Justice Committee on May 4th, 2026

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

That's correct.

Folks, I'm mindful of the time. I'm mindful that we are only on page 84 of a 147-page bill, so I'm not going to belabour the point. I believe that, if I were afforded the opportunity of a fulsome explanation to justify this amendment, I would be repeating myself from this morning and early afternoon.

Clearly, I want consideration from all members of this committee to look at the serious expansion of offences that should not ever qualify for any judicial discount from the mandatory minimum penalty.

Right now, Bill C-16 only preserves, as we know, murder and treason. I've already spoken at great length about child sexual abuse material. Quite frankly, this particular amendment speaks specifically to any sexual offence against a child. That is then referenced directly to section 490.011(1) of the code, which provides authority for SOIRA consideration, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. There is a whole litany, a whole list, of offences that would fall within the category of primary and secondary offences.

Again, I would highlight that if there is one class of Canadians that we as parliamentarians should be standing firm on, that is our most vulnerable asset, our children. Again, the fact that a particular trial judge saw fit to afford Mr. Senneville and Mr. Naud a 45-day weekend sentence should be appalling to all of us.

I would encourage all parliamentarians at this committee to give serious consideration to supporting this amendment.

Second, I've asked for a reinstatement of essentially mandatory minimum penalties under part I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We're looking at the opioid crisis and the fentanyl crisis. The fact is that the Minister of Justice refuses, for whatever reason, not to reflect the spirit of Bill C-16 in resurrecting all of the offences that this Liberal government gutted in Bill C-5. This is an opportunity for a course correction.

Again, I'm not repeating myself. I don't want to repeat myself.

We all understand and agree that there is a crisis of substantial measures in this country when it comes to the trafficking, importing, exporting and production of these poisonous substances. All of that is contained within the amendment. I would hope that my colleagues would give serious consideration to that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Baber, go ahead, and then we'll go to Ms. Lattanzio.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I think my colleagues understand my point about the safety valve. Specifically, as I mentioned earlier, the Liberal government decided that murder and treason are going to be specifically excluded from the application of the safety valve. Mr. Housefather suggested that is because of the seriousness of the offences, and we are less likely to run into a situation where a court would deviate from the prescribed minimum penalty.

Here I am to suggest that, first of all, that's not necessarily true. You might think of a situation like Edward Snowden, where public opinion was very much in favour of a defector who was accused of treason and was tried in absentia. I am here to suggest that if we believe that murder and treason are so serious that they rise to the moral turpitude of being excluded from the safety valve, along comes Mr. Brock who says, “Please exclude serious offences from the application of the safety valve. Please exclude child sexual offences from the application of the safety valve.”

Naud, when he gets caught with 300 videos of children aged three to six being raped, is subjected to the mandatory minimum sentence of at least one year. One year is generous for that monster. That's what we're saying. Let's work collaboratively to protect children. That's what this amendment is about.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Ms. Lattanzio.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I can appreciate the interventions of my colleagues, we've seen what happens when we get this wrong. Mandatory minimums get struck down, cases get delayed and, in the end, offenders don't face the consequences they deserve. That doesn't protect victims. It leaves them waiting longer and without the accountability they deserve.

This provision is what makes the difference. It allows us to keep serious penalties in place in a way that will actually hold up in court and apply in real cases. Ultimately, colleagues, this is about protecting victims, especially those affected by serious violence, including intimate partner violence, and making sure that the system delivers real accountability.

As it was mentioned previously this morning, even the Conservative colleague on the other side, Mr. Caputo, is in full agreement with the application of the safety valve—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

That doesn't represent the position of our party.

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

—and this amendment would completely remove the safety valve. I think judicial discretion is necessary if we want these laws to last.

This isn't about going easy on anyone. It is about making sure that the law works for the people it is meant to protect.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Shall CPC-25 carry?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're on CPC-25.1. Again, if it is adopted, CPC-25.2 and CPC-25.3 cannot be moved.

Mr. Brock, is this you again?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

No. It's Mr. Gill.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Go ahead, Mr. Gill.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased to move amendment CPC-25.1, which seeks to expand the safety valve to include mandatory minimum charges under section 272 of the Criminal Code. Those charges deal with sexual assault with a weapon.

The current mandatory minimums in the Criminal Code are five years for a first offence and seven years for reoffenders. When we are talking about protecting victims of intimate partner violence, these mandatory minimum penalties will ensure that violent and repeat offenders are kept behind bars.

When I asked Jennifer Dunn on April 15, “For the sake of the victims, should violent and repeat offenders serve stronger and longer sentences?”, she replied, “Absolutely. A violent and repeat offender needs to be held accountable for what they've done. I agree 100%.”

This amendment ensures that violent and repeat sexual assaulters are held accountable for their crimes. I encourage everyone to support this one.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're on CPC-25.2, Mr. Gill.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, again, Chair.

I'm moving amendment CPC-25.2 with the hope that we can make our laws tough on criminals. This amendment seeks to expand, again, the safety valve to include mandatory minimum charges under section 273 of the Criminal Code. Those charges deal with aggravated sexual assault.

My riding of Brampton West is located in Peel region, which has declared intimate partner violence an “epidemic”. In 2024, Peel police responded to over 16,000 incidents of family or intimate partner violence. That's more than 44 incidents a day. We need stronger penalties for violent offenders to keep them off the streets and curb this epidemic.

The current mandatory minimums in the Criminal Code are five years for the first offence and seven years for reoffenders. We need these violent and repeat offenders to stay behind bars so that we can work to cure this epidemic sweeping across my region and some parts of the country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Gill.

We'll go to Mr. Baber and then Ms. Khalid.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I'm just trying to bridge the gap and I'm trying to understand why there is no consensus in this committee on how we should apply the safety valve. This is a very technical bill. I don't think we're having political disagreements. If we're having a legal disagreement, then let's have a conversation. Let's ask the officials again. Let's get a second opinion. We all want to arrive at the right result.

An aggravated sexual assault contemplated in Mr. Gill's amendment is now subjected to a safety valve, according to this legislation, where a judge can disregard the mandatory minimum if he or she finds that it's cruel and unusual. I'm saying we're looking at the sentencing stage. In other words, the accused has already been found guilty of an aggravated sexual assault. Either the safety valve is good enough to be excluded for murder and treason, but it's not good enough to be excluded from an aggravated sexual assault.... I don't understand that.

If all of this is lost in translation because people have a different idea about how judges might apply the law, let's not rush it and let's hammer it out. We have an intimate partner violence epidemic and emergency in Peel region, where Mr. Gill comes from. Let's bind judges to impose the mandatory minimum on aggravated sexual assault. It's so grotesque.

I think there's legitimate disagreement about what's happening with the safety valve and whether the mandatory minimums are going to be restored. Respectfully, I'm not sure that I share the legal opinion of the panel and of the officials. If we're missing each other because we're not certain about how the law will work here, let's work it out.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We'll go to Ms. Khalid and then Ms. Lattanzio.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I take the comments of my colleagues. I am from Peel region as well. Mississauga—Erin Mills is the best riding in the country, which I appreciate and it happens to be part of Peel region.

Mr. Gill is absolutely right. We do have a significant increase in intimate partner violence over these years. There have been ways in which we've been trying to deal with that. There is no flip of a switch where you can just say this law is done, this judge's discretion is taken away and now all of a sudden we are going to find solutions. Locally, Peel Region has created a safe centre where victims and survivors of intimate partner violence are able to go to get that full, covered support, whether it is police, child services or transitional housing—whatever support they need.

When we talk about removing discretion from judges, what we are really missing is the fact that a crime that has been committed against an intimate partner doesn't get its justice from the time that there's a conviction or there's a sentencing. The support that a victim and a survivor need has to start from day one of their having faced that. That requires all levels of government jumping in and providing the support that the intimate partner and her family and kids will need.

We talk about protecting our kids here at this committee. It's not mandatory minimums that are protecting kids. It is the local support, the collaborativeness with all levels of government, that is going to help us get there. Taking away judicial discretion is not the way. In my opinion, that will ultimately take away the context for why the case is where it is and how things have progressed over the entirety of the entry into the judicial system with the victim and the survivor. Taking that context away is going to hurt the victim further, not help them.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Ms. Lattanzio.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Giving judges the discretionary power ensures that a judge takes into account the different circumstances of each sentence, and does not apply a one-size-fits-all approach. My question to the officials is the following. Once again, I come back to this. If we remove this judicial discretion, would that not take away the whole basis of a safety valve that we find in Bill C-16?

[Leah Burt]

Excluding section 273 from the application of the judicial discretion clause would leave those MMPs for those offences open to constitutional challenge and may have the effect of fewer offenders being subject to those MMPs. This is because it would be excluded from the ambit of proposed section 718.4, and they would be potentially subject to constitutional challenge on the basis of reasonable hypothetical scenarios.

If that MMP is struck down, it cannot be applied to anyone in the jurisdiction in which it's been struck down. Clause 63 would insulate the existing MMPs against constitutional challenge while also, as we've discussed previously, reviving MMPs that were previously struck down.

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

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

This is becoming a really frustrating exercise, Mr. Chair.

I listened to my colleagues' interventions. I have the utmost respect for my colleague, Ms. Khalid, but this particular amendment doesn't speak to the continuum of criminal justice as it relates to victims of this extremely serious, heinous offence.

In the hierarchy of offences, when we're talking about something that's aggravated, we're getting very close to homicide levels. In fact, an aggravated assault—in this case, an aggravated sexual assault—really, in the hierarchy of offences, is one notch below that of a homicide. That's how seriously the House of Commons, Parliament, has decided over several decades to treat this offence.

While I agree with Ms. Khalid and am glad to hear that Mississauga is taking the appropriate steps to ensure wraparound services for victims, this is about restoring justice back into sentencing. Right now, in my view—and I'm sure that the officials will agree with me—sentencing is an art. It's not a mathematical equation. I see some heads shaking, so I'm not going to ask anyone specifically, but we're going to agree with that in principle. Judges already take into consideration the personal circumstances of an offender. What we don't want to see happening here is for some activist jurist somewhere in Canada....

I'm going to repeat this because it bears repeating: There is no minimal standard by which Canadian judges uniformly sentence on criminal matters in this country. It depends on appointment. It depends on region. It depends on filling quotas. DEI, which should never exist in our judicial appointment process, unfortunately still exists. We want to get back to the point of merit, where it doesn't matter about your orientation, your colour of skin, your religion or the legal work that you have contributed to certain underprivileged classes of individuals in your community. It should be based on legal merit.

I'm actually glad that there are some provincial governments in this country that are focusing in on a merit-based application. However, that means we have a huge discrepancy when it comes to sentencing. All we're asking this committee to consider is to give a baseline for consideration when you're dealing with the most serious form of sexual assault on another human being. Exclude that from any judicial discretion so that on the basis of stare decisis, of precedent value, future judges in similar circumstances will know that the mandatory minimum penalty is a threshold that we, as parliamentarians, set as a base standard.

There are going to be cases on the lower end of the spectrum where the minimum penalty is absolutely appropriate, but there are going to be cases—and I had cases as well—where the mandatory minimum penalty will be woefully inadequate in the circumstances.

All we're asking, again, is that we as parliamentarians give judges the appropriate direction that we, as a supreme entity.... It's not the judges who makes laws; it's us, as parliamentarians, who make laws, and they interpret those laws that we have established as a threshold that we will not deviate from. I think this is a great opportunity for us to take the appropriate stand.

Thank you, Chair.