Speaker in his ruling of April 29, 2015: “as your Speaker, I must take all members at their word. To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of Members' statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.”

The member for Vancouver East has brought forward these allegations based on conversations with stakeholders, which, she states, “suggests that officials are not proceeding in accordance with” a certain time frame for applications.

Page 58 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice notes, “The Speaker has also stated that statements made outside the House or documents published elsewhere must not be used to cast doubt on members’ statements in the House.”

The matter at hand is a dispute as to the facts. This is based on both a mischaracterization of the minister's response and the member's meetings with external stakeholders.

On June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled, on a matter that constituted dispute as to the facts, that “If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements.”

I would add that the format of the committee of the whole does not always allow for exhaustive responses. As the time for answers in committee of the whole is to be proportional to the time to ask the question, members can appreciate that the circumstances of each matter raised cannot be adequately addressed in the time provided.

Members have several ways to obtain detailed information on a particular matter before bringing forward an allegation of a member misleading the House. I submit that the way the question of privilege was raised did not conform with the practices of this House.

The Speaker ruled on a similar matter on June 19, 2025, which outlined the process for dealing with questions of privilege in committee of the whole. This process is not being followed in the matter raised by the member for Vancouver East.

Let us review the facts at hand.

On May 28, the House resolved into committee of the whole to hear the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship on the 2026‑27 main estimates for her department. The member for Vancouver East asked a series of questions to the minister regarding her portfolio. At no point during the deliberation did the member raise concerns that she had been misled or that her privilege had been breached.

The Speaker has ruled on a similar situation that occurred on June 10, 2025, during consideration of the main estimates in a committee of the whole. The following day, the member for Mirabel alleged that the Minister of Finance misled the House in response to the member's question on the consumer carbon rebate scheme.

On this matter, on June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled:

When the House resolves itself into a committee of the whole, it is, for all intents and purposes, functioning as a committee to consider a matter the House has referred to it. In this regard, the practice for raising questions of privilege emanating from a committee of the whole is the same as that of a standing, special or legislative committee...The Chair recognizes that there may sometimes be challenges with the committee of the whole format, in particular during the consideration of estimates. They, however, do not exempt members of their obligation to raise their concerns there first.

Section 3.99 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice sets out the requirements for raising a question of privilege in the committee of the whole. This process entails:

The Speaker will entertain a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a committee of the whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the committee of the whole and reported accordingly to the House.

Moreover, section 19.18 of the fourth edition states:

Although questions of privilege in a committee of the whole are infrequent, the practice is identical to that for any standing, legislative or special committee. If a member rises on a question of privilege which is relevant to the proceedings in a committee of the whole, the Chair will hear the question of privilege....

If the matter raised by the member touches on privilege and relates to events in the committee of the whole, the Chair will entertain a motion that the events be reported to the House....

The Speaker will hear a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a committee of the whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the committee of the whole and reported accordingly to the House.

I submit that the process was not followed in this case. I submit that the inaudible comments made by the minister were mis-characterized and that the minister did not in any way mislead the committee in her response to the question from the member for Vancouver East. Therefore, there are no facts to satisfy the requirement that the minister misled the House and did so deliberately.

The facts suggest that the minister stated accurately and truthfully that she directed her officials to accelerate the student visa process, which has been corroborated by her remarks in committee and in recent media coverage. Moreover, the well‑established practice of the House is to take members at their word when considering the matter of what was on the parliamentary record and what one can hear in the audio recording of the proceedings of May 28.

Finally, the member for Vancouver East did not satisfy the requirements of the process for raising a question of privilege in a committee of the whole. In conclusion, I submit that there are no facts before the House to support a finding of a prima facie question of privilege in the matter raised by the member for Vancouver East.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from June 3 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 amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Protecting Victims Act

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. This bill represents an important step in reinforcing Canada's commitment to protecting victims and supporting survivors of crime.

