Protecting Victims Bill
Bill to Amend--Third Reading
June 18, 2026
Moved third reading 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).
She said: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading as the sponsor of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.
At the heart of this bill is a desire to better recognize the challenges faced by victims of a type of violence that often goes unseen and that affects women and children in particular. The study of this bill brought together a large number of people who shared their time, expertise and experience to advance this bill.
I would first like to thank my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for their commitment and dedication throughout the study. I’d like to thank the committee chair, Senator Arnot; the deputy chair, Senator Batters; Senator Clement; Senator Miville-Dechêne; Senator Pate; Senator Saint-Germain; Senator Simons; Senator Prosper; Senator Tannas; Senator K. Wells; and Senator Pierre Dalphond, my lead. Thank you, my dear colleagues.
The work on Bill C-16 allowed us to hear a wide range of perspectives. The committee devoted more than 15 hours to its study, during which it heard from 58 witnesses, including the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada on two occasions, officials from the Department of Justice, victims’ organizations, law enforcement officials, legal and other advocacy organizations, academic experts and victims and survivors of intimate partner violence and coercive control, who took the time to appear before the committee and share their knowledge and personal experiences.
Committee members met on several occasions outside regular sitting hours to continue their work. Every hour devoted to this work was well worth it. The testimonies we heard gave us a better understanding of the realities faced by victims and survivors. They also reminded us of what is at stake for the families and communities affected by violence.
Our thoughts are with Miriane Bergeron, who shared powerful testimony about how fear can gradually take over every aspect of life, slowly eroding self-confidence and the ability to act freely. Her testimony illustrated the daily reality of coercion and the long process of domination that often precedes the tragedies we seek to prevent.
We also salute Kendra Cooke, who helped us better understand the consequences of coercive control. She spoke to us about the gradual loss of her autonomy, the work required to rebuild her life and the deep love she has for her children, who are a testament to her inner strength and resilience. Her testimony reminded us of the courage it takes to move forward after enduring such hardships.
We honour the memory of Lindsay Margaret Wilson through the deeply moving testimony of her mother, Alison Irons. Lindsay was a brilliant 26-year-old woman pursuing her studies at Nipissing University. She had a promising future ahead of her. Tragically, her life was cut short just two weeks before she was due to graduate. Despite immeasurable grief, Ms. Irons chose to channel her mourning into a commitment to help other families avoid such a tragedy. Her story reminds us of what is at stake in our efforts to prevent intimate partner violence.
We also think of Bailey McCourt and her loved ones, who continue to honour her memory with remarkable dignity and commitment.
We heard powerful testimony that painted a picture of a situation still faced by far too many people in Canada.
In Canada, a woman is murdered every 48 hours by an intimate partner or former intimate partner. Women and girls account for nearly four out of five victims of domestic homicide. Fear, threats and stigma still prevent many survivors from asking for help and from reporting the violence they are experiencing. A lack of visible injuries often masks the severity of the situation. Community organizations, police forces and front-line workers witness this type of violence every day. They respond to thousands of calls from people looking for support, protection or even just someone who will listen.
Intimate partner violence affects families, loved ones and communities. Children also bear the consequences. According to Statistics Canada, children are exposed to violence in over half of all cases of femicide. Many children witness their mother’s murder first-hand. Some are directly exposed to violence, while others suffer its effects for years. These experiences leave deep scars that stay with them well beyond childhood.
Implementing these protections also requires ongoing investment. The Government of Canada announced an investment of more than $660 million over five years to step up efforts to fight gender-based violence and support those affected by it. These investments are part of the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence and support work being done across the country by provinces, territories and community organizations.
What we heard over and over from witnesses is that more resources are needed to counter the growing trend of delays in criminal proceedings. This bill seeks to reduce the frequency of judicial stays of proceedings due to excessive delays in the criminal justice system, but that objective can’t be achieved without a significant strategic increase in resources at the federal and provincial levels.
This bill has been thoroughly examined by both houses of Parliament. It has been carefully considered by parliamentary committees and has undergone a thoughtful review by the Senate.
Bill C-16 aims to address various forms of violence and exploitation.
One of the most significant reforms concerns coercive control. Intimate partner violence does not always begin with physical assaults. It often develops gradually through isolation, surveillance, intimidation and control. The bill creates a new offence so that the justice system can recognize this reality and intervene earlier before the situation worsens. The bill acknowledges the scope of this violence across various spheres. It also modernizes our laws to better address harms that occur in digital spaces.
The bill recognizes the gravity of homicides committed in the context of coercive control or sexual violence. It introduces explicit recognition of femicide. This measure reflects a reality that data and testimonies have highlighted throughout our study.
The proposed changes seek to make the justice system more accessible to victims and survivors. They expand access to measures that facilitate testifying, strengthen the protection of personal information and reduce certain barriers that may discourage people from participating in the judicial process.
Bill C-16 strengthens protections for children and adolescents. It provides for new measures to combat sexual exploitation, sextortion and the recruitment of young people by criminal organizations. It improves the protections available to children in the digital environment, facilitates their participation in the judicial process when they are required to testify and strengthens measures designed to safeguard their safety and privacy. These reforms aim to provide young people with a safer environment and better protect them from the forms of exploitation they face today.
Bill C-16 also takes account of the lived realities of people who are still overrepresented in the criminal justice system. It provides for measures that foster responses tailored to the specific circumstances of certain communities, with a special focus on Indigenous and racialized individuals. It also maintains judicial discretion in certain exceptional situations to allow the courts to render fair decisions suited to the circumstances of each case. Lastly, it strengthens the protections provided for people targeted by hate-motivated conduct and reaffirms the importance of a justice system that guarantees equal safety and dignity for all.
However, the committee’s work also reminded us that the work doesn’t end when a law is passed. That is why the observations we submitted to the government on certain issues were highlighted in our deliberations.
In fact, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime also underscored the importance of promptly notifying victims of bail decisions and release conditions. As my colleague Senator Julie Mivillle-Dechêne rightly pointed out, it is important for victims to receive the information they need in a clear, accessible and proactive manner, without having to go through multiple steps to be informed.
We have therefore recommended that the government work in collaboration with its federal, provincial, territorial and municipal partners to implement measures through appropriate resources and coordination with other levels of government. Our work also highlighted the importance of ensuring that legislative reforms are accompanied by concrete measures on the ground. Witnesses emphasized the vital role played by shelters, community organizations and victim support services. They also stressed the importance of continuing training efforts for justice system practitioners.
We also heard concerns about the barriers that some people continue to face when seeking help. Indigenous women, racialized women, newcomer women and other women facing particular circumstances must be able to access services that meet their needs. Safety and support must be available to all victims who need them. These observations reflect a conviction that emerged throughout our study. The changes proposed by Bill C-16 are an important step forward, but their full impact will depend on the resources, services and efforts that will support victims in their daily lives.
There was also broad consensus that gender-based violence remains a significant challenge, that coercive control causes profound harm, that victims deserve to have their rights respected, that technological changes have enabled new forms of exploitation, and that the justice system can and must do better. The committee’s work confirmed that gender-based violence continues to cause profound harm in our communities and that coercive control is a reality that warrants a robust response from our justice system. Everyone recognized the importance of strengthening the protections available to victims and ensuring that their rights are respected throughout the judicial process. Our work also highlighted the evolution of some forms of exploitation and the need for our laws to continue to adapt to the realities faced by victims today.
These findings helped shape the recommendations and observations included in the committee’s report. The proposed reform is part of a broader evolution of our legislation and our understanding of the harm that victims experience. Our legal framework has evolved over time to better address victims’ experiences. This evolution reflects a deeper understanding of the various forms of violence and their consequences. Bill C-16 is part of the ongoing progression of our legislation. It demonstrates Canada’s commitment to remaining a leader in promoting human dignity, equality and personal safety, while strengthening the protections available to victims here in our communities.
Canadian criminal law exists within an international framework that directly influences how states define and protect victims’ rights. Canada has signed several international conventions that set out specific obligations regarding the prevention of violence, the protection of individuals and access to justice.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women sets out concrete measures to combat gender-based violence and requires states parties to amend laws that perpetuate discrimination against women. The Convention on the Rights of the Child requires states to protect children from all forms of exploitation and abuse, including sexual exploitation and trafficking. These commitments guide the development of Canadian legislation and require us to update our laws so that Canada keeps the promises it has made to the international community.
Several comparable countries have already updated their criminal laws to better recognize certain forms of violence and provide better support for victims. The United Kingdom has introduced a specific offence related to coercive control in intimate relationships, a reform that has prompted debate about the law in several Commonwealth countries.
Some European countries have adapted their laws to provide a better evidentiary framework in sexual assault cases and to recognize aggravating factors related to gender-based violence. A number of Latin American nations have added femicide to their criminal codes to name this reality and give it the legal gravitas it deserves. These approaches show that there is a consensus to reflect the reality experienced by victims and ensure a more sensitive judicial response. Canada has joined this trend by proposing similar adjustments that have earned it a place among the nations committed to protecting the most vulnerable.
Criminal law constantly adapts to social realities and to the needs of the people it is charged to protect. Each successive generation of legislators inherits a legal framework shaped by those who came before and is responsible for adapting it to harms that existing laws no longer capture completely.
Bill C-16 represents an important step in the evolutionary process that I just mentioned by bringing together Canada’s international commitments, lessons learned from the experience of other countries, and the requirements of our own constitutional framework. It reflects an understanding that protecting victims is based on both universal principles and rules specific to our own justice system.
Bill C-16 is also based on rulings in Canadian case law. Over the years, the courts have clarified several important principles regarding victims’ rights, court delays, sentencing and the protection of fundamental rights.
Many measures proposed in the bill reflect these principles. The provisions aimed at reducing court delays take into account principles recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Amendments regarding mandatory minimum sentences also incorporate court rulings by providing for a mechanism that would allow judges to take into account exceptional circumstances when the situation warrants it.
The proposed youth justice reforms remain true to the principles long established by the Supreme Court, namely the importance of rehabilitation, reintegration and the limited use of detention. Other recent Supreme Court of Canada rulings have established that coercive control infringes on victims’ autonomy, dignity and equality. These are the same interests that underpin the concept of “safety” in criminal law, a term used both in the proposed coercive control offence and in the provisions related to human trafficking.
The Supreme Court has also recognized that coercive control is of crucial importance, not only because it better reflects the realities experienced by victims, but also because it helps distinguish between ongoing violent behaviour and violent acts of resistance. According to paragraph 193 of a recent Supreme Court ruling handed down in May 2026, coercive control excludes:
. . . violence associated with resistance against an intimate partner’s attempts at domination or control. When an intimate partner strikes out as an act of resistance against their aggressor, the victim has not acted in a controlling or coercive manner . . . .
The bill is therefore based on principles already recognized by the courts and contributes to the evolution of our law, while respecting the Canadian constitutional framework.
Several witnesses also emphasized the importance of acting quickly. Karine Barrette from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale reminded us that a prolonged delay in this reform would have very real consequences for victims. Each delay postpones access to recourse for people who are currently experiencing behaviour that still too often falls outside the scope of existing Criminal Code offences. The Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale expressed its eagerness to see Bill C-16 come into force to protect women who are still living under the grip of coercive control.
Miriane Bergeron, a survivor, also emphasized that coercive control is often a significant indicator of the risk of intimate partner homicide and that it is important to act quickly. Chief Thai Truong of the London Police Service expressed a similar view when he said he wanted to see Bill C-16 passed as soon as possible.
In conclusion, honorable senators, behind these legislative provisions are people who want to live free from violence, raise their children in safety, and participate fully in the life of their community.
These aspirations are shared by us all. They help build stronger, safer, more supportive communities.
The work surrounding this bill has demonstrated the importance of recognizing the various forms that violence can take and of equipping our justice system with the tools it needs to respond more effectively.
It has also underscored the importance of continuing to support those seeking help and of strengthening measures that promote their safety and dignity.
Our laws have always evolved to better reflect the realities of their time. Bill C-16 is part of this tradition. It is grounded in the values we share, the principles that guide our justice system and Canada’s commitment to protecting the most vulnerable.
Each law that is passed represents an opportunity to make a tangible difference in the lives of the people it seeks to protect. Each protection that is enhanced can help provide more safety. Each right that is recognized can help a person move forward with more confidence.
Bill C-16 is an important step in this direction. I’m calling on all honourable senators to support it so that these protections can reach the people, families and communities that need them.
Colleagues, the committee’s work was very thorough and thoughtful. The witnesses’ testimony confirmed both the urgent need for action and the care required to implement it. Once again, I want to thank the Chair, the committee’s members and staff, as well as all the witnesses.
In light of our study, I urge you to take the next step and pass Bill C-16.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
Honourable senators, I would like to take a moment to remind you to silence your mobile devices once the sitting has begun and to avoid touching your microphones with papers when delivering your speeches.
Vibrating devices on desks, including those of the seat mates of a senator giving a speech, as well as impact noises from accidentally hitting a microphone, could cause interruptions in interpretation.
Thank you for your collaboration.
Honourable senators, Bill C-16 is presented as protecting victims, despite clear evidence that its criminal-law-based responses will perpetuate the criminalization and incarceration of survivors of violence.
At a minimum, we must address the mandatory minimum penalties that Bill C-16 proliferates, which have contributed to miscarriages of justice experienced by too many survivors, including the women whose stories are included in our 12 Indigenous Women report: O. Q. and N. Q., who were tried and convicted of the murder of a man trying to prey on them, despite someone else confessing to the crime; S., who was criminalized as an accomplice to her abusive partner’s drug dealing and allowed to plead guilty to the death of her closest friend under circumstances widely accepted to be suicide; G. S., serving a life sentence for killing an abusive partner while trying to protect herself and her children from violence.
Taken together, these cases present a pattern of marginalized women being failed by our health, housing, social, economic and legal systems, abandoned to unsafe situations, disbelieved and re‑victimized if they report violence, and then blamed and criminalized if they defend themselves, in ways that erase both their experiences as victims and our collective failure to adequately intervene and prevent violence.
At committee, the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers said:
Due to negative police perceptions and harmful racial tropes, Black women who call the police for domestic intervention are often subjected to intense scrutiny. In many documented instances, the . . . survivor was mistakenly arrested and charged with uttering threats or assault.
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund referenced:
. . . systemic racism within policing that leads to both under‑ and over-policing of Indigenous women . . . .
They stated:
. . . there sometimes is this notion of what a survivor looks like. Racialized or Black and Indigenous survivors tend to be . . . criminalized themselves or . . . identified as the aggressor . . . .
Law Professor Emma Cunliffe cited:
. . . research that suggests that, unfortunately, police and prosecutors often misidentify the true perpetrator of harm and that this extends to circumstances of coercive control. . . . this is particularly true of women who fight back against their abusers.
The Canadian Bar Association testified:
. . . what we see in family court is the perpetrator twisting the facts . . . such as an allegation that, “. . . she’s the one who has alienated the kids against me, and she’s the one who has [used] coercive control against me.”
Survivor Kendra Cooke testified:
[He had] me charged with uttering threats of death.
It has been stayed because there has been no evidence produced. . . . I had to find emergency care for my kids. I can’t attend school trips right now with a stay on my record. I can’t work in my field.
Constitutional law professor Colton Fehr noted:
The minimum sentences for murder are . . . problematic because they can create a strong incentive to plead guilty to manslaughter . . . a problem that often arises in self-defence cases, and is particularly prone to raise fairness concerns with battered women who kill their abusers.
