THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 15, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 9:30 a.m. [ET] to study 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. My name is David Arnot. I am a senator from Saskatchewan and chair of the committee. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome, minister, to you and your team.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Good morning. Pat Duncan, senator for the Yukon. Thank you, minister and your team, for being here.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Good morning. Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Hello. Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory. Welcome.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Again, welcome.
[English]
Senator Pate: Good morning. Welcome. I’m Kim Pate, and I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation.
Senator Osler: Good morning. Gigi Osler, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from De Lorimier, Quebec division.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Good morning. Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Chair: We are meeting to continue our study of 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).
Please be advised that sensitive subjects, including trauma related to intimate partner violence, may be discussed. This content may be triggering for those present, as well as for individuals watching or listening to the broadcast.
Mental health support for all Canadians is available by phone and text at 9-8-8. For youth and children, confidential support is available at 68-68-68.
Senators and parliamentary employees are also reminded that the Senate’s Employee and Family Assistance Program is available to them and offers short-term counselling for both personal and work-related concerns, as well as crisis counselling.
For our first panel this morning, we are pleased to welcome, once again, the Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
The minister is joined by the following officials from the Department of Justice: Owen Ripley, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector; Matthew Taylor, Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section; Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section.
Welcome to all the witnesses, and thank you for joining us this morning.
Minister, we will begin with any opening remarks you may wish to give, and then we will move to questions from the members. The floor is yours, sir.
[Translation]
The Honourable Sean Fraser, P.C., M.P, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, everyone.
[English]
It is a great pleasure to be here again. We had an opportunity just days ago to work on this particular bill. I’ve spoken about it in the Senate Question Period. As was the case last week, unless members would prefer a different arrangement, I would be happy to yield the floor to make more time for senators’ questions.
The Chair: That being the case, we’ll move to questions.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here with us, minister.
Several of the witnesses we heard praised the Scottish model for regulating coercive control. This model requires the existence of a recurring pattern, a demonstrable effect on the victim, and applies the reasonable person standard throughout the assessment. To us, this is only specified in subsection 264.01(2)(c).
There is a clear difference between the two legislative approaches. Aren’t you concerned that our approach will make it difficult to convict the perpetrators of these crimes, unlike the Scottish model, which has been very successful in securing convictions?
[English]
Mr. Fraser: Thank you sincerely for the question. The legislation that we have tabled was based largely on the Scottish model. There were a few different jurisdictions we had to look at: Scotland, England, Wales and some subnational jurisdictions in Australia. Two key features that you have just mentioned — one requiring a pattern and one requiring reasonableness — are reflected, though perhaps not verbatim, in this copy of the bill, specifically on the need to demonstrate a pattern. The provision refers to a combination of the different facts that could substantiate a charge of coercive control, and —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It is not written the same way. It’s not written as a pattern.
Mr. Fraser: That’s right. It is described in a somewhat different way. We tried to make sure we used language where possible that has a history of being interpreted in Canadian law or that can be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of those words. When I read “combination,” it demonstrates to me that not a single stand-alone fact or incident would substantiate a charge of coercive control, but rather you would need to have multiple.
You did draw into question the use of the concept of reasonableness. There are other jurisdictions that require a subjective level of knowledge. We haven’t followed those jurisdictions, but instead, would require a level of objectivity. Typically, when you’re examining the perspective of a reasonable person, there would have to be some objective basis upon which you could demonstrate the elements of the crime.
To the extent that there are jurisdictions who legislated in this space, I would agree that Scotland is considered a leader amongst them, and that’s why we sought to base our approach on the Scottish model.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We shall see.
My second question concerns victims. Why did you not accept the main recommendation from the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, which seems so essential? It proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code to ensure that victims are notified when their alleged abuser is granted parole. This seems like the bare minimum to ensure that victims can protect themselves if their alleged abuser is released.
[English]
Mr. Fraser: Thank you. First of all, let me thank the victims ombudsperson. The changes to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights are largely based upon feedback we’ve seen from his office and from other representatives of victims from across Canada.
Very specifically, the requirement that a person is warned, should bail be issued or a conditional release be issued to an offender, is something that, when I first read it, I had the same reaction that you did.
When I dug in, there were several substantive challenges that were important to me that grounded our position to oppose that particular policy.
First, today it is possible to get this information on request. So, it’s important to understand why we made this choice.
There are two main reasons. One is substantive and one is administrative. On the substantive side, requiring disclosure in all instances is not a trauma-informed approach. There are victims from across Canada who do not wish to be confronted with the circumstances of the perpetrator and don’t want to have the information forced upon them about the status of a person who may be going through the legal proceedings. In my view, it should be up to the victim in the individual circumstances to be able to determine whether they wish to be informed of the status.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You have data that says that some women don’t want to know if their aggressor —
Mr. Fraser: I don’t have quantitative data, but I would be happy to provide what feedback is available perhaps after this meeting is complete.
The second consideration, which is administrative in nature, should not be discounted. Many decisions taken on bail are unreported. We’re dealing with circumstances where courts are facing massive backlogs and where decisions are being churned out as quickly as possible to keep up with the volume that courts are facing. Adding on additional required steps in all instances could potentially exacerbate those challenges, resulting in further challenges within the bail system.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay.
Mr. Fraser: As a stand-alone basis, I probably would not have opposed a position just on an administrative nature. I just want you to have the full context knowing in the presence of an additional substantive challenge —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m just surprised that the administrative considerations are more important than the victims’ considerations, to be very frank.
Mr. Fraser: I don’t want to be considered as taking that position. I only want this committee to have full knowledge of the administrative context in the presence of a substantive challenge that grounded primarily the opposition to the proposal.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Oudar: Minister, I just want to thank you and your team for being here with us again today.
I’d like to follow up on what my colleague, Senator Miville-Dechêne, just said by pointing out something more technical. Minister, please feel free to give the floor to members of your team.
Regarding the need to protect and inform victims, including by notifying them when their abuser is released on bail, some clarification is needed. The guide issued by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and updated by the Department of Justice is more than just an administrative framework. Under subsection 10(2) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, this document has the force of law and as such imposes strict and binding legal obligations on public prosecutors.
There is an entire chapter on victims’ rights. Without necessarily suggesting an amendment to the bill, I believe it would still be possible, albeit not necessarily easy, to modify this directive. This would ensure consistency across Canada, guarantee that victims are informed and thereby comply with the ombudsperson’s recommendation.
I believe there are administrative solutions that could be feasible, and those who do not wish to participate could opt out. The rule would be to inform victims unless they opt out. As I mentioned, the guide has not been updated in six years. This might be an opportunity to update it and, at the same time, find a solution that would be feasible for all Crown prosecutors.
[English]
Mr. Fraser: Thank you. I would be open to such a proposal, of course, when we’re dealing with matters for the PPSC. We would want to engage the PPSC on those specific decisions that would be taken.
I would note that some of the changes proposed to the Victims Bill of Rights would make it incumbent upon the Crown to do a better job of proactively disclosing to victims the totality of their rights through the process. I think this change would ground the precise conversation that you’ve raised, where we may look at updates to manuals that will carry directives that are, in fact, used in courts, though I don’t know that that would require a change to this legislation.
I would be happy to undertake to raise this personally with the director of the PPSC if helpful, but I expect there are a lot of people watching the testimony of these committee hearings, and the message would likely be received before I have an opportunity to deliver it in any event.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I’d like to revisit the statements you made at the other place and at public forums indicating that the bill will be accompanied by investments. There is the strategy to combat violence against women, but there is also the Spring Economic Update 2026 that was tabled recently. I read in the documents that the total amount was approximately $660.5 million, including additional funds earmarked for prevention. I’d like to give you the opportunity to address the statements you made at other place here before the committee.
Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Fraser: Thank you. In the seconds I have remaining, I won’t do it justice, but suffice it to say that the most awkward part of the three criminal law reform bills that we’re shepherding through Parliament is that they change the Criminal Code when we recognize full well that that’s only part of the public safety strategy we need to put in place.
In addition to supporting tools for law enforcement and supports for community organizations on the front line, we’re making investments in independent legal advice. We’re working with Women and Gender Equality and Justice Canada to directly support women’s organizations that are supporting victims on the ground.
When you look at investments that are directed toward long‑term prevention, we would be remiss if we didn’t consider investments in affordable and supportive housing and transitional housing, both for people who are released from incarceration but also for women who are fleeing violence, and building into our programs a need to have a number of units in an apartment so we can accommodate women who are fleeing with children, for example.
This is going to engage conversations in our negotiations with provincial governments when it comes to supporting mental health and addictions. It’s going to involve continued investments in recreational and cultural infrastructure, which help build healthier communities in the long term.
It’s very difficult to say with precision that there is a finite list of public safety investments because the longer you stare at this problem, the more quickly you realize that there are social determinants to justice that need to be brought into the equation.
They will fall outside the four corners of this legislation, of course, but when you combine strength in criminal laws with long-term investments to build healthier and safer communities, you can have a positive impact in the long term.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you, minister.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Welcome back, honourable minister. It’s good to see you again.
I want to reference some previous testimony from Ms. Richards, with the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, and Ms. Webb, with the Canadian Bar Association. Looking at the subject of remedy under Bill C-16 for 11(b) Charter violations, they provide that most of the causes for delays rest with the Crown and the courts themselves and not defence in this regard.
They expressed that it was likely it wouldn’t survive a constitutional challenge. I put the question whether or not certain tweaks to the factors to be considered under 492.31 were a consideration for them. Their response was, essentially, if something is unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional, and tweaks would provide no remedy.
I do note that Mr. Shakir Rahim, with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in his brief, suggests an additional factor, I believe, “. . . that relates to prejudice of unreasonable delay to the administration of justice.”
I’m curious what your thoughts are on this particular tweak. Do you think it would be helpful? If not, why? Thank you.
Mr. Fraser: Certainly. In my own view, I think we got the approach right. People are free to reasonably disagree.
The reason that I think we got it right is because we started, not just by trying to change the outcome of the decision when a delay happens, but first we made changes to the legislation to reduce the time that matters take to go to trial, because if we don’t deal with the underlying challenge of delays, we will still suffer the consequences as a society: the accused, the victim and society as a whole. So we have substantive measures — if time allows, I’m happy to get into them — that will reduce that timeline.
We recognized that there will be some period of time until we catch up and have these rules put in place that will shrink the time for matters to go to trial. We want to avoid these circumstances where we continue to see so many cases dismissed for delay. We don’t want to say that could never happen, but we want to recognize that there is a real and pressing social concern when I see headlines of nearly 10,000 cases being dismissed.
The reason why I don’t think we need to make the adjustments that have been proposed is because you have to look at what we’re actually doing in the legislation. We’re not demanding that courts, when the time elapses, never implement a stay. We’re asking them to consider other remedies. The court will maintain the discretion to determine the appropriate remedy, which could include a stay but would not necessarily include a stay.
This is a very topical conversation right now. It was probably considered overtly in the Vrbanic decision just a number of weeks ago, which laid out some challenges to the existing law that were not necessarily at issue in that case, but writing for the majority, the Chief Justice drew specific attention to this being the next frontier potentially — those are my words, not his — of an area for potential reform and a long-standing principle that viewed stays as minimalistic.
I don’t think it’s too large a stretch. Again, not to say that courts can’t issue a stay, but instead to ask them to consider other remedies in the hope that we can diminish the scale of the problem when we see so many cases being rejected because time has run out rather than the trial having come to its natural conclusion.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Batters: Minister, I would like to continue on this issue of what has become a terrible problem. As you recalled, 10,000 cases are getting stayed, including some very serious ones: murder and sexual assault. I had the opportunity to question your officials last week about this issue. Actually, I see that the particular official I questioned is not here today, but perhaps that’s because the answers that I received when I was asking about these very serious cases post verdict could result in a stay for murder or sexual assault or things like that. I asked this official if she could give the people of Canada comfort that something in this bill does something to prevent those types of things. She continued to refer to these early-in-the-process situations. But then I continued to press about these post-verdict situations of people who are otherwise found guilty of murder or sexual assault and would then be free, asking about what Bill C-16 will do to prevent these kinds of cases. It was like pulling teeth, and I really couldn’t get any comfort for the Canadian public about this.
So I’m hoping that you will give the Canadian public some comfort about this today because I certainly know that when we had the head of the Canadian Police Association here recently, he was also quite concerned about this because that has been a big issue, and it is probably why they support the bill.
Mr. Fraser: Certainly. Just so I’m clear on your question, Senator Batters, you’re concerned about after a verdict has been rendered and a person has been found guilty but before sentencing takes place?
Senator Batters: Right, yes.
Mr. Fraser: Thank you.
Senator Batters: These cases are where a stay would be ordered and murderers or rapists would go free.
Mr. Fraser: Sure, thank you. That’s helpful.
We’ve made changes not in this legislation but in Bill C-14, which deals specifically with bail reform motivated by the tragic circumstances of the Bailey McCourt case, which we discussed in some detail during my last appearance here, to make a change to more readily have the Crown ensure that a person can remain incarcerated after the moment they’ve been convicted before they’ve been sentenced.
Senator Batters: I agree that’s very important also, but I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the section 11(b) cases, and, although nothing is specified in the act, your official the other day was focusing solely on the potential remedies that could be instituted post verdict.
I was asking about the serious situations where a murderer or someone convicted of murder or sexual assault would go free and what is being done under this bill because it’s being portrayed as giving some comfort that those scary situations would not happen.
Mr. Fraser: My sense is that the changes that we’re making in this bill would, in fact, be helpful. One of the challenges that we have is that there would be constitutional concerns if we said that, in all instances where there is absolutely no discretion of the courts, you must not issue a stay of proceedings.
My analysis is that that would carry constitutional risks that would potentially render the provision of no force and effect. The judges would have to assess on a case-by-case basis the appropriateness. I would expect in those circumstances, given that the trial has been completed, that it would be exceptionally rare that somebody would be convicted of murder and would be given a stay of proceedings. I would hazard to guess it would not happen but I would —
Senator Batters: It has happened. There are many cases that your officials could point you to where that has happened and a stay has been granted. Of course, you’re not going to put a blanket on it, but I asked about what types of additional remedies — because your act doesn’t really specify them — are available post verdict.
Mr. Fraser: We made the choice not to enumerate specific remedies to preserve maximum flexibility for the court to look at what other remedies they may be able to put in place.
I don’t want to prejudge what solutions they may determine are appropriate in a set of circumstances. I would hope they would look at every range of possibilities, particularly in the extreme set of facts that you’re discussing with such a serious crime resulting in a conviction, but we didn’t wish to specifically enumerate the potential remedies so that we can preserve the ability for judges to identify how they may move forward without issuing a stay if that’s a course of action they determine was appropriate.
The Chair: Minister, I would like you to comment on some of the evidence that we’ve heard from the Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association and the BC Crown Counsel Association — very compelling evidence — that capacity is a huge problem in the administration of justice and that there is an obvious requirement for more judges, more Crown counsel, more legal aid and more money put into the system. Rather than have that stay of proceedings remedy moved, they’re concerned that it is a motivation for attorneys general to make more investment. So it’s one thing to get tough on crime, but if you’re not willing to invest in the infrastructure that administers justice, there is a problem.
Do you have any comment on that and maybe what you think should be done by the federal government to motivate attorneys general to make those kinds of investments rather than tinker with this at the back end of the system, as it were?
Mr. Fraser: These two things can be true, and I don’t view them to be in conflict with one another.
My experience dealing with the attorneys general from different jurisdictions across the country is that there is unanimous agreement that delays in the justice system are, in fact, a problem, and that governments should work together to try to solve those problems.
Now, the level of funding provided varies across provinces, who again have primary authority over the administration of justice within the territory their governments are responsible for, but they do want to actually solve this problem.
Part of the solution is going to require that we change some of the rules that shrink the timelines to go to trial. There are significant revisions made in this bill, for example, to the process through which evidence is adduced at sexual assault trials, which will have a positive impact. But you have to recognize that, even if every province and territory were perfectly resourced, it would take some time in order for the system to catch up. Of course, in a world of competing demands, the idea that every system in every province will be perfectly resourced is probably not likely to happen over the next number of weeks or months or even the next number of years, despite people working aggressively towards addressing delays across Canada.
By the way, this applies regionally; it applies regardless of political party. People are seized with and want to address this problem.
We have to ask ourselves, in a world where this problem remains, is it really the threat of a stay that motivates change or is it the recognition that there is injustice when delay exists within the system. My experience, in talking with the individuals who currently hold the post, would suggest it is the latter. Even with the resources in place, we’re going to continue to see challenges with cases that have already been in the pipeline as resources are added. My view is we should recognize that, even if the number is not 10,000 over the next number of years of cases that are thrown out for delay, but some much smaller number, we still would do well to provide the court with the authority — as we do in almost all instances — to assess what would be appropriate in the circumstances by urging them to consider — not to implement — remedies other than a stay. It’s not the potential heavy hammer, so to speak, that may be used to motivate attorneys general, though some people’s perspective is withered away to a degree that it ceases to have an impact.
Senator Simons: Minister, you cited the Vrbanic decision, the reasons for which came out on May 29. Chief Justice Wagner did not quote “Star Trek,” alas, but this is what he did say:
But the right to trial within a reasonable time is more than a right to the Crown’s best efforts. If the Crown cannot, by making reasonable efforts, bring cases to trial within a reasonable time, then the state must step in and increase funding to the justice system.
Ultimately, the Charter prevents laying the burdens of underfunded courts and Crown offices at the feet of the accused.
Some of these investments need to happen at the federal level and some at the provincial level. Has there been any coordinated effort to ensure that? Senator Batters is correct: Nobody wants people to walk free, but if you cannot resource the courts to make timely trials, then that is the logical consequence of the Jordan decision. So what is actually being done substantively to answer the concerns we heard from the Crown prosecutors and the concerns we’ve heard from others to get the timelines down?
Mr. Fraser: Thank you. First, just because this decision came up in our last meeting and again in this meeting, for those who haven’t had an opportunity, I would like to say that it’s a fascinating passage about the philosophical underpinning of the Charter versus delays in the court system. The piece that terminates in paragraph 82 — I’m going from memory — is really illustrative on this very specific issue.
Some of the solutions are within the control of the federal government when it comes to the criminal trial process and the rules that exist within the Criminal Code. There are other areas that fall distinctly within the purview of provincial governments. The tool that we have to collaborate with provincial governments is largely if we are offering funding toward certain shared priorities. We don’t want to get into the business of simply uploading the cost from one level of government to another, but where there is a place for the federal government that’s appropriate, in my view, is whether we can tackle a shared challenge. Bail data is a great example that I think will help us understand what is going on in bail courts and implement solutions that can be repeated across the country. We are working now to fund a national rollout of practices that will better collect standardized bail data and that will be used to make better decisions on how the bail systems can adjust in different provinces.
Senator Simons: Will there be more funding for legal aid from the federal government? Will there be more funding for federal Crown prosecutors? Will you be appointing more federal judges? I’m sure bail data will be interesting, but it doesn’t actually solve the huge crisis in the courts right now.
Mr. Fraser: It’s part of it. You mentioned judicial appointments. Certainly, we are doing everything we can to keep pace with vacancies that emerge. We are in a healthier place now compared to a few years ago.
As requests come in from provinces — we are dealing with one from your province now, senator — we will potentially increase the complement of judges that exist within a court. We will examine them on a case-by-case basis. We require provinces to demonstrate that there is a business case justifying an increased investment, understanding what volume they are dealing with in the courts. I don’t have an announcement to make about specific positions, but we have an annual process that provides for those requests to come in, and through the federal budget process, an opportunity to increase funding for those kinds of requests.
Obviously, there are other things that may come up, but we do have to ensure that the requests to fund an area squarely within a province’s jurisdiction would come from those provinces. We don’t want to create a fund to start taking the responsibility of one government and placing it upon another, but where there are shared challenges or demonstrated areas of federal responsibility where we can do more, that’s something we will consider on an ongoing basis.
Senator Dhillon: Minister, I want to go back to the questions that my colleagues have raised around mandatory bail and informing victims of that.
We’ve heard from victim groups, advocates, police representatives, associations, experts and the ombudsperson. Kendra Cooke appeared here and shared her personal story of abuse. I have also had my own personal experience in the work that I’ve done over the years. This, in my view, is probably the most basic requirement and basic service that we can provide to victims.
You’ve shared that we want to put a trauma-informed lens on this. I would say — and I invite your commentary — that the victims to whom I have spoken, the cases that I have worked on and some of what we’ve heard from witnesses here who have literally given us one-word answers when I asked if this is important and if they thought it was a miss, the answer was literally “yes,” and that’s where it ended. I would argue, and in my view, that the trauma is when we don’t inform them. It is less about the accused and more about the victim being informed about the whereabouts, the release conditions and any other information that could better arm them in providing some security for themselves, as well as having family provide that security for them or put in measures.
To that end, Senator Oudar suggested a novel approach. Maybe that is one approach, but when we spoke with police and law enforcement representatives, they shared that there are some jurisdictions in which they do address this and have processes and a safety assessment. In other places, it is hit-and-miss.
To that end, I welcome your commentary. You did say that this is going to exasperate the courts, but that goes back to resourcing. That goes back to other measures that we need to put in place. I think, overall, this bill will put additional burdens, and I think we all recognize that.
This would probably be the least burden that the courts, in my view, would experience when they are literally simply notifying the victim of what the bail conditions and the release conditions are and for that victim to then put some measures in place to protect themselves. Your thoughts, minister?
Mr. Fraser: Thank you. In any instance, I think something there appears to be agreement on — just so you don’t confuse my own perspective — is that any time a victim would like to be kept apprised of the circumstances of the bail status of a perpetrator, my view is that they should be. How you accomplish that and whether you need to do it through legislation are real questions that senators may have thoughts on.
Given that we are making changes that demand a higher degree of proactive disclosure about the rights of a victim, my sense is that the option should proactively be put to them rather than having the burden rest upon the accused to go and request the information. We should preserve the opportunity, in my view, for a victim who wishes not to be burdened with the trauma and to relive the emotional experience every time something comes in the mail. If somebody wants to not be a part of that conversation, that’s something that we should respect as well.
The solution was put to us to potentially look at what information we have. There is some guidance today that exists within the handbook, but this might be an area where, even if a rule change is put in place, there is an increased need for training of actors within the system. Those are the kinds of things, in response to Senator Simons’ questions, where I think there would be an opportunity for the federal government to collaborate across jurisdictions to say there has been a national change in the consistent application of the rules that exist today. Perhaps we can get together to ensure that these important rules will demonstrate to Canadians that the impact of crime on a victim is of the utmost concern.
We can’t have Canadians believing the system is designed to serve the interests of one party over another, but instead, to serve the interests of justice, including justice for the victims. But if there are novel solutions that we can raise federally or provincially with prosecutors, I would be happy to be a messenger in that regard and an advocate internally.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for that. I think that goes to the heart of this bill. It is a victims’ protection act.
I welcome those comments. I believe that, rather than having it put on the victim to share with the jurisdiction or the agency or whomever is charged with that responsibility, that, as my colleague shared, it is instead an opt-out option where this happens automatically, that this is shared with the victim and it is mandatory. I think there would be a better response from Canadians and others that we are sharing with the victim that these are the bail conditions and the victim being, at that point, upset that the bail conditions were shared with them and would not want to know that.
That is better than having the opposite happen, where the bail conditions are never shared and the victim not having that understanding of where they could have opted in, and then something terrible, like the Bailey McCourt incident, happens. I would rather err on the side of having somebody upset with me than having a life lost. I will leave that there.
Senator Dalphond: To follow up on this, there are two really interesting questions here about the stay and about the information.
One of the amendments proposed to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is to add the new section 7.1: “Every victim has the right to information about the protection measures available to them in the criminal justice system.” I understand that this will be an obligation because it is a right and no longer upon request.
Could we maybe elaborate on that and try to make it clear to the Crown attorneys, who are not federally appointed, so they are not subject to the guide for the federal prosecutors, and it is done by the provinces and their own guides? If you could make a commitment to the committee that you will discuss with your counterparts in the provinces to have a way to enforce the rights recognized here, we would appreciate it.
I know if an order on bail is to impose a GPS monitor for protection, especially in domestic violence, of course, the victim will be informed. She will have a system on her telephone that will give her a warning so she will know about that measure. Sometimes these are not measures that are imposed. It may be restrictions to be a certain number of kilometres from the home but without a device.
I know in Quebec, the Crime Victims Assistance Centre, or CAVAC, is now part of the special courts, and they are informing the victims automatically of these things and the bail orders. What I understand from what my colleague is saying is that some police corps do it; some don’t. Some courts do it; some courts don’t.
Is there a way we could force more uniformity in order to give substance to the right of the victim to be informed?
Mr. Fraser: First, I have a general point followed by more specifics.
Although you have correctly pointed out distinctions between the responsibilities of those who fall within the federal prosecution service and provinces, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is meant to have a national application, and I don’t view it to bind one or the other. We may have an issue when it comes to the handbook and the guidelines that are provided for prosecutors.
I have already undertaken — but I will repeat that undertaking — to raise it not only with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Canada but also with my provincial counterparts. It may be the opportunity we have to discuss the implementation of some of these bills at the next meeting of ministers on the justice portfolio.
I think we all want to achieve the same thing, and whether it is along the lines of Senator Dhillon’s suggestion or those that have come from others, I think this is an area for future work.
I get a little bit nervous about a legislative solution, in part, for the reasons I have articulated. Bail is a very unique, inherently local system that is run differently in different parts of the country. In many jurisdictions, you won’t even necessarily have contact information for a victim at the instance of a bail hearing. There is often not a Crown assigned. You may have a police report with someone who has complained about the behaviour but can’t be identified. Just logistically, I want the committee to be seized with the realities of how these conversations will play out on the ground.
Certainly, in circumstances where there is a victim who is known and who wants to have this information, we should find a way to make sure it gets there. Given this conversation, I have to do some additional thinking, but if it is a combination of updates to federal guidelines, discussions with national partners and collaborative training to ensure that the right doesn’t just exist on paper but is experienced in communities, I think this would be excellent ground for the next steps when it comes to implementing the reforms that are included in Bill C-16.
Senator Pate: Thank you, again, minister for joining us.
In response to a question from Senator Clement last week regarding the gender-based analysis of Bill C-16, where it acknowledges the risk of increased criminalization and incarceration of Indigenous and Black peoples, you emphasized the importance of measures, including cultural assessments as well as so-called Gladue Reports, both rooted in section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which requires judges to prioritize community-based sentences.
However, where a mandatory minimum applies, Bill C-16’s “safety valve” will interfere with this legal obligation and won’t allow consideration of community-based options. This is also contrary to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s commitment and well as the commitments to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences.
I am confident that you do not plan to fail to meet legal requirements or commitments to Indigenous Peoples. Will you consider amendments that will strengthen the bill by honouring these obligations?
Mr. Fraser: Thank you for raising the question because in my response, I was kicking myself for the balance of the week in Ottawa because I neglected to mention that the bill also includes specific measures to encourage, where appropriate, diversion or the embrace of restorative justice, which will help address some of these challenges as well.
One of the things that gives me some comfort on the issue of mandatory minimums is the installation of the so-called safety valve but recognizing that, where the penalty would be grossly disproportionate, to allow some residual discretion amongst judges in those instances would be a solution that would prevent grave injustices from taking place.
In addition, there is the requirement, certainly, that there would be some term of incarceration when you depart from that standard. However, in many of these instances where it would be grossly disproportionate — in the majority, I would suggest, and, perhaps, all — there will be a person who has time served through the process.
There is some residual discretion that will protect against the harm — sorry, you are seeking to jump back in?
Senator Pate: Yes. Thank you for that.
As you know from the report that we did at the request of Justice LaForme and Justice Westmoreland-Traoré, and as you know from the self-defence review conducted by the Department of Justice in the 1990s, the pressure to plead guilty — particularly for Indigenous women in situations where they are not protected by the system, where they are victimized first and where they are responding to victimization — is precluded. Those examples are precluded from being considered with this version of the bill.
Would you consider amendments that would ensure that that kind of injustice does not continue?
Mr. Fraser: The version of the bill that exists, I believe, would give the court the leeway to ensure that there is an appropriate sentence and circumstance —
Senator Pate: If someone is charged with murder, and they are proceeding with murder, and the pressure is there, as happened in Jamie Gladue’s case. She did not have the benefit of self-defence or defence of other, because after the preliminary, an offer was made, and she pled guilty to manslaughter, even though she had a defence.
Mr. Fraser: Without offering comment on individual cases, which I’m sure you can appreciate is something that I refrain from doing in all instances, giving the court the discretion to operate where there would be a grossly disproportionate penalty, I believe, is an appropriate test. It benefits from guidance from the Supreme Court, and I believe it is not only constitutional but will provide courts with the leeway to make decisions that are appropriate in circumstances where the mandatory minimum may not have contemplated the nature of the offence at hand.
Senator Pate: If you received feedback from the courts that, in fact, these provisions do not allow them to do this in a case where someone is charged with murder, would you consider an amendment to the bill to allow for those cases?
Mr. Fraser: Given the time at which we are in this proceeding, my strong preference would be to move forward with the adoption of the bill, which is, perhaps, obvious.
But on an ongoing basis, when we receive guidance from the courts, when we receive testimony or advice from those who work within the system across all policy areas — including on appropriateness of sentencing — we must, on an evergreen basis, consider potential amendments to the criminal justice system in Canada.
To the extent that, as these provisions roll out, we understand that they are not having the intended impact, of course, we would do that. In fact, the changes to the mandatory minimums that we are making today are a response to some of those conversations taking place in the Canadian public, including cases that have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Over time, we would be happy to review it on an ongoing basis, but I don’t think it would be the appropriate time before they are put in place to make an amendment.
Senator Pate: It seems very unfortunate that that would then put the responsibility on the heads of some of the most disadvantaged and those most likely to be criminalized and incarcerated.
Just to put you on notice, we will be trying to amend this to correct that.
Senator Clement: Good morning, minister, and all of you. Thanks for coming back.
Last week, we heard Professor Ferris say that the political temperature is running hot around the issue of being tough on crime and people feeling safe in their communities.
We get that. I get that. I’ve been on this committee for five years now, and I understand that governments legislate. They have to react in that way.
Meanwhile, Black communities are hearing over and over again that the unintended consequence is always more contribution to overrepresentation of Black folks in the criminal justice system.
This week, Black folks are coming together here in Ottawa around the Black Justice Strategy, and they are going to start doing that more often because this is untenable. Yes, we have to legislate; I understand that. But Black communities have to get organized.
I want to point out that the Black Justice Strategy is not just a policy document. It is a policy document, but it actually has 114 very specific recommendations. One of them — no. 63 — is to work with the provinces and territories to expand the availability and use of restorative justice options. There are comments about the impact of race and culture assessments. Senator Simons’ questions alluded to funding Legal Aid. These are very specific things.
Can you comment on how Bill C-16 will speak to any of that? I think you want to be on the record as talking about what the bill can bring from a restorative perspective. Can you meet these recommendations through some of this bill?
Mr. Fraser: Some of them through the bill, yes, and many of them through measures that the government will need to implement outside of this bill. Just for example, you mentioned restorative justice working with provinces and territories. The changes included in this bill are motivated by the recommendations that came in. I will be meeting with the steering committee for the Black Justice Strategy later this week — Wednesday, I believe — and we look forward to taking further advice directly from the leaders, who are encouraging the adoption of many of these recommendations.
In addition, some of the work we’ve done to increase funding for impact race and culture assessments — funding that only recently started moving out — is motivated by some of the leadership, including, in my own province, through the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute and leaders within the Black community, particularly in Ontario, where we’ve seen the embrace of the Impact of Race and Culture Assessments more so than we have across the country. Our desire to fund this work is to make sure a good thing keeps happening, but also to demonstrate that it could be rolled out across the country because we believe it has a positive impact.
Legal Aid came up from Senator Simons, and I didn’t get to that part of her question. A few years ago, there was an increase in Legal Aid. As requests come in on an ongoing basis, we take those requests and assess to what extent the federal government should play an increased role when it comes to the funding of services, particularly when there is a federal policy angle to the services being requested.
The answer to your question is that we can and must work with leaders in the Black community to understand the right path forward to implement many of these recommendations. Some of them can be implemented in this bill. The majority of them will need to be supported by legislative changes with funding to operationalize the work that is being advocated for.
Owen Ripley, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice Canada: If I can jump in and highlight a couple of things, senator, because we are now in the field with the initial monies that are the down payments so to speak on the Black Justice Strategy. The Minister highlighted work we are doing on IRCA, but some of that money is also going to support diversion projects for Black youth and to work around establishing Black court navigator services in certain jurisdictions.
That money is now out there and starting to have that impact, and obviously, we are watching it quite closely. I would also highlight — not specific to the Black communities — some of the programming we are doing around Community Justice Centres, for example, in Ontario; that’s having a huge impact in terms of providing alternative pathways to prosecution. I would just throw those out there as other examples.
Senator Clement: I’ve been listening to the conversation around bail notification. I heard you say that you have trauma-informed data that shows victims may suffer and may not want to be informed. Do you have that data or did you say that you used that data?
Mr. Fraser: Just to be clear, I never said I have quantitative data. Through my conversations that I’ve had along the way toward the preparation of this bill, ensuring when a victim wants to have information about proceedings is something that I did, in fact, hear, but not through —
Senator Clement: There is no data?
Mr. Fraser: — national associations. I don’t have the number of victims who prefer to know or prefer not to know enumerated. Instead, it has been raised with me that some people, after going through a traumatic experience, do not wish to continue to engage in the process. Many never report, of course, and many start to go through the process, then don’t want to continue through the process. Some want to move on in their lives entirely from a traumatic incident. It may not be a dramatic rate of prevalence when it comes to the number of victims, but it is something that I want to be respectful of.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Batters: First of all, minister, I would just like to go back to femicide. So, a marginal note or a heading is not an operative part of the bill, of course, as you know. Things that are noted in the bill summary are not an operative part of the bill. The word “femicide” — I just took a look to confirm again — is not in the several-page GBA Plus, or Gender-based Analysis Plus.
The first few subsections of Bill C-16 dealing with what is headed as “femicide” actually contain issues that — as your official Ms. Levman said last week — do contain acts that disproportionately affect women. That’s correct. But the fourth subsection of that part states this:
. . . while motivated by hate based on colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or mental or physical disability.
All of those types of hate crimes resulting in murder are absolutely very serious offences and should be treated as such. But when you and your government talked about Bill C-16 as including a new crime of femicide, an offence of femicide, it really doesn’t. There is no definition of “femicide” in it. As other senators have mentioned, women are not mentioned in this part. Although you have told women’s groups that you are taking so seriously the crime of femicide, none of this points to that.
Mr. Fraser: Thank you. You are right to point out that the offence is more broadly constructed than to only capture cases of femicide, but the nature of the definition is certainly broad enough to include those cases of femicide. The stakeholder organizations who are asking to move forward with more serious penalties for femicide, in our engagement, were uniquely happy with the provision that was included. Though it wasn’t their concern that hate-motivated murders against people other than women could also constitute femicide, we received no objection through the consultation process to addressing hate-motivated murder more broadly.
So the path we chose was not to create a new infraction of femicide — of course, the murder of women is clearly already illegal — but instead to treat it as a constructive first-degree charge, which is the new element of the law, not just in hate-motivated circumstances, but in a series of other enumerated grounds that could constitute.
So functionally, if someone is killed because they are a woman during the commission of a sexual offence, following a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, or hate-motivated against them because they are a woman, they would all be included with the constructive first-degree charge rather than a new stand-alone infraction called “femicide.”
Senator Batters: Included but not exclusive of it?
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Batters: Last week, you had nice things to say about the hard work of the Senate and our committee and getting some of these bills passed. Since that time, we have actually had a government programming motion in the Senate, which, while we’re dealing with Bill C-16, the government is also trying to force this committee to deal with, in a very limited time frame, Bill C-25, the election amendment act.
Our pre-study on that particular bill indicated the limited time we had on the pre-study and that we needed much further time to deal with this. You said last week that you would tell your colleagues what good work we do and how you appreciate it. I ask you to tell your colleagues — and I see we have one government senator here and I ask them to take that back — because it is really unreasonable, and it would force our committee to deal with it basically in one day.
Mr. Fraser: Thank you, senator. I will reiterate my gratitude in a briefer way for the work your committee is doing. I am happy to discuss your message with my colleagues, some of whom I will see later today. I am not current on the parliamentary stage of Bill C-25, but with respect to this bill, it is not lost on me how much extra work this group has put into this. My gratitude remains. I will be happy, after this meeting is over, to discuss your perspective with my colleagues in the House when it comes to Bill C-25 and the process the Senate is being asked to implement.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
The Chair: I would re-enforce Senator Batters’ statements because the steering committee and the majority of this committee are very concerned about having to deal with Bill C-25 in just one day. They are very serious issues that need further study, and it seems to me reasonable that this bill should be put over to the fall, where we could accomplish that study.
I can say, on behalf of the ISG senators who are members of this committee, that they completely agree with that.
Now, we have trouble here in the sense that Senator Simons and Senator Miville-Dechêne would like to ask questions, but we are out of time. Senator Simons, would you like to ask your question, and we will get a written response?
Senator Simons: It will have to be a timely written response because we have to pass this bill right away. There is no opportunity for us to make meaningful amendments.
Regardless, we heard many witnesses over the past week raise concerns that the constructive first-degree murder charge could be weaponized against women victims: not just the murder element, but also coercion and control. Many witnesses, including a survivor of coercive control, testified about the potential for this law to be used against victims.
Professor Emma Cunliffe from the University of British Columbia was particularly hot on that point.
Perhaps I will follow up with Mr. Taylor and Ms. Levman.
Mr. Fraser: I’d be happy to follow up with more detail.
When it came, specifically, to the element that was referred to in the context of the constructive first-degree charge and for the stand-alone charge of coercive control, they were enormous preoccupations I had. In circumstances where there is an allegation of family violence, you can imagine it very quickly turns into people pointing fingers.
There are certain elements that gave me faith that we could do it, and that we could do it now. One was the need to have proof of the intent to cause fear, so in the absence of a demonstrated intention, you can’t get there.
The other piece is that this is why we have a delayed coming into force; it follows examples and advice from others who have gone before us. In each province and territory, we can work with those who will be implementing the system and who understand the supports that are in place in their own jurisdiction to operationalize the provisions in the manner in which they were intended.
I will supplement that response, but I wanted to offer that to you now.
Senator Pate: Could we get a race-based analysis, in particular, for Indigenous and Black women, for that response?
The Chair: Okay. That has been articulated, so we’ll ask the minister and his colleagues to answer that question in writing, as well.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Minister, I have two brief comments to make. They follow on the question I asked, which others have taken up, regarding the mechanisms for notifying victims when their alleged abuser is released.
I’ve been told that we could make a two-word amendment to resolve the issue, and that it would therefore be relatively easy. I know you’ve mentioned administrative problems, but from the victims’ perspective, it seems easy, so I’m bringing this to your attention.
Next, regarding the question of whether or not to define the term “femicide”, which has raised some concerns, I understand that you have spoken with women’s groups and that this term has come up quite often. I know there are ways to clarify what a term does or does not mean in the context of a bill. Wouldn’t it therefore be appropriate — whether in a speech or a ministerial memo — to clarify the scope of the term “femicide” by explicitly stating that it does not apply to men?
I wanted to ask if there was any way to clarify this that didn’t involve an amendment, because I understand what a marginal note is, and I understand that a marginal note cannot be amended.
[English]
The Chair: Minister, will you respond in writing?
Mr. Fraser: Certainly, we’ll respond in writing.
Hate-motivated murder, obviously, could have applied to a broader class of people, including a person from a marginalized community who might also be a man. One can imagine a hate‑motivated murder against a Black man, for example, as being something we believe should attract that same higher degree of scrutiny, but I would recognize that as not femicide. The provision was construed more broadly to capture femicide as well as other crimes —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You probably mentioned this in some marginal notes, so I think it leaves us with some —
Mr. Fraser: I understand. Through public communications, I think we can continue to explain the distinction between femicide and other murders that might, nevertheless, be captured by this provision.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, minister and your officials, for appearing here today. It has been very helpful.
For our second panel, we’re pleased to welcome three witnesses, all by video conference: Professor Nicholas Bala, Distinguished Professor of Law, Queen’s University; Professor Margaret Hall, Simon Fraser University; and Professor Carmen Gill, Department of Sociology, University of New Brunswick. Thank you all for joining us here today.
We now invite you to provide opening remarks. I’ll ask Professor Bala to go first, followed by Professor Hall and then Professor Gill.
Nicholas Bala, Distinguished Professor of Law, Queen’s University, as an individual: I’m a professor of law at Queen’s University, where I specialize in family law and issues related to children and youth in the justice system, both the criminal and particularly the family justice system. I have written extensively on issues related to spousal abuse and also legal responses to child abuse and child exploitation.
I have worked with various governments, including the federal government, around these issues and have appeared on many occasions over the last 40 years at parliamentary committees that have been considering law reform.
I’ve written about the 2021 amendments to the Divorce Act that define family violence to include coercive control. Most recently, my work was cited extensively by the Supreme Court in its recent decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, recognizing the tort of intimate partner violence and particularly focusing on coercive control.
As a law professor, I’m broadly familiar with Bill C-16 and support its provisions, but my particular interest has been section 264.01 and the creation of the crime of coercion or control of an intimate partner. I have written in support of this change to the law.
I am certainly aware of the difficulties in defining and operationally establishing and proving coercive control, and I recognize there will be problems with implementation. There is a need for education for judges, prosecutors and defence counsel if there is to be successful implementation of the act. Just as there needed to be and is continued education in the family courts around coercive control after the amendments to the Divorce Act and now after the decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia.
The new legislation — as was pointed out earlier today by the minister — is modelled on similar laws, particularly in Scotland. The experience in Scotland, as well as in England, has been that enacting this kind of legislation is important; it does increase protection for victims, and it particularly encourages the police, when they’re investigating, not simply to look at an isolated act, but to identify a pattern of violence and emotional abuse, both investigating and arranging support for victims, including the possibility of leaving the relationship. So the educational and the social implications are very important, as well as what will happen in the criminal courts.
All of this, of course, will require not just enacting the legislation, but also education, providing social supports and providing adequate resources for the administration of justice, including appointing more judges and having adequate funding for legal aid. Thank you. Those are my introductory remarks.
The Chair: Thank you for that concise overview.
Professor Hall.
Margaret Hall, Professor, Simon Fraser University, as an individual: Good morning. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you today on the subject of coercive control. In particular, my focus will be on this question of whether the proposed criminal offence should be limited to the intimate partner context or broadened in scope to apply in a wider class of family relationships.
The use of coercive control by family members as a means of elder abuse was identified in England and Wales as a key rationale for their decision to include “relatives” as meeting the relationship criterion for the criminal offence in their jurisdiction. The criminal offence in Queensland also recognizes coercive control in family relationships.
Now, when talking about this question of potentially broadening the scope, it is essential to kick off with a brief description or a definition of coercive control and how it is distinct from other forms of family violence or intimate partner violence.
Coercive control has been described as a “capture crime” in which the perpetrator’s objective is to control the victim for the purpose of extracting benefits or privileges. These are often material benefits, like housing or money, personal services, access to sex and, essentially, whatever else the perpetrator can extract from the relationship. It is instrumental and is the opposite of a crime of passion, as it’s sometimes referred to.
It is also important to recognize that perpetrators are dependent on their victims for these privileges — I think that is a really key insight — because it would be hard, maybe impossible, for them to get them otherwise. This explains their determination to hang onto the victim and, therefore, their privileges by any means necessary.
The various techniques they use to maintain that control are ultimately a means to that end. Coercive control has been likened to other capture crimes like cult exploitation that have similar characteristics. In the intimate partner context, coercive control has been referred to as a cult of one, at least in its initial stages.
Now, physical violence, being more likely to attract outside attention and possibly push the victim to resist, is relatively unlikely, as described in the literature, so long as these other techniques work — and work here is, of course, from the perpetrator’s perspective. But physical violence, including lethal violence, is thus more likely to happen if the victim attempts to extricate themselves from the relationship or assert their autonomy in some other way: just seeing family or going out with friends, for example. So it’s kind of a final act of control.
Now, the relationship itself, as I’ve defined this, is an essential element of coercive control. It’s for this reason that criminal legislation in all jurisdictions includes relationship criteria, and that’s one of the things that makes this offence a little unique. Most offences are relationship neutral — think about assault — but coercive control always has a relationship criterion.
The relationship provides access to victims and, therefore, the privileges that can be extracted from them, while at the same time — and this is really critical to the unique nature of coercive control as a phenomenon — the relationship masks the control and the predatory motives of the perpetrator, at least for a period of time. So behaviours you’d obviously see as unacceptable in a stranger are rationalized, at least, at first, in a loved one. It’s a form of cognitive dissonance.
Everyone wants to believe their romantic partner, their son or daughter really loves them deep down. This is a human thing. No one wants to realize they are being exploited through the use of techniques designed to grind down their self-esteem, autonomy and ability to resist.
Shame is also a powerful motivator here to cover things up and pretend everything is fine, even to yourself. It is shameful to believe that you have been “weak” enough to let it happen. This dynamic is crucial to coercive control. It’s recognized in the English statutory guidance as well.
In my opinion, relationships between older parents and adult children, or other persons in an analogous relationship with an older adult — childlike — are especially vulnerable to being used as a mechanism of coercive control.
If you think about it, coercive control perpetrators in intimate partner relationships, like cult exploiters, have to work hard to build that relationship that can then be used. However, the parent-child relationship — those of us who are parents maybe recognize this — provides a pre-existing mechanism or vehicle that can be used by a family member who seeks to use it in this way.
Older parents are even less likely than intimate partners to speak out or do something about it or wake up to the reality of the situation. Parents, in particular, have a crucial stake in presenting their children as good, successful and loving. It reflects positively on their own parenting skills, among other things.
Expressing that their child is mistreating them in this way is a source of deep personal shame.
All of this makes it less likely that parents will resist or wake up, and even if they do, leaving the situation where the perpetrator has moved themselves into the older person’s home — material exploitation — is maybe what the perpetrator wants most of all, to the victim’s detriment. Health difficulties may also make leaving difficult; although, ironically, outside intervention by health care workers has the potential, perhaps more than anything, to disrupt the perpetrator’s control. For this very reason, perpetrators seek to isolate their victims from health care providers or prevent them from seeking care to prevent disruption of this kind.
Here is a second question: If coercive control as a behaviour, as a phenomenon —
The Chair: Professor Hall, we really have to wrap up here.
Ms. Hall: Can I make one final point?
The Chair: Sure.
Ms. Hall: If it’s not unique to intimate partner relationships, the second question is whether it’s especially dangerous in intimate partner relationships, and I would say, yes, for the reasons described, that lethal violence trigger is more likely to be pulled, and that’s why coercive control in intimate partner relationships is a priority. However, it is problematic, of course, outside of that context, especially as it impacts older adults, and for these reasons, I would support expanding the scope of the criminal offence, possibly as a next step after this priority issue has first steps taken dealing with it.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Professor Hall.
Professor Gill.
Carmen Gill, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of New Brunswick, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today and for contributing to this study of Bill C-16.
I work on the issue of coercive control in the context of intimate partner violence, or IPV, and my research focuses on police response, with particular attention to coercive control. As part of this work, I have conducted surveys with police officers to examine their perceptions toward IPV and their understanding of coercive control.
I work in collaboration with the Crime Prevention, Community Safety and Well-being Committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. This work contributed to the development of the National Framework for Collaborative Police Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence, which was endorsed by the CACP last year.
Through this work, I have become convinced that an effective response to IPV begins with police officers understanding the context in which they are called to intervene. Coercive control cannot be adequately understood through the examination of isolated incidents; it requires an assessment of the broader pattern of behaviours, power dynamics and ongoing circumstances that shape the victim’s experience. Without this contextual understanding, there is a significant risk that coercive control will be overlooked, minimizing both the severity of the abuse and the risks faced by victims.
My intention here is to situate coercive control within the broader context of police response to IPV and to examine the challenges law enforcement officers face in identifying and documenting patterns of coercive control. Recognizing coercive control patterns can be particularly difficult within traditional policing frameworks.
How do you recognize signs of coercive control, or should I say, how do you read the situation without visible physical violence?
To optimize their response, police officers need a clear understanding of coercive control and what it looks like.
On the one hand, they need to determine if they are dealing with an isolated incident, and on the other hand, they must determine and assess if the situation involves coercive control patterns. They need to think outside the box, which means gathering evidence that would not be looked for, and it starts by allowing identification of coercive control.
An assessment gives police information while investigating evidence of current and increasing risk. Risks are always changing and must be re-evaluated and updated regularly. Currently, police agencies in Canada do not use assessment tools to recognize the signs of coercive control, but instead use them to assess a single incident of violence. It is urgent to provide police officers with an adequate mechanism to recognize the signs before the implementation of an offence of coercive control.
The recognition of coercive control as an offence would be beneficial to victims, as this would clearly send a message that it is unacceptable in our society. This has the potential of increasing victims’ trust in the justice system and providing them with greater access to support services.
From a justice perspective, introducing a coercive control offence could fundamentally shift the way violence within intimate relationships is understood. It has the potential to bring about significant changes in judicial responses to IPV. Currently, the absence of clear legal mechanisms to charge perpetrators of coercive control limits the ability of law enforcement and prosecution to address such patterns of behaviour effectively. Of course, we need to highlight the fact that ongoing training on coercive control for judicial and social professionals working with victims and perpetrators in IPV prior to it becoming a criminal offence should be, or must be, a priority.
Any changes in legislation have unintended consequences. However, they can be overcome through awareness, training and a better understanding of the issue.
On a final note, I would be cautious in using alternative measures in cases of coercive control, and clause 715.47 (1) should be revised or removed. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gill. We’ll move to questions. Senators, we need to keep to a four-minute limit.
Senator Batters: Professor Hall, you have recommended expanding the offence of coercive control to include family relationships, particularly in situations involving elder abuse. What are the clearest examples of serious cases that the current wording in Bill C-16 would fail to capture adequately if it remains limited to intimate partners? I’ll let you answer that, and then I have a second part. Thank you.
Ms. Hall: Thank you very much. Of course, coercive control in intimate partner relationships does occur where older adults are involved in those relationships, but I’m thinking particularly of intergenerational use of coercive control as what I would call a mechanism of elder abuse. That’s a problem, and there is now significant research into the nature and scope of that problem. I’ve been involved in a coalition with a number of not-for-profit groups working in this area, and they’ve brought this to the groups’ attention as a serious problem that does fall between the cracks.
Senator Batters: Thank you. You have recommended expanding the relevant relationship category to include “family members or loved ones.”
From a legislative drafting perspective, how could that be done clearly enough so that we capture serious cases of coercive control within families but don’t make this offence overly broad or uncertain?
Ms. Hall: The language is always a difficulty. I wouldn’t recognize language like “loved ones,” which is a little too expansive. I know the English legislation uses “relevant person,” which they define to include relatives or family relationships.
The legislation in Queensland uses that language of “family relationships” and purports to give an inclusive definition of what “family relationships” means, which is cumbersome and awkward. When reading that language, you can see how difficult that is. The conclusion is that that language “family relationships” is precise enough but is not restricted, perhaps, to blood relatives, which, theoretically, “relatives” could be. “Family relationships” would be flexible enough to capture these intergenerational family relationships, which is where the problem is primarily located, but there may be circumstances beyond that intergenerational context, where people are in a parent-child-like relationship and where coercive control is being used in a similar way that would also be caught by that language. However, factually, I would anticipate that the phenomenon would be present most often in these intergenerational contexts.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Briefly, Professor Gill, at the end of your opening remarks, you mentioned a subsection that you thought should be removed. Maybe when there is additional time later, you could expand on why you think that that is important that that be removed, but I don’t want to take anyone else’s time here.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’d actually like to ask you to explain why you believe we should remove — which is quite a strong statement — a clause on alternative measures. Please keep it brief, because I have another question.
Ms. Gill: Of course.
I don’t want alternative measures to be eliminated. I’m saying that it’s really not appropriate to use restorative justice in situations involving coercive control, for example. These are situations where a victim is being manipulated and controlled. Since restorative justice is a voluntary process, we need to be able to determine that the victim is no longer under their partner’s control. That’s the point I was getting at. It’s hard to say that police officers can offer it when they aren’t in a position to fully understand the nature of coercive control.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That is very clear. Thank you very much.
Ms. Gill, I’ve been citing you for a long time. You’re considered an expert in this field. I’d like you to tell us about how the entire section on coercive control is worded. You didn’t express any reservations. Does that mean you think the wording is appropriate? I’d like to ask you specifically whether the fact that the term “femicide” isn’t used poses a problem for you, because the bill uses a much broader offence based on hate, and gender is included to acknowledge that it’s gender-based, but nothing more. I’d like you to elaborate on this.
Ms. Gill: To me, section 264.01 largely reflected Bill C-332. I therefore agreed with it, since I had already made my recommendations. When the Department of Justice revised Bill C-332, they took several of our recommendations into account, so I have few comments to make on the offence as it is currently proposed. I could be nitpicky and ask why you make a distinction between coercion and control, when, personally, I do not make that distinction when I talk about coercive control. We can control something, but that does not necessarily mean it is coercive control. That may be the only point.
As for femicide, I think it makes sense to focus on cases of women who are killed primarily in the context of the proposed clause on intimate partner violence.
If I may take this a step further, I think it goes without saying that this applies to coercive control. Since the murder of a spouse already falls under the concept of control, adding it could create confusion by requiring proof of this specific form of control.
I am a member of the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee of New Brunswick. In about 30% of cases, we were able to determine that coercive control was present in the relationship prior to the murder. In the other cases, we had difficulty determining this. It’s not always easy to determine whether coercive control existed beforehand, because often the only control the spouse has is to kill their partner. So, in my opinion, that’s already a problem.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The insights you’ve shared are very interesting. Thank you very much, Ms. Gill. Keep up the good work.
Ms. Gill: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Bala: My concern is that there are cases where alternative measures are appropriate if victims want alternative measures in cases of family violence. The whole discussion is about how far you want the police and state to go in regulating family relations. I clearly believe the state has a role, but most victims want some control over that.
There will be cases where they say, I don’t want my partner, my husband, to go to jail. I want the abuse to stop. If you have the right program here to allow that to happen without him being prosecuted, I would favour that.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: First of all, thank you to the three witnesses who are here today to inform our discussions. Thank you for so generously sharing your expertise.
I am the sponsor of this important bill, so naturally I hope it will be passed quickly.
I’d like you to talk about an issue that hasn’t been discussed much — one that you touched on, Mr. Bala, during your presentation, and that you deal with in your daily work — namely, the rights of youths and children.
While preparing for this hearing, I read about how femicides cause significant trauma to children who witness them. Some representatives have told us and have written that a specific legal framework, such as the one proposed in the femicide bill, will allow for more accurate and comprehensive data collection rather than estimates. I know that Statistics Canada has reported that, in more than half of all cases of femicide, children are exposed to violence and suffer from intergenerational trauma. Unfortunately, in many cases, children witness the murder.
I have been responsible for providing compensation to victims of crime in Quebec for the past 10 years. I must admit that this issue is very close to my heart.
Mr. Bala, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the importance of the bill before us today with respect to femicide, but particularly on what lies ahead for us in terms of child protection and ensuring that we can also address these intergenerational traumas.
Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Bala: As you point out, there are many cases where children are exposed to interspousal violence or intimate partner violence. In fact, we have research, but the research is not always adequate.
Parents may be asked, were your children present when this was going on? And they say no, but, in fact, the children can hear, in most houses, exactly what is going on, and they are terrified by it. They suffer short- and long-term effects on their behaviour, education, and, as you note, particularly in cases where a parent is killed. Not only are children deeply affected and traumatized through their childhood and into their adulthood, but we have research on the long-term health effects, both physical and mental health, of being exposed to family violence and intimate partner violence. So it is a very important set of issues to address.
I’m not, at this point, proposing further amendments to make it a crime to commit any of these acts in the presence of children, but they are clearly affected. It is, to some extent, already taken into account in sentencing in individual cases, and should be, as well as in the kind of response that is made.
This also arises in family proceedings under the Divorce Act. The indirect effect on children is certainly a very important dimension to both coercive control and intimate partner violence. Unfortunately, children who experience family violence are more likely, if they are female, to grow up to be victims, and, if they are male, to grow up to be perpetrators.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all our witnesses. I would like to put a question forward to Professor Hall.
When Minister Fraser came here, I put a question to him, citing a study by WAGE from the Government of Canada, which found the following: “From 2018 to 2023, intimate partner violence increased by 36% for seniors aged 65 years and older.” I asked this question:
Do you agree that this current legislation would not cover an instance where an adult child exerts coercive control over their aging relative?
You provided some comments and some specifics with respect to older parents, and some unique features there. You talked about shame, being less likely to speak out and health situations. But I take it that the thrust of your evidence, with respect to considerations for older parents — and correct me if I’m wrong — is that you think this might not be the opportune time to have some legislative provisions to consider a situation like that? You think, rather, it should be a later step?
I note one of the things the minister said in response was that, in situations involving older parents and the like, it doesn’t provide predictable results. I’m just wondering what you can add here. Thank you.
Ms. Hall: Certainly. I want to preface by saying that this is my own opinion as an individual; it doesn’t necessarily reflect the opinions of other groups with which I’ve been working on this issue.
I do understand that because of the connection with lethality, coercive control in the intimate partner context is the first priority. I see the benefit in perhaps having a two-year period of review to consider, in more detail, the kind of language that would precisely, without being overbroad, capture this particular form of abuse of older adults.
I would be in favour of a more measured approach at this time. I think, too, about those implementation requirements to ensure that any changes are, in fact, effective. Hopefully, that’s sufficient.
Senator Prosper: Thank you. If there is any further comment from any of the other witnesses with respect to this, you now have an opportunity to speak. Thank you.
The Chair: Seeing none, we will move on.
Senator Simons: Listening to these witnesses, I am reminded of the fact that, in my 30-year career as a journalist, one of the worst cases of domestic violence leading to death that I ever covered involved the ongoing coercive control and abuse of a disabled young woman by her sister and brother-in-law.
I note this bill has a section we’ve not talked about at all in our hearings so far: the increased punishments for people who sexually exploit vulnerable, disabled people. Do you think, when we’re talking about elder care, we might want to also, at some future date, if not at this date, consider legislation that would also cover people with disabilities?
I need to be careful because many people who are disabled have a lot of agency, but for people whose disabilities render them vulnerable, should they be considered in the same way that elder care might be captured? That is for Professor Hall.
Ms. Hall: Yes, that’s a question we’ve considered as well. In Queensland, under their legislation, generally, the relationship criteria currently include family relationships. But they have undertaken this two-year period of study to consider the implications of expanding this to what they call “caregiving” relationships, and what kind of language would be suitable to capture the type of relationship they have in mind, together with that implementation question.
I agree. The pith of what I was trying to explain earlier — which is why I felt I had to go into a bit of description of coercive control itself — is that it is a distinct phenomenon that takes on different shapes and forms, depending on the relationship of which it is a part, or in which it happens. I definitely think the phenomenon is not restricted to intergenerational relationships or intimate partner relationships, but, at this point in time, we see that quite clearly, and that’s the place to start. I would put it that way.
Senator Simons: I know none of you here are criminal lawyers, but we heard a lot of witness testimony, including very persuasively from Emma Cunliffe, from the University of British Columbia, that our coercive control law does not mirror the one in Scotland and is, in fact, potentially more open to being weaponized against victims. Do you share any of those concerns that the legislation we have before you could, inadvertently, lead to people who are actually victims being criminalized when they attempt to fight back? Or that women are more likely to be charged with the stand-alone offence of coercive control because they don’t necessarily have physical dominance over a partner but might be considered to have psychological dominance?
Mr. Bala: The issue of weaponization of coercive control, parental alienation and high-conflict separations is a major issue already, particularly in the family justice system and the child protection system. When parents are in a high-conflict situation — and high-conflict, again, is difficult to define — it is increasingly common for parents who are angry with one another and may have, in some cases, legitimate concerns, in some cases not legitimate concerns, or exaggerated concerns, to pick up the phone and call the police in a way that was really unheard of 20 or 30 years ago. Perhaps Ms. Gill could comment more.
With regard to the police involvement in domestic situations and child protection involvement in domestic situations, can this law be weaponized? Yes. Will it? Undoubtedly.
That goes back to training, education and resources; that is going to be inevitable. The outer boundaries of some of these will have to be defined by the courts. As I say, we are not only seeing it with Bill C-16, it is also the amendments to the Divorce Act and now the tort of intimate family violence. We are seeing these issues. Who should use it? There is also the legitimate question: Is it only women who are ever subject to coercive control? We certainly know it is an issue in same-sex relationships — both male and female — more with males than females. One would think that, if the intent of the law is to protect those who are victims of coercive control, it should be exclusive. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its recent decision of Ahluwalia, did more directly address that and limited it primarily to female victims.
If Parliament wished to define it that way, there would be an argument that that may be appropriate, but that’s also highly controversial. I personally wouldn’t support that, but it is there.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you to the panellists for participating today. I will go to Professor Bala, with whom I had the privilege of working on the Divorce Act reform at the time in 2019, and we succeeded before Royal Assent to have a marginal note changed in the draft bill. But it had to be done before we received a royal sanction at the time.
My question is this: You wrote a book in 2025 about violence in families. Since you are the expert in Canada on family law, have you seen an evolution — since we adopted the amendments to the Divorce Act to refer specifically to coercive control and to make it something that has to be identified and can be a part of the judge’s decision — among lawyers, stakeholders, social workers, for example, and judges? Are they better able now to understand that type of situation that is based on repetitive behaviour? It is not an isolated act. It needs a study with a long profile to draw up a profile of the other person. Have you seen that now the courts and systems are able to master these concepts?
Mr. Bala: There is no doubt that the Divorce Act has had a profound effect on the use of the concept of coercive control in the family courts. There has been a lot of education. That being said, there is a need for a lot more education. Really, one of the challenges is that there is a core concept of coercive control that Evan Stark and others developed that does exist and is, in many cases, relatively easy to identify and say, this is happening. Look at what it is doing. We need to stop it.
There are other cases where it may be grayer. There are other cases where, when one reads these definitions, let’s say that there is a little bit of variation among the Divorce Act, the Supreme Court in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia and now Bill C-16. When people are separating, there is a lot of anger and hostility. If one gives them one of these definitions and asks, “Do you think anything that happened in your relationship might fit within this definition?” Then you start to find a lot of allegations.
This goes back to the question of alternative measures. One of the utilities of coercive control is that it will give genuine victims a better set of levers under proceedings under the Divorce Act. Now, with the tort of intimate partner violence, they will have a better economic claim, so I think that’s important.
But if you are asking, is this just a costless exercise? We are giving all these rights to victims; it will be easy to implement and will have a low cost. The answer is no. We are opening up a lot of issues here that needed and need to be addressed, but it will not be costless or easy or, for that matter, quick.
I heard the discussion earlier with the minister about changing the titles. As you know, it turns out, the minister actually can change the titles after the legislation is enacted. So if you press away with him, you may get success. It is the one thing that does not require the House of Commons to agree on. It is the minister’s prerogative. On this issue, it is important to go ahead.
I support the bill. But I recognize that education for professionals is crucial, and, as Professor Gill pointed out, as is giving better instruments to the police mental health professionals to do assessments in family court, and giving judges and lawyers tools. There is a body of research, but it needs to be synthesized. This is one of my projects, and it will go on until I retire, at least, and in fact, many years after: to try to define that precisely.
Senator Pate: I have questions for Professor Hall and Professor Gill. When we were developing the course about defending battered women on trial, Professor Emeritus Elizabeth Sheehy and I focused on the fact that the issue was not so much the law. At the time, mandatory charging had been introduced to try to address violence against women. The biggest challenge was really the implementation of the law by police, prosecutors, defence counsel and judges.
On these particular issues, I point to the Gladue decision and, more recently, the Naslund decision, which really underscore that everybody involved in each of those cases — one was nearly 30 years ago now and another that was just a few years ago — showed that, in fact, the biggest problem was the way they interpreted the evidence and not whether the evidence existed that could have exonerated both women. Is there anything that you see in the law that has changed that? That’s my question for you.
For Professor Bala, I first, as you know, encountered you when I was a law student doing work on the youth system. One of the issues that we see in this bill is an increased focus on the issues of youth recruitment. If I recall correctly, you’ve certainly looked at this area historically. I’m concerned that the new provisions in Bill C-16 will likely result in the further criminalization of more young people and that it may be those who are previously recruited who would be seen as the organizers of recruiting new young people. Is there anything you can show us that would not indicate — so it is a negative question — anything that would counter the fact that we’re likely to see the increased criminalization of Indigenous and Black youth in these provisions? Professors Gill and Hall first, and then Professor Bala, please.
Ms. Hall: Thank you very much for that question. There is a great English article called “We know it when we see it.” It’s like the famous description of pornography, talking to police about coercive control, but just there being no language in law to talk about it, define it or identify it. I feel very much that way, certainly, about coercive control, in this intergenerational context, including older adults.
There is work to do around that language of family relationships, whether that should remain as broad as it is or whether it is possible to put some more meat on those bones. But, as Professor Bala said, this is not fast and easy work that can be done in a month. That’s why I, personally, would be in favour of time to be able to provide those education and implementation structures, given that this is a very new concept, certainly, in that intergenerational context.
Ms. Gill: I can add here, and I will echo Professor Hall. Police officers know that something is going on when they are intervening at the scene. They understand that there is something behind it. It is just that what they’ve been looking for and what we’ve been telling them to do is to look for physical violence. Right now, we want them to look for something more broad and to basically start looking at what happened before they intervened at the scene.
This will be a huge paradigm shift in how we are viewing intimate partner violence because, when I talk about coercive control, I put the two together. For me, coercive control is about the control and the expression of violence, but it is also about the micro-regulation of daily activities and the denial of rights and resources. You have different pillars that have to be taken into consideration.
The most important part is that police officers need to determine if they are in the presence of a pattern of coercive control or if this is just a situational circumstance, such as a trigger. Will someone pull out and break chairs? It could be just this one time, but it is not about controlling someone.
We really need to put an awful lot of effort into training police, prosecutors and judges. This is what I’ve been doing since 2020.
Mr. Bala: Yes, on the issue of recruitment of young people, as Senator Pate notes, this actually goes back to the Juvenile Delinquents Act or, if you want, to Oliver Twist. There is no doubt that adults are involved, and I think this is happening more recently, since social media and the internet have facilitated recruitment of adolescents into committing crimes. Part of the argument is, if you’re an adult, “You do this and you’ll get a lesser sentence,” but part of it is that youth and adolescent brains are actually more inclined to do things that are risky, dangerous and antisocial. So they’re being exploited by adults. It is appropriate to have legislation that deals with that.
There is some evidence that gang criminality is not evenly spread out across society. It is more prevalent in certain groups. I’m saying, to me, largely or totally, that it is economic, believe it or not, and I’m not suggesting a biological explanation. To the extent that we have started to criminalize, we may well see more Black and Indigenous adult offenders. We’re already seeing it with younger offenders.
To me, the way to deal with that is specifically in sentencing or diversion. One of the provisions that I’m pleased to see in this bill is recognition in sentencing that the amendments of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, or YCJA, will specifically recognize the need to sentence Black youth while taking account of their background. But it’s not that decriminalizing activity that is harmful; it’s dealing with it in sentencing and, if necessary, in diversion and bail and so on.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, our time for this panel has now complete. I want to thank our witnesses. We’re particularly blessed to have professors who are distinguished in their fields and recognized as being highly respected. They have been very helpful to the committee.
I did notice that some of the witnesses at different times wanted to give some additional information, but we’re under time constraints, which are obvious. If you do wish to give us some additional information by way of a memorandum to the committee, the clerk will receive those this afternoon, and we may be able to view them later tonight. However, we’re under tight time constraints, as we’re moving to clause-by-clause consideration early tomorrow morning.
Thank you once again, witnesses, for joining us. We really appreciate the fact that you were able to make yourselves available under such short deadlines.
Colleagues, I also thank you for your participation here today. I remind everyone that we meet again here at one o’clock to continue the pre-study. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)