THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 16, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 2:10 p.m. [ET] to study 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 afternoon, colleagues. We are resuming our study of Bill C-16. We have completed clause-by-clause consideration, but we are now going to consider the report and observations.
In terms of the observations, we had a meeting with those who were putting forward these potential observations. The analysts and the clerk assisted us in this. The observations were grouped by themes. The analyst had noticed the themes and had been working on them in the morning. I believe all the themes are captured. They are all numbered. Of course, for ease of reference, the names of the senators who proposed the amendments are on this document, but, of course, in the final document, that will not be appearing because this will be the views of the majority of the committee.
There is a one-page report which has six paragraphs. It’s very succinct. I propose we go through that first and then attached is every one of the observations.
Basically, it’s page one, and this would be the eleventh report of the committee. The steering committee had seen a draft of this report earlier this week. We didn’t discuss it fully, but we were generally in favour of that aspect.
Senator Pate: This is a question. I think everything is great in the report, but given we had so many submissions that we could not review because they weren’t translated, I’m wondering if we want to make a comment about the particular challenges of doing this so quickly that we didn’t have the benefit of all of the submissions — oh, it’s there.
Senator Simons: It’s such a good idea that somebody already had it.
Senator Pate: Yes, somebody did. Is there any way to comment? I apologize. It is there, and I must have read it and thought it was such a great idea that I would repeat it. In all seriousness, though, there were so many, and there was a richness to some of the ones we couldn’t consider. Is there a way to really bring that out?
The Chair: Do you want to augment that a bit?
Yes, it is factual. Since we are in session, you have to be recognized when you want to speak.
Senator Batters: Just so we are all clear, the steering committee did get a copy of this very quickly, I think, the other day. I made just a few notes, but we didn’t have any opportunity to chat about it or to provide our revisions. I do have some revisions. They are not major, but I have a few, I think, important revisions for this first page here.
My first potential revision would be that because we did hear — and it’s kind of unusual — from the Minister of Justice on two separate occasions, I think we should say that by including, “. . . the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada on two separate occasions within a week.” That’s pretty good.
I would also suggest adding in “Department of Justice officials” right after that. And then, I personally don’t like the phrase “individuals with first-hand experience of intimate partner violence.” I would say, “victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control,” because that was an important part of this bill. But to say, “individuals with first-hand experience,” makes it sound like we also heard from the perpetrators of that.
The Chair: Personally, I don’t have any trouble with what you’ve been saying on all of these so far.
Senator Batters: Okay, great. Then, later in that sentence, for the phrase “shared personal experiences of loss, hardship and vulnerability,” I wasn’t sure about that. I think it kind of went considerably beyond that.
The Chair: What kind of phrasing would capture it better? It was compelling evidence —
Senator Batters: Yes.
The Chair: And very emotional.
Senator Batters: For sure. Regarding the words “loss, hardship and vulnerability,” I feel like it went way beyond that.
The Chair: Okay. Do you have any words that would capture it better? It’s very nuanced.
Senator Batters: Devastation?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It could be “victims or victims’ families” instead of “those who shared” because we had both. We had victims and victims’ families.
The Chair: All right. Thank you.
Senator Simons: The word “vulnerability” makes them sound weak and passive, and I think what really impressed me was that they had all become such powerful advocates. I don’t know if we can somehow find a word to show that. I don’t want it to sound trite by saying they went from being victims to being champions, but it could be something less slimy that says that. Let me see if I can —
Senator K. Wells: Just on that point, maybe it could be something like, “. . . who shared emotional and intense personal experiences of trauma, grief and resilience.”
Senator Simons: There. I like that.
Senator Batters: I found another place where we could put in the translation part because it is at the end of the fifth paragraph. But at the end of the third paragraph, where it says, “. . . received numerous briefs from interested parties . . . many of which have proposed amendments to the bill,” we could say “unfortunately.” And that’s where we could put a part about the inability to get these briefs circulated to the committee members because they weren’t translated. It could go there, especially because it’s talking about how people even proposed amendments and still we couldn’t send it to committee members, in addition to the other one later on.
There is a typo near the second line of the paragraph that starts with “Bill C-16.” In the second line, we should just take out “a criminal law” and just say “of criminal law.”
And then, at the end of that paragraph, when it says “many invited witnesses,” perhaps we add in the phrase “on key areas of concern” because that was a particular problem. We had some witnesses whom we really needed to hear from on both sides of very important issues in order to have a proper balance, and they just weren’t able to come on, like, a day or two days of notice.
Yes, in the last line of that paragraph, I think it would be a good addition if we could state how many important briefs could not be translated, if you have the number.
The Chair: Right. The analysts were saying you wanted to put an “unfortunately” with that whole sentence back up at the end of the third paragraph. The analyst is thinking of incorporating it down in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph.
Senator Batters: I just thought it could be in both places.
The Chair: That doesn’t hurt. The numbers would be in the second one.
Senator Batters: It amplifies the importance of that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I wanted to add one word. I’m sorry; I’m going back to the third paragraph. Maybe instead of “victims,” if we have to mention it twice, we can use the term “survivors” because the term “survivor” is much more powerful than “victim.” It gives some agency.
[Translation]
We could replace “individuals with firsthand experience” with the term “survivors,” or “survivants” in French. They survived coercive control, they survived hardship. That term is used a lot to avoid victimizing them.
Dana Phillips, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Yes, and for family members who lost someone.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: They can also be described as survivors in a broader sense.
Ms. Phillips: The family members.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The family members, yes. They can be described as survivors in general. For instance, the woman we met with survived her daughter.
[English]
Senator Simons: One of the things that really concerned me about this study is that there’s a whole section about murders motivated by hate being made into first-degree murder, and we didn’t hear from any witnesses from the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the queer community or the Black community on anything about that.
I’m just wondering if we could add in the phrase, where we say, “including provisions related to murder, intimate partner violence, sexual assault” — I don’t know. “Hate crimes” is a bit too broad because it doesn’t deal with other kinds of hate crimes. That was a big part of the bill, and we didn’t hear from one witness on it.
Senator K. Wells: Hate-motivated.
The Chair: Yes, the analyst says, “murder, including hate-motivated murder.”
Senator Simons: It’s something to add to that.
The Chair: Sure. That’s good.
Are we okay with the report in those first paragraphs prior to the mention of all the observations? Okay.
Do you want to go through each paragraph individually? That’s probably the best way, I guess. I was hoping to be able to do it by themes. I will ask the analyst to speak to each one of these. She will explain the instructions, which were convoluted — not really — and then the themes that she found. These are not in any particular order. If you want to change the order, it’s up to you. This is how it naturally fell together for the analysts.
Senator Batters: I’m just thinking that any public watching this obviously doesn’t have this with them, so maybe each of these individual ones could be read out before the discussion starts so that people know what we’re talking about. Not the whole thing, but just section by section.
Dana Phillips, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Senators, we just took the observations that you submitted and did our best to group them under themed headings. We tried to identify overlapping points to reduce repetition but otherwise remained as faithful as possible to the language you’ve submitted.
As Senator Arnot mentioned, they are not in any particular order, and we didn’t do a lot of wordsmithing given the short time frame.
Senator K. Wells: We will probably want to reorder the ones that maybe had the greatest amount of support, like victim notification, coercive control and then social supports. The other ones all seem to have different levels of support, but those seem to be the ones most frequently mentioned, so maybe they should go first.
Also, in terms of a minor layout point, when you have your paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, sometimes you have one line and a blank space between paragraphs and items, and other times you don’t. I just want to be consistent. That’s the editor in me, sadly.
Ms. Phillips: I really appreciate all of your feedback. I think we could remove those numbers entirely if senators are agreeable to that.
I should have also said that we’re very open to revisions in whatever way you see fit. This was done quickly.
Senator K. Wells: Again, just to be clear, regarding the names you have beside them for the senators, that won’t be in the final report? It’s just for our reference of where they came from?
Ms. Phillips: Yes.
Senator K. Wells: Great.
Senator Batters: I was going to suggest: In keeping with what Senator Wells was just suggesting, there are some of these — as I’m looking through very quickly here — that I am supportive of. There are other ones that I’m absolutely not supportive of, so maybe it could have “the committee agreed,” and as we determine as we go through them, those could be the ones that all of us on the committee agreed to, and then there are other ones that the majority of the committee agreed to, and then there might even be some that only a minority of the committee agreed to, but they still want them in there. We could do that.
The Chair: “The committee agreed to” would be unanimous, and then “the majority” would be less than unanimous, and then “the minority” is to capture all the observations that may not have had support from all committee members. Okay, that’s fair. That way, we get everything in. Thanks for that advice.
In terms of order, it seems like “Victim Notification of Bail and Release Decisions” will be the first one, obviously. The second one will be “Coercive Control,” and the third one will be “Social Supports for Victims and Survivors.” Does anyone feel strongly about the rest of the themes or where they show up?
Senator K. Wells: Do you want to do quick straw polls on them? That will get you the order on unanimous, majority and minority, and that will dictate how they get laid out in the report.
The Chair: True. The way I see it, then, number 4 on victim notification of bail becomes the first observation. The second observation is number 5 on coercive control, including number 6. Third, social supports for victims and survivors would be the third observation.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Under “Coercive Control,” where it says, “This Committee recommends that Parliament consider studying the inclusion of seniors,” hasn’t that already been agreed to by the House of Commons? No? They are not studying that? They are just saying later? Do we know if the House of Commons —
Ms. Phillips: There has been a study of Bill C-332 where this issue came up, and there’s been a study on elder abuse at the House of Commons. I’m not sure if there was a study specifically on this.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No, maybe they just decided to postpone it.
Ms. Phillips: Right.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay, so we’re not repeating.
Senator Batters: Is what you’re thinking about perhaps the general review occurring five years after this bill comes into effect? That’s all part of coercive control, not just limited to that, but I think that’s what it involves.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Number 5 is: “This Committee recommends that Parliament consider studying the inclusion of seniors, older adults, and elderly people . . . .”
Those are all kind of the same people. I think it could be “the inclusion of seniors and people with physical and/or mental disabilities,” not just elderly people. Do you know what I mean? I don’t think we need to say, “seniors, older adults and elderly people.”
The Chair: With Indigenous Peoples, there is the word “Elders,” I think, which Senator Prosper talked about.
Senator Simons: Yes, but we are not using the word “Elders.” We are saying “elderly.”
The Chair: I know.
Senator Simons: That’s not the same thing.
The Chair: That’s true.
Senator Simons: But I really like the last sentence, and I think that maybe comes from Senator Wells.
The Chair: Which one? I didn’t hear what you said. I’m sorry.
Senator Simons: It reads:
It is also important to note that coercive control is about the deliberate abuse of power and can impact anyone in a vulnerable care relationship that is independent of biological or familial relationship.
The Chair: That becomes number 2. “Social Supports for Victims and Survivors” is currently numbers 7 and 8. On page 3? I can’t see everybody at the same time.
Senator Batters: I’m basically okay with much of numbers 7 and 8, except the sentence in number 8 that says, “With better resourcing, these organizations could spend more time helping women instead of fundraising.” It seems very dismissive of all the incredible work that a lot of these organizations do in order to do this fundraising. I think probably the intent is to say that they shouldn’t have to spend so much of their time doing that, but it sounds pretty dismissive of all their significant efforts, including places like in my hometown of Regina. So I don’t like that sentence; the rest of it I’m okay with.
Senator Clement: That was a direct quote from the witness.
Senator Batters: It’s not quoted and it doesn’t — I don’t know. I can’t agree to it with that —
The Chair: What’s the gist? There is a clarion need for better resourcing for supports for victims and survivors. Is that okay? It could read: “There is an acute clarion need for better resourcing for victims and survivors.” Period.
Ms. Phillips: It is: “There is an acute clarion need for better resourcing for victims and survivors.”
The Chair: Okay. So that maintains that the first three are all agreed to by the whole committee. Does anyone have a suggestion about where number 4 should come from and which one should be number 4?
Senator Pate: I would suggest the social supports — all of the supports — be number 1. That’s where there is agreement, I think, from the whole committee. And then do the victim notification and then the coercive control.
The Chair: Okay. I thought we had agreed that number 1 would be victim notification.
Senator Pate: Well, it already exists in the law, so we’re restating, but okay.
The Chair: But it’s — yes.
Senator Pate: It’s already the law. That’s because some don’t want it; that’s why it is written that way. I was part of those provisions. Some victims did not want necessarily to be notified, so it was written that way, anyway.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It has some unintended consequences, I think.
The Chair: Do you feel strongly about the change of the order?
Senator Pate: I actually do because it’s already the law. The fact that we’re restating and putting it in again and making it number 1, yes, I do, if we’re going to number them.
Senator K. Wells: They could not be numbered, just under what’s unanimous, what’s majority and what’s minority.
The Chair: Correct. The numbers won’t be on there.
Senator Pate: Let’s put it under majority then.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Simons: So you don’t support it?
Senator Pate: Well, I support it, but it’s already there; that’s the point. Yes, it is. We didn’t hear from the groups that would — anyway.
Senator Batters: If it were entirely already there, then the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime would not have recommended some amendments to clarify it in the law.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m sorry. I’m not following you. What is in the law is if you demand it. And what the ombudsperson is saying is that it should be the reverse: We should tell the victims. I think there is a huge difference between that.
The Chair: All right. So the committee agreed we’ll have three paragraphs. They are not in order. They will be, but it’s not meant to be by priority, like from 1 to 10. So victim notification, coercive control and social supports are in the —
Senator Simons: What about “Justice System Resourcing”? That should be up there too.
The Chair: Okay. That’s number 4 then, right? Number 4, which is currently numbers 9 and 10, is in the category of the committee agreed. Okay?
Senator Batters: In number 10, when it says, “Effective implementation requires the appointment of more judges,” I mean, frankly, a lot of that is just the federal government filling the vacancies, not necessarily — as I brought up to the minister a number of times, he still has routinely 30-something, at-any-given-moment vacancies across the country. So it’s not that there needs to be the appointment of many more beyond the existing spaces necessarily, but they need to make sure that they are actually filling the vacancies.
The Chair: Okay. So we’ll say “filling the vacancies,” but I think we’re trying to capture not only that but also appointing more judges. We have 2,000 judges in Canada right now. We need 4,000 probably. I mean, it’s huge. If you really want to make the trial delay go down, you’re going to at least double all the supports and infrastructure. But anyway, that —
Senator Batters: It’s just that we didn’t hear any evidence about that. I’m sure you know very well about it because of your background, but we didn’t hear anything about how we need 4,000 judges. That would be quite a big thing.
The Chair: No.
Senator Simons: We did hear Minister Fraser tell us yesterday and confirmed that Alberta has been requesting extra judges for years. Not that I’m carrying water for my good friend Danielle Smith, but Alberta’s population has exploded, and we haven’t had more judges appointed to be commensurate with that. That is on the record from the justice minister himself. So I agree with Senator Batters: It’s really important to stress that they are taking too long to fill spaces, but they also need to increase the baseload of judges.
The Chair: Yes. So vacancies have to be filled. Did the Crown prosecutor from Ontario not talk about the requirement for more judges? She was talking about Crowns a lot.
Senator Simons: You know, I think she may have. I don’t remember if both she and Mr. Dalrymple raised it then or if they raised it during Bill C-14. But definitely the minister said that provinces have been requesting more judges.
The Chair: Yes, more positions.
Senator Simons: Yes, they’re not filled faster. It’s that too, but also —
The Chair: Can we get agreement on vacancies and creating more judge positions? Are you okay with that, Senator Batters?
So what isn’t agreed upon so far? We have “The Overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black Communities.” That should be agreed to unanimously, right? Okay.
Senator Saint-Germain: Can I suggest one edit in number 11? In the English version, it says, “. . . in this regard, particularly advocates from Indigenous and Black communities.” I would say, “. . . advocates for Indigenous and Black communities.” It’s because not all advocates were either from Indigenous or Black communities. This would be consistent with the way we state it in the French version.
[Translation]
The French version says: “en particulier, les défenseurs des communautés autochtones et noires.”
[English]
The Chair: Does everybody agree with that? Okay.
Senator Saint-Germain: Would it be the time as well to speak to number 13? I have another comment.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Saint-Germain: Dr. Pamela Palmater is the only person who is cited by name. Wouldn’t it be relevant to say that we had an Indigenous academic or something else that would describe her without naming her?
The Chair: We don’t usually name people in these observations, as I understand it.
Senator Batters: I was actually going to bring that up too, because she did not testify. She may well have been invited and was not able to come, as many witnesses weren’t able to.
Does this come from a brief? Is that where it comes from? Was it a brief that was able to be filed with or distributed to our committee? It was. Wasn’t that this morning? I didn’t even see it. If there’s a full summary of evidence or witness testimony in a report, that’s the kind of thing that would be put in there, not specifically drawn out as to —
The Chair: I think we agree that we won’t name Dr. Palmater, but we will include what she says. It could just be: “Bill C-16 contains no Indigenous . . . .” It could be just a straight observation.
Ms. Phillips: That’s a direct quote. Maybe we can paraphrase it, but as it is, it is a direct quote.
The Chair: Let’s paraphrase it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If it comes from a brief, can we say, “The committee heard . . . .”?
The Chair: Okay. It is from a brief, so can you say, “The committee heard that . . . .”?
Ms. Phillips: The first line is from witness testimony, I believe. The second line is from a brief, yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Perfect.
The Chair: We’re going through numbers 14, 15 and 16, which would be the complete overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black communities.
Senator Batters: Can I ask a question about number 14? I don’t recall it, but it’s very possible there was this call for increased funding for Crown witness coordinators. I do not remember that testimony.
The Chair: It’s from the Aboriginal communities.
Senator Batters: Was it in witness testimony or a brief?
The Chair: It’s from a witness, I think.
Ms. Phillips: It was from the Indigenous Bar Association.
Senator Batters: Okay. So what are these positions? Could I have a little more information about this?
Ms. Phillips: I have to take a look. We’re drawing heavily on the observations submitted to us. I can look into it, but it will take me a moment.
Senator Batters: Maybe the senator who brought that observation forward can —
The Chair: I don’t know what a Crown witness coordinator is in the North.
Senator Batters: I don’t either.
The Chair: I know what it could be.
Senator Batters: Right. If we’re going to agree to an observation about it, I feel like I should at least know what it is.
Senator Clement, do you have any additional information about that? I think it was your observation.
Senator Clement: It’s from Ms. Perrie. Do you need to find the location of the quote? Is that it?
Senator Batters: I wanted to know: What are these Crown witness coordinators?
Senator Clement: I would have to go over her testimony.
Senator Batters: I wanted to know what they are.
Senator Clement: Yes.
The Chair: It’s likely someone who is in the community who ensures the witnesses are available on time, et cetera. It’s a big part of the administration of northern justice.
Senator Batters: I have a small typo in number 15. In the last line, “victim support” shouldn’t be hyphenated. It’s two separate words.
The Chair: Okay.
Allison Lowenger, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I situated that quote. As you mentioned, Senator Clement, it was from Ms. Perrie. She indicated one of her recommendations is:
. . . for increased funding for Crown witness coordinators in communities so that these individuals would be able to stay in contact with a complainant throughout the journey of their case and so that this individual would be aware of what is happening in their matter to ensure that their matter even needs to continue. . . .
Senator Batters: That’s good. Thank you very much for looking that up. That’s helpful.
Senator Simons: On the government website, it says they exist in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. They did a big government evaluation of how it’s working in 2024. This is —
The Chair: It’s a bona fide program.
Senator Simons: Yes.
The Chair: I think we’re okay with that?
Senator Simons: It’s run by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
The Chair: Thank you.
We’re now at number 16. Is everyone okay with that? Now, just to be clear, we have “Monitoring and Review.” Is that something that the whole committee can agree on?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It seems to me that if we have to wait two years for the coercive control infraction to come into force, it’s a little fast to do a review three years later. Because there is a two-year delay before the coming into force, there would be a review after just one year, which is not that long. Maybe we should go to five years, which is usual in general.
Senator Pate: That piece comes in then, but some of the others come in beforehand, so the other thing is, oftentimes, the review happens some period after the time frame. The idea was to have it be in place for a period of time so that we could start to see very quickly because if we don’t see changes quickly, then it presumably would provide the government with the opportunity to change course.
Senator Dhillon: Can you realize the results in that time frame? There is a two-year runway and one-year timeline to collect the data and to determine its efficacy. Is that reasonable?
Senator Pate: We were basing the discussions about some of the evidence from other countries on the timelines of that and less.
Senator Batters: I have another question about this section. Number 19 says:
Parliament should ask for annual reporting on coercive-control charges, prosecutions, convictions, withdrawals, stays, victim demographics, accused demographics, and regional variation.
Ask for annual reporting from whom? That would have to be the provinces and the federal government.
We’ve always been hearing lots of times that this type of data is not routinely available. So who is Parliament going to ask? If it’s an observation that has any teeth to it, it should say who we’re asking it to. Given that we constantly hear that this data is not collected and given to anyone, I’m not sure that this achieves that.
The Chair: Could you say, “. . . from federal, provincial and territorial authorities . . . .”? Is that okay?
Senator Pate: How about just, “. . . seek annual reporting from federal, provincial and territorial . . . .”? Instead of “ask,” seek it.
The Chair: Yes. Okay. Just to go back, we’ve got a bidding war: three years, five years or maybe four years. I’m not trying to be trite, but let’s get a consensus and then we’ve got unanimity.
Senator Wells, can you help?
Senator K. Wells: We did hear from several of the witnesses that it would take at least two years to implement this current bill before they would consider adding or expanding to other vulnerable groups, like seniors, for example. I don’t think a two-year review is timely. Maybe if it is left at the five years, that would be enough time, if there are other changes, to holistically review everything.
The Chair: You say five years would be more reasonable?
Senator K. Wells: I think so, given what we heard from the government about their intentions.
The Chair: Senator Dhillon, are you thinking five years?
Senator Dhillon: I think so. If we’re looking for a fulsome review and data that’s meaningful, then it’s not just after some of this gets implemented.
The Chair: So five years. Can you live with that?
Senator Pate: I can live with it. It’s what they were supposed to be doing all along. We’re now on the fourth piece of legislation with no data.
The Chair: This is all aspirational? Okay.
Senator Saint-Germain: [Technical difficulties] we see three years. So would it be a compromise?
The Chair: Well, it’s between three and five years. It could be four years, and four years is a compromise.
An Hon. Senator: Can we say “between” three and five years?
The Chair: No, that just means it’s five years. Can we have consensus on five years? Will that work? I think so. Apparently, we have consensus, so that becomes the committee recommendation. Are we all done with number 20?
Senator Batters: There is a small typo. Somebody really likes hyphens, but “timely trial” is not hyphenated. It’s two separate words.
The Chair: All right. That one is in the committee agreement. We have got “Comprehensive Criminal Code Reform.” Let’s go back and hear about “Mandatory Minimum Sentences” from Senator Pate and Senator Clement. On numbers 1 and 2, what kind of consensus can we get on that? A majority?
Senator Batters: Let’s see what the others want.
The Chair: Is the majority okay with numbers 1 and 2?
We switched from the whole committee to the majority of the committee now on “Mandatory Minimum Sentences.” Then how about “Femicide and First-Degree Murder,” which is number 3?
Senator Batters: On femicide and first-degree murder, this paragraph to me is much too much focused on the quite rare number of women who are the victims of intimate partner violence who then kill their abusers. Instead, I feel like the vast majority of women who are murdered are not in that situation. This makes it seem too much like that is the — so I can’t agree to this observation.
The Chair: You tend to which —
Senator Batters: I cannot agree to this observation because it feels like it’s much too much focused on the very rare cases of women who murder their abusers, and the vast majority of women who are victims of interpersonal violence do not.
The Chair: Okay. Again, can the majority of the committee agree on number 3? What is the consensus on that?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Wait a second.
The Chair: We’re at the point where we can now say the majority agrees with number 3? Okay. Thank you.
There is only one remaining. That is “Comprehensive Criminal Code Reform.”
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Sorry. I have missed “Mandatory Minimum Sentences.” What are we saying here? Minority? Majority?
The Chair: Majority. We’ll find out, but what are you saying?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Well, is it a majority?
The Chair: Yes, it is. We just voted on it a few minutes ago. However, if you have a point —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No. I’m sorry. I didn’t follow. It’s my fault. No problem.
The Chair: Are you okay with it? It seems that the majority is.
Senator Pate: That was one of the points in Dr. Palmater’s information as well, particularly for Indigenous women.
The Chair: Just looking around, I see that it’s the majority. I already commented on it once; it’s the majority. Okay.
Now we’re at number 21.
Senator Batters: This is the same observation that I commented on in my Bill C-14 third reading speech and which has been made by this committee for several years. It’s to the point where I feel like it’s totally meaningless at this point. If the government has not accepted and has not done this — not only the government but also the Law Commission of Canada. This committee has also written to the Law Commission of Canada asking them to undertake this comprehensive review of the Criminal Code.
That was done a few years ago; we never received a response to that. Clearly, the government is ignoring this. This has not been done. For us to continue to say it this many times is not flattering to this committee, where we have to keep saying this so many times and they continue to ignore it. That does not look persistent. It’s not flattering to the committee at this point, and I cannot support it going in there.
The Chair: Okay. Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: I agree, Senator Batters. That is exactly why I want it in there because it reminds the public and it reminds the government that this review is needed. The fact that it’s not done is actually a stain on the government, I would suggest. It continues.
Those who are looking to the records of committees like ours — whether it be in future court actions, judges and lawyers — will see this and realize it remains an outstanding recommendation that is yet to be followed.
Senator Batters: One further point: Part of the reason that our own committee hasn’t been able to even take a short time to do our comprehensive Criminal Code reform study that we proposed a number of months ago is that we haven’t had three or four meetings to do that or to do lots of other things because of the length of time that some bills have taken us to study, not just government bills.
The Chair: I have an opinion on this myself. Personally, I would like to see this in this report. I would like us to do that study because it’s really important.
We said it would be a three-panel or four-panel study. It would be very tight, with a report to the government saying, “Do this.” We would explore the mechanisms such as a royal commission; there are two or three different mechanisms that could be used. The Law Commission of Canada has indicated, more or less, that they do not want to take that on. A study like that would perhaps be $80 million to $100 million over the course of six or seven years, but then you might have a mechanism where it could be done routinely every five years or something.
These are all the things we have discussed.
Personally, I would think it would be helpful to keep this one in so that we can do that.
One other thing — and this is just something I’m thinking about and will be raising with the steering committee — is that, perhaps, we set aside one panel or two panels a month to actually do the studies. Over the course of three or four months, we would get in maybe eight panels on some study if we block that off. The committee has done that before, I think, but I’m not sure.
Anyway, it’s one way for us to actually do the study.
Another way to do the study would be to take all these observations and ask the analysts to do a study based on this. These are the issues in the implementation of Bill C-16, so that could be a study in itself. They could do that in a few weeks, and we would have another study. That’s what the Human Rights Committee did on the report about confronting hate in Canada. There were seven observations for Bill C-9 that will be part of a study.
These are things for the future, but if anybody has thoughts on this, I will raise them with the steering committee.
The one on the Criminal Code review seems to be so compelling. It’s been 71 years since it was last done. It’s way beyond the need.
I’m just one person here, so I would like to hear what everybody else wants to say.
Senator Dhillon: I like the idea of a report. We have the observations in front of us and putting them in. Why not do both?
A report carries its own weight. We have gone through the exercise of hearing from so many people. Senators here have put in a lot of time and energy in putting these recommendations forward. Having said that, I don’t know if we put a two-week timetable on it — or whatever time it takes — just to give the analysts a little bit of a break and breathing room as well.
The Chair: Do you have holidays? I kid. It’s something that could be accomplished between now and mid-September. It could be one of the first reports we do in the fall. It has to go to the steering committee first, I think. I don’t know what the rules are, actually.
Senator Batters: We have a few reports that we had asked the chamber for permission to do and that are on the books. We have been wanting to get to those, and some of those are not very long. We should maybe work on those first before undertaking this. Some of those reports will even deal with some of these observation issues.
The Chair: Fair point.
Senator Batters: Before we get into something new — because for some of them, we have reporting deadlines that will be getting a little bit close to coming up, potentially.
The Chair: The Nunavut elections?
Senator Batters: I don’t recall what the dates are, but I know that we have been waiting for a long time to do some of the reports, even one-meeting or two-meeting ones. Before committing to doing even a short one, we should maybe get to some of those first.
There are also a few senators’ public bills that have been waiting a number of months for us to be able to look at. They are not lengthy; we should deal with those as well.
The Chair: I’m anticipating that we won’t have a lot of legislation in the first few weeks of September and October, and we can maybe do some of that.
Senator Simons: I wonder if Bill C-22 goes to the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee or if it comes to us. If we are lumbered with Bill C-22 right out of the gate, we will be very busy. I should have said, “If we are given the responsibility to study Bill C-22.”
Senator Clement: I want to take us back to something, for which I apologize, but I’m waiting for you to finish your point on the last paragraph.
The Chair: On the last paragraph, is it the majority decision to keep number 21 in? Okay.
Now we’ll go back and fix up —
Senator Clement: I apologize, chair and colleagues. In number 7, under social supports, I will go back to the testimony of Ms. Perrie. She’s the one who mentioned Indigenous languages and services in Indigenous languages. Could we add a reference in number 7, particularly in terms of the services to assist victims? That is when she testified about that, I believe, in answer to a question from Senator Simons, actually.
Senator Simons: It’s a problem because of the witness situation. We didn’t hear from any women from ethnocultural communities.
Senator Clement: No.
Senator Simons: New immigrant communities are often bedevilled with these problems, and we need supports for women in Punjabi, Mandarin, Tagalog, et cetera, but we didn’t hear any of that.
I don’t know. We are specifically saying Indigenous and Black women, but there’s this whole other population. The closest we got to it was Senator Dhillon sharing his sister’s personal story with us a bit.
I don’t know. Senator Dhillon, do you agree with me that it would be good to have one word in there about —
Senator Dhillon: Yes, I agree. Representation is important, and reflecting all Canadians is important. The issues are not similar — they are different in different communities. And the challenges are also different in different communities.
There’s access, representation, support —
Senator Simons: I can’t recall if a single witness referenced that. You and I alluded to it, but there wasn’t testimony on the floor, as it were. That’s because we didn’t have — we should have had a witness from the South Asian community, but we couldn’t.
Senator Clement: And we only had one Indigenous witness.
Senator Simons: Yes.
Senator Batters: Others declined.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Pate, you referred to the fact that there was only one Indigenous witness, but my recollection is that we invited three.
The Chair: Yes, we did invite a lot of people who couldn’t come.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Obviously, it was a tight schedule.
The Chair: How do you want to handle capturing new Canadian folks?
Senator Pate: It could read: “. . . particularly women, Indigenous and Black Canadians and immigrant populations . . . .”
Senator K. Wells: I don’t know what word we’re going to use, but what came to mind is what Senator Pate is suggesting: “Indigenous, Black and ethnocultural Canadians.” It’s broader than “immigrant.”
Senator Simons: Immigrant Canadians?
Senator K. Wells: “Immigrant” is very specific as opposed to those who are already here who may have language barriers.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Perhaps “immigrant” more than “ethnocultural Canadian” because they might not be Canadian yet.
Senator Simons: Ethnocultural people might be those who have been here for five generations and don’t have any more particular problems than anybody else. It’s really newcomers who come and have no cultural currency and who are often financially dependent on their husbands or their sponsors.
The Chair: Racialized communities — does that cover it?
Senator Saint-Germain: On Senator Clement’s first point, for number 7, why don’t we say, “A significant increase in community resources is also necessary to access and assist victims . . . .” The language is part of accessibility. You cannot access if you don’t speak the language. It’s in the case of unilingual people — for instance, Indigenous women.
The term “racialized Canadians” doesn’t cover immigration. Is it the term “immigrant” or “newcomer to Canada”? We need to find a kind of substitute for “racialized Canadians.”
Senator Clement: “Newcomer” is a word we use as well, but “in languages,” I meant in languages other than French and English, right? I did mean languages. I did want that to be mentioned. However, I’m okay with “ethnocultural” or “newcomer” or “new Canadian.”
Senator Batters: I have made the point before at this committee about observations. Trying to cover all of these different things is so difficult, right?
We heard hours and hours and hours of witnesses, and that was only over one week. Yes, there were many witnesses who were not able to come because we were unable to invite them more than one or two days ahead of time. There are certain things that we heard and other things we didn’t hear but we would have liked to have heard. Maybe the most appropriate place to draw out all of these different things is not necessarily to try to find the perfect little paragraph to describe all we heard and didn’t hear, but maybe we make a speech about it. That’s just what I would suggest because we often find ourselves debating observations for hours at this committee, trying to find one little word to capture the perfect point about what we heard or didn’t hear, and maybe the best way to do that is to quote from witnesses and deliver a speech about it in the chamber.
The Chair: I think we are very close on all of this and almost finished.
Senator Clement: I apologize to all of you for forgetting to bring it up earlier.
The Chair: That’s okay. It’s fine.
Senator Saint-Germain: It could read: “A significant increase in community resources, including languages . . . .” It would be plural. Would it be close to what you have in mind?
The Chair: That’s a great suggestion. Did the analyst get that? Okay. Do you think you have enough information?
Senator Batters: I don’t know what that means, then, to say, “A significant increase in community resources, including languages . . . .” What does “including languages” mean? Is it language assistance?
Senator Simons: It would cover Indigenous languages and —
Senator Batters: What does “including languages” mean? Is it an increase in assistance to help people who don’t speak one of the two official languages? I don’t know what we’re trying to say.
The Chair: That’s a good point. We have to be a little bit more specific.
Ms. Phillips: Including services in non-official languages?
The Chair: I think that kind of covers it.
I think we’re in agreement on all of this unless someone else has any further comments.
I will ask the committee these questions.
Ms. Phillips: Oh, sorry, can I clarify one thing?
The Chair: One point of clarification.
Ms. Phillips: Thank you, senators. I just want to ensure we have the right headings under the right “the committee agreed” or “the majority of the committee agreed.”
For “the committee agreed,” I have bail notification, coercive control, social supports, justice system resourcing, overrepresentation and monitoring and review.
Then the majority of the committee agreed on the mandatory minimums, femicide and Criminal Code reform.
Is that accurate?
The Chair: Yes, I believe so.
Ms. Phillips: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
An Hon. Senator: Thank you for all your work.
The Chair: Are members in agreement with the observations? Agreed or not?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division.
Is it agreed that I report this bill with observations to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, I believe that we have completed this task.
Senator Saint-Germain: May I ask a question? Is our next meeting on Bill C-25 tomorrow at 1 p.m., if the Senate allows for it this evening?
The Chair: Yes, in room B30 at 1 p.m.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
The Chair: I’m advised by the clerk that we may or may not have witnesses tomorrow, so we may start with clause by clause. We will see about clause by clause, but we do have a draft report that we would be able to discuss tomorrow.
We will deal with Bill C-25 tomorrow at 1 p.m. We may have witnesses. It’s not likely. Therefore, we would probably move to clause by clause, which could be fairly quick. And then we would do the report, which, again, is one and a half pages, so it could be a short meeting. It will be a short meeting. That’s about all I know for sure.
I think we’re very close to the end.
Senator Oudar: I just want to say thank you to you, Mr. Chair, and all the members. I appreciate all the hours. It was a lot of hours, long days, evenings and nights maybe, and it’s a great job. I want to say thank you to all the members, and I appreciate and thank the victims too. It’s a very important bill, so thank you very much for all of this week, last week and the next week too. I appreciate it.
The Chair: I said it to the senators earlier today that I really appreciated the interventions, the quality of the interventions and the research that was done by everybody. It was very helpful and made my job easier. I also want to thank Senator Oudar who shouldered the responsibility of sponsoring this bill. Well chosen and well done, and I think great success, so thank you very much for your hard work.
With that, then, I think it’s now for me to say we’re adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)