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?

Artificial IntelligenceOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Burlington North—Milton West Ontario

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden LiberalSecretary of State (Sport)

Mr. Speaker, AI for all is this government's plan to make AI work for all Canadians. It is about what AI can do in Canadians' lives for better health care, stronger businesses, safer communities and better public services. Our strategy has three foundations: first, trust, so that privacy, children and democracy are protected; second, opportunity, so that every Canadian can use, build with and benefit from AI; third, sovereign control, so that Canada makes its own choices on AI. This is a plan for Canadian AI leadership, and we are taking care of Canadians.

Artificial IntelligenceOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the slogan “AI for all” lands in Tumbler Ridge—

Artificial IntelligenceOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

We are going to pause for a moment and have the hon. member start over.

Artificial IntelligenceOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, children's lives could have been saved if we had better protection.

I am wondering, despite the benefits of AI, why does this strategy land with more promotion than protection? When will the Prime Minister and the government consider the advice of Pope Leo XIV that AI needs to be “disarmed”?

Artificial IntelligenceOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Burlington North—Milton West Ontario

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden LiberalSecretary of State (Sport)

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that trust is at the core of every aspect of our AI strategy. This government is taking a multipronged approach. Bill C‑16 would combat those sexualized deepfakes that are concerning for so many Canadians, as they should be. Bill C‑25 would protect our democratic institutions. Our strategy commits to bringing forward legislation on safe social media and updating consumer privacy law to protect Canadians' data. We are launching a Canada trusted AI certification program, and we are protecting Canadians as our first priority in this strategy.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I started to put my question forward when I heard my riding addressed. I have been informed by colleagues that I stood up and began to address the question without having the microphone on.

I know the hon. parliamentary secretary has answered, but may I repeat the first part of my question?

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

The hon. member may repeat the first part of her question.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, the first part of my question was this: I wonder how the slogan “artificial intelligence for all” lands in Tumbler Ridge, where seven families are now in court seeking redress for the loss of their children, who were not adequately protected. When will we see protection?

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Burlington North—Milton West Ontario

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden LiberalSecretary of State (Sport)

Mr. Speaker, our hearts are with the families and loved ones of the victims in Tumbler Ridge.

We will do absolutely everything we can, including working with AI companies and advancing our protective legislation, to ensure that these types of tragedies never happen again in Canada. We are advancing this legislation, with trust at its core, to protect Canadians.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON

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

Around 2:30 p.m., the member for Drummond used unparliamentary language, and several of us heard him. We call on him to withdraw his comments and apologize to the House.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

I did not hear the comments in question, but I see the member for Drummond rising.

The member for Drummond.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am the main focus and target of my colleague's point of order, but, like you, I did not hear myself say anything unparliamentary.

Perhaps my colleague would be willing to clarify what she was referring to. Then we could see if an apology is in order.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

If it was unparliamentary, she will not be asked to repeat it, but we will check. The hon. member specified a particular time, so we will see if anything can be heard on the audio.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, we have all been waiting since last Thursday for today's Thursday question, the time of the week when Canadian telecom providers have to scramble to add excess capacity as hundreds of thousands of Canadians tune in, anxiously anticipating what the government will bring forward in the chamber for the rest of this week and into next week.

With the news that Canada is the only country in a recession under this Liberal Prime Minister's economic plan, will the government finally see the error of its ways and finally start to repeal the bad Liberal legislation that caused the problem in the first place?

Can we expect, next week, to see legislation repealing the industrial carbon tax, which only applies to Canadian manufacturers and Canadian businesses? Will we see the Liberals bring in legislation to repeal the fuel standard tax, which adds at least 17¢ a litre to the price of fuel here in Canada, while American shippers and transporters do not have to pay that? Indeed, will they bring in a repeal of the west coast shipping ban, which prevents Canadian energy exports to Asian markets but does not apply to international traffic off the coast of British Columbia? Will they bring in a single piece of legislation to repeal the bad Liberal laws that are plunging Canada, the only G20 country, into a recession?

Can we expect any of that relief next week?

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on building a stronger Canadian economy while ensuring that Canadian businesses remain competitive. We recognize the challenges that are faced across the country by manufacturers, and we have been taking action to support our businesses and manufacturing companies across the country. Unlike the opposition, we believe that growing an economy and reducing emissions can and must go hand in hand. We will continue to work with industries, provinces and workers to ensure that Canada remains competitive, while advancing our economy and our environmental objectives as well.

On that note, this afternoon we will continue to debate Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act. Tomorrow and then Tuesday of next week, we will call Bill C‑20, the build Canada homes act, at report stage and third reading.

I also wish to inform the House that Monday will be the final allotted day in this financial cycle. On Wednesday, we will begin studying the Senate amendments to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing. On Thursday, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C‑26, which seeks to improve housing supply.

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 Orders

3:20 p.m.

Mississauga—Streetsville Ontario

Liberal

Rechie Valdez LiberalMinister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank the members of the justice committee and the witnesses who contributed to the study of this bill.

Their work highlighted the urgent need to strengthen protections for victims and survivors.

It is an honour to rise in Parliament to support Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and above all to stand in support of the victims and survivors of gender-based violence across Canada. I thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for putting this bill forward.

At the core of this bill are women and girls whose voices were not heard when they asked for help, women who spoke up and were dismissed, women who were afraid to speak up at all and women who were denied the support that they need. Intimate partner violence is not only physical. It includes control, emotional and sexual abuse, stalking and financial harm, often forming patterns that grow into more dangerous behaviours over time.

When violence goes unseen, it goes unaddressed, and when it goes unaddressed, a woman suffers in silence. A critical challenge is that intimate partner violence is substantially under-reported, with estimates suggesting that around 80% of incidents are not reported to the police. In 2024, in Canada, 81 women were killed by a current or former intimate partner, equivalent to approximately one every four to five days. Each of these deaths represents a life cut short, a family devastated and a failure to intervene when warning signs were already present. These were not random. They were the tragic end of patterns of coercive control, intimidation and abuse, patterns that were known, experienced or reported long before the final act occurred.

These harms are experienced at much higher rates by indigenous women, Black and racialized women, women with disabilities, 2SLGBQI+ people, newcomers and women in rural and remote communities. Too often, they are not heard and they do not receive justice, as systemic barriers often cause delays, limit supports and discourage participation in a system that was not built with their realities in mind.

Bill C-16 exists because victims, survivors, families and advocates have spent years telling us the same painful truth: that the system has too often recognized danger only after it is too late. Their courage in coming forward has made it clear that intimate partner violence is not just about isolated incidents. It is about ongoing harm, escalating risk and lives hanging in the balance. This bill is not only about accountability after violence has occurred. It is about recognizing danger earlier, strengthening those protections and preventing further harm before another life is lost.

Bill C‑16 breaks down the barriers preventing survivors from being heard, strengthens protections, improves access to legal support and enables survivors to safely share their experiences.

These measures align directly with pillar three of the national action plan to end gender-based violence, which is “responsive justice system”. This pillar recognizes that gender-based violence is a violation of human rights and, in many cases, a violation of criminal law. It calls for a justice system that understands trauma, acts early, holds offenders accountable and puts survivors' needs first.

The national action plan is a 10-year framework developed with provincial and territorial governments, as well as victims and survivors. We have dedicated $539.3 million over five years to help provinces and territories implement the national action plan to end gender-based violence and address their most pressing needs. In addition to this, our budget invests a total of $660.5 million to advance gender equality, including $223 million to strengthen our response to gender-based violence.

Overall, our approach to gender-based violence must be comprehensive. Bill C-16 would strengthen this work by making sure that federal criminal law puts survivors' needs at the centre of justice. On top of this, the protecting victims act recognizes a truth that survivors know all too well: Violence does not begin with a single act. Coercive control can take many forms: isolation, intimidation, financial abuse, threats to pets, property damage or threats of self-harm that are used to manipulate and instill fear.

Bill C-16 acknowledges and would criminalize coercive control, where economic and financial abuse is often weaponized.

However, we know that criminalization alone is not enough. Prevention is equally vital.

