“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes controlling or threatening a partner a crime. It also makes sure people who kill a partner after abusing them face first-degree murder charges.”

“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank the members of the justice committee and the witnesses who contributed to the study of this bill. Their work highlighted the urgent need to strengthen protections for victims and survivors. It is an honour to rise in Parliament to support Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and above all to stand in support of the victims and survivors of gender-based violence across Canada. I thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for putting this bill forward. At the core of this bill are women and girls whose voices were not heard when they asked for help, women who spoke up and were dismissed, women who were afraid to speak up at all and women who were denied the support that they need. Intimate partner violence is not only physical. It includes control, emotional and sexual abuse, stalking and financial harm, often forming patterns that grow into more dangerous behaviours over time. When violence goes unseen, it goes unaddressed, and when it goes unaddressed, a woman suffers in silence. A critical challenge is that intimate partner violence is substantially under-reported, with estimates suggesting that around 80% of incidents are not reported to the police. In 2024, in Canada, 81 women were killed by a current or former intimate partner, equivalent to approximately one every four to five days. Each of these deaths represents a life cut short, a family devastated and a failure to intervene when warning signs were already present. These were not random. They were the tragic end of patterns of coercive control, intimidation and abuse, patterns that were known, experienced or reported long before the final act occurred. These harms are experienced at much higher rates by indigenous women, Black and racialized women, women with disabilities, 2SLGBQI+ people, newcomers and women in rural and remote communities. Too often, they are not heard and they do not receive justice, as systemic barriers often cause delays, limit supports and discourage participation in a system that was not built with their realities in mind. Bill C-16 exists because victims, survivors, families and advocates have spent years telling us the same painful truth: that the system has too often recognized danger only after it is too late. Their courage in coming forward has made it clear that intimate partner violence is not just about isolated incidents. It is about ongoing harm, escalating risk and lives hanging in the balance. This bill is not only about accountability after violence has occurred. It is about recognizing danger earlier, strengthening those protections and preventing further harm before another life is lost. Bill C‑16 breaks down the barriers preventing survivors from being heard, strengthens protections, improves access to legal support and enables survivors to safely share their experiences. These measures align directly with pillar three of the national action plan to end gender-based violence, which is “responsive justice system”. This pillar recognizes that gender-based violence is a violation of human rights and, in many cases, a violation of criminal law. It calls for a justice system that understands trauma, acts early, holds offenders accountable and puts survivors’ needs first. The national action plan is a 10-year framework developed with provincial and territorial governments, as well as victims and survivors. We have dedicated $539.3 million over five years to help provinces and territories implement the national action plan to end gender-based violence and address their most pressing needs. In addition to this, our budget invests a total of $660.5 million to advance gender equality, including $223 million to strengthen our response to gender-based violence. Overall, our approach to gender-based violence must be comprehensive. Bill C-16 would strengthen this work by making sure that federal criminal law puts survivors’ needs at the centre of justice. On top of this, the protecting victims act recognizes a truth that survivors know all too well: Violence does not begin with a single act. Coercive control can take many forms: isolation, intimidation, financial abuse, threats to pets, property damage or threats of self-harm that are used to manipulate and instill fear. Bill C-16 acknowledges and would criminalize coercive control, where economic and financial abuse is often weaponized. However, we know that criminalization alone is not enough. Prevention is equally vital. Economic abuse is often used deliberately to control others by cutting off access to money, creating debt, threatening financial ruin or making it impossible for someone to leave safely. It is a powerful tool of coercive control that keeps women trapped and unsafe. That is why this work needs to be connected. By establishing a voluntary code of conduct for the prevention of economic abuse, we would work closely with financial institutions and gender-based violence organizations to help with recognition and respond to that economic abuse. Together, these changes would reflect a broader understanding of abuse and the many ways it can be used to exert power and control. Coercive control is evolving. We have seen it. In a world where technology can be used to harm, Bill C-16 would respond to that abuse that is deeply personal and deeply violating. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images, including sexual deepfakes and nearly nude images, strips people of that control over their own identity. It follows them into their community, their workplace and their family. It is used to intimidate, to silence and to humiliate them. Bill C-16 also recognizes a harder reality: The most extreme violence against women is rarely sudden or isolated. Bill C-16 would ensure that murders that are driven by hate, coercive control, or sexual violence or exploitation are treated as first-degree murder in Canada. This matters, because femicide is often the end of a long and visible pattern of control, not an unpredictable tragedy but a failure to intervene in time. Prevention means listening earlier. It means recognizing coercive control when we see it, recognizing the financial abuse, isolation and escalating threats for what they are. Our laws and institutions must be strong enough to respond before gender-based violence in its most devastating form impacts these victims. Ending gender-based violence is not only a moral responsibility. It is also about whether people can live, work or contribute without fear. No one can thrive in this country, build a business or raise a family if they are not safe. The bill is part of a coordinated effort to prevent escalating violence and support survivors. Bill C-16 is not abstract. It is about real people and real lives. It is about closing gaps that have left too many people without protection, and about making sure our justice system reflects the harm we know exists. It has been one part of a broader effort to end gender-based violence. As the bill moves forward, I ask all members to continue supporting Bill C-16, not simply as a policy choice but as a responsibility we owe to the women and girls whose lives were taken, to those whose stories were ignored and to those who were never given the chance to be heard. This legislation exists because of them, because they were brave enough to speak up and because others spoke up for them when they could not. Their lives and experiences forced us to confront what failed, what was missing and what must change. Together we can move forward in a country where we can live safely and with dignity, where lives are not lost before systems respond, and where hope is built through action.”

• 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 →

“I want the House to pass this bill to protect women and other victims of violence. It makes controlling an intimate partner a crime and makes killing women first-degree murder.”

“Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the unique challenges that women and other victims face in this country, and this bill is truly important. Bill C-16 would protect those victims. I have already touched on a few things in my speech today, but really the key is addressing and criminalizing coercive control and all the precursors to an ultimate end for women, in terms of severe issues that are caused for them. The bill would also ensure that, from a penalization and justice perspective, we make femicide first-degree murder in this country. That would be a huge step forward, and in combination with criminalizing coercive control and all the other measures I outlined today, we would help address gender-based violence in this country.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We are protecting victims of domestic violence by making femicide a serious crime, making bail rules stricter for repeat offenders, and spending more than 500,000 dollars to support survivors and their families.”

“Mr. Speaker, gender-based violence has no place in our country. As I said in my speech, by recognizing femicide as a serious offence, tightening bail conditions for repeat offenders and investing over half a million dollars to support survivors and their families, we are strengthening protections for victims of domestic violence.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill is actually tougher on crime. When minimum sentences do not have exceptions, courts strike them down. Our bill protects these sentences so criminals still go to jail.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am tired of hearing the exaggeration throughout the debate on this bill. The bill would be tougher on crime overall, because without a safety valve, mandatory minimum penalties would often get struck down. What we would do through the bill is keep minimum penalties in place. We could actually make sure that people serve a sentence when they commit a heinous crime. Really, the Conservatives are fake tough on crime, because what they have achieved is the cancellation of all these minimum sentences through charter challenges. What we would do in this bill is make them mandatory, and therefore make them tougher.”

“I want the Conservatives to help pass this bill to end gender-based violence. Our government is also spending money on services like housing, counselling, and legal help to support victims and stop this violence.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. secretary of state for sharing her perspectives, and I completely agree. The Conservatives opposite have an opportunity right now. If they really want to end gender-based violence, and if they really want to help victims and survivors, they can help move Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, forward. I just want to share, as I already said in my speech earlier, that it is not just about legislation. We are also, through Women and Gender Equality, investing significantly to make sure to end gender-based violence. In 2024 and 2025, more than 1 million people across Canada were able to access services like counselling, housing, legal information, crisis supports and community-based programs, because of the national action plan that I have already referenced. On top of this, we have delivered 27,400 prevention resources, and we are going to do everything we can to end gender-based violence.”

“I want the Conservatives to vote for this bill. It protects victims and children. It brings back 12 mandatory minimum sentences in a way that respects the Charter so the courts will not strike them down.”

“Mr. Speaker, the fact that the member uses the words “poison pill” over and over again makes me wonder whether the Conservatives plan on voting against the bill. They prolonged the amount of time the bill took to get studied. There were some good improvements made. I think the members of the committee eventually worked well together. Victims are looking for relief. They want mandatory minimum penalties, of course, and we have restored 12 mandatory minimum penalties in this bill. The bill protects victims. It respects the Charter. It helps keep mandatory minimum penalties on the books rather than having them struck down by courts, with victims out of luck. We are there to protect victims. We are protecting children with the bill. I hope the Conservatives can find it within themselves to support this, because I am starting to really wonder who they are here for.”

