Justice Committee on March 23rd, 2026

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Minister, could you talk a bit about how you decided to move towards the principles illustrated in the law to deal with Jordan? What consultations did you do? I heard Mr. Fortin's comments, and I think it's important to talk about how much you consulted when you came up with the principles of what delays would be reduced and so forth. Could you talk about who you talked to?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Very quickly, it was lawyers with experience in prosecution and defence, those responsible for the courts, law enforcement frustrated with cases that they have poured themselves into, only to have the result be a stay of proceedings without coming to their natural conclusion, and, importantly, victims who have actually lived through this experience. These are the people who have seen a crime committed against them go unpunished as a result of delays, not as a result of an accused person defeating the charges and receiving a verdict of not guilty.

We tried to understand the experience. I'm sure that you as an MP have probably seen, as I have, this injustice play out over the course of your career in politics. When you sit down with somebody who tells you they were assaulted sexually and that the perpetrator lives in their community and was charged but let go because the clock ran out, I can tell you that doesn't feel like justice to the victim. It doesn't feel like justice to me, and we need to take action.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I agree.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Minister, thanks very much for being here today and thank you for your time.

We'll suspend for a few moments, and then we'll get to the second round.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I call the meeting back to order.

I'd like to welcome the officials. We're also joined by Chelsea Moore and Joanna Wells for the second hour. Thank you for joining us.

We will jump right in. The first round of six minutes will start now with Mr. Lawton.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you very much, officials, for being here.

Ms. Wells, I know you haven't had the opportunity to be at many justice committee meetings, so I especially appreciate your being here.

I'd like to delve into the so-called safety valve. The bill itself says, and I'll read it very specifically:

When imposing a sentence for an offence that has a minimum punishment of a specified term of imprisonment, a court shall impose a shorter term of imprisonment than the specified term if, in the circumstances, the minimum punishment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender.

This is basically giving judges the latitude to ignore minimum sentences if they believe that a minimum sentence would be cruel and unusual. I just want to delve into the scope of what this applies to.

In your understanding, could this section be invoked in a case involving aggravated sexual assault with a firearm?

[Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel and Team Lead, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

If this were adopted, it would apply to any mandatory minimum penalty that currently exists on the federal statute books.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Okay, so would that include aggravated sexual assault with a firearm?

[Joanna Wells]

If there is an active MMP in that offence, yes.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Would it include human trafficking?

[Joanna Wells]

It would include any offence for which there is an MMP that is currently on the statute books.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Would that include extortion with a firearm as well?

[Joanna Wells]

It would apply to any MMP that is currently on the federal statute books.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

What about weapons trafficking, then?

[Joanna Wells]

Yes. I don't have committed to memory all of the offences under an MMP, but yes, it would apply, as I said.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

The reason I bring that up is that we have.... Of course, the offences that were at issue in Senneville, on child sexual exploitation and abuse material.... The problem here is that we already have cases where judges are finding, as in the Senneville case, that even one year is cruel and unusual punishment.

What consideration was given, as this bill was being crafted, to ways to prevent this from being basically a way for judges who don't believe in mandatory minimums to simply ignore them if they don't want to impose them?

[Joanna Wells]

I'll draw your attention to the language in proposed section 718.4. It proposes the standard of cruel and unusual punishment, which is the language that appears in section 12 of the charter. It essentially incorporates the charter standard into the Criminal Code, and the jurisprudence is clear that a sentence that reaches that level would be grossly disproportionate. That's a very high standard that would outrage the public's sense of decency.

It incorporates a very high standard, and it would apply not to a reasonable hypothetical, but to the individual before the judge. It would very much be a tailored response to the offender who is being sentenced by the court. If, in that context, the MMP would result in cruel and unusual punishment, the judge may depart from the MMP, but they must still impose a term of imprisonment.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

In the case of Senneville, where Senneville had hundreds of images of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, the trial judge found that a one-year minimum would be cruel and unusual. Is that correct?

[Joanna Wells]

I don't know what the trial judge found. I do know that a one-year penalty was imposed on Mr. Senneville. That was the ultimate result, even though it was struck down in a reasonable hypothetical situation.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

It was nine months—or that was Naud; I'm sorry.

[Joanna Wells]

I believe it was never nine months. Mr. Senneville received one year.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I yield to Mr. Baber.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Under the Criminal Code, mandatory minimum sentences apply to a range of serious offences. They're designed to set a sentencing floor to create deterrence and denunciation of certain crimes, but in recent years, courts have been striking down mandatory minimum sentences as cruel and unusual. That includes the Supreme Court.

In Bill C-16, which we're looking at, the Attorney General points to Senneville and recent jurisprudence where a mandatory minimum was struck down for possession of child pornography. To address this, the government is creating a safety valve that would allow courts to impose sentences below the mandatory minimum where applying it would be cruel and unusual. Effectively, this would convert a mandatory minimum sentence from a binding floor and allow a judge to disregard it. In practice, this means that mandatory minimum sentences would no longer be mandatory. Is that not correct?

[Joanna Wells]

I mean, I think you could look at it that way. What it does is provide judicial discretion to depart from an MMP in a very narrow circumstance when a judge is of the opinion that in the case before them, it would result in cruel and unusual punishment—i.e., it would violate the charter, because that is the charter language. It provides a very small window.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I understand that while jail would still be required, the duration of imprisonment would be left to a judge's discretion.