Justice Committee on April 13th, 2026

[Karine Barrette]

What I was saying is that there's a risk. There are no guarantees. Women who are charged could argue that it was self-defence, but some women wonder whether they should take the risk or plead guilty to manslaughter instead. Sometimes defence counsel will advise them to plead guilty to a lesser charge, even though they acted in self-defence.

That is why having a pattern of conduct as a prerequisite provides another guideline or safeguard. It helps to prevent victims from being criminalized, as my colleague mentioned.

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

Say a woman killed her spouse while he was trying to kill her. In what situation would the current self-defence guidelines be inadequate, such that she would have to rely on the specific criteria you're talking about to make the case that it was self-defence? Can you think of any examples?

[Suzanne Zaccour]

Historically, self-defence is considered to be in response to an immediate attack. In the case of a woman who kills her partner, it's important to understand that once the immediate attack occurs, it's usually too late. In some cases, then, a woman kills her partner in his sleep, but after she's tried to escape or call police numerous times. It was really self-defence, because there was no other way for her to escape alive.

The courts have made room for recognizing self-defence in those cases, but it's always somewhat risky, as my colleague explained. It's like rolling the dice: risk life imprisonment—the sentence for murder—or plead guilty to a lesser charge. That's where plea bargaining comes into play. Arguing self-defence can fail. In that case, working out a compromise or receiving a lesser sentence isn't an option; in a murder case, the only option is life in prison.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Zaccour.

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Mr. Brock, it's over to you for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for your attendance today.

I, too, want to thank you, Ms. Zaccour. I echo Mr. Housefather's compliments to you. It was a well-structured submission, and I would encourage all witnesses to take that as an example. It certainly aids us in the work that we have to do.

You and I spoke online in advance of your testimony, and we talked generally about your submissions. We certainly did not get through all of them, so I don't want to repeat a lot of the opportunities already presented to you by several members, but I do want to circle back on some things that I do not think you have commented on.

I want to start off with the firearm issue. You specifically address that as a gap in Bill C-16.

I want to get through maybe five or six different examples in the five minutes I have, so if you can keep your remarks pretty concise, I can get through my entire list. Thank you.

[Suzanne Zaccour]

A couple of years ago, Parliament amended the Firearms Act so that people who commit domestic violence or family violence—there are different ways to get at that result—lose their firearms. This will only apply to people who are subject to the Firearms Act regime, which excludes certain professions, including police officers. That means that a police officer who is an abuser can keep their work firearm, and we know there are high rates of domestic violence among police officers and other professions.

We suggest mirroring that new regime in the Criminal Code so that it also applies to police officers. There are other small loopholes that are very technical but are close to fulfilling Parliament's intent to make sure that if someone is an abuser, they don't have access to firearms—that's to avoid femicides.

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

You also speak at great length about the concerns you have regarding the introduction of sexual history evidence, particularly under section 276 of the Criminal Code. Can you expand upon that?

[Suzanne Zaccour]

Absolutely.

This comes from some research I've done outside of my work at NAWL as well, where the Criminal Code prohibits accused people from using the victim's sexual history evidence to diminish their credibility and argue that they consented to the sexual violence.

In my research, I saw that there are gaps in how courts interpret that. The accused will not be able to say, “Let me bring in some sexual history evidence to show that she consented.” Instead, they say, “Let me bring in some sexual history evidence to show that I believe that she consented.” They'll say something like, “I thought she consented to rough sex because she has consented to it in the past.”

That is not a ground for a valid defence in Canadian criminal law, but it is being used to introduce sexual history evidence. We suggest expanding what are known as the twin myths about why you cannot introduce sexual history evidence to, now, three scenarios to protect victims' privacy and sexual integrity and the integrity of the criminal justice process.

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

On the same issue of records, you also had concerns regarding personal records. Specifically, the bill and the current legislation only speaks about therapeutic records. Where is the gap in Bill C-16?

[Suzanne Zaccour]

There have been concerns among survivors that we need to raise the threshold for admitting these highly sensitive and often not very relevant records. The usual response is that it would not be constitutional to ban the use of these records. However, the government is deciding to raise the threshold for the therapeutic records. We believe there is a belief that this is a constitutional threshold, since that's what's proposed in the bill, but then it makes a very rough distinction between a therapeutic record and every other record.

There's no reason to believe that all therapeutic records are more sensitive than all non-therapeutic records. I gave the example of child protection records and sexual assault centres' records.

If the government and this committee believe that this standard of raising a reasonable doubt to guilt or innocence is a constitutional standard for the production of records, just raise the threshold for all the other records. This will also avoid the need to debate which type of record something is and will make it consistent to protect victims' privacy.

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

I have time to explore one further area, and that's publication bans. What are your comments on where Bill C-16 is lacking?

[Suzanne Zaccour]

Again, a couple of years ago, Parliament amended the publication bans regime to make it more difficult to criminalize survivors who share their own stories. What we're hearing from survivors is that it didn't go far enough and it's still problematic. Survivors can't get a straight answer from a lawyer on whether they can or cannot do something. Survivors can share their stories, but it's not clear that they can share their stories in the media.

We suggest making it clear that publication bans are bans against other people sharing the identity of the victim survivor and are not bans against the survivor sharing their story. Currently, if you are a victim of sexual assault, you can share your story, except if there's a criminal trial, which can cause problems. That's why we suggest revisiting and expanding the protections for survivors.

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

Thank you very much, Suzanne.

[Suzanne Zaccour]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

We'll now go to Ms. Lattanzio for five minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all of you this morning. It's a pleasure to see you again. The first time we saw you was when we were consulting on this fine bill. I want to thank you for your comprehensive brief.

In your brief, you recommend distinguishing the femicide provisions from those pertaining to hate crimes. I'd like you to talk a bit about that. How would that distinction provide greater legal clarity and specifically recognize gender-based violence?

[Louise Riendeau]

We proposed this distinction because hate crimes can target women specifically, as we saw at Polytechnique. However, hate crimes can also target other categories of people, such as individuals with a particular religion or characteristic. It seems that, in both cases, it could be considered first‑degree murder. That's why we asked for this distinction.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

You also pointed out that the concept of coercive control makes it possible to look beyond the rationale of isolated incidents. Could you confirm that, without this new offence, our justice system is indeed unable to take action at an early stage, so to speak, and thereby prevent the escalation to serious or even fatal violence?

[Karine Barrette]

In recent years, we've trained over 14,000 justice system players in Quebec, including more than 5,500 police officers. The fact is that certain behaviours fall outside the scope of Criminal Code offences. Some behaviours don't cross the threshold of criminal harassment. These behaviours include humiliation, blaming, gaslighting and financial control. In short, there are many factors of this nature. They're extremely dangerous, given that we know that one-third of spousal homicides aren't preceded by physical violence. The police officers confirmed this in the field. They lack the legal leverage to interact, step in or detain people.

So, in our opinion, the criminalization of coercive control is vital. It isn't the only solution, since it must go hand in hand with significant measures. However, it's an essential step in protecting many women who currently face a lack of protection in the legal system.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Could you explain in general terms why you think that this bill constitutes a major step forward, particularly with regard to the recognition of coercive control and the dynamics of violence?

In addition, what aspects of the bill in its current form do you consider particularly positive?

[Karine Barrette]

As noted in Australia, a survey showed that the survivors mainly wanted to express their support for these measures as a means of condemning the actions so that society understands that they're unacceptable and dangerous. For the survivors, it meant a public condemnation and a clear message to send to society.

It can also provide leverage, as we said. Police officers or prosecutors can act before the femicide and other serious acts take place and stop the violence in its tracks.

It also plays a role in victims' trust. How often are they told that they experienced a serious situation, but that it isn't enough? The criminalization of coercive control finally gives them the feeling that their entire experience is being acknowledged. People aren't victims of domestic violence on February 24 and September 16, for example. One prosecutor said that domestic violence wasn't a photograph, but a film. The recognition of coercive control in the Criminal Code acknowledges the experience of victims and their children and the potential impact. It also helps to recognize the barriers to separation. How many times are these women told that they just need to leave their spouse? Yet separation is an extremely dangerous time. The criminalization of coercive control provides tools, but also validates victims' feelings in the process.

It can also, as discussed earlier, provide a great lens for analyzing the situation and identifying the primary aggressor while taking a step back. We currently focus a great deal on isolated incidents, such as what happened today, on April 13. We don't want to look at previous patterns and dynamics. By criminalizing coercive control, we're actually examining what happened in the previous weeks, months and years. This sheds light on the seriousness of the offences and the danger involved and creates a more appropriate safety net for victims.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

In terms of the bill's effectiveness, how do you think that it could improve the protection of victims, but above all their access to justice?

[Louise Riendeau]

We believe that, for this bill to make a real difference, it requires essential conditions. Police officers and prosecutors must be given training so that they can recognize coercive control and document it for use as evidence. Prosecutors and police officers must also receive guidance. In addition, victims must be offered social and legal support. Resources are needed.

That's why we're saying that all these measures should be implemented at the same time as the bill. One section of the legislation alone won't change everything. We're seeing this with criminal harassment. Even after a number of years, some police officers still misapply the concept. They think that it requires repetition, even though certain sections state that this isn't the case.

So, if the goal is to improve access to justice, the necessary conditions must be put in place. Moreover, a follow‑up is needed to ensure that there aren't any unintended consequences, that the objectives are being achieved and that the women whom we wanted to protect are indeed being protected and not, on the contrary, being blamed. The whole thing must be revisable if necessary.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin, it's over to you for two and a half minutes.