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)

5 statements

Leah Gazan, Winnipeg Centre

NDP
“I want to change this bill. It punishes people after violence happens, but it does not stop the violence before it starts. The government needs to spend money on prevention programs, basic income, and stopping online fake sexual images.”
Official Hansard

moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C‑16, in Clause 28, be amended by deleting lines 9 and 10 on page 18. Motion No. 2 That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 63. Motion No. 3 That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 87. She said: I am happy to rise today on Bill C-16, as this is a very far-reaching bill. My colleague and I have studied this bill very carefully and sought to amend it significantly while it was reviewed by the justice and human rights committee. The amendments were submitted by women’s legal organizations, including NAWL and LEAF, and Senator Kim Pate. I thank them for their participation in trying to strengthen the bill. As noted in the title, the government claims that the bill is about protecting women and children, but this is very difficult because, I have to say, although the bill is a response to violence, it fails to actually address what women’s organizations and gender-diverse organizations have been wanting: more money and more support in trying to prevent violence before it occurs. It was those very amendments that were submitted to try to improve the bill, based on the advice of organizations representing women and gender-diverse people, nearly all of which the Liberals and the Conservatives together voted down. It is unfortunate. It is also important to note, and make people aware of, the failing record of the Liberal government when it comes to upholding the safety and well-being of women, children and gender-diverse people. Instead of prioritizing this crisis facing women and children across the country, the government has been fast-tracking legislation that undermines our safety. In fact, just yesterday, the CCPA published a report on behalf of the National Family and Survivors Circle demonstrating that the Liberals’ failure to adequately fund programs surrounding the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, and their failure to advance any progress toward implementing the 231 calls for justice, is actually placing indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks in more difficult and violent situations. This is very personal to me because the very riding of Winnipeg Centre has been noted as “ground zero” for the ongoing genocide of indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks. This is the very government that right now is stalling Bill S‑2 at committee, stalling on taking sexism out of the Indian Act, sexism that has been perpetrated against indigenous women, something that was noted by the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal at the UN as one of the resulting impacts of what it called the “ongoing genocide [of] Indigenous Peoples” in Canada. We know that since the pandemic, rates of gender-based violence have actually increased, not decreased, and the government has allowed, in the middle of an ongoing crisis of violence, prevention programs to expire by doing things like cutting funding to the Department of Women and Gender Equality. Meanwhile, this year’s child poverty report by Campaign 2000 states that child poverty has increased for the third consecutive year and has more than doubled since 2020, reaching 10.7%, or 802,000 children. At this rate, the report says, it will take almost 400 years to eliminate child poverty in Canada. It is one the reasons that since being elected, I have tried to fight for a guaranteed livable basic income to be implemented. We know that income guarantees in this country are not livable, and we know that women’s organizations across the country have indicated that a guaranteed livable basic income is one of the most foundational programs that the government could put in place to assist with the elevating crisis of violence against indigenous women and girls, all women, in this country. Instead of finding programs or investing in prevention programs, the Liberals have joined the Conservatives in advancing carceral approaches to public safety that fail to address the roots of the crisis of violence against women and children in this country. Investing in prevention before the crime happens, before the femicide happens, is something that would create meaningful change so that we would never have to hear about the unfortunate circumstance of violence that occurs because of a lack of investment in violence prevention programs. It is really sad that the government only wants to deal with the crisis after the fact, after the murder or the violence has taken place. We need to invest in prevention, and that is something that has been echoed strongly by women’s organizations and gender-diverse organizations across the country. Investing at the latter end without dealing with prevention means we will not see, unfortunately, a significant decrease in violence. The NDP has always taken seriously the safety and well-being of women, gender-diverse people and children. We welcome a formal acknowledgement of femicide in the Canadian Criminal Code. We are advancing solutions to get at the root of the problem we face rather than simply dealing with it after it is too late. Take, for example, what I worked on with families and advocates with the implementation of the red dress alert system, something the government fails to fund, to ensure that should somebody go missing, they must be found. Where is the funding? Where is the support for that initiative? One of the critical problems that women’s organizations brought up, which is under the purview of the Minister of AI, is the problem of deepfakes being used and benefiting media giants like Elon Musk through AI platforms like Grok. These sexualized deepfakes are appalling and violate the safety, well-being and fundamental rights of those impacted. That is why the NDP listened to researchers and legal experts from women’s organizations who strongly suggested that the language surrounding deepfakes in Bill C-16 be strengthened, since there are currently loopholes that let big tech companies off the hook and allow platforms like Grok that promote sexualized deepfakes to continue doing so. How did the Liberal government members vote on this amendment? They sided with big tech companies, failing to introduce regulations that would actually prevent sexualized deepfakes. I would like to note that in March, I requested information in an Order Paper question concerning meetings the Minister of AI has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI. Can members guess how many meetings he has taken? He has taken zero meetings with women and gender-diverse people. We welcome the inclusion of femicide into—

Leah Gazan, Winnipeg Centre

NDP
“This bill only deals with violence after it happens instead of stopping it first. The government needs to fund programs that keep women and gender-diverse people safe before they are hurt.”
  • 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, the legislation would not deal with the root cause. It would deal with the violence after it occurs. In my riding, there is a crisis of gender-based violence against women and gender-diverse folks. In the midst of it, there has been a massive cutback in funding to keep people safe before the murder or violence occurs. The government, if it is serious about community safety and about dealing with the crisis of gender-based violence, will listen to the experts and will stop divesting from programs and funding to keep us safe.

Leah Gazan, Winnipeg Centre

NDP
“The inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women asked the government to give everyone a guaranteed basic income. The Liberals promised to act on these calls, but they have only responded to three of them. If the government wants to stop violence against women, it should keep that promise and spend money on services that keep people safe.”
  • 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, call for justice 4.5 calls for the immediate implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income as one of the key calls for justice to deal with the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls. I want to remind the Liberals that they agreed to implement the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, but where are they? They are nowhere, and they have responded to only three. Why do they not work on that if they are worried about dealing with the crisis of femicide in the country, and invest in services and support that actually keep women and gender-diverse people safe?

Jenny Kwan, Vancouver East

NDP
“My colleague ran out of time to finish her speech. I want her to tell us more about the changes she thinks this bill needs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of very important points and amendments that should have been considered but were not, at the committee. I wonder, because she was running out of time to finish her comments, if she could further elaborate on some other issues that she thinks members of Parliament should hear.

Leah Gazan, Winnipeg Centre

NDP
“The government is failing to protect people from deepfakes and the harms of AI. Women's groups asked the minister for help, but he has not met with anyone harmed by this technology. Instead, the government supports big tech companies.”
  • 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 was talking about deepfakes. In spite of the fact that the minister responsible for AI has been asked by several womens organizations and by people impacted by deepfakes, the government has voted to support media giants such as Elon Musk in programs such as Grok. I would like to note that this is a problem under the purview of the minister of AI, who has failed completely to address the widespread concerns and fears of folks across Canada about the social media consequences of AI. In March of this year, I requested information on the Order Paper question concerning meetings the minister has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI, and I learned that he has taken absolutely zero meetings. Instead, the Liberals have been more concerned with—

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