“This is an urgent and serious problem. I want to know what my colleague thinks we should do first to address it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague’s speech, particularly her comments on how things went at committee. I think she gave a very good description of the situation. It is an urgent problem, one that we are taking seriously. Given the seriousness with which this matter must be addressed, what does she think is most important in the short term?”

“I wanted to ask the member for Oxford a question.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House of Commons this evening. It is interesting, because I was actually looking forward to asking my friend, the member for Oxford, a question.”

“The Conservatives complained that they wanted more time to debate, and they voted to work late tonight. But just a few hours later, a Conservative member moved to stop the debate early.”

“Mr. Speaker, he says “any time”, which is not really true. We were having this healthy debate on Bill C-20. Remember, that is the debate the Conservatives were crying about because they wanted more time to speak to it. Do members remember that? The member for Oxford, as he was concluding and I was all ready to ask a question, moved a motion to adjourn debate. It was truly amazing. I do not think the House leadership really understood what was taking place. Let us think about this. For the first time in years, the Conservative Party actually voted just a few hours earlier to say it was okay for the House to sit until midnight. The Conservatives made that decision. They voted in favour of the House sitting until midnight. What did they do two hours or three hours later? The member for Oxford stood up—”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 6 of 100

  Only 6% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives are playing games and trying to stop debate on our important bills. Canadians should see that they keep delaying our work.”

“Mr. Speaker, if my friend opposite does not like what he is hearing, he has a choice. He can leave the chamber. At the end of the day, it is important that Canadians see the games the Conservative Party members play day in and day out, whether they are filibustering or trying to prevent debate on important legislation that we, as a government, put forward in the House of Commons in the hope that the Conservatives will, at some point, wake up and actually do the right thing and deliver for Canadians, whether that is with Bill C-16 or Bill C-20. Let me get back to what I was trying to highlight about the Conservative Party. It supported sitting late. A couple of hours later, the member for Oxford said, “Let us adjourn debate.” What does that do? It stops the debate—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 17 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 →

“The Conservatives do not want to work late. They are using debate time on delays instead of talking about this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is really somewhat sad and pathetic that the members opposite have stood up on a point of order twice now. They do not want Canadians to see the silliness that we witness on the floor of the House of Commons coming from the Conservatives. Shame on them. At the end of the day, let us realize that all they did by moving that motion to adjourn was make a couple of statements to Canadians. One is that the Conservatives really do not want to sit late. That is what it really comes down to. They are taking us back to their lazy attitudes of the past. The other statement is that while they say they want to debate bills, instead of actually debating the bill, they used the bells to use up the debate time, thereby denying more Conservatives the chance to speak on the legislation— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“The Conservatives chose to stop debating this bill so they could go to sleep early. Thirteen percent of their members and their leader did not even show up to vote on it. They are playing games, but we take this debate seriously.”

“Mr. Speaker, again, it is truly amazing. The Conservatives need to calm down a little. They had the opportunity to have more debate on Bill C-20, but they intentionally chose not to because it was night-night time for them. I do not say that lightly. We had to have a vote. We voted on the Conservatives’ motion to call it quits for the night because it was getting late, and 13% of their caucus did not even show up to vote. Even their leader decided not to vote on this. We have this great brain thrust coming from the Conservatives, saying they want to play this game. It is time to try to trick the Liberals and maybe get home a bit earlier tonight so they can get to bed a little earlier. What did that do? Even their leader did not show up to vote, let alone 13% of their caucus. What a game. This might be a game for the Conservative Party of Canada, but I would like to tell those who are following the debate that we take it very seriously—”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →

“Our government promised to take crime seriously and make our communities safer. We want this bill to pass, but the Conservatives are delaying it and coming up with excuses to vote against it. They claim to be tough on crime, but they do nothing to help.”

“Mr. Speaker, even though the Conservatives might want to make a joke of this evening and not necessarily fully participate on the issue of crime, let me assure those who are actually following the debate at home that we have a Prime Minister and a Liberal caucus that just last year went through an election, and we made a commitment to Canadians that we would take the crime file seriously. In fact, that was part of our platform. We have brought forward a suite of legislative initiatives to actually address making our communities safer for all Canadians. The biggest roadblock for making that happen, for seeing the legislation pass, is the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives come up with excuses as to why they do not want to see legislation passed, and then they put in whatever mechanism they can, even if it is silly, in order to prevent legislation from passing. Let me give a good example of that. Here is a good example on Bill C-16. If we listened to the debate and the complaints coming from Conservative Party members, we would draw the conclusion that the primary reason why they do not support this legislation is that they had a bit of a flip-flop on the issue of having a safety valve for mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums are something the Prime Minister and this government are taking very seriously. That is the reason why we have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums. There are a number of them, and I will go through a few of those, but the Conservatives say they cannot support it because there is a safety valve. Let me give a quote. The member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations is actually the new Conservative justice critic. He replaced the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Let me tell colleagues something about the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola when he was the justice critic for the Conservative Party of Canada. Now, in fairness, the Conservatives have gone even further to the right since the replacement of this particular member, but here is what he had to say: “the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve; that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed.” Seriously, we have the former Conservative justice critic actually recommending to the government that we need to invoke a safety valve, yet today, they have had a change in policy. Why? It is not because it makes sense, but because they want to use that as an excuse in order to filibuster the legislative agenda that this Prime Minister and this government have for making our communities safer. I say shame on the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, we had to bring in time allocation because the Conservative Party has absolutely no intentions whatsoever to allow Bill C-16 to pass. It is because it does not fit their political agenda. Their political agenda has more to do with self-interest and promotion. Take a look at the reality of what the Conservative Party members like to do. They like to talk tough on crime. They love to talk tough on crime. What did we talk about today during private members’ hour? We listened to Conservative after Conservative be critical of the government on the issue of transferring from maximum-security to medium-security prisons. They try to give the impression that the Liberals are soft. If we look over the last 15 years, the record high in terms of transfers from maximum to minimum security was actually when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. The Conservatives actually had the highest number of transfers from maximum- to medium-security prisons. Colleagues might not have thought that. What did the Conservatives do at the time? They did absolutely nothing. On that issue, they did exactly what they did in regard to restoring mandatory minimums: absolutely nothing. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“I want the Conservatives to stop delaying and vote for this bill. It brings back mandatory minimum sentences for child abuse and makes controlling abuse against a partner a crime. The Conservatives talk tough on crime to raise money, but they block our laws to make communities safer.”

“Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Conservatives like to talk tough on crime, but the reality is that their actions speak louder than words, because when it came to those mandatory minimums, we witnessed that the Conservative Party did absolutely nothing under the leadership of today’s Conservative leader, even when he sat in the Conservative caucus in a majority government. The Conservatives had the opportunity. They chose not to do anything. The Prime Minister and this government are moving forward and reinstating mandatory minimums, but not with help from the Conservative Party. It is a roadblock, but let us go on. What is the motivating factor for the Conservative Party? Do not tell me it is about good public policy. It is far from that, because at the end of the day, the Conservatives are more concerned about using this issue for two things. Number one is to try to give a false impression that they are tough on crime. Number two, they are using it as a fundraising tool. They like to be able to say how bad things are in Canada. I could bring some wonderful quotes of how those members take these extreme radical thoughts and try to raise money on them. I have actually been a recipient of Conservative fundraising letters, where they try to make money off the issue of crime. I say to my Conservative friends across the way that it is time they stopped thinking about the leadership of the Conservative Party and the Conservative right wing dominating that party more and more every day. I think it is time they started putting the interests of the Canadian public ahead of the Conservative Party leadership and the far-right movement here in Canada. The amount of misinformation literature that constantly flows from the Conservative Party of Canada to Canadians is disgraceful. It really and truly is. It needs to stop. There is misinformation after misinformation, whether it is inside the chamber or outside the chamber. Let us take a look at what Bill C-16 would actually do. Around the world, I suspect we would get some recognition that we are, for the first time, talking about coercive actions by a spouse and elevating that to make it a new offence in Canadian law. That is what the Conservative Party is holding up because of its behaviour. Bill C-16 would deal with the issue of femicide. Show me another country in the world that actually has legislation that would elevate femicide to first-degree murder. The Conservatives talk tough, but in reality, once again, they just do not want to see the legislation pass, even though it is a substantial piece of legislation that would have a serious impact on our communities. Members talk about bringing back mandatory minimums. Let me give a sense of what those mandatory minimums are. First of all, the bill would bring back mandatory minimum sentences for sexual interference with a child and invitation to sexual touching. This is a very serious issue. At least on this side of the House, we have a Prime Minister and a government that recognize this is something that should have a mandatory minimum. That is why, within the legislation, we would be reinstating that as a mandatory minimum. Let me give another example. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have a few examples, so the member should calm down and listen to them. The member will learn something here and hopefully change his attitude and vote in favour of the legislation. Second, the bill would reinstate mandatory jail time for sexual exploitation of a child, including abuse by people in a position of trust. This is the type of legislation that I would expect the Conservative Party would be excited to get behind and support. Let us take a look at another restoration. The bill would restore mandatory minimums for making, possessing, accessing or distributing child sexual abuse material. The bill goes on. There is a lot more within the legislation, but day after day, we see Conservative member after Conservative member looking at the holistic approach of the suite of crime legislation that we have brought forward, and this is not the first time that I have had to try to shame the Conservatives into doing the right thing and delivering for their constituents. Let me give another example. The legislation brings back mandatory minimum jail time for online child luring and child sextortion, crimes that devastate children and families. These are the types of mandatory minimums that would actually be reinstated so that we could have safer communities. If the Conservatives want to talk about having safer communities, it is about time they put action to their words and got behind what the Prime Minister and the government are putting on the floor of the House of Commons. It is time for them to stop playing games and vote in favour of the legislation. Whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons or in our standing committees, the Conservatives need to recognize that at the end of the day, as the Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus has indicated very clearly, we want to build a stronger, healthier Canada, a Canada that is there for all Canadians. When we talk about building a healthier and stronger Canada, that includes the issue of community safety. That is the reason we have a suite of legislative actions. Let us remember Bill C‑2, the first action we took. We had a minority situation, and we could not get co-operation from any political entity in the House. They did not want that legislation to pass. I had the opportunity to talk about that legislation. I was discouraged. The legislation talked about issues like fentanyl, lawful access, protecting our borders, asylum seekers and stabilizing the issue of immigration. There was a great deal of substance within that legislation. However, the combined unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives made the decision that they would not allow Bill C‑2 to move forward. As a government in a minority situation, we had to break up the bill. We brought in Bill C‑12, where we could at least build somewhat of a consensus that would enable us to pass the legislation. However, it meant we had to leave a lot out. We made a commitment back then to attempt to bring it back at some point. On the asylum issue and the issue of safer borders, we brought that back in the form of Bill C‑12. We were able to get that passed, but it was not easy, much like Bill C-14. When we talk about Conservative delays on Bill C‑16, let us look at what took place on Bill C‑14. Bill C‑14 was all about bail reform legislation. We had law enforcement officers, the citizens we represent, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and many other stakeholders all onside saying they wanted Bill C‑14 on bail reform. I remember standing in this very spot last year, back in November, making a very clear statement: Would it not be nice if we could actually pass this legislation and deliver it out of the House of Commons before Christmas? That was a very real opportunity. We could have done it. The only thing that prevented us from doing it was the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what prevented us from being able to pass through bail reform legislation. It was very unfortunate. If members consulted and listened to what law enforcement, other jurisdictions and stakeholders were saying, I think it would be virtually unanimous in terms of the poor performance of the Conservative Party of Canada in denying Canadians the opportunity to have legislation that would make our communities safer. They had the opportunity. Then we go to Bill C‑22, which, again, comes out of Bill C‑2. It deals with issues like extortion and, again, child-related criminal activities. Now we have the Conservative Party saying, “Absolutely, no way. We do not want it.” They want nothing to do with it. Even though, in talking to the law enforcement agencies, there is phenomenal support for Bill C‑22 out there in our communities, the Conservative Party will not, in any fashion, lend support for lawful access legislation. On the one hand, they jump up like jumping beans at times, talking about the issue of extortion. They like to talk about it, but when we bring forward legislation to deal with it, what they do is filibuster again. That is fine. They want to focus on character assassination. That is their primary focus. The government and the Prime Minister are going to be focused on delivering sound public policy through legislation and budgetary measures. We will find, whether it is legislation or the budget, it is nothing but a reflection of what came out of the last election and what Canadians are telling Liberal members they want.”

“Canadians elected this government to lead. We have introduced important laws to make communities safer. The Conservatives are blocking these laws with delay tactics and games.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is relatively new to the House of Commons, but he is not alone. There were over 70 Liberals who were also elected in the last election. Canadians made the decision, and I would suggest it was a good decision, when they compared the leadership of all the political entities and elected a new prime minister. The new Prime Minister and the new government have brought in substantial pieces of legislation. The Conservatives need to get off the thinking of previous governments and focus on the current government and the actions that are being taken to make our communities safer. They need to take responsibility not only for their voting record but also for their behaviour inside the House. It is the Conservative Party that is denying Canadians safer communities because of their attitudes, filibusters and games here on the floor of the House of Commons.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Signal 29 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 →

“We support this bill because it helps victims and keeps our communities safe. It gives victims information automatically and gives them extra support when they testify in court.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member opposite from the Bloc that the motivating factor for the Government of Canada, and I would suggest all members of the Liberal caucus, is in fact the issue of victims and how we can deal with and support victims. That is within Bill C-16, and I can give some examples of that. There is also providing the communities we represent a sense of security. Those are the motivating factors. Specifically, to give a couple of examples, this legislation would provide victims with information proactively, without requiring formal requests, and would expand access to testimonial aids for victims of violent and intimate partner offences. There are a number of actions within Bill C-16 that we put in place because we can understand and we can appreciate the issues victims have to deal with, which often go on for years on end.”

“Conservatives are sharing false information online about this bill to protect victims of abuse. I want to know how this misinformation is affecting people in my colleague's riding.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague’s speech. I worked as a family law lawyer, and I assisted women who were fleeing violence at home. However, one of the things that I noticed, which has been very challenging to deal with, is the amount of misinformation that constituents are reaching out to me on about Bill C-16 because of what our Conservative colleagues are putting out on their social media. In fact, just tonight, a constituent of mine emailed me asking about a video he had seen posted by the former Conservative member from Peterborough, and thank God she is the former member, which was basically saying all kinds of nonsense about Bill C-16. How does my colleague see this manipulation of information by our Conservative colleagues affecting how his constituents understand Bill C-16?”

“The Conservatives are misleading Canadians about this bill. It brings back mandatory minimum sentences to protect children from exploitation, which is a good thing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the excessive abuse by the official opposition when it comes to the issue of misinformation, whether it is inside the House of Commons, here on the floor, or through social media and emails. It is literally non-stop. For example, on the mandatory minimums that we would reinstate under exceptional circumstances, the Conservatives are trying to mislead Canadians on what that would actually do. At the end of the day, Bill C-16 would reinstate mandatory minimums. It would protect, in particular, our children from all forms of exploitation. I see that as a positive thing, and it is really lame and sad to see the Conservative Party intentionally mislead Canadians on this issue.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 19 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 →

“I want the Conservatives to stop blocking this bill and let it pass. Our government wants to make communities safer, and this bill helps do that.”

“Mr. Speaker, what often happens with the Conservatives is that they do a great deal of research to try to justify a behaviour, which does nothing but downgrade and be disrespectful in terms of Canada and the way Canada is moving. I can tell the member that he needs to get ahead and start looking at what has taken place over the last 13 to 14 months since Canadians made the wise decision, I would argue, to elect a new prime minister and a new government with a totally different agenda, and part of that agenda is making the communities we represent safer. I wish that members of the Conservative Party of Canada would, to use their words, get out of the way and allow the legislation, these initiatives, to become law so that our constituents would be safer.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 24 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 →

“We have worked to protect women from controlling and abusive partners since 2018. I want to know why Parliament cannot work together to keep women safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, in 2018, at the justice committee, we studied the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour. From that time to now, we have been trying to make sure that women are safe in our communities. I would ask the member why he thinks we are not able to come together as a Parliament, as Canadians, as leaders in our country, to provide support to women and to make sure that their safety is paramount within our legislature and within our communities.”

“I want the House to support this bill. It makes controlling a partner a crime and makes killing women first-degree murder in certain cases. The Conservatives should not make excuses to oppose it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe Bill C-16 is a wonderful piece of legislation that we could have very easily had a coming together to recognize, for example, coercive control as a new offence and to recognize femicide being elevated to first-degree murder in certain situations. These are very tangible things. Ultimately, I would liked to have seen members on all sides of the House recognize the value. We did not have to look for a false excuse in order to justify poor behaviour, which is what we have witnessed from the Conservative Party.”

“A Conservative member yelled that my colleague was off his meds. It is wrong to insult people with mental health issues. I want that member to apologize.”

“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as my colleague for Winnipeg North was beginning his remarks, a member from the Conservative caucus yelled, “He’s off his meds.” Members would never yell, “They’re off their insulin.” To disparage Canadians who are dealing with mental health is unparliamentary, and it deserves an apology.”

“Police chiefs support this bill to stop controlling and violent partners. A woman is killed by an intimate partner every two days. I want the Conservatives to stop delaying this bill and explain why they will not vote for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, while there were very heartfelt emotions that came from the member, I do question why she is conflating mandatory minimums with what victims of domestic violence and intimate partner violence are facing. In 2018, when there was a study within the justice committee about coercive control behaviour as a Criminal Code charge, the chief of police for Peel Region was very much in favour of this and said we needed it. Even now, chiefs of police are standing up in support of the bill. I do not understand why the Conservatives are holding up a bill that would save lives. Every other day, a woman is murdered because of intimate partner violence. I do not understand the justification that the member has provided for voting against the bill.”

“The member gave an emotional speech about this bill, but earlier tonight the Conservatives tried to end the debate early. Even 18 Conservatives, including their leader, did not bother to vote on their own motion. Why did the member vote to end the debate?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member spoke so passionately about such a serious and important issue, this piece of legislation, but I cannot help reflecting on the fact that earlier this evening, the Conservatives put forward a motion to adjourn the House so that this debate would have ended. He would not have had the opportunity to speak on the bill like he did now. As a matter of fact, whereas every Liberal voted on that adjournment motion, 18 Conservatives did not vote, including the Leader of the Opposition. They did not even vote on the motion they put forward. They would have had all the time to plan this. They could have been planning it since noon today, preparing for the moment. They could have told all their members, “At this specific time, we’re going to pull this game. Please make sure to vote,” but they did not. It is more of an indication that this is nothing but a game to the Conservatives. Why are they doing this? Why did he vote in favour of that motion to adjourn?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 44 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 →

“I want the House to pass this bill to help stop violence against women. It makes controlling or coercive behavior by a partner a crime, treats the murder of women in abusive relationships as first-degree murder, and cracks down on fake nude images shared without consent.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets. I am grateful to rise today on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Peterborough to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to contextualize the legislation within Canada’s broader effort to confront and prevent gender-based violence. Gender-based violence is a persistent and measurable reality affecting women, girls and gender-diverse people across this country. In 2024, 187 women and gender-diverse people were killed violently in Canada. That represents one woman every two days. Women are far more likely than men to experience severe forms of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and criminal harassment. More than one-quarter of all victims of violent crime in 2024 were victimized by an intimate partner. These are not isolated incidents, and our justice system has struggled to effectively address these crimes, given the complex realities of gender-based violence and the patterns of behaviour that often define abuse. The rate of intimate partner violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence experienced by women and girls, is more than three and a half times higher compared to men and boys. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and young women face even higher risks. The Government of Canada has recognized that addressing gender-based violence requires a comprehensive and coordinated response. In 2017, the federal government released a federal gender-based violence strategy and has since invested over $800 million a year to coordinate federal actions under three pillars: preventing gender-based violence, supporting survivors and their families and promoting a responsive justice system. Since 2022, the federal government has invested in a national action plan to end gender-based violence, a 10-year framework aiming to end gender-based violence in Canada by supporting victims and survivors of crime and their families and improving their experiences with the criminal justice system. Significant efforts have been undertaken in this area. For example, the federal victims strategy works to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system and increase their access to justice. Through the victims fund, which is part of the federal victims strategy, resources are made available to the provinces and territories for the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including for the development of public legal education and information material, and the provision of training on the legislation for criminal justice professionals. Considerable efforts have also been made to strengthen the criminal justice system’s response to gender-based violence. Canada’s Criminal Code provides a broad-based response to all forms of violence, exploitation and abuse against all persons in Canada. Over the past years, legislative amendments in former Bill C-51 and Bill C-75 clarified and strengthened sexual assault laws and the criminal justice system’s response to intimate partner violence, and former Bill C-233 imposed stricter conditions for those charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence. In addition, former Bill S-205, which came into force last April, created a new peace bond designed specifically to provide better protections for victims of intimate partner violence and their children, including by allowing conditions such as electronic monitoring to be imposed on the defendant. All of these efforts reflect an understanding that prevention, protection, accountability and survivor support must work together. Today, Bill C-16 is a critical part of that continuum. It strengthens the criminal law in ways that respond directly to what survivors, advocates and frontline professionals have long told us about how gender-based violence actually occurs. Bill C-16 creates a new offence criminalizing a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct in intimate partner relationships. This addresses the reality that abuse takes place over time. It aligns the law with the lived reality of survivors and allows for earlier intervention, before coercive or controlling conduct turns into serious physical harm or death. It also supports more accurate police and prosecutorial responses by requiring a contextualized assessment of power and exploitation. Bill C-16 also addresses the most extreme manifestation of gender-based violence: the killing of women because they are women. By explicitly naming and recognizing femicide in the Criminal Code, the bill acknowledges that women and girls are disproportionately killed in specific contexts, including intimate partner violence, sexual violence, exploitation and hate-motivated attacks. Naming femicide matters. It makes visible a reality that has too often been obscured and affirms that these killings are not random tragedies but systemic failures that demand accountability. The bill would ensure that murders occurring in these circumstances are treated as first-degree murder. It would also require judges, when sentencing for manslaughter in the same context, to consider penalties equivalent to second-degree murder, including life imprisonment and parole ineligibility for 10 to 25 years. Importantly, Bill C-16 also recognizes that gender-based violence increasingly occurs through technology. The rise of sexually explicit deepfakes, sextortion and online harassment has created new avenues for abuse, particularly targeting women and girls. These forms of violence can destroy reputations, livelihoods and mental health, and they often silence victims through shame and fear. The bill would address these gaps by clarifying that non-consensual distribution of intimate images includes realistic deepfakes, as well as criminalizing threats to distribute such material and increasing penalties for those offences. These measures would complement existing Government of Canada initiatives aimed at addressing online harms and protecting digital safety, particularly for young people. The bill would also modernize the offence of criminal harassment. Data shows that stalking and harassment are common before acts of serious violence, yet the current requirement to prove a victim’s subjective fear has made early intervention difficult. Further, Bill C-16 proposes reforms to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to better protect victims and expand access to testimonial aids for adult victims of intimate partner violence, sexual offences and criminal harassment, offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. These measures would improve justice system outcomes for victims by recognizing that court systems can be retraumatizing and that supporting meaningful participation is essential to justice. The bill would also build on recent reforms to peace bonds and firearms control, reflecting clear evidence that access to firearms significantly increases the risk of lethal intimate partner violence. By strengthening preventive tools and closing enforcement gaps, Bill C-16 would support the Government of Canada’s broader commitment to keeping victims and communities safe. Bill C-16 is a necessary step in Canada’s ongoing commitment to confront gender-based violence with seriousness, clarity and resolve. It reflects the hard truth that violence is rarely a single act but often a pattern, that technology has created new tools for abuse, and that too many women and girls continue to lose their lives in preventable circumstances. By criminalizing coercive control, recognizing femicide, strengthening protections against online and intimate partner violence, and reducing barriers for victims and survivors of crime within the criminal justice system, the bill would align our laws with lived reality and evidence. For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-16. Addressing gender-based violence is not optional, protecting victims is non-negotiable and justice must be delivered before more lives are lost.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The bill would address these gaps by clarifying that non-consensual distribution of intimate images includes realistic deepfakes, as well as criminalizing threats to distribute such material and increasing penalties for those offences.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since June 4.

  Every time it was said →

“This bill brings back 15 mandatory minimum sentences. Judges should be allowed to decide sentences themselves. The opposition is spreading false information, and that hurts victims.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important when we are talking about these bills to be very careful with the words we are using and what we are spreading online. This bill would reinstate 15 mandatory minimum sentences. It is really important too that the judges who are appointed to proceed over these crimes have the discretion. They are chosen for a reason; they are chosen because they are smart and they care. I think it is really important for the opposition to understand that the misinformation that you are spreading is not helpful to victims anywhere across Canada.”