TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Government Orders

2026-06-04 Sitting 129 Showing 1–20 of 53

A bill with various measures aimed at better protecting victims of crime and violence, especially intimate partner and sexual violence. It would make coercive control of intimate partners a crime, create a specific offence of femicide (the killing of women and girls), allow courts to consider whether a homicide is femicide or a hate crime when sentencing, expand the criminal prohibition on distributing intimate images without consent, criminalize distributing depictions of bestiality, enable shorter sentences than the mandatory minimums in cases where the mandatory minimum would be 'cruel and unusual punishment', and more. In debate, Liberal MPs expressed the bill's urgency and highlighted its historic nature. Conservatives were skeptical, worried the bill may be designed to fail. One Conservative MP argued mandatory minimums do prevent crime by incapacitating criminals. Bloc MPs were supportive but raised concerns about abusive legal defense tactics causing trial delays. Many MPs shared personal anecdotes of gender-based violence in their communities.

Official Hansard ↗

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Liberal 4:15 p.m.

“I want this crime bill to pass with fewer mandatory minimums. I'm really worried Conservatives will vote against it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, with every speech I hear, I am starting to feel more and more worried that the Conservatives may vote against one of the most ambitious changes in criminal reform when it comes to protecting victims in this country. This bill would create incredible changes. It would account for new technology. It would implement 12 mandatory minimum penalties. The Conservatives are fixated on making sure that it is all or nothing, so that victims do not get heard in court, so that perpetrators get away with their crime. We do not want them to get away. What we want is for them to have to serve mandatory minimum penalties. This is why the lesson from the Senneville case is not that Parliament should abandon this but that Parliament—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Raquel Dancho

Conservative 4:15 p.m.

“Liberals pretend to care about women. My bill would have let a woman relax with protection for two years. Liberals cut that in half. Don't lecture me about protecting women. Liberals don't really care.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear any of that coming from Liberal members. What we are fixated on is rights for women against their abusers. For example, there was my bill from a few years ago that was from the Senate, from Senator Boisvenu. In that bill, there was the opportunity for a peace bond for two years. A peace bond is something that a woman who has been abused can get as protection against her abuser. It takes a lot of courage and a lot of time to go before the courts, through the process, to get it; in essence, it is a type of restraining order. In that bill, a woman would have had two years when she could relax for a moment with that protection. Liberal members diluted that to one year. I will take no lectures, no ivory tower from these Liberal members about protecting women and what is best for them.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Martin Champoux

Bloc Québécois 4:15 p.m.

“I like your speech. This bill is pretty good. It helps victims of deepfakes. Opposition parties tried to make it better. Their ideas were good. The committee said no. More punishment would be good. This bill is still better than nothing. Can't we just pass this now and improve it later? That seems like a good plan.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech by my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul. Her passion for this issue was evident in her remarks. I know she has worked tirelessly and with great dedication on these issues over the years. I see in Bill C‑16 many improvements in terms of compassion and fairness for victims. There are also many improvements regarding the recognition of deepfakes. I therefore see very positive developments. My colleague is right to say that the collaboration that took place in committee left something to be desired. The committee rejected amendments and refused to discuss amendments from the opposition parties that were entirely constructive. Even if we can agree that we could be stricter on certain points—that we could place greater emphasis on minimum sentences, for example—does my colleague not think that there is still some improvement in Bill C‑16, that it is better than nothing, and that we can work on the rest later? Would that not be something worth considering?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Raquel Dancho

Conservative 4:15 p.m.

“There are good parts in this bill. We helped make it. But it still lets judges go easy on violent criminals. That's bad. I don't like that. We tried to fix it. The Liberals said no. They won't work with us. They just play politics.”

Official Hansard

I thank my colleague for the question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. Again, I outlined in my speech a number of things we like in this bill, a number of things we have put forward and advocated for. That is why it is so frustrating that there is a provision in here that allows the opportunity for more judicial activism for lesser sentencing. It is very difficult for us because, again, there is a lot of our work represented in there, but how can we in good conscience support something that is going to provide more opportunity for judicial discretion to lower sentencing for violent repeat offenders? It is very difficult. I have outlined our position on this. I appreciate the member's work, as well, on this. Again, what is most frustrating, I think, is that we gave them every opportunity to get on board for this. We brought forward concrete, clear amendments to ensure that the most egregious offences, for example, aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint, are removed from that safety valve, and the Liberals voted them down. They are not interested in working on this together. They want to play politics.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Roman Baber

Conservative 4:20 p.m.

“I want mandatory minimum sentences for child porn. The Supreme Court struck them down. I want the notwithstanding clause to force our way and overrule the court. I want my bill. This soft-on-crime bill is bad. You should have taken my bill instead.”

Raquel Dancho

Conservative 4:20 p.m.

“I don't care what the Supreme Court said. I want mandatory minimum sentences for child porn no matter what. The notwithstanding clause is there to overrule the court and that's what we should have used. We had our chance to force our way and didn't take it.”

Hon. Adam van Koeverden

Liberal 4:20 p.m.

“I want to pass this bill to add more flexibility so judges can avoid staying criminal cases. More government spending on sports will reduce crime.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading to speak in support of Bill C-16 and the Government of Canada's continued response to criminal justice system delays. Before I start, I would like to express gratitude to all members of the committee who have worked hard and diligently on this legislation. To start, I would like to highlight three measures proposed in Bill C-16 to address delays. First, Bill C-16 would introduce greater flexibility to courts in ordering alternative remedies to address unreasonable delays. Currently, once a court determines that there has been unreasonable delay, in breach of section 11(b) of the charter, a stay of proceedings is the only available remedy recognized by the common law. While Bill C-16 would not preclude ordering a stay of proceedings, it would, however, direct the courts to consider it a remedy of last resort after considering whether other remedies are appropriate and just under the circumstances. Courts would need to take into account specific factors like the impact a stay of proceedings is likely to have on the victim and the interests that society has in a final decision. Requiring that a stay of proceedings be considered as a remedy of last resort would also ensure greater consistency with how charter remedies are considered in other contexts. Alternative remedies would not be codified. Instead, it would be open to the courts to determine what would be most appropriate, depending on the circumstances of the case. Each remedy could be tailored to rectify the harm suffered by the accused while preserving the public interest in having criminal cases decided on their merits. For example, a court could make an order to expedite proceedings or the trial itself, sever charges for cases involving multiple co-accused or change the venue of the trial. Courts could also consider making an order to change the mode of trial, for example, by ordering a jury trial to proceed by judge alone where applicable and with the consent of the accused. Second, Bill C-16 would provide courts with additional guidance on assessing case complexity. The Jordan framework recognizes that some cases are inherently more complex and may justifiably take longer to complete, for example, cases with significant disclosure or particularly complex types of evidence. Bill C-16 would preserve the existing approach, determining whether a case is complex under the Jordan framework, but would require courts to consider specific additional factors when the case involves applications or motions. This proposal responds directly to the reality that in recent years, increased reliance on applications and motions has become a significant source of delay in some jurisdictions, for example, in cases involving sexual offences and organized crime. These proceedings can be important in ensuring the accused's right to a fair trial, but they also require time and resources that are often beyond the control of the judge. Importantly, all existing common law factors that the courts currently consider in determining whether a case is complex would continue to apply. The intent is not to replace those factors but rather to ensure that courts are recognizing the procedural complexities of modern criminal litigation and accounting for the cascading effect that applications and motions can have on delays. While Bill C-16 seeks to address delays in the justice system to protect victims and would ensure that justice is being served for the most egregious crimes and offences, our new government is also addressing crime by investing in upstream solutions and preventative measures. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, investing in sport results in lower crime. This may seem implausible or unconvincing to some, but I want to emphasize what a significant and serious upstream investment sport represents in an effort to create safer communities while promoting positive social development and building resilience, particularly among at-risk youth. Sport provides a safe environment for families and youth to learn life skills, develop social capital and engage in activities that reduce the risk of crime and violence. By fostering a sense of community and providing opportunities for youth to participate in sports, societies can create safer and more stable environments. Our government's recent generational investment of $755 million in sport will support sport development for youth and also offer families more opportunities to learn and grow their skills and to meet new friends and mentors. According to experts, sociologists, psychologists, crime prevention researchers and law enforcement across Canada, sport will also help build a stronger, safer Canada for all. To conclude, Bill C-16 takes a careful and balanced approach to addressing criminal justice system delays. It responds to the real and lasting harm caused by stays of proceedings, particularly for victims. It would also provide courts with carefully tailored tools to ensure that justice is not only swift but fair and meaningful. Bill C-16 reflects this government's commitment to a criminal justice system that protects constitutional rights while maintaining public confidence and delivering justice on the merits. I urge all members of the House to support this important legislation.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Martin Champoux

Bloc Québécois 4:25 p.m.

“I'm filling time by asking which day is the allotted day next week. Monday or Tuesday?”

Martin Champoux

Bloc Québécois 4:25 p.m.

“I'm just trying to be polite and smooth things over after my mistake.”

Roman Baber

Conservative 4:25 p.m.

“Does the bill let judges ignore mandatory minimum sentences more? Is that a good idea when crime is rising?”

Hon. Adam van Koeverden

Liberal 4:25 p.m.

“I don't want to lock up more criminals for longer. I want to spend money on other things I call upstream solutions. Then there will be less crime and victims will be protected.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's concerns. I am a strong believer that our job in this House is not to play judge and jury; our job is to create the framework legal system to protect people and to protect victims. That is what the bill seeks to do: protect victims, expedite the justice system, and ensure that justice is served and victims are protected. I also strongly believe that we need to invest more in upstream solutions, because simply suggesting that everything is in place for a safe society and we could not do anything to prevent crime is also not a responsible approach. We are taking a balanced approach, investing in upstream solutions while also ensuring that the legal system has everything it needs in order to ensure that justice is served.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Martin Champoux

Bloc Québécois 4:25 p.m.

“I'm pretending to be very upset that the government isn't debating this more. I don't like the government's ideas. I want them to consider my ideas instead.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there are many positive aspects to Bill C‑16, as was mentioned earlier. There are, however, certain shortcomings and some issues that deserved to be explored in greater depth. For example, a number of amendments were proposed. Earlier, we heard the Conservatives place great emphasis on an issue close to their hearts: mandatory minimum sentences. The Bloc Québécois also had proposals to make. I am a bit concerned about the government's approach these days. They are rushing things and cutting debates short. They are requesting time allocation, which are closure motions, strictly speaking. I wonder if the secretary of state could share his thoughts on this. Are there not important issues—such as this bill, which is extremely important to society as a whole—that warrant taking the time to show a little respect for the views of the opposition parties?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Adam van Koeverden

Liberal 4:25 p.m.

“I want to pass this bill quickly. I don't want to debate it more. I want to look like I'm solving problems.”

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Liberal 4:25 p.m.

“I like this bill. It helps victims. Do you like helping victims?”

Hon. Adam van Koeverden

Liberal 4:25 p.m.

“I'm filling time by talking about my colleague's work and the government's focus on crime legislation. Court delays are a provincial issue, but I want to look like I'm doing something by talking about them. I'm also trying to shift blame to Premier Doug Ford by bringing up a recent news story about prisoners being released.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, for her question and for all of her work on this legislation and many other pieces of legislation. It is worthwhile to mention that fully two-thirds of the legislation tabled by this government over the last year has been to address crime and to focus on fixing our justice system. I would just highlight that the court delays are largely a provincial jurisdiction. The court in Halton region is very close to my constituency office, so oftentimes we hear from constituents who are concerned about those delays. It is an aging court. Unfortunately, it is one that does not have the capacity to deal with the growing population in Halton region and throughout Peel. I would also just highlight that we have seen in the news lately that Premier Doug Ford is very concerned about how 156 criminals were released from prison without an explanation. It is very easy to blame one level of government or another, but we are working together to solve these problems.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Cathay Wagantall

Conservative 4:25 p.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. I want the bill but I don't want it. I wish the government would do its job so I don't have to.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters, is what I am going to be discussing tonight, including child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures that are part of the bill. It is a broad justice omnibus bill that combines victim protection and criminal law modernization measures, but it also has a fundamental restructuring of mandatory minimum sentences. Also, there are some good parts to this. Banning deepfakes of intimate partners will keep Canadians, especially women, safe from having non-consensual intimate images created and shared. I am thankful the government has adopted the proposal from the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill in her bill, Bill C‑216, to do exactly that. The bill also criminalizes coercive or controlling conduct within intimate relationships. This is something that I have been very concerned about. I believe the behaviours that are the precursors to serious injury and death of women in those relationships often happen when women are most vulnerable. The government has basically failed to mention that when women are especially vulnerable is when they are pregnant and expecting a child. Provisions from the same bill to bring in mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse materials have also been taken up, helping our kids feel safe from the most despicable crimes, and I hope it will keep them safer from those crimes. I applaud the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, whose calls have been heard to make the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder. Sadly, the Liberals opposed the member of Parliament for Edmonton Gateway's bill to introduce a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for all forms of extortion. However, at the very least, Bill C‑16 introduces an aggravating factor for sextortion. It is a step in the right direction, but it is not anywhere near enough. There are some good things in Bill C‑16, but of course, as we are hearing today, there are some very serious concerns with it specifically. Despite the positive additions, it continues with the Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda. It would empower judges to ignore literally every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code other than for murder and treason. The Liberals want to empower judges to ignore mandatory sentences for such things as aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearm offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm. These are some of the things that the government is prepared to declare are not violent crimes worthy of further mandatory sentences. By creating a general safety valve, Bill C‑16 introduces a sweeping sentencing change, allowing courts to impose sentences below mandatory minimum capabilities when applying the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. I have nowhere to put this. If mandatory is not mandatory, then we have an issue with our judicial system's being given the opportunity to play around with this. This provision would apply to nearly all mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code and other federal statutes, effectively converting mandatory minimums from binding sentence floors into discretionary benchmarks. While custodial sentences would still be required, Parliament's ability to set firm baseline consequences for serious violent crimes would be significantly weakened, encouraging lighter sentences for violent and repeat offenders, as well as the long-term erosion of mandatory minimum sentencing as a policy tool. This would result in more, not less, violent criminal activity on our streets. Victims, advocacy groups and the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime are in disbelief. In 2021, instead of fulfilling the responsibility to review the Victims Bill of Rights, as was outlined, the Liberals began a study through the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. According to the ombud for victims of crime, the committee eventually produced a December 2022 report titled, “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”. Critics, including the ombud, argued that the review was not as comprehensive as the legislation warranted. Although 13 recommendations were made, many of the most significant remain outstanding to this day. The federal ombud continues to argue that victims rights remain largely symbolic rights that are not enforced. Let us comment on the fact that this is what is happening to the victims, but look at what is happening with respect to the sentencing of those who perform violent crimes against those victims. In 2024, it was stated that many of the recommendations could significantly improve victims' experiences if they were implemented. Many of the more significant recommendations remain outstanding, such as the automated notification of rights. One of the biggest complaints is that victims are still generally required to seek out information themselves. Victims are still not automatically informed of their rights and services, or of offender status, parole processes and restitution options, yet the accused are informed of theirs. What is wrong with this scenario? Also outstanding is stronger enforcement of victims' rights. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights gives victims the right to information and whatnot. However, there is still no broad mechanism allowing them to go to court and obtain a remedy when those rights are violated. National minimal service standards are also outstanding. The committee and ombudsperson called for more consistent national standards, but the government has not provided those national standards, leaving victims to try to navigate services that vary significantly between provinces and territories. Why has the Liberal government treated the Victims Bill of Rights as largely symbolic and failed to strengthen victims' rights in a meaningful way? Why instead are victims seeing the insertion of this poison pill in the form of a safety valve in Bill C‑16, which is dangerously weakening Liberal criminal justice policies and giving more leniency to criminals, in sentencing reforms? That is what is happening here. This poison pill is antithetical to preventing violent crimes. It would be giving more leniency. There should be one track in Bill C‑16 for victim protection, coercive control, deepfake offences and trial efficiency measures. It is typical of the federal government members to bring forward such a bill. Quite honestly, they know that much of it was put forward by our members, yet they put something in there that is antithetical to the goodness that could be done on behalf of victims while lessening the amount of violent crime that continues to grow in this country. That is because of the laws it has allowed, such as bail and not jail and lowering the sentencing requirements for those committing very serious violent crimes. Each component should be studied on its merits. Let us study the bill separately from the desire that the Liberals have to basically remove mandatory minimums from our judicial system. We would be able to support the victim protection and procedural component of Bill C‑16, but the mandatory minimum sentencing safety valve is definitely something that should not be part of the bill. Why does it even matter? Parliament sets mandatory minimum sentences for these heinous crimes for a reason. If the Liberals allow judges to ignore them, there would be nothing mandatory about it. The vast number of mandatory minimum sentences have already been deemed constitutional, and now the Liberals would be putting them in jeopardy when they have already passed that test of constitutionality. They would be allowing judicial activism. As a matter of fact, they are encouraging it toward lesser sentencing. On top of that, they are using hypotheticals rather than the real situation in front of them to make decisions that are actually causing more harm to victims and creating more violent crime in our country. The court's responsibility is to interpret and use the laws created by parliamentarians that are in the best interests of those who face the terrible conditions of violent crime. We have heard about many of those today. We continue to see the erosion of Canadians' safety when criminals' rights are put ahead of victims' rights. This is part of the problem with this approach to the charter. We have already indicated that a vast number of mandatory minimum sentences have been deemed constitutional, yet the government would be giving the judicial system, an activist judicial system, a window to go out and make huge changes to that. The passage of this provision would be a total abolition of our duty as elected representatives to keep Canadians and their communities safe. The Liberals should split this poison pill out of the bill so that parliamentarians can work together to pass Bill C‑16.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Liberal 4:40 p.m.

“Families who have lost loved ones want this bill, and Conservatives should support it too. Why won't they just agree with me?”

Cathay Wagantall

Conservative 4:40 p.m.

“I want the government to support my bills to protect women. It's a failure that they didn't.”

Sébastien Lemire

Bloc Québécois 4:40 p.m.

“There's a problem in my riding. The justice system needs more money. Will this bill spend more to fix it?”

Cathay Wagantall

Conservative 4:40 p.m.

“I'm frustrated. Things are limited and frustrating. The federal government should spend more and fix it! Immigrants are making court problems worse.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates