“This bill helps victims and deals with deepfakes. It is not perfect, and the committee should have listened to our ideas to make it tougher. But is this bill still better than nothing, so we can pass it now and fix the rest later?”

“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?”

“I need to clarify which day next week is an allotted day. The English and French translations said different days.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that Monday would be an allotted day. In the French interpretation provided by the interpreters, however, Tuesday was mentioned instead. My question is for clarification. Could the parliamentary secretary please tell us again what the allotted day will be next week? Will it be Monday or Tuesday?”

“I apologize to the secretary of state for calling her by the wrong title.”

“Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to apologize to the secretary of state, who I referred to as a parliamentary secretary. I apologize and I thank her for the answer.”

“This bill has good parts, but it still needs more work. The government is rushing it and cutting our debate short. I want the government to give opposition parties more time to share their ideas on such an important bill.”

“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?”

“Two trials were thrown out in my riding because they took too long. Our justice system does not have enough resources. Will this bill fix that, or will victims still be left on their own?”

“Mr. Speaker, according to my research, two trials were halted in my own riding in 2023 because of incessant defence motions. Clearly, the Jordan decision ended up being applied. Is that a problem with our justice system? Is there a lack of resources? Ultimately, will this bill help address that, or are we basically still leaving victims to fend for themselves when justice is not taking its course because of a lack of resources?”

“This bill has many good points and helps victims of crime. But court delays still hurt victims when trials are thrown out and the perpetrators walk free. What will the government do to fix these delays quickly?”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague from Guelph discussed the perspective of victims in her speech. I think this bill is so important. It will make fundamental changes to how victims are treated during the very painful process they have to go through to obtain justice in situations that are sometimes troubling. My colleague mentioned this in a number of cases. There are a lot of very positive points in Bill C‑16. I believe she talked about respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. She also talked about court delays. She says that Bill C‑16 will address the issue of court delays. I am not aware of any cases where a trial was halted, because of the Jordan decision, for example, and where the delay in justice, the stay of proceedings, served the interests of victims. The perpetrators are always the ones who come out ahead. What does the government intend to do to fix this problem quickly?”

“Too many people use the internet to find violent content or sexually abuse children. I want to ask how this bill makes internet service providers help stop this and protect young people.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is a growing scourge in our society, namely the use of the Internet to access violent material or material that sexually exploits children. This is a very serious matter and I would like to ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, a question. What solutions does Bill C‑16 propose, particularly in terms of what is required of Internet service providers, to stamp out this scourge and protect our young people once and for all?”

“Our courts are too slow, and cases are being dropped because we do not have enough judges. The federal government is in charge of appointing judges. I want to know if the government will appoint more judges to fix this problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am really enjoying this debate. I have been listening to the comments this evening about the importance of Bill C-16, particularly with regard to victims’ rights and the rights of victims of domestic violence. However, as I mentioned earlier and as I pointed out to the member for Guelph, there are flaws in the justice system. Proceedings are slow and some cases are dropped due to court delays. One of the major problems is the shortage of judges. We still do not have enough judges. The Liberals may argue that the provinces share some of the blame for the role they played in the backlog of cases in the courts, but the fact remains that, when it comes to the federal courts, it is the Liberal government, the current government, that is responsible for appointing judges. There is still a backlog. It would help a lot if they appointed a few judges. Is that one of the options being considered?”

“This bill takes guns away from people who lose their licences, and it bans people suspected of domestic violence or stalking from having a gun licence. Does the member think these gun control rules are reasonable?”

“Madam Speaker, Bill C‑16 makes certain amendments to the Firearms Act. The bill “amends the Firearms Act to clarify that an individual whose firearms licence or registration certificate has been revoked is required to deliver their firearm”. Furthermore, no individual is eligible to hold a licence if it is suspected that they “may have engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking.” We know that the Conservatives are generally opposed to the idea of any form of gun control. Does my colleague think this amendment to the bill is reasonable?”