House of Commons Hansard #132 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was affordable.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Conservative members move to split Bill C-22 into two parts to address government surveillance concerns effectively. Conservatives argue that splitting the bill would allow expedited passage of part 1 while providing necessary time to debate contentious provisions in part 2. Liberal members criticize the delay, characterizing Conservative tactics as an attempt to impede tougher crime measures and hinder law enforcement access to modern investigative tools. 4400 words, 1 hour.
Bill C‑20—Time Allocation Motion Members debate a time allocation motion for Bill C-20, which establishes "Build Canada Homes." Minister Gregor Robertson defends the new Crown corporation as essential for the housing crisis. Conservative MPs criticize creating a redundant housing agency without clear targets, while the Bloc Québécois requests flexibility for regions facing unique costs. The House then moves to a recorded vote. 4500 words, 30 minutes.
Build Canada Homes Act Third reading of Bill C-20. The bill proposes establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation to accelerate affordable housing delivery. Liberal members argue this necessary Crown corporation provides the autonomy and tools needed to increase housing supply. Conversely, Conservative MPs contend the legislation creates a fourth federal housing agency, arguing it imposes unnecessary bureaucracy without clear, measurable targets. Opposition members further claim the focus should remain on lowering construction costs rather than expanding federal administrative structures. 42100 words, 6 hours in 3 segments: 1 2 3.
Remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules on a question of privilege raised by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, concluding that the dispute over economic data interpretations does not constitute a prima facie case of intentionally misleading the House. 600 words.
Corrections and Conditional Release Act Second reading of Bill C-232. The bill mandates that dangerous offenders and multi-murderers remain in maximum-security institutions. Conservative members argue these serious criminal offenders require strict confinement to ensure public safety and respect victims, whereas Liberals and the Bloc Québécois contend such policies undermine rehabilitation efforts and favor punitive measures over evidence-based correctional practices. 7600 words, 1 hour.
Protecting Victims Act Third reading of Bill C-16. The bill, titled "the protecting victims act" (/debates/2026/6/9/anthony-housefather-2/), aims to update the Criminal Code to address modern crimes, including coercive control and online child exploitation. While the government argues the legislation strengthens protections for children and victims of gender-based violence, the Conservative opposition has criticized the inclusion of a "safety valve" provision (clause 63, /debates/2026/6/9/larry-brock-3/) that allows judges to bypass mandatory minimum penalties, arguing it undermines accountability for serious offenses. 25500 words, 3 hours.
Adjournment Debate - Marine Transportation Gord Johns criticizes the inequitable federal funding for BC Ferries compared to Atlantic Canada, arguing for a new support model. Caroline Desrochers defends the current arrangements, emphasizing the federal government's existing indexed contributions and reaffirming that ferry operations remain, by agreement, a primary responsibility of the British Columbia provincial government. 1400 words, 10 minutes.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been a member of our Conservative team in the House for over a year now. I would love to hear his opinion on how the government is handling public safety and the justice system. I would love to hear what he thinks after a year in the House, compared to how he felt before being elected.
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the year since I joined the House, I have had the privilege of working alongside all my colleagues and with the Conservative Party. It is clear that, over the past year, the Liberals have spent more time working behind the scenes to cobble together a majority than trying to come to an agreement with the opposition. Yet that was the mandate given to them by the people, who elected a minority government. The Liberals had a mandate to work with the opposition to ensure that legislation serving the interests of all Canadians moves forward. It was not about imposing their vision, but rather respecting our vision. Every member of Parliament is sent by their constituents to get the job done here.
That is not what the Liberals wanted to do. They did not spend their time working hard here; instead, they worked behind the scenes to cobble together a majority and then finally show up here, puff out their chests and claim that they are the ones in charge.
Today, we are paying the price. We are here until midnight because the Liberals are trying to pull something off. They are trying to pass bills that they were unable to work on when it was actually time to do so.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, speaking of what happens behind the scenes, it certainly does look like someone is hiding behind the curtain. I will leave it at that. Bill C‑16 is the topic of discussion tonight.
In all seriousness, this bill seeks to better protect women. However, the problem I see from the outset is that this bill will not solve everything. I will be talking about that, and I know that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle, with whom I will be sharing my time, will also be talking about that.
Bill C-16 Protecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
This is the third time I have talked about this bill, though I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This bill ended up being extensively discussed by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I have already talked about it a lot.
I may come back to Bill C‑16, but I also want to use my speech to talk about the fact that protecting women also requires better housing and local services. I will come back to that.
The Bloc Québécois obviously supports the principle of Bill C‑16, which contains a number of important improvements for better protecting victims of violence. In particular, it recognizes coercive control. It strengthens certain victims' rights and modernizes criminal law. However, one fundamental question remains: Can a woman be truly safe if she has nowhere to go after escaping violence? Justice is essential, but our committee also heard over and over that justice alone is not enough. I will begin by talking about the housing issue. I will then move on to the improvements that Bill C‑16 contains. I will close by talking about what makes Quebec different in this domain.
A woman fleeing violence first needs a place to live. Behind every criminal record and every case file is a woman who has made the extremely difficult decision to leave her abuser. This decision often means giving up her home, leaving her job, uprooting her children and losing her financial security. Without a housing solution, many women remain trapped in their situations. What we heard at committee from survivors is that shelters are more than just places of refuge. The evidence we heard at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women served as a reminder of this. Shelters are true places of recovery. They provide shelter, psychosocial support, legal assistance, financial aid, support for children and assistance in building autonomy. For many women, it is the first night in a long time that they can sleep without fearing for their lives or those of their loved ones.
Housing is also a public safety issue. A woman who leaves an abusive partner often has to choose between returning to her abuser or living in precarious conditions. It is absolutely terrible. She has to wait months for affordable housing. As long as this reality persists, no reform of the Criminal Code will be enough. I have some telling statistics. In 2024-25, Canada had approximately 561 residential shelters for victims of violence. Despite this, officials still identify the lack of affordable housing as one of the main obstacles to a sustainable escape from violence.
Research shows that women who have access to second-stage housing are much more likely to rebuild their lives and avoid returning to their abuser. Sexual violence remains vastly under-reported. In fact, nearly nine out of 10 sexual assaults are never reported to the police. In 2024, 81 women were killed by an intimate partner in Canada, including 25 in Quebec. There have already been 10 femicides in 2026. One of the first occurred in Rougemont, in the riding of Shefford.
I also mentioned coercive control. I would like to talk about some of the progress this bill will achieve after first discussing the importance of offering abused women more extensive help. Tackling coercive control is an important step forward. The Bloc Québécois welcomes the creation of a coercive control offence. This recognition is essential. It follows on a study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women did on my suggestion following a request by the Quebec National Assembly and members who had worked on a report on rebuilding trust. However, Ottawa did not budge.
Late last year, after a number of years went by, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women held a press conference pointing out that one of the main recommendations in my report was to criminalize coercive control. This recognition is essential. Violence does not always leave visible wounds. The wounds can also be psychological, economic, social, digital or emotional.
Financial dependence is often an integral part of this type of control. Even under the best laws, a woman who cannot afford housing or food for her children remains vulnerable. We absolutely need to work toward women's economic empowerment, because we cannot break the cycle of domestic violence if a woman, even after years of trying, cannot accumulate the financial resources needed to escape that violence. She remains trapped in a cycle, in an endless spiral, where the man, to meet his own needs and expectations and to control his victim, exerts financial control over her. We must also consider women's economic empowerment and ways to ensure women can fully take control of their financial lives.
Another point that came up during the testimonies before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is that we cannot overlook older women. Coercive control also affects older adults. What is concerning is that some women endure violence perpetrated by a spouse, a caregiver, or even an adult child. Data also show that there has been a significant increase in cases of domestic violence against older adults in recent years. The system must be able to recognize these specific realities.
I also want to talk about the importance of respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, because social services, shelters and housing fall primarily under Quebec's jurisdiction. Let us not forget that. The federal government must financially support these networks without imposing its own conditions. Quebec organizations are familiar with the realities on the ground and already meeting victims' needs. It is therefore important to look at what is being transferred to help the organizations that work with victims. Staff are exhausted, and they need resources and means to care for these victims and care for survivors.
Bill C‑16 is not perfect, so the Bloc Québécois had moved some amendments, particularly regarding section 810 of the Criminal Code, which is still far too subjective. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I moved, in collaboration with my Conservative colleagues, that we conduct a study of section 810 of the Criminal Code. The Bloc Québécois wanted to take that aspect out of Bill C‑16, because it has been proven that section 810 conditions can give victims a false sense of security. We moved amendments, and there are some amendments that could have been made to Bill C‑16.
However, our chief concern is that the Criminal Code be strengthened and that new offences be created. The Criminal Code is a federal law, however, whereas the application and administration of justice are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. I said that to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality yesterday, and I asked her to discuss it with her colleague, the Minister of Justice. If the government does not arrange for money to be transferred to Quebec for the administration of justice, in acknowledgement of the fact that a much bigger burden is going to be placed on Quebec's justice system, it is going to be passing laws that cannot be enforced. There will not be enough resources to take care of victims and survivors properly.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑16. It is a real step forward for victims. However, we must guard against believing that the Criminal Code can fix everything and that it is some kind of magic wand. A woman needs effective justice, safe housing, a bed in a shelter, adequate income and quality psychosocial support.
As I told the minister yesterday, the Bloc Québécois will be here to make sure nobody forgets the amendments our party put forward at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The best way to protect women is not only to punish abusers, but also to give victims the practical means to get away and rebuild their lives with dignity.
We owe them that because there must be no more victims.
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. She is a tireless champion in the fight against gender-based violence. We have had several opportunities to discuss this issue. Her speech conveyed her sincerity and how hard she works on this issue.
We now have the opportunity to pass a bill that will enable us to make progress. I would like to know what steps my colleague envisions taking next.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to try to avoid some of the inconsistencies we see in Bill C-16. As I said in reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code, we want the criteria to be more objective than subjective. That was one of the amendments that had been proposed by my colleague to address this situation. That is the kind of amendment we would have liked to include in the bill, but unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it. So, we will definitely have to bring it up again.
The issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code will need to be addressed, because it is clear that this section is not doing its job of ensuring that victims are safe. The Bloc Québécois will continue to closely monitor the issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code.
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the remarks made by my colleague from Shefford. We are talking about taking back control of our lives. Just a few hours ago, during the debate on Bill C-20, we were talking about building Canada.
I asked the following question: How could a program be implemented to the point of jeopardizing or suspending the activities of organizations that help abused women, even as they were in the process of setting up shelters for them? When my colleague says that the government must absolutely work in a way that is consistent with Quebec, I would like to know if there are, in fact, concrete steps that can be taken.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member is right: Representatives from those Quebec organizations did indeed come to testify about shelters. What we are seeing at this point in time is that wait lists keep getting longer. When I say that waving a magic wand will not fix things, Build Canada Homes is a prime example of that. We do not really know what it will amount to; it is still very unclear. We have a lot of questions.
One thing we know for sure is that wait lists are getting longer. More and more women are turning to emergency resources. Without a space in a second-stage shelter, they are stuck at the emergency shelter stage, meaning that other women who need emergency resources cannot get them, so they stay home and cannot access emergency resources. Other women who are ready for that second stage cannot access it because there is no space.
After second-stage housing, where do these women go and what do they do? Often, they have their families. We want to ensure that these people are housed safely and with dignity. Sometimes they need supportive housing to ensure follow up. In short, all the steps are being delayed. This is a key issue because it is often the reason why a woman feels she cannot get out. She feels that she is stuck in a cycle of violence because she does not know where to go with her children. It is a huge concern.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives take public safety and the justice system very seriously, and there are quite the concerns with Bill C-16 regarding the removal of mandatory minimums, with the exception of murder and treason.
I would like to ask my Bloc colleague, with the removal of mandatory minimums, how will that have a ripple effect on society?
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of disinformation because the bill we are studying this evening essentially reiterates the Bloc Québécois's proposal to restore mandatory minimums for serious crimes. It also echoes the Bloc Québécois's idea about the potential recruitment of young people at earlier stages and about deepfakes. This bill is making progress on a lot of fronts.
I think we have reached the point where we need to put this to a vote. It is time to move forward. I know there is room for improvement. We will have to continue to monitor progress, as I said, because this will not be like waving a magic wand.
However, I think that the disinformation needs to stop and that we need to work on making progress, recognizing victims and helping survivors find their way and rebuild their lives.
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Shefford for her work with people experiencing homelessness, female victims of violence, seniors and vulnerable individuals in the region where both of our ridings are located.
I would like my colleague to explain which solutions for fighting coercive control are most effective in her riding, including community-led initiatives.
What is working well in her riding?
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would say that listening to victims is what works best. As the representatives of many police forces said, the first step in addressing coercive control is to include it in the Criminal Code so that police have the tools they need. Otherwise, it is too difficult for them to act or to be proactive and act sooner. That is what this does. Recognizing coercive control means recognizing that there are warning signs and that police need be able to intervene much sooner. In order to achieve that, we need to criminalize this behaviour and listen to victims.
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the last four months of 2026, Quebec has mourned 10 victims of femicide. This number rivals the annual average for the past decade. That is horrific. I hope that my colleague on the other side of the House is aware of that, because these are tragedies. This is really an unacceptable number of domestic tragedies.
I find the increase extremely alarming, perhaps more so than my colleague across the way. Advocacy and civil society groups are reacting the same way, because at this rate, 2026 could exceed the record 16 femicides committed in 2021. We do not want that. Words matter here: “Femicide” is not a trivial matter; it is a serious societal issue.
Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters with regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures, has reached third reading. As my colleague mentioned earlier, this bill amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It also provides that murder known as femicide when committed against a female person is first degree murder in any of the following circumstances: the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour; the murder is committed in the context of domestic violence; the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking; or the murder is motivated by hatred. Now is the time to say enough is enough: no more femicide.
The Bloc Québécois will continue to support the bill. Obviously, we do have some reservations. I still think that Bill C-16 represents a very significant step forward in protecting people from intimate partner violence and sexual offences. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports the changes regarding court delays, specifically the issue of mistrials. We support the new Criminal Code offence of recruiting a young person to commit a crime, the introduction of a safety valve for minimum sentences, and the strengthening of the Criminal Code provisions regarding harassment and sexual violence, which primarily affect women.
As I said earlier, the committee study of Bill C‑16 took place despite the deliberate attempts by our Conservative colleagues to do what they think is their duty. Unfortunately, partisanship is leading to attempts to obstruct our work. By introducing a litany of amendments that are clearly beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues in the official opposition engaged in a series of delay tactics. Some were posted on social media for purely partisan purposes, effectively turning the committee's work into an election platform. What else can we expect from them? Sometimes I wonder if they even care about being constructive.
Despite it all, the work got done and that was in large part thanks to my colleagues from Rivière-du-Nord and Shefford. Protection for the loved ones of victims of coercive control has been expanded to even include pets. That is a good thing. It is good news. An aggravated sentence was also created for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault.
Two decisions made at committee leave gaps that warrant attention because they make the bill less coherent and could jeopardize the safety of the very people that Bill C‑16 seeks to protect. Let me come back to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault.
During the 43rd Parliament, I served as the vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We conducted a study on the online pornography giant Pornhub. I watched hundreds of hours of pornographic content depicting women being filmed against their will while engaging in sexual acts, whether consensual or not. These women did not even know they were being filmed, let alone that the footage would end up online.
As a mother of two young adults, I cannot tolerate the fact that there are brutes, people with no sense of decency, who seriously film videos of these women, and men too, without their consent during sexual acts. Imagine how that can destroy a person's life, career, family and self-confidence at an age when people are still developing as human beings, when they are building their self-confidence. Let me be clear: Committing such an act against people aged 37, 45 or 75 is just as reprehensible and must be deemed both criminally and ethically unacceptable.
Our society is changing, our mores are changing and our means of communication are changing. I am terrified that this could happen to any of us these days, and with complete impunity. We must act now, through other means that can address certain shortcomings.
Let us take care of ourselves, and let us ensure that justice is done.
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech, particularly her comments on how things went at committee. I think she gave a very good description of the situation. It is an urgent problem, one that we are taking seriously.
Given the seriousness with which this matter must be addressed, what does she think is most important in the short term?
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is some parliamentary gamesmanship going on. There are procedures that can be used to carry out or slow down our processes, but I implore my colleagues to realize that, on some issues, there is no room for partisanship. I am telling all members of the House that when it comes to issues like safety, crime or even medical assistance in dying, we must set partisanship aside and put people at the centre of our decisions.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed to hear, this evening, that Bill C‑9 passed thanks to a deal between the government and the Bloc Québécois. In my view, that is not fair. That is not really how we should be making laws.
I want to know whether my colleague thinks that this is really how she wants laws to be created here, that is, with deals, agreements and bartering, instead of being transparent with Canadians.
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I was just talking about partisanship.
Partisanship has its limits. Not agreeing with a decision or voting nay is one thing. In my opinion, however, using social media as an election platform is unacceptable. I do not even want to know how much money was raised.
Ultimately, what this shows is a lack of seriousness. We may think of ourselves as seasoned parliamentarians representing our constituents, but I am sorry, people are forgetting the essence of what it is to be human.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is true that committee members worked as non-partisanly as possible. In the course of our other proceedings, members of various parties asked questions of the victims and the witnesses who appeared. Incidentally, as part of other studies, we asked people whether Bill C‑16 should be passed.
Everyone we heard from asked us to vote in favour of Bill C‑16 and explained to us why it is such a huge step forward.
I would like to point out another step forward. During the previous Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to address the impact of the Jordan decision on court delays. Bill C‑16 addresses this issue too.
In this case as well, to avoid further delays in the court system, the government must seriously consider providing the provinces and Quebec with additional resources so they can administer this new legislative framework properly.
What are my colleague's thoughts on that?
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, again, this is about implementing and enforcing laws—
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I think I am bothering some people in the House, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about my colleague across the way. He is coming back and bothering us. It is 10:30 p.m. We are tired.
Seriously, we are talking about respect and dignity for women, and that is what we are doing tonight. I think some of my colleagues need some interpretation, because they are not understanding what I am saying at all.
In short, the provinces and Quebec should be getting all the resources they need to implement these measures to ensure the respect, dignity and safety of women.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House of Commons this evening.
It is interesting, because I was actually looking forward to asking my friend, the member for Oxford, a question.
