TranslatePolitics.ca

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 ↗

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 ↗

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 ↗

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 ↗

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?”

Dominique O'Rourke

Liberal 4:45 p.m.

“We need to pass this bill. It will do many good things for Canadians. It will protect victims of intimate partner violence and sexual violence. It will make the justice system work better and faster for victims and survivors. It will address court delays. It will be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. That's all you need to know.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, every day, we hear news stories about how widespread and devastating intimate partner and sexual violence is in Canada. Frequently in the House, members stand to talk about a tragedy that has occurred in their community. According to the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, 147 women and girls were killed in Canada in 2025 in cases classified as femicide. That is one woman every two days. At December 6 vigils in my community, we read the names of the women killed in Ontario and we hear their stories. These are not isolated incidents or private matters; they are part of a systemic crisis with costs in our homes, in our schools, in our communities, in our court systems, in this place and across Canada. About one in three police-reported violent incidents involves intimate partner violence, and we know that is the tip of the iceberg, because the last thing somebody wants to do in the worst moment of their life is pick up the phone, call the police and have the cars outside with maybe kids in the house. In Ontario, nearly 100 municipalities have declared intimate partner violence an epidemic. I am proud to say Guelph is one of them. A recent report shows that sexual violence costs nearly $15 billion every year in Canada. Members can think about the lost wages of the victims and the costs of the lawyers, the counselling, the investigation, the courts, all of it, not to mention the deep social costs, which can last for generations through individual, family and community trauma and adverse childhood experiences. Could there be a more adverse childhood experience than sexual abuse and exploitation? Police have reported that child sexual abuse and exploitation material offending is now more than 12 times higher than it was in 2008. From prevention to prosecution and community support, we need to address this epidemic in many ways. Bill C-16 is part of the legislative solution. It is one part, but it is urgent and important progress. The protecting victims act would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. While broad in scope, the bill can be clearly understood through four core pillars: tackling gender-based and intimate partner violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims' rights and addressing court delays. Together, these reforms would modernize the Criminal Code to respond to contemporary threats, intervene earlier to prevent escalating violence and ensure that the justice system works faster and more fairly for victims and survivors. What I hear from some women is that the justice system is in service to the law and not in service to victims. The bill would take decisive action to prevent violence before it becomes lethal and reflect the gravity of modern forms of abuse. It would address femicide, coercive and controlling conduct, criminal harassment and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, including AI-generated sexual deepfakes. We know there has been a story in the news in the last couple of days of women who have been subjected to this type of abuse. These reforms would recognize patterns of control and exploitation that often precede physical violence and would ensure they are treated seriously under the law. This means creating a new offence prohibiting coercive control, which is a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. If people missed it, I would refer them to the remarks provided by the member for Spadina—Harbourfront, who described it very well. We need to get to a place where there is no more “awful but lawful” when it comes to controlling someone's behaviour. Let it be known that coercive control will become a crime. Bill C-16 recognizes femicide as automatic first-degree murder, and provides the following circumstances for what would be murder in the first degree, known as femicide when committed against a female person: (i) the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, (ii) the murder is committed in the context of sexual violence, (iii) the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking, or (iv) the murder is motivated by hate; All of these would require the courts to consider life imprisonment for manslaughter committed in those circumstances. Bill C‑16 would address criminal harassment by removing the requirement to prove that the victim subjectively feared for their safety and replacing it with a requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe that someone’s safety is threatened, removing the need for victim testimony. We have all seen news stories where a woman is not believed until it is tragically much too late. Bill C‑16 would ensure that the offence captures harassing conduct committed through modern technology as well. The scope of that is mind-blowing, from abusers who are sending messages through bank transaction memo sections to those who are monitoring people's whereabouts. With respect to the new scourge of our time, sexual deepfakes, Bill C‑16 would address those by amending the offence of “non-consensual distribution of an intimate image” to include those deepfakes. The bill would also protect children from predators. Child victims face unique vulnerabilities. Predators increasingly rely on digital tools to lure, manipulate and extort children. This includes threats to distribute images, deepfake technology and the use of explicit bestiality depictions to groom children. Let us think about that for just a minute. Current laws do not fully capture these behaviours and courts have struck down several mandatory minimum penalties for child sexual offences, creating uncertainty around sentencing and weakening deterrence. This bill would strengthen Canada's response to child sexual exploitation both online and off-line. It would update offences to reflect how predators groom, manipulate and exploit children today while reinforcing accountability and prevention. Mandatory minimum penalties would be strengthened for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation material, including restoring more than 12 mandatory minimum penalties for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by courts. We would bring them back in a way that is constitutional. We would criminalize the threat to distribute child sexual abuse material and the distribution of bestiality depictions used to groom children. That is child sextortion, which are two words that really should never, ever be said side by side. We would expand child luring and sextortion offences, and we would also create a new offence for recruiting a person under 18 to participate in criminal activity. This is particularly important in sex trafficking. We would strengthen the reporting of child sexual abuse and exploitation material by bolstering mandatory reporting and data preservation obligations for online service providers. Victims' rights also require modernization. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights provides important protections, but many victims report difficulty accessing information, navigating procedures or having their interests reflected in decisions that affect them. Calls for clearer rights and expanded access to information have been consistent across provincial and federal reports. The bill would reinforce a victim-centred and trauma-informed justice system by enhancing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and improving victims' participation, protection and access to information across criminal, military and correctional systems. We would do that by affirming victims' right to be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness, which I cannot believe we have to legislate. This means that, in other contexts, we need to ensure ongoing training for the whole spectrum of people who are in victim services, from the very first point of contact to the judges who see them in court. We need to provide victims with information proactively without requiring a formal request. We would expand access to testimonial aids for victims of offences committed by an intimate partner. The bill would clarify victims' rights to present impact statements at sentencing, parole and correction stages as well as enhance disclosure of information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Bill C‑16 would finally address court delays and strengthen system integrity. The Ottawa Citizen has reported that, in 2023 to 2024, 55% of adult criminal cases were stayed or dismissed in Ontario. Courts are struggling with serious delays. The Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Jordan established strict timelines for bringing cases to trial. While the federal government designs criminal law, the administration of justice is shared with provinces and territories, which are responsible for policing, prosecution services, court resources and provincial judges. Despite strong federal efforts to appoint judges, delays persist in many jurisdictions, including Ontario, due to resourcing pressures. These delays have resulted in cases, including sexual offences, being dismissed entirely. magine. These reforms would build a justice system that responds earlier—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Dominique O'Rourke

Liberal 4:55 p.m.

“I'm saying something nice about everyone working together. The feds and provinces need to pass this bill and then spend money on courts. But that won't actually fix delays, because some people will still abuse the system no matter what. I'm saying we'll be united in blaming them.”

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Liberal 4:55 p.m.

“You shouldn't have to talk about this. But I will anyway. Even though talking about it makes me sad. I think the government needs to pass this bill because it will make the problem go away. Only the government can protect children. If you don't support our bill, you don't care about protecting children.”

Dominique O'Rourke

Liberal 5:00 p.m.

“I agree with my party. Everybody should support our bill. Don't look too closely at the details. We all want to protect people. I'm going to talk about other bills we supported to make us look good.”

Dominique O'Rourke

Liberal 5:00 p.m.

“I want the other party to vote for this bill. Partisanship is bad when you do it. Our committee studied the bill a lot. We made the bill stronger with amendments. The courts decide if the bill is constitutional. You should all vote for this bill.”

Patricia Lattanzio

Liberal 5:00 p.m.

“I want the other party to vote for this bill. Gender-based violence and child exploitation are very bad. We need to do something. Bill C-16 would add new crimes and penalties. It would make some crimes have longer jail times. It would make the courts do some things differently. It would make internet companies report more things to police. We need to pass this bill to protect women and children. Every party should support this bill.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this evening on behalf of the citizens of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, at third reading. Across the country, we are facing a stark reality. In my home province of Quebec, there have been 10 femicides since January. A woman is killed in Canada every 48 hours. Bad actors are taking advantage of rapidly changing technologies such as AI and deepfakes to victimize Canadians. That is completely unacceptable. As legislators, we have a responsibility to act, to make real change when Canadians are asking us to do so. This is the job Canadians sent us to the House to do. With Bill C-16, we would put into place concrete measures that would make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. Behind every one of these numbers is a person, a family and a community left to grieve. We owe those families more than our sympathy. We owe them action, so let me outline a few of the key changes that Bill C-16 would bring. First, we would create a new Criminal Code offence that captures the coercive and controlling conduct of an intimate partner. One may ask, what is the significance of criminalizing such a behaviour in the face of fatal violence against women? The answer is that coercive control is so often the warning sign of the harm we can see before the harm we cannot undo. By criminalizing coercive control, we would give the criminal justice system an opportunity to intervene before relationships become violent, and before violence becomes deadly. This is a measure with the potential to save lives in this country. Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes tells us that this type of violence, which so often goes unseen, is one of the main determinants of femicide. Criminalizing it would help us detect high-risk situations sooner and strengthen prevention. Next, through Bill C-16, we would automatically recognize femicide as first-degree murder. This would ensure that anyone who murders a woman in situations involving control, hate, sexual violence or exploitation faces the harshest penalty: life imprisonment. Even in situations of manslaughter, under the circumstances I have raised, courts would be directed to consider imposing a life sentence, with a period of parole ineligibility of between 10 and 25 years, the same penalty that applies to second-degree murder. Treating these murders as the Criminal Code's most serious forms of homicide speaks directly to the gravity of these offences and to the seriousness with which the government is moving to address them. I would like to dwell for a moment on the term I am using here, “femicide”, and the importance of naming it as such. With Bill C-16, we would be including the term “femicide” in the Criminal Code for the very first time. By putting a name to this insidious crime, we recognize its gravity and have put forward tangible measures to address it, measures that would lead to better protection of women in particular, as well as of children and other members of society. Next I would like to address how the bill would protect children from predators, strengthening Canada's response to child sexual exploitation both online and off-line. Most significantly, Bill C-16 would strengthen mandatory minimum penalties for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation material, including restoring more than 12 mandatory minimum penalties for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by the courts. It would do so by introducing a safety valve to ensure that these sentences, and other existing mandatory minimum penalties that would have otherwise been at risk, remain constitutionally valid. We are also seeking to expand the definition of distributing child sexual exploitation and abuse material so that it would now include the threat of distributing such materials. Children rely on the adults around them to keep them safe, to care for them and to protect their well-being. When someone exploits that trust and vulnerability for sexual purposes, it is profoundly wrong. It is conduct that every member of the House and every Canadian should condemn without hesitation. In a world of ever-changing technology, where explicit images and videos can be shared in an instant and where Canadians are accessing these platforms at a younger age, we must also hold accountable the people on whose platforms this content exists. Bill C‑16 would bolster mandatory reporting and data preservation obligations for online service providers so law enforcement can find and charge these offenders faster. Finally, Bill C‑16 would truly provide help to victims and give them a louder voice in the system. Some of them are part of cases that include complex trials in the justice system, and with that complexity comes the element of time. The time periods outlined in the Jordan decision can be restrictive, turning a measure meant to bring justice into one that can take it away. When a stay of proceedings is automatically demanded, victims lose their chance to be heard, and they feel that justice has been denied to them. With Bill C‑16, we would require the courts to consider remedies other than a stay of proceedings should the Jordan period elapse. We would also be clarifying for the courts which more complex cases deserve a longer period of time before they run into such an issue. Every victim should have the chance to be heard, and we would make sure of that. We would also be putting more information into the hands of victims by providing them with information about available resources proactively, without requiring a formal request. We would be expanding access to testimonial aids for victims of offences committed by an intimate partner and clarifying victims' rights to present impact statements at the sentencing, parole and correction stages. We would also be enhancing the disclosure of information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so victims can have the full scope of the status and location of their offender. While I have highlighted but a few of the essential measures the protecting victims act would introduce, the issues of gender-based violence and sexual exploitation impact us all. Whether it be a family member, a friend, a colleague or a neighbour, someone in our lives has needed or will need these remedies one day, and it is important that we step up to provide them. Bill C‑16 has been supported by law enforcement, by victim advocates and by Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and I implore all members of the House, of all political stripes, to stand with victims and lend their support to Bill C‑16.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Patricia Lattanzio

Liberal 5:10 p.m.

