Justice Committee on May 6th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Good afternoon everybody. I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 29 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 pursue its 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 hybrid format. Members are attending in person in the room. No one is attending remotely on Zoom today.

I'd like to make 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—I don't think there are any—click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, 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 and understanding in this regard.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses back. They're here to answer technical questions that you may have.

Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor and Ms. Burt. You really need no introduction at this meeting, having spent so much time with us.

When we adjourned, we were debating the subamendment to CPC-23. We will continue from there and start a new speakers list.

Mr. Brock is first on the list, followed by Mr. Lawton.

Mr. Brock, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to start off by recapping how things progressed last Monday. I believe every member of this committee will recognize the efforts made by Conservatives to essentially deem movement of probably the last two dozen or two dozen and a half government amendments without the necessity of any explanation because I truly felt we were on a path to complete Bill C-16 clause-by-clause.

I'm not going to get into the circumstances that came up at the very last minute with respect to the deferral of two Conservative amendments—that's water under the bridge—but for the record, I want to telegraph that it was the Conservatives' intention all along to see the passage of Bill C-16 out of the justice committee. I strongly believe that there is a pathway to that today. To get to that pathway I wish to put on notice that I'm seeking unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any motion previously adopted by this committee, following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-16, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights prioritize its work as follows:

1. At the May 25, 2026, meeting, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General appear for no less than two hours regarding his mandate and priorities as per the motion unanimously agreed to on September 23, 2025, provided that the time allocated for his answers during this meeting not be greater than the length of time taken for the question;

2. The committee consider Bill C-231, an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, on May 27, 2026, provided that the sponsor of the bill be invited to testify, along with any other witnesses deemed relevant by committee members, and that, following the testimony, the committee immediately proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the chair only be authorized to adjourn the meeting after clause-by-clause consideration of the bill is completed;

3: The committee consider Bill C-235, an act to amend the Criminal Code, increasing parole ineligibility, on June 1, 2026, provided that the sponsor of the bill be invited to testify, along with any other witnesses deemed relevant by committee members, and that, following the testimony, the committee immediately proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the chair only be authorized to adjourn the meeting after clause-by-clause consideration of the bill is completed.

4: The committee proceed with drafting a report with respect to its study on the bail system, sentencing and the handling of repeat violent offenders, with an emphasis on measures it recommends beyond Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, provided that the testimony received during the studies on those bills be used as evidence for the purposes of preparing the report, and that the report be tabled in the House no less than five sitting days after it is adopted by the committee;

5. Prior to the summer adjournment, the committee dedicate two meetings for its study of the appointment of judges to courts under federal jurisdiction, as per the unanimous motion agreed to by the committee on September 23, 2025;

6. The committee schedule a meeting for the purposes of studying the main estimates 2026-27 with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for no less than one hour, and an additional hour with his officials, provided that the meeting take place prior to the completion of the relevant supply cycle, and that this ministerial appearance not be combined with any other appearance listed in this motion, and that time provided for his answers during this meeting not be greater than the length of time taken for the question.

I propose, Mr. Chair, that we suspend briefly so that this can be submitted to all committee members in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Ms. Lattanzio has the floor.

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

On what may be a point of clarification, my colleague is seeking unanimous consent to be able to present this motion, correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's correct.

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

Okay.

He read everything. Are we voting?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay. Thank you.

That takes us back to the subamendment of CPC-23. Mr. Brock, I take it that you're finished speaking.

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

I am for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Lawton, you have the floor.

(On clause 63)

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We're debating here the subamendment that was put forth on Monday by Mr. Mantle. It's a substitution for an amendment from Mr. Baber on clause 63. This is the clause dealing with the so-called safety valve that the Liberals have opted to put in Bill C-16 to tremendously weaken the force and effect of mandatory minimum penalties.

Mr. Baber's amendment would add:

(1.1) In determining whether the specified term of imprisonment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender, the court shall consider the particular circumstances of the offender and shall not consider any reasonably foreseeable circumstances or hypothetical scenarios.

Mr. Mantle's subamendment would replace all the words that we just read with this:

(1.1) In determining the constitutionality of mandatory minimum penalties, the court shall not consider reasonable hypotheticals.

That would become the text of proposed subsection 718.4(1.1).

With all due respect to Mr. Baber, I'm inclined to favour Mr. Mantle's subamendment slightly more. However, I think it's important to situate this in the context of the actual clause we're discussing here, and that is clause 63 and proposed subsection 718.4(1), which says:

When opposing a sentence for an offence that has a minimum punishment of a specified term of imprisonment, the 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.

I'm going to turn to the officials in just a moment on this, but as far as where I hope this came from.... In the fall, we had the Senneville decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, which was rooted in a really horrendous decision by the Supreme Court, but the truly atrocious part was actually the original trial judge in the Senneville and Naud cases, who found that a mandatory minimum penalty of one year was itself cruel and unusual punishment for men each in possession of hundreds of videos and images of absolutely horrific child sexual abuse and exploitation material.

This has come up in discussions we've had with witnesses on this, and this has come up even as we have debated some of the clauses and amendments of Bill C-16. We have to look at mandatory minimum penalties as a safeguard against this sort of really insane leniency that some judges are inclined to give to really brutal offenders.

Now, if I had my way, the one-year mandatory minimum would be back in. It would be defended by the notwithstanding clause so that we don't have activist judges shouting down what parliamentarians, representative and accountable to the people, have said. We would also ensure, in an ideal world, that it was more than one year because, for the types of crime we're talking about here, I think that is entirely appropriate. Most people would be shocked to find that one year was the mandatory minimum for having hundreds of images of children as young as four years old being raped and abused in any number of ways.

I find it to be really disheartening when we talk to people. We've had witnesses at this committee such as Liz Brown of Valora Place in St. Thomas and Jennifer Dunn of the London Abused Women's Centre. We've had London Police Service chief Thai Truong. We've had activists and advocates representing women's agencies and child protection agencies. Every day, all these people have to live with witnessing brutality in the world that most of us never have to encounter. They see the pieces that these crimes leave behind on the victims.

Despite our disagreements on this bill, I truly believe that everyone on this committee wants to do right by children in our society and wants to do right by women and all victims of crime. I feel that where the divergence has happened here is that there is a belief system that is rooted far more in abstract legal theory and less in standing up for victims. That's what's driving a lot of these very dangerous policies we've seen, not just on bail legislation but also, and especially, on things like mandatory minimums. We get so focused on what law professors and legal scholars are saying that we lose sight of the purpose of the justice system, which is to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions, to deter future perpetrators and to give some modicum of justice to people who have been victimized by crimes or whose family members have been victimized by crimes.

We can't lose sight of that core objective, which should govern all the work we're doing as MPs and certainly as members with the great privilege of being on the justice committee, which has two more members now that the Liberals have stacked the committee. I welcome our new colleagues.

We have to put justice and victims' rights first. It would provide a way out for judges who fundamentally reject the idea of mandatory minimums, which parliamentarians have put in place time and time again. It would give judges a button they can press if they felt that it was not fair to put a child pornographer behind bars.

I want to talk about what this safety valve says.

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

Officials, this will sound like a broad question, but I hope you'll understand where I'm going. If you're unclear, I'm happy to clarify it. What does “in the circumstances” refer to?

When a judge is making this decision on whether a safety valve applies, what information are they permitted or compelled to bring in, as far as that assessment of circumstances?

[Leah Burt, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Since the threshold chosen for the safety valve was the constitutional standard of cruel and unusual punishment, then I think we can expect courts to rely on the body of jurisprudence that has developed around section 12. They would look at examples of previous MMPs that were struck down and situations in which those MMPs were struck down. There will be a broad body of jurisprudence for courts to rely on.

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

Where it says, “minimum punishment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender”, they're deciding whether it's cruel and unusual not only based on the facts of the crime, but also based on the circumstances of the offender, as I read that.

What is being drawn into that assessment?

[Leah Burt]

I think we could expect courts to look at the circumstances of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the offender and the types of factors that courts are accustomed to analyzing when reaching a proportionate sentence.

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

Would an offender's immigration status be considered?

[Leah Burt]

As part of this analysis, they would look at all of the circumstances surrounding that particular offender and the events.

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

If a judge believes an offender's immigration status could be jeopardized by upholding the mandatory minimum, could that be factored into cruel and unusual punishment being determined?

[Matthew Taylor, Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

The courts have been pretty clear, and we've talked at this committee, about the Supreme Court decision in Pham and the role that collateral consequences can play in sentencing. Sentencing courts are allowed to take into consideration collateral consequences of a sentence, whether that be immigration status or employment status. However, when they take those consequences into consideration, they cannot adjust the sentence in a way that would result in the sentence being unfit for that particular offender.

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

When determining whether the circumstances are cruel and unusual, there is nothing in proposed subsection 718.4(1), nothing in the safety valve, that compels judges to look at the effects it would have on victims and their rights.

[Matthew Taylor]

As Ms. Burt mentioned, when assessing whether a particular sentence would be cruel and unusual in a constitutional context, they are going to look at the seriousness and the gravity of the offence. I think that would provide an opportunity for them to consider aspects related to the victim.

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

I will look up some of the cases you've cited.

Please add me back to the speakers list, Mr. Chair. I'm finished right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

I'm going to suspend for a few moments.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'd like to call this meeting back to order.

Mr. Brock, I think you have a question.

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

There was a question, Mr. Chair, posed to you and the clerk before you suspended, approximately 15or 20 minutes ago. A certain number of questions were put to you. I'm hopeful that you have an answer you can share with us.