TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-09 Sitting 132 Showing 41–60 of 106

A very long bill to increase government power over Canadians' digital lives and data, including making it easier for the state to obtain info on people from telecom companies and online service providers. During discussion, the Conservatives nitpicked specific provisions while the Liberals talked up the bill's benefits, and both sides traded barbs about being soft on crime and supporting victims.

Official Hansard ↗

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois 10:10 p.m.

“I want to say the Liberals messed up by voting against our amendments. I want to talk about those same amendments again another time.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to try to avoid some of the inconsistencies we see in Bill C-16. As I said in reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code, we want the criteria to be more objective than subjective. That was one of the amendments that had been proposed by my colleague to address this situation. That is the kind of amendment we would have liked to include in the bill, but unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it. So, we will definitely have to bring it up again. The issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code will need to be addressed, because it is clear that this section is not doing its job of ensuring that victims are safe. The Bloc Québécois will continue to closely monitor the issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Bloc Québécois 10:10 p.m.

“I want to agree with my colleague. I want to criticize government for getting in the way of organizations that help abused women. I want to know if there are concrete steps the government can take to be more consistent with Quebec.”

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois 10:10 p.m.

“Mr. Speaker, this government program doesn't seem to be working. We don't know what it will amount to. We have questions. Women are stuck. They need help. The steps are being delayed. I think more needs to be done to help women escape the cycle of violence.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is right: Representatives from those Quebec organizations did indeed come to testify about shelters. What we are seeing at this point in time is that wait lists keep getting longer. When I say that waving a magic wand will not fix things, Build Canada Homes is a prime example of that. We do not really know what it will amount to; it is still very unclear. We have a lot of questions. One thing we know for sure is that wait lists are getting longer. More and more women are turning to emergency resources. Without a space in a second-stage shelter, they are stuck at the emergency shelter stage, meaning that other women who need emergency resources cannot get them, so they stay home and cannot access emergency resources. Other women who are ready for that second stage cannot access it because there is no space. After second-stage housing, where do these women go and what do they do? Often, they have their families. We want to ensure that these people are housed safely and with dignity. Sometimes they need supportive housing to ensure follow up. In short, all the steps are being delayed. This is a key issue because it is often the reason why a woman feels she cannot get out. She feels that she is stuck in a cycle of violence because she does not know where to go with her children. It is a huge concern.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Kurt Holman

Conservative 10:15 p.m.

“I think removing mandatory minimums could cause problems. I don't like that. I'm asking my Bloc colleague to say what effects they think it will have.”

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois 10:15 p.m.

“I support this bill because it adds back some mandatory minimums, like my party wanted. I want us to vote on it now and pass it. We can always make more changes later. I want to work on helping victims and survivors. The other side is spreading misinformation.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of disinformation because the bill we are studying this evening essentially reiterates the Bloc Québécois's proposal to restore mandatory minimums for serious crimes. It also echoes the Bloc Québécois's idea about the potential recruitment of young people at earlier stages and about deepfakes. This bill is making progress on a lot of fronts. I think we have reached the point where we need to put this to a vote. It is time to move forward. I know there is room for improvement. We will have to continue to monitor progress, as I said, because this will not be like waving a magic wand. However, I think that the disinformation needs to stop and that we need to work on making progress, recognizing victims and helping survivors find their way and rebuild their lives.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Marianne Dandurand

Liberal 10:15 p.m.

“I want my colleague to tell us what is working well in her riding to fight coercive control. She should name specific local programs that are successful.”

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois 10:15 p.m.

“I want coercive control in the Criminal Code. Police say that will help them intervene sooner. The most important thing is to listen to victims.”

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Bloc Québécois 10:15 p.m.

“Ten women murdered is terrible. I want to stop men from controlling women. This bill will help a bit. Pets are protected now too. Conservatives tried to slow it down but we got it done anyway. It has some gaps, but I still want it to pass. I watched a lot of porn for my job. I worry someone might take pictures of me. That would be bad. We have to do something.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in the last four months of 2026, Quebec has mourned 10 victims of femicide. This number rivals the annual average for the past decade. That is horrific. I hope that my colleague on the other side of the House is aware of that, because these are tragedies. This is really an unacceptable number of domestic tragedies. I find the increase extremely alarming, perhaps more so than my colleague across the way. Advocacy and civil society groups are reacting the same way, because at this rate, 2026 could exceed the record 16 femicides committed in 2021. We do not want that. Words matter here: “Femicide” is not a trivial matter; it is a serious societal issue. Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters with regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures, has reached third reading. As my colleague mentioned earlier, this bill amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It also provides that murder known as femicide when committed against a female person is first degree murder in any of the following circumstances: the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour; the murder is committed in the context of domestic violence; the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking; or the murder is motivated by hatred. Now is the time to say enough is enough: no more femicide. The Bloc Québécois will continue to support the bill. Obviously, we do have some reservations. I still think that Bill C-16 represents a very significant step forward in protecting people from intimate partner violence and sexual offences. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports the changes regarding court delays, specifically the issue of mistrials. We support the new Criminal Code offence of recruiting a young person to commit a crime, the introduction of a safety valve for minimum sentences, and the strengthening of the Criminal Code provisions regarding harassment and sexual violence, which primarily affect women. As I said earlier, the committee study of Bill C‑16 took place despite the deliberate attempts by our Conservative colleagues to do what they think is their duty. Unfortunately, partisanship is leading to attempts to obstruct our work. By introducing a litany of amendments that are clearly beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues in the official opposition engaged in a series of delay tactics. Some were posted on social media for purely partisan purposes, effectively turning the committee's work into an election platform. What else can we expect from them? Sometimes I wonder if they even care about being constructive. Despite it all, the work got done and that was in large part thanks to my colleagues from Rivière-du-Nord and Shefford. Protection for the loved ones of victims of coercive control has been expanded to even include pets. That is a good thing. It is good news. An aggravated sentence was also created for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. Two decisions made at committee leave gaps that warrant attention because they make the bill less coherent and could jeopardize the safety of the very people that Bill C‑16 seeks to protect. Let me come back to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. During the 43rd Parliament, I served as the vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We conducted a study on the online pornography giant Pornhub. I watched hundreds of hours of pornographic content depicting women being filmed against their will while engaging in sexual acts, whether consensual or not. These women did not even know they were being filmed, let alone that the footage would end up online. As a mother of two young adults, I cannot tolerate the fact that there are brutes, people with no sense of decency, who seriously film videos of these women, and men too, without their consent during sexual acts. Imagine how that can destroy a person's life, career, family and self-confidence at an age when people are still developing as human beings, when they are building their self-confidence. Let me be clear: Committing such an act against people aged 37, 45 or 75 is just as reprehensible and must be deemed both criminally and ethically unacceptable. Our society is changing, our mores are changing and our means of communication are changing. I am terrified that this could happen to any of us these days, and with complete impunity. We must act now, through other means that can address certain shortcomings. Let us take care of ourselves, and let us ensure that justice is done.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Marianne Dandurand

Liberal 10:25 p.m.

“Nice speech. I agree it's urgent. You did good in committee. What should we do first for short-term wins?”

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Bloc Québécois 10:25 p.m.

“I don't like political games. We should work together on serious issues. Put people first.”

Stephanie Kusie

Conservative 10:25 p.m.

“I don't like Bloc MPs voting for Liberal bills. I want you to admit the government made a deal with the Bloc Québécois.”

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Bloc Québécois 10:25 p.m.

“You criticized a deal. I want to shame you for saying that out loud.”

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois 10:25 p.m.

“I'm boasting my party worked on a bill. My party wants to be seen on the side of victims. I want to pressure you to spend more money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is true that committee members worked as non-partisanly as possible. In the course of our other proceedings, members of various parties asked questions of the victims and the witnesses who appeared. Incidentally, as part of other studies, we asked people whether Bill C‑16 should be passed. Everyone we heard from asked us to vote in favour of Bill C‑16 and explained to us why it is such a huge step forward. I would like to point out another step forward. During the previous Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to address the impact of the Jordan decision on court delays. Bill C‑16 addresses this issue too. In this case as well, to avoid further delays in the court system, the government must seriously consider providing the provinces and Quebec with additional resources so they can administer this new legislative framework properly. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Bloc Québécois 10:30 p.m.

“I want to pressure you to spend more money.”

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Bloc Québécois 10:30 p.m.

“You're annoying me. I'm going to annoy you back. I want attention and money for my cause.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 10:30 p.m.

“I'm filling time with pleasantries while I decide what to say.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 10:30 p.m.

“You said 'any time' but I don't think that's true. You wanted more time to talk about this bill, but then you tried to end the debate early. I don't think you really want to have this discussion.”

Official Hansard

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—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 10:30 p.m.

“I want the other party to stop arguing and vote yes on my bills. If they don't like my speech, they should leave.”

Official Hansard

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—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Arpan Khanna

Conservative 10:30 p.m.

“I want you to stay on topic. Talking about other things makes me look bad. Focusing on victims is good for me.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 10:30 p.m.

“I'm filling time by insulting the other party. I want voters to think poorly of Conservatives. Talk time is running out on our side so I'm being loud to distract from that.”

Official Hansard

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!

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates