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 41–53 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 ↗

Anju Dhillon

Liberal 5:25 p.m.

“I'll cheer for a huge crackdown on the crime that scares and upsets my constituents the most.”

Shannon Miedema

Liberal 5:25 p.m.

“I'm excited we'll treat this one crime much more harshly! That would do a lot for our side! I'm all for it!”

Gord Johns

NDP 5:25 p.m.

“I work with my friend on green things. That's nice. But I want more spending too! I made a bill so the government has to pay for mental health like it pays for other doctors. Does my friend agree we should pass my bill to make taxpayers cover mental health too?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to work with my colleague on many climate-related issues. Earlier, I raised some concerns to the justice minister on responding to those who have been victims of discrimination and violence. Certainly, we understand the important work around dealing with complaints and the criminal sanctions piece, but there is still nothing when it comes to funding and when it comes to prevention around discrimination and violence, especially for vulnerable youth. I tabled a bill yesterday calling for parity for mental and physical health so that people get services when they need them. Does my colleague agree that the government should be supporting legislation to have parity for mental and physical health? This would be so that mental health is an insured benefit and people, especially youth, could get the supports they need when they need them.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Shannon Miedema

Liberal 5:25 p.m.

“I like working with my friend too. Our government spends money on mental health and crime. In Halifax, we gave money to a mosque to stop gang violence. We also spend a lot of money on many groups that help victims. I thank you very much.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoy working with my colleague on all the great work we do here in the House. I am quite pleased that our government is supportive of mental health and youth, as well as in terms of crime and public safety. I was very pleased to announce significant funding through the mosque in my riding of Halifax to help prevent gang violence in the Muslim community in Halifax, which is being led by members of the mosque, as an example. I also know that the Minister of Women and Gender Equality has been talking a lot about the substantial funding that we have to support the organizations that are really on the ground, on the preventative side and the response side, to support victims in this regard.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Ellis Ross

Conservative 5:25 p.m.

“I want harsher punishments for criminals. The government's bill is not strong enough. Conservatives tried to make the bill stronger with amendments, but the government voted them down. I think we should fight for victims and challenge the Supreme Court if needed. The government is not doing enough to protect women and children.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get up on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to talk about Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. Before I get into the substance of the bill itself, I want to explain the term “safety valve”, because just about every speaker has spoken to this term. It is a mechanism that allows judges to give lesser sentences, as opposed to a strict mandatory minimum sentence. If we are going to give weaker sentences instead of imposing a strict mandatory minimum sentence for some of these crimes, then what is the point of using the term “mandatory minimum sentence”, especially when we are talking about protecting women and vulnerable victims? Even when the government members themselves get up and debate, they admit that the bill is long overdue. In fact, when I was an MLA, we were talking about crimes and how there should be punishment. At the time, the NDP government actually blamed Ottawa for not amending or introducing more legislation. I agree. This is a long time coming. It just so happens that a “southern Alberta man faces criminal charges after police say they found more than half a million child sexual exploitation photos and videos in his possession.... More than 500,000 child sexual exploitation photos and videos were discovered, [making it] one of the largest collections the unit has ever encountered”. Like every other case that has been in the media in the last year or so, this just makes me sick. A lot of other leaders have said the same thing. It makes them sick. I know some premiers who have made some pretty inflammatory comments about what should be done with these kinds of people. It is good that the legislation is up. Is it groundbreaking? Does it go to the full extent of protecting victims? We have to give credit to the Conservatives, who have been asking for the legislation for years. Finally, it is being recognized in Bill C-16, not just in terms of debate but also in terms of some of the content that we are talking about that is in Bill C-16. Making the murder of an intimate partner first-degree actually came from the Conservative MP for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Expanding the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of sexual deepfakes, digitally manipulated pictures or video using artificial intelligence, came from the Conservative MP for Calgary Nose Hill. Updating mandatory requirements for child exploitation material came from previous Conservative governments. We are pleased to see that the government took its lead from Conservative MPs. To try to frame it now, politically, that Conservatives do not support this or that, somehow, we do not agree with protecting victims is misleading Canadians. That is not the truth. If anything, Conservatives have been leading the charge to actually punish offenders for years. It is now here, but one of the best tools of this institution is committee work. I did not realize that until I got to Ottawa, because committees in the B.C. legislature are different. The Liberal government stacked the committees to, basically, get its own way in terms of votes. Not only is it now a slim margin of votes so that the Liberal government can get everything it wants in a committee, but it actually stacked it even further so that there is no chance of any amendments proposed by any opposition parties. I am talking about the Bloc. I am talking about the Conservatives. The committee is there for a purpose. It is to collaborate. It is to represent the interests and needs of Canadians, the interests and needs of the constituents we represent. The Liberal government is framing this as one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation that has come down the pike in a long time. That is not true. It could have been better. In terms of amendments regarding safety valves, there were six put forward by Conservatives that were all voted down by the Liberal committee members. There was one from the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations that would have narrowed the mandatory minimum safety valves to only apply to offenders with no prior criminal record. There was one from the member for York Centre, another Conservative, that would have required courts to consider only offenders' actual circumstances, not hypothetical scenarios such as what the court is saying, when assessing the constitutionality of mandatory minimums. It was voted down by the Liberals. There was another one from the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations that would have excluded serious offences, including child sexual offences and major drug trafficking offences, from accessing the mandatory minimum safety valve. This means that we wanted the full extent of the law applied to these offenders, especially drug traffickers, sex traffickers and those having anything to do with violent crime. We should give them not a lesser penalty but the full mandatory sentence. We should keep the full mandatory sentence in play. If we really want to protect women, vulnerable victims and children, we should keep that mandatory sentence. If anyone wants to challenge it, they can challenge it in the courts. The Liberal government is so afraid of being challenged through the charter. If victims or Canadians cannot depend on us as lawmakers to stand up and fight for them, and they cannot depend on the courts, who are they going to depend on? There is nobody left. The Liberals should take on the challenge. The Supreme Court can use a challenge, especially when we are talking about a lesser, weaker sentence for some of the worst offenders in our society. It is getting worse. There were six amendments put together for that safety valve, and each one was voted down. There were two amendments for victims' rights put together by my Conservative colleagues, and they were voted down by the Liberal committee members. One was put together by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South that would have ensured victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control are notified without delay of release orders or recognizance. It was voted down. There was another one from the same member that would have required the Parole Board chairperson to disclose offender information without delay to the victims of intimate partner violence or coercive control offences. It was voted down. The bill could have been stronger. We could have sent a strong message to the women and vulnerable victims in Canada, saying that we are going to fight for them. We are going to take on the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court rules against us, we will think of another fight. Each and every MP could have taken that pledge together, but we did not. The Liberal government backed down at committee through majority votes on each one of these amendments. There were six other defeated amendments. The one put together by the member for York Centre would have protected against charter challenges to child pornography, possession and access offences under sections 7 and 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve. It was voted down. Four pages of amendments were voted down by the Liberal committee members. There were also amendments ruled out of scope, and each one of these amendments was just trying to further strengthen the bill so offenders could not get away. I know there are going to be lawyers arguing this and fighting for lesser sentences or no sentence at all. I know that. However, as legislators, we are the last stop. We are the last hope. Given that the Liberal government actually took recommendations from Conservatives and implemented them in this bill is commendable. To be truly ambitious, the Liberals should not have voted out the rest of the amendments.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:40 p.m.

“There is a difference between what the government and the Conservative Party are proposing. The government is working with provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement and indigenous communities to make our communities safer. Does the member not believe that using the notwithstanding clause should be a last resort?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that there is a difference between what the government and the Conservative Party are proposing. At the end of the day, exceptional circumstances would enable the legislation and the reinstatement of a number of mandatory sentences to be supported within the courts. That is a really important fact. Just over a year ago, this Prime Minister was elected with a mandate to make our communities safer. We have a series of pieces of legislation, not one but a half dozen or so, which would make our communities safer. We are working with provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement and indigenous communities to make sure we have safer communities and that there is a consequence for criminals who commit crimes. Does the member not believe that using the notwithstanding clause should be a last resort?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Ellis Ross

Conservative 5:40 p.m.

“That's not my point. I want mandatory sentencing. I think the bill is weak because it doesn't have stronger punishments like my party suggested.”

Sébastien Lemire

Bloc Québécois 5:40 p.m.

“You Conservatives don't like gun control. Do you think this gun control change is reasonable?”

Ellis Ross

Conservative 5:40 p.m.

“The bill could be stronger. The government rejected amendments to make it stronger. I think the government should have made the bill stronger.”

Blaine Calkins

Conservative 5:40 p.m.

“The Liberal government used to say mandatory minimums were bad. They got rid of them even though the court didn't say they had to. Now the government says mandatory minimums are good again but they want a way to not enforce them. I think this is self-contradictory.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to wind the clock back to 2022 when, in this place, the Liberal government of the day passed Bill C-5, which actually removed mandatory minimum penalties for a number of serious gun crimes, including extortion with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. There were no mitigating court cases or rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada that actually mandated that Parliament do that. That was an ideologically imposed piece of legislation that removed them. Now the Liberals want to bring back mandatory minimums, with what they call a relief valve, which makes them voluntary mandatory minimums. I have also heard voluntary mandatory when it comes to their gun buyback program. Is there anything that is anymore oxymoronic from the Liberal government than this?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Ellis Ross

Conservative 5:40 p.m.

“The gun buyback is punishing people who followed the rules. We should punish criminals instead.”

Cathay Wagantall

Conservative 5:40 p.m.

“I don't want judges to have wiggle room on sentencing. They should have to do what we already decided.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:45 p.m.

“I want everyone to agree to pretend it's 6 p.m. That way we can start debating my pet issues.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates