Justice Committee on April 29th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Good afternoon, everybody. I call this meeting to order.

Before I get started, I want to welcome our two new members, Ms. Gladu and Ms. Khalid. Welcome to the justice committee. We're a friendly bunch here. We get along really well. Everybody is always in a good mood, and I don't see that changing any time in the near or distant future. Thank you for joining us.

I also want to say thank you to Mr. Brock, who sat in this chair last week while I was out of town. I appreciate that.

Mr. Fortin, I understand you stepped in at one point as well.

I want to thank you both. I heard no news, so obviously everything ran incredibly smoothly. I'm very grateful.

Welcome to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of February 2, 2026, the committee is meeting to proceed with the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters regarding child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room, and no one is attending remotely on Zoom today.

I have a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone. Please mute yourself when not speaking.

As a reminder, all comments should be directed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience in this regard.

Welcome to our witnesses. They are here to answer any technical questions that anyone may have. They are familiar faces to all of us.

From the Department of Justice, we have Matthew Taylor, senior general counsel and director general, criminal law policy section; Nathalie Levman, senior counsel, criminal law policy section; and Leah Burt. It's very nice to see you.

From the Department of National Defence, we have Lieutenant-Colonel Matt MacMillan, director of military justice implementation, office of the judge advocate general, Canadian Armed Forces.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Amy Johnson, director general, firearms policy, and Stacey Ault, director, corrections and criminal justice division. They will be switching in and out.

Before we begin clause-by-clause, I would like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member received from the clerk.

In addition, to be properly drafted in the legal sense, amendments must be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or are beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Thank you to all members. I look forward to a productive meeting this evening as we go through the clause-by-clause of Bill C-16.

We will start at the beginning.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

NDP-1 is deemed moved pursuant to the routine motion adopted by the committee on June 17, 2025.

Ms. Gazan, technically, I think I need consent to have you speak.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

No, you don't, actually, Mr. Chair.

If I may, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You do too.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

No, I don't, Mr. Chair.

I want to explain the terms on which Ms. Gazan and I are here, because it seems that other members may be unfamiliar with them. I'll ask for your consent to do it now, or I'll do it when my first amendment comes up. It's up to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I've just asked the room for consent from the voting members of the committee for Ms. Gazan to speak. I have it, so I'm going to let her speak.

Go ahead, Ms. Gazan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

This amendment was brought forward by NAWL. It is about ensuring that survivors of intimate partner violence receive legal supports and protection while testifying against an abuser and ensuring that they are not revictimized and denied their right to speak up against violence and injustice.

This amendment would extend protections for women experiencing violence and abuse, including testimonial aids and prohibitions on cross-examination, ensuring these are in place for all offences committed against an intimate partner. What matters for vital protections like these is the context of domestic violence, not the type of offence committed.

This is a suggestion supported by leading women's organizations, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of it to ensure victims' rights are upheld in this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Are there any other interventions on this?

Shall NDP-1 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we'll go to G-1.

Ms. Lattanzio.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

This is a technical amendment. It's necessary because we are broadening the scope of offences to which testimonial aids and no contact orders may be ordered. This motion proposes an amendment to the interpretive provision in clause 2, which would be required if motions to amend clauses 38 and 40—testimonial aids—and clause 59—no contact orders—are passed. This would remove the testimonial aids provision listed in proposed paragraphs 3.01(2)(c), (d) and (e).

For those reasons, I move this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Mr. Lawton.

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

If I may, I have a question for the officials on this.

With the scope of it, would this exclude the use of testimonial aids in intimate partner violence cases?

[Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

It would include that, but it would make them apply to all offences against intimate partners.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Are there any other comments?

Shall G-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're moving on to PV-1.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Just bear with me.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm sorry. I'd like to remind the chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I have to read something procedurally, if you'd just bear with me.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

PV-1 is deemed moved pursuant to the routine motion adopted by the committee on June 17. Also, the amendment to PV-4 extends the concept of coercive or controlling conduct to apply to a relative in addition to an intimate partner. The committee might want to deal with PV-4 before dealing with PV-1, PV-2 and PV-3.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, you know that personally I show you grace and respect, but the motion of June 17 was not routine. I'd like to put on the record that if it were not for the committee's choosing to pass that motion of its own volition, Ms. Gazan and I would have, as members of parties that are not “recognized”, the right to bring forward substantive amendments at report stage. This motion was a device to avoid our rights, initially instigated by the Prime Minister's Office when Stephen Harper was in power, and it has since been carried into every committee.

As a result, we are more or less required, if we want to put forward amendments, to come to committee. It's not our choice. It's rather coercive, but the motion has been carried, and that's why I object to the notion that Ms. Gazan needed anyone's permission to speak.

We are here because the motion that was carried on June 17 in this committee says that if we want to present an amendment, this is the fashion in which we must do it. Our motions are deemed moved. We are, under the motion, permitted to speak to our amendments—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm going to interrupt you, in the interests of time.

We are allowing you to speak—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

You don't have a choice. That's your motion. It carried.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

There's no issue, Ms. May. Why don't we proceed to the amendments? We can then save ourselves a lot of time.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I go to a lot of trouble to prepare amendments for committees, and I just want it on the record that this is not my choice. I'd have had more rights if you hadn't passed the motion.

I'll now move to my amendment.

As the committee knows, many representatives from groups that represent seniors, the elders of this country—Dementia Justice Canada, Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario, the Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse and others—have seen in this bill, Bill C-16, which I support because it is important to end coercive control over intimate partners.... There's also an issue of coercive control over seniors who are relatives. In that context, all of my amendments speak to the same issue: extending the prevention of coercive control over intimate partners to include, throughout the legislation, those who are seniors, those who are family members and those who experience coercive control through other methods.

PV-1 is very simple. This is the simplest style of motion. You're right that PV-4 is longer and more complete in its attempt. It is to add “or relative” after “intimate partner”. As you see, it would replace line 15 on page 2.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Mr. Housefather.