Justice Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Ms. Alexander, you're absolutely correct. For years, we've heard that it's all in the imagination of Canadians. It's not our problem; it's the provinces, it's the provincial judges or it's lack a of space. They're never accepting responsibility for their own abject failure.

Now they've brought forth Bill C-14, called the “bail and sentencing reform act”. There is one provision that increases sentencing. Given the myriad serious violent offences we have in this country, including IPV, you'd think they would address it. No. Their focus is on contempt of court. For people who are subpoenaed to give evidence and choose not to, they want to increase the penalty from six months to two years less one day.

It shows a lack of priority on that side of the House when it comes to your rights. That's what we'll fix.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Mr. Chang, go ahead for six minutes.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

First of all, thank you all for being here with us today. Thank you for your courage.

Your painful stories and your perspectives are very important to this committee. Protecting every daughter, every child and every family is exactly why we are strengthening bail, toughening penalties and investing in prevention. Safety is achieved through action, not slogans.

Mr. Broadfoot, I'm deeply sorry for your loss.

What gaps in the current bail process do you believe most directly endanger victims or the general public?

[Brett Broadfoot]

Mr. Chang, I think it's already really been said, but I guess I'll reiterate it. The gaps are huge. For my daughter's offender, who was charged with strangulation, as I mentioned in my testimonial, why is this individual even being released with a piece of paper that says not to communicate and not to do this? It's worth about as much as the paper it's written on.

We have no monitoring systems for these individuals once they're out. They go unchallenged every single day and are asked to appear for their charges three months later at best. There are some severe gaps.

Imagine somebody putting their hands around your neck and deciding whether or not they are going to let you breathe. Should that not be a violent act? Should that person be allowed out on the same day they committed that act?

To answer your question, I think it's pretty obvious.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Based on your experience, does Bill C-14 actually address the risks posed by violent repeat offenders? If not, what amendment would you recommend?

[Brett Broadfoot]

No, it doesn't. It was just mentioned by the panel as well.

I would recommend, at the very least, that if you're going to continue to tell us that these offenders cannot be incarcerated in due time and are just released.... Is there not such a thing as house arrest? Is there not such a thing as proper monitoring systems? We live in 2025. We have a lot of technology. I think we have the ability to do a better job of monitoring these offenders and abusers than what we're doing now.

The archaic way that we form.... Allowing them to walk our streets is literally killing people. It's leaving these women, girls and people who are being abused to live in fear and hide.

I just don't buy it. I cannot believe that it is happening in our communities.

I don't know if that answered your question exactly.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Broadfoot.

Do you urge all parties to support this bail and sentencing reform and pass it without further delay?

[Brett Broadfoot]

I would absolutely ask the parties to. Again, this is a non-partisan issue. You need to come together. You need to understand and, at the very least, think about your own daughter, niece, mother, grandmother and best friend who may be a female—whomever. Think about them. Think about how you would feel and how the ripple effect would affect you if they were attacked or taken from you in this manner.

Let's come together here, people—non-partisan—and let's just do it.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Broadfoot.

My next question is for Ms. Cobb.

I am very sorry for your loss. I thank you for standing up for your daughter today.

Do you believe that Bill C-14 goes far enough in addressing repeat violent offenders or are there any additional measures that you feel are missing?

[Jacqueline Beisel-Cobb]

Definitely not: The answer is no. Nothing can change what happened, but you guys can make the change by having it stronger, by making better decisions.... You have the capability of doing it. All I can say is that we've talked about those changes for years, and I don't understand why we're so fearful, but I guarantee that if it were your daughter or sister, you wouldn't be as fearful and you'd be quicker to make that change.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

What messages would you like parliamentarians to hear from the victims and families impacted by repeat violent offenders navigating the current justice system?

[Jacqueline Beisel-Cobb]

Actually, I'd say to the victims and their families that the system is busy and the judges are overworked.

I'd say to the criminals that there are a lot of loopholes in our system. There are no consequences. You'll get a slap on the wrist, so have at it, because there's no justice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses who are with us this afternoon.

I can hardly imagine the pain and despair that these losses can cause you. Losing a child is already a tragedy; losing one under the circumstances you are describing this afternoon is terrible. I wonder what could be worse than that. I don’t know what to say to you, except that I fully sympathize with you.

Ms. Alexander, I agree with you that parliamentarians should be able to respond to your requests quickly when they are called upon regarding such situations, especially in cases like this one. I am not a member of the government; I am a member of the Bloc Québécois. We are in the opposition, and I criticize the government’s actions daily. I am not always against what the government does, but I do not always agree with it either, just as I do not always agree or disagree with what the Conservative Party says or does.

I agree with all of you that the issue we are discussing today is a non-partisan issue. It’s often said, but it’s true. When we talk about murdered children, I find it hard to see how such situations can be used for political debates. I won’t do it. I don’t have any annoying questions to ask you. Unfortunately, I don’t have a solution either, so I won’t tell you that your problem will be resolved when you leave today. You wouldn’t believe me, and you would be right. On the other hand, I can tell you that we understand you and that your testimony is taken into consideration in our discussions.

I don’t know how all of this will end. There are several factors to consider. Obviously, our concern is the protection of victims. In fact, I should say that our main concern is to prevent there being any victims. We must also take into account all the issues, the society in which we live, the rules we have set for ourselves, individual freedoms and the right not to be imprisoned without significant justifications, or to not have those freedoms otherwise restricted.

Obviously, I won’t surprise you by saying that we can’t put everyone in prison just to ensure that there’s never any crime. We would be in prison ourselves. However, there must be diligence. There are rules in place, but they may not always be enforced as they should be, leading to very troubling situations, like yours.

I know I’m talking a lot. I don’t have any questions, as I told you from the beginning. I will stop here to give you the rest of my speaking time. If any of you would like to tell us more, I am open to that.

Ms. Beisel‑Cobb, do you have anything to add to your testimony?

[Jacqueline Beisel-Cobb]

I just wish that we could have the ankle monitors for anyone who breaches our laws—domestic violence, if you've been charged with a criminal offence—something other than just a piece of paper. A restraining order is not doing anything. I would love for them to be monitored. That's all I ask for.

Thank you.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Beisel‑Cobb.

Ms. Alexander, you were interrupted earlier. Would you like to add anything to your testimony?

[Cait Alexander]

The bail regime currently in this country is not protecting victims. It's actually producing more victims. We would really like to see the sex offender list be public. I think that makes a lot of sense.

We would really like the government to understand the psychology of abusers. I think that's where we need to base laws. These are not normal individuals. These are dark triad, Machiavellian, psychopathic, anti-social and narcissistic personality disorders, chemical imbalances that produce the recidivism rates of these crimes that we see so often. It is not a majority of the population. It's a small subset of the population that keeps getting away with it.

We need to understand that if someone is charged with strangulation, they are going to do it again. That needs to be the assumption. I know it's innocent until proven guilty, but right now it's innocent until she's dead. We really need to understand that, particularly around sexual assault and intimate partner violence, the recidivism rate is so high that one charge should mean jail, that's it.

We need jails to be better. We need people to get better in jail, because when they get out after being in jail, they generally are worse. My organization has been working very closely with the Ford government—we have made an ally there—on dealing with these issues and how we can train the judges better, how we can train and provide the tools within the jail so that we can rehabilitate some people.

However, I'll be honest with you. There are some criminals that cannot be rehabilitated, and we just have to deal with that and throw away the key.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Ms. Alexander.

We're moving to the second round. We'll start off with Mr. Lawton for five minutes, then Ms. Dhillon for five minutes, Mr. Fortin for two minutes and a half, Mr. Baber for five minutes and Ms. Lattanzio for five minutes.

Go ahead.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Witnesses, thank you to all of you not just for your time here but for the pieces of your soul you have had to put on full display here. Certainly, I speak for my colleagues. We all felt it. We didn't just hear it; we felt it. I'm new to this chamber. I make no comment as to what's happened in previous parliaments, but I certainly came here largely to deal with some of these issues head-on, so I thank you very much for helping us do this.

Mr. Broadfoot, I met you this summer at one of the vigils for your daughter. I saw how the community in London rallied around her and celebrated her life and all that she did in her 17 years. Sadly, we had to acknowledge all that won't be in the decades that should have come of her life. I know you never wanted to have to be the advocate that you are, but you are and we are better off for it. I'm grateful for that.

You made a comment which is so painfully obvious, but I think it bears repeating here, that if your daughter's abuser had been behind bars, your daughter would still be alive. We have heard testimony from some of the academic set, some of the witnesses that our Liberal colleagues have called, who like to put an emphasis on the rights of the accused. However, there is only one life; there is only one shot that we have when intimate partner violence is at issue here.

Explain your message if you could, Mr. Broadfoot, to those who believe that this is an abstract discussion about rights and not a life-or-death issue for women and girls.

[Brett Broadfoot]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton, and again thank you for being at the vigil this summer. It was greatly appreciated.

How do I answer this? If you're a defenceless woman or girl and you're being attacked by your male partner.... The statistics show that this is what.... It's a high statistical matter when it comes to males abusing women. How is the individual supposed to try to protect themselves? We look around this committee room. We are bigger than the average woman here. How do they do that? Putting your hands around somebody's neck. Literally saying, “I am going to decide whether I'm going to let you continue to breathe.” With that strangulation itself, if you are charged with it, as my daughter's abuser was on the first offence, how is it that the individual is allowed to walk out of the police station on the very same day?

As Jacqueline mentioned, I have not met her personally, but we are, unfortunately, family.

How are we not monitoring these people? I use that word very loosely. I prefer the word “monsters”.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I agree. I thank you for that.

Ms. Alexander, I know you've seen at least some of the testimony we've heard to date at the committee. When you hear people talk in the abstract about the rights of accusers, what does that mean to you?

[Cait Alexander]

I wish you could be inside my head right now and know what it feels like to have a six-foot-three-inch, 225-pound male beating your skull into the floor. I wish you could see the blood I tried to wash out of my hair in the shower. I wish you could understand the fear of being confined to a space by someone who is double your size. Why, in wrestling, do we put people in weight classes? Women can't fight this. I asked my stunt double: I said, “You're a black belt in all the millions of things. Would you have been able to take him on?” She's like, “Not a chance, Cait.”

For an abuser in that mindset, with the adrenaline and the testosterone running through them, if they want to kill you, they will. I'm alive, by the grace of God, because of my friends, who got a two-word WhatsApp message. I'm alive because I let him beat me. I had to just let him because, if I fought him back, it got worse: So I just took it and, somehow, survived. I wish you could understand that. I'm not allowed to bring props—I got in trouble for that last year—but I can show you the videos and photos of him doing this, and the blood splattering. I can show you my black and blue body.

I need you to understand that, when you're making policy choices, this is not a joke. It's real, it affects your system for life and it rips families apart. It's actually more expensive to do what we're doing right now, on a financial level, because there are so many financial consequences for abuse. You can't work or function properly, and it costs billions of dollars to not deal with these individuals properly.

We need to do better, because this is real. I'm alive, by the grace of God. Unfortunately, Breanna and Madisson are not. However, I know what their daughters went through. I just lived to tell the tale. I want you, everyone in this room, to understand that, take that and get over your partisan bullshit. Get over it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I may, can we request that Ms. Alexander provide any visual or written materials that she is comfortable with to the committee?

[Cait Alexander]

Do you want me to show it on my phone right now? I have it. We can play it.