“This bill fixes the law so it follows the Constitution and brings back mandatory minimum sentences. The Conservatives are misleading Canadians about it to help themselves.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe the Conservative Party is being completely self-serving and does not recognize that the changes in Bill C‑16 would make sure that it is constitutionally compliant. Mandatory minimums would be restored. Why is the Conservative Party attempting to deceive Canadians by trying to spread misinformation on important crime-fighting legislation?”

“I want the House to pass this bill to protect victims of violence. It makes controlling or coercive behaviour by an intimate partner a crime so police can step in before people get hurt. It also increases penalties for killing a partner, updates laws against stalking, bans sexual deepfakes, and protects children from online harm.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act. I do so as a woman and as someone who has spent years listening to women, survivors and frontline advocates describe the gap between their lived realities and the protections our laws have provided. When I was 13 years old, I was given a rape whistle. It was a quiet but unmistakable signal that my presence in the world came with a risk and that my safety was ultimately my own responsibility to manage. Nearly 30 years later, much has changed: We have a deeper understanding of gender-based violence, of power, control and harm; we speak more openly about experiences that were once pushed into silence. However, for far too many women and girls, violence remains a daily part of their reality. Before I speak about statutes and sections of the Criminal Code, I want to speak about a young person whose experience illustrates exactly why the bill matters. She was 16 years old. She thought she was in a relationship, but what she did not yet have language for was that she was being controlled. Her boyfriend decided who she could speak to, where she could go, what she should wear and how quickly she was expected to respond to messages. When she resisted, he did not always hurt her directly. Instead, he was violent toward others in her life so that he could intimidate and isolate her. While there was no physical evidence she could point to, what she understood very well was the constant and escalating fear. No single incident clearly met the threshold for legal intervention, and there was not a system that could yet name what was happening to her, let alone stop it from happening. Her story is not rare; it is painfully familiar. Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence are not new problems in Canada. The government and the minister understand this reality, and the provisions in Bill C‑16 address what has been legislatively absent in our response to gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. In 2024 alone, 187 women were killed in this country, with one woman killed every two days. Behind each statistic is a life ended too soon, a family broken needlessly and a community changed forever. As the bill makes clear, violence does not begin with a punch or a final act of femicide; it begins much earlier, with fear, control, threats, isolation, humiliation and the slow erosion of a person’s autonomy. For far too long, the legal system has struggled to name that reality, let alone respond to it. Survivors have told us time and time again that the law intervenes too late. By the time physical violence appears, the warning signs have long been there. The system asks them to wait for bruises, for broken bones, for tragedy. Only then, but perhaps not even then, are they offered justice. Bill C‑16 exists because waiting is no longer acceptable. The legislation recognizes that intimate partner violence and gender-based violence are systemic problems that require systemic responses from the federal government. It recognizes that technology and the digital world have changed how harm occurs, and it recognizes that justice delayed or denied retraumatizes survivors and erodes public trust in our judicial system. Criminal justice is, of course, a shared responsibility. Provinces must adequately resource courts, victim services, Crown prosecutors and the police, and the federal government has a clear responsibility to modernize and enact criminal law, which is precisely what Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act, seeks to do. Since the bill was introduced, it has been carefully studied at committee, where members have heard from survivors, advocates, legal experts and law enforcement. Bill C‑16 would be one of the most significant updates to Canada’s criminal justice system in a generation. While broad in scope, its purpose is clear: to intervene earlier, respond more effectively and protect those at greatest risk. First, the bill would create a new Criminal Code offence for coercive and controlling conduct in intimate relationships. This is a critical shift. Coercive control reflects how abuse actually operates through monitoring, isolation, financial control, threats and intimidation. This would enable police and courts to intervene before violence escalates to lethal outcomes. This would save women’s lives. Second, Bill C‑16 would strengthen how the law treats the most serious forms of violence against women. Murder committed in the context of coercive control, sexual violence, exploitation, trafficking or hate would be treated as first-degree murder. When a killing in those same circumstances results in a manslaughter conviction, courts would be required to consider life imprisonment with parole ineligibility, comparable to second-degree murder. Sentencing must reflect the gravity of violence rooted in power and control. Third, the bill would modernize our response to criminal harassment and stalking. Survivors would no longer be required to prove subjective fear. Courts would instead assess whether the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause someone to believe their safety is threatened. This trauma-informed shift would recognize that harassment is cumulative and that early intervention saves lives. Fourth, Bill C-16 would update sexual exploitation offences to reflect the digital world we all live in. We know technology is not neutral infrastructure. It is increasingly used as a tool to manipulate, monitor and harm women and gender-diverse people. While the non-consensual distribution of intimate images is already illegal, this bill would clarify the law and explicitly include sexual deepfakes, which would be closing a gap that offenders are already exploiting. Committee amendments would strengthen these provisions further. The bill would now explicitly capture a broader range of AI-generated images, ensuring the law keeps pace with rapidly evolving technologies and the realities of online harm. A digital violation is still a violation, and the law must say so clearly. Fifth, the bill would strengthen protections for children, both off-line and online. It would expand child-luring offences, criminalize child sextortion, address grooming tactics involving explicit material, restore and reinforce mandatory minimum penalties for serious child sexual offences with a constitutional safety valve and require online platforms to preserve evidence longer so offenders cannot escape accountability. Finally, Bill C-16 has been informed through a victim-centred and trauma-informed lens. It would strengthen the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, improve access to information and testimonial aids, clarify the right to present impact statements and modernize procedures so serious cases are less likely to collapse due to delay. Together, these reforms would bring the Criminal Code into alignment with lived experience, modern technology and the urgent need for prevention. This bill is grounded in evidence and what many advocates have called for, for years. Women’s organizations across the country have welcomed the criminalization of coercive control as a long overdue step. Frontline organizations working with survivors have described this bill as historic, recognizing that patterns of control are deeply harmful and that survivors deserve stronger legal protections. Child protection advocates have warned that online sexual violence against children has reached unprecedented levels. They have welcomed the provisions in this bill that would strengthen online child protection. As this debate has unfolded, some misinformation has followed. Let me address a few of these myths directly. Criminalizing coercive control is not untested. It reflects years of research, survivor testimony and expert input. It represents the hard work that went into Bill C-332, sponsored by former NDP MP Laurel Collins, which received cross-party support at committee. This government would not only be criminalizing the distribution of intimate images; that offence already exists. Bill C-16 would clarify that it includes sexual deepfakes, which would be closing a gap that offenders are already exploiting. As well, Bill C-16 would protect children online. It would expand child-luring and sextortion offences. As a mother of two young kids, I know how important this change would be. These are not symbolic measures. They are targeted, enforceable and urgently needed. Bill C-16 is a vital pillar of our response to gender-based violence, but it is not the entire solution. Legislation alone cannot change culture. It cannot house a woman fleeing violence. It cannot staff a crisis line at three in the morning. It cannot replace the trust built by frontline workers who walk alongside survivors every day. That crucial work is done by the incredible frontline organizations across this country. This bill must be understood alongside continued federal investment in women’s shelters, transitional housing, legal aid, trauma counselling and prevention programs. This work must be in concert with the national action plan to end gender-based violence with provincial and territorial partners, indigenous nations and local organizations. Ending gender-based violence requires culture change in how we understand power, entitlement, masculinity and control. Bill C-16 reflects years of advocacy, hard conversations and courage in particular from survivors who spoke when it was extremely difficult to speak up. It would recognize harm earlier so systems can intervene faster. It would treat victims with dignity while modernizing our justice system to meet the realities Canadians are living with today. These changes might have made a difference for the 13-year-old handed a whistle instead of protection and for the 16-year-old unable to name coercion. They would make a difference for the women who have lived in silence and for all children who deserve safety. I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to continue the work beyond the chamber that our country deserves and demands.”

“I just joined the status of women committee. I cannot answer the member's exact question, but we need to fix problems in our laws by looking at the whole system and listening to front-line workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have just become a member of the status of women committee. I am really thrilled that we are working at a systems level to start to address some of these challenges that we are seeing in the laws and to hearing from some of the folks who are doing the work on the front lines to identify some of these challenges. I cannot speak to the question that the member brought up specifically, but I want to say that this work needs to be happening with a much more systematic approach.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill makes controlling a partner a crime, treats killing women as first-degree murder, and brings back some minimum prison sentences. These changes will make our communities safer. Why was it important for the government to introduce this bill and other laws to protect our communities?”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague. This is a first-of-a-kind legislation on the whole issue of coercive actions, femicide being advanced to first-degree murder and the reinstatement of a number of mandatory minimums. These are all important things that will make our communities healthier. Could the member expand on why it was important that the government bring in not only this legislation, but a series of pieces of legislation to make the communities we represent safer for all?”