“Severe sexual assault with a gun already has a minimum prison sentence of four years, which is not enough. Why does the minister support letting judges give lighter sentences for this crime?”

“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?”

“I do not support this bill in its current form. It has good parts to protect women and children, but it also lets judges ignore mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious crimes.”

“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?”

“We support the parts of this bill that protect women and children. But we oppose the part that lets judges give shorter sentences than the law normally requires for serious crimes.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives support the parts of the bill that protect women and children, address coercive control and deal with deepfake exploitation. In fact, many of those ideas came from the Conservatives in the first place. The problem is clause 63. The government wrapped good measures around a poison pill that would let judges go below mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. Victims deserve protection, but they also deserve consequences for the people who hurt them. That is why Conservatives tried to fix the bill.”

“We support protecting women and children from abuse, deepfakes, and online harm. We do not support this bill because it also removes mandatory minimum prison sentences.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been very clear from the beginning. We support stronger protections for women, children and victims. We support action on coercive control. We support action on deepfake exploitation. We support stronger tools to protect children online. What we do not support is using those victims as a political cover for a clause that attacks mandatory minimum sentences. The government did not have to attach clause 63 to those protections. It chose to do that, and it chose to reject every Conservative attempt to fix it.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“People have lost trust in our justice system because judges chosen by the Liberals are too soft on crime. I want the member to explain why our laws must force judges to give minimum prison sentences and back-to-back sentences.”

“Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Bow River always appreciate when I have an opportunity to speak in the House or ask questions. More than a decade of having Liberal-appointed, soft-on-crime judges who follow the tone and tenor set by the government has really eroded the confidence of people on the disposition or the delivery of justice. I wonder if the member can speak to how bills passed need to be explicit in terms of mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences and how, otherwise, judges will erode the system and public confidence in the judicial system.”

“I oppose this bill because the Liberals rejected our ideas to keep it safe. If they want lighter sentences to be rare, they should write that down. They should not let serious sexual offenders get lighter sentences.”

“Mr. Speaker, I hope I have been able to tackle some of that in my speech, but the arguments we have heard from the Liberal side do not explain why they rejected every reasonable safeguard Conservatives proposed in order to define things. If their release valve or get-out-of-jail-free card is truly only for rare and exceptional cases, why do they not say that in the bill? Why not limit it to first-time offenders? Why not prevent sentences from dropping below half the mandatory minimum? Why not exclude a child sexual offence, aggravated sexual assault or extortion? The answer is simple. The Liberals wanted this power to be broad, and Canadians should be very concerned about it.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 21 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We need mandatory minimum sentences. Some crimes are so serious that judges must give offenders at least that much jail time.”

“Mr. Speaker, if mandatory minimums can be ignored, then they are not mandatory anymore. The government says there would be jail time, but that misses the point. Parliament sets mandatory minimums because some crimes are so serious that there must be a clear floor.”

• 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 →

“This bill lets judges ignore mandatory minimum prison sentences. I am asking if the member is worried this will put violent repeat criminals back on the street when crime is already very high.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-16 would create the so-called safety valve that would allow judges to essentially ignore a mandatory minimum sentence. Is the member concerned that, by virtue of this Liberal safety valve, at a time when we are experiencing record crime, judges will ignore the mandatory minimum sentences more often and let repeat violent offenders out on the street when they should be in jail?”

“I support parts of this bill that protect women and children, but I cannot support the bill because of clause 63. That clause lets judges give lighter sentences than the mandatory minimums Parliament set. Violent crime is up, and judges should not be allowed to give lower sentences for terrible crimes like sexual assault with a gun.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to engage in this very important debate we are having about the Liberals’ bill, Bill C-16, which comes in light of quite significant violent crime statistics in the country over the last 10 years. For example, sexual assaults have increased by 76% and violent crimes by 55%. That comes after 10 years of the Stephen Harper government, when there was a 26% decline in violent crime, but over the last 10 years of Liberal government, there has been a 55% increase in reported violent crime. Sexual violations against children in that decade as well are up by well over 100%. Human trafficking is up by over 84%, so the bill is arriving at a very dire time in violent crime against women, against children and against the most vulnerable in Canada. As such, I am very honoured to engage in this debate, and frankly, there are a number of measures in the bill that we personally support, notably things that the Conservatives on this side of the House have brought forward over recent years and have championed in recent years. While we welcome those things being adopted in this bill, we have other concerns, which I will get into shortly. For example, there is Bill C-225 from the Conservative member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, our public safety shadow minister. That bill is currently in the Senate and would make the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder. In fact, that would build on a bill from the Senate from about four years ago, which I helped champion, from former Conservative senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who is a nationally renowned champion for fighting against violence against women. It is great to see that is part of this bill. I appreciate that. Bill C-216 from the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill aimed to ban deepfakes of intimate partners to keep Canadians safe, especially women, from non-consensual intimate images being created and shared. Bill C-16 also includes provisions from that same bill to bring in mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material, so that has been taken up as well. There are a number of measures that we have championed and that we welcome seeing in the bill. Also, it would update mandatory reporting requirements concerning child exploitation material, but also the bill would criminalize coercive or controlling conduct within intimate partner relationships, which we support. I used to serve on the status of women committee, and we have long been hearing that this is an area that needs very early intervention, so I welcome that in this piece of legislation. However, there is a very divisive piece that we need to discuss. It is clause 63 in Bill C-16, which the Liberals have included. It makes it very difficult for us to support the bill. Despite all the good work that we have done that is reflected in it, there is a very clear red line in clause 63. It is what the justice minister has called a safety valve for mandatory minimum penalties. This really emphasizes the trend in this country of judicial activism and concessions by the Liberal government to that, and would undermine Parliament’s role in setting sentencing policy. Ultimately, it would allow courts to impose sentences below mandatory minimums set by the House. It would provide discretion to a judge to determine that a sentence should be less than a mandatory minimum penalty under circumstances the judge deems cruel and unusual punishment. This sounds like quite a significant hurdle, but recent court cases make me question if we should be allowing judges the discretion to determine what exactly that is. In fact, the Liberal government has linked this provision in the bill to a recent Supreme Court decision that I think really rocked the nation. For me, when it came out, it made me feel sick to my stomach. It was the Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville decision in the fall. For those who may not be familiar with that ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for the offences of possessing and accessing child pornography is unconstitutional. Our Supreme Court of Canada, the supreme judicial body in this country, ruled that a one-year mandatory prison sentence may be unconstitutional in certain hypothetical extreme scenarios for possessing and accessing child pornography. In the case in particular, the two offenders had 475 and 805 files, respectively, depicting child pornography, mostly of girls between the ages of three and six years old undergoing horrific, unimaginable sexual abuse. During this case, the Supreme Court said that, maybe not in that scenario, but in another potential scenario of a 17-year-old sending an 18-year-old an intimate image, if maybe that 18-year-old shared it and that was ever charged by police, prosecuted by the Crown and then brought all the way up to the courts, an MMP could be cruel and unusual punishment in that hypothetical scenario. This is why there is no longer a one-year mandatory minimum, based on this decision. Now they are bringing this forward, saying that this helps that situation. It gives the judges what is basically an out. I guess this is what they are allowing. We would have used the notwithstanding clause on that judicial ruling and been very proud of that. There are a number of other rulings as well in recent years that have us really just questioning the morality we are seeing in this country and, again, the judicial activism. For example, two years ago, in R. v. Bertrand Marchand, the Supreme Court ruled that a one-year mandatory minimum for child luring was cruel and unusual punishment. In R. v. Hills, it struck down the four-year mandatory minimum for reckless discharge of a firearm. These are very dangerous crimes, very horrific crimes in many cases, where the mandatory minimum is being struck down by the Supreme Court. Most egregiously, in R. v. Bissonnette, involving the man who opened fire and killed six people in a mosque, the court decided it was unconstitutional to impose consecutive life sentences on murderers like that. I disagree strongly with all of those rulings. Now Bill C-16, with clause 63, is providing more opportunity for judges to decide, despite Parliament having ruled that certain offences are so egregious that they require mandatory minimum prison time, like child pornography, for example. I look at this, and it is difficult to wrap my head around it when I think about some of the worst examples we have seen. We cannot go a week in this country without seeing some ridiculous ruling by a judge who ruled that someone could be let out on bail despite 50 violent crimes, some including sexual assault, breaking and entering, violent assault. They say, “Oh, yes, you can go out on bail,” over and over and over. There are light sentences for sexual abuse. We see this all the time. Instead of doubling down and asserting our rights of Parliament, the government would allow a “safety valve”, as per the Minister of Justice, for judicial discretion with mandatory minimums. We cannot support that. I will just describe one example: aggravated sexual assault. This is how the Criminal Code defines aggravated sexual assault. It occurs if the person who is being sexually assaulted is wounded, maimed, disfigured, beaten or in danger of losing his or her life. That action at gunpoint has a current mandatory minimum of four years, which, quite frankly, I think is not nearly enough, but that is what it is. At least it is there. Why is it that the Liberals voted against our amendment at committee to ensure that provision is not part of this safety valve? They allow it for treason and murder but not aggravated sexual assault with a firearm? What about sexual abuse against children? We also put forward amendments to ensure that those offences were excused, that those were not included, that those would be in the same category as the treason and the murder, so that this would not apply. That was also voted down. We worked collaboratively in that committee to provide opportunities so that these mandatory minimums would remain, and they voted them down. I would like to hear Liberal members describe to us in what scenario they morally believe a judge should be permitted the authority to allow less than four years for an aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint. If they cannot think of a scenario, why did they not support our amendment? It is so frustrating because there is stuff in this bill that we worked hard to push forward. I have been here for almost seven years. I cannot tell the House how much we have been banging on these tables demanding more justice for women, for children, for victims of sexual abuse, tougher sentencing, jail not bail for repeat violent offenders. Now the Liberals are getting up on their high horse, pretending they have the higher ground, and they are allowing this provision to give more discretion to judges to allow lesser sentences for aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint. I cannot get on board for that, and it is very upsetting. As members can tell, I get quite animated, because there is stuff in this bill we would like to support. We gave them every opportunity to take this out of the bill to ensure that these protections, this justice for victims, remain in our Criminal Code, and they voted them down. It is very disappointing but, unfortunately, not surprising.”