Government legislation criminalizing coercive control and sexual explicit deepfakes has cleared committee and now awaits third reading in the House. 

After days of procedural fights and dozens of amendments, Bill C-16 passed on division at the justice committee last week.

The government framed the bill —dubbed the Protecting Victims Act — as a necessary update to the Criminal Code to better address modern forms of harm. It particularly targets coercive control in intimate partner relationships, evolving sexual and child-protection offences, and addresses gaps in digital abuse like deepfakes. 

The committee debate was foreshadowed months earlier, when Conservative MP Larry Brock cautioned that his party broadly backed the legislation, but viewed the government’s proposed “safety valve” for mandatory minimum penalties as a major sticking point, particularly after recent Supreme Court rulings in Senneville on child sexual abuse material offences. 

READ MORE: Fraser says anti-hate bill remains a ‘significant priority’ for government after justice committee hits pause on study

Some of the most significant amendments adopted were Conservative proposals aimed at tightening the bill’s deepfake provisions amid the rise of AI-generated imagery. 

Conservative MP Andrew Lawton said the changes were meant to ensure the legislation keeps pace with evolving technology.

“It’s just making sure we’re fully aware of what we’re incorporating in here, it isn’t just photographs, it also is meeting the technological challenges head on,” Lawton said. 

MPs also approved amendments explicitly added the definition of explicit material to include “nearly nude” content. 

The committee adopted a few government amendments, including closing loopholes for non-disclosure agreements, which clarified that victims will not be stopped from reporting offences to law enforcements even if they signed an NDA. The committee also added provisions on intimate partner victims in testimonial aids. 

An amendment on clarifying that complainants can be represented by legal counsel during certain publication-ban related proceedings, submitted by the NDP also made the cut. 

Despite adopting a handful of changes, the committee saw lengthy debates on mandatory minimum penalty and pushes to invoke the notwithstanding clause. 

Mandatory minimum penalties became a major fault line under the Trudeau government’s justice agenda, with Conservatives accusing the Liberals of weakening sentencing laws while the government argues it is trying to save them from being struck down by the courts. 

After repealing several mandatory minimums through Bill C-5 in 2022, the current provisions under C-16 would preserve the minimum sentencing through built-in “safety valve,” which would allow judges to impose lesser sentences if the punishment is deemed unjust or unconstitutional. 

Brock pointed out that it isn’t enough, citing cases of “judge shopping,” where the accused and defence counsel would go to a specific district court to get a more lenient sentence. 

Meanwhile, Conservative MP Roman Baber proposed the use of notwithstanding clause to shield mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography offences from Charter challenges. 

“I had an intellectual exchange with the attorney general, where I put it to him that the reason… for the notwithstanding clause was to prevent absurdity,” Baber said on Wednesday evening. 

Justice officials told MPs that mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography offences are currently inoperative following Supreme Court rulings, but could be revived under C-16 if its new judicial discretion provisions alter the constitutional analysis. 

“This is an amendment that the Attorney General himself said that he considered, effectively what the Liberal government would be telling all Canadians is if we will not safeguard the mandatory minimum penalty for access and possession of child pornography, a one year sentence, then it might never happen again,” Baber said. 

In response to Baber’s amendment, Liberal MP Patricia Lattanzio said invoking the notwithstanding clause won’t “fix the problem” because of the five year limit — instead it would only delay it. 

“It is temporary and it would leave the same constitutional vulnerabilities in place,” Lattanzio said. 

“We should also not create a patchwork by addressing only some offences while others remain subject to different rules.”