Government Orders

Bill C-16, Protecting Victims Act · Report stage · now law Where it stands

What the law does

The law amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence for coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It classifies intimate partner murders linked to controlling conduct or sexual violence as first-degree murder, and expands the offence of sharing intimate images without consent to cover realistic depictions. The law also gives victims automatic access to information about their cases, bars people suspected of domestic violence or stalking from holding firearms licences, and makes other changes across the justice system.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

50 statements

Leah Gazan, Winnipeg Centre

NDP
“I want to change this bill. It punishes people after violence happens, but it does not stop the violence before it starts. The government needs to spend money on prevention programs, basic income, and stopping online fake sexual images.”
Official Hansard

moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C‑16, in Clause 28, be amended by deleting lines 9 and 10 on page 18. Motion No. 2 That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 63. Motion No. 3 That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 87. She said: I am happy to rise today on Bill C-16, as this is a very far-reaching bill. My colleague and I have studied this bill very carefully and sought to amend it significantly while it was reviewed by the justice and human rights committee. The amendments were submitted by women’s legal organizations, including NAWL and LEAF, and Senator Kim Pate. I thank them for their participation in trying to strengthen the bill. As noted in the title, the government claims that the bill is about protecting women and children, but this is very difficult because, I have to say, although the bill is a response to violence, it fails to actually address what women’s organizations and gender-diverse organizations have been wanting: more money and more support in trying to prevent violence before it occurs. It was those very amendments that were submitted to try to improve the bill, based on the advice of organizations representing women and gender-diverse people, nearly all of which the Liberals and the Conservatives together voted down. It is unfortunate. It is also important to note, and make people aware of, the failing record of the Liberal government when it comes to upholding the safety and well-being of women, children and gender-diverse people. Instead of prioritizing this crisis facing women and children across the country, the government has been fast-tracking legislation that undermines our safety. In fact, just yesterday, the CCPA published a report on behalf of the National Family and Survivors Circle demonstrating that the Liberals’ failure to adequately fund programs surrounding the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, and their failure to advance any progress toward implementing the 231 calls for justice, is actually placing indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks in more difficult and violent situations. This is very personal to me because the very riding of Winnipeg Centre has been noted as “ground zero” for the ongoing genocide of indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks. This is the very government that right now is stalling Bill S‑2 at committee, stalling on taking sexism out of the Indian Act, sexism that has been perpetrated against indigenous women, something that was noted by the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal at the UN as one of the resulting impacts of what it called the “ongoing genocide [of] Indigenous Peoples” in Canada. We know that since the pandemic, rates of gender-based violence have actually increased, not decreased, and the government has allowed, in the middle of an ongoing crisis of violence, prevention programs to expire by doing things like cutting funding to the Department of Women and Gender Equality. Meanwhile, this year’s child poverty report by Campaign 2000 states that child poverty has increased for the third consecutive year and has more than doubled since 2020, reaching 10.7%, or 802,000 children. At this rate, the report says, it will take almost 400 years to eliminate child poverty in Canada. It is one the reasons that since being elected, I have tried to fight for a guaranteed livable basic income to be implemented. We know that income guarantees in this country are not livable, and we know that women’s organizations across the country have indicated that a guaranteed livable basic income is one of the most foundational programs that the government could put in place to assist with the elevating crisis of violence against indigenous women and girls, all women, in this country. Instead of finding programs or investing in prevention programs, the Liberals have joined the Conservatives in advancing carceral approaches to public safety that fail to address the roots of the crisis of violence against women and children in this country. Investing in prevention before the crime happens, before the femicide happens, is something that would create meaningful change so that we would never have to hear about the unfortunate circumstance of violence that occurs because of a lack of investment in violence prevention programs. It is really sad that the government only wants to deal with the crisis after the fact, after the murder or the violence has taken place. We need to invest in prevention, and that is something that has been echoed strongly by women’s organizations and gender-diverse organizations across the country. Investing at the latter end without dealing with prevention means we will not see, unfortunately, a significant decrease in violence. The NDP has always taken seriously the safety and well-being of women, gender-diverse people and children. We welcome a formal acknowledgement of femicide in the Canadian Criminal Code. We are advancing solutions to get at the root of the problem we face rather than simply dealing with it after it is too late. Take, for example, what I worked on with families and advocates with the implementation of the red dress alert system, something the government fails to fund, to ensure that should somebody go missing, they must be found. Where is the funding? Where is the support for that initiative? One of the critical problems that women’s organizations brought up, which is under the purview of the Minister of AI, is the problem of deepfakes being used and benefiting media giants like Elon Musk through AI platforms like Grok. These sexualized deepfakes are appalling and violate the safety, well-being and fundamental rights of those impacted. That is why the NDP listened to researchers and legal experts from women’s organizations who strongly suggested that the language surrounding deepfakes in Bill C-16 be strengthened, since there are currently loopholes that let big tech companies off the hook and allow platforms like Grok that promote sexualized deepfakes to continue doing so. How did the Liberal government members vote on this amendment? They sided with big tech companies, failing to introduce regulations that would actually prevent sexualized deepfakes. I would like to note that in March, I requested information in an Order Paper question concerning meetings the Minister of AI has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI. Can members guess how many meetings he has taken? He has taken zero meetings with women and gender-diverse people. We welcome the inclusion of femicide into—

