Justice Committee on May 4th, 2026
Evidence of meeting #28 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session
4:30 p.m.
The Chair James Maloney
Liberal
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
Is there anybody else? No. Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 68 agreed to)
(On clause 69)
That brings us to clause 69 and NDP-22. If NDP-22 is adopted, G-32 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Ms. Kwan, it's back to you.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, similar to previous NDP amendments, this would extend protections in legal proceedings to all those victimized by their intimate partners, and not restrict protections to a limited number of offences. In echoing the recommendations of the National Association of Women and the Law, New Democrats are committed to ensuring that survivors of all forms of intimate partner abuse are protected while testifying in court. We urge all parties to vote in favour of this amendment to ensure these protections are in place.
The Chair James Maloney
Liberal
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
I go to Mr. Brock, and then to Mr. Baber.
Larry Brock Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Conservative
I don't have the actual bill in front of me.
Officials, is this within the context of sentencing only, or would it also apply at the judicial interim release stage to include all offences that pertain to an intimate partner?
Jocelyn Sigouin Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This is a sentencing provision. It's a new provision in the Criminal Code that would allow a judge to impose an order prohibiting an offender, when they're being sentenced for certain offences, from contacting a victim, a witness or another person.
Larry Brock Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Conservative
This is not mandatory. This would be a discretionary order.
Jocelyn Sigouin
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct.
Larry Brock Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Conservative
Do you not think this particular clause would be redundant? I'm just thinking about the number of times I was prosecuting, say, a non-assault offence involving a husband and wife or a boyfriend and girlfriend. It could be mischief. It could be a break and enter. It could be a number of other non-assault offences. I would routinely be asking for a no-contact order as part of probation, and nine times out of 10 it would be granted. In the context of what's currently happening in our judicial system with that discretion already being available to judges and where Crowns or victims ask specifically for that type of protection in their victim impact statements, don't you think that the current regime already addresses the concerns raised by my NDP colleague?
Jocelyn Sigouin
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This no-contact order fills the gap in no-contact orders. It allows the order to be in place for life, which isn't currently available. I believe what the NDP motion is proposing is to change the scope of offences for which the no-contact order can be imposed.
What's proposed in Bill C-16 is to allow the no-contact order to be imposed in cases of a certain list of offences, including offences in which violence is used, attempted or threatened against an intimate partner. The proposal is to have it apply to any offence against an intimate partner.
Larry Brock Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Conservative
Thanks for the clarification. For follow-up purposes, Bill C-16 talks about a no-contact order for life in those circumstances.
Jocelyn Sigouin
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This was proposed in this clause, yes. It can be for life or for a shorter period of time.
Larry Brock Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Conservative
I missed that distinction, so thanks for pointing that out.
The Chair James Maloney
Liberal
Thank you, Mr. Brock.
Mr. Baber.
Roman Baber York Centre, ON
Conservative
As far as I understand it, NDP-22 expands the scope of when a judge may impose a no-contact order to include all offences against an intimate partner. Am I correct?
Jocelyn Sigouin
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, that's right.
Roman Baber York Centre, ON
Conservative
This NDP amendment actually makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think it should be overly contentious. I believe that we'll vote in favour of it.
Thank you.
Larry Brock Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Conservative
The Conservatives will.
The Chair James Maloney
Liberal
Shall NDP-22 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That takes us to G-32.
Ms. Lattanzio.
Patricia Lattanzio Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Liberal
We voted down NDP-22 to be able to introduce G-32. The purpose of this motion is to expand the availability of the bill's proposed no-contact orders to apply to offenders who commit any offence against their intimate partner, not just a violent offence. In so doing, it provides greater protection to victims and recognizes that non-violent offences can involve elements of power, control and psychological abuse when committed in the context of an intimate partner relationship. That is why we voted down NDP-22.
Thank you.
