“I support this bill because it protects women from controlling abuse and femicide, and brings back some minimum sentences. I want to know what the member thinks about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-16 as very much an initiative that recognizes, as the member also recognized, the issues of femicide and coercive actions. This is something that has been, in my opinion, long overdue. I think Canada is demonstrating strong leadership on that front. It would also reinstate a number of mandatory minimums with a safety clause put in so it would be charter-compliant. These would be substantial changes to protect and continue to support women of all ages and backgrounds in Canada. I am wondering if the member could share her thoughts on the overall principle of the legislation we are debating today.”

“I want the House to pass this bill to protect victims. It makes killing a woman in an abusive relationship first-degree murder. It makes controlling a partner a crime. It also protects kids from online abuse, updates laws on fake sexual images, and stops court cases from being thrown out just because they take too long.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, an essential and comprehensive piece of legislation situated on a broader strategy to keep communities safe. The last time the bill was in the House, our hon. colleagues voted to send it to committee so it could be studied, tested and improved. I am pleased to report that this is precisely what has happened. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has done serious and careful work. Members on all sides heard from witnesses, asked hard questions, proposed amendments and engaged with the substance of the bill in a way that Canadians expect their Parliament to. The legislation has returned to the chamber today and is stronger for that work. I want to begin by thanking every member of the committee on every side of the aisle for the seriousness they brought to it. Over several months, the committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received over 60 briefs from survivors of violence, advocates working to end gender-based violence, law enforcement, legal experts, child protection organizations and the provincial and territorial partners that administer justice every day. What was striking was not the disagreement but the breadth of the consensus that something must be done and that the bill would do a great deal of it. While the bill may have changed in the process, the seriousness of the issue has not. In Canada, a woman is killed every 48 hours. There have been femicides in every part of this country, and behind each one is a family that grieves. I have met many of these families and heard from them first-hand as to the impact it has left on their lives. These are not statistics. They are people who shared our hallways at school, who sat beside us at work, and who were loved. The protecting victims act would respond to that reality by moving forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge in cases of femicide. It would ensure a first-degree murder charge where murder is committed in an intimate partner setting; where it takes place in the context of a sexual offence; where it is motivated by hatred, including hatred of a person because she is a woman; and where it is preceded by a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. As the Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes put it, the automatic requalification of these homicides as first-degree murder would put an end to the inconsistencies in the current law and finally recognize these killings for what they are: femicides that exist within a continuum of domination. That is the language of people who have studied this violence for decades, and we should listen to them. We know through extensive engagement with experts and survivors that the pattern of using violence and intimidation to control every aspect of a person’s life is one of the strongest predictors that a relationship may turn deadly. By naming this conduct and criminalizing it in its own right, we would give the justice system the ability to intervene before a relationship becomes violent and before violence becomes fatal. This provision would have the power to save lives. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the members of the status of women committee who have urged action on this for years. The world does not stand still, and neither can our laws. The protecting victims act would modernize a range of offences to keep pace with the way harm is now inflicted. We would be modernizing the events of criminal harassment to recognize that a person can now be stalked through technology, including the tracking of someone’s location through their phone. We are also confronting the rapid spread of artificial intelligence used to create deepfakes. There is a gap in our law today, and the bill would narrow it by expanding the definition of an intimate image to include images created through artificial intelligence. We would also be criminalizing the threats of distributing sexual explicit images, a tactic regularly used to humiliate and control victims. That same principle of confronting threats before they become tragedies runs through the child protection measure in the bill. The protecting victims act would expand the definition of a list of offences that threaten our children and would increase maximum penalties for a range of those offences. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has been unequivocal about the stakes. It has told us that online sexual violence against Canadian children, including online luring, has reached unprecedented levels, and that confronting it is not optional. I would ask every member of the House to sit with the word “unprecedented”. We would be legislating not against a hypothetical but against an epidemic of the most reprehensible acts, which is unfolding on devices in the hands of children right now. I now want to turn to two of the more technical but no less consequential parts of the protecting victims act: mandatory minimum penalties, and delays in our justice system. These are the areas where the committee’s scrutiny was most searching, and the bill is better for it. With respect to mandatory minimums, a series of Supreme Court decisions, including the Senneville decision, left real gaps in our law concerning child sexual exploitation and abuse material, among other serious crimes, but the courts also offered guidance on how these gaps could be remedied. The bill would establish a carefully bounded safety valve, allowing a court, in the rare case where a minimum would be grossly disproportionate, to impose a different penalty that still results in incarceration. It would not simply restore the minimums that were struck down. It would shore up those on our books today that are constitutionally vulnerable. It is a measure that has received support from several parties in the House. With respect to delays, nearly 10,000 cases in this country have been thrown out for the sole reason that they took too long, thrown out not because an accused was acquitted but because the clock ran out. There is no version of that outcome that feels like justice to a victim who must live in the same community as the person who harmed them. The bill would require the courts to consider remedies other than a stay when the Jordan timelines are at risk, give clearer guidance on which complex cases warrant more time, and streamline the introduction of evidence at trial. Our law enforcement partners feel this too. The Canadian Police Association described how demoralizing it is for officers to build a complex case over months or years, only to watch it collapse on a timeline divorced from the realities of modern policing. They have called the bill a meaningful step toward restoring confidence in our justice system. Finally, the protecting victims act would do more to recognize the rights of victims throughout the criminal process. Too often, people who, through no fault of their own, are drawn into a long and difficult proceeding feel lost within it. The bill would build on the Victims Bill of Rights to ensure that victims have the information they are entitled to. Building the voices of victims into this process is essential if we want them to have faith in it. I would ask the House to hold in mind the words of Kelly Favro of Beyond the Verdict, a survivor advocate who said something during this process that I have not been able to set down. She said that survivors do not have the luxury of waiting until the theatrics in the chamber come to an end. She is right. While we debate, the violence does not pause. A woman is still killed every 48 hours. A child is still being targeted online tonight. The cost of delay in this file is not measured in sitting days. It is measured in lives. The legislation has earned the support of survivors, advocates, child protection organizations, police associations and provinces. It has been studied, it has been tested, and it has been strengthened. My ask of the House at report stage is simple: Let us not be the reason it waits any longer. Let us adopt the bill at report stage and send it to third reading so we can give Canadians the protections they have asked us for and that they deserve.”

“We need to pass this bill quickly to protect people and save lives. We should not delay it any longer.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important to talk to Crown counsel, advocates and members of the bar. However, this government has a mandate to protect Canadians, and we are trying to pursue that mandate as quickly as possible. There are other areas where we are investing, but it is crucial that we update our laws quickly and not stall anymore. Lives are on the line. We heard it from the testimony that witnesses delivered before committee. In my personal opinion, we should not be waiting anymore.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

“This bill does not go against any rules set by the Supreme Court.”

“Mr. Speaker, this bill would not override any existing principles that are already mandated by the Supreme Court.”

“I support this bill because it protects women from violence and brings back mandatory minimum sentences. I want the secretary of state to explain why the government is taking this broad approach to fighting crime.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can tell my friend and colleague that I have always put the residents of Winnipeg North first regarding the issue of crime. The Prime Minister, in the last election, talked about how important it is that we have a higher sense of security, and this particular secretary of state, who has been dealing with crime, has brought forward and commented on a series of legislative changes that would make our communities safer in many ways. What I like about Bill C‑16 is that it would do such things as create strong national leadership on issues such as femicide. Bill C‑16 would reinstate a number of mandatory minimum penalties. The secretary of state has also been a very strong advocate through putting into place bills to deal with bail reform and other legislative needs. I would just like to get her thoughts on why it has been so important for the government to deal with the crime file in a very holistic fashion.”

“Our government has introduced about nine bills to fight crime and update the criminal code to help victims and police. We are doing our part, but the provinces must also do theirs. They need to provide enough resources so that charges are prosecuted and cases are not thrown out.”

“Mr. Speaker, since being elected last year in this new government, we have had a very ambitious agenda on that front. We have put forward approximately nine pieces of legislation that deal with different aspects of crime. That is the most ambitious that any government has been in this Parliament. We are changing and updating the Criminal Code so that it keeps up with the issues that we are seeing in our communities, the issues that police are confronted with and the issues that victims are speaking out about. We are making sure that we are doing our part at the federal level. However, this issue is complex because it deals with different levels of government. As I stated in my speech as well, it is crucial to have provincial and territorial partners at the table and to make sure that they, too, are doing their part. I know that this issue is important to all of them because the premiers have raised it, so it will also be very, very important to make sure that cases are not dismissed, that Crown counsel pursues charges that are laid and that the necessary resources are provided at the provincial level in order for us to really see the results that Canadians expect.”

“The Conservatives are wrong to say there will be no penalties under this bill. The bill keeps mandatory minimum sentences. It fixes problems raised by the courts so our sentencing rules follow the Constitution.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for me to correct the record. The member’s speech was extremely sensational. I know the Conservatives are trying to get a rise out of people and tell them that somehow there are going to be no penalties for anyone in any case. There are minimum penalties that are in our Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-16 also still maintains a minimum penalty. That is what, technically, the bill would do. In the Senneville decision, there were some questions left, and we addressed those gaps and questions through the bill. That decision did not hold that all minimum sentences are unconstitutional, but it gave some examples of where they may be in violation of section 12. It was really important for us to make sure we address that so we do not risk other minimum—”

“This bill makes controlling a partner a crime. It also makes killing a woman, known as femicide, first-degree murder. I want the member to explain why she supports this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, within the legislation there is something we should all be taking a great sense of pride in, which is the fact that we would incorporate coercive behaviour into a new offence. That is relatively unique in terms of G20 countries. The bill would also raise femicide to first‑degree murder. I think there are a lot of positive things within the legislation. I am wondering if the member could expand on why she believes that the principles of the legislation are positive and worth moving forward on.”

“I support this bill. It protects victims of violence and children from online abuse, makes controlling partners a crime, gives more rights to victims, and speeds up court cases.”

“Mr. Speaker, as always, it is great to see you in the chair. I am pleased today to rise in support of Bill C-16 the protecting victims act. At its core, this legislation reflects something very fundamental: that our justice system must do much more to protect those who are the most vulnerable, especially children and survivors of violence; and that it must adapt to reflect the realities that they face today. Before I speak to the details of the bill, I do want to begin by acknowledging the strength and the courage of survivors. The member for Niagara South, last week or the week before, hosted a meeting that many of us were invited to and we listened to half a dozen women who were victims. They were there to speak of their position as being victims of sexual violence and so on, but also of their concerns that the perpetrators were not getting strong enough sentences. The victims have a life sentence because they will carry that abuse for their entire life, whereas the abusers seem to get very minimal sentences of 18 months or two years, which seem so very minimal. I very much agree with those individuals who were speaking. They were still very distraught about what had happened to them many years before and frustrated by the lack of penalties for the abusers. Whether the issue for those who came forward to tell stories is intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation or abuse of children, they want change and that is what Bill C-16 would bring. Their experiences were deeply moving and their points were well received. They are a powerful reminder that our justice system must continue to evolve, not in theory but in practice, so that it truly meets the needs of those it is meant to protect. Bill C-16 represents one of the most significant updates to our criminal justice system in generations. It would do so through four clear objectives: tackling gender-based violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims’ rights and addressing court delays. Each of these pillars speaks directly to issues that the survivors I heard from two weeks ago, advocates and experts have been raising for years. First, with respect to gender-based violence, this bill would recognize something that has too often been overlooked: that violence does not begin with physical harm. It often begins, as my other colleagues have mentioned, with patterns of control, including coercion, intimidation and manipulation, that escalate over time. By introducing a new offence for coercive and controlling conduct, this legislation would allow earlier intervention before violence becomes lethal. This is critical. It reflects again what survivors and frontline organizations have told us, which is that warning signs are often present but we have not always had the legal tools to respond to them. The bill would also ensure that murders committed in contexts such as coercive control, sexual violence or exploitation are recognized with the seriousness that they warrant. These are not isolated acts. They are part of a continuum of violence. This legislation would begin to reflect that reality in law. Second, with respect to protecting children, the need for action is urgent. We know that the nature of exploitation has changed. Predators are increasingly using digital platforms to groom, manipulate and extort children. Bill C-16 responds directly to those threats. It would strengthen offences related to child luring and sextortion; criminalize emerging forms of abuse, including the use of threats and digital content; and reinforce accountability through stronger penalties. It would also ensure that law enforcement and the justice system would be equipped to respond to the new technologies, including the use of AI-generated sexual deepfakes, which can be used to exploit and harm victims. For children and families navigating these deeply traumatic experiences, these measures are not abstract. They are essential protections. Third, this legislation would strengthen victims’ rights. We know that, for many victims, the justice system can be overwhelming. Victims often struggle to access information, to understand processes and to have their voices heard. Bill C-16 would build on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by improving access to information, expanding participation and ensuring that victims are treated with dignity and respect. It would also expand access to supports such as testimonial aids, helping reduce the risk of retraumatization when individuals come forward. These are practical changes, but they are also deeply meaningful. They would help ensure that victims are not simply observers in the justice process, but participants whose experiences matter. Fourth, and critically, the bill addresses court delays. Delays are not just procedural issues. They have real consequences. We have seen serious cases, including those involving sexual violence, collapse entirely because of delays. For victims, this can be devastating. It can mean that after coming forward, after reliving their trauma, there is no resolution and no accountability. Bill C-16 introduces measures to reduce these outcomes, requiring courts to consider alternatives before stays of proceedings, streamlining procedures and clarifying just how these delays are assessed. These changes in Bill C-16 are about ensuring that cases are heard and that justice is not lost to process. What is important about this legislation, as well, is not just any single measure, but its collective impact. The bill recognizes that violence today is complex and evolving. It reflects the rise of digital exploitation affecting our children, the realities of coercive control, the vulnerabilities of children online and the ongoing challenges victims face within the system. It also responds to what we have heard from commissions, experts and communities across the country that earlier intervention, stronger protections and a more responsive justice system are needed. At the same time, it is important to ground this work in principle. We must ensure that victims are treated with care, dignity and compassion. We must ensure that those who come forward are supported, informed and respected throughout the process. We must continue building a system where survivors can have confidence not only that they will be heard, but that the system will respond in an appropriate manner. No single piece of legislation will resolve all the challenges. We know there are gaps that will remain. We also know that continued investment in prevention, in services and in supports will always be essential, but legislation like Bill C-16 is a critical part of that work. It provides the tools. It sets the standards and it signals clearly that protecting victims, especially children, is not optional. It is a fundamental responsibility of us all. I am proud to be part of a government that is taking meaningful steps, both in law and in practice. I appreciate the fact that the opposition is supporting this bill and has helped move it along. In closing, this bill is more than legal reform. It is about ensuring that survivors are heard, victims are protected, and those women who I met from Niagara South two weeks ago can look at Bill C-16 and know that we were thinking of them when we put this forward. It is about ensuring that those who are the most vulnerable are not overlooked, but supported with care, dignity and action. For all of these reasons, I am proud to support Bill C-16 and appreciate the support of all of the opposition.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Strengthening victims' rights and addressing court delays.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since June 3.

  Every time it was said →

“When we write laws, we must make sure they follow the Charter of Rights. If we let our emotions guide us instead, courts will strike the laws down.”

“Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is very serious about the concerns he has, as well as the rest of us, but when members are on the government side of the House and crafting legislation, we have to make sure that it is going to withstand charter challenges. We have seen too many times that we have reacted with our hearts, not necessarily with our heads, and brought in things that ended up being challenged, with court cases thrown out completely because the legislation we introduced reflected our emotions, not necessarily our responsibility, which is to make sure that the laws of the land are charter-proof.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Clarity 43 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will protect victims, help more people report crimes, and keep children safe from predators.”

“Mr. Speaker, different people have different opinions. We are very confident that Bill C-16 would accomplish exactly what we want it to do: protect victims, encourage more people to come forward, and look after our children and protect them from the many predators who unfortunately continue to be out there.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want my colleague to share how our laws for women have changed during her time in office.”

“Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague has many years of service in the House. Perhaps she would reflect on the changes for women that she has seen in our legislation over that time.”

“Changes to protect women's rights have been too slow, but we have made progress over the last decade. Our government will keep passing laws to better protect women and children.”

“Mr. Speaker, a ton of changes have happened, but they have all been too slow. It seems that it takes a long time to start to really understand some of the difficulties different people, women in particular, are facing. I am very proud of what has happened in the last 10 or 12 years as, really, women’s rights have been getting the attention they need as we all move forward collectively to ensure that women’s rights are protected. We will make sure that women such as those I met a couple of weeks ago know that their government is concerned about them and will continue to move forward legislation that will better protect them and better protect our children.”

“I used to support mandatory minimum prison sentences. But there is no point in passing laws that the courts will just throw out for violating the Charter of Rights. We must be responsible and write laws that follow the Charter.”

“Mr. Speaker, I remember that when I first heard about mandatory minimums, under former prime minister Harper, I thought they were a great idea. However, what is the use of bringing forward laws that are just going to get thrown out because there is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the government has to respect? We have to use more than our heart on our sleeve when we are crafting legislation. When someone is on this side of the House, they have to take that responsibility much more seriously.”

“Our government wants to bring back mandatory minimum sentences in a way that respects the Charter so the courts will not strike them down. The Conservatives would rather override the Charter instead. How many times will they use that override to pass their laws?”

“Mr. Speaker, there are no floodgates here, but there is a lot of contrast between the Conservatives and the government on the issue. There are laws in place that have been ruled as unconstitutional, in violation of the charter, so a lot of the minimum penalties have been thrown out. The current government and the Prime Minister would reinstate minimum sentences. Yes, there is the exceptional clause so the course could be stayed, we would be allowed to continue and things would not be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Conservative approach is the notwithstanding clause. How many times is the member going to have to bring in the notwithstanding clause to deal with the legislation? Is it twelve times or 20 times? What is the limit?”

“When the Conservatives made mandatory minimum sentences that broke the rules of the Supreme Court, it led to many court challenges. Because of that, people were not convicted.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have seen in the past that when the Conservatives have gone against mandatory minimums in cases that the Supreme Court has held are unconstitutional, there have been floods of litigation after. As a result, people did not get convictions, and so it is really important—”