Evidence of meeting #27 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ruling.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
All right, we'll move on.
Shall clause 28 carry?
(Clause 28 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to)
(On clause 31)
NDP-7 is out of scope, which takes us to—
Conservative
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
This is a technical amendment. The motion would expand the application of the sexual activity evidence regime, which prohibits the use of evidence regarding a complainant's past sexual activity to support the twin myths: that the complainant is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity at issue or that they are less worthy of belief than in cases involving an offence under any act of Parliament that is of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose.
The sexual activity evidence regime in Bill C-16 would currently only apply to a Criminal Code offence that is of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose. This amendment would further protect victims of sexual offences by ensuring that the victims of offences that are of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose, including offences in other federal statutes, would receive the same protections under the law.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
We largely approve of and support this amendment, but I would like to get some clarification from officials.
From your perspective, given the expansion of the scope to any other act of Parliament, are there any unintended consequences that we should be made aware of?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't believe so. I think the main concern is that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contains a trafficking offence, which of course can be committed for a sexual purpose. The intention here is to ensure that that victim gets the same protection of the law.
Let's say police decide to proceed with section 118—that's the human trafficking offence in IRPA—and not the Criminal Code offence. The victim would not receive the protection of the law unless this amendment is enacted. That is the purpose of it. What it's reined in by and what provides safeguards is the tests. You have to have an offence of a sexual nature or an offence committed for a sexual purpose in order for the provisions to apply. I've already explained to the committee what that term means.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm seeing no one else, so shall G-8 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That takes us to NDP-8, which I am also ruling out of scope.
That takes us to G-9.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
That would be me, Mr. Chair.
It's also a technical amendment. This motion would amend proposed subsection 276(2), which sets out the relevant evidentiary standards for the admission of sexual history evidence and inserts a pinpoint reference to proposed section 276.02, which was accidentally omitted. Proposed subsection 276(2) contains the procedures for part of the process that must be followed when the accused seeks to admit sexual history evidence.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.
Shall G-9 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That takes us to NDP-9.
Ms. Gazan.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Similar to an earlier amendment of mine, this amendment seeks to ensure that sexual history is not admissible as evidence in any case.
Legal experts have shared with us that explicitly affirming the state of law on sexual history evidence will reduce mistakes by making legislative intent even clearer and will prevent the sexist practice of invoking women's sexual history to damage the credibility of her testimony.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm seeing no hands, so shall NDP-9 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on G-10.
Mr. Housefather.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
This is a “for greater certainty” clause to codify the 2025 Supreme Court decision in R v. Kinamore, which basically says that section 276, which is the sexual history evidence admissibility regime, is engaged by sexual inactivity evidence.
If anybody requires more clarification, I'm happy to provide it, but that's the intent.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
This is a similar question for the officials. Are there any unintended consequences with this amendment?
Michael Ellison Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I'll take that question.
To give a relatively short answer, no unintended consequences are foreseen. This is a codification of part of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in King and Kinamore, which came out in 2025. It is going to provide clarity to practitioners across the country that sexual inactivity evidence can also be used to invoke the twin myths and is properly captured by this regime.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Brock.
Shall G-10 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 31 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 32)
We're now on clause 32 and G-10.1.
Ms. Khalid.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I'm moving that Bill C-16, in clause 32, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 19 with the following:
prosecutor and filed with the clerk
It would also replace line 37 on page 19 with the following:
the prosecutor and filed with the
It would also replace lines 8 to 10 on page 20 with the following:
If the judge, provincial court judge or justice grants the application and agrees to hold the hearing, the accused shall cause a copy of the application to be given to the complainant by a person other than the accused.
This amendment is really just about cleanup. It is very technical.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall G-10.1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
We're on G-11.
Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
This motion would clarify that victims or witnesses who are protected by the automatic publication bans that apply to hearings to determine the admissibility or production of highly sensitive evidence in sexual offence trials may disclose information about the hearing, including to a legal professional, health care professional or a person in a relationship of trust with them, provided that they do not intentionally or recklessly reveal the identity of any other person protected by the publication ban.