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

Topics

line drawing of robot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements by Members

Question Period

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

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

Adjournment Debates

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

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member cares deeply about this issue, especially when it comes to protecting children from predators. The member is right that we should not have to talk about child sextortion, but many children in this country have committed suicide because they were victims of sextortion.

The bill would broaden the number of offences under this type of crime. I think this is a really important step to take, because this is where the ball is going, unfortunately. These are the types of crimes that are being reported. It saddens me to hear that the Conservatives would not support protecting children the way that this is being proposed in the bill.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely share the position of the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime that this is urgently needed legislation. It would immediately restore 12 mandatory minimum penalties in a way that is constitutional. It would protect children. It would protect victims of crime.

I hope that all members will support the legislation, just as members on this side of the House have supported a number of private member's bills, because we can all care about intimate partner violence.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was passionate, and I agree. Coming from where I do, the north coast of British Columbia, I have experienced that most of my life.

The government wants to portray this side of the House as not being supportive of this type of bill or protecting vulnerable people. The Conservative member for York Centre moved an amendment, CPC-13, that was defeated by the Liberal government. It would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under section 7 and section 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause, while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve.

Why did the government not protect victims in this equation?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am in no way assuming that the members opposite will not support this bill. I am inviting them to support this bill, just as we have supported a number of private members' bills that also address intimate partner violence.

When it comes to this type of scourge, an epidemic, we need to put down the partisanship and move forward with the progress. The justice committee has met nine times, heard from 54 witnesses and received 60 written briefs on this study alone. It considered over 100 amendments, which have added to strengthening the bill.

What is is important is that any legislation passed in the House be constitutional. Who gets to decide that? It is the courts.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel Québec

Liberal

Patricia Lattanzio LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this evening on behalf of the citizens of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, at third reading.

Across the country, we are facing a stark reality. In my home province of Quebec, there have been 10 femicides since January. A woman is killed in Canada every 48 hours. Bad actors are taking advantage of rapidly changing technologies such as AI and deepfakes to victimize Canadians. That is completely unacceptable.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to act, to make real change when Canadians are asking us to do so. This is the job Canadians sent us to the House to do. With Bill C-16, we would put into place concrete measures that would make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. Behind every one of these numbers is a person, a family and a community left to grieve. We owe those families more than our sympathy. We owe them action, so let me outline a few of the key changes that Bill C-16 would bring.

First, we would create a new Criminal Code offence that captures the coercive and controlling conduct of an intimate partner. One may ask, what is the significance of criminalizing such a behaviour in the face of fatal violence against women? The answer is that coercive control is so often the warning sign of the harm we can see before the harm we cannot undo. By criminalizing coercive control, we would give the criminal justice system an opportunity to intervene before relationships become violent, and before violence becomes deadly. This is a measure with the potential to save lives in this country.

Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes tells us that this type of violence, which so often goes unseen, is one of the main determinants of femicide. Criminalizing it would help us detect high-risk situations sooner and strengthen prevention.

Next, through Bill C-16, we would automatically recognize femicide as first-degree murder. This would ensure that anyone who murders a woman in situations involving control, hate, sexual violence or exploitation faces the harshest penalty: life imprisonment. Even in situations of manslaughter, under the circumstances I have raised, courts would be directed to consider imposing a life sentence, with a period of parole ineligibility of between 10 and 25 years, the same penalty that applies to second-degree murder. Treating these murders as the Criminal Code's most serious forms of homicide speaks directly to the gravity of these offences and to the seriousness with which the government is moving to address them.

I would like to dwell for a moment on the term I am using here, “femicide”, and the importance of naming it as such. With Bill C-16, we would be including the term “femicide” in the Criminal Code for the very first time. By putting a name to this insidious crime, we recognize its gravity and have put forward tangible measures to address it, measures that would lead to better protection of women in particular, as well as of children and other members of society.

Next I would like to address how the bill would protect children from predators, strengthening Canada's response to child sexual exploitation both online and off-line. Most significantly, Bill C-16 would strengthen mandatory minimum penalties for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation material, including restoring more than 12 mandatory minimum penalties for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by the courts. It would do so by introducing a safety valve to ensure that these sentences, and other existing mandatory minimum penalties that would have otherwise been at risk, remain constitutionally valid.

We are also seeking to expand the definition of distributing child sexual exploitation and abuse material so that it would now include the threat of distributing such materials. Children rely on the adults around them to keep them safe, to care for them and to protect their well-being. When someone exploits that trust and vulnerability for sexual purposes, it is profoundly wrong. It is conduct that every member of the House and every Canadian should condemn without hesitation.

In a world of ever-changing technology, where explicit images and videos can be shared in an instant and where Canadians are accessing these platforms at a younger age, we must also hold accountable the people on whose platforms this content exists. Bill C‑16 would bolster mandatory reporting and data preservation obligations for online service providers so law enforcement can find and charge these offenders faster.

Finally, Bill C‑16 would truly provide help to victims and give them a louder voice in the system. Some of them are part of cases that include complex trials in the justice system, and with that complexity comes the element of time. The time periods outlined in the Jordan decision can be restrictive, turning a measure meant to bring justice into one that can take it away. When a stay of proceedings is automatically demanded, victims lose their chance to be heard, and they feel that justice has been denied to them.

With Bill C‑16, we would require the courts to consider remedies other than a stay of proceedings should the Jordan period elapse. We would also be clarifying for the courts which more complex cases deserve a longer period of time before they run into such an issue. Every victim should have the chance to be heard, and we would make sure of that.

We would also be putting more information into the hands of victims by providing them with information about available resources proactively, without requiring a formal request. We would be expanding access to testimonial aids for victims of offences committed by an intimate partner and clarifying victims' rights to present impact statements at the sentencing, parole and correction stages. We would also be enhancing the disclosure of information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so victims can have the full scope of the status and location of their offender.

While I have highlighted but a few of the essential measures the protecting victims act would introduce, the issues of gender-based violence and sexual exploitation impact us all. Whether it be a family member, a friend, a colleague or a neighbour, someone in our lives has needed or will need these remedies one day, and it is important that we step up to provide them.

Bill C‑16 has been supported by law enforcement, by victim advocates and by Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and I implore all members of the House, of all political stripes, to stand with victims and lend their support to Bill C‑16.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the parliamentary secretary on this file for a while, and I know that she also understands fairly well the issues we are dealing with, so I would like to pose a serious hypothetical for her. Imagine a situation where someone is convicted of a third offence of driving under the influence, and that person is now mandated for, I believe, either 30 days or 90 days as a minimum term of imprisonment. If that person happens to be the only breadwinner of the family, can the member imagine a scenario where a judge would not look to use the safety valve and allow an accused, who would otherwise have to serve mandatory jail time, to escape jail time?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague sits with me at the justice committee, and we have done tremendous work on various bills, including Bill C‑16, through hearing testimony from experts, going through clause-by-clause and making amendments, so I want to thank him for his collaboration on the committee.

The purpose of this specific bill is to protect victims and children. That is the focus of Bill C‑16. The bill would bring in measures so victims can finally get the protections that they need. We would establish a measure, in terms of the mandatory minimum penalties, in Bill C‑16, the safety valve, so that when an accused receives a sentence or a penalty, the measure would make sure the sentence will not be struck down.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing scourge in our society, namely the use of the Internet to access violent material or material that sexually exploits children. This is a very serious matter and I would like to ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, a question.

What solutions does Bill C‑16 propose, particularly in terms of what is required of Internet service providers, to stamp out this scourge and protect our young people once and for all?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Speaker, in fact, what this does is basically give tools. The objective of Bill C‑16 is to protect victims. It gives tools to police enforcement and those who work in the justice realm, so that they will be able to catch predators faster. It imposes on service providers to share the information.

Bill C‑16 will be a helpful remedy.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC

Mr. Speaker, we have been working hard together, at the justice committee, on this issue. It is historic legislation. Things that have never been addressed before are being covered under this legislation.

Can our hon. colleague tell us what kind of impact it will have on future generations, as opposed to what has happened in the past?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague also sits on the justice committee and has contributed to the study of Bill C‑16 and many other important pieces of legislation.

This bill, Bill C‑16, has been waiting to be brought forward for many years. Women's groups have come forward and have told governments and politicians to enact, finally, a piece of legislation that would protect them. It would also protect children who are being abused with sextortion online. We see it, we hear it and we read it in the papers.

This is a relief, not only for today, but for many generations to come.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2026 / 5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Shannon Miedema Liberal Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, every person deserves to live free from violence and fear. No life is worth more than another, and no one should face a greater risk of violence because of their gender, their sex, the neighbourhood they live in, the work they do, the school they attend or whom they love.

Violence against our most vulnerable is some of the most morally reprehensible behaviour in our society. It is not a demonstration of strength or power or control. It is a profound failure of respect for the dignity, autonomy and humanity of another person. It rewrites the rest of their story, because becoming a victim of a violent act changes someone forever. It changes their sense of safety and often the course of their life.

Our responsibility as legislators is to help build a society where those principles are not merely aspirations but realities. These acts may rewrite their stories forever, but we can help to ensure a happier ending.

I am proud to stand up today in support of our government's Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, because it would put the necessary tools in place for law enforcement and the legal system to take action. It would give police, prosecutors and courts the ability to intervene earlier, better protect victims and survivors and help prevent future harm.

Bill C-16 is about victims, not as statistics and not as stories, but as people. It aims to do right by them and to recognize that their lives are fundamentally altered by violence long after the courtroom is empty and public attention fades. It would be responding to the real-world concerns we have heard from victims across Canada.

Too often, our justice system asks these victims to relive the most traumatic moments of their lives while offering them little certainty in return. It asks them to be resilient and patient and silent while we debate the process. It places the burden of safety on those who have already been harmed. As a government, we are saying this is not good enough. We need to make changes, and we need to make them now.

Bill C-16 would strengthen how victim safety is considered throughout the justice process. It would ensure that courts are better equipped to assess risk, recognize patterns of repeat violence and impose conditions that reflect the lived reality of victims. It would improve consistency and accountability in decision-making, particularly in cases involving intimate partner violence. It would also introduce concrete measures to better support victims throughout the legal process, including permitting, in the courtroom during testimony, support persons, or in some cases even support animals, to accompany children, persons with disabilities and people who have experienced sexual violence.

This legislation is grounded in a simple but urgent truth: Violence, particularly intimate partner violence, is rarely random. It is often patterned, escalating and predictable. When we have evidence that harm is likely to occur, failing to act is not neutrality; it is negligence.

As the member of Parliament elected to represent the people of Halifax, I have a responsibility to support this bill, which, among so many important steps, proposes to criminalize coercive and controlling conduct. For far too long, our criminal law has focused almost exclusively on isolated incidents of physical violence while failing to recognize the sustained patterns of psychological, emotional and financial control that so often precede them.

Coercive control includes isolating someone from friends and family, monitoring their movements, controlling access to money, issuing threats, intimidation and humiliation. It is violence that may leave no visible injuries but that causes deep and lasting harm. The evidence is clear. Coercive control is one of the strongest predictors of serious injury and intimate partner homicide. In Canada, women are far more likely than men to experience intimate partner violence, and research consistently shows that the presence of controlling behaviour dramatically increases the risk of lethal outcomes.

By criminalizing coercive control, Bill C-16 would give our justice system the tools to intervene earlier, before violence escalates, before lives are lost and before harm becomes irreversible. These are the steps that matter most, because this bill is not just about changing the way we respond to violence; it is about stopping it from happening entirely. It refuses to accept that violence must become extreme before the law responds.

However, coercive control is only one part of how this bill would modernize our response to the evolving forms of violence. The protecting victims act would also take further preventative measures, including the creation of a new offence that would prohibit even threatening to distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material, because threats need to be taken seriously, and we need the tools to stop them from becoming a reality. The bill would also target sextortion by criminalizing threats to distribute intimate images and by increasing penalties for people who exploit fear and humiliation for coercion or gain.

Bill C-16 would also modernize our criminal law to reflect the realities of harm in the world we live in today. It would strengthen protections for victims of image-based sexual violence, including the non-consensual creation and distribution of intimate images and sexually explicit deepfakes, recognizing the profound and lasting damage these acts cause. It would improve accountability of people who weaponize technology to humiliate, threaten or control others, particularly women and girls.

The bill would enhance how courts consider risk, patterns of behaviour and victim safety across bail, sentencing and supervision, and it would reinforce a simple principle: that dignity, consent and personal autonomy do not disappear online. It would also modernize Canada's criminal harassment laws, recognizing that stalking and intimidation increasingly occur through technology and that victims should not bear an unreasonable burden to prove their fear before the law can respond. Violence is violence, whether it happens behind closed doors or behind a screen.

In April 2020, Nova Scotia experienced the deadliest mass shooting in Canadian history. For many Canadians, it was a shocking and tragic news story. For my constituents, and for those of my fellow Nova Scotian MPs, it was something far more personal. Communities across our province lived through the fear and uncertainty of those days and continue to carry the grief and loss that followed.

The events of April 18 and 19, 2020, led to the establishment of the Mass Casualty Commission, which undertook a comprehensive examination of the circumstances surrounding the tragedy and the systemic factors that contributed to it. Among its findings, the commission highlighted the critical link between gender-based violence and broader threats to public safety. It found that patterns of intimate partner violence, coercive control and escalating risk were present long before the shootings occurred, yet those warning signs were not sufficiently recognized or addressed.

The commission concluded that violence is often not a series of isolated incidents but rather a pattern that can escalate when left unchecked. It called for earlier intervention, stronger risk assessment tools and a justice system that responds to gender-based violence with the seriousness it deserves, designed to protect victims, prevent future tragedies like this and to keep communities safe. Bill C-16 would respond to those lessons by strengthening our ability to intervene before harm becomes irreversible.

In my community of Halifax, we see both the devastating impact of violence and the extraordinary strength of the people who survive it. We also see the tireless work of frontline organizations that step in where systems too often fall short. Shelters like Adsum house provide safety and stability for women and children children fleeing violence. Organizations such as the YWCA Halifax, Alice House, Bryony House and the Avalon Sexual Assault Centre support survivors through crisis, recovery and rebuilding their lives. These groups do life-saving work every day, often with limited resources and under immense pressures, and they have been clear with us about what is needed.

Safety cannot begin only after harm has occurred. It must be built into the system itself. Proactive and preventative measures save lives. Bill C-16 is one part of how we do better. It is not the only solution, but it is a necessary one. It reflects evidence, it reflects lived experience, and it reflects a commitment to ensuring that victim safety is not an afterthought but a priority.

We are here not to accept violence as a fact of life but to prevent it where we can, respond to it where we must and ensure that it never goes unanswered, because we know that harm is predictable, and we also know that it is preventable. We owe that responsibility to survivors, to families and to communities across this country that deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their lives, and that is why I support the protecting victims act.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am really enjoying this debate. I have been listening to the comments this evening about the importance of Bill C-16, particularly with regard to victims' rights and the rights of victims of domestic violence.

However, as I mentioned earlier and as I pointed out to the member for Guelph, there are flaws in the justice system. Proceedings are slow and some cases are dropped due to court delays.

One of the major problems is the shortage of judges. We still do not have enough judges. The Liberals may argue that the provinces share some of the blame for the role they played in the backlog of cases in the courts, but the fact remains that, when it comes to the federal courts, it is the Liberal government, the current government, that is responsible for appointing judges.

There is still a backlog. It would help a lot if they appointed a few judges.

Is that one of the options being considered?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Shannon Miedema Liberal Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what my colleague from Guelph said. This really is a joint effort. There are jurisdictional divisions and responsibilities across all levels of government. I think that our Minister of Justice and his team have been working in good faith and really doing deep consultations with provinces and territories on the shared responsibility of administering justice. I am very hopeful that this is going to get us much further.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, thank you for your speech today. You outlined very important things, including—

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

I will just interrupt the member. The member is using the word “you”. I did not give a speech. I will just remind the member to speak through the Chair to the member, not to the member directly.

I will let the member continue.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member has given a speech in which she outlined many important aspects of the bill. I would like to ask her about her thoughts on femicide being automatically first-degree, considering the scourge of femicides that we have seen in past years.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Shannon Miedema Liberal Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the changes I am most excited about. I think it would be game-changing for our country and game-changing for the better half of our population. It would be a hugely impactful change, and I support it wholeheartedly.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to work with my colleague on many climate-related issues.

Earlier, I raised some concerns to the justice minister on responding to those who have been victims of discrimination and violence. Certainly, we understand the important work around dealing with complaints and the criminal sanctions piece, but there is still nothing when it comes to funding and when it comes to prevention around discrimination and violence, especially for vulnerable youth. I tabled a bill yesterday calling for parity for mental and physical health so that people get services when they need them.

Does my colleague agree that the government should be supporting legislation to have parity for mental and physical health? This would be so that mental health is an insured benefit and people, especially youth, could get the supports they need when they need them.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Shannon Miedema Liberal Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoy working with my colleague on all the great work we do here in the House.

I am quite pleased that our government is supportive of mental health and youth, as well as in terms of crime and public safety. I was very pleased to announce significant funding through the mosque in my riding of Halifax to help prevent gang violence in the Muslim community in Halifax, which is being led by members of the mosque, as an example.

I also know that the Minister of Women and Gender Equality has been talking a lot about the substantial funding that we have to support the organizations that are really on the ground, on the preventative side and the response side, to support victims in this regard.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get up on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to talk about Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.

Before I get into the substance of the bill itself, I want to explain the term “safety valve”, because just about every speaker has spoken to this term. It is a mechanism that allows judges to give lesser sentences, as opposed to a strict mandatory minimum sentence. If we are going to give weaker sentences instead of imposing a strict mandatory minimum sentence for some of these crimes, then what is the point of using the term “mandatory minimum sentence”, especially when we are talking about protecting women and vulnerable victims?

Even when the government members themselves get up and debate, they admit that the bill is long overdue. In fact, when I was an MLA, we were talking about crimes and how there should be punishment. At the time, the NDP government actually blamed Ottawa for not amending or introducing more legislation. I agree. This is a long time coming.

It just so happens that a “southern Alberta man faces criminal charges after police say they found more than half a million child sexual exploitation photos and videos in his possession.... More than 500,000 child sexual exploitation photos and videos were discovered, [making it] one of the largest collections the unit has ever encountered”.

Like every other case that has been in the media in the last year or so, this just makes me sick. A lot of other leaders have said the same thing. It makes them sick. I know some premiers who have made some pretty inflammatory comments about what should be done with these kinds of people.

It is good that the legislation is up. Is it groundbreaking? Does it go to the full extent of protecting victims? We have to give credit to the Conservatives, who have been asking for the legislation for years. Finally, it is being recognized in Bill C-16, not just in terms of debate but also in terms of some of the content that we are talking about that is in Bill C-16.

Making the murder of an intimate partner first-degree actually came from the Conservative MP for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Expanding the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of sexual deepfakes, digitally manipulated pictures or video using artificial intelligence, came from the Conservative MP for Calgary Nose Hill. Updating mandatory requirements for child exploitation material came from previous Conservative governments. We are pleased to see that the government took its lead from Conservative MPs.

To try to frame it now, politically, that Conservatives do not support this or that, somehow, we do not agree with protecting victims is misleading Canadians. That is not the truth. If anything, Conservatives have been leading the charge to actually punish offenders for years.

It is now here, but one of the best tools of this institution is committee work. I did not realize that until I got to Ottawa, because committees in the B.C. legislature are different.

The Liberal government stacked the committees to, basically, get its own way in terms of votes. Not only is it now a slim margin of votes so that the Liberal government can get everything it wants in a committee, but it actually stacked it even further so that there is no chance of any amendments proposed by any opposition parties. I am talking about the Bloc. I am talking about the Conservatives.

The committee is there for a purpose. It is to collaborate. It is to represent the interests and needs of Canadians, the interests and needs of the constituents we represent.

The Liberal government is framing this as one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation that has come down the pike in a long time. That is not true. It could have been better. In terms of amendments regarding safety valves, there were six put forward by Conservatives that were all voted down by the Liberal committee members. There was one from the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations that would have narrowed the mandatory minimum safety valves to only apply to offenders with no prior criminal record. There was one from the member for York Centre, another Conservative, that would have required courts to consider only offenders' actual circumstances, not hypothetical scenarios such as what the court is saying, when assessing the constitutionality of mandatory minimums. It was voted down by the Liberals.

There was another one from the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations that would have excluded serious offences, including child sexual offences and major drug trafficking offences, from accessing the mandatory minimum safety valve. This means that we wanted the full extent of the law applied to these offenders, especially drug traffickers, sex traffickers and those having anything to do with violent crime. We should give them not a lesser penalty but the full mandatory sentence. We should keep the full mandatory sentence in play. If we really want to protect women, vulnerable victims and children, we should keep that mandatory sentence. If anyone wants to challenge it, they can challenge it in the courts. The Liberal government is so afraid of being challenged through the charter. If victims or Canadians cannot depend on us as lawmakers to stand up and fight for them, and they cannot depend on the courts, who are they going to depend on? There is nobody left. The Liberals should take on the challenge. The Supreme Court can use a challenge, especially when we are talking about a lesser, weaker sentence for some of the worst offenders in our society. It is getting worse.

There were six amendments put together for that safety valve, and each one was voted down. There were two amendments for victims' rights put together by my Conservative colleagues, and they were voted down by the Liberal committee members. One was put together by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South that would have ensured victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control are notified without delay of release orders or recognizance. It was voted down. There was another one from the same member that would have required the Parole Board chairperson to disclose offender information without delay to the victims of intimate partner violence or coercive control offences. It was voted down.

The bill could have been stronger. We could have sent a strong message to the women and vulnerable victims in Canada, saying that we are going to fight for them. We are going to take on the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court rules against us, we will think of another fight. Each and every MP could have taken that pledge together, but we did not. The Liberal government backed down at committee through majority votes on each one of these amendments.

There were six other defeated amendments. The one put together by the member for York Centre would have protected against charter challenges to child pornography, possession and access offences under sections 7 and 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve. It was voted down.

Four pages of amendments were voted down by the Liberal committee members. There were also amendments ruled out of scope, and each one of these amendments was just trying to further strengthen the bill so offenders could not get away. I know there are going to be lawyers arguing this and fighting for lesser sentences or no sentence at all. I know that.

However, as legislators, we are the last stop. We are the last hope. Given that the Liberal government actually took recommendations from Conservatives and implemented them in this bill is commendable. To be truly ambitious, the Liberals should not have voted out the rest of the amendments.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that there is a difference between what the government and the Conservative Party are proposing. At the end of the day, exceptional circumstances would enable the legislation and the reinstatement of a number of mandatory sentences to be supported within the courts. That is a really important fact.

Just over a year ago, this Prime Minister was elected with a mandate to make our communities safer. We have a series of pieces of legislation, not one but a half dozen or so, which would make our communities safer. We are working with provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement and indigenous communities to make sure we have safer communities and that there is a consequence for criminals who commit crimes.

Does the member not believe that using the notwithstanding clause should be a last resort?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, that was not the point. The point is that we should actually impose a mandatory sentencing for these offenders. That is it. That is the starting point.

We could have made the legislation so much stronger if we had actually taken more of the amendments that were proposed by my colleagues. Instead, we have watered it down.

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑16 makes certain amendments to the Firearms Act.

The bill “amends the Firearms Act to clarify that an individual whose firearms licence or registration certificate has been revoked is required to deliver their firearm”. Furthermore, no individual is eligible to hold a licence if it is suspected that they “may have engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking.”

We know that the Conservatives are generally opposed to the idea of any form of gun control. Does my colleague think this amendment to the bill is reasonable?

Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment OrdersGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, it could have been stronger. There were even amendments talking about crimes committed with firearms. The Liberal government, through committee majority, voted them down as well.

All I am saying is the amendments that were rejected could have made this bill so much stronger, including the amendments that dealt with firearms.