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
Conservative
Bloc Québécois
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 32 of the Bill.
On Clause 32,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 32, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 25 the following:“(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.
Clause 32, as amended, carried.
Clause 33 carried.
On Clause 34,
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 34, be amended(a) by adding after line 9 on page 26 the following:
“278.101 In sections 278.11 to 278.28, a reference to a judge includes a reference to a provincial court judge or justice.”
(b) by replacing lines 33 to 38 on page 26 with the following:
“make an application for its production to a judge.”
(c) by replacing line 15 on page 29 with the following:
“sections 278.12(3) to (6);”
(d) by replacing lines 9 to 14 on page 34 with the following:
“must make an application for its production to a judge.”
(e) by replacing line 21 on page 36 with the following:
“sections 278.21(3) to (6);”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“er offence under this Act, or any other Act of Parliament, that is of a sexual nature or”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio 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 (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.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“er offence under this Act, or any other Act of Parliament, that is of a sexual nature or”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 26 on page 33 with the following:
“(2) The prosecutor may produce to the accused”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 5 on page 34 with the following:
“(4) Production under subsection (2) does not affect the”
The question was put on the amendment of Marilyn Gladu and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 33 with the following:
“to its disclosure to the accused after being given a reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 33 with the following:
“complainant if the complainant agrees to its disclosure to the accused.”
After debate, 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.
“er offence under this Act, or any other Act of Parliament, that is of a sexual nature or”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“the proper administration of justice; and”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
(a) replacing line 10 on page 42 with the following:
“given to the prosecutor and filed”
(b) replacing line 18 on page 42 with the following:
“the prosecutor and filed with the”
(c) replacing lines 28 to 31 on page 42 with the following:
“(6) 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.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 34, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 45 the following:
“(8) For greater certainty, the complainant or any witness 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.
“(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.
Clause 34, as amended, carried.
On Clause 35,
Anthony Housefather moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 35, be amended by(a) adding after line 6 on page 47 the following:
“(e.1) the accused used, or threatened or attempted to use, violence against any animal known to the complainant;
(e.2) the accused damaged, or threatened or attempted to damage, the complainant’s property or the property of anyone known to the complainant;”
(b) replacing line 8 on page 47 with the following:
“referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e.2) directed at another”
The question was put on the amendment of Anthony Housefather and it was agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, carried.
Clause 36 carried.
On new Clause 36.1,
Larry Brock moved, — That Bill C-16 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 47 the following new clause:“36.1 Subsection 344(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and”
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, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Aslam Rana — 7;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4.
On Clause 37,
Larry Brock moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 47 with the following:“37 (1) Subsection 346(1.1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(2) Section 346 of the Act is amended by adding”
Debate arose thereon.
At 11:47 a.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 11:56 a.m., the meeting resumed.
“37 (1) Subsection 346(1.1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(2) Section 346 of the Act is amended by adding”
By unanimous consent, the amendment was allowed to stand.
“37.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 445.1:
445.11 (1) In this section, animal cruelty material means
(a) any written material, visual representation or audio recording whose dominant characteristic is the description or the depiction in an explicit and realistic way of any of the offences listed under subsection 445.1(1); or
(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels any of the offences listed under subsection 445.1(1).
(2) Every person commits an offence who
(a) knowingly makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication animal cruelty material;
(b) knowingly transmits, makes available, distributes, sells, advertises, imports, exports or possesses for the purpose of transmission, making available, distribution, sale, advertising or exportation of animal cruelty material;
(c) knowingly possesses or accesses animal cruelty material; or
(d) invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of 16 years to commit any offence under this section or any of the offences listed under subsection 445.1(1), or who commits any of the offences listed under that subsection in the presence of a person under the age of 16 years.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (2) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine of not more than $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both.
(4) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), a person accesses animal cruelty material if they knowingly cause it to be viewed by, or transmitted to, themselves.
(5) If a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court that imposes the sentence shall consider as an aggravating factor the fact that
(a) the person committed the offence with intent to make a profit; and
(b) an animal involved in the offence belongs or belonged to
(i) the offender’s intimate partner, or
(ii) a child or parent of the offender or of anyone referred to in subparagraph (i).
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the conduct that forms the subject-matter of the charge has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art, including lawful agricultural practices or animal husbandry, humane euthanasia or lawful sporting, cultural, or agricultural event involving animals.
(7) The court may, in addition to any other sentence that it may impose under subsection (3),
(a) make an order prohibiting the accused from owning, having the custody or control of or residing in the same premises as an animal during any period that the court considers appropriate but, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a minimum of five years; and
(b) on application of the Attorney General or on its own motion, order that the accused pay to a person or an organization that has taken care of an animal as a result of the commission of the offence the reasonable costs that the person or organization incurred in respect of the animal, if the costs are readily ascertainable.
(8) Every person who contravenes an order made under paragraph (7)(a) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(9) Sections 740 to 741.2 apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to orders made under paragraph (7)(b).”
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, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Aslam Rana, Eric St-Pierre — 7;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4.
On Clause 38,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 48 with the following:“ment or trafficking in persons or an offence committed against their intimate partner, the judge or jus-”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, carried.
On Clause 39,
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 39, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 49 with the following:“fence against their intimate partner,”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“fence committed against their intimate partner,”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, carried.
On Clause 40,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3 on page 51 with the following:“ment or trafficking in persons or an offence committed against their intimate partner, the judge or jus-”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, carried.
On Clause 40.1,
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 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 51 the following new clause:“40.1 Subsections 486.6(1) and (1.1) of the Act are replaced by the following:
486.6 (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) — other than a person who is the subject of the order — is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
Clause 41 carried.
Clause 42 carried.
Clause 43 carried.
Clause 44 carried.
Clause 45 carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 46 to 55 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 56,
Iqra Khalid moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 56, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 9 on page 61 with the following:“(2.2) La personne âgée de moins de dix-huit ans au moment”
The question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, carried.
Clause 57 carried.
Clause 58 carried.
On Clause 59,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 59, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 17 on page 64 with the following:“(a) issuing a warning to the person; or”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 59, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 64 with the following:
“province, including an Indigenous diversion program;”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
At 12:14 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 12:14 p.m., the meeting resumed.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 59, be amended
(a) by replacing line 29 on page 65 with the following:
“sure is admissible in evidence against that person or a victim of the offence in any”
(b) by adding after line 30 on page 65 the following:
“(2) No statement made by a victim of an offence in relation to the use of alternative measures in respect of the offence is admissible in evidence against the victim or the person alleged to have committed the offence in any civil or criminal proceedings.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“der section 715.47 or 715.48, regardless of the degree of their com-”
The question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, carried.
Clause 60 carried.
Clause 61 carried.
Clause 62 carried.
On Clause 63,
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 63, be amended(a) by replacing lines 3 to 6 on page 71 with the following:
“prisonment or a period of parole ineligibility, a court may impose a different sentence if, in the circumstances and taking into consideration the sentencing principles set out in paragraph 718.2(e), the minimum punishment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender or would otherwise infringe any of the offender’s rights or freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
(b) by replacing line 12 on page 71 with the following:
“(4) A court that imposes a different sentence”
(c) by replacing line 15 on page 71 with the following:
“(5) For the purposes of this Part, a shorter term of im‐”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“prisonment than the specified term if
(a) in the circumstances, the minimum punishment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender;
(b) the offender has no prior criminal record; and
(c) there is evidence of mitigating circumstances, such as evidence that the offender cooperated with law enforcement officials or pleaded guilty early.
(1.1) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), financial hardship — including loss of housing or employment — is not a relevant circumstance.
(1.2) A court that imposes a shorter term of imprisonment under subsection (1) shall not impose a sentence that is less than half of the specified term of the minimum punishment.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Aslam Rana, Eric St-Pierre — 7.
At 12:58 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 1:37 p.m., the meeting resumed.
“(1.1) In determining whether the specified term of imprisonment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender, the court shall consider the particular circumstances of the offender and shall not consider any reasonably foreseeable circumstances or hypothetical scenarios.”
Debate arose thereon.
Larry Brock moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “for the offender”.
Debate arose thereon.
At 1:51 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 3:46 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The committee resumed consideration of the amendment of Roman Baber which read as follows:
“(1.1) In determining whether the specified term of imprisonment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender, the court shall consider the particular circumstances of the offender and shall not consider any reasonably foreseeable circumstances or hypothetical scenarios.”
and of the subamendment of Larry Brock which read as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “for the offender”.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was allowed to stand.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 63, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 9 on page 71.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to
(a) an offence for which the minimum punishment is imprisonment for life or any other serious offence;
(b) a sexual offence against a child, within the meaning of subsection 3(1) of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act; or
(c) an offence under a provision of Part I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or of the regulations made under it.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 4;
NAYS: Kody Blois, Chris d'Entremont, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio — 7.
“ment for life or to an offence under section 272.”
The question was put on the amendment of Amarjeet Gill and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 4;
NAYS: Kody Blois, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 7.
“ment for life or to an offence under section 273.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Amarjeet Gill and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 4;
NAYS: Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 7.
“ment for life or to an offence under section 346.”
The question was put on the amendment of Amarjeet Gill and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 4;
NAYS: Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 7.
Clause 64 carried.
Clause 65 carried.
Clause 66 carried.
Clause 67 carried.
On Clause 68,
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 68, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 73 with the following:“an offence against the offender’s intimate”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
Clause 68 carried.
On Clause 69,
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 69, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 73 with the following:“offence against their intimate partner,”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 4;
NAYS: Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 7.
“offence committed against their intimate partner,”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, carried.
Clause 70 carried.
Clause 71 carried.
Clause 72 carried.
Clause 73 carried.
On Clause 74,
Iqra Khalid moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 74, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 11 on page 76 with the following:“paragraph 745.1(a).”
The question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, carried.
Clause 75 carried.
Clause 76 carried.
Clause 77 carried.
Clause 78 carried.
Clause 79 carried.
On Clause 80,
Rhéal Éloi Fortin moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 80, be amended(a) by replacing line 6 on page 78 with the following:
“80 (1) The portion of section 810 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
810 (1) An information may be laid before a justice by or on behalf of any person who, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to believe that another person
(2) Paragraph 810(1)(b) of the French version of”
(b) by adding after line 9 on page 78 the following:
“(3) Subsection 810(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(3) If the justice or summary conviction court before which the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that, in all the circumstances, the informant could reasonably be expected to believe that the defendant will commit the offence, the judge may order the defendant to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.”
The question was put on the amendment of Rhéal Éloi Fortin and it was negatived.
Clause 80 carried.
On Clause 81,
Rhéal Éloi Fortin moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 81, be amended(a) by replacing line 12 on page 78 with the following:
“810.03 (1) Any person who, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to believe”
(b) by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 78 with the following:
“fied by the evidence adduced that, in all the circumstances, the informant could reasonably be expected to believe that the defendant will commit the offence, the justice may order the”
The question was put on the amendment of Rhéal Éloi Fortin and it was negatived.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 81, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 33 to 35 on page 79 with the following:
“(7) The justice shall include as a condition of the recognizance that the defendant be prohibited from pos‐”
(b) by replacing lines 39 to 42 on page 79 with the following:
“all of those things. The condition is to apply for the same period during which the recognizance applies.”
(c) by replacing lines 1 to 5 on page 80 with the following:
“(5) Subsection 810.03(8) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(8) The justice shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in subsection (7)”
(d) by deleting lines 12 to 15 on page 80.
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Rhéal Éloi Fortin — 1;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Jacob Mantle, Gurbux Saini — 10.
Clause 81 carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 82 to 89 inclusive carried severally.
Clause 90 carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 91 to 99 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 100,
Marilyn Gladu moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 5 on page 88 with the following:“the Act, as enacted by section 32, and sections 278.1 to 278.38 of the Act, as enacted by section 34, apply only to an offence in respect of which a charge is laid on or after”
The question was put on the amendment of Marilyn Gladu and it was agreed to.
Clause 100, as amended, carried.
Clause 101 carried.
Clause 102 carried.
On Clause 102.1,
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 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 88 the following new clause:“102.1 For greater certainty, section 486.6 of the Act, as amended by section 40.1, applies with respect to any order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) that is in force on the commencement day.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 103 to 118 inclusive carried severally.
On new Clause 118.1,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16 be amended by adding after the heading “Review” after line 14 on page 90 the following:“118.1 Five years after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, or as soon as feasible after that day, a comprehensive review of section 264.01 of the Criminal Code and its operation is to be commenced by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose. The review is to consider, among other things, the criminalization of coercive or controlling conduct in relationships other than intimate partner relationships.”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 90 the following new clause:
“118.1 (1) The Governor in Council must consider referring to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration the question of the constitutional validity of Part XV.1 of the Criminal Code.
(2) If the question is not referred to the Supreme Court of Canada within three months after the day on which Part XV.1 of the Criminal Code comes into force, the Minister of Justice must cause a report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first ten days on which that House is sitting after the expiry of that three-month period.
(3) The report must include an explanation of the reasons why the question has not been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
Clause 119 carried.
On new Clause 119.1,
Larry Brock moved, — That Bill C-16 be amended by adding after line 24 on page 90 the following new clause:“Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
119.1 Paragraph 5(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is replaced by the following:
(a) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and
(i) to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year if
(A) the person committed the offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, as defined in subsection 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code,
(B) the person used or threatened to use violence in committing the offence,
(C) the person carried, used or threatened to use a weapon in committing the offence, or
(D) the person was convicted of a designated substance offence, or had served a term of imprisonment for a designated substance offence, within the previous 10 years, or
(ii) to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years if
(A) the person committed the offence in or near a school, on or near school grounds or in or near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years,
(B) the person committed the offence in a prison, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, or on its grounds, or
(C) the person used the services of a person under the age of 18 years, or involved such a person, in committing the offence;”
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: Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 7;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 4.
“Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
119.1 Paragraph 6(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is replaced by the following:
(a) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I in an amount that is not more than one kilogram, or in Schedule II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year if
(i) the offence is committed for the purposes of trafficking,
(ii) the person, while committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority, or
(iii) the person had access to an area that is restricted to authorized persons and used that access to commit the offence;
(a.1) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I in an amount that is more than one kilogram, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two 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: Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 7;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 4.
“Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
119.1 (1) Paragraph 7(2)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is replaced by the following:
(a) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years if any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply and for a term of two years in any other case;
(a.1) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment
(i) for a term of one year if the production is for the purpose of trafficking, or
(ii) for a term of 18 months if the production is for the purpose of trafficking and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply;
(2) Section 7 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(3) The following factors must be taken into account in applying paragraphs (2)(a) and (a.1):
(a) the person used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence;
(b) the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to persons under the age of 18 years who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;
(c) the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; or
(d) the person set or placed a trap, device or other thing that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to another person in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area, or permitted such a trap, device or other thing to remain or be placed in that location or area.”
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: Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 7;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 4.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 120 to 139 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 140,
Amarjeet Gill moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 140, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 97 the following:“(2) Section 8 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 8(1) and is amended by adding the following:
(2) Every victim of an offence in which violence is used, threatened or attempted against them by their intimate partner, including an offence involving coercive or controlling conduct within the meaning of subsection 264.01(2) of the Criminal Code, must be notified, without delay,
(a) of any release order made under the Criminal Code in respect of the accused; or
(b) of any decision under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to grant the offender unescorted temporary absence, escorted temporary absence, conditional release or parole.”
The question was put on the amendment of Amarjeet Gill and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 5;
NAYS: Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 6.
Clause 140 carried.
On Clause 141,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 141, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 16 on page 97 with the following:“ferred to in sections 6 to 8 include, but are not limited to,”
At 4:56 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:58 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“(f) the Canada Border Services Agency; and
(g) the Department of Justice.”
The question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was agreed to.
Clause 141, as amended, carried.
Clause 142 carried.
That Bill C-16 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 98 the following new clause:
“142.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 14:
14.1 Every victim who is a complainant to an offence under the Criminal Code that is of a sexual nature or that is committed for a sexual purpose, or that is alleged to have been committed by their intimate partner as defined in section 2 of that Act, and every witness in proceedings relating to that offence has the right to be represented and to participate in the proceedings.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
Clause 143 carried.
On new Clause 143.1,
Larry Brock moved, — That Bill C-16 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 98 the following new clause:“143.1 Sections 27 to 29 of the Act are repealed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 4;
NAYS: Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 7.
Clause 144 carried.
On Clause 145,
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 145, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 99 with the following:“spect, courtesy, compassion and fairness and without discrimination by the appropri‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 145 to 154 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 155,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 155, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 101 with the following:“Criminal Code or any other offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“dance with the procedures set out in sections 180.002, 180.003,”
The question was put on the amendment of Marilyn Gladu and it was agreed to.
“(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.
(a) replacing line 15 on page 103 with the following:
“to the prosecutor and filed with the”
(b) replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 103 with the following:
“of the application was given to the prosecutor and filed with the Court Martial Adminis-”
(c) replacing lines 31 to 34 on page 103 with the following:
“(5) If the military judge grants the application and agrees to hold the hearing, the accused person shall cause a copy of the application to be given to the complainant by a person other than the accused person.”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“to determine whether evidence is admissi-”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“to the uses that they may and may not make of that”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 155, be amended
(a) by adding after line 2 on page 107 the following:
“(7) For greater certainty, the complainant has the right to be represented by counsel.”
(b) by adding after line 2 on page 126 the following:
“(8) For greater certainty, the complainant or any witness has the right to be represented by counsel.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was agreed to.
“Code or any other offence under that Act, or any other Act of Parliament, that is of a”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“Code or any other offence under that Act, or any other Act of Parliament, that is of a”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 1 on page 115 with the following:
“Permitted production
(2) The prosecutor may produce to the accused person”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 18 on page 115 with the following:
“Application of certain provisions
(4) Production under subsection (2) does not affect the”
The question was put on the amendment of Marilyn Gladu and it was agreed to.
“Code or any other offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is of a”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“the proper administration of military justice; and”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
(a) replacing line 7 on page 123 with the following:
“given to the prosecutor and filed”
(b) replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 123 with the following:
“of the application was given to the prosecutor and filed with the Court Martial Adminis-”
(c) replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 123 with the following:
“(6) If the military judge grants the application and agrees to hold the hearing, the accused person shall cause a copy of the application to be given to the complainant by a person other than the accused person.”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
“the uses that they may and may not make of that”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 155, as amended, carried.
On Clause 156,
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 156, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 12 on page 126 with the following:“and 183.3(2) to an offence against an intimate partner includes a reference to any of”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
Clause 156 was negatived.
On Clause 157,
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 157, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 127 with the following:“ficking in persons or an offence”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“ficking in persons or an offence committed”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 157, as amended, carried.
On Clause 158,
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 158, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 128 with the following:“ficking in persons or an offence”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“ficking in persons or an offence committed”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 158, as amended, carried.
On Clause 159,
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 159, be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 129 with the following:“persons or an offence against their in‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
“persons or an offence committed against their in-”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 159, as amended, carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 160 to 164 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 165,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 165, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 24 on page 136 with the following:“qui constitue une infraction au Code criminel et qui est de”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 165, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 136 with the following:
“offence against their intimate partner,”
(b) by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 137 with the following:
“tion (1) to an offence against an intimate partner.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived.
(a) replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 136 with the following:
“offence committed against their intimate partner,”
(b) deleting lines 18 to 20 on page 137.
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 165, as amended, carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 166 to 169 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 170,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 170, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 139 the following:“(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply if the disclosure of any information referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (f) is
(a) made in the course of the administration of military justice and it is made for a purpose other than to make 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 and it is made for a purpose other than to make the information known in the community, 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.
Clause 170, as amended, carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 171 to 180 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 181,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 181, be amended by(a) replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 141 with the following:
“3 (1) A person who provides an Internet service to the public and who has reasonable grounds to believe that their Inter-”
(b) replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 141 with the following:
“sexual abuse and exploitation material offence must notify the law enforcement body designated by”
(c) replacing line 24 on page 141 with the following:
“cordance with the regulations, if
(a) the offence has been committed by means of a computer system, as defined in subsection 342.1(2) of the Criminal Code, that is located in Canada;
(b) the person has possession or control of the computer system; and
(c) the child sexual abuse and exploitation material related to the offence is stored on the computer system.”
(d) deleting line 31 on page 141 to line 8 on page 142.
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 181, as amended, carried.
On new Clause 181.1,
Amarjeet Gill moved, — That Bill C-16 be amended by adding after line 20 on page 142 the following new clause:“181.1 Section 9 of the Act is replaced by the following:
9 A person who has reported information in compliance with an obligation to report child sexual abuse and exploitation material under the laws of a province or a foreign jurisdiction is deemed to have complied with sections 2 and 3 of this Act in relation to that information.”
The question was put on the amendment of Amarjeet Gill and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 4;
NAYS: Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 7.
On Clause 182,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 182, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 142 the following:“9.01 A person who provides an Internet service to the public and who reports, in compliance with an obligation under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction, information related to a child sexual abuse and exploitation material offence is not required to provide a notification under section 3 with respect to the offence.”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 6;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 5.
Clause 182, as amended, carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 183 to 189 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 190,
Marilyn Gladu moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 190, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 35 on page 147 with the following:“sieurs de ces groupes, dans le but de gérer les risques pour la sécurité de toute personne, du public ou du pénitencier;”
The question was put on the amendment of Marilyn Gladu and it was agreed to.
Clause 190, as amended, carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 191 to 194 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 195,
Amarjeet Gill moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 195, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 152 the following:“(1.2) The Chairperson shall, without delay, disclose to the victim of an offence in which violence is used, threatened or attempted against them by their intimate partner, including an offence involving coercive or controlling conduct within the meaning of subsection 264.01(2) of the Criminal Code, any information referred to in subparagraphs (1)(a)(iv) and (1)(b)(iii), (iv), (iv.2), (v), (v.1) and (vi) about the offender.”
The question was put on the amendment of Amarjeet Gill and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 5;
NAYS: Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 6.
Clause 195 carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 196 to 201 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 202,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-16, in Clause 202, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 154 the following:“(4) On the first day on which both section 11 of the other Act and section 68 of this Act are in force, section 726.21 of the Criminal Code, as enacted by section 11 of the other Act, is renumbered as section 726.22 and is repositioned accordingly if required.”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 202, as amended, carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 203 to 205 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 206,
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 206, be amended(a) by replacing line 2 on page 157 with the following:
“visions of this Act, other than sections 46 and 202 to 205,”
(b) by adding after line 12 on page 157 the following:
“(2.1) Section 46 comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
(2.2) The Governor in Council may issue a proclamation under subsection (2.1) after referring to the Supreme Court of Canada a question relating to the constitutional validity of section 46 and after the Supreme Court of Canada has answered that question.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to attach a condition to the coming into force clause, as provided in section 16.81 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Clause 206 carried.
At 5:25 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 5:30 p.m., the meeting resumed.
By unanimous consent, the committee reverted to Clause 37 previously stood.
“37 (1) Subsection 346(1.1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(2) Section 346 of the Act is amended by adding”
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: Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 7;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 4.
Clause 37 carried.
By unanimous consent, the committee reverted to Clause 63 previously stood.
“(1.1) In determining whether the specified term of imprisonment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender, the court shall consider the particular circumstances of the offender and shall not consider any reasonably foreseeable circumstances or hypothetical scenarios.”
By unanimous consent, the committee reverted to the consideration of the subamendment of Larry Brock previously stood which read as follows: That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “for the offender”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Jacob Mantle — 5;
NAYS : Marilyn Gladu, Steven Guilbeault, Anthony Housefather, Iqra Khalid, Patricia Lattanzio, Gurbux Saini — 6.
At 5:36 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 6:01 p.m., the meeting resumed.
Jacob Mantle moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “In determining whether the specified term of imprisonment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender, the court shall consider the particular circumstances of the offender and shall not consider any reasonably foreseeable circumstances or hypothetical scenarios” with the words “In determining the constitutionally of any Mandatory Minimum Penalties, the court shall not consider reasonable hypotheticals”.
At 6:23 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 6:34 p.m., the meeting resumed.
At 6:48 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.