When I was a law student, I worked in a community legal clinic in Toronto. Interacting and advising women who were living with domestic coercion and violence was a sobering experience for me. I was privileged to work with lawyers in the violence against women and children sectors where I learned much more about the cycle of abuse, a malignant dynamic that was afflicting so many families. Later, when I worked as a family law lawyer, I encountered many women trying to navigate the legal system while simultaneously attempting to break free from the financial, emotional and social coercion that their intimate partners exercised over them. It had taken many years for some of them to even recognize they were victims of such control and manipulation. Isolation from their families, friends and social supports; restrictions to accessing their own money; and erosion of their self-worth and value through psychological manipulation were regular symptoms I encountered. Of course, there were limits to the help I could provide as a new lawyer, and I was grateful for the community groups and social supports that I was able to refer my clients to for that help.

My early career as a family law litigator also taught me of the pervasive obstacles these women faced and continue to face in accessing justice through the legal system. My experiences with these women and their families inform the words I bring to this House today and ratify my support for our government's action to protect them.

Bill C-16 advances four core goals in protecting victims: strengthening the criminal law's response to gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence and femicide; strengthening protections for children against sexual exploitation, particularly in online spaces; improving the treatment of victims; and addressing delays that undermine confidence in the justice system.

I will focus today on how the bill would enhance the criminal justice system's response to gender-based violence and improve protections for children from sexual exploitation. Every two days in Canada, a woman is killed by her intimate partner. This extreme form of violence is both devastating and disturbingly prevalent. These realities demand a strengthened and explicit response in our criminal law. We can strengthen the Criminal Code through Bill C-16 to ensure that murders occurring in certain aggravating circumstances are treated as first-degree murder, the most serious offence in the Criminal Code. These include murders of intimate partners that occur in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, murders that occur in the context of sexual violence or exploitation, and murders motivated by hate, including based on gender.

The bill would also treat manslaughter occurring in these same circumstances more seriously by requiring sentencing judges to consider imposing the penalty applicable to second-degree murder: 25 years of imprisonment. Importantly, Bill C-16 would explicitly refer to these killings as femicide. Words matter, and naming these crimes matters. In doing so, we recognize and acknowledge that women and girls are disproportionately the victims of these forms of homicide, and it reflects victims' lived realities.

While femicide represents the most extreme form of gender-based violence, such violence often takes many other forms, including mental abuse. Abusers may exert control by isolating intimate partners from family and friends, monitoring communications, controlling finances or making threats involving children. This pattern of coercive or controlling conduct often precedes intimate partner femicide.

Through the protecting victims act, a new offence would criminalize engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. The new offence is modelled on Scotland's approach, which is widely regarded as the gold standard because it does not require proof that the victim feared for their safety. Clearly defining “coercive control” in the Criminal Code is intended to help law enforcement identify the true aggressor in intimate partner violence cases and reduce the risk of dual charging by requiring a contextual assessment of power imbalances and patterns of exploitation of vulnerabilities. This approach recognizes that coercive controllers often target vulnerabilities, while violence used by victims is often defensive. The new offence would be supported by training to support the offence being applied by law enforcement in a manner consistent with its core objective of protecting victims.

To complement these reforms, the protecting victims act would modernize the criminal harassment offence by removing the need to prove the victim's subjective fear, instead requiring proof that a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances would perceive a threat to their physical or psychological safety, reducing the need for survivors to relive their trauma in court.

The protecting victims act would also respond to an emerging form of digital-based gender violence: sexual deepfakes. While child sexual abuse material is already criminalized regardless of whether images are real or fictional, the existing offence for non-consensual distribution of intimate images does not clearly capture AI-generated images that are indistinguishable from real ones.

Bill C-16 would address this gap by ensuring that sexual deepfake depictions of identifiable persons that appear real and are distributed without consent are treated the same as real intimate images, affirming that consent is required regardless of how the image is created.

The bill would also criminalize threatening to distribute intimate images, including deepfakes, to address sextortion and intimidation and would increase the maximum penalty for the offence from five to 10 years' imprisonment.

The proposed legislation contains a range of measures to better protect children from sexual exploitation, including online. For example, significant concerns have been expressed about child sexual offence mandatory minimum penalties, MMPs. While Parliament has been signalling that sexual crimes against children should be treated as far more grave by increasing MMPs, courts have struck many of these MMPs down as violations of section 12 of the charter, which characterizes them as cruel and unusual punishment.

Our government is responding to this through the proposed protecting victims act. We propose to reinforce these MMPs for predators who create, possess or distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material by allowing judicial discretion, in rare cases, where applying an MMP would be grossly disproportionate in the facts of the case before the court. The protecting victims act would ensure those who prey on our kids face prison time for the most heinous crimes imaginable, by reviving 13 MMPs for child sexual offences that were previously struck down by courts.

This approach is designed to protect and preserve mandatory minimum penalties while ensuring they continue to apply to the serious crimes they are intended for, thereby addressing the court's constitutional concerns under section 12 of the charter, cruel and unusual punishment. It is an approach that members of the opposition have supported very well.

The protecting victims act also proposes reforms that would modernize offences that target sexual exploitation, sextortion and child luring and child sexual abuse and exploitation material. These reforms include creating a new offence that would prohibit threatening to distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material; expanding the child-luring offence so it would explicitly apply to those who communicate with children to sextort them; criminalizing the distribution of bestiality depictions, including deepfake ones, which is conduct that is known to be used to manipulate children for sexual purposes; expanding certain child sexual offences to protect children from those who may invite them to expose their own sexual organs for a sexual purpose, including where no physical touching occurs; and ensuring Canadians who sexually assault children abroad could be prosecuted at home.

The proposed reforms also seek to strengthen requirements for Internet service providers under the mandatory reporting act, which imposes duties on Internet service providers, including one to notify police when their services are used to commit a child sexual abuse and exploitation material offence. Service providers would have to preserve data for a longer period of time and transmit critical information to law enforcement. The act would also more clearly cover a broader range of online platforms and would extend the limitation period for the prosecution of offence under that act.

Finally, to address those who recruit and involve youth in the commission of criminal offences, Bill C-16 proposes to create a new offence that would prohibit recruiting, counselling, encouraging or inviting a young person to be party to a criminal offence.

These reforms are necessary. They move Canada forward toward a justice system that recognizes modern forms of abuse, protects survivors before it is too late and refuses to allow predators to hide in technology, bureaucracy or legal loopholes.

I mentioned earlier that every two days a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner. That day came for Darian Hailey Henderson-Bellman, a 25-year-old woman who lived in my riding. She was killed by her intimate partner, a man who had numerous interactions with law enforcement and should never have been released into society after he was previously charged with domestic violence.

The system failed Darian and her family, but her murder is not in vain. Through the valiant and dedicated work of her parents, Flo and Paul Henderson, Darian's story has been shared and discussed, including in this very House.

Darian's story and those like hers play a key role in the fabric of this legislation. We owe it to women living under the shadow of coercive control, we owe it to the children who are confronted with threats on their phones and we owe it to victims who wait for years for justice only to be turned away.

Laws shape culture, and culture shapes safety. When we call femicide by its name, we expose misogyny for what it is. When we prosecute sextortion, we protect dignity. When we protect children, we protect our country's future. When we expand victims' rights, we honour their courage.

I implore everyone in the House to support these reforms because safety is not optional, dignity is not negotiable and justice should not be a privilege; it must be a guarantee.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I listened with great attention to my colleague's speech, as the person who wrote the bill along and ushered the bill through to change the name of “child pornography“ to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.” As somebody who prosecuted Internet luring and offences against children, I took a great deal of interest.

One of the things the member spoke about was homicide of intimates, which was also addressed in Bill C-225, also known as Bailey's law. Bailey's law is at the Senate right now, and it was studied and amended substantially in the House at the request of the government.

I wonder if that member would be prepared to provide an endorsement to state that Bailey's law should be passed forthwith. Bailey McCourt, for whom the bill is named, was tragically killed in a similar situation to the Henderson murder the member spoke about. Her death happened on July 4 last year. Would the member support this bill coming into effect by July 4 this year?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his advocacy and work on that bill.

As someone who has worked in the violence against women sector in the legal context, I know we saw gaps in laws and legislation that could be addressed through this House, and we are glad to see those types of bills moving through now.

I am happy to continue to advocate, and certainly it is our job as elected officials in this chamber to advocate on behalf of those who do not have voices to bring their stories forward. I commend the member for his work on that bill, and I will certainly continue to work with him to elevate those voices in this chamber.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a chance to take the floor to ask a question of my colleague from Milton East—Halton Hills South.

I am distressed. I certainly agree with all the sentiments. We need to make sure that we are acting to protect people from the crimes that we have talked about, including intimate partner violence. However, we are falling back on rhetoric in the absence of evidence when we start echoing the notion that mandatory minimum sentences are somehow great at preventing crime, because there is no evidence for that at all. Empirical studies from all around the world, particularly from the U.S., where they were used a lot in Texas, prove conclusively that they do not deter crime. What deters crime is the risk of being caught, not longer sentences.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question about mandatory minimum sentences. We had great discussions about that in this House. I do agree that the research on justice does tend to show that mandatory minimum sentences do not necessarily deter crime. However, they do provide more trust and more confidence in the justice system. What our government is trying to do here is find that middle ground where we can ensure that folks have confidence in justice, and I believe there is some element of deterrence there as well, but at the same time we are making sure that we are compliant with the charter. As we know, there have been a lot of charter challenges with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, and this is a balance that we have to negotiate here in this House.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many women who experience intimate partner violence face obstacles in accessing justice. Can my colleague explain how Bill C-16 would improve access to justice for women who experience intimate partner violence?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from my colleague. During my work in the legal field with women who were experiencing intimate partner violence, many of them experienced hesitation and trepidation in coming forward because they were not confident that the justice system could be easily navigated or address their needs.

This bill speaks directly to that concern by ensuring that courts can have earlier responses, respond faster and deliver stronger results for victims. We are also including testimonial aids for victims, so that they do not have to relitigate and relive their traumas in court. We also want to ensure that they have a speedy result. At the same time, we have to make sure that more complex sexual assault and sexual abuse cases have the time they need in the courts without encountering unnecessarily long delays and being thrown out, as we saw in the Jordan decision.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, remember how good life used to be a decade ago, before the Liberal government? We had the wealthiest middle class. Now the middle class is poor, and Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. However, the best thing we had was how safe our country used to be. My city, the beautiful city of Toronto, anywhere, anytime, day or night, any neighbourhood, was safe.

After a decade of Liberals, violent crime is out of control. Residents are no longer safe. Parents are afraid for their kids to take the transit. There are robberies on the street, home invasions and extortion. It seems like every day I wake up and a person has been shot in my North York riding. Last week, there was a murder at Sheppard and Magellan, in the beautiful community of Downsview. Three men shot a man to death outside his house.

What is happening? What is happening is Liberal bail and sentencing laws. Every police officer will say that. We need to close the revolving door in the courts. First, we got the Liberal failure of Bill C‑14. That was for bail. Now we are here on Bill C‑16, to deal with sentencing. Again, we have a Liberal failure. Instead of increasing mandatory minimum sentences, the Liberals do the opposite. They create what they refer to as a “safety valve”, which would allow judges to disregard mandatory minimum sentences.

Under the Criminal Code, mandatory minimum penalties apply to a range of serious offences. These mandatory minimums are designed to set a sentencing floor, a minimum term of imprisonment that Parliament deemed necessary for denunciation, deterrence and public safety for specific categories of crime.

In recent years, courts have been striking down mandatory minimum penalties under section 12 of the charter as cruel and unusual punishment. That, of course, includes the Supreme Court. The Liberals frame the safety valve as a response to this jurisprudence of striking down mandatory sentences. They point to recent decisions like Senneville, where the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum penalty for possession and distribution of child pornography. I will come back to this decision.

What would they do with a safety valve? The valve would allow courts to impose seLiberalsntences below the mandatory minimum if a judge thinks that applying the mandatory minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment. The Liberals ironically say they would strengthen mandatory minimum sentences, but instead they do the opposite. They make them non-mandatory. Effectively, the valve would allow a judge to disregard mandatory minimum penalties, so a minimum penalty is no longer a mandatory minimum penalty.

Jail time would still be required, but a judge would be free to sentence the convicted person to one day in prison. If they feel that this House, Parliament, has prescribed a sentence that is too extreme, they can just disregard what we say. This is crazy. It would result in lighter sentences for serious repeat offenders. The Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what is required. In effect, what previously required a constitutional argument would be an automatic argument every time at sentencing, that something is cruel and unusual.

