“Conservatives care about protecting women from abusers. I put forward a bill that would give abused women two years of protection under a peace bond, but the Liberals weakened it to one year. The Liberals should not lecture us on protecting women.”

“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.”

“We like parts of this bill, but we cannot support it. It lets judges give lighter sentences to violent repeat criminals. We tried to fix this so people who commit serious crimes like sexual assault with a gun would not get lighter sentences, but the Liberals voted against our changes.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I proposed using the notwithstanding clause to protect mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography after the Supreme Court struck them down. I want to know what the member thinks about my idea.”

“Mr. Speaker, in terms of improving the bill, I wonder how the member feels about a proposal that the Conservatives, in fact, it was me, brought to the justice committee in response to the Senneville decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography. Instead of going with the safety valve to potentially undermine mandatory minimum sentences, the Conservatives proposed the invocation of the notwithstanding clause to preserve the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography. I wonder if the member could comment on that.”

“The government should have used the notwithstanding clause to overrule the court. It stops judges from overreaching and hurting the public good.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member’s work on the justice committee. Kerry Sun is a doctoral student at the University of Oxford and a member of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. I will just outline his words in the National Post on the purpose of the notwithstanding clause. He wrote that it “is a mechanism to prevent overreaching judicial interpretations of rights from undermining the common good.” Chief Justice Wagner said that the decision could erode public confidence. This would have been the opportunity to use it. We feel it should have been used.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Violent crime is at record levels. I am asking why this bill makes mandatory minimum sentences weaker and lets judges ignore them more often.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, at a time when Canadians are experiencing record violence from criminal enterprises, whether it makes sense to narrow or water down mandatory minimum sentences by creating the safety valve. Does the member have any concern that we are going to have many more situations in which courts do not follow the mandatory minimum sentences?”

“I support the parts of this bill that protect victims and ban fake intimate images. But I oppose the part that lets judges ignore mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious crimes. The government should split the bill so we can pass the protections without weakening prison sentences.”

“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.”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “It is a step in the right direction.”

  Said 8 times by 8 members since May 1.

  Every time it was said →

“I support the parts of this bill that protect women from attacks. But the government failed by not supporting my earlier bills to protect pregnant women.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have to say I was really pleased to see some of the items in this bill with regard to protecting women when they are being attacked, and I am a little surprised, because when the government had opportunities to support private members’ bills, two of them mine, that would have given protections to women and recognized when they were being attacked simply because they are pregnant or, in a case where the attacker, a third party, knows they are pregnant, there was no recognition at all of that circumstance. I call that a poor failure on the part of the government.”

“Our court system is failing victims, and the federal government is blaming the provinces instead of helping. High immigration levels have overwhelmed our courts, schools, and housing.”

“Mr. Speaker, no victim should face a situation where they do not get justice from our courts. It is very frustrating to see the limitations, in a lot of ways, of our court system. At the same time, I am really frustrated with the fact that the federal government continues to pass the buck to our provinces. As one member was saying, we have had growth in populations and immigration has gone far beyond our capacity as a country to handle schooling, housing, jobs and education. I would also say, it has gone beyond our capacity for dealing with individuals who come to our country who perhaps add to the challenge of those court systems getting through all of their cases.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 21 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Mandatory jail time stops crime because people in jail cannot commit crimes. This bill gives people a way out of following the law. I want my colleague to say more about that.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the poison pill. First of all, mandatory sentences, obviously, as my other colleague pointed out much earlier, do in fact stop crime because it is very hard to commit a crime when in jail. As far as the poison pill goes, when I raised my kids and told them to clean their rooms, I did not say at the end of it, “Unless you don’t feel like it.” This, I believe, is what is happening with this bill: If we do not feel like it, we do not have to obey the law. I would like my colleague to expand on that, if she would.”

“For years, the government has passed laws that are too soft on crime. They put harmful parts into otherwise good bills, and it hurts people instead of protecting them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that observation. That is part of the problem we have. The government has introduced, over this last five to 10 years, bills that basically give more and more leniency than the expectations of citizens and people in our country to obey the laws of our land, treat other people with respect and not create scenarios where violence is allowed. It is not only allowed but also seems to be encouraged. “Poison pill” is something we use in the House to describe the Liberal government’s legislation over and over again. As a matter of fact, my constituents are starting to use this term, because they see the good in a bill, but then they recognize when something has been interjected that is contrary to the value of a bill and is going to harm citizens rather than protect them.”

“Conservatives support protecting vulnerable people. We tried to change this bill to make sure people who have child sexual abuse material face tough minimum sentences, but the government voted against it. Why did the government refuse to protect these victims?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member’s speech was passionate, and I agree. Coming from where I do, the north coast of British Columbia, I have experienced that most of my life. The government wants to portray this side of the House as not being supportive of this type of bill or protecting vulnerable people. The Conservative member for York Centre moved an amendment, CPC-13, that was defeated by the Liberal government. It would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under section 7 and section 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause, while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill’s mandatory minimum safety valve. Why did the government not protect victims in this equation?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “While also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since June 3.

  Every time it was said →

“I want to ask the member a question. If someone is convicted of drunk driving for the third time, the law says they must go to jail. But if they are the only person earning money for their family, will judges use this bill's exception to let them avoid jail?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the parliamentary secretary on this file for a while, and I know that she also understands fairly well the issues we are dealing with, so I would like to pose a serious hypothetical for her. Imagine a situation where someone is convicted of a third offence of driving under the influence, and that person is now mandated for, I believe, either 30 days or 90 days as a minimum term of imprisonment. If that person happens to be the only breadwinner of the family, can the member imagine a scenario where a judge would not look to use the safety valve and allow an accused, who would otherwise have to serve mandatory jail time, to escape jail time?”

“This bill includes good ideas that Conservatives have pushed for years. But the government voted down our amendments to make it stronger. We tried to keep strict minimum sentences for serious crimes and give more rights to victims. The bill is too weak because it lets judges give lesser sentences.”

“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.”

“This bill should include mandatory minimum prison sentences for these offenders. My party proposed changes to make the bill stronger, but the government weakened it instead.”

“Madam Speaker, that was not the point. The point is that we should actually impose a mandatory sentencing for these offenders. That is it. That is the starting point. We could have made the legislation so much stronger if we had actually taken more of the amendments that were proposed by my colleagues. Instead, we have watered it down.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill could have been much stronger. The Liberals voted down changes that would have addressed gun crimes.”

“Madam Speaker, it could have been stronger. There were even amendments talking about crimes committed with firearms. The Liberal government, through committee majority, voted them down as well. All I am saying is the amendments that were rejected could have made this bill so much stronger, including the amendments that dealt with firearms.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“In 2022, the Liberals got rid of required minimum prison times for serious gun crimes, and the courts did not force them to do it. Now they want to bring those rules back, but with exceptions that make them optional. Their approach makes no sense.”

“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?”

“The government's gun plan targets trained, law-abiding gun owners instead of criminals. It lowers sentences for gun crimes. Conservatives want stricter laws for criminals who use guns, not for people who follow the law.”

“Mr. Speaker, the gun buyback or confiscation plan is actually going after law-abiding citizens who have PALS and get training. For those who have restricted firearms, the bar is even higher. They are not going to get safety valves. They are going to get a mandatory sentencing. Anything under this is going to get reduced sentences, and that is including firearms offences. The Conservatives have been saying that we have to start tightening the controls and the laws around firearms, especially connected to crimes, but not law-abiding citizens.”

“We tried to change this bill to keep mandatory minimum sentences that the Supreme Court already agreed were legal. I want to know why the government can just ignore that.”

“Madam Speaker, in speaking with our shadow justice minister, something he brought to my attention was that there are many mandatory minimums that are no longer protected, and we tried to give that protection back through our amendments, that have actually already been tested by the Supreme Court and found to be constitutional. What does that mean, when they can now simply decide to change the ruling?”