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

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-04 Sitting 129 Showing 21–27 of 27

A bill to make a bunch of changes to criminal law, like creating new offenses related to coercive control and intimate partner violence, changing the rules around evidence in sexual offense trials, removing some mandatory minimum sentences, and a bunch of other stuff. In debate, the Conservatives argued for tougher sentencing and criticized the removal of mandatory minimums, while the Liberals said the bill strikes the right balance. There was also some discussion of lawful access to data and the rights of victims.

Official Hansard ↗

Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Bloc Québécois 1:45 p.m.

“I think it's cowardly for adults to recruit minors to commit crimes. I would support much harsher sentences for them. But there are many opinions in Parliament. The Minister of Justice found a middle ground. We will try it and see what happens.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as well to work with my colleague. First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate his efforts to speak French. His French is becoming exceptional. I tip my hat to him. I actually think his French is better than my English. To answer the question more specifically, as I said earlier, I think the recruitment of minors is a scourge. I cannot stress this enough. It is cowardly for an adult to ask a minor to commit a crime on their behalf. I have no sympathy for such an adult, and I have no qualms about doubling or even tripling the sentence they would receive. That said, I understand that we are in Parliament. There are 343 of us here, and everyone's opinion must be taken into account. The Minister of Justice has found a middle ground between what I would have wanted and what others might have wanted. I will leave it at that. We will give it a try and hope for the best.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 1:45 p.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. Our government has many important bills to make Canada safer. Do you agree?”

Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Bloc Québécois 1:45 p.m.

“I have a cordial relationship with the current Minister of Justice and consider him effective. But I don't approve of everything the current government has done. They've done more objectionable things than good in my opinion. The provinces don't have enough money to administer these laws effectively. The federal government should speed up transfers to the provinces and stop meddling in provincial matters. Let the provinces enforce the laws.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, here is what I think of his government. I admit that the current Minister of Justice is someone I have a cordial relationship with. I consider him to be effective, and I have a certain amount of confidence in him. However, I do not want anyone to ask me to approve everything the current government has done. It has done a lot more objectionable things than good things, in my opinion, and I say that with all due respect for our colleagues who make up this government. I would be remiss if I did not mention certain aspects of the justice system. It is all well and good to pass laws that we think are effective, but the fact remains that they have to be administered, and that falls under provincial jurisdiction. There is no money in the provinces. That is something the government could perhaps do: speed up transfers to the provinces, stop meddling in matters that are none of its business, and ensure that the provinces are able to effectively enforce the laws passed here.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Amarjeet Gill

Conservative 1:45 p.m.

“I'm talking a lot about how people in my riding are afraid of rising crime. The bill has some good measures, but I still say it falls short. Conservatives tried to amend the bill to make it tougher on crime. The government voted those amendments down. That's disappointing. Conservatives will keep fighting for laws that put public safety first and support victims.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber on behalf of the great people of Brampton West. I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters. As my constituents' member of Parliament, I have a responsibility to listen, to bring their concerns to the House and to fight for safer communities. When I speak with residents in Brampton West, one issue comes up again and again: extortion. Not once in a while but every single week, business owners come to my office, families send emails, and community leaders call. They are afraid and feel threatened. Extortion is up 330% across Canada, and it has become a national crisis. Criminals are targeting hard-working families and small businesses. Homes and businesses are being shot at, and threatening videos are being sent, demanding money. Families are living in fear. Some people have even left Canada because they no longer feel safe. Think about that. People came here to build a better life, but instead they are being terrorized by criminals. Recently, Peel Regional Police arrested 17 individuals connected to a major extortion network targeting South Asian businesses throughout Peel Region. I commend the officers involved. Their work was outstanding. The investigation revealed a coordinated campaign of intimidation, violence, threats, arson attempts and shootings. There were more than two dozen shootings, hundreds of rounds were fired, and businesses were attacked simply because owners refused to pay criminals. However, those arrests are only one step. The problem and threat remain. Gangs are now sending letters to police, boasting that they have thousands of extortionists ready to commit crimes. That should alarm every member of the House. Criminal organizations are becoming bolder, more organized and more violent, and Canadians are paying the price. This is exactly why Conservatives proposed amendments to strengthen the bill. We wanted stronger consequences, greater protection for victims and to send a message that extortion will not be tolerated in Canada. One amendment would have extended mandatory minimum penalties for extortion committed with a firearm. Another would have ensured that extortion-related mandatory minimums could not be weakened through the Liberal safety valve provisions. The Liberals have voted down all these community safety amendments. They were reasonable amendments that reflected the reality that extortion today often involves guns. Criminals fire bullets into homes and businesses, record it, then send the videos to victims and post the videos online. They use fear as a weapon, yet Liberal members rejected our proposals. When Conservatives tried to strengthen penalties against violent extortionists, Liberals said no. When Conservatives tried to stand with victims, Liberals voted no. That is disappointing because Parliament created mandatory minimum penalties for a reason: to clearly denounce the most serious crimes, establish consequences, protect society and provide certainty in sentencing. Canadians understand that principle. When someone commits murder or kidnaps another person, there are consequences. When someone commits sexual assault, there must be consequences. Let us discuss another major concern with Bill C-16. Conservatives proposed amendments to protect mandatory minimum penalties for some of the most horrific sexual offences in the Criminal Code. One amendment would have preserved mandatory minimum penalties for sexual assault involving a weapon, and particularly in cases involving firearms and involving children. These are not minor offences, and they are not mistakes. They are among the most serious crimes imaginable. When someone sexually assaults a child while using a weapon, society has a duty to respond firmly. The rights of victims matter, and the safety of children matters, yet the Liberals rejected that amendment. Conservatives also proposed protecting mandatory minimum penalties for aggravated sexual assault. These are the worst cases. Cases involving severe violence and devastating harms permanently change the lives of victims. Canadians expect Parliament to speak clearly when it comes to these crimes. They expect us to stand with victims and denounce offenders. Instead, the government voted against those amendments. That sends the wrong message, especially in a bill that claims to strengthen protection for victims. If we truly support victims, we must ensure meaningful consequences for the worst offenders. Words alone are not enough. Victims deserve action. Another important amendment came from my Conservative colleagues at committee, an amendment dealing with reasonable hypotheticals. The principle was simple: The court should focus on facts, not on speculation or hypothetical possibilities. The justice system must rely on facts, evidence and reality. Justice must be based on what actually happened, not on the circumstances that may never occur, yet Bill C-16 would continue to allow courts to consider reasonably foreseeable circumstances. That language is vague. It is subjective and invites inconsistency. Two offenders could commit the same crime under the same circumstances but receive different outcomes because of speculation that undermines confidence, fairness and public trust. Canadians expect equal justice. They expect sentencing decisions based on evidence, not imagination. Conservatives proposed an amendment that would have restored clarity. It would have ensured that courts focus on the actual circumstances of the offender, the actual facts before them, nothing more and nothing less. Again, the Liberals rejected the amendment. That is unfortunate. People must believe that similar crimes receive similar consequences. That principle should not be controversial; it should be common sense. I want to be fair, so let me say that Bill C-16 is not entirely without merit. There are provisions that Conservatives support. Making the justice system more responsive to victims is positive. Reducing unnecessary delays is positive. Addressing coercive and controlling behaviour is positive. Addressing harmful deepfake images is positive. Those measures have value, but good measures alone do not make a complete bill. A justice bill must also prioritize accountability, protect victims, deter crime and ensure that serious offenders face consequences. That is where Bill C-16 falls short. The government had opportunities to improve it by strengthening protections against extortion and sexual violence, by improving consistency in sentencing, and by restoring public confidence. Those opportunities were presented at committee. Conservatives brought forward constructive, practical and reasonable amendments, yet the Liberal government used its majority to reject them. That is disappointing. Canadians are increasingly concerned about crime. They see violence rising and repeat offenders returning to the streets. They want Parliament to act. They want laws that put public safety first and support victims. They want laws that ensure that jail means jail for the worst offenders. Conservatives will continue fighting for those principles. We will continue fighting organized crime and extortion, and we will work to restore confidence in Canada's justice system. Canadians deserves safe communities. They deserve a justice system that puts victims first. Conservatives stand with victims and law-abiding Canadians. Conservatives stand with the families who simply want to live in peace. Conservatives will continue fighting to ensure that Canada's justice system puts victims first, protects our communities and keeps dangerous criminals exactly where they belong: behind bars.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 1:55 p.m.

“The previous speaker talked about crime and how their party wants to be tougher on it. My response is to talk instead about how many new Liberal MPs got elected. I change the subject to say we brought forward a lot of bills claiming to make communities safer, without giving any specific details. I don't engage with the extortion issue they raised.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 1:55 p.m.

“You mentioned extortion a lot. Your party talks tough but won't let police access data to catch extortionists. Why won't you help police catch them?”

Amarjeet Gill

Conservative 1:55 p.m.

“There is a crime problem in Brampton. I mentioned extortion because Brampton families are living through an extortion crisis. Businesses are being threatened. Houses are being shot at. Conservatives tried to strengthen penalties for extortion involving firearms. Liberals rejected that.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates