JUST Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 (short title) was postponed.
The Chair called Clause 2.
On Clause 2,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Leah Gazan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-16, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 1 with the following:“ence to an offence against an intimate partner includes a reference to any of the follow‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“(c) subsections 515(3), (4.1), (4.3) and (6);
(d) subsection 718.3(8);
(e) section 726.21; and
(f) subsection 810.03(4).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 2 with the following:
“control of intimate partner or relative);”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
Clause 2, as amended, carried.
Clause 3 carried.
On new Clause 3.1,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 2 the following:“3.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 11:
11.1 For greater certainty, no agreement may prevent or restrict a person from disclosing any information that relates to the commission of an offence to a police officer.”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“3.1 Subsection 85(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Larry Brock appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 6;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 5.
“3.1 Subsection 92(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years;
(b) in the case of a second offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years less a day.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Larry Brock appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 6;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 5.
“3.1 Paragraph 95(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Larry Brock appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 6;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 5.
“3.1 Paragraph 96(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Larry Brock appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 6;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 5.
“3.1 Subsection 99(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Larry Brock appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 6;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 5.
“3.1 Subsection 100(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Larry Brock appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 6;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 5.
“3.1 Subsection 103(2.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2.1) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Larry Brock appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 6;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 5.
Clause 4 carried.
Clause 5 carried.
On Clause 6,
Anju Dhillon moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 3 with the following:““sexual organs” includes genital organs, breasts that are or appear to be”
The question was put on the amendment of Anju Dhillon and it was agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, carried.
Clause 7 carried.
Clause 8 carried.
Clause 9 carried.
Clause 10 carried.
Clause 11 carried.
On Clause 12,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Leah Gazan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-16, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 4 with the following:“makes, publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
Clause 12 carried.
Clause 13 carried.
On Clause 14,
Andrew Lawton moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 14, be amended(a) by replacing line 30 on page 6 with the following:
“sonably be expected to be nude or nearly nude, to expose their sexual”
(b) by replacing line 32 on page 6 with the following:
“(b) the person is nude, is nearly nude, is exposing their sexual organs,”
The question was put on the amendment of Andrew Lawton and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 14, as amended, carried.
On Clause 15,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Leah Gazan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-16, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 41 and 42 on page 6 with the following:“15 (1) The portion of subsection 162.1(1) of the Act before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:
162.1 (1) Everyone who knowingly makes, publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“(a) of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
(i) for a term of not more than 10 years, or
(ii) for a term of not more than 14 years if the accused knew or ought to have known that, at the time the intimate image was made, aggravated sexual assault was being, or had just been, committed against the person depicted in the image; or”
The question was put on the amendment of Andrew Lawton and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 15, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 7 with the following:
“(i) in which the person is nude, is nearly nude, is exposing their sexual organs or is engaged in sexual activi‐”
(b) by replacing lines 30 to 33 on page 7 with the following:
“fiable person who is depicted in a position or context that could reasonably be considered to be sexual or is depicted as nude, as nearly nude, as exposing their sexual organs or as engaged in sexual activity.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
(a) by replacing line 19 on page 7 with the following:
“(i) in which the person is nude, is nearly nude, is exposing their”
(b) by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 7 with the following:
“tronic or mechanical means, including by means of artificial intelligence software, and that shows an identifiable person who is depicted as nude, as nearly nude, as exposing”
The question was put on the amendment of Andrew Lawton and it was agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, carried.
Clause 16 carried.
On Clause 17,
Roman Baber moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 17, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 8 the following:“(3) Section 163.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (7):
(8) Subsections (4) and (4.1) operate notwithstanding sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(9) While subsection (8) produces its effects, subsection 718.4(1) does not apply with respect to an offence under subsection (4) or (4.1).”
Debate arose thereon.
At 5:54 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 6:08 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The question was put on the amendment of Roman Baber and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 7.
Clause 17 carried on division.
Clause 18 carried.
“(5.1) If the illicit material is an intimate image, as defined in subsection 162.1(2), in relation to which an offence was committed under section 162.1, the court must order the custodian of the computer system to delete the material within 48 hours after the order is made.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Andrew Lawton and it was agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, carried.
Clause 20 carried.
Clause 21 carried.
Clause 22 carried.
Clause 23 carried.
Clause 24 carried.
At 6:56 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 7:01 p.m., the meeting resumed.
On Clause 25,
Andrew Lawton moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 20 on page 14 with the following:“gree murder when the victim is female and the death is caused by her intimate partner.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Andrew Lawton and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 7.
Clause 25 carried on division.
Clause 26 carried.
On new Clause 26.1,
Larry Brock moved, — That Bill C-16 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 15 the following new clause:“26.1 Paragraph 244(2)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Larry Brock appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 7;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4.
“26.1 Paragraph 244.2(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Larry Brock appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 7;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4.
On Clause 27,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Leah Gazan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-16, in Clause 27, be amended(a) by replacing line 14 on page 15 with the following:
“to harass another person or knowing that or being reckless as to whether”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 17 on page 15 with the following:
“if
(a) the conduct caused that other person to fear for their safety or for the safety of anyone or of any animal known to them; or
(b) in all the circumstances, the conduct could reasonably”
(c) by replacing line 19 on page 15 with the following:
“other person’s safety, or the safety of anyone or of any animal known to”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“to harass another person or knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, they would be harassing another person, engages without”
The question was put on the amendment of Anju Dhillon and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 15 with the following:
“other person or at anyone or any animal known to them.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, carried.
On Clause 28,
Roman Baber moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 16 with the following:“ened or knowing that the”
The question was put on the amendment of Roman Baber and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 7.
“(iv) any animal that is known to the intimate partner;”
The question was put on the amendment of Anthony Housefather and it was agreed to.
“tic, religious, spiritual or cultural community,
(vii) threatening to die by suicide or to self-harm, or
(viii) damaging, or threatening or attempting to damage, the intimate partner’s property or the property of anyone known to them.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Anthony Housefather and it was agreed to.
“(3.1) If an accused is charged with an offence under subsection (1), it is a defence that
(a) the accused was acting in the best interests of the person towards whom the conduct was directed; and
(b) the conduct was reasonable in all the circumstances.”
The question was put on the amendment of Andrew Lawton and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 7.
At 7:49 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 8:01 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, Clause 28, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 29 carried.
Clause 30 carried.
On Clause 31,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Leah Gazan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-16, in Clause 31, be amended(a) by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 18 with the following:
“31 (1) Subsection 276(1) of the Act is replaced by the follow‐”
(b) by replacing lines 19 to 23 on page 18 with the following:
“276 (1) In proceedings in respect of any offence, evidence that the”
(c) by replacing line 27 on page 18 with the following:
“of that activity,
(a) the complainant is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge;
(b) the complainant is less worthy of belief; or
(c) the accused is more likely to have had an honest belief that the complainant consented to the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
“other offence under this Act, or any other Act of Parliament, that is of a sexual nature or”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 31, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 18 with the following:
“(2) In proceedings in respect of any offence, evidence that the complainant has en‐”
(b) by replacing line 4 on page 19 with the following:
“cused or without the informed consent of the complainant, has significant probative value that is not sub‐”
(c) by replacing line 8 on page 19 with the following:
“ecutor with the informed consent of the complainant, has probative value that is not outweighed by”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
“sections 276.01, 276.02, 276.06, 276.1, 278.3 and 278.35, as the”
The question was put on the amendment of Anju Dhillon and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 31, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 19 the following:
“(2.1) Section 276 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(2.1) Evidence is not relevant to an issue at trial merely because it goes to general context or the credibility of the accused’s assertion that they believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“(4) Section 276 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4):
(5) For the purposes of this section, and for greater certainty, evidence of sexual activity includes evidence of sexual inactivity.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Anthony Housefather and it was agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, carried.
On Clause 32,
Iqra Khalid moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 32, be amended by(a) replacing line 29 on page 19 with the following:
“prosecutor and filed with the clerk”
(b) replacing line 37 on page 19 with the following:
“the prosecutor and filed with the”
(c) replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 20 with the following:
“(5) If the judge, provincial court judge or justice grants the application and agrees to hold the hearing, the accused shall cause a copy of the application to be given to the complainant by a person other than the accused.”
The question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to.
“(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply if the disclosure of any information referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (d) is
(a) made in the course of the administration of justice when the purpose of the disclosure is not one of making the information known in the community;
(b) made by the complainant or any witness and about that complainant or witness and their particulars, in any forum and for any purpose, and they did not intentionally or recklessly reveal the identity of or reveal particulars likely to identify any other person whose identity is protected by this section; or
(c) made by the complainant or any witness when the purpose of the disclosure is not one of making the information known to the public, including when the disclosure is made to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person in a relationship of trust with the complainant or the witness.”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“provincial court judge or justice by the prosecutor to determine whether evidence is admissible un-”
The question was put on the amendment of Anju Dhillon and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 32, be amended
(a) by replacing line 11 on page 22 with the following:
“cused and to the complainant and must be filed with the clerk of the court at least 60 days”
(b) by replacing line 17 on page 22 with the following:
“(6) The complainant may appear and make submissions at the hearing, but they are not compellable as a witness at the”
(c) by adding after line 18 on page 22 the following:
“(6.1) The judge, provincial court judge or justice must, as soon as feasible, inform the complainant who participates in the hearing of their right to be represented by counsel.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply if the disclosure of any information referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) is
(a) made in the course of the administration of justice when the purpose of the disclosure is not one of making the information known in the community;
(b) made by the complainant or any witness and about that complainant or witness and their particulars, in any forum and for any purpose, and they did not intentionally or recklessly reveal the identity of or reveal particulars likely to identify any other person whose identity is protected by this section; or
(c) made by the complainant or any witness when the purpose of the disclosure is not one of making the information known to the public, including when the disclosure is made to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person in a relationship of trust with the complainant or the witness.”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“direct the applicants as to the uses that they may and”
The question was put on the amendment of Anju Dhillon and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 32, be amended by adding after line 33 on page 24 the following:
“(7) For greater certainty, the complainant has the right to be represented by counsel.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was agreed to.
At 8:35 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.