Nathalie Levman
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Opening remarks
It would include that, but it would make them apply to all offences against intimate partners.
Meeting 27 · April 29, 2026 · 16:36–20:35 (3h 59m)
45-15 witnesses · 289 interventions · 22,316 words
This House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights meeting was convened for 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. Appearing from the Department of Justice were Matthew Taylor, Nathalie Levman, Leah Burt, Michael Ellison, and Normand Wong, along with officials from the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Nathalie Levman explained that an NDP amendment would extend testimonial aids and no contact orders to all offences against intimate partners, not just specific listed offences. She also clarified that the bill's coercive control offence includes a safety test requiring a reasonable person to believe their safety is threatened, and that the offence's mens rea requirement would protect those in mental health crisis from inappropriate charges. She noted that the bill's femicide provision effectively defines femicide through a marginal note when a female is killed in any of four listed circumstances, and that the provision is gender-neutral to protect all victims.
Leah Burt addressed questions about mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) for child pornography offences, stating that the Supreme Court's Senneville decision struck down these MMPs, making them currently unenforceable. She explained that Bill C-16's "for greater certainty" clause and structured judicial discretion would revive these MMPs by removing the basis for previous unconstitutionality rulings, as courts would no longer rely on reasonable hypotheticals to find MMPs unconstitutional.
Matthew Taylor confirmed that Bill C-16 would restore MMPs for child pornography offences through the rules of stare decisis, as the legal framework would materially change. He acknowledged that without specific guardrails in the legislation, a judge could impose a sentence as low as one day for child sexual abuse material possession. He also noted that the bill's hate-motivated murder provisions were a policy choice to address both femicide and other aggravated circumstances in one section.
Normand Wong stated that the 48-hour timeline in a Conservative amendment for removing intimate images from computer systems was of uncertain feasibility, as officials had not consulted service providers. He noted that section 164.1 of the Criminal Code, added in 2001, has never been used in a reported case, as internet service providers typically remove content immediately upon notification without a court order.
Michael Ellison addressed an NDP amendment adding a "for greater certainty" clause on a complainant's right to counsel in sexual history evidence proceedings, stating it would provide clarity without fundamentally changing the role of complainant's counsel. He explained that existing court guidance already restricts what complainant's counsel can do, and that the amendment would not alter provincial legal aid eligibility criteria.
The committee debated several procedural rulings, with the chair ruling multiple Conservative amendments out of scope as they would expand the bill's principle or offend the Crown's financial prerogative. These rulings were sustained on recorded votes. The committee also resolved a line conflict between NDP-6.1 and G-7, with the chair ruling NDP-6.1 out of order based on the English text, a decision that prompted a point of order from Mr. Fortin about French-English precedence.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.
Nathalie Levman
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Opening remarks
It would include that, but it would make them apply to all offences against intimate partners.
Leah Burt
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Opening remarks
To answer your first question, the mandatory minimum penalty for accessing and possessing has been struck down. That's its status. Therefore, courts would not be able to apply those mandatory minimum penalties. If Bill C-16 were to be enacted, it would permit courts to order a penalty below a mandatory minimum penalty because we have the new structured judicial discretion clause. We also have a “for greater certainty” clause that would essentially revive any mandatory minimum penalties that were previously struck down and that are still on the statute books. The result of those amendments would be that those two MMPs would once again be available to courts.
Matthew Taylor
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Opening remarks
I'll try to build on what Ms. Burt said. Regarding the MMPs we're talking about, and other MMPs that have been found unconstitutional by the courts but haven't been removed from the Criminal Code and are still on the statute book, those are not enforceable, as Ms. Burt said. With the enactment of Bill C-16, due to the rules of stare decisis, when and if Parliament enacted Bill C-16, there would be material changes in the state of the criminal law. One of those material changes, as Ms. Burt described, is that courts would be able to depart from the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty where it would result in a grossly disproportionate outcome for the offender before the court.
Normand Wong
General counsel, As an Individual
Opening remarks
Thank you for the question, Mr. Fortin. Regarding the 48 hours, I'm not entirely sure. We haven't had a chance to study this amendment. The way that 164.1 works currently is that the judge orders the takedown, and that is interpreted as the immediate takedown. On the timing of 48 hours, it's unclear to us whether that would delay the removal of the intimate images or if it would actually speed things up. As to whether it's possible, we have not had an opportunity to talk to service providers who might be hosting this type of material.
Michelle LegaultCommittee staff
Legislative Clerk
Opening remarks
Thank you, Mr. Fortin. Let me clarify. It's not a matter of precedence, but a procedural matter related to the fact that the French text tends to be longer. To avoid confusion, when we look at line conflicts, we look at the English first, because the lines tend to be higher in the bill, while the French lines are lower. To avoid confusion and take a consistent approach, we use English when we look at line conflicts. The legal effect is the same. It's just that the drafting is done differently in English and in French, and our practice is to follow the lines in English. There aren't often situations like this, where we really see the distinction between the lines in English and in French. It can happen, but we still have to rely on the English, in accordance with our practice. I hope that answers your question.
Michael Ellison
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Opening remarks
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.