The safety valve is a major concession to judicial activism. It would undermine the role of this Parliament. We are the ones who set sentencing policy. Worse, the principle of deterrence is lost. I listened to some comments a short time ago from folks saying that there are empirical studies that state mandatory minimum sentences do not work. They do work, because someone cannot commit a crime if they are in prison. Many of these violent offenders who offend repeatedly, again and again, should be left in jail, away from the community that they seek to terrorize again. Therefore, we need to do the opposite.

This is especially in response to the Supreme Court striking down the mandatory minimum sentence on distribution and access to child pornography. At the justice committee, I moved a motion to invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect mandatory minimum sentences on possession and distribution of child pornography, but the Liberals voted it down. Again, they failed to protect children. This is not just about kids who have already been abused and exploited in these pictures and videos. It is about kids in the future who, God forbid, could be raped because the courts have failed to punish these perverts and deter future perverts.

We had to go hard here so that we could kill this awful industry, but the Liberals refused. Why? They say, “All we heard from the Attorney General was that it is a sunset clause, and in five years we would have to do this again.” Well, fine, let us do it again.

What was the point of the notwithstanding clause? It was to prevent absurdity. Attorney General Jean Chrétien used the clause to seal the deal on the charter, and he specifically used an example for absurdity that the Supreme Court could potentially come up with. It was a hypothetical that Chrétien used: that the Supreme Court would find possession of child pornography protected by freedom of expression. I think everyone in this room, even the Liberals, would agree that such a finding would be absurd.

Now, that is not the scenario we had in Senneville, but pretty close. Senneville pleaded guilty to possession and access to over 300 images of children, mostly girls between the ages of three and six, being sexually exploited. The co-appellant, Mathieu Naud, pleaded guilty to possessing over 500 images and almost 300 videos, most of which were of children ages five to 10, in many cases being subjected to rape and sodomy. This is disgusting. Striking down a mandatory one-year sentence for each of those two counts is precisely the type of absurdity that Attorney General Jean Chrétien had in mind. This is precisely why section 33 was explicitly inserted in the charter.

We said to the Liberals at the justice committee, instead of narrowing down and diluting the mandatory minimum sentences, let us preserve the mandatory minimum sentences for the worst of the worst, and this is one of them, but the Liberals refused the amendment.

I am proud of the Leader of the Opposition and my Conservative colleagues. We will invoke section 33 to protect children from these monsters and to prevent this absurdity that the Supreme Court arrived at. The Attorney General is refusing to invoke the clause, refusing to do his job, refusing to protect children and safeguard the law. Instead, the Liberals weaken sentencing laws with a safety valve. It is a shame, and it is regrettable.

I spoke to a police officer in my riding. I do not want to name them, and I do not even want to name the division. He said to me, not too long ago, “Roman, you know how upsetting it is when we arrest a guy again and again. We had a situation where an officer got injured during the arrest of a guy he arrested again and again, and a couple of days later the same offender was out on bail again.”

We tried to deal with bail, but the Liberals refused to remove the ladder principle, and still the courts are required to release at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive terms. We dealt with sentencing and with activist courts that refuse to impose the mandatory minimums that the House prescribed. Instead of preserving mandatory minimums, what did the Liberals do? They did what Liberals do: They weakened mandatory minimum sentences. They now tell judges to go ahead and disregard the mandatory minimum if they think the mandatory minimum is disproportional.

I do not understand what it is we are doing here with Bill C-16. We need to do the opposite. We need to protect Canadians. We need to take a bite out of crime and not let criminals loose, as this bill would do.

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

Mr. Speaker, we often hear from the far right, and when we talk about the far right on Bill C-16, they are part of the problem. They really and truly are. Think about this. Not only would Bill C-16 reinstate some of those mandatory minimums that the member says he is concerned about, but let us talk about lawful access. The Conservative Party of Canada has made the determination that lawful access is bad. They do not want to support it. They are fighting it tooth and nail, yet lawful access will help in dealing with issues such as child exploitation and child pornography.

Listen to what the member opposite said, and their actions speak louder than words. Does this member support lawful access or not?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member should stop yelling and start protecting children instead.

The member believes that preserving mandatory minimum sentences is far right. The Liberal Party has gone so completely insane to the left that anybody who disagrees with it on anything is deemed to be of the far right.

I am proud of the fact that the Conservative Party wants to preserve mandatory minimum sentences, and we will do so when we form Conservative government.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also on the justice committee, and I was hoping he could elaborate on the problems that emerged during our committee study, because we actually put forward a lot of amendments. It was shocking how many amendments the Liberal government put forward to its own bill, which I think reinforces the point that even the Liberals saw the flaws in this.

We were prepared to work across party lines to protect victims, but can my colleague answer what happened when we tried to put forward concrete amendments that would keep offenders behind bars, where they belong?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, repeatedly, the chair of the justice committee called our amendments to reintroduce and strengthen mandatory minimum sentences out of order. This is despite the fact that this is precisely what the bill seeks to do, which is supposedly to strengthen mandatory minimum sentences.

Why the chair of the justice committee called them out of order and out of scope, I do not know, but ironically, something interesting happened during that process. In one specific instance, which had to do with the use of a firearm during extortion, the chair of the justice committee initially called the proposed amendment in order, contrary to the fact that every other amendment was out of order. I do not believe that the ruling was correct. We were overruled again and again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to lawful access. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they are going to fight and get tough on crime, but then, when we have police agencies and law enforcement agencies from across the country saying they want lawful access, be so determined to prevent the House of Commons, the Prime Minister and the government from passing lawful access. I ask the member to tell us the reason why.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is the party of law and order, and the key to the rule of law is that the government is also under the law. This means that, when the government comes along and says it wants a sweep, it wants the private sector to hold all metadata, all of it, without a warrant, without any suspicion of a crime being committed, that would be a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the party of law and order, we will defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the reason.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to sit alongside my colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We do not always see eye to eye, but I believe he does a thorough job and I congratulate him on that.

I understand that he disagrees on a number of points relating to Bill C‑16, but can we agree that Canadian society is better off with Bill C‑16 than without it?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is patently clear is that, by winding down, nullifying and watering down mandatory minimum sentences, Canadians are going to be considerably worse off.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was just saying, I would not be prepared to say that Bill C‑16 is a cure-all and that everything will be fine from now on, but I would say that things will certainly be better than they used to be.

I am quite pleased with the work that was done on Bill C‑16 before it was referred to committee and when the committee was studying it. This bill improves quite a number of things. First, it provides a legislative response to controlling and coercive behaviour. I believe we have been working on this problem for three Parliaments now. Our efforts have finally resulted in a bill. Since we still have three and a half years to go before the next election, I hope that we will be able to pass it and move on to something else.

With this bill, we will finally be able to properly punish murders classified as femicide, meaning murders that occur alongside controlling and coercive behaviour, violence, human trafficking, hatred or other factors. We are addressing the issue of femicide.

The bill also tackles the issue of harassment. Until now, and even today, victims that report harassment must prove that they subjectively feared for their safety. This often forced women or victims of harassment to testify and recount everything they had endured, the effect it had on them, which obviously hindered their recovery. Now, the standard is that the behaviour must be such that it could reasonably lead the victim to believe their safety is in danger. That is good news.

I am not going to address every issue, because there are so many.

As for the recruitment of individuals under the age of 18, this is something the Bloc Québécois has called for. I have personally spoken with our Minister of Justice on numerous occasions to address this issue. Criminals affiliated with organized gangs recruit young people knowing that, since they are under 18, it does not matter if they get caught, as they will not have a criminal record. These criminals therefore ask these young people to commit theft or other crimes on their behalf. It is a scourge. These are our young people; we try to keep them on the straight and narrow, to bring them back when they stray. It is truly appalling that there are people who recruit them to commit crimes. Personally, I recommended going so far as to provide that an adult who recruits a young person be sentenced to twice the penalty they would have received had they committed the crime themselves. The bill does not go quite that far, but it does provide for penalties for the recruitment of minors under 18. I applaud the minister's initiative.

On the issue of reasonable time frames, the Supreme Court Jordan decision caused a number of issues. At the same time, we all agree—in any case, I do—that a trial should be held within a reasonable time frame. If it takes two or three years, I think that is reasonable. If five or 10 years pass and an individual has still not had a trial, that harms that individual, who has been living with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head that whole time. It harms the victims too. All that time, they do not know whether their attacker will get the conviction they want and that the attacker deserves. It harms everyone. It harms society. The costs are astronomical. Holding lengthy trials is not possible. I therefore agree with the Supreme Court regarding what “a reasonable time” means under the charter. In the future, the time frame will be set at 24 months at the Court of Quebec and 30 months at the Superior Court of Quebec. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I am satisfied with that.

Unfortunately, things being what they are, there is no money. The federal government is not transferring funds to the provinces for health care. Hospitals are overflowing. People are waiting in emergency rooms. The federal government is not transferring funds to the provinces for education. Schools lack specialized services. The same goes for the courts. Not enough judges, court clerks and necessary staff can be hired. Not enough courtrooms can be booked. As a result, trials are often not held within the time limits prescribed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Bill C‑16 amends or improves the way time limits are calculated. I do not know if it will work. I remain skeptical but optimistic. If nothing else, I am pleased that our Minister of Justice has decided to address this issue, and I welcome this initiative.

My colleague mentioned a certain aspect of Bill C‑16 a moment ago that is also a recurring issue. I have been an MP since 2015, and I do not remember a single time or year where we did not discuss the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. The Liberals do not want them for anything, whereas the Conservatives want them for everything. Throwing everybody in jail certainly would reduce crime on our streets, but that might not be the kind of society we want to live in. We need to find a middle ground. With all due respect for the opinion of my colleague who spoke just before me, I think that what Bill C‑16 proposes fits somewhere in that middle ground.

This was a proposal that originated with the Bloc Québécois. I suggested it to the two people who served as justice minister before the current minister. Each time, they said it sounded reasonable and that something could be done, but nothing ever came of it. Now our idea has shown up in Bill C‑16. The government says it is trying to compromise. The mandatory minimum sentences that our Conservative colleagues believe in so strongly will be reinstated. That will send a clear signal that Parliament takes these crimes very seriously, and it will also send that message to the courts, but judges will be allowed to deviate from the mandatory minimums under genuinely exceptional circumstances.

People may wonder why, since it can sometimes lead to absurd situations. I recall one case, although I have unfortunately forgotten the details. It was a Quebec case involving a young 18-year-old man who had been accused, for all sorts of reasons, of committing sexual interference with a minor because his girlfriend was 16 or 17 years old, I think. They had been intimate for a few years. Both families were aware of it and accepted the situation. It was all right, but sexual interference with a minor carried a mandatory minimum sentence. The judge said in his decision that he regretted the situation and that, in his opinion, it made no sense. Those were not his exact words. I cannot remember what he said exactly. Please excuse my word substitution. The judge said that it was unfortunate, but that the offence carried a minimum sentence so he had no choice. He therefore sentenced the young man to prison. I have no details about what happened next, and I do not mean to overdramatize the issue by citing a rare example.

However, in those exceptional cases, can we trust our judges? They are not perfect, but based on my experience as a lawyer before I became a member of Parliament, and from what I have read since, they do a pretty good job. I have good friends who are judges, both at the Superior Court and at the Court of Quebec, as well as at the provincial courts of the other provinces. They are honest and well-meaning and, like just about everyone here in this chamber, they want the best for society. They work in the fairest, most effective way for everyone.

Personally, I am fine with mandatory minimum sentences, but I want to make sure that the judges who preside over our courts can use their common sense in exceptional cases and that they are given the option to deviate from those minimums if they consider the case to be exceptional or if the sentence would be cruel and unusual. Those judges will obviously have to justify their decisions. In their rulings, they will have to explain the exceptional circumstances justifying their decision to deviate from the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by Parliament. That reassures me, and I think it should reassure the general public, too.

I realize that this does not reflect the wishes expressed by our Conservative colleagues. I respect their position, but I would urge them to be a little more flexible in the criteria we use to assess bills. They will see that this may be the most appropriate solution between having no mandatory minimum sentences and having mandatory minimum sentences that are too restrictive in certain circumstances.