Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Protecting Victims Act

Bill C-16, Protecting Victims Act · Time allocation motion · now law Where it stands

The House debated a time allocation motion for Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act, a bill that would amend criminal and correctional laws, including creating an offence of coercive control toward an intimate partner, expanding first-degree murder designations in cases of femicide, tightening rules around sexual offence trials and delay, and updating victims’ rights. The justice minister said the House had studied the bill sufficiently, that amendments from multiple parties were accepted, and that passing it quickly would protect victims, citing femicide rates and harms from AI-generated fake intimate images. Conservatives opposed cutting off debate, saying the Liberals once opposed time allocation themselves and that the government was limiting witnesses and debate at committee; some Conservatives also raised mandatory minimum sentences, the notwithstanding clause, Bailey’s law in the Senate, and terminology about child sexual abuse material. The Bloc Québécois also objected to the government’s repeated use of time allocation, while a Green member supported the bill but regretted her amendments on elder abuse were not accepted and asked for separate legislation on that issue. A portion of the exchange went to accusations between the parties over delaying tactics at committee.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

1 statement

Elizabeth May

Green
“I support this bill, but I dislike that debate is being cut short. I wanted the bill to protect seniors from being controlled and abused by people close to them. I want the justice minister to introduce a new bill that stops this kind of elder abuse.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister of Justice will know that I have never seen a debate closure motion that I liked. I think time allocation is overused. I support Bill C‑16, although I regret that my amendments to extend coercive control to protect seniors from elder abuse were not accepted in this round. Perhaps I can use this opportunity to ask him, since the bill now contains a periodic review, if the justice department would not see fit to bring in a bill against elder abuse, specifically dealing with the coercive control of seniors by those who are close to them or make the pretense of being close to them.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 129

All 39 items ·
  1. Government Orders Protecting Victims Act 30 statements
  2. Government Orders Protecting Victims Act 27 statements
  3. Statements by Members Ponoka Stampede 2 statements
  4. Statements by Members Retirement Congratulations 2 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  6. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 14 statements
  8. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  10. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 20 statements
  12. Oral Questions Justice 6 statements
  13. Oral Questions Forestry Industry 3 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Points of Order 5 statements
  16. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  17. Government Orders Protecting Victims Act 26 statements
  18. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 4 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Orders 53 statements
  20. Private Members' Business Fair Representation Act 12 statements
  21. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  22. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 5 statements