Patricia Lattanzio
Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“Treating these murders as the Criminal Code's most serious forms of homicide speaks directly to the gravity of these offences and to the seriousness with which the government is moving to address them. I would like to dwell for a moment on the term I am using here, “femicide”, and the importance of naming it as such.”
“Behind every one of these numbers is a person, a family and a community left to grieve. We owe those families more than our sympathy. We owe them action, so let me outline a few of the key changes that Bill C-16 would bring.”
“Most significantly, Bill C-16 would strengthen mandatory minimum penalties for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation material, including restoring more than 12 mandatory minimum penalties for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by the courts.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this evening on behalf of the citizens of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel to speak to Bill C-16 , the protecting victims act, at third reading. Across the country, we are facing a stark reality. In my home province of Quebec, there have been 10 femicides since January.”
“Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes tells us that this type of violence, which so often goes unseen, is one of the main determinants of femicide. Criminalizing it would help us detect high-risk situations sooner and strengthen prevention.”
“We would also be putting more information into the hands of victims by providing them with information about available resources proactively, without requiring a formal request.”
The complete record
Every one of 233 lines we hold for Patricia Lattanzio, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas GLOBE COP27 Legislators Summit, Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, November 6-18, 2022; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas 7th Gathering of ParlAmericas Open Parliament Network, Santiago, Chile, April 20-22, 2023; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas 7th Gathering of the ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network on Climate Change and the 15th Gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network Gender Equality, Mexico City, Mexico, September 27-29, 2023; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas Bilateral Visit to Costa Rica and Dominican Republic, San José, Costa Rica, and Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, March 11-15, 2024; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas 8th Gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network on Climate Change and Sustainability and 16th Gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network for Gender Equality, San José, Costa Rica, October 23-25, 2024; and, finally, a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas Bilateral Mission, Guatemala City, Guatemala, November 13-15, 2024.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague also sits on the justice committee and has contributed to the study of Bill C‑16 and many other important pieces of legislation. This bill, Bill C‑16 , has been waiting to be brought forward for many years. Women's groups have come forward and have told governments and politicians to enact, finally, a piece of legislation that would protect them. It would also protect children who are being abused with sextortion online. We see it, we hear it and we read it in the papers. This is a relief, not only for today, but for many generations to come.”
“Mr. Speaker, in fact, what this does is basically give tools. The objective of Bill C‑16 is to protect victims. It gives tools to police enforcement and those who work in the justice realm, so that they will be able to catch predators faster. It imposes on service providers to share the information. Bill C‑16 will be a helpful remedy.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague sits with me at the justice committee, and we have done tremendous work on various bills, including Bill C‑16 , through hearing testimony from experts, going through clause-by-clause and making amendments, so I want to thank him for his collaboration on the committee. The purpose of this specific bill is to protect victims and children. That is the focus of Bill C‑16 . The bill would bring in measures so victims can finally get the protections that they need. We would establish a measure, in terms of the mandatory minimum penalties, in Bill C‑16, the safety valve, so that when an accused receives a sentence or a penalty, the measure would make sure the sentence will not be struck down.”
“Whether it be a family member, a friend, a colleague or a neighbour, someone in our lives has needed or will need these remedies one day, and it is important that we step up to provide them. Bill C‑16 has been supported by law enforcement, by victim advocates and by Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and I implore all members of the House, of all political stripes, to stand with victims and lend their support to Bill C‑16.”
“We would also be putting more information into the hands of victims by providing them with information about available resources proactively, without requiring a formal request. We would be expanding access to testimonial aids for victims of offences committed by an intimate partner and clarifying victims' rights to present impact statements at the sentencing, parole and correction stages. We would also be enhancing the disclosure of information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so victims can have the full scope of the status and location of their offender. While I have highlighted but a few of the essential measures the protecting victims act would introduce, the issues of gender-based violence and sexual exploitation impact us all.”
“Some of them are part of cases that include complex trials in the justice system, and with that complexity comes the element of time. The time periods outlined in the Jordan decision can be restrictive, turning a measure meant to bring justice into one that can take it away. When a stay of proceedings is automatically demanded, victims lose their chance to be heard, and they feel that justice has been denied to them. With Bill C‑16 , we would require the courts to consider remedies other than a stay of proceedings should the Jordan period elapse. We would also be clarifying for the courts which more complex cases deserve a longer period of time before they run into such an issue. Every victim should have the chance to be heard, and we would make sure of that.”
“When someone exploits that trust and vulnerability for sexual purposes, it is profoundly wrong. It is conduct that every member of the House and every Canadian should condemn without hesitation. (1705) In a world of ever-changing technology, where explicit images and videos can be shared in an instant and where Canadians are accessing these platforms at a younger age, we must also hold accountable the people on whose platforms this content exists. Bill C‑16 would bolster mandatory reporting and data preservation obligations for online service providers so law enforcement can find and charge these offenders faster. Finally, Bill C‑16 would truly provide help to victims and give them a louder voice in the system.”
“Most significantly, Bill C-16 would strengthen mandatory minimum penalties for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation material, including restoring more than 12 mandatory minimum penalties for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by the courts. It would do so by introducing a safety valve to ensure that these sentences, and other existing mandatory minimum penalties that would have otherwise been at risk, remain constitutionally valid. We are also seeking to expand the definition of distributing child sexual exploitation and abuse material so that it would now include the threat of distributing such materials. Children rely on the adults around them to keep them safe, to care for them and to protect their well-being.”
“Treating these murders as the Criminal Code's most serious forms of homicide speaks directly to the gravity of these offences and to the seriousness with which the government is moving to address them. I would like to dwell for a moment on the term I am using here, “femicide”, and the importance of naming it as such. With Bill C-16 , we would be including the term “femicide” in the Criminal Code for the very first time. By putting a name to this insidious crime, we recognize its gravity and have put forward tangible measures to address it, measures that would lead to better protection of women in particular, as well as of children and other members of society. Next I would like to address how the bill would protect children from predators, strengthening Canada's response to child sexual exploitation both online and off-line.”
“Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes tells us that this type of violence, which so often goes unseen, is one of the main determinants of femicide. Criminalizing it would help us detect high-risk situations sooner and strengthen prevention. Next, through Bill C-16 , we would automatically recognize femicide as first-degree murder. This would ensure that anyone who murders a woman in situations involving control, hate, sexual violence or exploitation faces the harshest penalty: life imprisonment. Even in situations of manslaughter, under the circumstances I have raised, courts would be directed to consider imposing a life sentence, with a period of parole ineligibility of between 10 and 25 years, the same penalty that applies to second-degree murder.”
“Behind every one of these numbers is a person, a family and a community left to grieve. We owe those families more than our sympathy. We owe them action, so let me outline a few of the key changes that Bill C-16 would bring. First, we would create a new Criminal Code offence that captures the coercive and controlling conduct of an intimate partner. One may ask, what is the significance of criminalizing such a behaviour in the face of fatal violence against women? The answer is that coercive control is so often the warning sign of the harm we can see before the harm we cannot undo. By criminalizing coercive control, we would give the criminal justice system an opportunity to intervene before relationships become violent, and before violence becomes deadly. This is a measure with the potential to save lives in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this evening on behalf of the citizens of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel to speak to Bill C-16 , the protecting victims act, at third reading. Across the country, we are facing a stark reality. In my home province of Quebec, there have been 10 femicides since January. A woman is killed in Canada every 48 hours. Bad actors are taking advantage of rapidly changing technologies such as AI and deepfakes to victimize Canadians. That is completely unacceptable. As legislators, we have a responsibility to act, to make real change when Canadians are asking us to do so. This is the job Canadians sent us to the House to do. With Bill C-16 , we would put into place concrete measures that would make a real difference in the lives of Canadians.”
“We also witnessed the signing of an MOU between the United Nations' development program and ParlAmericas, reaffirming the commitment to collaborative legislative action and strengthening co-operation throughout the Americas and the Caribbean. Muchas gracias to the participating parliamentarians who made the gathering possible, memorable and successful.”
“Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas, I was proud to welcome last week, here in Ottawa, more than 80 parliamentarians from 25 countries from across Latin America and the Caribbean, alongside indigenous leaders and youth, for the 10th gathering of the Open Parliament Network. ParlAmericas has become the leading interparliamentary organization of the western hemisphere, connecting and engaging national legislatures to strengthen democracy, co-operation and collective action on trade, innovation, security and sustainability. Through Canada's leadership on AI, security, climate action, food security and democratic governance, Canada is helping set the frameworks others will follow.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas' bilateral mission in Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico, from March 2 to 6, 2026, and a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas respecting the 17th gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network for Gender Equality in Brasilia, Brazil, from September 25 to 26, 2026.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her leadership. Violence driven by control and fear leaves deep and lasting harm, and far too many women and children are living with those consequences. That is why we introduced Bill C-16 , one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. It would criminalize coercive control before violence turns lethal and would strengthen protections against sexual exploitation, including AI deepfakes. Every day we delay in passing this bill, we are delaying protecting victims. I urge all members to support Bill C-16.”
“Mr. Speaker, our party will always follow the laws regarding clarity and the threshold of 50% plus one. We have no intention of going against that law, which is very clear. We believe in democracy. We will wait and see what happens in Alberta.”
“Mr. Speaker, our government will always protect the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will always defend them. We are not going to speak on that at this stage. We will wait for the results to come in and see what happens in Alberta. However, the Prime Minister has been very clear. The rules are clear. A majority is 50% of the votes plus one. There are laws on that and they have to be upheld.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice 's comments will always support the fact that this government is the party of the charter. We are always going to protect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe that all Canadians want this bill to be sent quickly to the Standing Committee on National Security so that it can be studied there and then passed. In light of the debates that took place in the House this week on this fine bill, I see that there is goodwill on the part of members, who want to discuss it and address this issue. I appreciate that. It is a very important bill. For too long now, police officers have lacked the tools they need to access the information necessary to prevent crime. I am therefore eager for this bill to pass and I am confident that members will vote for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will give my answer in English this time because I am more familiar with the English terminology. [ English ] We already have in the Criminal Code the threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect”. [ Translation ] It can be found in several sections of the Criminal Code, including section 487.017. This already exists in the Criminal Code. [ English ] We also think that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is higher than the threshold of mere suspicion.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not speak to Bill C-2 , but I am taking the opportunity this morning, as the member opposite rightly pointed out, to state that I am in total favour of Bill C-22 . Although we work through legislation in the House, nothing is perfect. No bill is perfect in its format nor sometimes even in its content, and that is why we have committees, where members from across the aisle from all parties have an opportunity to weigh in, as well as to hear from experts and stakeholders. This is an important piece of legislation. I do hope that Bill C-22 will be adopted so we can send it to the public safety committee and members will have the opportunity to delve into the details that may require fine tuning.”
“It would also provide a new search warrant framework to govern the unique nature of computer searches so police would be able to properly examine digital devices and data in a manner that is compliant with Supreme Court rulings. The proposed tools and modernization amendments included in the bill are critically needed, and these amendments would have a concrete impact on victims and on the safety of our communities. I encourage members from across the floor and across the aisle to join us in heeding the call of police organizations across the country to support this much-needed legislation.”
“Particularly in the context of global crime networks, equipping police services with these capabilities is critical in placing Canada in line with our Five Eyes partners, and it would respond to the recommendations made in the “Special Report on the Lawful Access to Communications by Security and Intelligence Organizations” by the non-partisan members of the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP, which I had the honour of serving on and chairing. Other meaningful purposes in the bill would better equip police to deal with situations involving organized crime tools, such as temporary phones, burner phones and vehicle switches, as ways of avoiding police surveillance and detection.”
“The bill would simply provide clarity so officers would be able to respond quickly to protect victims while respecting the rule of law. Bill C-22 is about ensuring that when Canadians are in danger, the law would give police the clarity and the tools they need in order to help, stop the crime and keep people safe. The bill would make it crystal clear that this exception for urgent circumstances would apply to the seizure of subscriber information by amending the existing “exigent circumstances” provided in the Criminal Code.”
“In cases where there is an immediate threat to someone's life or safety, or where critical evidence could disappear, police may need to act quickly to obtain basic subscriber information linked to an IP address. Think about situations where officers are trying to locate a child who has been abducted, using their cellphone signal to trace the source of a credible threat of imminent violence or to determine where a livestream of child sexual abuse is taking place, so they can rescue the victim and stop the abuse. In those moments, speed can mean the difference between life and death. Our laws already recognize that in true emergencies police may act without prior judicial authorization, as long as the legal grounds for doing so exist.”
“The legislation would make something very clear in the law: If information is voluntarily provided to police, such as an IP address from a victim's complaint, a tip from a member of the public or information shared by trusted international partners such as the U.S. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, law enforcement would be able to receive that information and act on it without having to first seek a court order. It would also clarify that police would be able to rely on the information that is readily and publicly available, and that they would not be required to issue a formal demand if a service provider chooses to provide that information voluntarily. Bill C-22 would also address an important gap when it comes to urgent situations. These circumstances are rare, but they do occur. Every minute matters.”
“(1020) The bill also proposes to clarify in the Criminal Code that law enforcement would continue to be permitted to ask a telecommunications service provider or anyone else, including other types of service providers such as banks, hotels or car rental companies, to provide information voluntarily, including the confirmation of service I referenced earlier. This clarification is very important to preserve the ability of police to engage in online policing activities, such as asking questions to seek basic information that does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy. Our government believes that Canadians should be safe online and that police should have the tools they need to act quickly when people are in danger.”
“The objective of the tool is to assist police in determining which telecommunications service provider has in their possession or control data relevant to an investigation and may be served with a production order to compel the production of this data. Law enforcement would be authorized to make this demand only if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been or will be committed, and that the confirmation of service would assist in the investigation of the offence. As a safeguard against inappropriate use, the service provider would be able to challenge the demand in a court with no obligation to provide the information or confirmation until a final decision is made by the court.”
“The new confirmation of service demand tool would provide a new lawful authority to enable police to confirm with a telecommunications service provider, such as Bell or Rogers, whether or not they provide telecommunications services to a specific subscriber, client, account or identifier, like an IP address or a phone number. This new tool would typically be used to help police identify which provider provides services to a phone number or an IP address. I will explain in plain language: This would allow police to ask the simple question to a telecom provider such Bell or Rogers, “Do you service this phone number or IP address, yes or no?” That is it. There would be no content and no personal details, just basic confirmation to help investigators take the next step and seek proper judicial authorization when and where required.”
“When criminals target our most vulnerable people online by stealing their identity and using digital tools to hide their tracks, Canadians expect the law to give police the tools they need to respond quickly, lawfully and with respect for the privacy of Canadians. Bill C-22 would do just that. Among other things, the bill would provide timely access to data and information to support the investigation of crime in the digital age. The bill also focuses on modernizing the Criminal Code to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to investigate crime and protect Canadians in 2026. One of these proposed new tools is confirmation of service demand.”
“To borrow the words of the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and commissioner of the OPP, Thomas Carrique, “From Internet child exploitation to extortions, to home invasions, to carjackings, to drive-by shootings, to hate motivated crime, to extremism, lawful access is absolutely required and it's required now.” We know that current trends in crimes like fraud, extortion and auto theft are increasingly linked to sophisticated global crime networks. Organized crime is a multi-billion-dollar business that is taking full advantage of digital technologies, which is why it is imperative that we give police services the measures they need to stop these crimes.”
“Bill C-22 would provide the police not just with the authority they need in order to address a particular criminal activity considered in the Spencer decision regarding accessing and storing child sexual exploitation and abuse material but also with a broader way in circumstances where law enforcement needs to quickly identify suspects but does not have the necessary legal tools to do so.”
“By the time officers get the information they need, it is often too late, evidence is gone and victims are left without justice. Police need modern tools to properly investigate crimes and keep Canadians safe, and that is exactly why our new Liberal government has introduced Bill C-22 . In the Spencer case, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the police need some type of legal authority, such as a legislative authority or prior judicial authorization, to obtain subscriber information linked to specific online activity.”
“Mr. Speaker, it an honour for me to take the floor today and to speak on behalf of Bill C-22 . I rise as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, in support of our government's bill on lawful access. The legislation is really about one simple thing: keeping Canadians safe in a digital world that criminals are increasingly exploiting. Let us be clear about the reality we are facing. In 2024 alone, police reported more than 16 cases of child pornography, exploitation and abuse. In 94% of those cases, they could not identify a suspect or gather enough evidence to proceed. Right now, criminals hide behind anonymous usernames, burner phones and IP addresses. Meanwhile, our police are stuck navigating systems that were never designed for today's digital threats.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is duly noted. I have two points. First, the member opposite will support Bill C-22 , and I applaud him for that. The second point is that we understand that a review of the committee is long overdue, and the minister will report to the House as soon as he has news on that.”
“The government has acted decisively through the introduction of Bill C-22 , the lawful access act. I sincerely hope that the member opposite will support it. I want to reiterate the important work that is done by each and every member of the committee. I am fully aware that the mandate of the committee has been up for review since October 2022. The government is fully cognizant of this. I know and believe that this will be done in due time. I know that the member opposite asked the minister this very same question again in question period today, and the minister will report back to the House on this very same issue as soon as an answer can be given.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to answer the question from my colleague, the member opposite, whom I have had the privilege and delight to work with on NSICOP, as a former member and former chair of that very same committee. I want to highlight just how seriously the government takes the work of NSICOP. During my time as chair and as a member, the committee submitted a special report on lawful access to communication by security and intelligence organizations, which was tabled in Parliament, as the member opposite mentioned, in September 2025. One of the key recommendations of the report is that the government should develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to address Canada's lawful access challenges, drawing from the committee's review and findings.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Treaty between Canada and Japan on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters”, done in Ottawa on December 12, 2025.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me be crystal clear. It is inappropriate to comment any further on this issue. On this side of the House, as I have mentioned before, we respect our institutions. Legal arguments belong to the courts and not on the floor of the House of Commons. It is rich that some of these comments and questions are coming from the member whose intervention, I find, denotes a certain character. He referred to the memorial for the École Polytechnique massacre as a fake feminazi holiday. He went on live radio and suggested that denying the Holocaust is simply a matter of free speech. In 2017, in the wake of the Quebec City mosque shooting, in which six men were murdered because of their faith, he stood with Pegida, a far-right extremist movement linked to the ideology that inspired the attacker. That record speaks for itself.”
“The bill would also introduce a new stand-alone hate crime offence. This means that when a crime is motivated by hatred, whether based on someone's religion, race, sexual orientation or identity, that hate would be recognized directly in the offence itself, with longer and tougher penalties, and yet the very member who claims to stand for charter rights and freedoms just voted against that legislation. My goodness. Canadians are paying attention. Canadians know for a fact that there is no greater freedom than the freedom to be who we are, to love whom we love, to practise our faith and to live without fear of being targeted because of our identity, full stop.”
“We are the ones who enshrined these rights and freedoms, and I, along with my colleagues, will always stand proudly to defend the rights and freedoms that Canadians have relied upon for over 43 years. Our government is taking concrete action. Through the combatting hate act, we would strengthen protections for Canadians' fundamental freedoms, especially the freedom of religion and the right to live safely and be who they are. The bill would make it a criminal offence to obstruct lawful access to places of worship. If individuals attempt to block the entrance to a synagogue, a mosque, a church or any other place of worship, law enforcement would have the clear authority to intervene, remove anyone obstructing access and ensure that Canadians can gather and pray in safety and dignity.”
“We have of course taken note of the decisions of the lower courts, and Canada has now sought leave for the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in. As the member opposite knows very well, given that this matter may soon be before the court, it would be inappropriate to comment further. On this side of the House, we respect our institutions, with legal arguments before the courts and not on the floor of the House of Commons, but if the member opposite is truly concerned about the rights and freedoms of Canadians, I have to ask why he wasted valuable time filibustering at the justice committee, talking about cats and dogs, just to run out the clock, instead of focusing on protecting those very same rights and freedoms. Let me be clear that we are the party of the charter.”
“Mr. Speaker, for three long weeks in early 2022, our national capital region was not merely disrupted; it was shaken to the core. Illegal blockades seized our streets, paralyzed our capital and choked off critical trade corridors. Law-abiding Canadians were trapped in their own neighbourhoods, while workers feared for their livelihoods, and families feared for their safety. At a time when our country was still recovering from the devastating impacts of COVID-19, a pandemic that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Canadians, including grandparents, parents, spouses, siblings, sons and daughters, and whose very reality, by the way, the member opposite posing this question has astonishingly continued to cast doubt upon, these actions struck at the very heart of our economic and social stability.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the colleague should revert to his party and see within his ranks because therein lies the division on this bill, which is only coming in to be able to protect Canadians. On this side of the House, we are all united and we are all for the adoption of protecting the people and individuals who are subject to hate every day. On this side of the House, we are unanimous. The division lies on the other side, unfortunately.”
“Mr. Speaker, in fact, that is precisely what is addressed in the bill we will have the opportunity to vote on this evening. I hope this bill will pass unanimously, as its sole purpose is to protect Canadians so that they feel safe. A very specific provision has been included in Bill C-9 to make it clear that a person who recites the Bible or the Torah in the proper manner and in good faith will not be penalized.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a very important question because there has been a lot of fearmongering and misinformation being put out by the Conservative Party, and Canadians have responded in emails. They are fretting, asking about what is contained in Bill C-9 . Bill C-9 is there to protect Canadians. As for the rise in hate, I have enumerated stats from Stats Canada, and there are very serious percentages of hate that are rising in our daily lives. Bill C-9 would come in and protect Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would say right off the bat that it is not what the Minister of Identity and Culture said. That being said, this bill is very important. Nothing in the bill says that, if the Bible is quoted and it is not done with the wilful intent to impute hatred on an identifiable group, then it would be captured. That individual or that group of people would not be captured.”
“It is time to put partisanship aside and support the proposed combatting hate act. It is time to reject fearmongering and misinformation. It is time to stand with Canadians who deserve to live, worship and gather safely. Our communities are counting on us. Let us act. Let us pass the combatting hate act.”