THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 11, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 10:34 a.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures).
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. I declare open this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Colleagues, Senator Dhillon has brought to my attention that a police officer in Toronto was shot and is now in hospital in critical condition, to the best evidence we have at the moment. This gives me an opportunity to say a few things. First, the reality of violence on the streets and in communities in Canada, both rural and urban, is brought home by this fact. These occurrences seem to be more regular than they should be. The duty of a police officer, the sacrifices they make on a daily basis serving and protecting the public and the effect incidents like these has on their families strikes all Canadians. These officers are out on the front line applying the rule of law on a daily basis.
I’m going to ask that we take a moment of silence to reflect on that and to be thankful that we do have police officers who are professional in the way that they do their work. Obviously, some of those officers make significant sacrifices.
Honourable senators observed a minute of silence.
The Chair: Colleagues, we will begin the meeting. My name is David Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan and the chair of this committee. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters, also from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Clement: Good afternoon. Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Good morning. Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond, De Lorimier division, Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are meeting to continue our study on the subject matter of Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures).
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome, from the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime. We also have, from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Monique St. Germain, General Counsel, by video conference. From the Quebec Association of Shelters for Women Victims of Domestic Violence, two representatives are with us: Karine Barrette, Lawyer and Project Manager; and Geneviève Béland, Project Officer and Educator.
We welcome all the witnesses. Thank you for joining us here today. We will begin with opening remarks.
Mr. Roebuck, you have five minutes or so.
Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime: Thank you.
We are meeting on the traditional, unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation. Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people continue to experience disproportionate violence. Too often, their families encounter the justice system after irreversible harm has already occurred. Reconciliation requires decisions that make people safer.
The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime supports the objectives of Bill C-16. Many of its clauses respond to recommendations from our national investigation Rethinking Justice for Survivors of Sexual Violence: A Systemic Investigation, which drew upon input from thousands of people across Canada.
I’ll begin with a modest drafting change that would have a positive impact on victim rights.
Clause 190 of Bill C-16 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to modernize how information about offenders is shared, allowing formal arrangements between criminal justice agencies and the ability to disclose information through a digital interface. This will, in practice, involve the transmission of certain victim information. Victims have privacy rights independent of offenders under the Charter, the Privacy Act and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights that should be explicitly reflected in the proposed provisions.
Adding the words “or victims” to the proposed CCRA amendments in proposed subsection 25.1(1) on arrangements and proposed subsection 25.5(1) on digital interfaces would respect their privacy rights, enabling the more effective administration of victim services across federal agencies.
In my appearance before this committee previously, I was encouraged by senators’ interest in ensuring victims are informed when bail and release decisions are made. A bill that addresses femicide should not leave victims out of the protection decisions made at bail and release. A victim cannot use a non‑communication order or a geographic condition on a release order they never learn about.
I urge the committee to consider a targeted, safety-focused amendment that respects victims’ section 7 Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person and section 10 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, or CVBR, which gives every victim the right to have reasonable and necessary measures taken to protect them from intimidation and retaliation.
We have identified several information gaps in the current regime on bail, and, in our written submission, we propose three distinct clauses that could address notification to victims on bail.
In our submission, we also highlight changes relevant to the CVBR. There should be a statutory five-year review. We need a formal process to consider victims’ rights when drafting legislation. We propose a short CVBR compliance statement for criminal justice legislation, prepared in parallel with Charter statements, which are already required under the Department of Justice Act.
Critically, when a victim comes into contact with our office alleging that a federal agency violated their rights, we must have access to the necessary information to assess their complaint. Without legislated authority, our requests for relevant information are occasionally denied, limiting the effectiveness of the complaint process that Parliament intended to create.
We also need to fix the complaints pathway in the CVBR so that victims may contact the ombudsperson directly where appropriate, including when they feel unsafe or intimidated. We have proposed two simple clauses in our written submission to address those issues.
In closing, the protecting victims act should be measured by a practical question: Will it make victims safer, better informed and respected when the system makes decisions that affect them?
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Monique St. Germain, General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection: Thank you, chair and committee, for inviting our agency to participate in this study.
My name is Monique St. Germain, and I am General Counsel for the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, a national charity that works across Canada and globally to reduce the incidence of missing and sexually exploited children. We operate Cybertip.ca, Canada’s tip line for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children. Last year, nearly 30,000 reports were made to Cybertip. Reports overwhelmingly pertain either to child sexual abuse and exploitation material, or CSAEM, or the offence of online luring.
We also operate Project Arachnid, a platform that prioritizes the removal of harmful child sexual abuse material online. As of June 1, Project Arachnid has issued over 141 million notices to tech companies requesting the removal of CSAEM from the internet.
We strongly support the changes in Bill C-16 that are aimed at protecting children and victims of image-based abuse, including the changes that I will now discuss.
The first is the expansion of the luring offence and the CSAEM offence to address extortion as well as the addition of extortion as an aggravating factor on sentencing.
Over the past decade, sextortion offences have skyrocketed. On average, Cybertip receives six sextortion reports per day, and, in 2024 alone, our support services department managed nearly 2,800 requests from children and their caregivers. In our experience, boys are typically extorted for money, while girls are extorted for more images. The tactics used are very extreme and terrifying for the young person and can be incredibly hard to investigate when perpetrated by organized crime groups.
These are not just numbers; these are actual harms facing our children, and we need the fullest response from all of our systems.
We also support the amendment to the intimate image and voyeurism provisions made at the House of Commons committee level, adding “nearly nude” to the definitions, which further strengthens both provisions.
Another really big change to highlight is the increase in the age covered by 161 orders from 16 to 18. A section 161 order is a preventative order that is only possible to make after a person has been convicted of certain sexual offences against a child. Increasing the age of those able to be protected by such orders is a powerful way to keep kids safe. We have advocated for this change for quite some time, and we are happy to see it included.
We would also like to see section 161 further strengthened and have included ideas about that in our written submission to the House of Commons committee. We will do so for this committee, as well. We would like to see this provision further strengthened, and our submission to the House committee included our ideas.
We are also happy to see a safety valve added to address the endless litigation surrounding mandatory minimum sentences. Most offenders and offences going before the courts warrant serious sanctions, but the realities of offending and, more significantly, the victim’s perspective, get completely lost when the focus turns to hypothetical offences and offenders. We are hopeful that these changes will end hypothetical debates and put the focus back on the victims and the actual offence committed by the offender.
We do, however, feel there is more work to be done. A very important issue yet to be addressed is the production of sexual “deepfakes.” Cybertip processed 9,000 sexually explicit AI‑generated images and videos of children and youth in 2024. We have a real problem, and it has to stop. It is the creation of this imagery that first violates the victim’s privacy and sexual integrity. It is the creation that starts the chain of victimization. These images are a powerful silencer of women and girls; they are not harmless products of the imagination.
We also recently learned of changes to section 3 of the mandatory reporting legislation made by the House committee that we feel might not be quite right. We are studying that aspect of it and will put our ideas in a written submission for that soon.
In closing, Bill C-16 is a crucial step in reforming our justice system. With these improvements, we can offer even greater protections to those who need it most: our children.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Geneviève Béland, Project Officer and Educator, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale: Thank you for inviting us to appear today to provide testimony on Bill C-16.
Our address will focus mainly on sections 28, 25, 27 and 59.
Let’s start with section 28 of the bill, which is central to our address today.
The Regroupement, which represents 47 shelters and safe houses from across Quebec, has been closely monitoring the issue of the criminalization of coercive control for several years. We’ve had the opportunity to meet with police officers, prosecutors, victim support services and researchers during three missions that took place in England, Scotland and Australia, countries that have created a new offence for this purpose. Furthermore, we have trained more than 14,000 judicial actors on the issue of coercive control, including nearly 6,000 non‑Indigenous and Indigenous police officers.
The Regroupement actively advocates for the creation of a coercive control offence in Canada. There are three main reasons for this recommendation.
First of all, there needs to be a real shift in the conversation around domestic violence. This goes far beyond physical violence. The victims are not only victims on June 11 and September 13. They are, along with their children, trapped in a spider’s web of schemes that involve isolation, humiliation and deprivation of freedom and are aimed at continuously suffocating them to the point of erasing their dignity and autonomy, which sometimes even leads them to suicide.
Second, we need to send a clear message to society, and specifically to the perpetrators of acts of violence, as well as to the victims. These behaviours are not only unacceptable and deserve to be condemned, but they also constitute a significant risk factor for homicide. They are present in 92% to 99% of domestic homicides, and one-third of these domestic homicides and attempted domestic homicides will not be preceded by physical violence.
Ultimately, it’s about providing professionals with an important legal tool to break the cycle of violence earlier and adequately assess the danger of a situation. We therefore commend the Minister of Justice for including such an offence in this bill.
Karine Barrette, Lawyer and Project Manager, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale: However, it would be a mistake and would even be dangerous to think that a new offence alone constitutes an adequate response to the issue. It’s imperative that criminalization be accompanied by measures promoting optimal implementation across Canada. These measures must be provided for in an act or a legislative instrument that assigns responsibility, otherwise their implementation may be jeopardized by budget cuts.
Without these measures, the act could experience a false start, as in England, leading to disappointment among victims, demobilization of certain organizations and a loss of public confidence in the justice system. Worse still, there could be a misidentification of the primary aggressor, which could be avoided with a good understanding of coercive control.
Drawing on lessons learned in Australia and Great Britain, the main measures needed to avoid such pitfalls are as follows.
First, ensure a sufficient time frame between the passage of the law and its coming into force, namely two years, to establish the necessary conditions for effective implementation. This refers to training for all actors in the upstream chain, co‑developed and co-delivered with police and legal organizations, and specialized domestic violence resources. This also involves public awareness campaigns specific to different communities, the development of tools and operational guidelines for the field, and mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing cases.
Second, as New South Wales does, law enforcement should be supervised by continuously monitoring the indicators recorded by police organizations and prosecutors’ offices. This will enable us to see whether we have met the targeted objectives or identify adverse or unintended effects to adequately report the results to Parliament.
Third, provide for a review of the act at regular intervals based on the items to monitor, amend or add over a period of six years in order to fully understand the effects of the new act and make the necessary amendments.
Fourth, form a panel of experts that brings together representatives from the field, including police officers, prosecutors and organizations specializing in domestic violence, to coordinate all of these efforts.
Lastly, provide adequate financial resources to organizations to implement the measures and ensure support for victims.
Regarding the other amendments we propose to C-16, we first recommend removing subparagraph 28(2)(c)(ii) to avoid criminalizing women who are sometimes perceived as alienating when they are only trying to protect their children.
We also propose amending the wording of certain sections, including subsection 27(1) on criminal harassment, which, in the French version, refers to safety in danger, to instead refer to safety being threatened, as in the English version. The words “in danger” seem to imply greater imminence or seriousness.
We also request that the definition of femicide, as stated in section 25, specify that it refers to the murder of a woman or girl because of her sex or gender.
Finally, we oppose giving police officers the power to use alternatives instead of laying a charge in cases of domestic violence. In particular, we question whether such an option is compatible with a mandatory reporting requirement for domestic violence. Consideration should also be given to such a power for prosecutors.
Thank you. We’re ready for your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks. Colleagues, we will now move to questions from committee members and discussion.
Senator Batters: Thank you all for being here and for the work you do every day to help victims. There are too many of them, and they suffer too much, so we really appreciate all of the work you do. I will start with the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime. Thank you for the amendment suggestions you made. I just now was handed your submission, so I will look at that in more detail. Did the government specifically consult you on the amendments given that there are amendments in this act to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights that are contained in Bill C-16? And if they did consult you, obviously there were recommendations. I am wondering if you had some suggestions that they included in the bill, or whether there was any consultation at all, and if they gave you an explanation as to why they did not adopt some of the very reasonable measures that you are suggesting.
Mr. Roebuck: Thank you. Yes, we have had a lot of communication about the bill, and many of our recommendations are in the original draft. Since it was released, they have incorporated through committee a number of recommendations that we made in committee and to government directly, particularly around clarifying federal entities in the bill. There are a number of things across the entirety of Bill C-16 that they have incorporated.
Senator Batters: Okay. What about those specific changes? Some that you are suggesting today are small but important. Did the government tell you why they decided not to incorporate those in Bill C-16?
Mr. Roebuck: In part, there was such a large list of amendments that they had to prioritize going into the House committee what could be tackled —
Senator Batters: Did they consult with you at all prior to the bill being introduced? Did you suggest some of the things that perhaps were in an early draft at that point? How did that consultation process happen?
Mr. Roebuck: A lot of the actual measures in Bill C-16 respond to our systemic investigation on sexual violence. You will find many clauses actually parallel the recommendations that we drafted in that report. We’re really pleased with the government’s action on it. I think there are still some things that need to be addressed. From our standpoint, I’m not sure people always fully understand our work, so the significance or importance of some of the measures may not be fully understood.
Senator Batters: Thank you. I appreciate that.
I would like to ask a question to Ms. St. Germain from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. You made a comment in your opening remarks — you called it the safety valve. Frankly, I think it is more like an escape hatch because I don’t find it is potentially very safe. This proposed subsection 718.4 could require — require, because it says “shall” — to impose a term of imprisonment shorter than the minimum mandatory sentence. Are you concerned that escape hatch could, as currently drafted, allow very serious child sexual exploitation cases and other cases involving children to result in prison terms that could be so short that they would fail to reflect the gravity of these serious crimes and the need to protect the public? Also, as we heard yesterday from officials, those sentences could only be overturned on appeal even if they are considerably less than the norm would be if they are found to be “manifestly unfit.” Does that provide you a serious level of concern about those?
Ms. St. Germain: We have been watching what’s been happening to mandatory minimums through the courts for a number of years now, and what has struck us is the amount of time that is being spent on the hypotheticals. What we are hopeful about is the safety valve that has been added, which was suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada multiple times — that it will stop that from happening. We do believe that, for the vast majority of the cases that go through the court system, there are sentences that are above the mandatory minimum, regardless. And we feel like the judiciary has had a bit of a learning curve in terms of harm to victims but that we are now at a place where, for the most part, the judiciary is recognizing and reflecting, particularly since the Friesen case by the Supreme Court of Canada.
While there is always a risk that there will be a judge who will impose a low sentence, our sense of it is that, for the most part, we will see sentences that reflect the crimes. It feels as if the debate that has happened on the mandatory minimums has been a bit of a distraction within the courts. What we were really concerned about and one of the reasons we intervened in the Senneville case is that the reasonable hypothetical model does not take into account the reasonable hypothetical victim. The victim is like a piece of cardboard in that analysis. We are hopeful this provision will get rid of all the time that’s been wasted, frankly, in the courts and that we can focus on the actual offender who is before the court. That’s our hope.
Senator Batters: I agree with you that the reasonable hypotheticals are quite ridiculous, actually, but I’m concerned that judges who would be willing to use that might think this is their chance to use sole discretion. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to speak in the second round as the sponsor of the bill.
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank our four witnesses present this morning, Ms. St. Germain, Mr. Roebuck, and especially the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale. I was the president and CEO of the CNESST, and I was called to work with the group. It’s a great organization. Our past partnerships to raise awareness in workplaces have proven very useful for implementing concrete measures. The challenge we faced in 2021 has equipped us to work with you in a more humane and calm manner. Thank you for your wonderful work.
My question is for Mr. Roebuck.
Thank you for your testimony. I’d like to go back to what you mentioned earlier, namely the report you prepared. Given your mandate, which is to advance the rights of victims, do you consider that Bill C-16 represents a significant step forward for victims? Could you tell us how the bill is an important step forward for victims, particularly on the items that are part of your report?
[English]
Mr. Roebuck: There are a number of areas. I would say that about half the recommendations from our report are reflected in Bill C-16 directly. One critical area is that it addresses R. v. Jordan. We’ve seen in Canada a dramatic increase in violent crimes that are being stayed under R. v. Jordan. If you review the decision, the original court case looks at the victim’s interest in a timely trial but gives no consideration to the devastating impact of a violent offence being stayed or the possible safety risk to the victim if a violent offence is discontinued. There are multiple measures in there, including a notice to victims to let them know if an application has been made to stay the offence because that’s not currently a requirement.
In particular, the bill better protects therapy records from survivors. We heard that survivors of sexual violence, when they’re in counselling and therapy records are subpoenaed, often, they might feel suicidal, they withdraw from therapy and they’re cut off from access to effective support. The bill raises the threshold to provide better protection for therapy records.
In terms of testimonial aids, in particular, despite previous legislative changes to make sure that testimonial aids were more available to victims, they’re still denied, even in cases of sexual violence. There was a recent case, so it makes testimonial aids in those cases presumptive. The judge is required to ask the Crown if testimonial aids have been offered, and the decision about whether someone needs a screen or to testify by CCTV is up to the victim based on what they need.
There’s much greater protection that is going to help facilitate the truth-seeking function for the court because we know that when people are intimidated, frightened or activated, they can’t testify as effectively.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you to all our witnesses.
My question is for Ms. Barrette and Ms. Béland. I’m also asking on behalf of Senator Miville-Dechêne, who sends her regards and who explained to you why she is absent this morning.
I understand from your testimony that you fear that women who are victims of domestic violence may end up being accused themselves of the coercive control offence, and that, ultimately, this can be used against them in certain situations. I’m making the connection with your recommended amendments to subparagraph 28(2)(c)(ii) and to section 27. Can you tell us more to help us understand the basis for your reservations?
Ms. Barrette: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain.
In fact, we believe that there are mechanisms and provisions that can protect women in these cases. It was known that this was a concern that existed originally in Great Britain when they made their law. Here in Canada, it was often talked about and we went to verify it. On the one hand, what reassured us is that, in Great Britain, victims are not criminalized. As a result, it’s not an issue.
That being said, there was work done before the law came into effect. This requires training on the primary aggressor. Responders must learn to go beyond the incident at hand by analyzing the coercive control and the perpetrator’s overall strategies. This helps to reveal who the true victim is.
In this context, Great Britain was very reassuring by stating that there is no manipulation by the perpetrators of the offence. I understand the analogy with subparagraph 28(2)(c)(ii). Unfortunately, there is a discourse about alienating mothers, which could result in mothers who are trying to protect their children from domestic violence being seen as uncooperative and not wanting to co-parent. This could backfire on them. As a result, the feminist association Women and the Law raised this issue. We support the request for removal, knowing that it could backfire against the victims. It’s good to know that in Australia, there are control mechanisms in place to prevent victims from being criminalized.
Furthermore, the review also looks at the data and indicators to determine if victims are being criminalized. With that in mind, it has a breakdown of the data in prosecuted cases to check if there are any adverse effects that we wanted to avoid. These mechanisms are very important to us in order to avoid running into this problem.
Senator Saint-Germain: I attest to and thank you for your extensive practical knowledge of the matter and the importance of education. I’ll take this opportunity to congratulate you on the tool box you’ve prepared. It’s very practical and is available in both official languages. Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: I’d like to direct my questions to Mr. Barrette and Ms. Béland, but I have to ask them in English — it’ll be easier.
[English]
I want to pick up where Senator Saint-Germain left off because one of my real concerns is that while we’re told that the bill is about femicide, it also makes very possible the criminalization of women who kill their intimate partners. I come from Alberta. There, we’ve recently seen a number of cases of women who have received hugely disproportionate sentences, and that was before the idea that it was constructive murder and charged as first degree.
I wonder if you can speak a little bit more about whether that’s a legitimate concern, whether I am exaggerating the danger here or if there is a better way to strike a balance. The heading says “femicide,” but there are all kinds of other situations captured by that.
[Translation]
Ms. Barrette: This is a concern that we had and still have. I’m continuing on two different points.
For us, it’s important. We therefore ask that femicide be defined and specified to prevent it from becoming a catch-all that includes other aggravating circumstances. The aim is to distinguish these crimes, not to downplay the protection and the reprehensible nature of others but to recognize that these are gendered crimes with their own specific characteristics.
Second, it is essential for us that, in the section on intimate partner homicide, the presence of coercive control is also required. It’s our safeguard to avoid criminalizing victims. It was also discussed during the study of Bill C-225. For us, a victim who resorts to defensive violence, who protects herself and kills her intimate partner or ex-partner, will not have been subjected to coercive control beforehand, nor will she have established a pattern of conduct. It’s essential for us to protect these victims.
Currently, in the field, some victims may plead guilty to manslaughter to avoid the risk of a conviction for second-degree murder. At that time, the concern is that some victims may plead guilty to second-degree murder to avoid a conviction for first-degree murder. For us, the safeguard is to require that coercive control be present. We know it will be an additional burden, but the goal is to protect victims who could end up being criminalized in this context.
[English]
Senator Simons: I think this was a problem in the earlier discussion of control — and I’ve even seen this in response to the Ahluwalia decision — that women are often not physically more powerful but there are plenty of times, such as in divorce cases and others, when men allege that women have exerted coercive control, whether that meant controlling family money or other things. One of the things that is talked about here is threatening to kill oneself as a form of coercive control.
Therefore, I’m concerned there might be situations where women are charged with first-degree murder and the allegation is that they have exerted coercive control in a way where they haven’t had a history of physical violence.
[Translation]
Ms. Barrette: This is very interesting because, often, people tend to agree with you, thinking that physical violence is more masculine and that coercive control is more feminine. In fact, in the jurisdictions that criminalized it, it’s the opposite.
When looking at England and Scotland, the statistics vary, but between 93% and 96% of the perpetrators are men. It’s even more gendered; in fact, it’s even more dominated by men. When analyzing the data from New South Wales in Australia, we can see that all prosecuted cases involve only male offenders.
There’s an important distinction when analyzing whether or not there’s a pattern of conduct. You also have to consider intent: Is the goal to terrorize, isolate or dominate the victim? This means that you’re looking at intent along with the pattern of conduct, and, in practice, women are generally less often considered to be perpetrators of violence than in assault cases where there are conflicting accounts and where there may be momentary reactive violence from the victim.
Therefore, the statistics and data from Australia and Great Britain reassure us regarding the question you’re asking.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Thank you to all of you for being here today. I appreciate all the work you continue to do.
Maybe I can start with Mr. Roebuck. I want to pick up where Senator Batters left off. You had opportunities, as you said, to speak with the government on this issue as it was being put together. Were the amendments you are suggesting today put in front of government? If so, were they considered? If they were not included, what were the reasons for not having included them?
Mr. Roebuck: Thank you.
We made a fuller written submission to the House Justice Committee, and several of those recommendations were brought into effect. In terms of some of the proposals that we are bringing forward to the Senate in our written submission, we’ve focused on what we think are our priorities, and we have further refined them; we worked with legal counsel and consulted a bit more to create things that are clearer. For some of them, we were just told that there was so much that needed to be addressed in the bill that they couldn’t get to everything. I appreciate that, but I think this is an opportunity to continue that work.
Senator Dhillon: So is it accurate to say the committee on the other side had already seen these amendments?
Mr. Roebuck: Some of them are revised based upon their previous consideration and some were seen.
Senator Dhillon: Got it. Thank you.
Ms. Béland and Ms. Barrette, thank you for your package; I actually got two of them. I appreciate all the work you’re doing. I know there’s a two-year runway before we have the coercive control piece of legislation operationalized and put in place, so the work you’ve already done in terms of training law enforcement is going to be an important piece of this legislation.
Going back to the question of Ahluwalia, we have courts now recognizing that coercive control, on its own, can also be a remedy within the tort — and a compensatory remedy that comes of it. Has that been included into your training? The evidence that’s going to be collected at the onset of any complaint being brought forward to law enforcement could, potentially, be the evidence that will then be presented in a civil process. So, is that a part of the training and your consideration?
[Translation]
Ms. Barrette: In fact, it’s interesting that the decision is very recent, as you know. The training provided, namely among police, which began in 2023, did not take place before the Supreme Court recognized the impact of coercive control. However, the messages remain perfectly complementary. Whether it involves police officers or prosecutors — particularly in family law or immigration — the emphasis is on the importance of documenting facts beyond the criminal judicial process. This is essential to ensure a comprehensive assessment of safety, both physically and psychologically.
Bear in mind that the documentation that will be created will also serve as an acknowledgement for the victim of everything they have experienced. Sometimes, the shared information will be important in a later process. Police officers are being made very aware of the issue of suicide and the impact of what was stated in Ahluwalia, that being the loss of dignity and autonomy. It’s important to document everything because, behind every femicide, according to European data, there are two suicides of victims. This means telling police officers, prosecutors and lawyers to be attentive and to document all of this. Documentation is the key, the cornerstone. All information must be recorded, in both criminal matters and other areas. We certainly hope that this can be useful in other contexts.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for that.
Generally speaking, these investigations targeted toward criminal prosecution have a higher bar of collection and having to demonstrate that evidence in court, so I would say that rigour is there. I’m concerned that what is mentioned in Ahluwalia — potentially, some of the nuances that you speak of — might not be a part of that initial evidence gathering. I recognize it’s new, but I just want to have that understanding that there is awareness and there might be an additional part to the training — or added and augmented training — to ensure that particular case is also considered.
[Translation]
Ms. Barrette: Yes, absolutely. Long before bills C-16 and C-332, we were already mobilizing police forces to explain the importance of documenting everything, even though no criminalization was yet on the table. What you’re bringing up is quite relevant. They were told that it was necessary to first observe the other types of manifestations, beyond physical violence and criminal offences, using the tools we have developed. This is already part of the police culture we are developing, at least in Quebec, and that we hope to develop in the rest of Canada as well.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: I have two more questions. May I ask them?
The Chair: Ask the questions and see if there can be a written answer.
Senator Dhillon: Sure.
I’m following up from the previous question around Bill C-16 and coercive control. There is worry and concern that victims are the ones who, ultimately, end up being charged in instances where, legitimately, like in Lavallee, where the Supreme Court understood that it was self-defence even when the victim took the life of their partner by shooting. Are you satisfied that Bill C-16 addresses that concern, and are you satisfied that enough of Lavallee has already been included? Are you satisfied that those guardrails and protections are in place, and that there’s enough concern within the courts that there’s reflection on that and not just an assumption that anyone who shoots another person is immediately charged under first-degree murder or is guilty of homicide?
The Chair: That’s a very important question, but it’s going to have to be answered in writing. We do want that, if you can provide it. The clerk will distribute the response to all the senators. Senator Batters will have a question later on the same issue.
Senator Clement: Thank you to all four witnesses for your work, your testimony and for your careers.
[Translation]
I’d like to thank the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale. During your testimony, you mentioned the existence of a suffocating spider web. Those are powerful words.
I’d like to add my comments to those of Senator Saint-Germain. I had time to look through the tool boxes. In my practice, when I represented victims, I could have really used this as a lawyer. I see that you have documents intended for lawyers, particularly those who work with victims from immigrant backgrounds. I’d sincerely like to tell you that it’s really well done and that I appreciate it.
[English]
My questions are going to be for Mr. Roebuck.
I want to understand your more focused submission to the Senate, but I want you to comment first on the gender-based analysis that we got for this bill, which talks about how this bill is expected to bring improved safety, but it will also have potential unintended negative impacts on Indigenous, Black and other racialized communities. If you could, please talk about the fact that this bill could contribute to overrepresentation in the criminal justice system of Black and Indigenous people, but also that Black and Indigenous people are overrepresented in the victim community. You’ve talked about this before, but I want to see it on the record in the context of this bill as well.
Then, if you could, please take me through your most urgent amendments. I understand that a lot of what you provided is in the bill, so I appreciate your comments there, but there are still some outstanding issues. I would like to hear you speak more about the one or two urgent ones.
Mr. Roebuck: I find that Parliament, committees and government are doing a better and better job at recognizing the risks of overrepresentation and considering the disproportionate harms to Indigenous and racialized people when they propose legislation. I think where there’s still room for growth is recognizing that often victims of crime come from similar and marginalized contexts, and that analysis doesn’t always fully account for those challenges as well. The measures to increase protection going through court are actually going to have a significant positive impact on Indigenous women and girls, who will have effective testimonial aids and not be questioned on their mental health or told they’re not able to get that help. It’s going to better protect their therapy records, so there are a lot of positive benefits in that way.
In terms of our submission, I want to come back to this committee to say that bail notification to victims is critical. For me, it’s not coherent to focus on criminalizing femicide without addressing in the same bill something that is so obviously connected, where women, in particular, are at one of the highest moments of risk when somebody is released. We worked with general counsel and a recently retired Crown attorney on redrafting those proposals, having looked very carefully at notification. What we’re bringing forward is new and urgent.
In terms of the other areas, some of the things could be addressed in other legislation, but it’s rare that we’re opening up the CVBR for amendment. Fixing that complaint pathway is critical. Right now, victims are required to file a complaint with a federal agency before they can file a complaint with the federal ombud. We don’t do that on the other side of the criminal justice system. For federally sentenced offenders, they can contact the CSC, the federal Correctional Investigator or the Human Rights Commission.
In terms of constraining and limiting that pathway for victims who are vulnerable and who have concerns about their safety when the offender is released, I think that needs to be addressed in this bill.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Thank you very much.
Senator Dalphond: Welcome to all our witnesses.
My questions will be directed to the network.
I have the honour of being a member of the committee that has been working on the issues that concern you for several years. This has allowed me not only to appreciate the quality of the network’s work but also to engage with representatives from the Sûreté du Québec, the RCMP, the Service de police de la Ville de Québec, the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, and the Service de police de la Ville de Gatineau, as well as social workers and lawyers. I can tell you that the committee’s work depends on people who have great expertise and, really, I learn a lot by participating in these meetings.
My question concerns experience. Ms. Barrette, I know that you have been on missions to both Australia and the United Kingdom. Some fear that the criminalization of coercive control does not sufficiently protect elderly or vulnerable individuals. Can you tell us about what you have seen in other countries on whether or not it is important to distinguish these two concepts and to proceed step by step?
Ms. Barrette: That’s a very interesting question.
Obviously, the spider’s web that was mentioned earlier can appear in situations other than with intimate partners. We really appreciate the approach of New South Wales, meaning that they recognize the need to address this, but they have taken it one step at a time.
Since coercive control was criminalized, the state of Queensland has included intimate partners, family violence and caregivers, and thus the elderly. However, this is a huge bite to take in a context in which, for the first time, police officers must also handle a different offence. This is no longer based on isolated incidents but on a continuous pattern that extends beyond the context of intimate partners and has a different approach and manifestations.
New South Wales’s approach is particularly interesting: Although the need to protect seniors is recognized by everyone, the law prioritizes intimate partners first and requires a mandatory review after two years. Since enforcement of the act started in July 2024, it will then be this year, 2026, that New South Wales will review its legislation. They already have items on the agenda, including determining whether to extend protection to caregivers and to violence against seniors. This is one of the points they want to focus on. According to the police community, first learning to recognize the signs of domestic violence constitutes a new legal approach in itself. Subsequently, these lessons can be useful for recognizing the signs in a caregiving context.
In England, it has been noted that when people lack the training and have not developed the tools, guidelines and skills for detection, it can backfire on the victims. Ultimately, if we take on too much too early, we risk harming the people we are trying to protect.
The group’s position is to take inspiration from the New South Wales model by assessing the situation in about two years, while ensuring people are equipped. The training of intimate partners already represents a colossal fieldwork effort. Let’s help them detect, document and communicate these situations to prosecutors and other lawyers. They will then be even better equipped to support seniors who experience this reality in other situations.
Senator Moncion: Good morning and thank you.
The question I’m going to ask you may have already been asked.
[English]
Can you expand on some inequalities in access to housing, social, economic and other supports, how they can impact how survivors of violence can end up criminalized and whether Bill C-16 is expected to prevent these types of injustices?
[Translation]
Ms. Barrette: In fact, the obstacles and social injustices you raise are very often barriers to leaving an abusive relationship and ensuring a safe departure. Victims find themselves running out of options. In Australia, it’s particularly noticeable how some women avoid trusting police officers and prosecutors due to social injustices, systemic racism, fear of negative experiences, excessive criminalization and incarceration. Therefore, they choose to carry the burden on their own in order to better defend themselves.
When they need help, they may find themselves further criminalized in a context of reactive violence. One thing is certain: social injustices and the lack of access to resources, housing and a safe way forward should not depend on the postal code. Unfortunately, this is the reality on the ground. It’s clear that these inequalities can lead to serious problems.
Senator Moncion: Does Bill C-16 help victims or protect them more?
Ms. Barrette: It’s not going to be the only solution to the issue. However, we’ve noted that it takes into account other control factors.
Previously, the focus was mainly on physical violence and other Criminal Code offences, such as criminal harassment, which, based on observations, is not very well managed in the field. Compelling the police forces and prosecutors to analyze all behaviours and strategies will, hopefully, help contribute to this.
Will that be the solution to all of this? Not the only one, of course. Getting additional resources on the ground is absolutely necessary. The needs are pressing and the waiting lists are enormous, both for housing and for external services across Canada. We need to work on both fronts. That will be one of the solutions, but certainly not the only one.
[English]
Mr. Roebuck: I think that the potential for coercive control to include controlling behaviours around finance and housing could potentially be supported in some way through this bill, but there is a lot more work to do. I come from a research background regarding how young people in Ottawa in particular who are homeless interact with the justice system. When you are unsheltered and unprotected, there are experiences of sexual violence and substance use, and so much more contact with police, and there is so much potential for criminalization. Providing access to safe and secure housing is one of the most transformative things that we can be doing in Canada to protect survivors and improve public safety.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: I have a quick question for Dr. Roebuck related to that topic. I am interested in what is not in this bill in terms of coercive control of adult children and their vulnerable family members, in particular thinking about the many stories we have heard about seniors being exploited and controlled and being taken advantage of financially, emotionally or physically. What are your thoughts on that? Was that a discussion your office had with the government around this bill? If so, given the absence, would you suggest a pathway for this bill to include that at this point?
Mr. Roebuck: Yes. There is a critical need for intervention in both coercive control and femicide. There are other groups that are disproportionately affected. On the femicide provisions, many women who are killed are killed by a family member who is not an intimate partner. That’s the second-highest risk factor. We have raised these risks to government, but I agree with my colleagues about the need to take a calculated and clear step and look at what is happening and learn, then expand because some of the dynamics are different than the way that the law is currently formulated. We are in a very delicate position in Canada around R. v. Jordan at the moment. If we look in 2024 at the U.K. — England and Wales — there were more than 45,000 reports of coercive control to police and only 5,000 prosecutions. Without knowing if we have an effective remedy in Bill C-16 to coercive control, if we expand too fast, we are jeopardizing the prosecution of a lot of serious crimes.
The Chair: This ends the first round. However, I have two senators on the second round: Senator Batters and Senator Oudar. So I’m going to ask Senator Batters to ask her question and Senator Oudar, but we won’t have time for the answers verbally. They’ll have to be in writing.
Senator Batters: Thank you. I was going back because versions of this question were posed today and yesterday, and I thought we would get some clarity on this, but we have not yet. I seem to recall hearing the justice minister talking in the media about how there is no reason to worry about the potentially unintended consequences of an abused woman who takes the extreme step of killing her abuser, about that being included in this situation, of having it go up to first-degree murder or other such situations. I thought I heard the minister say that there were actually amendments that were made, I believed, at the House of Commons committee to make sure that that did not apply in those kinds of situations — that amendments were made so that it was just a very targeted approach. Is that your understanding, or am I not remembering that correctly? Perhaps Ms. Barrette or Ms. St. Germain could provide clarity on that.
The Chair: These are very important questions, and we’d really appreciate it if you can answer in writing so we can consider it.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Ms. Barrette, thank you for your recommendations, which could very well be the subject of observations, as the Senate has the power to make them in its reports. I noted the two important years of training after the law was enacted, the awareness campaign, the monitoring of objectives, the planning of accountability — whether after five or six years, it doesn’t matter — the panel of experts and the adequate financial resources.
I direct my question to our three witnesses. Can you share your perspective on the urgency of this legislative measure? I’d be very happy to receive your responses in writing so that I can share them with all the committee members.
[English]
The Chair: To all witnesses who have attended here, thank you very much for the time. We realize it was short notice for you to come, but the answers you have given, of course, are very important to this study, and we would really appreciate it if you could augment those with written submissions. We thank you.
For our second panel, we welcome, from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Simon Authier, Legal Counsel, and Larry Montgomery, Chief Superintendent; from the Canadian Police Association, Tom Stamatakis, President; and from the Montreal Police Department, Laio Auger Leduc, Lieutenant-Detective, Specialized Team in Domestic Violence.
We will allow the witnesses five minutes each for an overview, and then we will move to questions.
Simon Authier, Legal Counsel, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: Good morning, panel and distinguished members of this committee. Thank you very much for this opportunity to address you today on Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.
My name is Simon Authier, and I’m joined by my colleague Chief Superintendent Larry Montgomery. We are here on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP.
The CACP is supportive of the amendments proposed in Bill C-16, as they will advance the interests of victims of sexual offences and offences committed for a sexual purpose, as well as increasing access to justice.
The CACP welcomes the proposed amendment to modernize section 264 of the Criminal Code related to criminal harassment. Harassment is increasingly being facilitated by technology. The proposed amendment recognizes this trend and will provide tools to police officers to address situations where an individual’s location, movements, actions or social interactions are being monitored by technology.
The CACP supports the provision criminalizing coercive control, which recognizes that coercive and controlling behaviours are predictive of future violence. This new offence will support early interventions and help prevent serious harm. The CACP is pleased to see that the definition of “intimate partner” includes “current or former spouse, common-law partner and dating partner.” This reflects the reality that control and abuse do not automatically stop upon separation. Frequently, the behaviours continue and are even amplified after separation.
The inclusion of femicide in Bill C-16 reflects the serious and often fatal consequences of gender-based violence. Recognizing femicide within the legislative framework reinforces the importance of thorough investigations, evidence-based enforcement and coordinated system responses to prevent escalation and improve outcomes for those at risk.
Bill C-16 also proposed amendments to section 278 of the Criminal Code that would protect certain therapeutic records from disclosure in criminal proceedings. The CACP supports a clear and consistently applied framework governing disclosure of counselling, mental health or therapeutic records that balances an accused’s right to full answer and defence while safeguarding a victim’s privacy and dignity.
However, a successful investigation and prosecutions of offences of a sexual nature rely fundamentally on the willingness of victims to report and participate in the justice system. Under the proposed provisions, the fear of potential disclosure of counselling, mental health or therapeutic records will remain a significant barrier to reporting and cooperation. Therapeutic records are records of healing, often reflecting trauma-related perceptions, fragmented recollections or a clinician’s subjective impressions rather than verified facts. Those records are not created for investigative or evidentiary purposes.
Clear legislative direction that excludes specified therapeutic records from compelled disclosure, except with the informed consent of the victim, and provides for no adverse inference to be drawn from the victim’s refusal to provide consent would enhance predictability, reduce unnecessary litigation and allow police, prosecutors and courts to focus on evidence of genuine probative value.
The CACP recognizes —
The Chair: You will have to wrap up soon, please.
Mr. Authier: Of course. I just have a final point.
We also support the changes to the unreasonable delay that is provided in this bill. We recommend that it also includes some factors that relate to voluminous disclosure, large numbers of charges or multiple co-accused.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association: Thank you, chair and members of the committee, and thank you, chair, for your comments at the opening of this hearing. I can confirm that Constable Marc Pinizzotto was killed this morning while performing his duties. Sadly, he is the fourth police officer we have lost since March 31. It is a very concerning trend that we’re seeing across the country, as our members perform their duties in communities right across Canada.
I am, however, happy to be back before the committee so soon after my recent appearance on Bill C-14. While these are distinct pieces of legislation, both speak to a broader question before Parliament: How does Canada strengthen public confidence in the justice system while respecting the rights of all participants?
The Canadian Police Association represents approximately 60,000 front-line sworn and civilian police personnel across Canada. Our members are not observers of the justice system; they work with victims, investigate serious offences, prepare cases and testify in court. They can see how delays affect victims, witnesses, accused persons and communities. That experience matters.
Criminal justice policy should not be treated as an abstract exercise or as the exclusive domain of defence counsel, academics or legal commentators. Front-line police personnel bring real-world expertise to these debates that is informed by daily experience with victims, offenders, witnesses, investigations and court proceedings.
It is from that real-world perspective that the CPA supports Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.
In five minutes, I cannot speak to every clause, so I want to focus on the principle that runs through the bill: Victims deserve a justice system that sees them, respects them and takes seriously the impacts of delays. For too long, victims have felt like observers in a system built around everyone else. They are often most affected by adjournments, release decisions, delays and stays, but they are left trying to understand decisions after they have been made.
Bill C-16 helps move the system in a different direction. It recognizes that victims deserve information, respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. It also recognizes that timely justice is not only a right of the accused; timely justice also matters to victims, families, communities and public confidence.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Jordan was intended to shock the justice system out of what the court called a culture of complacency. No one should minimize the Charter right of an accused person to be tried within a reasonable time — police officers understand that right — but, nearly 10 years after Jordan, we also have to be honest about what Canadians now see.
According to the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, more than 268 sexual assault cases have been stayed because of unreasonable delays since Jordan. In 2022-23, nearly one in seven sexual assault cases in adult court were stayed or withdrawn after exceeding Jordan timelines, and the proportion of sexual assault cases exceeding those timelines has doubled from 15.1% in 2016-17 to 30.4% in 2022-23.
Those numbers are not abstract; they represent victims who came forward, police investigations that were completed, witnesses who were prepared to testify and communities that expected serious allegations to be tested on their merits. That does real damage to confidence in justice.
Some have argued that Bill C-16 undermines Jordan by directing courts to look for remedies other than a stay where delay has become unreasonable. Respectfully, we see it differently. Bill C-16 does not say a delay is acceptable, it does not remove the right to trial within a reasonable time and it does not prevent courts from ordering a stay where that is the only appropriate remedy. It requires a more complete assessment of the consequences of that remedy: prejudice to the accused, impacts on the victim, public confidence and society’s interest in having serious matters decided on their merits. That is not an attack on judicial independence, the courts or the legal profession. Rather, it is Parliament doing what Parliament is supposed to do.
Many voices in the justice system have no hesitation criticizing police or police associations when they believe we have something wrong. That’s fair enough; police should be accountable. However, that accountability and scrutiny cannot only flow in one direction. If confidence in justice is declining because Canadians believe the system is too slow, too technical, too disconnected from victims or too willing to allow serious cases to collapse without a decision on the facts, then every part of the system has to take that seriously. That includes governments, police, prosecutors, defence counsel and the courts.
Bill C-16, alongside measures like Bill C-14, is part of a broader effort to restore confidence by rebalancing the law toward public safety, accountability and victims’ rights. Victims are not an inconvenience. Public confidence is not a political slogan. Timely justice cannot mean delays being recognized only through the most drastic remedy available without meaningful consideration of victims and communities.
For those reasons, the CPA supports Bill C-16.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Laio Auger Leduc, Detective Lieutenant, Specialized Domestic Violence Unit, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal: Thank you very much for the invitation to speak with you today.
I’m the supervisor of the specialized domestic violence team at the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal.
Our presentation will focus on three themes.
First of all, let’s talk about coercive control. We are obviously in favour of criminalizing coercive control. We heard it briefly earlier, but we know that nearly one-third of murders in connection with domestic violence are not preceded by physical violence. We also know from experience in the field that coercive control is present in almost all cases of domestic violence handled by the police.
For example, we handle about 39 domestic violence calls per day at the SPVM. In 2025, nearly 15,260 domestic violence responses were carried out. Police officers are often the first to respond. They have privileged access to the living environment and witness the interaction between the victims, their loved ones and the perpetrator.
However, we believe that the law alone is insufficient. It needs to be enforced effectively, hence the importance of training police officers and members of the judicial system beforehand to understand the concept of coercive control and to identify the signs.
To date, in Montreal, 2,500 police officers have been trained in collaboration with the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, which was with you earlier. We noted an improvement before and after the training, both in terms of detail and in the understanding and assessment of risk. We also identified the need to equip police officers and prosecutors with a shared understanding to prevent the demobilization that has been observed elsewhere in the world when training was either absent or incomplete.
We saw a new victim statement implemented at the provincial level in fall 2025. This completely changes the way information is collected and significantly enhances the evidence. This helps to establish the context. In this statement, be aware that there are components that specifically concern coercive control. The main added value of documenting coercive control is essentially to make the invisible visible, because you know as well as I do that the signs are often not easy to detect.
Documenting coercive control helps police officers and prosecutors identify offences by establishing their context. This has proven to be relevant, particularly for criminal harassment, since context is one of its defining elements. This approach can also help identify the public interest grounds that justify detention, appropriately adjust the conditions of release and establish a safety net. It also helps to prevent repeat offences and the escalation of violence by maintaining a history while ensuring better risk assessment by judicial actors, particularly the DPCP.
You know that with the change to their guidelines, since June 2023, prosecutors are required during authorization, interim release and when setting release conditions to consider whether there is coercive control. It’s also very useful for several stages of the judicial and correctional process, including the assessment service at the interim release stage, the probation service, the enhanced supervision program, the preparation of pre-sentence reports and the parole process. This documentation must be explained within the judicial system so that its importance can be understood.
Let’s move on to our second topic, which is criminal harassment. In our opinion, the proposed change, aimed at shifting from a subjective approach to an objective approach, is crucial. This helps to relieve some pressure on the victims, as it is known that nearly 50% of them withdraw from legal proceedings. The approach based on what is reasonable to expect, given the context, breaks the feeling of isolation among victims, who normally carry the burden on their shoulders.
Furthermore, the aspect of psychological safety is central in this type of accusation and in that of coercive control. Psychological violence is often invisible to those who are not experiencing the situation.
Finally, we question the proposed wording of femicide in section 25 for the murder of a victim by their intimate partner, specifically because it adds the requirement to demonstrate a pattern of controlling or coercive conduct and the perpetrator’s intent to make the victim believe that their physical or psychological safety is at risk. Requiring this necessity makes it significantly more difficult to prove, since the person will no longer be able to testify.
I will be fully available to answer your questions. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Lieutenant-Detective Auger Leduc. We will now move to questions from senators.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. First, Mr. Stamatakis, please accept our deep condolences on the loss of your comrade. We were so sorry to hear the news today and then for you to share that sad update with us.
You were speaking about — and I very much agree with you — the need to rebalance the law toward public confidence, especially regarding the multitude of Jordan stays that have happened in the past decade.
When you were speaking about Bill C-16, Mr. Stamatakis, you indicated that you think it will allow judges to avoid granting a stay in these very serious cases where, otherwise, if Jordan deadlines are not met, they would have them. Frankly, after questioning the Justice officials at our committee yesterday, I don’t have that same level of confidence without more information from them. I thought that their answers on that particular issue were very concerning, and it seemed to be like pulling teeth to get them to say that a judge would be able to not grant a stay on these types of things. They seemed to indicate to me that was really the minimum action that would be required.
Given that, can you tell us what additional confidence you have that this is what will actually happen under Bill C-16 when the Justice officials didn’t seem to provide us with that same confidence?
Mr. Stamatakis: Thank you for your comments regarding the loss of our colleague.
I share your concerns. I suppose, on my reading of the bill, I’m hopeful that by adding the criteria that must be considered, we will see a difference. At the very least, there will be an opportunity to perhaps ask questions where decisions are made to stay the proceedings. This is a significant issue across the country, and, of course, it varies slightly because we have three provinces in Canada that have a pre-charge approval process; in the other provinces, the process for laying charges is different. We see different delays for different reasons across the country. It’s a significant drain on resources for police services, but it also has a tremendous impact on victims of crime as well as witnesses. Of course, it creates this frustration and ultimately undermines confidence in the justice system, which means it then becomes even harder for my colleagues to investigate very serious crimes because people are unwilling to participate when they consistently see that they get dragged through the wringer if they are a victim, for example. If they are a witness, they are constantly being asked to take time off work to attend interviews or hearings, only to be told that they have to come back another time or not at all.
It is very concerning, and I’m very concerned to hear about your characterization of the responses from the Department of Justice because it’s a serious issue. I think I will be following up to ask some questions myself.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: First of all, I’d like to offer my condolences to Mr. Stamatakis for the death of your colleague. I’m sorry, as are all committee members.
I’d like to ask my question to Lieutenant Detective Auger Leduc. At the end of your testimony, you explained that, from your point of view, it’d be particularly difficult to gather evidence for femicide offences.
Can you explain, perhaps in more detail, why there is this difficulty? What do you find fault with in the law as it is written?
Ms. Auger Leduc: Certainly.
There are four scenarios.
I was referring to section 25 where it’s established that proof must be provided of a pattern of controlling or coercive conduct and the perpetrator’s intent to make the victim believe that their physical or psychological safety is at risk.
Actually, the difficulty for us lies in the fact that an investigation is necessary and that it could reveal elements of coercive control, even if the victim is deceased. However, the fact remains that the main source of information regarding the context — the concept of coercive control is very nuanced — is the victim herself.
If the person is no longer available to testify about the coercive control they experienced, it would be more difficult to prove, which we find very unfortunate.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Ideally, this should be done in advance so that this person can testify. Thank you for clarifying that.
I’ve been told that you’ve trained several police officers on coercive control. What are the main issues or challenges? It’s really a matter of shifting from protecting women from physical violence — which has been the standard approach to protecting women until now — to recognizing psychological violence, which is far more insidious and difficult to detect. How do you address this in your training sessions?
Ms. Auger Leduc: First, it’s about educating police officers about the concept of coercive control. This actually includes physical violence, but we also need to dig into the underlying layers. It’s often said that physical violence is the tip of the iceberg, but we need to investigate everything that lies beneath it afterward.
We recommend that police officers use the same observation and documentation techniques as for an armed person. In addition, tools such as the victim’s statement will allow them to ask the victim relevant questions about technology, restrictions on their freedom, loss of autonomy and their fears. We therefore go beyond mere manifestations of physical violence.
Educating them about the very nature of the concept resulted in a major change, if only in terms of relationship building. Unfortunately, sometimes police officers would leave the scene without realizing they were facing a situation of coercive control. Now, even if no offences were involved, we see them documenting the situation with reports, what are called Intimate Partner Incident reports. In doing this, they create a history that may be useful later on.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In Montreal, are you ready to deal with the implementation of this new offence? How many police officers have you trained? What stage are you at? It seems to me that Quebec is at the forefront on this issue.
Ms. Auger Leduc: I’m very proud to tell you that we are in fact very much at the forefront. Currently, we have trained nearly 2,500 police officers. I don’t think I could say that we are completely ready, since there are always new police officers, but there is also the implementation phase. The first step will be to enact legislation and criminalize coercive control; making arrests will be the second. However, I can tell you that in Montreal, our police officers are very familiar with the concept of coercive control and they are making a significant effort at documentation. We’re a step ahead.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Oudar: I welcome the four witnesses.
Mr. Stamatakis, thank you for your testimony; I offer you my deepest condolences on this painful day. We’re with you.
My first question is for Ms. Auger Leduc and concerns the timelines.
Bill C-16, if passed, would require courts to consider remedies other than staying proceedings when the time limits set out in Jordan are exceeded. Can you explain to us what beneficial alternatives could be added to the bill to address court delays?
Ms. Auger Leduc: Please accept my apologies, as I only received the invitation to testify very recently, and unfortunately, we took the time to focus on our main areas of expertise, namely coercive control, criminal harassment and femicide. Consequently, I’d invite other witnesses to answer your question. Otherwise, I could respond to it later.
Senator Oudar: Thank you very much. I take this opportunity to congratulate you on what you’ve accomplished, especially on training the 2,500 police officers and everything that comes next. Congratulations on your work.
I’ll give the floor now to one of the other witnesses.
[English]
Larry Montgomery, Chief Superintendent, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: Thank you, senator. I’m happy to answer the question.
I think there are numerous cases that go before the courts that are extremely serious, and there are ones that can probably be managed within the timelines that are prescribed by Jordan. However, no two cases are exactly the same.
In many large cases, there are multiple cues, and there is a requirement for police and prosecutors to produce disclosure. Quite often, in today’s environment, for very serious offences, that is a lot of documents. On the ability for the police and the Crown to reasonably produce all those documents, some of those documents will be created through forensic expertise at a later time, and there are many different factors that influence when a trial can be held in that regard.
I think that giving the ability to assess the case on its merits in light of the Constitution or the Charter is a better position to be in versus having absolutes. I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Stamatakis: Specifically, I would add that codifying the requirement to assess the impact on the victim is a very important consideration as well as the interest to society.
Back to my colleague’s comments, many of these investigations consume a tremendous amount of resources, and there’s a huge cost attached to them. Staying a case without considering the impact on the police service, on the community and on society generally — I think codifying that piece of it is going to make a difference and provide an opportunity for police services or advocacy organizations to raise those issues if we don’t see the court properly applying these added provisions.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Authier: One point that I think is important here is that, currently, as the law has been interpreted, the only remedy for an unreasonable delay is a stay. What this bill is actually introducing is that a stay is no longer the default. The judge, if they are going to issue a stay, has to justify why another remedy would not be reasonable. I think it puts an obligation on the judge to consider alternatives and then justify why those alternatives are not reasonable.
At the moment, we have a default position that if it’s deemed unreasonable, it’s a stay. I think that is the main characteristic that will bring some change into the system.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you to our four witnesses.
[English]
Senator Simons: My first question is for Chief Superintendent Montgomery and Mr. Stamatakis.
Especially in light of today’s horrific news, I’ve been reflecting on how we use first-degree murder as a charge and as a sentence in Canada. It’s for premeditated crimes, but it has long been also for the murder of a police officer or a prison guard. That was to signal not so much a question of mens rea but a question of our denunciation as a society of those particular kinds of murder because police officers are so often in harm’s way. Indeed, the last time somebody was tried for capital murder in Canada and executed — Ronald Turpin — it was for the shooting death of a police officer. It was not premeditated but happened in the course of, I think, an armed robbery.
I don’t know if this is a fair question to ask you, but I wanted you to reflect on the fact that if we have constructive murder charges for so many other kinds of murder, does it diminish in any way the import of charging first-degree murder for the death of an officer in the line of duty?
Mr. Montgomery: Thank you, senator. Thank you for your kind words regarding the loss of one of our colleagues.
It’s an interesting question. I think the straight answer is, “I don’t know.”
However, the constructs have been heavily scrutinized through various levels of court over the years. Some have been deemed unconstitutional in the past, so it is an evolving area of law. I’m not trained in law; I just operationalize the law.
So, to answer your question, I don’t know; however, I don’t think, off the top of my head, that it would be immediately systemically observable if it were.
Senator Simons: Mr. Stamatakis?
Mr. Stamatakis: I would probably answer the question the same way.
At times, when we’re dealing with these very serious issues that have a massive impact on society, there’s a tendency to react by saying, “We’re going to elevate how we treat this event or action when it happens.” On whether it will have the effect over time of making it more normal, I don’t think so, because these are serious events that happen. Lives are taken in very dramatic circumstances.
The broader issue, and part of what might be undermining this attempt at denunciation, is the broader mental health and substance abuse challenges we’re seeing in our society across the country. Many people who commit these acts of violence have underlying, untreated, unsupported issues that put them in a situation where they will engage in those kinds of violence or acts. Those are the bigger challenges.
We’re trying to denounce these horrific acts of violence that lead to loss of life, but we have these other, broader, underlying contributing factors tied to mental health and substance abuse that we’re not responding to appropriately or with the right amount of vigour, in my view. If we don’t get to them, we’re going to continue to see these tragic events happen, unfortunately.
Senator Simons: Thank you. That was a very thoughtful answer.
Senator Dalphond: First, I must say to Mr. Stamatakis and to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, with whom I had the honour to work with from time to time, especially on Bill C-14, how sad I am to hear the terrible news. First reports indicate that it was related to guns, and it was during the execution of a judicial warrant; the police officers were trying to seize material to make the case for the Crown. He was shot at by a young offender — most likely a repeat offender — so I think it shows the need for Bill C-14 once more.
[Translation]
My question is for the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal.
Lieutenant Detective Auger Leduc, it’s a pleasure to see you again. We worked together on the advisory committee.
For the benefit of my colleagues from other provinces, I’d like you to talk to us about the Intimate Partner Incident reports that you mentioned earlier — which are called R114s, if I’m not mistaken about the number — and the sharing of this information by police services in Quebec to document and have a history of incidents. The complainants, who are mostly women, often call the police and then refuse to file a complaint or co‑operate, so everything ends up disappearing. Now, you have set up a new filing system that enables you to keep track of all this.
Ms. Auger Leduc: Absolutely. This is now part of police practices in all police forces in the province of Quebec. We ask police officers to document in a report any form of conflict occurring between current or former intimate partners, regardless of whether an offence has been committed, and regardless of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe so.
This data is then recorded in Intimate Partner Incident reports, which are coded R114, as you’ve just confirmed. Subsequently, all this information is directly submitted to the Quebec Police Information Centre. They’re accessible through this platform to all police officers in Quebec and can help establish a history.
You won’t be surprised if I tell you that an aggressor may decide to move several times when they start to feel the heat, especially because too many calls have been made to 911. This means that police officers can access a history and understand that there is a pattern, repeat offences and a threat, even if no offence has been reported or the victim hasn’t made a complaint.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
[English]
Maybe the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association, in listening to the answer, could promote this practice in the other provinces. Thank you.
Senator Dhillon: I, too, join all of my colleagues here, as well as my colleagues, Tom and Larry, with whom I’ve worked in the past, on this sombre day, when the life of another member of the forces has been stolen. It was not lost; it was stolen this morning.
I also want to respond very quickly to Senator Simons. I don’t think police officers would feel that because there’s now a charge of homicide — first degree, in these instances — that, somehow, that will diminish the fact that there’s a first-degree charge for police officers when they’re killed in the line of duty, as well. I think these are laws that are supported by police associations and police officers around the country; they welcome these changes and opportunities to do better in our response to instances of intimate partner violence.
I will direct my question to all the participants here. One of the questions that was raised earlier by the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Benjamin Roebuck, was that Bill C-16 does not have within it a mandatory requirement to inform or notify victims of bail orders, release, detention and non‑communication orders. Are you concerned about that issue? Do you feel that is a miss? Would that strengthen this bill?
Maybe we can start with Lieutenant-Detective Auger Leduc.
[Translation]
Ms. Auger Leduc: I’ll respond to you on a more local level.
With the current implementation of specialized courts, we have protocols in place for victims to be informed by the police of the conditions arising from a recognizance, whether it’s at the end of an interim release or a release on a promise to appear.
There’s a structure in place in Montreal and, without wanting to be too specific, I believe this is the case throughout the province, because the goal of specialized courts is to have it standardized. Regarding the victims, we’re still in the landing phase for the implementation. However, technically, they are informed.
There was also an amendment to the Access to Information Act to make the law more flexible and allow police officers to disclose the terms of promises to appear when the safety of victims is at stake.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Thank you.
Chief Superintendent Montgomery, would you respond to that?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes, thank you, senator.
Like my colleague, I think there are different processes outside of the criminal law regarding the administration of justice in the various jurisdictions that do include the notification of victims. One of the things we do as police is to try to listen very closely to what victims’ advocate groups are speaking about and their levels of satisfaction in regard to engagement with the justice system. I take my marching orders from those groups in relation to how satisfied they are with being involved.
I think there is room for improvement in regard to the justice system — in particular, to the discussion around Jordan and their ability to be protected from trauma as they attend court and cooperate with the justice system.
There are definitely currently processes in place in jurisdictions to involve victims in notifications.
Senator Dhillon: Mr. Stamatakis?
Mr. Stamatakis: Thank you for your comments at the outset, senator. I agree with what you said in terms of police officer attitudes with respect to adding the offence in these circumstances, which I think is important.
I’m going to answer a little differently. I think it is a miss. Sadly, while there is a lot of progress in some jurisdictions, it’s inconsistent across the country, and there are many jurisdictions for a variety of reasons. Typically, it’s because of a lack of resources, particularly when you get into some of our more rural and remote communities, where there is not only a lack of police resources but also resources with respect to the Crown or even advocacy organizations, such as those who have appeared before you today. They aren’t in place or don’t have capacity as we move out into the more rural and remote parts of our country.
It’s inconsistent. I think it is a miss, and I think we need to do more with respect to this issue.
Senator Dhillon: Mr. Authier?
Mr. Authier: I cannot speak to all jurisdictions. I haven’t really delved into all the jurisdictions, but I know that, where I’m from in Vancouver, we have victim services in place. They will inform the victim. They will be in contact throughout the process and will definitely provide that information.
I agree with my colleague here that it might not be uniform across all jurisdictions, and a small agency might not have the benefit of that service. In order to be more forthcoming with victims, that might be a good recommendation.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I’d like to begin by offering my condolences to the police services. No matter where you are in Canada, your work is important. When you lose one of your members, we all lose.
[English]
I am asking my question on behalf of Senator Pate, and it is to all witnesses. While Bill C-16 was being studied in the other place, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police acknowledged that police perspectives on this issue of mandatory minimum penalties are not uniform and that empirical evidence about the effectiveness of mandatory sentences is mixed.
The Canadian Police Association testified:
If all we do is sentence people to jail without getting to those underlying issues that drive the offences, we’re not going to get to better outcomes, ultimately.
Would you agree that, in order to achieve meaningful improvements in public safety, it is necessary to invest regarding mental health issues, addiction issues, housing and supports for folks in the community?
Mr. Stamatakis: I would wholeheartedly agree with your comments. If we don’t get to underlying issues related to mental health, substance use and poverty — many issues that have been mentioned here before — we’re not going to get better outcomes.
Having said that, at the same time, mandatory minimum sentences or appropriate sentences in response to violent offences — particularly repeat violent offences — are also important because it provides a level of protection not just to the victims but also to the broader community to take someone who is a recidivist and who is a chronic violent offender out of that community and into a place where, hopefully, they can get access to some treatment or support.
At least it gives the community a break from the violence and from the offences that are repeatedly committed. I don’t think it’s either/or. It’s both, from my perspective, and I think that’s the approach we need to take.
Senator Moncion: Any other witnesses?
Mr. Montgomery: Thank you, senator, and thank you for everyone’s comments with regard to our fallen colleagues. Also, thank you for the considerations about first-degree murder regarding peace officers.
When people are deciding on careers in policing and these kinds of public safety avenues, knowing that there are deterrents out there for our personal health and safety is really important to us.
I agree with most of what Tom Stamatakis was saying. It is not necessarily the same thing. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, does have a mixture of opinions from different police services, and it’s not uniform; that is correct. The challenges outside of policing are integral to anything to do with our justice system and the safety of our communities. They do definitely intertwine, and they all have a place.
I think the success in minimum sentences in that aspect — as well as potentially in the legal aspect — is in how they’re balanced and how they’re delivered.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Auger Leduc: I completely agree with what Mr. Stamatakis said. These are interconnected problems. When analyzing the issue of homelessness, it’s clear that one of the primary causes of homelessness among women is domestic violence. Victims often tell us about their desire to help their partner, not to see them disappear. They want to find someone with whom they can have a relationship. The victims have clearly expressed this request for help.
However, I completely agree with the notion of repeat offences. Society and the victims display a certain cynicism towards the normalization of repeat offences. In the media, we regularly see evidence of these repeat offences, even leading to the death of some people. It breaks society’s trust in general, but especially that of the victims. If victims were assured that repeat offences were taken into account and punished, things would start to change. The cynicism that has set in is a major obstacle to reporting these crimes.
[English]
Senator Batters: To the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Mr. Authier, the bill restores certain mandatory minimum sentences, but it also allows the courts to depart from them — in fact, to ignore them — and that would apply to all mandatory minimum sentences except life imprisonment. The only exceptions would be the crimes of murder or treason.
Are you concerned that, in practice, that escape hatch could weaken the message sent to offenders about the seriousness of certain offences?
Mr. Authier: Thank you for the question. I think it is definitely something to consider. My view is that the safety valve that has been included might actually be beneficial because, repeatedly, we’ve seen Supreme Court decisions that can undercut those minimum sentences because they use out-of-context scenarios to justify that a sentence might be harsh or contrary to section 12 of the Charter.
If we actually remove that possibility for the court to consider those hypothetical scenarios, they’re forced now to look at this offender, the impact on that victim and what the appropriate sentence for this person is: Is the minimum a harsh and undue sentence for that person?
Not allowing the court to go into that hypothetical kind of scenario, I see that as a benefit for justice, really, in terms of it is only in those situations where we’re going to have that scenario where it is a harsh or undue sentence or that it will be too onerous on that person, that the court will move away from that minimum sentence, but it will remain. The minimum sentence will apply to the vast majority of people —
Senator Batters: If I could just interrupt, I agree with you that hypotheticals are a terrible way to handle these types of cases. However, instead of just accepting that it’s either the terrible situation of allowing these hypotheticals, which are not at all reasonable, or having these escape-hatch scenarios, wouldn’t it be better to respect the will of Parliament in these types of mandatory sentences, many of which haven’t even actually been overturned by the courts? Instead, this would allow all of those, even the ones that the courts have decided that are acceptable. Isn’t that a better scenario rather than just kind of having one bad scenario or one that is maybe not quite as bad?
Mr. Authier: That’s a good point. I think the contrary view to this will be that it might allow future minimum sentences to actually hold because we go to that exercise. Maybe they were accepted in the past, but that does not mean that a future investigation by the court will say that they are unconstitutional. Allowing that, if a judge uses their discretion to go below the minimum sentence, they have to provide the reasoning behind it, and that reasoning can then be appealed if it is not sound. That gives us some tools to address it.
Senator Batters: We will hope that it works out better than I fear. Thank you.
Mr. Authier: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. To all the witnesses, on behalf of my colleagues here, we really appreciate you taking time to appear before us today. Your insights are very valuable to the committee’s work. We truly appreciate you accepting this invite. I know it was short notice, but you have been very helpful. Thank you for your participation. Colleagues, we will continue our study tomorrow, commencing at 9:30 a.m., starting here in Room B30.
(The committee adjourned.)