Government Orders

Bill C-16, Protecting Victims Act · Report stage · now law Where it stands

What the law does

The law amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence for coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It classifies intimate partner murders linked to controlling conduct or sexual violence as first-degree murder, and expands the offence of sharing intimate images without consent to cover realistic depictions. The law also gives victims automatic access to information about their cases, bars people suspected of domestic violence or stalking from holding firearms licences, and makes other changes across the justice system.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

12 statements

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“Women can get trapped in violence when they are poor or have nowhere to live, especially Indigenous women. I want to ask my colleague what she thinks about following all the recommendations from the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 40 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg Centre for raising this important issue in the House today regarding Bill C‑16. We sat together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know that she cares deeply about this issue. I also want to thank her for pointing out that services have to form part of a continuum, and that the situation of women has to be addressed proactively, especially their financial situation, their vulnerability, and how these factors can keep them trapped in a cycle of violence. My question is as follows. We recently conducted studies on the rise of homelessness among women, especially indigenous women who have a hard time finding housing. The witnesses also talked to us about the importance of applying the 230 recommendations arising from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. What does my colleague think about that?

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“I want to know what the member thinks about the Quebec bar association's view on this bill. They support its goals to protect people from violence and update the law. But they warn that putting all these changes into one bill makes it too complex and hard to apply.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an important bill. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Barreau du Québec’s response to this bill. The Barreau du Québec agrees with the principles, but it has some reservations. It describes the objectives of protecting against gender-based violence, improving evidentiary procedures and modernizing criminal law as commendable. However, the Barreau du Québec believes that incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that could hinder their analysis, review and practical application. Could the member comment on that?

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“Our changes to this bill were rejected. That leaves a problem. The bill updates harassment laws using clear, factual rules, but it leaves peace bonds based on just personal feelings. That does not make sense, and I want my colleague to comment on it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague contributed to this discussion at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, but I would like to hear him elaborate further on this matter. The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to Bill C-16, but they were rejected. This leaves a certain inconsistency in the bill. On the one hand, the bill modernizes the offence of criminal harassment by introducing objective criteria based on the totality of the circumstances. On the other hand, the sureties to keep the peace under section 810 and subsection 810(3) of the Criminal Code are still based on a purely subjective criterium. This creates a real inconsistency. Could my colleague comment on that?

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“I support this bill, and the Bloc Québécois will vote for it. It makes controlling an intimate partner a crime, recognizes the murder of women, and helps speed up court cases. The federal government must give Quebec and the provinces enough money to run the courts, build women's shelters, and stop violence before it happens.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters in regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures. This bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is the result of extensive deliberation and numerous studies on violence against women, including studies conducted by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Something definitely needed to be done about the Criminal Code. Even the Government of Quebec was asking us to intervene in that respect. Quebec’s report on rebuilding trust addressed violence against women. Quebec forged ahead and became a pioneer. It implemented measures, such as specialized courts and electronic bracelets, but some measures fell under the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction. I have had a number of discussions with members from Quebec, people who contributed to that report and who asked us to take action. This is an important bill. Obviously, we support Bill C-16. As I mentioned, several provisions take in proposals that have long been defended by the Bloc Québécois. What is more, the bill makes important advances for victims of domestic and sexual violence and in terms of child protection. Today, I will talk about the progress made for victims, but I still want to point out some of the ways that Bill C-16 falls short. I will end by talking about some of the Bloc Québécois’s concerns. First, there is the issue of femicide, which is finally being acknowledged. In 2024, around 81 women were killed by an intimate partner in Canada. Now, there are even some municipalities that are describing this situation, these femicides, as an epidemic. They are saying that femicide is an epidemic. In Quebec, 25 femicides were recorded in 2024. Since the beginning of 2026, there have already been 10 suspected femicides reported in Quebec. These are chilling figures. The bill recognizes that some murders committed in the context of coercive control, sexual violence or hatred must be considered femicides. As we know, every femicide represents the collective failure of a system that was unable to protect a woman. Shelters and women’s groups have been calling for this recognition for years. It was also important to address the issue of coercive control. In fact, that was something that women’s shelters and the community had been calling for. The good thing about the bill, the thing that is a step forward, is that it addresses the issue of coercive control so that it is possible to intervene before it is too late. Coercive control often occurs long before physical abuse starts. Violence may not always be physical, but it always hurts. Some examples include isolation, monitoring, intimidation, threats and financial control. Violence rarely begins with a physical assault. The Bloc Québécois therefore welcomes the creation of a specific offence for coercive control. Prevention is better than seeing the impacts of a tragedy or having one more victim. There is also the issue of court delays. Putting an end to mistrials is a good thing, because justice delayed sometimes becomes justice denied. Here is the number of criminal trials that were stayed for unreasonable delay: in 2021, there were 13; in 2022, there were 18; in 2023, there were 96; and as of June 30, 2024, there had been 62. That is far too many. Behind those numbers are victims of sexual assault, intimate partner violence and other serious crimes. These were serious cases, but they were dismissed due to court delays. The Bloc Québécois supports measures designed to increase consideration of case complexity in order to prevent prosecutions from being thrown out solely for procedural reasons. The Bloc Québécois even introduced a bill on this subject in the previous Parliament. Clearly, we have long been committed to this cause, so we welcome this initiative. The Bloc Québécois had also called for a discussion on the issue of organized crime recruiting young people. Criminal gangs are now recruiting people directly on social media, and those being recruited are getting younger and younger. Young people are being used to carry out crimes because they are perceived as more vulnerable and are punished less severely. The Bloc Québécois has long been calling for the creation of a specific offence for the recruitment of minors. This measure is intended to target the real perpetrators, the adults who manipulate and exploit young people. I am thinking in particular of the tragic case of Mohamed-Yanis Seghouani, who was recruited by organized crime when he was just 14. With regard to sexual violence and protecting victims, victims of sexual assault must be able to seek justice without being revictimized. The bill tightens the rules around access to medical records and provides greater protection for victims, while maintaining the right to a full and fair defence. Pornographic deepfakes are being expressly addressed by legislation. The non-consensual distribution of intimate images is a growing phenomenon that demanded a clear legislative response. The bill is also a step forward for victims’ rights. It strengthens the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Victims are entitled to respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. That is important. They are also entitled to have their cases processed within a reasonable amount of time. However, these rights must be accompanied by sufficient resources for the justice system. Obviously, I am going to talk about the need for federal transfers to Quebec, because Quebec is responsible for administering the justice system. It is all well and good to introduce more laws, but Quebec and the provinces need to be given the resources to act. I am about to use a term that may not be exciting, but that suits our purpose here, because what we are really talking about is the fiscal imbalance. Second, this leads me to point out some of the flaws in the bill. Shelter representatives constantly remind us that femicide rarely occurs out of the blue. It is often preceded by a history of violence, harassment and coercive control. When a woman asks for help, the system must be able to intervene before it is too late. That is why I was talking about measures to allow Quebec’s system to handle this issue. We acknowledge that Bill C‑16 is a step in the right direction because it explicitly recognizes this reality. However, the government must also provide the means to take action. Regarding the lack of resources, the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women told us clearly that needs are outpacing resources. Many shelters are turning women away because they do not have enough spots. Some women have to stay in dangerous situations because no other immediate solution is available. As far as transitional housing is concerned, leaving an abusive partner is not simply a matter of finding a spot in a shelter. Women need a safe place to live while they rebuild their lives. Several witnesses emphasized the importance of second- and third-stage housing. Without affordable housing, some women are forced to return to their abuser. Everything gets delayed. In some cases, they stay longer in emergency shelters because they have nowhere else to go afterward. They stay there, delaying the arrival of another woman in urgent need of this resource. This delays every step of the process and delays the arrival of women who need protection. We are also seeing this in the work of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which is currently conducting a study on the issue of housing availability and the lack of resources to help women who are experiencing intimate partner violence. I would also like to talk about children who are exposed to violence. Witnesses also noted that children are victims of intimate partner violence too. They are collateral victims. Even when they are not directly targeted, they live in a climate of fear and insecurity. Preventing violence also means protecting children. As for prevention, all the witnesses pointed out that violence cannot be solved by the justice system alone. That means that Bill C‑16 will not solve everything. Prevention remains essential. We need to invest in education, equal relationships, mental health services, and support for young people. We also need to use federal transfers to give resources to community organizations. That is important. When we did our study on anti-feminism and the rise of masculinism, those were some of the recommendations that emerged. We need to teach boys and girls what respectful, violence-free relationships look like. Concerning court delays, a number of organizations said that lengthy proceedings can discourage some victims. When a woman finds the courage to report her attacker, she should not be forced to wait years before justice is served. Court delays contribute to revictimization. Measures designed to avoid stays of proceedings are important to maintain trust in the justice system. Victims demand to be heard, believed and protected. They also demand that the justice system be more humane. The provisions enhancing victims’ rights in Bill C‑16 are an important step forward. Third, the Bloc Québécois has a few reservations I will go over briefly. We support Bill C‑16, but it still contains some inconsistencies. I mentioned them earlier: Amendments meant to provide better protection for stalking victims were rejected. We believe that victims need to be given more preventive tools before the violence escalates. Some of the changes to bail conditions may also be too broad and exceed the bill’s original objective. In conclusion, Bill C‑16 is a significant step forward. It acknowledges the reality of femicide, criminalizes coercive control, better protects victims of sexual assault, addresses youth recruitment by gangs, and attempts to limit the consequences of court delays. I would like to say one last thing: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill, but we call on the government to keep working so that victims are truly believed and placed at the heart of our justice system.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“My committee studied coercive control and pushed the government for years to act. I am glad the government is finally doing something, but it took too long.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the first point my colleague raised, namely the issue of coercive control. Following the release of the report on rebuilding trust, I met with MNAs in Quebec City who asked me to take action. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I proposed a study on coercive control. The study was conducted, we produced a report, and we tabled it. Together with my colleagues on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we had to pressure the government for months, even years. Finally, after our press conference last fall, the government took action. That is good, and we welcome the move, but the government could have acted sooner.

Claude DeBellefeuille, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon

Bloc Québécois
“I want my colleague to tell us about the changes the Bloc Québécois wanted to make to this bill. Why does she think the government rejected them?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Shefford, who really knows her stuff, as members can see. She always speaks so eloquently and focuses on the common good. She is well versed in this issue. I would like to learn more about the amendments the Bloc Québécois would have liked to see adopted to further improve the situation. Can she explain to me why, in her view, the government rejected these amendments?

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“My party tried to fix this bill with amendments. It creates inconsistent rules for criminal harassment and peace bonds, and we wanted to make them consistent.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and comments about my speech. I also want to commend her for fighting for the feminist cause. Regarding the Bloc Québécois’s amendments, as I mentioned earlier, there are some inconsistencies. For example, the offence of criminal harassment is supposedly being modernized by the introduction of objective criteria. However, when we talk about sureties to keep the peace—the infamous peace bonds under section 810 of the Criminal Code, which is another study that I worked on for the Bloc Québécois, together with my Conservative colleagues—it is clear that, in this case, the criteria are subjective. That creates inconsistencies. The Bloc Québécois wanted to see fewer of them. Our amendments sought to remove these inconsistencies from Bill C‑16.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“The government needs to do more to stop the spread of sexually explicit images of children, especially fake images made with computers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is another issue that the Bloc Québécois wants to tackle. Obviously, I am talking about this material, the distribution of this material depicting children, especially with the increase in deepfakes and the fact that images of children can be used. That is one of the things the Bloc Québécois is calling for. This violence against children should not exist. We could do better and we could do more.

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“Too many women are killed in Quebec and Canada every year. This bill helps, but it does not do enough. I want to know what my colleague thinks about it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely concerned about the number of femicides committed each year in Quebec and across Canada. There have already been 10 in Quebec this year. This bill will take a step toward reducing them, but I feel it is insufficient. What does my hon. colleague and friend think?

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“I support this bill, but it will not work without funding. The government must give Quebec the money it needs to enforce these new laws in its courts and to support local community groups.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my response will be brief. This is an important step. It is good to strengthen the Criminal Code, but if the government does not give Quebec the financial resources to address these new offences within its legal system, if the government does not provide community organizations with the necessary resources, and if the government does not look at the bigger picture, as part of a continuum of services, it simply will not succeed.

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“We support this bill to protect victims. But Quebec lawyers warn that putting all these rules into one law makes it too complicated to use. What does the member think about that?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-16, as does the Barreau du Québec. However, in a statement, it indicated that while it feels the bill’s objectives are laudable, it believes that “incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that will hinder the analysis, review and practical application of these provisions”. What are my hon. colleague’s thoughts on that?

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“I want to know if my colleague agrees with me about this bill. I think the Liberals made the bail rules too broad for crimes between partners by taking out the requirement for violence.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that the Liberals improperly broadened the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards that are applicable to intimate partner offences? This raises serious concerns in our view. The amendments I am referring to simply remove the violence criterion from the procedural safeguards for crimes committed between intimate partners, without replacing it with a targeted alternative criterion. What does my colleague think?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 128

  1. Oral Questions The Economy 11 statements
  2. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 15 statements
  4. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Persons with Disabilities 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions International Trade 14 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  8. Oral Questions Infrastructure 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Health 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  14. Government Orders Government Orders 50 statements
  15. Private Members' Business Old Age Security Act 12 statements
  16. Adjournment Proceedings Steel and Aluminum Industry 4 statements
  17. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  18. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements