TranslatePolitics.ca

Hon. Rechie Valdez

Liberal 3:20 p.m.

“I want the government to spend $660.5 million to advance gender equality and strengthen our response to gender-based violence. I support Bill C-16 because it criminalizes coercive control and addresses economic abuse used to control women.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank the members of the justice committee and the witnesses who contributed to the study of this bill. Their work highlighted the urgent need to strengthen protections for victims and survivors. It is an honour to rise in Parliament to support Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and above all to stand in support of the victims and survivors of gender-based violence across Canada. I thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for putting this bill forward. At the core of this bill are women and girls whose voices were not heard when they asked for help, women who spoke up and were dismissed, women who were afraid to speak up at all and women who were denied the support that they need. Intimate partner violence is not only physical. It includes control, emotional and sexual abuse, stalking and financial harm, often forming patterns that grow into more dangerous behaviours over time. When violence goes unseen, it goes unaddressed, and when it goes unaddressed, a woman suffers in silence. A critical challenge is that intimate partner violence is substantially under-reported, with estimates suggesting that around 80% of incidents are not reported to the police. In 2024, in Canada, 81 women were killed by a current or former intimate partner, equivalent to approximately one every four to five days. Each of these deaths represents a life cut short, a family devastated and a failure to intervene when warning signs were already present. These were not random. They were the tragic end of patterns of coercive control, intimidation and abuse, patterns that were known, experienced or reported long before the final act occurred. These harms are experienced at much higher rates by indigenous women, Black and racialized women, women with disabilities, 2SLGBQI+ people, newcomers and women in rural and remote communities. Too often, they are not heard and they do not receive justice, as systemic barriers often cause delays, limit supports and discourage participation in a system that was not built with their realities in mind. Bill C-16 exists because victims, survivors, families and advocates have spent years telling us the same painful truth: that the system has too often recognized danger only after it is too late. Their courage in coming forward has made it clear that intimate partner violence is not just about isolated incidents. It is about ongoing harm, escalating risk and lives hanging in the balance. This bill is not only about accountability after violence has occurred. It is about recognizing danger earlier, strengthening those protections and preventing further harm before another life is lost. Bill C‑16 breaks down the barriers preventing survivors from being heard, strengthens protections, improves access to legal support and enables survivors to safely share their experiences. These measures align directly with pillar three of the national action plan to end gender-based violence, which is “responsive justice system”. This pillar recognizes that gender-based violence is a violation of human rights and, in many cases, a violation of criminal law. It calls for a justice system that understands trauma, acts early, holds offenders accountable and puts survivors' needs first. The national action plan is a 10-year framework developed with provincial and territorial governments, as well as victims and survivors. We have dedicated $539.3 million over five years to help provinces and territories implement the national action plan to end gender-based violence and address their most pressing needs. In addition to this, our budget invests a total of $660.5 million to advance gender equality, including $223 million to strengthen our response to gender-based violence. Overall, our approach to gender-based violence must be comprehensive. Bill C-16 would strengthen this work by making sure that federal criminal law puts survivors' needs at the centre of justice. On top of this, the protecting victims act recognizes a truth that survivors know all too well: Violence does not begin with a single act. Coercive control can take many forms: isolation, intimidation, financial abuse, threats to pets, property damage or threats of self-harm that are used to manipulate and instill fear. Bill C-16 acknowledges and would criminalize coercive control, where economic and financial abuse is often weaponized. However, we know that criminalization alone is not enough. Prevention is equally vital. Economic abuse is often used deliberately to control others by cutting off access to money, creating debt, threatening financial ruin or making it impossible for someone to leave safely. It is a powerful tool of coercive control that keeps women trapped and unsafe. That is why this work needs to be connected. By establishing a voluntary code of conduct for the prevention of economic abuse, we would work closely with financial institutions and gender-based violence organizations to help with recognition and respond to that economic abuse. Together, these changes would reflect a broader understanding of abuse and the many ways it can be used to exert power and control. Coercive control is evolving. We have seen it. In a world where technology can be used to harm, Bill C-16 would respond to that abuse that is deeply personal and deeply violating. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images, including sexual deepfakes and nearly nude images, strips people of that control over their own identity. It follows them into their community, their workplace and their family. It is used to intimidate, to silence and to humiliate them. Bill C-16 also recognizes a harder reality: The most extreme violence against women is rarely sudden or isolated. Bill C-16 would ensure that murders that are driven by hate, coercive control, or sexual violence or exploitation are treated as first-degree murder in Canada. This matters, because femicide is often the end of a long and visible pattern of control, not an unpredictable tragedy but a failure to intervene in time. Prevention means listening earlier. It means recognizing coercive control when we see it, recognizing the financial abuse, isolation and escalating threats for what they are. Our laws and institutions must be strong enough to respond before gender-based violence in its most devastating form impacts these victims. Ending gender-based violence is not only a moral responsibility. It is also about whether people can live, work or contribute without fear. No one can thrive in this country, build a business or raise a family if they are not safe. The bill is part of a coordinated effort to prevent escalating violence and support survivors. Bill C-16 is not abstract. It is about real people and real lives. It is about closing gaps that have left too many people without protection, and about making sure our justice system reflects the harm we know exists. It has been one part of a broader effort to end gender-based violence. As the bill moves forward, I ask all members to continue supporting Bill C-16, not simply as a policy choice but as a responsibility we owe to the women and girls whose lives were taken, to those whose stories were ignored and to those who were never given the chance to be heard. This legislation exists because of them, because they were brave enough to speak up and because others spoke up for them when they could not. Their lives and experiences forced us to confront what failed, what was missing and what must change. Together we can move forward in a country where we can live safely and with dignity, where lives are not lost before systems respond, and where hope is built through action.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Raquel Dancho

Conservative 3:20 p.m.

“You say you're against violence. Why are you letting judges give shorter sentences than the four year minimum for aggravated sexual assault with a gun?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's words against gender-based violence. We all support a decrease in that, but I do want to outline something for her. As per the Criminal Code, aggravated sexual assault is defined as follows: It occurs if the person assaulted is wounded, maimed, disfigured, beaten or in danger of losing his or her life while being sexually assaulted. The provision with aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint has a mandatory minimum of four years, which is not nearly enough, in my opinion. Why does the member support clause 63 in Bill C-16, which would allow judges the discretion to provide lesser sentences than the mandatory minimum of four years for aggravated sexual assault with a firearm?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Rechie Valdez

Liberal 3:20 p.m.

“I want judges to have discretion on sentencing. Our bill is about protecting women and victims. It's a good bill.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the unique challenges that women and other victims face in this country, and this bill is truly important. Bill C-16 would protect those victims. I have already touched on a few things in my speech today, but really the key is addressing and criminalizing coercive control and all the precursors to an ultimate end for women, in terms of severe issues that are caused for them. The bill would also ensure that, from a penalization and justice perspective, we make femicide first-degree murder in this country. That would be a huge step forward, and in combination with criminalizing coercive control and all the other measures I outlined today, we would help address gender-based violence in this country.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Sébastien Lemire

Bloc Québécois 3:20 p.m.

“I want the minister to explain why her party rejected our amendment. Our amendment would have made it easier for women to file complaints and defend themselves. It was important.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ongoing commitment to gender equality in the House. Consistent with the intent of the bill, the Bloc Québécois supported it and also proposed amendments in committee, in a spirit of collaborative development. However, the Liberals, who now have a majority, rejected one that I think is crucial. I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on this matter. It was recognized that stalking is part of a pattern of coercive behaviour that must be assessed as a whole. This amendment would have somewhat shifted the burden of proof, which essentially rests with the victim. We have therefore missed an opportunity to make it easier for a woman to file a complaint and defend herself. What does the minister think?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Rechie Valdez

Liberal 3:20 p.m.

“I want you to know I care about this problem. We should spend more money on it. And I am glad we are making the laws tougher.”

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Liberal 3:20 p.m.

“I'm tired of hearing the other side criticize this bill. It's actually good and would make things better. I want you to know our party is tough on crime.”

Hon. Rechie Valdez

Liberal 3:35 p.m.

“The opposition party should vote for my bill. It's a good bill that would help people. Our government has spent a lot of money and passed many programs to fix this problem. That shows we really care. We spent money on help, housing, and lawyers for people. That means our approach is working.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. secretary of state for sharing her perspectives, and I completely agree. The Conservatives opposite have an opportunity right now. If they really want to end gender-based violence, and if they really want to help victims and survivors, they can help move Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, forward. I just want to share, as I already said in my speech earlier, that it is not just about legislation. We are also, through Women and Gender Equality, investing significantly to make sure to end gender-based violence. In 2024 and 2025, more than 1 million people across Canada were able to access services like counselling, housing, legal information, crisis supports and community-based programs, because of the national action plan that I have already referenced. On top of this, we have delivered 27,400 prevention resources, and we are going to do everything we can to end gender-based violence.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tamara Jansen

Conservative 3:35 p.m.

“I want you to think this bill helps victims. It has some popular parts everyone likes. But really, it hides a sneaky trick to let judges go easy on serious crimes. That's not right. Conservatives tried to make it better, but were blocked. We need a justice system that puts victims first, not criminals. The other party says one thing and does another. I don't trust them to protect Canadians.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear the government talk about Bill C-16, they probably think it is a bill about protecting victims. They hear about protecting women from abuse. They hear about protecting children from exploitation. They hear about stopping the spread of deepfake pornography. They hear about tougher measures against coercive control in abusive relationships. Most Canadians would hear that list and say, “Who could possibly be against that?” The answer is, nobody could. Conservatives support those objectives because we believe victims deserve protection, children deserve protection and families deserve protection. That is the fundamental job of government: protection of its citizens. The problem is that Bill C-16 is a bit like buying a house because the front porch looks beautiful, only to discover later that the foundation is compromised. The government points Canadians toward the parts of the bill everyone likes, while hoping they do not notice the parts that would change everything. Buried inside this legislation is a poison pill that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum sentence in the Criminal Code. First, we need to understand how we got here. Consecutive Conservative governments had established mandatory minimum sentences for some of the most serious crimes in our Criminal Code. We did that because Canadians expect serious offences to carry serious consequences. Child sexual exploitation, weapons trafficking, armed extortion, drive-by shootings and human trafficking were not treated as ordinary crimes, because the harm they cause is extraordinary. However, for 10 years, the Liberal government has systematically weakened the principle that serious crimes must carry serious consequences. Liberal Bill C-75 weakened bail laws and pushed the justice system toward release at the earliest opportunity. Liberal Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum penalties for a range of serious offences, including crimes involving firearms and dangerous drugs. Time and again, police officers, prosecutors, victims advocates, premiers and community leaders warned that the government was moving in the wrong direction. Time and again, those warnings were dismissed. Today, Canadians are seeing the consequences. Violent crime has increased dramatically. Human trafficking has increased dramatically. Sexual assault has increased dramatically. Organized criminal networks have become stronger and more sophisticated. Canadians are witnessing the inevitable result of a philosophy that views punishment, rather than crime itself, as the problem, that views the rights of the criminal as more important than the rights of the victim. That is why Bill C-16's “get out of jail free” card is a poison pill that Canadian communities will once again be forced to swallow. The Liberals will say that Conservatives are standing in the way of getting strong laws passed, but I can assure Canadians that Conservatives are standing in the breach, fighting to keep criminals from getting off with a slap on the wrist for serious crimes. Understanding Bill C-16 requires a deeper understanding of the path that led us here. For years, courts have increasingly relied on what are called “reasonable hypotheticals” when reviewing mandatory minimum sentences. Rather than focusing solely on the criminal who is actually on trial, the court judges have increasingly considered hypothetical scenarios involving people who do not exist and who never committed the actual crimes in question. That trend culminated in the Supreme Court's Senneville decision. The facts of that case were horrific. One offender possessed 475 files, including 317 images of children, most between the ages of three and six, and many depicting acts of sexual abuse I cannot bring myself to say out loud here in the House. Another offender possessed more than 800 images and videos involving children as young as five years old being subjected to sexual exploitation and abuse. That is hundreds of images documenting the abuse of vulnerable children. Most Canadians would think that the court would consider those offenders and apply the appropriate mandatory minimum sentence. Instead, the court chose this moment to question mandatory minimums altogether. Judges based their decisions on a hypothetical story of a teenager sending a hypothetical intimate photo to a hypothetical boyfriend or girlfriend, and that hypothetical photo was later shared with a hypothetical someone. The court claimed concern that the same mandatory minimum law could apply, even though the case before them was very real and very serious. Because of that hypothetical case, the court struck down Parliament's mandatory minimum sentence. The government then had a choice. It could have changed the law to deal with that specific concern while keeping strong penalties in place for serious child sexual exploitation offences. Instead, the Liberals used that court decision as the reason for creating the new get-out-of-jail-free card in Bill C-16. That is why Canadians should look carefully at what the bill would actually do rather than what the Liberals say it would do. The government wants Canadians to believe that Bill C-16 is a major public safety initiative. It points to provisions dealing with deepfake pornography. It points to provisions dealing with coercive control. It points to provisions dealing with intimate partner violence. All those measures are designed to attract support. However, while Canadians are focused on those headlines, the Liberal government has inserted this poison pill. It calls it a safety valve, a phrase carefully chosen because it sounds limited, reasonable and harmless. The government insists this power will be used only in exceptional cases, yet when Conservatives proposed reasonable safeguards to ensure that outcome, every safeguard was rejected. Canadians should ask themselves a simple question: If the government truly intended that this be used only rarely, why did it refuse every attempt to define what “rarely” actually means? The answer is obvious. The government is presenting Canadians with one bill while pursuing a very different objective beneath the surface. That objective became even clearer during committee study. Conservatives approached the legislation constructively, because we recognize that there are very good measures that are worth preserving. Our goal is not to destroy the bill; our goal is to strengthen it and ensure that victims remain at the centre of the legislation. We proposed safeguards that would have limited access to the safety valve to offenders with no prior record. We proposed ensuring that sentences would not be reduced below half of Parliament's mandatory minimum. We proposed excluding extortion offences. We proposed excluding aggravated sexual assault. We proposed excluding serious child sexual offences. We proposed excluding some of the most serious crimes that Parliament has already determined deserve firm sentencing consequences. Every one of those amendments was rejected. Conservatives also proposed stronger notification requirements so that victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control would be informed about release decisions affecting offenders. Those amendments were rejected as well. The significance of those votes cannot be ignored. The government did not accidentally create an overly broad get-out-of-jail-free card but deliberately defended it. It did not overlook the concerns raised by Conservatives. It considered those concerns and voted against them. The result is legislation that speaks passionately about victims while systematically rejecting measures that would strengthen their protection. Conservatives support stronger protections for women and children, stronger measures against deepfake exploitation and stronger recognition of the devastating harm caused by coercive control. Those objectives are important and need support. Unfortunately, the poison pill at the heart of Bill C-16 undermines all of those goals, because it continues with the same failed philosophy that has contributed to the crime and chaos Canadians are experiencing today. At a time when communities are demanding greater accountability, the government is creating new opportunities for offenders to avoid consequences. At a time when victims are asking to be heard, the government is focusing its attention on a get-out-of-jail-free card for criminals. At a time when public confidence in the justice system is already fragile, the government is asking members of Parliament to weaken one of the few tools designed to ensure serious crime receives serious punishment. Canadians deserve better than legislation that says one thing and does another. They deserve a justice system that places victims first, supports police officers, protects communities and recognizes that public safety is a fundamental responsibility of government. If the Liberals truly believed in the good parts of the bill, protecting women and children against deepfake exploitation, why did they insist on attaching a poison pill that creates yet another get-out-of-jail-free card for serious offenders?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Liberal 3:45 p.m.

“I'm filling time by saying good things about my bill. I hope repeating 'protect victims' a lot will make me look good. Maybe if I talk enough, people will forget the other party said anything.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the member uses the words “poison pill” over and over again makes me wonder whether the Conservatives plan on voting against the bill. They prolonged the amount of time the bill took to get studied. There were some good improvements made. I think the members of the committee eventually worked well together. Victims are looking for relief. They want mandatory minimum penalties, of course, and we have restored 12 mandatory minimum penalties in this bill. The bill protects victims. It respects the Charter. It helps keep mandatory minimum penalties on the books rather than having them struck down by courts, with victims out of luck. We are there to protect victims. We are protecting children with the bill. I hope the Conservatives can find it within themselves to support this, because I am starting to really wonder who they are here for.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tamara Jansen

Conservative 3:45 p.m.

“I'm fine with some parts of the bill. We even suggested them. But I don't like the part that gives judges more discretion on mandatory minimums. That's the poison pill I keep talking about. I want to look tough on crime.”

Sébastien Lemire

Bloc Québécois 3:45 p.m.

“I want to talk about the old days when I could get my way. Now the Liberals can impose things I don't like. I think their changes to bail conditions might make things less safe for women and victims.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is something to be said about the time when there was a minority government. We were able to strike a sort of balance between a more progressive vision of the justice system, championed by the Bloc Québécois, and a more traditional vision focused on law and order, with harsher penalties, advocated by the Conservatives. Unfortunately, the Liberal majority means that the government will be able to impose various measures, notably an amendment that unduly broadens the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards. Taken together, these elements create conditions in which the criterion of violence, usually used to justify harsher sentences, is removed. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this. Does this create an additional risk for women and victims?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tamara Jansen

Conservative 3:45 p.m.

“I want people to think I care about victims. I want them to think the other side doesn't. I'm filling time by listing good things I say I support. The real issue: I don't like that one part. I want to argue about that.”

David Bexte

Conservative 3:45 p.m.

“People in Bow River don't like soft-on-crime judges. I want bills to force judges with mandatory minimums and consecutive sentences. I think judges will ruin the system if we let them choose.”

Tamara Jansen

Conservative 3:50 p.m.

“I want more mandatory minimums and consecutive sentences. I'm upset the bill doesn't have the exact limits I want. I think the Liberals did this on purpose and it will let criminals off easy.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 3:50 p.m.

“I think the Conservatives are lying when they criticize this bill. I don't want to say what specific limits I would accept. I just want the Conservatives to be quiet and vote yes.”

Tamara Jansen

Conservative 3:50 p.m.

“I want minimum sentences to mean something clear. You saying it's okay to ignore them sounds like no minimum to me.”

Chi Nguyen

Liberal 3:50 p.m.

“I want more laws and spending against violence. Laws didn't stop violence before, but we should try again. I'm not explaining why this time will work better.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act. I do so as a woman and as someone who has spent years listening to women, survivors and frontline advocates describe the gap between their lived realities and the protections our laws have provided. When I was 13 years old, I was given a rape whistle. It was a quiet but unmistakable signal that my presence in the world came with a risk and that my safety was ultimately my own responsibility to manage. Nearly 30 years later, much has changed: We have a deeper understanding of gender-based violence, of power, control and harm; we speak more openly about experiences that were once pushed into silence. However, for far too many women and girls, violence remains a daily part of their reality. Before I speak about statutes and sections of the Criminal Code, I want to speak about a young person whose experience illustrates exactly why the bill matters. She was 16 years old. She thought she was in a relationship, but what she did not yet have language for was that she was being controlled. Her boyfriend decided who she could speak to, where she could go, what she should wear and how quickly she was expected to respond to messages. When she resisted, he did not always hurt her directly. Instead, he was violent toward others in her life so that he could intimidate and isolate her. While there was no physical evidence she could point to, what she understood very well was the constant and escalating fear. No single incident clearly met the threshold for legal intervention, and there was not a system that could yet name what was happening to her, let alone stop it from happening. Her story is not rare; it is painfully familiar. Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence are not new problems in Canada. The government and the minister understand this reality, and the provisions in Bill C‑16 address what has been legislatively absent in our response to gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. In 2024 alone, 187 women were killed in this country, with one woman killed every two days. Behind each statistic is a life ended too soon, a family broken needlessly and a community changed forever. As the bill makes clear, violence does not begin with a punch or a final act of femicide; it begins much earlier, with fear, control, threats, isolation, humiliation and the slow erosion of a person's autonomy. For far too long, the legal system has struggled to name that reality, let alone respond to it. Survivors have told us time and time again that the law intervenes too late. By the time physical violence appears, the warning signs have long been there. The system asks them to wait for bruises, for broken bones, for tragedy. Only then, but perhaps not even then, are they offered justice. Bill C‑16 exists because waiting is no longer acceptable. The legislation recognizes that intimate partner violence and gender-based violence are systemic problems that require systemic responses from the federal government. It recognizes that technology and the digital world have changed how harm occurs, and it recognizes that justice delayed or denied retraumatizes survivors and erodes public trust in our judicial system. Criminal justice is, of course, a shared responsibility. Provinces must adequately resource courts, victim services, Crown prosecutors and the police, and the federal government has a clear responsibility to modernize and enact criminal law, which is precisely what Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act, seeks to do. Since the bill was introduced, it has been carefully studied at committee, where members have heard from survivors, advocates, legal experts and law enforcement. Bill C‑16 would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in a generation. While broad in scope, its purpose is clear: to intervene earlier, respond more effectively and protect those at greatest risk. First, the bill would create a new Criminal Code offence for coercive and controlling conduct in intimate relationships. This is a critical shift. Coercive control reflects how abuse actually operates through monitoring, isolation, financial control, threats and intimidation. This would enable police and courts to intervene before violence escalates to lethal outcomes. This would save women's lives. Second, Bill C‑16 would strengthen how the law treats the most serious forms of violence against women. Murder committed in the context of coercive control, sexual violence, exploitation, trafficking or hate would be treated as first-degree murder. When a killing in those same circumstances results in a manslaughter conviction, courts would be required to consider life imprisonment with parole ineligibility, comparable to second-degree murder. Sentencing must reflect the gravity of violence rooted in power and control. Third, the bill would modernize our response to criminal harassment and stalking. Survivors would no longer be required to prove subjective fear. Courts would instead assess whether the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause someone to believe their safety is threatened. This trauma-informed shift would recognize that harassment is cumulative and that early intervention saves lives. Fourth, Bill C-16 would update sexual exploitation offences to reflect the digital world we all live in. We know technology is not neutral infrastructure. It is increasingly used as a tool to manipulate, monitor and harm women and gender-diverse people. While the non-consensual distribution of intimate images is already illegal, this bill would clarify the law and explicitly include sexual deepfakes, which would be closing a gap that offenders are already exploiting. Committee amendments would strengthen these provisions further. The bill would now explicitly capture a broader range of AI-generated images, ensuring the law keeps pace with rapidly evolving technologies and the realities of online harm. A digital violation is still a violation, and the law must say so clearly. Fifth, the bill would strengthen protections for children, both off-line and online. It would expand child-luring offences, criminalize child sextortion, address grooming tactics involving explicit material, restore and reinforce mandatory minimum penalties for serious child sexual offences with a constitutional safety valve and require online platforms to preserve evidence longer so offenders cannot escape accountability. Finally, Bill C-16 has been informed through a victim-centred and trauma-informed lens. It would strengthen the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, improve access to information and testimonial aids, clarify the right to present impact statements and modernize procedures so serious cases are less likely to collapse due to delay. Together, these reforms would bring the Criminal Code into alignment with lived experience, modern technology and the urgent need for prevention. This bill is grounded in evidence and what many advocates have called for, for years. Women's organizations across the country have welcomed the criminalization of coercive control as a long overdue step. Frontline organizations working with survivors have described this bill as historic, recognizing that patterns of control are deeply harmful and that survivors deserve stronger legal protections. Child protection advocates have warned that online sexual violence against children has reached unprecedented levels. They have welcomed the provisions in this bill that would strengthen online child protection. As this debate has unfolded, some misinformation has followed. Let me address a few of these myths directly. Criminalizing coercive control is not untested. It reflects years of research, survivor testimony and expert input. It represents the hard work that went into Bill C-332, sponsored by former NDP MP Laurel Collins, which received cross-party support at committee. This government would not only be criminalizing the distribution of intimate images; that offence already exists. Bill C-16 would clarify that it includes sexual deepfakes, which would be closing a gap that offenders are already exploiting. As well, Bill C-16 would protect children online. It would expand child-luring and sextortion offences. As a mother of two young kids, I know how important this change would be. These are not symbolic measures. They are targeted, enforceable and urgently needed. Bill C-16 is a vital pillar of our response to gender-based violence, but it is not the entire solution. Legislation alone cannot change culture. It cannot house a woman fleeing violence. It cannot staff a crisis line at three in the morning. It cannot replace the trust built by frontline workers who walk alongside survivors every day. That crucial work is done by the incredible frontline organizations across this country. This bill must be understood alongside continued federal investment in women's shelters, transitional housing, legal aid, trauma counselling and prevention programs. This work must be in concert with the national action plan to end gender-based violence with provincial and territorial partners, indigenous nations and local organizations. Ending gender-based violence requires culture change in how we understand power, entitlement, masculinity and control. Bill C-16 reflects years of advocacy, hard conversations and courage in particular from survivors who spoke when it was extremely difficult to speak up. It would recognize harm earlier so systems can intervene faster. It would treat victims with dignity while modernizing our justice system to meet the realities Canadians are living with today. These changes might have made a difference for the 13-year-old handed a whistle instead of protection and for the 16-year-old unable to name coercion. They would make a difference for the women who have lived in silence and for all children who deserve safety. I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to continue the work beyond the chamber that our country deserves and demands.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Sébastien Lemire

Bloc Québécois 4:00 p.m.

“I want to ask why the Liberals rejected an amendment. It had more rules against people accused of financial disputes, not just violence. Why not add these rules too?”

Chi Nguyen

Liberal 4:00 p.m.

“I just joined a committee. I have not fixed anything yet. I don't know why we rejected the change you asked about. I think we should keep talking about this problem. Talking is doing something.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:00 p.m.

“I want you to talk more about how our bill will help people. I don't have anything new to say. I want people to think we are making them safe.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Protecting Victims Act

Hon. Rechie Valdez

Raquel Dancho

Hon. Rechie Valdez

Sébastien Lemire

Hon. Rechie Valdez

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Hon. Rechie Valdez

Tamara Jansen

Hon. Ruby Sahota

Tamara Jansen

Sébastien Lemire

Tamara Jansen

David Bexte

Tamara Jansen

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Tamara Jansen

Chi Nguyen

Sébastien Lemire

Chi Nguyen

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux