Debates of June 9th, 2026

Protecting Victims Act

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about some of the consequences of not defining what sentencing should be. Because of Bill C-5, there is a drug smuggler, caught with 55 grams of cocaine while on bail, awaiting sentencing for previous gun offences. He received a sentence of only 12 months, half of what the judge said his crimes deserved, partially because of his immigration status.

The Ontario judge cut the sentence in half for the offender, who was facing the significant likelihood of deportation because he was already serving a six-year prison sentence in Canada for trafficking fentanyl and for gun-related offences. The judge wrote in their decision, “Mr. Rush is not a Canadian citizen and he is likely to be deported as a result of these offences. This is a significant collateral consequence.” It is. The consequence should have been served, and he should have been removed.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing her time.

Before I get into Bill C-16, I would like to acknowledge that last weekend the great people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek commemorated the 213th anniversary of the Battle of Stoney Creek, one of the most important victories in Canadian history. In June 1813, a determined force of British soldiers, local militia and loyal settlers faced a much larger American army and won in what served as the Stalingrad of the War of 1812. Their courage helped turn the tide in the defence of Upper Canada and demonstrated that the people of this land would not be intimidated by a larger neighbour.

More than two centuries later, the Battle of Stoney Creek remains a powerful reminder of the Canadian spirit: resilient, independent and determined to stand up for our national interests. As Canadians continue to face economic uncertainty and challenges beyond our borders, the lessons of Stoney Creek remain as relevant as ever. Our strength has always come from our unity, our perseverance and our confidence in Canada. May we always honour those who defended this country and continue building a free, proud and sovereign Canada.

I rise today also to speak about Bill C-16 and against a major flaw hidden inside it, specifically clause 63, the safety valve. First, it is a fact that after 11 years of Liberal government, Canadians are less safe. Violent crime is up 55%, and extortion is up 330% across Canada. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%. Sexual assaults are up almost 76%, and Canadians can see this. They see other Canadians feeling scared and threatened. They see crime becoming more common. They see repeat offenders arrested one day and back on the streets the next. In a country that used to feel safe, this is completely out of the ordinary. Canadians are desperate for change. They want to feel safe again.

After all that, what is the Liberal answer? It is more of the same. The Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe he is tough on crime, but Bill C-16 proves otherwise. While Liberals are trying to sell the bill as a crackdown on criminals, buried inside is a loophole that would allow judges to bypass almost every mandatory minimum sentence left in the Criminal Code.

Bill C-16 would amend the general sentencing principles that require courts to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum, where applying the minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. This would apply to all mandatory minimum penalties currently in the Criminal Code, with the only exceptions being murder and high treason. What it actually means is that the mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory. A custodial sentence would still be required, but the length of the imprisonment would be up to the judge's judgment.

The Liberals spent the last 11 years slowly eroding the laws that are keeping Canadians safe from criminals by keeping them behind bars. Now they want judges to ignore many of the ones that remain. Hidden inside a bill called the “protecting victims act” is a proposed get-out-of-jail-free card that claims it would protect victims. That is not getting tough on crime. That is getting softer on criminals.

The Liberals voted against the following Conservative bills that would have created stricter bail laws and tougher penalties for violent and repeat offenders. Bill C-381 would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-220 would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-246 would have required criminals convicted of multiple sexual offences to serve consecutive sentences, but the Liberals voted against it.

The Liberals also weakened bail laws through Bill C-75. Police chiefs, premiers, and Conservatives warned them, but the Liberals ignored everybody. What was the result? It was the principle of restraint: letting criminals out at the earliest reasonable opportunity on the least onerous conditions, a catch-and-release justice system where violent repeat offenders cycle through our courts and back into our communities.

In 2022, the Liberals' Bill C-5 struck down 14 mandatory minimums, including on possession and discharging of weapons and firearms. As a direct result of these Liberal laws, there have been multiple examples of firearms smugglers, gun traffickers and violent criminals receiving no jail time for crimes that should have put them behind bars. In Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, police have repeatedly laid firearms charges against individuals who are already on probation, under release conditions or subject to firearms probation.

Canadians are asking why people who have already demonstrated that they will ignore court orders continue finding themselves back with the police on new charges. Canadians are losing confidence in a justice system that seems more focused on giving offenders another chance than giving victims peace of mind. When someone is arrested for a serious firearms offence while already under a court order, Canadians do not see that as a mistake. They see a system that is failing to protect them, which the Liberals have created. Every time a violent repeat offender is released only to commit another crime, another family, business owner or community pays the price. The consequences and the fear are real, and the frustration Canadians feel is completely justified.

It is no surprise that under the Liberal government, crime is increasing at alarming rates. Now the Liberals are making the same mistake again. Canadians want to feel safe. Criminals are becoming more aggressive. They are targeting businesses and using intimidation and violence. The Liberal response is a bill that could allow offenders convicted of extortion with a prohibited firearm to receive a sentence below the current mandatory minimum. That makes no sense. If someone uses a gun to terrorize a business owner, Canadians expect serious consequences, not loopholes and leniency. They certainly do not expect the Liberal government to make it easier for criminals to avoid punishment. It does not make any sense.

We have a mandatory duty as elected officials to make our communities and Canada at large safer. This is not optional. Conservatives believe the justice system should stand with victims, not criminals; that mandatory minimum sentences should actually be mandatory; and that organized criminals, repeat violent offenders and sexual offenders should stay behind bars where they belong, not be treated like they are entitled to endless second chances. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to fix this bill.

The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for the following: aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with a restricted, prohibited firearm. Parliament set mandatory minimums for these heinous crimes for a reason. If the Liberals allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums, there will be nothing mandatory about them, full stop. Mandatory is not optional, and that is what Conservatives are fighting for.

We are happy with the positive changes in the bill. Banning deepfakes of intimate partners and bringing in mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse material would help Canadians and would keep our kids safe. Despite these changes, Bill C‑16 still fails to reverse the dangerous soft-on-crime agenda that the Liberals have spent the last 11 years enacting. Conservatives were defeated or ruled out of scope on 30 amendments that would have tightened or restored mandatory minimums for violent and serious crimes and repeat violent offenders. Those amendments would have kept our streets safer by removing the safety valve from crimes including extortion, aggravated assault and child sexual offences, and they would have kept criminals who commit these heinous acts behind bars, where they belong.

The safety valve would be a dangerous clause to include in this otherwise positive bill. This is another example of Liberal half measures. We have come this far with a good bill that would protect Canadians from serious crimes, but keeping the safety valve provision would completely contradict the principles of keeping victims safe. The Liberals should simply split this provision off so that Parliament can work to make this bill better to keep victims safe.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke so passionately about such a serious and important issue, this piece of legislation, but I cannot help reflecting on the fact that earlier this evening, the Conservatives put forward a motion to adjourn the House so that this debate would have ended. He would not have had the opportunity to speak on the bill like he did now.

As a matter of fact, whereas every Liberal voted on that adjournment motion, 18 Conservatives did not vote, including the Leader of the Opposition. They did not even vote on the motion they put forward. They would have had all the time to plan this. They could have been planning it since noon today, preparing for the moment. They could have told all their members, “At this specific time, we're going to pull this game. Please make sure to vote,” but they did not. It is more of an indication that this is nothing but a game to the Conservatives.

Why are they doing this? Why did he vote in favour of that motion to adjourn?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very concerning that I am up here speaking to a bill to keep Canadians safe, a bill I have said is very positive in a sense but that has a release valve in it that would allow judges to not enact mandatory minimums, and the member does not even want to talk about it. He just wants to deflect. Let us get serious here for a second. Canadians want a safer Canada, and the sooner the Liberals realize that and work with us and look at our amendments, the sooner we can keep Canadians safe.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. Before I get started, I want to give a shout-out to Laurel Collins, the former MP for Victoria, who, as you might recall, was a champion in tackling gender-based violence and laid the groundwork for today.

If Bill C-16 is about protecting women and children, we need to get it right. We need to listen to the experts, and many of them, including women's organizations, survivor groups and legal advocates, have repeatedly called for greater investments in prevention, housing, income security and violence protection programs, yet we have seen Liberals and Conservatives continually vote against amendments that we put forward, especially from the member for Winnipeg Centre.

Maybe my colleague can speak about why the Conservatives voted against those amendments instead of focusing on stopping violence before it happens, because that is a critical component.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, but I want to be clear. Conservatives want mandatory minimums for heinous crimes. For criminals who attack women and children, we do not want a “get out of jail free” card. We are tough on crime.

That is what I believe in. It is why I was elected and why I wanted to become a politician. I wanted to make change. I also want to make sure that when criminals get to court, they get a mandatory minimum for sexually abusing children and for violence against women. We should not have a clause that would allow the judge to see otherwise. That is what Conservatives want, and if the Liberals could just work with us on this, this would be a good bill.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, based on what I heard tonight in this debate, I am not sure if my Conservative colleague has consulted with his colleagues. There are two things I have taken away from the testimony we heard at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's recent meetings on the issue of violence against women.

First of all, the victims said that Bill C-16 was a necessary step. They said that we needed to take action and make the Criminal Code more effective. Earlier, I heard someone say that we were 99% in agreement. Once we get there, the remaining 1% can be addressed and worked out in a non-partisan manner. The other thing, of course, is that this bill does not solve everything. I acknowledge that, the Bloc Québécois acknowledges it too, and I told the minister so. We will come back with the amendments we proposed.

Why not say that we will pass this bill and then work to propose additional measures? We could also address the broader ecosystem, in other words support groups, tackle the housing issue, and continue to work on the Criminal Code. We really need to look at this as a continuum of services.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we can all come into the House, talk about it and feel good about ourselves, but unless we get strict on mandatory minimums, it is all for nothing. That is the real truth. If we leave a loophole in there where a judge can let criminals go, like the Supreme Court did in a child-sensitive material or child pornography case, all is lost. Mandatory minimums are needed, full stop. That is what the Conservatives believe in.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets.

I am grateful to rise today on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Peterborough to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to contextualize the legislation within Canada's broader effort to confront and prevent gender-based violence.

Gender-based violence is a persistent and measurable reality affecting women, girls and gender-diverse people across this country. In 2024, 187 women and gender-diverse people were killed violently in Canada. That represents one woman every two days. Women are far more likely than men to experience severe forms of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and criminal harassment. More than one-quarter of all victims of violent crime in 2024 were victimized by an intimate partner.

These are not isolated incidents, and our justice system has struggled to effectively address these crimes, given the complex realities of gender-based violence and the patterns of behaviour that often define abuse. The rate of intimate partner violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence experienced by women and girls, is more than three and a half times higher compared to men and boys. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and young women face even higher risks.

The Government of Canada has recognized that addressing gender-based violence requires a comprehensive and coordinated response. In 2017, the federal government released a federal gender-based violence strategy and has since invested over $800 million a year to coordinate federal actions under three pillars: preventing gender-based violence, supporting survivors and their families and promoting a responsive justice system.

Since 2022, the federal government has invested in a national action plan to end gender-based violence, a 10-year framework aiming to end gender-based violence in Canada by supporting victims and survivors of crime and their families and improving their experiences with the criminal justice system. Significant efforts have been undertaken in this area. For example, the federal victims strategy works to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system and increase their access to justice. Through the victims fund, which is part of the federal victims strategy, resources are made available to the provinces and territories for the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including for the development of public legal education and information material, and the provision of training on the legislation for criminal justice professionals.

Considerable efforts have also been made to strengthen the criminal justice system's response to gender-based violence. Canada's Criminal Code provides a broad-based response to all forms of violence, exploitation and abuse against all persons in Canada. Over the past years, legislative amendments in former Bill C-51 and Bill C-75 clarified and strengthened sexual assault laws and the criminal justice system's response to intimate partner violence, and former Bill C-233 imposed stricter conditions for those charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence. In addition, former Bill S-205, which came into force last April, created a new peace bond designed specifically to provide better protections for victims of intimate partner violence and their children, including by allowing conditions such as electronic monitoring to be imposed on the defendant. All of these efforts reflect an understanding that prevention, protection, accountability and survivor support must work together.

Today, Bill C-16 is a critical part of that continuum. It strengthens the criminal law in ways that respond directly to what survivors, advocates and frontline professionals have long told us about how gender-based violence actually occurs. Bill C-16 creates a new offence criminalizing a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct in intimate partner relationships. This addresses the reality that abuse takes place over time. It aligns the law with the lived reality of survivors and allows for earlier intervention, before coercive or controlling conduct turns into serious physical harm or death. It also supports more accurate police and prosecutorial responses by requiring a contextualized assessment of power and exploitation.

Bill C-16 also addresses the most extreme manifestation of gender-based violence: the killing of women because they are women. By explicitly naming and recognizing femicide in the Criminal Code, the bill acknowledges that women and girls are disproportionately killed in specific contexts, including intimate partner violence, sexual violence, exploitation and hate-motivated attacks. Naming femicide matters. It makes visible a reality that has too often been obscured and affirms that these killings are not random tragedies but systemic failures that demand accountability.

The bill would ensure that murders occurring in these circumstances are treated as first-degree murder. It would also require judges, when sentencing for manslaughter in the same context, to consider penalties equivalent to second-degree murder, including life imprisonment and parole ineligibility for 10 to 25 years.

Importantly, Bill C-16 also recognizes that gender-based violence increasingly occurs through technology. The rise of sexually explicit deepfakes, sextortion and online harassment has created new avenues for abuse, particularly targeting women and girls. These forms of violence can destroy reputations, livelihoods and mental health, and they often silence victims through shame and fear.

The bill would address these gaps by clarifying that non-consensual distribution of intimate images includes realistic deepfakes, as well as criminalizing threats to distribute such material and increasing penalties for those offences. These measures would complement existing Government of Canada initiatives aimed at addressing online harms and protecting digital safety, particularly for young people.

The bill would also modernize the offence of criminal harassment. Data shows that stalking and harassment are common before acts of serious violence, yet the current requirement to prove a victim's subjective fear has made early intervention difficult.

Further, Bill C-16 proposes reforms to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to better protect victims and expand access to testimonial aids for adult victims of intimate partner violence, sexual offences and criminal harassment, offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. These measures would improve justice system outcomes for victims by recognizing that court systems can be retraumatizing and that supporting meaningful participation is essential to justice. The bill would also build on recent reforms to peace bonds and firearms control, reflecting clear evidence that access to firearms significantly increases the risk of lethal intimate partner violence. By strengthening preventive tools and closing enforcement gaps, Bill C-16 would support the Government of Canada's broader commitment to keeping victims and communities safe.

Bill C-16 is a necessary step in Canada's ongoing commitment to confront gender-based violence with seriousness, clarity and resolve. It reflects the hard truth that violence is rarely a single act but often a pattern, that technology has created new tools for abuse, and that too many women and girls continue to lose their lives in preventable circumstances. By criminalizing coercive control, recognizing femicide, strengthening protections against online and intimate partner violence, and reducing barriers for victims and survivors of crime within the criminal justice system, the bill would align our laws with lived reality and evidence.

For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-16. Addressing gender-based violence is not optional, protecting victims is non-negotiable and justice must be delivered before more lives are lost.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated this speech and all the things the member said about violence against women. Woman to woman, I have to understand here a couple of things about the word “mandatory”. The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for aggravated sexual assault with a gun, where victims are primarily women; human trafficking, where victims are primarily women; and multiple firearms offences.

As an educator, I have to look up the word “mandatory”, which says very clearly that it is required or commanded by a law, rule or authority. If judges are allowed to ignore so-called mandatory sentences, and this bill claims it is strengthening mandatory minimum sentences, can the member maybe describe for me what she thinks the word “mandatory” means?

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important when we are talking about these bills to be very careful with the words we are using and what we are spreading online. This bill would reinstate 15 mandatory minimum sentences. It is really important too that the judges who are appointed to proceed over these crimes have the discretion. They are chosen for a reason; they are chosen because they are smart and they care. I think it is really important for the opposition to understand that the misinformation that you are spreading is not helpful to victims anywhere across Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would just remind the member to address her comments through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. Secretary of State for Seniors.

[Stephanie McLean, Liberal, Secretary of State (Seniors)]

Mr. Speaker, we know that 76% of appellate-level challenges to Harper-era mandatory minimum sentences were successful. We also know that the Conservatives are saying that they will not support this bill without the addition of mandatory minimum sentences, but more than 217 challenges to the constitutionality of these since 2021 have been made. When the courts frequently strike down mandatory minimum sentences, why do members think the Conservatives want the government to include clauses that would weaken the legislation, increase the likelihood of it being struck down, and take up precious court time and costs on unconstitutional clauses? What do you think their real reason is for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would just remind the Secretary of State of Seniors to address her questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Peterborough.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did a beautiful job of painting the picture of what is really going on here. I would like to take a moment to speak as a survivor of domestic violence and how critically important this legislation is.

It is hard to truly put into words how challenging it is to navigate a justice system after having been a victim of crime. This bill would address that. It would address coercive control, which is incredibly important. It is very hard to understand what it is like for victims of intimate partner violence and what they go through for years on end. This bill would address that.

I would like for the Conservatives to understand, get out of the way, as they like to say, support this bill for victims and show survivors that we are listening.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C‑16, tabled late last year. What still impresses me, however, is the timeline.

For months, if not years, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has been calling for progress on a number of issues: court delays, the criminalization of coercive control and, as the Bloc Québécois and other stakeholders have also urged, the issue of intimate AI-generated images and deepfakes. People have been calling for all that for weeks, months and years.

It took a press conference by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women where we displayed non-partisanship, where members from all political parties sitting on that committee called on the government to criminalize coercive control and take action on violence against women.

It is an important first step, but why did it take so long?

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can both agree that this bill addresses the issues that have been brought forward and does so in a really thoughtful way, in consultation with survivors and groups that work with survivors and victims. Although I agree with the member that this is long overdue, we are here now. We have an opportunity, but the Conservatives are standing in the way of making sure this bill passes. We can prevent deaths and crime.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show strong support for Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. This legislation represents one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. It reflects a clear understanding that our laws must evolve to meet the realities that Canadians are facing today, realities that include rising intimate partner violence cases, online exploitation, coercive control and gender-based violence and growing concerns about public confidence in the justice system.

At its heart, Bill C-16 is about protection. It is about protecting women, children and survivors and ensuring that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and fairness throughout the justice process.

Across Canada and certainly in my province of Nova Scotia, we are witnessing a growing crisis of gender-based and intimate partner violence. Women continue to be harmed, controlled, terrorized and, too often, killed by intimate partners. In 2024, 187 women were violently killed in Canada. That is nearly one woman every two days. These are not isolated incidents.

These tragedies occur in large cities, urban neighbourhoods and rural communities, like my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets. We know these realities all too well. While our communities are strong, compassionate and deeply connected, rural communities like mine also face unique barriers when it comes to escaping violence and accessing support. Survivors may live far away from shelters or counselling services. Transportation can be limited. Accessing legal support might require hours of travel. In smaller communities, anonymity can be difficult, and many victims fear not being believed or fear retaliation if they come forward.

I have had conversations with frontline organizations in my riding, advocates, survivors and service providers throughout South Shore—St. Margarets. We have made one thing abundantly clear: Our systems must do more to protect victims before violence escalates. This is exactly what Bill C-16 seeks to do.

One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the recognition of coercive and controlling behaviour. For years, survivors and advocates have been telling us that abuse is not always physical. It can be emotional. Abuse can be psychological. Abuse can be financial and it can be technical. It can involve intimidation, surveillance, isolation, threats, humiliation, manipulation and fear. We know that coercive control is one of the strongest predictors of lethal violence.

Bill C-16 would create a new Criminal Code offence prohibiting patterns of coercive and controlling conduct towards intimate partners. This would allow intervention before violence becomes deadly. “Before” is the key piece that matters, because too often the justice system will react after someone has already been seriously harmed.

Organizations throughout South Shore—St. Margarets understand these realities intimately. Be the Peace Institute in my riding has done extraordinarily exceptional work in helping young people and communities build healthier relationships and prevent cycles of violence before they begin. Second Story Women's Centre, where I was a director before becoming a parliamentarian, continues to provide advocacy, education and support for women navigating violence, inequalities and trauma. The Thriving Twogether Society has become an important community voice in Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby and Queen's County, focused on well-being, trauma-informed care and strengthening supports for survivors and their families. Harbour House, a women's shelter in my riding, continues to provide essential shelter and outreach services for women and children fleeing violence in our communities.

These organizations have long understood what this legislation now recognizes in law: Violence is only physical, and intervention must happen earlier.

Bill C-16 would also modernize Canada's laws to address the very real challenges posed by technology-enabled abuse. Remember, I said “technical” earlier. Predators are increasingly using online platforms to exploit women and children. We talk about deepfakes. Before becoming a parliamentarian, I was a teacher, educator and principal, and members can think about some of the cases I had to deal with and talk to parents and survivors about. Deepfake technology is being weaponized to create non-consensual sexual images. For a young girl in the classroom or a young child, members can imagine the trauma for them, their families and these small-knit communities.

Children are being targeted through sextortion, online luring and exploitation. Police reported that child sexual exploitation offences are now dramatically higher than they were just over a decade ago. Parents across Canada are deeply concerned, and rightly so. In response, Bill C-16 would strengthen protections against child exploitation, expand offences related to online luring and sextortion, criminalize sexual deepfakes and reinforce some of these mandatory penalties for serious child sexual offences. Our laws must keep pace with technological predators.

Another critical pillar within this legislation is strengthening victims' rights. Too many victims continue to be retraumatized by the justice system. They feel uninformed, ignored, excluded or treated as though they are simply witnesses to their own trauma rather than people deserving dignity and respect. Bill C-16 would strengthen the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by affirming that victims' rights would be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. It would that ensure that victims receive information proactively, it would strengthen access to testimonial aids and it would recognize victims' interests in a timely resolution of proceedings. These changes matter, because justice delayed is often justice denied, especially for survivors of sexual violence and intimate partner violence.

Many Canadians have watched serious criminal cases collapse due to court delays. How can people get help and move on when these delays in court make them relive their trauma or when perpetrators change lawyers time and time again, restarting proceedings and restarting that trauma? Victims are forced to relive trauma for years sometimes, only to see these proceedings stayed before accountability is ever reached. That undermines confidence in our justice system. Bill C-16 would take practical steps to address these delays while fully respecting charter rights and judicial independence. The proposed legislation would require courts to consider alternatives before imposing stays of proceedings. It would streamline procedures in sexual offence trials. It would also improve efficiency in many of our complex cases. It would help ensure that serious offences are heard on their merits rather than collapsing because of these procedural delays. This is about balancing fairness with accountability, which is something our government stands for.

I am wondering why, at report stage, Conservatives are voting down these amendments and this bill. The justice committee heard from dozens of witnesses and reviewed more than 100 amendments. We heard from survivors, advocates—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the compassionate words from the member opposite, and I acknowledge that much of the bill is going in the right direction and, indeed, is good. However, in one part, the bill promises to restore mandatory minimums, but then later it hands judges a clause to sentence below mandatory minimums.

My question is simple: When a victim's offender walks out below the mandatory minimum sentence under the bill, who will the member opposite tell the victim to blame: the court or the bill that was written to let this happen?

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize that it is same piece of paper that the member has stood up and read from tonight, asking the exact same question about one little piece of an amendment on a huge proactive bill.

I would like to tell him about all the people and organizations that we have heard from. I was a member of FEWO with the member across the way when we heard from the hundreds of victims and hundreds of different witnesses. On child protection, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and other organizations are in favour of this bill. On victims' rights, we have the Domestic Violence Prevention Society, Humane Canada and Niki Sharma, the attorney general for B.C. I could go on. There are the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Police Association. I can go on all night.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleague. The main concern that we have been having as New Democrats is that we see the Liberals right now, and they are cutting critical programs that are essential for prevention. They are also letting programs expire. Maybe my colleague can explain how the government expects to reduce violence against women and victims of intimate partner violence when they are cutting the very programs that are critical for prevention. We have heard from the experts time and time again that not only do they need to be maintained, but the investment needs to be increased significantly. It is essential to this conversation.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a lot of admiration and respect for that colleague across the way, but in this case, I have to challenge. We talked earlier today about mis- and disinformation, and I feel that this is a case of misinformation. We know that some of the projects and funding streams that we have will sunset. That does not mean that they go away. That means that they get reinvigorated as we pass bills in the House within our economic budget. I would like to say, regarding the member's question, that it is part of our economic strategy each time we re-fund these programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a heartfelt speech from my colleague. I am so glad I was here to hear it.

I have mentioned in the House before that I worked as a family law lawyer. I worked in the violence against women sector, and I worked with women who were fleeing violence at home. Oftentimes, more than once, I would have a woman in my office who would just stop and say, “Gosh, I really do not know how I got here. This is not how I pictured my life.” When she would look back, she would see that the beginning steps were almost imperceptibly small, and it usually started with what we now call coercive control, whether it was financial, emotional or social.

I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on how Bill C-16 seeks to address criminalizing coercive control and making women feel more confident in coming forward.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her work as a family lawyer, because sometimes they are the unsung heroes in helping women who are fleeing violence manoeuvre through systems that sometimes have failed them. We talk about the coercive control piece, and the bill would help women. It would protect them and help protect children when they are navigating some of these systems. It would help with some of these delays. It is nice that we are seeing so many of our different crime bills coming here from the government. That has not been done in 20 years, 30 years or 40 years, so it is good that we are making progress on that measure.