Protecting Victims Bill

It is moved by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Petten:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.pursuant to rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), introduced in the House of Commons on December 9, 2025, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate; and

2.for the purposes of its study, the committee be authorized to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto.

I thought maybe we would hear a bit about this. I would like a point of clarification from the Deputy Leader of the Government, if possible.

She is not on debate, so questions are not allowed.

I was wanting the Deputy Leader of the Government to perhaps explain the purpose for this pre-study, given that this bill is already at report stage in the House of Commons. There is no opportunity for the House of Commons to do any amendments at this point; it would only go through a third reading debate.

I just wondered what the government’s position is as to why a pre-study is a helpful thing for this bill to have before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Senator Batters, if you wanted to enter on debate, maybe you could advance your point of view, but Senator LaBoucane-Benson is not on debate, so she’s not in a position to answer the question.

Honourable senators, I rise today on this motion, feeling a bit like a broken record. Several times in the past, I have warned about this chamber feeling pressured to become what many would view us as a rubber stamp.

Senator Batters mentioned this in her question to Minister Fraser in the chamber, and several senators — including myself — have lamented the pace at which we are being demanded to work.

The familiar chorus of senators delaying the advancement of important legislation by doing our work is both irritating and tiresome. Yet, time and time again, we give in. We adjust and we make accommodations. For what? To gain a brief reprieve from the court of public opinion. But at what cost?

I would argue the short-term avoidance of reputational harm has far longer-lasting consequences in the future. Several times, the Senate has proven that its measured advice, which comes from thoughtful, in-depth study, has been proven sound by court decisions after amendments were rejected by the elected chamber.

My Conservative colleagues often pointed out concerns around the Charter implications of the infamous Bill C-69. While that advice was not taken by the other place, the courts later sided with them. On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the Impact Assessment Act enabled the federal government to have too much overreach into provincial jurisdiction.

As another example, this chamber weighed in heavily on the original bill on medical assistance in dying, or MAID. Senators attempted to remove the requirement that death be “reasonably foreseeable” for patients seeking MAID, yet that amendment was removed by the other place.

Former senator Pratte noted that he found keeping the reasonably foreseeable death criterion to be a “serious and cruel mistake.” On September 11, 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec ruled in the Truchon case that it was, indeed, unconstitutional and issued a declaration of invalidity for that part of the law.

This chamber has also used its sober second thought to identify technical errors in bills that would have had major consequences. Let us look at the past Parliament, where three instances come to mind.

Bill C-26, the cybersecurity bill, had a numbering error that the Senate caught. Had it not been caught, it would have repealed half of the bill.

Bill C-13, the official languages bill, saw a Senate staffer — a Canadian Senators Group staffer, I might note — catch a drafting error that excluded francophones outside of Quebec from making complaints to the commissioner under the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. While the Senate did not pass an amendment because there was “not enough time” to send a message in the late days of June, the error was later corrected in Bill C-69, the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1.

Finally, with Bill C-12, the Senate caught a significant drafting error related to the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or GIS, provisions under the Old Age Security Act in the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, and moved to correct it in this bill, which amended the same sections that contained the error.

Retired Senator Dennis Patterson noted:

Now we are being told not to do that because, if we do, we will jeopardize the payments to tens of thousands of seniors. We are being told to look the other way and wait for future legislative measures. If Bill C-12 had been introduced earlier and with enough time to also have it properly reviewed, maybe there would be more willingness to let the Senate do its job as a revising body. I am dismayed at how often we are forced to abandon our duties as senators in the name of expediency.

As Senator Patterson was dismayed, I am also dismayed at the constant and consistent call to move faster, object less and go along with the message.

Everything is a legislative priority this late into the session. Everything needs a pre-study. Everything needs us to sit outside the regular committee times.

The constant push for pre-studies has made me wonder about a few things. I wonder why we chose to pre-study an electoral reform bill rather than pre-study this bill weeks ago. Lives will not be lost if electoral reform waits until September for clause by clause. Yet, we have held extended hearings and spent time pre‑studying it rather than the legislation that Minister Fraser argued Canadians “can’t afford” to wait for. Now we have no choice but to initiate a pre-study in the dying days of this session, trying to get as much on the record as possible and have the time to at least try to do a decent job studying this bill rather than to rush speedily and recklessly through a bill that creates new Criminal Code offences. The Senate works best when we have the time we need to do the detailed work that allows for the insight, wisdom and technical, eagle-eyed precision that I spoke of earlier.

Colleagues, let me end on a thought that may seem out of place, but it is related to the subject matter of a pre-study motion.

Pre-studies have also forced us to take time away from other business. While some may scoff at the idea of dealing with Senate public bills over a pre-study of government legislation, I do want to point out the fact that, while there has been discussion about changing the rules to have fewer public bills on the Order Paper, we have a backlog. We cannot keep ignoring that backlog because it will only get longer until the rules maybe change.

I will vote for this pre-study not because I think it is the right thing to do but because I think it is the only thing that can be done out of manufactured necessity, but I will do so begrudgingly.

Wela’lin. Thank you.

Senator Prosper, would you take a question?

Yes.

Like you, I would prefer to have more time rather than less to conduct a study. That said, there have been delays in the House of Commons, so, thanks to the pre-study, we are able to get started on our work and to have more days with more focused hours to devote to this important bill.

You didn’t say much about the content, which deals with the issue of women and femicides, but let’s not forget that this bill is primarily for victims. Victims’ groups want this bill because it addresses an issue that I have worked hard on and that many Quebec women have worked hard on, and that is the issue of coercive control, which is very important and often precedes femicide.

There is also the issue of deepfakes, which especially affect women in all sexual matters, and the issue of child luring. These are all things that the government should have addressed a long time ago. I agree that we are lagging behind on this issue. However, why not use the last two weeks that we have left to do as much work as we can on this bill? I wanted to hear your thoughts on that.

Thank you, Senator Miville-Dechêne.

I do agree that there are many significant aspects of Bill C-16 that need to be dealt with. In fact, they should be prioritized within our committee. That is not to say that more thought could not be given in terms of planning and allowing us to really map this out with a more extended timeline. I understand we’re subject to the time limits we have, but to do proper work and proper study, ideally, having more time to discuss witnesses, to agree on witnesses and to order the multitude of subject areas that need to be studied would be preferable.

Thank you.

Would you take another question, Senator Prosper?

Yes, I would. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I share your concern about the pre-studies and the frequency with which we are being asked to indulge in this, to make this happen, to set schedules aside and do it. It troubles me because bills often change in process in the other place. They’re modified. New concerns come to light from new groups who, after the fact, read about this legislation.

In fact, the government recently put the brakes on its own bill to check again with the Department of Justice about the validity of the bill.

It’s my belief — I’m wondering if you share it — that bills should only come to us once the House of Commons, the elected house, has really done their best work and put a bill through all of the constitutional and legal hurdles.

We’re watching today parts of Bill C-22 being, at the last minute, studied at committee, but the government is only allowing proponents of the bill to speak. The Privacy Commissioner has been denied a voice on a bill that fundamentally affects privacy.

This is very concerning. I’m assuming we share this view.

We share that view, and I tend to agree with your suggestion that only after it has undergone proper treatment and scrutiny from the other place should it come here, ideally. Thank you.

Senator Prosper, would you take another question?

Yes.

The House of Commons committee completed its study of Bill C-16. It was reprinted with all of the amendments that were agreed to in committee and the bill is at third reading in the House. Don’t you think we have enough information to conduct a pre-study?

I certainly think we have enough subject matter to undertake a pre-study. My point, more or less, goes to the timing and dialogue that needs to take place within steering and the committee itself to properly map this out.

At this juncture and with this timeline, yes, everything needs to be done to meet those priorities, but, again, it goes to the point of the need to give this chamber the respect that it rightfully deserves to properly do the work we need to do. Thank you.

Are senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division.)