Economic abuse is often used deliberately to control others by cutting off access to money, creating debt, threatening financial ruin or making it impossible for someone to leave safely. It is a powerful tool of coercive control that keeps women trapped and unsafe. That is why this work needs to be connected. By establishing a voluntary code of conduct for the prevention of economic abuse, we would work closely with financial institutions and gender-based violence organizations to help with recognition and respond to that economic abuse. Together, these changes would reflect a broader understanding of abuse and the many ways it can be used to exert power and control.

Coercive control is evolving. We have seen it. In a world where technology can be used to harm, Bill C-16 would respond to that abuse that is deeply personal and deeply violating. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images, including sexual deepfakes and nearly nude images, strips people of that control over their own identity. It follows them into their community, their workplace and their family. It is used to intimidate, to silence and to humiliate them.

Bill C-16 also recognizes a harder reality: The most extreme violence against women is rarely sudden or isolated. Bill C-16 would ensure that murders that are driven by hate, coercive control, or sexual violence or exploitation are treated as first-degree murder in Canada. This matters, because femicide is often the end of a long and visible pattern of control, not an unpredictable tragedy but a failure to intervene in time.

Prevention means listening earlier. It means recognizing coercive control when we see it, recognizing the financial abuse, isolation and escalating threats for what they are. Our laws and institutions must be strong enough to respond before gender-based violence in its most devastating form impacts these victims.

Ending gender-based violence is not only a moral responsibility. It is also about whether people can live, work or contribute without fear. No one can thrive in this country, build a business or raise a family if they are not safe.

The bill is part of a coordinated effort to prevent escalating violence and support survivors.

Bill C-16 is not abstract. It is about real people and real lives. It is about closing gaps that have left too many people without protection, and about making sure our justice system reflects the harm we know exists. It has been one part of a broader effort to end gender-based violence.

As the bill moves forward, I ask all members to continue supporting Bill C-16, not simply as a policy choice but as a responsibility we owe to the women and girls whose lives were taken, to those whose stories were ignored and to those who were never given the chance to be heard. This legislation exists because of them, because they were brave enough to speak up and because others spoke up for them when they could not. Their lives and experiences forced us to confront what failed, what was missing and what must change.

Together we can move forward in a country where we can live safely and with dignity, where lives are not lost before systems respond, and where hope is built through action.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's words against gender-based violence. We all support a decrease in that, but I do want to outline something for her. As per the Criminal Code, aggravated sexual assault is defined as follows: It occurs if the person assaulted is wounded, maimed, disfigured, beaten or in danger of losing his or her life while being sexually assaulted.

The provision with aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint has a mandatory minimum of four years, which is not nearly enough, in my opinion. Why does the member support clause 63 in Bill C-16, which would allow judges the discretion to provide lesser sentences than the mandatory minimum of four years for aggravated sexual assault with a firearm?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Rechie Valdez Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the unique challenges that women and other victims face in this country, and this bill is truly important. Bill C-16 would protect those victims.

I have already touched on a few things in my speech today, but really the key is addressing and criminalizing coercive control and all the precursors to an ultimate end for women, in terms of severe issues that are caused for them. The bill would also ensure that, from a penalization and justice perspective, we make femicide first-degree murder in this country. That would be a huge step forward, and in combination with criminalizing coercive control and all the other measures I outlined today, we would help address gender-based violence in this country.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ongoing commitment to gender equality in the House.

Consistent with the intent of the bill, the Bloc Québécois supported it and also proposed amendments in committee, in a spirit of collaborative development. However, the Liberals, who now have a majority, rejected one that I think is crucial.

I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on this matter. It was recognized that stalking is part of a pattern of coercive behaviour that must be assessed as a whole.

This amendment would have somewhat shifted the burden of proof, which essentially rests with the victim. We have therefore missed an opportunity to make it easier for a woman to file a complaint and defend herself.

What does the minister think?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Rechie Valdez Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Mr. Speaker, gender-based violence has no place in our country.

As I said in my speech, by recognizing femicide as a serious offence, tightening bail conditions for repeat offenders and investing over half a million dollars to support survivors and their families, we are strengthening protections for victims of domestic violence.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 3:30 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, I am tired of hearing the exaggeration throughout the debate on this bill. The bill would be tougher on crime overall, because without a safety valve, mandatory minimum penalties would often get struck down. What we would do through the bill is keep minimum penalties in place. We could actually make sure that people serve a sentence when they commit a heinous crime.

Really, the Conservatives are fake tough on crime, because what they have achieved is the cancellation of all these minimum sentences through charter challenges. What we would do in this bill is make them mandatory, and therefore make them tougher.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Rechie Valdez Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. secretary of state for sharing her perspectives, and I completely agree. The Conservatives opposite have an opportunity right now. If they really want to end gender-based violence, and if they really want to help victims and survivors, they can help move Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, forward.

I just want to share, as I already said in my speech earlier, that it is not just about legislation. We are also, through Women and Gender Equality, investing significantly to make sure to end gender-based violence. In 2024 and 2025, more than 1 million people across Canada were able to access services like counselling, housing, legal information, crisis supports and community-based programs, because of the national action plan that I have already referenced. On top of this, we have delivered 27,400 prevention resources, and we are going to do everything we can to end gender-based violence.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear the government talk about Bill C-16, they probably think it is a bill about protecting victims. They hear about protecting women from abuse. They hear about protecting children from exploitation. They hear about stopping the spread of deepfake pornography. They hear about tougher measures against coercive control in abusive relationships. Most Canadians would hear that list and say, “Who could possibly be against that?” The answer is, nobody could.

Conservatives support those objectives because we believe victims deserve protection, children deserve protection and families deserve protection. That is the fundamental job of government: protection of its citizens. The problem is that Bill C-16 is a bit like buying a house because the front porch looks beautiful, only to discover later that the foundation is compromised. The government points Canadians toward the parts of the bill everyone likes, while hoping they do not notice the parts that would change everything. Buried inside this legislation is a poison pill that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum sentence in the Criminal Code.

First, we need to understand how we got here. Consecutive Conservative governments had established mandatory minimum sentences for some of the most serious crimes in our Criminal Code. We did that because Canadians expect serious offences to carry serious consequences. Child sexual exploitation, weapons trafficking, armed extortion, drive-by shootings and human trafficking were not treated as ordinary crimes, because the harm they cause is extraordinary.

However, for 10 years, the Liberal government has systematically weakened the principle that serious crimes must carry serious consequences. Liberal Bill C-75 weakened bail laws and pushed the justice system toward release at the earliest opportunity. Liberal Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum penalties for a range of serious offences, including crimes involving firearms and dangerous drugs.

Time and again, police officers, prosecutors, victims advocates, premiers and community leaders warned that the government was moving in the wrong direction. Time and again, those warnings were dismissed. Today, Canadians are seeing the consequences. Violent crime has increased dramatically. Human trafficking has increased dramatically. Sexual assault has increased dramatically. Organized criminal networks have become stronger and more sophisticated.

Canadians are witnessing the inevitable result of a philosophy that views punishment, rather than crime itself, as the problem, that views the rights of the criminal as more important than the rights of the victim. That is why Bill C-16's “get out of jail free” card is a poison pill that Canadian communities will once again be forced to swallow. The Liberals will say that Conservatives are standing in the way of getting strong laws passed, but I can assure Canadians that Conservatives are standing in the breach, fighting to keep criminals from getting off with a slap on the wrist for serious crimes.

Understanding Bill C-16 requires a deeper understanding of the path that led us here. For years, courts have increasingly relied on what are called “reasonable hypotheticals” when reviewing mandatory minimum sentences. Rather than focusing solely on the criminal who is actually on trial, the court judges have increasingly considered hypothetical scenarios involving people who do not exist and who never committed the actual crimes in question.

That trend culminated in the Supreme Court's Senneville decision. The facts of that case were horrific. One offender possessed 475 files, including 317 images of children, most between the ages of three and six, and many depicting acts of sexual abuse I cannot bring myself to say out loud here in the House. Another offender possessed more than 800 images and videos involving children as young as five years old being subjected to sexual exploitation and abuse. That is hundreds of images documenting the abuse of vulnerable children.

Most Canadians would think that the court would consider those offenders and apply the appropriate mandatory minimum sentence. Instead, the court chose this moment to question mandatory minimums altogether. Judges based their decisions on a hypothetical story of a teenager sending a hypothetical intimate photo to a hypothetical boyfriend or girlfriend, and that hypothetical photo was later shared with a hypothetical someone. The court claimed concern that the same mandatory minimum law could apply, even though the case before them was very real and very serious. Because of that hypothetical case, the court struck down Parliament's mandatory minimum sentence.

The government then had a choice. It could have changed the law to deal with that specific concern while keeping strong penalties in place for serious child sexual exploitation offences. Instead, the Liberals used that court decision as the reason for creating the new get-out-of-jail-free card in Bill C-16. That is why Canadians should look carefully at what the bill would actually do rather than what the Liberals say it would do.

The government wants Canadians to believe that Bill C-16 is a major public safety initiative. It points to provisions dealing with deepfake pornography. It points to provisions dealing with coercive control. It points to provisions dealing with intimate partner violence. All those measures are designed to attract support. However, while Canadians are focused on those headlines, the Liberal government has inserted this poison pill. It calls it a safety valve, a phrase carefully chosen because it sounds limited, reasonable and harmless. The government insists this power will be used only in exceptional cases, yet when Conservatives proposed reasonable safeguards to ensure that outcome, every safeguard was rejected. Canadians should ask themselves a simple question: If the government truly intended that this be used only rarely, why did it refuse every attempt to define what “rarely” actually means? The answer is obvious. The government is presenting Canadians with one bill while pursuing a very different objective beneath the surface.

That objective became even clearer during committee study. Conservatives approached the legislation constructively, because we recognize that there are very good measures that are worth preserving. Our goal is not to destroy the bill; our goal is to strengthen it and ensure that victims remain at the centre of the legislation. We proposed safeguards that would have limited access to the safety valve to offenders with no prior record. We proposed ensuring that sentences would not be reduced below half of Parliament's mandatory minimum. We proposed excluding extortion offences. We proposed excluding aggravated sexual assault. We proposed excluding serious child sexual offences. We proposed excluding some of the most serious crimes that Parliament has already determined deserve firm sentencing consequences. Every one of those amendments was rejected.

Conservatives also proposed stronger notification requirements so that victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control would be informed about release decisions affecting offenders. Those amendments were rejected as well. The significance of those votes cannot be ignored. The government did not accidentally create an overly broad get-out-of-jail-free card but deliberately defended it. It did not overlook the concerns raised by Conservatives. It considered those concerns and voted against them. The result is legislation that speaks passionately about victims while systematically rejecting measures that would strengthen their protection.

Conservatives support stronger protections for women and children, stronger measures against deepfake exploitation and stronger recognition of the devastating harm caused by coercive control. Those objectives are important and need support. Unfortunately, the poison pill at the heart of Bill C-16 undermines all of those goals, because it continues with the same failed philosophy that has contributed to the crime and chaos Canadians are experiencing today.

At a time when communities are demanding greater accountability, the government is creating new opportunities for offenders to avoid consequences. At a time when victims are asking to be heard, the government is focusing its attention on a get-out-of-jail-free card for criminals. At a time when public confidence in the justice system is already fragile, the government is asking members of Parliament to weaken one of the few tools designed to ensure serious crime receives serious punishment.

Canadians deserve better than legislation that says one thing and does another. They deserve a justice system that places victims first, supports police officers, protects communities and recognizes that public safety is a fundamental responsibility of government. If the Liberals truly believed in the good parts of the bill, protecting women and children against deepfake exploitation, why did they insist on attaching a poison pill that creates yet another get-out-of-jail-free card for serious offenders?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the member uses the words “poison pill” over and over again makes me wonder whether the Conservatives plan on voting against the bill. They prolonged the amount of time the bill took to get studied. There were some good improvements made. I think the members of the committee eventually worked well together.

Victims are looking for relief. They want mandatory minimum penalties, of course, and we have restored 12 mandatory minimum penalties in this bill.

The bill protects victims. It respects the Charter. It helps keep mandatory minimum penalties on the books rather than having them struck down by courts, with victims out of luck. We are there to protect victims. We are protecting children with the bill. I hope the Conservatives can find it within themselves to support this, because I am starting to really wonder who they are here for.