Justice and Human Rights

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to begin its 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. The Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, appeared for the first hour, followed by Department of Justice officials Joanna Wells, Nathalie Levman, Chelsea Moore, and Matthew Taylor.

Minister Fraser outlined the bill as part of a three-pillar public safety strategy, focusing on criminal law reforms to address femicide, coercive control, criminal harassment, AI deepfakes, and child exploitation. He emphasized that the bill creates a constructive first-degree murder charge for femicide, criminalizes coercive control as a stand-alone offence, and modernizes laws for new technologies. He argued that the bill's safety valve for mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) would restore those struck down by courts, such as in the Senneville decision, by allowing judges to depart only where a sentence would be "cruel and unusual," a high constitutional standard. He disagreed with Conservative members who argued the bill weakens sentencing, stating that MMPs on paper are useless if struck down, and defended the approach as respecting court guidance while ensuring serious penalties apply in most cases.

Joanna Wells explained that the safety valve in proposed section 718.4 incorporates the charter standard of "cruel and unusual punishment," applying only to the specific offender before the court, not to reasonable hypotheticals. She noted this would reanimate MMPs struck down in cases like Senneville, such as the one-year minimum for child pornography possession, and would apply to all federal MMPs, including for aggravated sexual assault, human trafficking, extortion with a firearm, and weapons trafficking. She disagreed with Conservative suggestions that this makes MMPs non-mandatory, arguing it preserves them for the vast majority of cases while providing a narrow escape clause.

Nathalie Levman detailed the new coercive control offence, which requires a pattern of conduct—including violence, sexual coercion, or behaviour threatening safety—committed with intent or recklessness. She highlighted that the offence uses an objective test, consistent with Scotland's approach, to avoid requiring victim testimony on subjective fear. She also described amendments targeting sextortion, including a new offence for threatening to distribute child sexual abuse material, expanding child luring to cover preparatory sextortion conduct, and adding an aggravating factor for sexual extortion. She noted a two-year delay in the coercive control offence's coming into force to allow for training to prevent weaponization against victims.

Chelsea Moore addressed court delay measures, stating the bill maintains Jordan decision incentives while simplifying sexual offence proceedings, setting time frames for applications, and providing guidance on complex cases, including those involving child victims. She confirmed these measures target proceedings known to cause delays.

Matthew Taylor emphasized that the bill provides new tools for gender-based violence, sexual offences against children, sextortion, and deepfakes, and aims to enhance public confidence in sentencing by preserving MMPs. He pointed to clauses improving testimonial aids for victims (clauses 38-41), addressing delays (clause 46), and strengthening the Victims Bill of Rights (clauses 135-144). He confirmed that the decision to include MMP reforms alongside gender-based violence proposals was made by the Minister of Justice, with input from the minister's office.

The committee adopted a motion by Patricia Lattanzio to schedule five witness meetings on March 25, April 13, April 15, April 20, and April 22, 2026, followed by clause-by-clause consideration on April 27, 2026. An amendment by Andrew Lawton to increase witness meetings to nine was not agreed to. An amendment by Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe to prioritize a study on the appointment of judges after Bill C-16 was also not agreed to. The motion passed as originally proposed.