Justice Committee on May 4th, 2026

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This is a technical amendment. Essentially, clause 100 applies to clauses 31, 32 and 34, but right now the reference to clause 32 is missing. The amendment will fix that.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Shall G-34 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 100 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 101 and 102 agreed to)

Amendment NDP-24 proposes new clause 102.1.

NDP-24 refers to new clause 40.1, which would have been created by NDP-17.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Amendment NDP-24 would create a “for greater clarity” clause so that measures surrounding procedural protections for victims come into force on the same day as the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

NDP-17 was not adopted.

Would anyone else like to speak to NDP-24?

Shall NDP-24 be adopted?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 103 to 118 agreed to)

Amendment G-35 proposes new clause 118.1.

Ms. Lattanzio.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This motion would require a review of the bill's proposed coercive control of intimate partner violence five years after the bill would receive its royal assent. This new clause would require the review to include consideration of criminalizing coercive control in relationships other than intimate partner relationships, thus allowing the time for law enforcement to be trained on the existing offence before expanding the application of coercive control laws.

This incremental approach is consistent with the fact that some other jurisdictions are taken into account. They've enacted coercive control offences, because it allows time for study and training for law enforcement, both of which have been critical to ensuring implementation of the offence consistent with its important objective of always protecting victims.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Shall G-35 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on NDP-24.1.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Legal experts and civil liberty groups from across Canada have raised strong concerns about the implications of clause 46. That includes the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario, Barreau du Québec, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, and the Canadian Bar Association. This clause would violate the Supreme Court decision in Regina v. Rahey, which clearly determined that a stay is the minimum remedy for a section 11(b) charter violation.

As currently drafted, Bill C-16 sets a precedent where the government can decide what the remedy is for a charter violation and overrule a Supreme Court of Canada decision in doing so. This is a threat to our Constitution and to our democracy, where the government itself dictates the consequences, if any, for its violations of charter rights. The most recent comprehensive parliamentary study on trial delay in Canada, the 2017 report by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, explicitly recommended that the Minister of Justice seek a reference from the Supreme Court on any proposed changes to the remedy for section 11(b) to ensure that they would be constitutional, which is what this amendment would require of the minister.

If the government is confident that this legislation is constitutionally valid, it should have no problem accepting this NDP amendment to Bill C-16.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Shall NDP amendment NDP-24.1 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 119 carry? I ask that because all the Green Party amendments were withdrawn.

(Clause 119 agreed to)

Amendment CPC-26 proposes new clause 119.1.

I have reviewed the amendment and have ruled it out of scope.

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

I challenge the ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That takes us to CPC-27, which I have also ruled out of scope.

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

I challenge the ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

This takes us to CPC-28, which I have also reviewed and ruled out of scope.

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

I challenge the ruling, please.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Clauses 120 to 139 agreed to)

(On clause 140)

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Clause 140 takes us to CPC-29.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I would like to move this amendment.

I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Lawton for writing this amendment. I would also like to thank Mr. Truong, the London police chief, who supported this idea when he appeared before our committee.

CPC-29 seeks to protect victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control. If adopted, this amendment will require victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control to be notified when their abuser is granted a release, a temporary absence, conditional release or parole. It is common sense that victims must be notified when their abuser is back out on the street. They deserve to know that the person who hurt or abused them is free and potentially capable to reoffend.

Mr. Chair, I know that all the members of this committee from all parties believe in supporting and protecting victims. This amendment is critical to ensuring the safety of victims. I urge all members to support the victims by supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Gill.

Shall CPC-29 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 140 agreed to)

(On clause 141)

Clause 141 takes us to G-36.

Go ahead, Ms. Lattanzio.

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

This motion proposes to amend proposed section 8.1 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in clause 141 to ensure that the proposed list of federal departments, agencies and bodies from which victims have the right to receive information is recognized as a non-exhaustive list.

One of the ways in which Bill C-16 proposes to improve the enforcement of victims' rights is to name federal departments, bodies and agencies that have a role to play in ensuring victims' rights are respected. Proposed section 8.1 is intended to provide a non-exhaustive list of key federal departments and bodies responsible for ensuring that victims receive the information set out in sections 6 to 8 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Brock, go ahead.

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

I'm fully supportive of empowering victims. As legislators, we have that obligation to them. I point out that both Ms. Khalid and Ms. Gladu have been on the status of women committee, and they've heard from numerous victims and numerous advocacy groups, including the ombudsman for victims, about the current lack of available information routes to victims. Any opportunity to expand upon that is welcomed by the Conservatives.

I flag this in terms of my intervention, not for that reason specifically but also to address the potential line conflict with CPC-30, where I would ask for consideration to add both CBSA and Justice Canada to the listed federal entities for victims' rights information obligations.

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

We're supporting that.

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

I'm just wondering if it's redundant if you're saying in G-36 that the list is non-exhaustive.

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

Do you want to add it to ours? We're going to be supporting that amendment.

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

Let's do that then.

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

You want to include CBSA and the Department of Justice in this one.

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

Yes.