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“I support this bill because it protects women from controlling abuse and femicide, and brings back some minimum sentences. I want to know what the member thinks about it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-16 as very much an initiative that recognizes, as the member also recognized, the issues of femicide and coercive actions. This is something that has been, in my opinion, long overdue. I think Canada is demonstrating strong leadership on that front. It would also reinstate a number of mandatory minimums with a safety clause put in so it would be charter-compliant. These would be substantial changes to protect and continue to support women of all ages and backgrounds in Canada. I am wondering if the member could share her thoughts on the overall principle of the legislation we are debating today.

Leah Gazan, Winnipeg Centre

NDP
“This bill only deals with violence after it happens instead of stopping it first. The government needs to fund programs that keep women and gender-diverse people safe before they are hurt.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the legislation would not deal with the root cause. It would deal with the violence after it occurs. In my riding, there is a crisis of gender-based violence against women and gender-diverse folks. In the midst of it, there has been a massive cutback in funding to keep people safe before the murder or violence occurs. The government, if it is serious about community safety and about dealing with the crisis of gender-based violence, will listen to the experts and will stop divesting from programs and funding to keep us safe.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“Women can get trapped in violence when they are poor or have nowhere to live, especially Indigenous women. I want to ask my colleague what she thinks about following all the recommendations from the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 40 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg Centre for raising this important issue in the House today regarding Bill C‑16. We sat together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know that she cares deeply about this issue. I also want to thank her for pointing out that services have to form part of a continuum, and that the situation of women has to be addressed proactively, especially their financial situation, their vulnerability, and how these factors can keep them trapped in a cycle of violence. My question is as follows. We recently conducted studies on the rise of homelessness among women, especially indigenous women who have a hard time finding housing. The witnesses also talked to us about the importance of applying the 230 recommendations arising from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. What does my colleague think about that?

Leah Gazan, Winnipeg Centre

NDP
“The inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women asked the government to give everyone a guaranteed basic income. The Liberals promised to act on these calls, but they have only responded to three of them. If the government wants to stop violence against women, it should keep that promise and spend money on services that keep people safe.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, call for justice 4.5 calls for the immediate implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income as one of the key calls for justice to deal with the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls. I want to remind the Liberals that they agreed to implement the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, but where are they? They are nowhere, and they have responded to only three. Why do they not work on that if they are worried about dealing with the crisis of femicide in the country, and invest in services and support that actually keep women and gender-diverse people safe?

Jenny Kwan, Vancouver East

NDP
“My colleague ran out of time to finish her speech. I want her to tell us more about the changes she thinks this bill needs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of very important points and amendments that should have been considered but were not, at the committee. I wonder, because she was running out of time to finish her comments, if she could further elaborate on some other issues that she thinks members of Parliament should hear.

Leah Gazan, Winnipeg Centre

NDP

Linked statement

“The government is failing to protect people from deepfakes and the harms of AI. Women's groups asked the minister for help, but he has not met with anyone harmed by this technology. Instead, the government supports big tech companies.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about deepfakes. In spite of the fact that the minister responsible for AI has been asked by several womens organizations and by people impacted by deepfakes, the government has voted to support media giants such as Elon Musk in programs such as Grok. I would like to note that this is a problem under the purview of the minister of AI, who has failed completely to address the widespread concerns and fears of folks across Canada about the social media consequences of AI. In March of this year, I requested information on the Order Paper question concerning meetings the minister has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI, and I learned that he has taken absolutely zero meetings. Instead, the Liberals have been more concerned with—

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill to protect victims. It makes killing a woman in an abusive relationship first-degree murder. It makes controlling a partner a crime. It also protects kids from online abuse, updates laws on fake sexual images, and stops court cases from being thrown out just because they take too long.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, an essential and comprehensive piece of legislation situated on a broader strategy to keep communities safe. The last time the bill was in the House, our hon. colleagues voted to send it to committee so it could be studied, tested and improved. I am pleased to report that this is precisely what has happened. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has done serious and careful work. Members on all sides heard from witnesses, asked hard questions, proposed amendments and engaged with the substance of the bill in a way that Canadians expect their Parliament to. The legislation has returned to the chamber today and is stronger for that work. I want to begin by thanking every member of the committee on every side of the aisle for the seriousness they brought to it. Over several months, the committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received over 60 briefs from survivors of violence, advocates working to end gender-based violence, law enforcement, legal experts, child protection organizations and the provincial and territorial partners that administer justice every day. What was striking was not the disagreement but the breadth of the consensus that something must be done and that the bill would do a great deal of it. While the bill may have changed in the process, the seriousness of the issue has not. In Canada, a woman is killed every 48 hours. There have been femicides in every part of this country, and behind each one is a family that grieves. I have met many of these families and heard from them first-hand as to the impact it has left on their lives. These are not statistics. They are people who shared our hallways at school, who sat beside us at work, and who were loved. The protecting victims act would respond to that reality by moving forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge in cases of femicide. It would ensure a first-degree murder charge where murder is committed in an intimate partner setting; where it takes place in the context of a sexual offence; where it is motivated by hatred, including hatred of a person because she is a woman; and where it is preceded by a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. As the Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes put it, the automatic requalification of these homicides as first-degree murder would put an end to the inconsistencies in the current law and finally recognize these killings for what they are: femicides that exist within a continuum of domination. That is the language of people who have studied this violence for decades, and we should listen to them. We know through extensive engagement with experts and survivors that the pattern of using violence and intimidation to control every aspect of a person’s life is one of the strongest predictors that a relationship may turn deadly. By naming this conduct and criminalizing it in its own right, we would give the justice system the ability to intervene before a relationship becomes violent and before violence becomes fatal. This provision would have the power to save lives. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the members of the status of women committee who have urged action on this for years. The world does not stand still, and neither can our laws. The protecting victims act would modernize a range of offences to keep pace with the way harm is now inflicted. We would be modernizing the events of criminal harassment to recognize that a person can now be stalked through technology, including the tracking of someone’s location through their phone. We are also confronting the rapid spread of artificial intelligence used to create deepfakes. There is a gap in our law today, and the bill would narrow it by expanding the definition of an intimate image to include images created through artificial intelligence. We would also be criminalizing the threats of distributing sexual explicit images, a tactic regularly used to humiliate and control victims. That same principle of confronting threats before they become tragedies runs through the child protection measure in the bill. The protecting victims act would expand the definition of a list of offences that threaten our children and would increase maximum penalties for a range of those offences. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has been unequivocal about the stakes. It has told us that online sexual violence against Canadian children, including online luring, has reached unprecedented levels, and that confronting it is not optional. I would ask every member of the House to sit with the word “unprecedented”. We would be legislating not against a hypothetical but against an epidemic of the most reprehensible acts, which is unfolding on devices in the hands of children right now. I now want to turn to two of the more technical but no less consequential parts of the protecting victims act: mandatory minimum penalties, and delays in our justice system. These are the areas where the committee’s scrutiny was most searching, and the bill is better for it. With respect to mandatory minimums, a series of Supreme Court decisions, including the Senneville decision, left real gaps in our law concerning child sexual exploitation and abuse material, among other serious crimes, but the courts also offered guidance on how these gaps could be remedied. The bill would establish a carefully bounded safety valve, allowing a court, in the rare case where a minimum would be grossly disproportionate, to impose a different penalty that still results in incarceration. It would not simply restore the minimums that were struck down. It would shore up those on our books today that are constitutionally vulnerable. It is a measure that has received support from several parties in the House. With respect to delays, nearly 10,000 cases in this country have been thrown out for the sole reason that they took too long, thrown out not because an accused was acquitted but because the clock ran out. There is no version of that outcome that feels like justice to a victim who must live in the same community as the person who harmed them. The bill would require the courts to consider remedies other than a stay when the Jordan timelines are at risk, give clearer guidance on which complex cases warrant more time, and streamline the introduction of evidence at trial. Our law enforcement partners feel this too. The Canadian Police Association described how demoralizing it is for officers to build a complex case over months or years, only to watch it collapse on a timeline divorced from the realities of modern policing. They have called the bill a meaningful step toward restoring confidence in our justice system. Finally, the protecting victims act would do more to recognize the rights of victims throughout the criminal process. Too often, people who, through no fault of their own, are drawn into a long and difficult proceeding feel lost within it. The bill would build on the Victims Bill of Rights to ensure that victims have the information they are entitled to. Building the voices of victims into this process is essential if we want them to have faith in it. I would ask the House to hold in mind the words of Kelly Favro of Beyond the Verdict, a survivor advocate who said something during this process that I have not been able to set down. She said that survivors do not have the luxury of waiting until the theatrics in the chamber come to an end. She is right. While we debate, the violence does not pause. A woman is still killed every 48 hours. A child is still being targeted online tonight. The cost of delay in this file is not measured in sitting days. It is measured in lives. The legislation has earned the support of survivors, advocates, child protection organizations, police associations and provinces. It has been studied, it has been tested, and it has been strengthened. My ask of the House at report stage is simple: Let us not be the reason it waits any longer. Let us adopt the bill at report stage and send it to third reading so we can give Canadians the protections they have asked us for and that they deserve.

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“I want to know what the member thinks about the Quebec bar association's view on this bill. They support its goals to protect people from violence and update the law. But they warn that putting all these changes into one bill makes it too complex and hard to apply.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an important bill. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Barreau du Québec’s response to this bill. The Barreau du Québec agrees with the principles, but it has some reservations. It describes the objectives of protecting against gender-based violence, improving evidentiary procedures and modernizing criminal law as commendable. However, the Barreau du Québec believes that incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that could hinder their analysis, review and practical application. Could the member comment on that?

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“We need to pass this bill quickly to protect people and save lives. We should not delay it any longer.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is important to talk to Crown counsel, advocates and members of the bar. However, this government has a mandate to protect Canadians, and we are trying to pursue that mandate as quickly as possible. There are other areas where we are investing, but it is crucial that we update our laws quickly and not stall anymore. Lives are on the line. We heard it from the testimony that witnesses delivered before committee. In my personal opinion, we should not be waiting anymore.

Ellis Ross, Skeena—Bulkley Valley

Conservative
“I support this bill. But I want to know if it will change the sentencing rules for Indigenous people.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the secretary of state for the description of the bill. I agree fully, and I have agreed fully for 20 years as an aboriginal leader, as an MLA and now as an MP. However, I do have a specific question about the Gladue principle. Would that principle survive, or would it get struck down with this bill?

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“This bill does not go against any rules set by the Supreme Court.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this bill would not override any existing principles that are already mandated by the Supreme Court.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“I support this bill because it protects women from violence and brings back mandatory minimum sentences. I want the secretary of state to explain why the government is taking this broad approach to fighting crime.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my friend and colleague that I have always put the residents of Winnipeg North first regarding the issue of crime. The Prime Minister, in the last election, talked about how important it is that we have a higher sense of security, and this particular secretary of state, who has been dealing with crime, has brought forward and commented on a series of legislative changes that would make our communities safer in many ways. What I like about Bill C‑16 is that it would do such things as create strong national leadership on issues such as femicide. Bill C‑16 would reinstate a number of mandatory minimum penalties. The secretary of state has also been a very strong advocate through putting into place bills to deal with bail reform and other legislative needs. I would just like to get her thoughts on why it has been so important for the government to deal with the crime file in a very holistic fashion.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“Our government has introduced about nine bills to fight crime and update the criminal code to help victims and police. We are doing our part, but the provinces must also do theirs. They need to provide enough resources so that charges are prosecuted and cases are not thrown out.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, since being elected last year in this new government, we have had a very ambitious agenda on that front. We have put forward approximately nine pieces of legislation that deal with different aspects of crime. That is the most ambitious that any government has been in this Parliament. We are changing and updating the Criminal Code so that it keeps up with the issues that we are seeing in our communities, the issues that police are confronted with and the issues that victims are speaking out about. We are making sure that we are doing our part at the federal level. However, this issue is complex because it deals with different levels of government. As I stated in my speech as well, it is crucial to have provincial and territorial partners at the table and to make sure that they, too, are doing their part. I know that this issue is important to all of them because the premiers have raised it, so it will also be very, very important to make sure that cases are not dismissed, that Crown counsel pursues charges that are laid and that the necessary resources are provided at the provincial level in order for us to really see the results that Canadians expect.

Larry Brock, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations

Conservative
“This bill has good parts, but I want to remove the section that lets judges ignore mandatory minimum sentences. Serious crimes like gun violence, human trafficking, and sexual assault should always have mandatory minimum prison time.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the fine residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I sincerely thank them every opportunity I get for the trust they have placed in me as their representative for two consecutive elections. Let me start my remarks today by stressing, and I cannot stress this enough, that there are significant positive measures contained within Bill C-16. It is a position that we have maintained from the outset. Conservatives have worked constructively at committee and successfully improved the bill in several important respects. For example, we strengthened protections for children by improving provisions relating to child sexual offences. We successfully increased penalties where intimate images are knowingly created during or immediately following an aggravated sexual assault. We also successfully expanded the definition of intimate images to include AI-generated deepfakes or nearly nude images. We also required courts to order the deletion of illicit intimate image material within 48 hours. Our amendment to strengthen victims’ rights by expanding access to information under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights also passed, which is a particular measure, I might add, that has been called for by victim groups and victims themselves for a number of years. These were all meaningful Conservative amendments that were accepted by the government and, in my respectful opinion, have improved Bill C-16. All of them were worthwhile reforms. These reforms would better protect victims. These are reforms that, most assuredly, would better protect children, and these are reforms that Conservatives were proud to support. Unfortunately, it is time to talk about the elephant in the room. It is a very large elephant, and it was a red line that we, as Conservatives, continually pushed back and tried our best to move the government to relent on because of its dangerous implications. That provision is clause 63 of the bill, which is the so-called safety valve. The government describes this as a modest safeguard, but in practical terms, it renders virtually every mandatory minimum penalty in the Criminal Code optional. What is important to realize here is that there are dozens of mandatory minimum penalties currently within the Criminal Code that have withstood charter scrutiny and were upheld as charter compliant. The so-called safety valve, which would apply to all of those mandatory minimum penalties in the code, would weaken the Criminal Code, weaken sentencing regimes and weaken protection for victims. It would render virtually every mandatory minimum penalty optional. If they can be simply ignored, they are no longer mandatory. They merely become suggestions. Parliament created MMPs for the most serious offences because Canadians expect certain crimes to carry certain consequences. Parliament determined that some conduct is so serious that it warrants minimum periods of imprisonment. It made that determination after consultation and hearing directly from victims, communities and the public. Bill C-16 would undermine that. Under the bill, judges would be empowered to bypass those MMPs for some of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code. This would include human trafficking, extortion involving firearms, weapons trafficking, serious firearm offences, drive-by shootings and restricted or prohibited firearms. These are serious crimes that are devastating lives, families and communities every single day. Human trafficking victims suffer unimaginable exploitation. Victims of aggravated sexual assault carry lifelong trauma. Communities terrorized by armed extortion deserve protections. Families affected by gang violence deserve protections. Canadians simply deserve more from the weak Liberal government. Parliament established mandatory minimum penalties for these crimes because Parliament had long recognized their gravity. The government now asks us to maintain the words while removing the substance. We ought not to be fooled by that approach. Mandatory should mean mandatory, full stop. If the government truly believes mandatory minimum penalties remain necessary, then they should remain mandatory. If it does not believe they are necessary, let us be honest with Canadians and repeal them outright. Instead, the Liberals have chosen the worst of both worlds. They are claiming to preserve MMPs while simultaneously creating a legal mechanism to avoid them. We tried our best as Conservatives to improve this provision at committee. We proposed reasonable guardrails. We proposed limiting access to the safety valve to offenders with no prior criminal record. That was defeated. We proposed ensuring offenders could not receive less than one half of the mandatory minimum sentence. That, too, was defeated. We proposed excluding aggravated sexual assault. It was defeated. Excluding extortion offences was defeated. Excluding serious child sexual offences was defeated. Excluding major trafficking offences was defeated. I do not know what is so funny about what I was indicating there, but the Liberals are laughing at my speech. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Larry Brock: The fact of the matter is that the truth hurts, Madam Secretary of State. Mr. Speaker, we proposed excluding the most serious offences that Parliament had already identified as deserving MMPs. Every one was rejected. The government rejected every safeguard and every limit. It rejected every attempt to narrow the scope of the safety valve. The result now is that the floodgates would be completely open. Let the litigation begin, and let the charter applications begin. All of those applicants will declare, “Oh, Your Honour, I can’t have a mandatory minimum penalty because that would be cruel and unusual punishment.” That would happen each and every time. My question is simple: If the government trusted its own proposal, why did it refuse every safeguard the Conservatives proposed? If it believed the mechanism would only be used in exceptional cases, why refuse to define exceptional cases? The government’s justification rests largely on concerns arising from constitutional litigation surrounding MMPs, yet the Supreme Court itself remains divided on that issue. In the recent Senneville decision, the dissenting judge, Chief Justice Wagner, emphasized that courts must be cautious when relying on hypothetical scenarios to invalidate legislation. The Supreme Court warned against hypothetical scenarios that are fanciful, unrealistic, speculative, extreme or remotely connected to the actual facts before the court. It reminded us all that there are limits to what can properly be considered as reasonable hypotheticals. We proposed an amendment that would have required courts to focus on the actual offender before them, rather than hypotheticals. Again, Liberals voted against that amendment. Dissenting judges also reminded us that child sexual offences require strong denunciation and deterrence. They reminded us that society’s condemnation of offences against children must be reflected consistently and rigorously in sentencing. Parliament determined that denunciation and deterrence matters. It has determined that public safety matters and that victims matter. The Liberals are now asking Parliament to walk away from these decisions. Conservatives will not do that. It is for that reason that at this time I move an amendment, standing in my name, to delete clause 63 of Bill C-16, the provision that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum penalty in the Criminal Code. This is to be seconded by the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Larry Brock, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations

Conservative
“I disagree. I did not hear the NDP member's change to the bill. Are you saying it is the exact same as what I just read?”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. I did not listen to, nor did I take note of the content of, the amendment brought forth by the NDP member. Are you suggesting now that it is identical in every respect to what I just read out?

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“The Conservatives are wrong to say there will be no penalties under this bill. The bill keeps mandatory minimum sentences. It fixes problems raised by the courts so our sentencing rules follow the Constitution.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for me to correct the record. The member’s speech was extremely sensational. I know the Conservatives are trying to get a rise out of people and tell them that somehow there are going to be no penalties for anyone in any case. There are minimum penalties that are in our Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-16 also still maintains a minimum penalty. That is what, technically, the bill would do. In the Senneville decision, there were some questions left, and we addressed those gaps and questions through the bill. That decision did not hold that all minimum sentences are unconstitutional, but it gave some examples of where they may be in violation of section 12. It was really important for us to make sure we address that so we do not risk other minimum—

Larry Brock, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations

Conservative
“The secretary of state is wrong about this bill. It only stops judges from lowering sentences for murder and treason. For every other crime, a judge could give a sentence as short as one day instead of a full year in jail. The Liberals are fine with that.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was at the justice committee. I was questioning witnesses. I participated in clause-by-clause. The secretary of state did not. What she is proposing is absolutely incorrect. The only limitation of Bill C-16 is that a judge cannot deviate from a mandatory minimum penalty for two offences: homicide or murder and treason. Everything else is fair game, so long as there is a jail sentence. There is nothing preventing an activist judge, a clever defence counsel or a desperate accused to say that a one-day sentence is appropriate, as opposed to, say, a one-year mandatory minimum penalty. That is fine with the Liberal government.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“Our changes to this bill were rejected. That leaves a problem. The bill updates harassment laws using clear, factual rules, but it leaves peace bonds based on just personal feelings. That does not make sense, and I want my colleague to comment on it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague contributed to this discussion at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, but I would like to hear him elaborate further on this matter. The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to Bill C-16, but they were rejected. This leaves a certain inconsistency in the bill. On the one hand, the bill modernizes the offence of criminal harassment by introducing objective criteria based on the totality of the circumstances. On the other hand, the sureties to keep the peace under section 810 and subsection 810(3) of the Criminal Code are still based on a purely subjective criterium. This creates a real inconsistency. Could my colleague comment on that?

Larry Brock, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations

Conservative
“This bill should have done more to fix peace bonds. Stronger peace bonds would protect women who need help. The government says it cares about victims, but its actions show it does not.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. I did participate in one committee meeting at the status of women committee, where we were discussing the ineffectiveness and the tragic consequences of the enforcement of section 810 common law bonds. It is unfortunate that the whole concept of section 810 consideration did not find itself within the confines of Bill C-16. This would have been a glorious opportunity for the Liberal government to strengthen section 810 orders to protect women who have no recourse other than to ask for that type of protection. Again, the government claims to be tough on crime and claims to be very cognizant of victims’ rights. Its actions speak to the opposite.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 128

  1. Oral Questions The Economy 11 statements
  2. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 15 statements
  4. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Persons with Disabilities 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions International Trade 14 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  8. Oral Questions Infrastructure 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Health 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  14. Government Orders Government Orders 50 statements
  15. Private Members' Business Old Age Security Act 12 statements
  16. Adjournment Proceedings Steel and Aluminum Industry 4 statements
  17. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  18. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements