Justice Committee on March 25th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 22 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of February 2, the committee is meeting to begin a study of Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters regarding child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and on Zoom.

Can we confirm that the sound tests were all done? Okay. That's great.

I have a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding.

Now I would like to welcome two of our witnesses.

From the Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society, we have Andrea Silverstone, chief executive officer, who's on Zoom. From the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, we have Rosel Kim, who's a senior staff lawyer.

We will be joined soon, hopefully, by Alison Irons, who is appearing as an individual.

We will get under way with the two witnesses we have.

First of all, welcome to both of you.

I'm going to open the floor. Each of you will have up to five minutes to give opening remarks. Following the conclusion of all opening remarks, we will go to questions. Hopefully, by the time the two of you have completed your opening remarks, Ms. Irons will be with us. If she joins us, I may interrupt one or both of you to welcome her.

I will open the floor. I'll go to the first person on my list, which is you, Ms. Silverstone. Welcome. You have up to five minutes.

[Andrea Silverstone, Chief Executive Officer, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. My name is Andrea Silverstone. I am the CEO of Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society, an agency that works to disrupt the structures of abuse with individuals, organizations and communities across the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear today before this committee to discuss Bill C-16. There are many aspects to the bill, all of which are important. However, today I'm specifically going to address coercive control in the context of criminal legislation.

My background with and understanding of this issue come from over 20 years as a social worker working with victims of coercive control and as a Ph.D. candidate studying the transcontextual experiences and impacts for victims.

Sagesse strongly supports Bill C-16's recognition of coercive or controlling conduct as a distinct harm within Canada's criminal justice framework and its inclusion in the femicide legislation.

Based on my Ph.D. research, I understand coercive control to be a pattern of behaviour that removes an individual's sense of personal agency, stopping them from making decisions in their own best interest. Coercive control is transcontextual. It appears in intimate partner relationships, sexual exploitation and trafficking, cult groups, gangs, elder abuse, radicalization and violent extremism, workplaces, and even via institutional misuse. Survivors often traverse multiple contexts across the lifespan, with harms that compound over time.

Criminal law must adapt to meet this reality. Traditional incident-based defences miss the pattern-and-impact dynamics that define coercive control. The criminalization of coercive control is more than just about lethality; it's a liberty crime. Comparative models in other jurisdictions criminalize patterns that cause a serious effect, such as substantial interference in day-to-day activities. Bill C-16 allows Canada to adapt these strengths from other jurisdictions while ensuring cultural safety and charter compliance.

However, in my opinion, there continue to be some challenges and limitations that I think need to be addressed.

First, the narrow relationship scope of this bill may lead to an undercapture of coercion in relationships of dependency and trust—for example, caregiving relationships or sexual exploitation.

Second, the proof burden risks reverting to incident counting unless pattern-and-impact elements and illustrative factors are explicit.

Lastly, it does not adequately address institutional misuse, especially in civil settings. By this I mean things such as procedural harassment and vexatious applications. These acts are persistent vectors of harm and coercive control that require legislative implementation guidance to both flag and manage the weaponization of systems and institutions by perpetrators.

I also want to briefly address concerns that have been raised around this legislation regarding equity impacts and overcriminalization. The best available evidence from jurisdictions with coercive control offences does not show widespread criminalization of minority victims. I address this in more detail in my submitted brief, referencing numerous studies, all of which clearly identify that perceived risk to equity and overcriminalization have not materialized.

I would also like to suggest the following recommendations to this legislation to ensure that it truly captures the experiences of victims.

First, please update the legislative wording to reference relationships of dependency and trust.

Second, codify that the offence includes patterns that cause either serious alarm or distress that substantially affects day-to-day activities.

Third, provide a list to guide the justice system to reduce overreliance on physical markers.

Fourth, include an interpretive note acknowledging that coercive control is transcontextual and may occur across the lifespan and in multiple domains. Coercive control clearly occurs in more than just IPV relationships.

Fifth, with regard to evidentiary guidance, encourage pattern chronologies, digital trails and collateral testimony, and explicitly allow expert evidence on the impact on the victim.

Lastly, provide safeguards against institutional misuse, requesting that federal-provincial policy flag procedural stalking and paper abuse.

Legislation is the starting point for change, but for it to be truly effective, federal investment is required. I believe there are three key investments that would support the success of this legislation. They are validated survivor impact measurement tools, which currently don't exist and would need to be developed; training for the justice system and service providers around coercive control; and investment in a national public education campaign and initiatives that engage community and informal supports in addressing coercive control.

I'd like to thank the government for tabling this important legislation, and I'd like to thank this committee for its time and consideration of care in ensuring that Canada is a country that protects victims of coercive control.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Silverstone. You are right on time.

We'll go over to you, Ms. Kim.

[Rosel Kim, Senior Staff Lawyer, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Rosel Kim. I'm a senior staff lawyer at the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, or LEAF.

LEAF is a national charitable organization that uses the law to advocate for the equality of women, girls and trans and non-binary people.

Thank you for inviting me today to speak to Bill C-16. My remarks today are based on the written brief that was submitted to the committee jointly by LEAF and the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic. Of course, I'm here today to speak for LEAF.

We welcome and support the bill's proposal to increase access to testimonial supports for victims and witnesses. The rigid rules and decorum of a courtroom can lead to additional stress and trauma for survivors who are revisiting and disclosing traumatic memories. In addition, we support the bill's increased emphasis on restorative justice processes, though we make one suggestion in our brief to ensure that what a survivor discloses during the processes is not used against them in future proceedings. We also agree with expanding the non-consensual distribution of intimate images offence to include deepfakes.

We are grateful for the efforts of parliamentarians to respond to the epidemic of gender-based violence. We understand the intent behind using criminal law reform to tackle issues like femicide and coercive control as a public recognition that these acts are serious and wrong. However, well-intentioned laws can have unintended consequences.

As such, we express caution toward the amendments in the bill concerning femicide and coercive control. While we agree with the need to recognize and address these issues, creating new criminal offences without clear survivor-centred safeguards could lead to survivors being caught up in the criminal system and charged themselves, especially if they are members of marginalized communities. We believe a broader systemic approach is a better answer to preventing and addressing gender-based violence.

There are, however, ways to improve the criminal responses to gender-based violence, and I want to highlight five areas where we have suggested amendments to the bill in our brief.

First, I'll discuss mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums do not deter crime and have negative impacts that are specifically detrimental for Black and indigenous communities. In addition, imposing prison sentences on Black and indigenous women who are mothers or caregivers of children can lead to disastrous consequences for the women, the children and their communities, including family ruptures and overrepresentation of Black and indigenous children in the foster care system. For these reasons, we recommend broadening the exceptions, or safety valves, to mandatory minimums, applying a gender-based analysis and not reintroducing mandatory minimums that have already been struck down.

Second, we propose a series of amendments to the sections on sexual history evidence and third party records. While we appreciate the desire to clarify this complex area of the law and reduce delays, we have heard concerns from lawyers who work with complainants about the risks of increased complexity and constitutional vulnerability in the bill. We also point to a change needed in the process to ensure that the complainants' intimate images are not shared between lawyers. I'm happy to discuss specifics during the question and answer period.

Third, we recommend maintaining the current wording of the criminal harassment provision. The proposed changes in the bill may increase the risk of survivors being charged with criminal harassment themselves in situations where survivors have to make repeated contact with their abusers about failures to respect custody arrangements or other court orders.

Fourth, we recommend broadening the definition of deepfakes to ensure that it appropriately captures the harm caused by non-consensual deepfakes. The definition of a deepfake in the bill requires that it is “likely to be mistaken for a visual recording of that person”. However, the harm of non-consensual deepfakes goes beyond deception. It is a violation of sexual integrity, where your image is sexualized without your consent, even in a manner that may not meet the realism threshold. Requiring realism for a deepfake to be criminal defines the harm of deepfakes too narrowly. It also adds confusion about who will determine whether a deepfake is likely to be mistaken as an actual visual recording. For this reason, we recommend removing the last part of this definition.

Lastly, we recommend that the federal government work with provinces and territories to decrease delays in the criminal legal system, rather than requiring courts to rely on remedies other than stays. Meaningful reduction in delay requires adequate resources, including increased staffing, judicial appointments and stronger governmental coordination to ensure that the system is properly supported.

I'll end by reiterating the need for sustained investment in preventative measures that address gender-based violence before it occurs, including community-based supports, education and early intervention initiatives. Criminal law alone cannot end gender-based violence.

Thank you very much. I look forward to answering any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Kim.

I'd now like to welcome Alison Irons.

Can you hear me, Ms. Irons?

[Alison Irons, As an Individual]

Yes, I can, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you for joining us.

Can you say a few words so that we can do a quick sound check on your microphone?

[Alison Irons]

I will. Before I start my remarks, I'd like to let the committee know that I have an autoimmune disorder that sometimes affects my speaking ability because my mouth gets very dry. I may have to take a few sips of water while I'm speaking.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's fine. Thank you. Your sound is excellent.

We're just at the opening comments portion. Our other two witnesses just finished theirs. I'm going to turn the floor over to you for up to five minutes to make opening remarks. Following that, we are going to open the floor to questions that can be put to all three of you.

I will give the floor to you now, Ms. Irons, for up to five minutes.

[Alison Irons]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to thank you for inviting me to speak today.

I'm an ex-RCMP officer of nine years' service who attended many so-called domestic disputes during that time. I was also on the board of the North Shore Women's Centre in North Vancouver, B.C., as a police adviser on violence against women. That was some 40 years ago, yet here we still are today.

I also worked as an Ombudsman Ontario investigator and investigations manager, particularly in the corrections field. I retired as a director of enterprise-wide services in the Ontario government. I'm also a certified human resources leader, or CHRL.

Sadly, I'm also the mother of 26-year-old Lindsay Margaret Wilson, born July 30, 1986, my precious daughter and best friend, who was stalked and shot to death by her ex-intimate partner, a legal gun owner, in a murder-suicide on April 5, 2013 in Bracebridge, Ontario, just two weeks before completing her Nipissing University graduating exams. I received her degree posthumously and drove home from North Bay with a degree but no graduate.

This is a story of coercive control ending in a femicide in Canada. My daughter's killer had never been violent with her until the day he murdered her in cold blood. He was clean-cut, articulate and from a well-to-do family. He was also manipulative, deceptive and controlling with my daughter in a number of ways. He'd say she was the love of his life but would undermine her self-confidence by constantly criticizing her looks, her career choice, her clothing choices, etc. She left the relationship the first time when she caught him drug dealing behind her back. That was another manipulation, a massive lie, as he was not who he purported to be.

He lured her back with manipulative letters articulating his love for her, apologies and the inevitable promises of changed behaviour. He threatened suicide by firearm three times to keep her with him. She kept two of these from me initially, as she knew how I'd react. We must understand that threats of suicide to keep someone in a relationship are a form of coercive control, since they terrify the recipient of the threats into staying. She then caught him drug dealing again and broke off the relationship for good in 2011.

In January 2012, he threatened to commit suicide by firearm over three hours on the phone with her. She then severed all contact with him, but he kept trying to contact her through blocked phone calls, through friends, social media and letters professing undying love, saying it was all his fault but still undermining her self-esteem. He continued to bring up a phone bill, an old debt he contended she owed when she insisted she did not. I even offered to pay it for her to get him off her back. My daughter, a principled person, refused to let me.

By this time, I was counselling her on how to defuse and get out of the situation. She was terrified of contacting the police due to fear of reprisal. I even offered to send her out of the country or province to university for a master's degree if she wished, but she still felt love for him and never imagined for a moment that he would do her any harm, despite my warning of the risk of the presence of firearms in his house. The police later told me that he would have found her wherever I had moved her, given the plan they'd confirmed he had.

The week of her murder, he drove five hours to Bracebridge and found her car in the university parking lot. He stalked her and then found out where she was living. He went back that Friday, stalked her all morning, hid behind the house and confronted her with a shotgun in the driveway as she was packing to come home for the weekend. While she pleaded for her life, he shot her with both pellets and slugs at close range, centre body mass, an obviously fatal injury and what the central regional director of Crown law called a clear case of first-degree murder. She survived for only about 20 minutes. She told the paramedics that she knew she was dying, a horrifying thing for a mother to live with.

My daughter's planned and deliberate first-degree murder caused me to lobby for a criminal coercive control offence, since I learned that England, Wales and Scotland had done this, and for more first-degree murder charges to be laid in cases of femicide.

I've monitored how coercive control cases are going in the U.K. justice system. Initially, although police were laying charges, only 50% were successful in court—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Ms. Irons, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up, please.

[Alison Irons]

Okay. The education of the criminal justice system regarding coercive control is an absolute necessity before implementation of this bill, as was done in Keira's law. Abused women are at greater risk of harm or fatality if such charges fail in court because the justice system doesn't understand non-violent coercive control as a stepping stone to eventual violence.

I firmly believe, as an ex-police officer, that a conviction for coercive control on one's criminal history will serve as an evidentiary building block to corroborate any future pattern of behaviour that might progress to violence or, worse, femicide, with first-degree murder charges able to be laid.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

I turn it over to Mr. Gill to start the first six-minute round.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you to all the witnesses for coming here.

Ms. Silverstone, you indicated in your brief that this bill is a step forward and that there is room for improvement in this bill. Do you feel that this bill properly integrates the status of women committee's November 2025 recommendations on coercive control?

[Andrea Silverstone]

I believe it properly integrates those recommendations. I also think it needs to be broader, in that it needs to look at relationships of dependency and trust, not just intimate partner violence.

I would also suggest that some of the things that did come up were around equity and overcriminalization. I understand those concerns. However, the research that is out there, which has come from the U.K.—England, Wales and Scotland—shows that there is no overcriminalization that has happened, nor have equity-seeking groups been more affected than they already were by a justice system that, obviously, has its own limitations. That's not about coercive control; that's about the justice system response generally.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I understand you have said that it has to be broadened to be more impactful, so what would you recommend to amend in this bill to better reflect those recommendations, if you have any?

[Andrea Silverstone]

That's in my brief, but in particular, I think the relationship that is identified should not be a relationship of an intimate partner, but a relationship of dependency and trust.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Regarding coercive control, your organization said that criminalization alone is not enough; training, education and survivor supports must come alongside it. Bill C-16 criminalizes it, but has the government given any indication that it intends to pursue the other things you call for?

[Andrea Silverstone]

The answer is this: to the best of my knowledge, not at this time. However, in my conversations with government, they are aware that part of what needs to be in place is measurement tools, which don't currently exist but need to be developed, and that there is going to be a necessity to train the justice system and service providers.

I would also suggest that the government recognizes that we need to change the discourse in Canada, but I haven't heard a distinct statement of, “If we pass this bill, these funds or these initiatives will come along with it.” However, I also haven't heard them say that they don't think it's important. They think it's important.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Did the government consult with your organization while drafting this bill?

[Andrea Silverstone]

It did. We are actually the organization that helped to draft the two previous iterations of the bill. The first one was a private member's bill from the NDP, from Randall Garrison, and the second was also a private member's bill. We were instrumental in supporting the drafting of both of those. We also had input into the drafting of this one, which is based on the language in both of those and the report of this committee, “The Shadow Pandemic”.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

You just indicated that there are certain measures that you were assured would be added but that have not been added yet. Does this bill reflect the advice given during those consultations?

[Andrea Silverstone]

I'm sorry, but can you ask that question again?

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

My question for you is in regard to the recommendations or suggestions you have provided. Does this bill reflect the advice given during those consultations?

[Andrea Silverstone]

I believe the bill reflects, in part, the advice given. I understand that there are limitations in how bills are written and that there's a desire for them to be able to move forward. I am not a legislator. I'm not a lawmaker. I'm a social worker. I know what's best for the clients I work with. It's very possible the things we're asking for are not possible within a legislative framework. That is for greater minds than mine, but I do feel like the big thing that is missing right now is that it has to be broader than just intimate partner violence.

I also wrote a position paper, which went to the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, specifically around sexual exploitation and trafficking. If we leave out that population, we're going to be doing a whole group of people—women—an injustice by not protecting them with this law.