Dr. Pam Palmater emphasized:
The research shows that 18% of those wrongfully convicted of crimes were the result of false guilty pleas, and it should be no surprise that nearly all of them were Indigenous, racialized, female or living with a disability.
The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls states as follows:
Ninety per cent of Indigenous women who are incarcerated have a history of domestic physical . . . and sexual abuse. . . . [T]he violent crimes that Indigenous women commit are defensive or reactive to violence directed at themselves, their children, or a third party. . . . The Canadian justice system criminalizes acts that are a direct result of survival for many Indigenous women. This repeats patterns of colonialism because it places the blame and responsibility on Indigenous women and their choices, and ignores the systemic injustices that they experience. . . . The Canadian state is not held accountable for how its colonial policies contribute to the victimization and incarceration of Indigenous women.
The Mass Casualty Commission ultimately declined to recommend criminalizing coercive control, concluding:
The fact that this form of violence is misconceived limits effective responses and interventions — to the detriment of women’s safety.
Instead, it made evidence-based recommendations to improve public safety, including:
. . . promoting women’s economic equality with attention to intersectional needs and providing secure and stable funding to . . . support women in poverty to access economic and personal safety.
The commission highlighted the experience of Nicole Doucet, whom I knew as Nicole Ryan. Nicole repeatedly reported to police her ex-husband’s coercive control, stalking, rapes and threats to kill her and their daughter. The police insisted that they could not intervene.
When Nicole’s father suggested that they try to find a way to fight back, police set up a sting operation to entrap her. An undercover RCMP officer posed as someone willing to kill her ex-husband, and she was charged with counselling the commission of murder.
When she was acquitted, the Crown appealed.
Her case went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which emphasized:
. . . the disquieting fact that, on the record before us, it seems that the authorities were much quicker to intervene to protect Mr. Ryan than they had been to respond to [Ms. Ryan’s] request for help in dealing with his reign of terror over her.
The Mass Casualty Commission identified the prevailing approach to violence against women in Canada as “keeping women unsafe.”
Will Bill C-16’s approach to coercive control — a criminal offence, more training and more police resources — offer victims better protection?
How has it gone in other countries?
In Scotland — the gold standard for criminal law-based responses to coercive control — research shows that although “. . . conviction rates have been high . . . when the offence is reported and charged,” most instances of violence are not reported and most reports do not result in charges. There has been no impact on femicide rates and “most participants felt the onus was on them to keep themselves safe after reporting . . . .”
In England and Wales, there is compelling evidence that survivors of intimate partner violence continue to be criminalized, while criminalization of coercive control has “. . . not had any demonstrable impact on the rates of femicide . . . .”
In Australia, which has a legacy of incarceration of Indigenous Peoples more comparable to Canada’s, the evidence reveals that “. . . risks of being mis-identified as the primary aggressor [are] . . . highest for socially disadvantaged and marginalised women . . . .” Victims report that they are concerned about perpetrators misusing the offences to magnify and amplify abuse. In New South Wales, where there was a whole-of-government effort to train police and legal system actors, provide public education and account for the experiences of First Nations people, few charges were laid. In Queensland, where none of this took place, there were more charges but few advanced. So far, there is no clear impact on the rates of femicide, but it is predicted that, like the other jurisdictions, it will have a negligible effect.
Bill C-16 is a missed opportunity to set the record straight: Mandatory minimum penalties do not deter crime but do fuel the overrepresentation in incarceration of poor, young, Black and Indigenous Peoples and especially women. Bill C-16 attempts to reinstate mandatory minimums struck down as unconstitutional by courts using a so-called “safety valve” that, except for life sentences, allows judges to not apply a mandatory minimum where the result would be unconstitutional: cruel and unusual. This safety valve does not respect Canada’s commitments to implement the calls of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls or the legal requirement set out in section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, often referred to as Gladue factors.
Anywhere a mandatory minimum applies, this statutory duty to consider alternatives to incarceration, especially for Indigenous Peoples, cannot not be considered.
Contrary to the minister’s opinion that Bill C-16 will safeguard the constitutionality of mandatory minimum penalties, it is vulnerable to constitutional challenges. Professor Colton Fehr stated:
While the minimums for murder [to which the safety valve does not apply] were upheld in Luxton and Latimer, these cases applied a now-overruled methodology . . . . the incorporation of [section 718.2(e) and] . . . evidence on the impact of long-term imprisonment on individuals, suggests that these challenges have a reasonable prospect of success if re-raised . . . .
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association noted that the Supreme Court stated that to ensure constitutionality, a safety valve must provide “. . . that the residual discretion allow for a lesser sentence . . . .” — any lesser sentence, not only prison sentences. The restrictions in Bill C-16 do not allow this.
At committee, witnesses including the Canadian Bar Association, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, the National Association of Women and the Law, the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and constitutional law professor Colton Fehr all recommended ensuring the safety valve apply to all mandatory minimums in the code and/or ensure access to non-carceral sentences.
Bill C-16’s approach to mandatory minimums will ripple through the court system. The most vulnerable will bear the human, social and financial costs of having to mount challenges to legislation that is not Charter compliant. There are also costs in terms of trust and credibility. There is growing and pernicious rhetoric in support of mandatory minimums and the “notwithstanding” clause suggesting that the executive needs to rein in judges, vilifying them for doing their job of applying the law and the Charter to the facts of a case — despite requirements to provide reasons that are open to scrutiny and appeal — or portraying them as out of touch despite the fact that they and not legislators are the ones who meet and hear directly from the accused, victims and witnesses in each case.
Less than a year ago, the three chief justices of Ontario issued a joint statement after provincial political actors sought to attack and undermine judicial independence for political gain by spouting the types of misinformation that Bill C-16 risks encouraging. The Chief Justice of Canada recently warned:
Attacks on the independence and legitimacy of the judiciary are not just institutional concerns. They are warning signs, the first steps toward dismantling the constitutional safeguards that protect our democracy.
We are seeing, in real time, where this road can lead. Indeed, as government interference increases in criminal legal systems around the world, this chamber has passed legislation to mark judicial independence day. Canada’s newest Governor General recently used her installation speech to underscore the need to “. . . protect the public space in which our national debates take place . . . [including] courtrooms . . . .”
She continued:
The peaceful management of our differences is nowhere better expressed than in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter guarantees that our cherished individual rights are subject only to the reasonable limits necessary for life in a free and peaceful democracy.
This is what it means to live under the rule of law.
It was 47 years ago when I worked with children who were in care and escaping incest and other forms of sexual and physical abuse. As they and I grew older, that trauma and abuse mostly led to too many of them being revictimized and criminalized: sexually exploited and abused girls and abusive boys. My work followed them through youth and into adulthood. A disproportionate number ended up in prisons.
In this place, we often hear about violence against women when a family who has lost a daughter, sister or mother demands action. Governments, even when they know better, respond with legislation that proposes not meaningful and evidence-based action but longer and more punitive criminal law responses that will result in the increased use of incarceration for poor, Black and Indigenous men but also for women.
Politicians celebrate a win, and everyone involved hopes the criminal law response will help. We continue on with no meaningful reduction in incidents of intimate partner violence or femicides until the next highly politicized death and subsequent criminal law reform.
Colleagues, as we pass yet —
Senator Pate, the time for your speech has expired. Are you asking for another five minutes to conclude?
Yes, 20 seconds, Your Honour.
Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Colleagues, as we pass yet another such bill, let us all consider the heartbreaking question posed by the Mass Casualty Commission when they asked: “Why do we repeatedly commit to addressing gender-based violence but fail to live up to this commitment?”
Would Senator Pate take a question?
Yes.
Senator Pate, thank you for your excellent speech and for the commitment you’ve shown both within and outside the Senate for so many years.
Have you had a chance to look at the recent Supreme Court rulings, particularly with respect to the possibility of victims being charged after engaging in acts of self-defence? The Supreme Court explained that coercive control excludes violence associated with resistance against an intimate partner’s attempts at domination or control. When an intimate partner strikes out as an act of resistance against their aggressor, the victim has not acted in a controlling or coercive manner. So women acting to protect themselves or their child from an abuser probably won’t be convicted or even charged. They show no criminal intent to terrorize, isolate or dominate their partner, so under the law, coercive control wouldn’t include defensive actions like these.
Additionally, these concerns didn’t materialize in Scotland or England, which adopted the same legislative provisions. There was some concern about the possibility of victim overrepresentation, but empirical data show that this hasn’t been the case.
Thank you very much for all of your work on this. The challenge is that the case you’re referring to is actually a civil law case involving the new tort of coercive control in civil law and family law. Yes, the judge who made that decision is someone who worked very closely on these issues at the instant level. That was reinforced at the Supreme Court of Canada.
What the information you provided fails to recognize, though, is that in criminal cases, the concern happens at the instant case, usually once the preliminary inquiry is concluded or initial information is received about the nature of abuse that the victim may have suffered. Oftentimes, then, a guilty plea is offered. Therefore, in a criminal law case, the judge often never gets to know about that incident, unless later, as in the Naslund case, we go back to try to undo that guilty plea and undo the injustice that happened.
I agree that would be great. The reality is that is not how it unfolds. It’s why former Justice Ratushny, when she did the self‑defence review of the cases of women who had been convicted of using lethal force against abusers, she recommended that, where a Crown is willing to accept a plea to manslaughter, they should withdraw the charge of first-degree or second-degree murder and substitute a charge of manslaughter so that there is a fair chance that someone may actually go to trial.
She recommended that because when she looked at over 100 cases — and, in fact, our Ethics Officer, Mr. O’Reilly, was her counsel in that inquiry — she found that she could not review the majority of them because the women had entered guilty pleas, and with a guilty plea comes what is called an agreed statement of facts. Oftentimes, that includes very little about the abuse but has them agreeing to plead guilty. Therefore, they couldn’t go behind it. That deals with the first part of your question.
For the second part, yes, I spent a lot of time in contact with jurisdictions overseas as well as looking at the research that is available. While, disproportionately, it is men charged with coercive control, when it comes to convictions, the rates start to narrow. We also see women being charged in situations where they are called as victims.
We haven’t seen a difference in Australia yet in either jurisdiction, but admittedly, those are the newest jurisdictions; within the past couple of years that these provisions have been introduced. In Scotland, Wales and England, however, where they have been in place for over seven years, there has been no appreciable difference in femicide. Although there have been a number of charges, we have not seen a reduction in the number of women killed in those jurisdictions, which is why I raised those concerns.
However, like you, I will continue to work on this issue, and I’m sure that we will work together on trying to find some common —
Thank you, Senator Pate. Your time has expired.
Do you wish to ask a question, Senator Dasko?
Yes.
To answer, you need to ask for more time. Are you asking for five more minutes to answer questions?
If it’s the will of the chamber.
Honourable senators, is leave granted?
Leave is granted.
Thank you, Senator Pate, for your very significant critique of the bill.
We know that coercive control is a significant and troubling phenomenon. In your view, is there any role for the criminal justice system in dealing with coercive control?
There is always a role for the criminal legal system. I don’t call it a justice system for many of the reasons I have just discussed.
However, one of the challenges is that we use criminal law, corrections and prison sentences as a way of signalling our concern when, in fact, all of the evidence, for decades now, has shown that — and the minister said it when he was before us — these provisions should not be happening alone. A significant pillar is going to be the economic, social, health, housing and educational components that go along with the provisions. This bill does not achieve that. It puts in place penalties, not the very things that all research shows are needed to help provide opportunities for people to leave abusive situations, to prevent people from being in those situations in the first place and to support people around those who are trying to leave those situations.
Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-16, and I will be brief in my remarks. As you all know, I have a long-held principle in this chamber on trying to make lengthy remarks at either second or third reading. I’m sure you all remember the riveting speech I gave at second reading on Bill C-16, and I don’t want to be repetitive.
However, I do want to say a few things. Protecting victims — which is what this bill is all about — is a noble cause, and the government has made a noble attempt but has fallen somewhat short.
Bill C-16 contains measures we do support, clearly, especially on victim protection, but we cannot support the overall result of this bill.
Conservatives improved the bill in the other place in important ways in their committee work, including on intimate images, AI‑generated material and stronger protection for victims. The central unresolved problem remains the safety valve for mandatory minimum penalties, which has been the subject of outcry from the general public for quite a while.
As was raised at the Legal Committee, the bill sets out no clear objective statute to govern when that safety valve may be used. By allowing judges to bypass mandatory minimums so broadly, the bill fails to respect Parliament’s will and weakens Parliament’s role in setting meaningful consequences for crimes. I think we all know the public has been screaming for that for quite a while.
That means mandatory minimums are no longer real sentencing floors in any meaningful sense. It weakens denunciation, deterrence and confidence in the justice system. It sends the wrong message to victims of serious crimes. For those reasons, honourable colleagues, the opposition cannot support this bill in third reading.
I want to share some reflections in terms of process with respect to Bill C-16 and the role of this chamber.
Many of us have been concerned over the past few days and weeks in terms of the number of last-minute bills we received as we come to the end of this parliamentary session. We’re constantly concerned by the timeline and the lack of respect from the other place when it comes to us dealing with things and carrying out our sober second thought. Nowhere is this more concerning than with Bill C-16. I think many of us in this chamber expressed — and it was eloquently expressed over a number of meetings at the Legal Committee I participated in — that there were elements of this bill that could have been tightened up to make it better. Fundamentally, that is the role of Parliament. That is the role of this institution.
For a variety of reasons, we have brought ourselves to a point in our Parliament where parliamentarians have been discouraged by government from participating in the partisan political process or becoming active members of parties, where public policy is driven at the embryonic stage. The government has made it clear that members of this house of Parliament, this Senate, this chamber, cannot participate at national caucus, where the crafting of legislation begins; it is really where the nuts and bolts of putting laws together starts. It gives the people of this institution, parliamentarians of the Senate, an opportunity at the front end to be able to craft, draft and also orient public policy.
This is not up to us; that is an issue for the government to address. One suggestion I can make to the government — and I think parliamentarians will agree with me that it’s for the betterment of legislative work that we do here, because this is not new. Governments historically send bills here at the last minute. They look at the clock, they look at the agenda, and they say, “Get it out; it’s a matter of public interest. No time for sober second thought.”
But there is a mechanism in our Parliament we all know that government bills don’t have to start in the House of Commons. They can start here in the chamber, in the Senate, and work their way to the House. A bill as important as this bill, as lengthy as this bill — I won’t say as controversial, but I will say that a lot of voices in the country would like to be heard on this bill. I think this is an example where, instead of this bill having been tabled in December in the other house and booted around — and, of course, the legitimate art and trafficking of politics that go on in the other place are legitimate and important. We know it takes time and it’s cumbersome. But sober second thought takes a little bit of time as well. It’s something that we need to be doing as well on this side.
So maybe in the future, government leader, bills of this nature could be dropped into this institution, this chamber, at the front end. Give us a little bit more time and a little bit more flexibility to be able to hear the voices and make the amendments. That way, there is never the complaint of us holding up members of the House of Commons from their very important summer vacations.
I think that would bring a better end result in terms of what we need to do. Quite frankly, I think, in some instances, it would provide a better platform and launching pad for members of the House of Commons to do their legitimate work when we do the sober second thought at the front end of the process.
So, I just share those reflections. I’ve been here for 18 years. I’m not so sure that these are going to go any further than all the other reflections that have come before. I put them on the table, nonetheless. For all those reasons I mentioned earlier in my remarks, we do not support Bill C-16. Thank you, colleagues.
Are senators ready for the question?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.
I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on the length of the bell?
Is leave granted?
Leave is granted. The vote will happen at 4:27. Call in the senators.