“The purpose of this bill is to protect victims and children. That's the focus of Bill C-16. We're establishing a measure, the safety valve, to make sure that when an accused receives a sentence or penalty, the sentence won't be struck down.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague sits with me at the justice committee, and we have done tremendous work on various bills, including Bill C‑16, through hearing testimony from experts, going through clause-by-clause and making amendments, so I want to thank him for his collaboration on the committee. The purpose of this specific bill is to protect victims and children. That is the focus of Bill C‑16. The bill would bring in measures so victims can finally get the protections that they need. We would establish a measure, in terms of the mandatory minimum penalties, in Bill C‑16, the safety valve, so that when an accused receives a sentence or a penalty, the measure would make sure the sentence will not be struck down.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Patricia Lattanzio

Liberal 5:10 p.m.

“This bill gives police and justice more tools. Service providers will share information. Catch predators faster. A remedy.”

Anju Dhillon

Liberal 5:10 p.m.

“I want to praise our hard work on this historic new bill. We are fixing a problem that was never fixed before. Please say how much better things will be in the future.”

Patricia Lattanzio

Liberal 5:10 p.m.

“I want to cheer for our bill. It was needed for a long time. Women's groups asked for this. It will protect women and children. Bad things happen online. The bill will help many generations.”

Shannon Miedema

Liberal 5:10 p.m.

“I want this bill to pass. Violence is bad. I feel for the victims. The bill will help stop violence before it happens. We shouldn't wait until violence becomes extreme before responding. The bill has many measures to protect victims and prevent harm. Women and children need our protection.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, every person deserves to live free from violence and fear. No life is worth more than another, and no one should face a greater risk of violence because of their gender, their sex, the neighbourhood they live in, the work they do, the school they attend or whom they love. Violence against our most vulnerable is some of the most morally reprehensible behaviour in our society. It is not a demonstration of strength or power or control. It is a profound failure of respect for the dignity, autonomy and humanity of another person. It rewrites the rest of their story, because becoming a victim of a violent act changes someone forever. It changes their sense of safety and often the course of their life. Our responsibility as legislators is to help build a society where those principles are not merely aspirations but realities. These acts may rewrite their stories forever, but we can help to ensure a happier ending. I am proud to stand up today in support of our government's Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, because it would put the necessary tools in place for law enforcement and the legal system to take action. It would give police, prosecutors and courts the ability to intervene earlier, better protect victims and survivors and help prevent future harm. Bill C-16 is about victims, not as statistics and not as stories, but as people. It aims to do right by them and to recognize that their lives are fundamentally altered by violence long after the courtroom is empty and public attention fades. It would be responding to the real-world concerns we have heard from victims across Canada. Too often, our justice system asks these victims to relive the most traumatic moments of their lives while offering them little certainty in return. It asks them to be resilient and patient and silent while we debate the process. It places the burden of safety on those who have already been harmed. As a government, we are saying this is not good enough. We need to make changes, and we need to make them now. Bill C-16 would strengthen how victim safety is considered throughout the justice process. It would ensure that courts are better equipped to assess risk, recognize patterns of repeat violence and impose conditions that reflect the lived reality of victims. It would improve consistency and accountability in decision-making, particularly in cases involving intimate partner violence. It would also introduce concrete measures to better support victims throughout the legal process, including permitting, in the courtroom during testimony, support persons, or in some cases even support animals, to accompany children, persons with disabilities and people who have experienced sexual violence. This legislation is grounded in a simple but urgent truth: Violence, particularly intimate partner violence, is rarely random. It is often patterned, escalating and predictable. When we have evidence that harm is likely to occur, failing to act is not neutrality; it is negligence. As the member of Parliament elected to represent the people of Halifax, I have a responsibility to support this bill, which, among so many important steps, proposes to criminalize coercive and controlling conduct. For far too long, our criminal law has focused almost exclusively on isolated incidents of physical violence while failing to recognize the sustained patterns of psychological, emotional and financial control that so often precede them. Coercive control includes isolating someone from friends and family, monitoring their movements, controlling access to money, issuing threats, intimidation and humiliation. It is violence that may leave no visible injuries but that causes deep and lasting harm. The evidence is clear. Coercive control is one of the strongest predictors of serious injury and intimate partner homicide. In Canada, women are far more likely than men to experience intimate partner violence, and research consistently shows that the presence of controlling behaviour dramatically increases the risk of lethal outcomes. By criminalizing coercive control, Bill C-16 would give our justice system the tools to intervene earlier, before violence escalates, before lives are lost and before harm becomes irreversible. These are the steps that matter most, because this bill is not just about changing the way we respond to violence; it is about stopping it from happening entirely. It refuses to accept that violence must become extreme before the law responds. However, coercive control is only one part of how this bill would modernize our response to the evolving forms of violence. The protecting victims act would also take further preventative measures, including the creation of a new offence that would prohibit even threatening to distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material, because threats need to be taken seriously, and we need the tools to stop them from becoming a reality. The bill would also target sextortion by criminalizing threats to distribute intimate images and by increasing penalties for people who exploit fear and humiliation for coercion or gain. Bill C-16 would also modernize our criminal law to reflect the realities of harm in the world we live in today. It would strengthen protections for victims of image-based sexual violence, including the non-consensual creation and distribution of intimate images and sexually explicit deepfakes, recognizing the profound and lasting damage these acts cause. It would improve accountability of people who weaponize technology to humiliate, threaten or control others, particularly women and girls. The bill would enhance how courts consider risk, patterns of behaviour and victim safety across bail, sentencing and supervision, and it would reinforce a simple principle: that dignity, consent and personal autonomy do not disappear online. It would also modernize Canada's criminal harassment laws, recognizing that stalking and intimidation increasingly occur through technology and that victims should not bear an unreasonable burden to prove their fear before the law can respond. Violence is violence, whether it happens behind closed doors or behind a screen. In April 2020, Nova Scotia experienced the deadliest mass shooting in Canadian history. For many Canadians, it was a shocking and tragic news story. For my constituents, and for those of my fellow Nova Scotian MPs, it was something far more personal. Communities across our province lived through the fear and uncertainty of those days and continue to carry the grief and loss that followed. The events of April 18 and 19, 2020, led to the establishment of the Mass Casualty Commission, which undertook a comprehensive examination of the circumstances surrounding the tragedy and the systemic factors that contributed to it. Among its findings, the commission highlighted the critical link between gender-based violence and broader threats to public safety. It found that patterns of intimate partner violence, coercive control and escalating risk were present long before the shootings occurred, yet those warning signs were not sufficiently recognized or addressed. The commission concluded that violence is often not a series of isolated incidents but rather a pattern that can escalate when left unchecked. It called for earlier intervention, stronger risk assessment tools and a justice system that responds to gender-based violence with the seriousness it deserves, designed to protect victims, prevent future tragedies like this and to keep communities safe. Bill C-16 would respond to those lessons by strengthening our ability to intervene before harm becomes irreversible. In my community of Halifax, we see both the devastating impact of violence and the extraordinary strength of the people who survive it. We also see the tireless work of frontline organizations that step in where systems too often fall short. Shelters like Adsum house provide safety and stability for women and children children fleeing violence. Organizations such as the YWCA Halifax, Alice House, Bryony House and the Avalon Sexual Assault Centre support survivors through crisis, recovery and rebuilding their lives. These groups do life-saving work every day, often with limited resources and under immense pressures, and they have been clear with us about what is needed. Safety cannot begin only after harm has occurred. It must be built into the system itself. Proactive and preventative measures save lives. Bill C-16 is one part of how we do better. It is not the only solution, but it is a necessary one. It reflects evidence, it reflects lived experience, and it reflects a commitment to ensuring that victim safety is not an afterthought but a priority. We are here not to accept violence as a fact of life but to prevent it where we can, respond to it where we must and ensure that it never goes unanswered, because we know that harm is predictable, and we also know that it is preventable. We owe that responsibility to survivors, to families and to communities across this country that deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their lives, and that is why I support the protecting victims act.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Shannon Miedema

Liberal 5:25 p.m.

“I know the system has problems. But our Minister of Justice is consulting provinces. He's working on it. It's not just our fault. Everyone shares the responsibility.”

Anju Dhillon

Liberal 5:25 p.m.

“I want to thank my friend for her kind words. I'm not actually asking her anything. I just want to agree with her.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Government Orders

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Hon. Adam van Koeverden

Hon. Adam van Koeverden

Hon. Adam van Koeverden

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Hon. Adam van Koeverden

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Dominique O'Rourke

Dominique O'Rourke

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Dominique O'Rourke

Dominique O'Rourke

Patricia Lattanzio

Patricia Lattanzio

Patricia Lattanzio

Anju Dhillon

Patricia Lattanzio

Shannon Miedema

Shannon Miedema

Anju Dhillon