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.
JUSTICE #28: Bill C-16 NDP-24 and NDP-24.1 Amendments
JUSTICE #28: Bill C-16 NDP-24 and NDP-24.1 Amendments
Justice Committee on May 4th, 2026
Evidence of meeting #28 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session.
4:40 p.m.
The Chair James Maloney
Liberal
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 Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Liberal
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 James Maloney
Liberal
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 Vancouver East, BC
NDP
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 James Maloney
Liberal
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.
