Justice Committee on April 13th, 2026

[Sylvie Champagne]

As you will see in our brief, what we see is that the three offences overlap significantly. They involve the same behaviours, but to varying degrees. Our suggestion to parliamentarians is really to strengthen the offence of harassment to include patterns of coercion, as well as, perhaps, aggravating factors, and to treat femicide as a distinct offence, to distinguish between the behaviours and their severity.

In our view, this would be much clearer for the public. They would be better able to understand what constitutes a criminal act. At present, the three offences overlap, and it is difficult to define precisely what is covered by each of these new offences.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Champagne.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

We have Mr. Gill and Mr. Housefather. I might cut it down to three minutes each, if that's all right, because we're up against the clock.

Go ahead, Mr. Gill.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

My question is for Mr. Copeland. Peel Region Council declared intimate partner violence an “epidemic”. Peel police responds to 46 intimate partner violence calls per day. That's one every 30 minutes. What got us here?

[Peter Copeland]

I think it's a long-standing issue, and the government is right to address it with stronger offences for coercive control and various types of sexual violence.

My comments and concerns pertain to how the offences are structured. There is precedent here, as other jurisdictions have moved to implement coercive control regimes. The one that has not resulted in a lot of success in England is very close to how this offence is worded. All of the different components are stand-alone, and they're very imprecisely defined.

You can have a situation wherein people are bringing forward cases that are not legitimate and that, in fact, won't withstand charter tests. We've seen this in England. In the predicate model, wherein multiple offences have to be strung together and over a defined period of time, it's a much more concrete and easily prosecutable offence, and it has resulted in much more success. I think the definition needs to be tightened in line with that.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

If the Liberals' bail and sentencing law got us here, should we trust them to get us out of this crisis?

[Peter Copeland]

Yes, it's certainly the case that the lenient bail and sentencing policy has been behind some of the decades-long rise in violent crime, and intimate partner violence is certainly a component of that. As I said, I appreciate the intent here, but to have the desired effect, the offences need to be seriously amended.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

A couple of months ago, you told this committee that some of our biggest issues are repeat violent offenders and the expanding reach of organized crime, and that we need to reduce excessive judicial discretion. Can you elaborate on that in the context of Bill C-16?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You have about 10 seconds, Mr. Copeland.

[Peter Copeland]

As I said in my last response, I think the minimum penalty amendments go some degree in that direction, but there are additional amendments that could be made to properly constrain it further.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Copeland.

Mr. Housefather, I'll give you three minutes, but I don't think anybody will be upset if you don't use them all. It's over to you.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for joining us. I am extremely grateful to them.

Mr. Copeland, you've been the star of this round of the show. I also have a couple of questions for you.

I think we're all very concerned about Jordan and the effects of Jordan, which is why Ms. Lattanzio talked about the safety valve that you opined on a bit earlier. I wanted to ask you about the fact that I believe this bill also offers other remedies, other than a stay of proceedings, which will, I think, prevent the 10,000-case number you talked about.

Do you want to talk about the other remedies that are also afforded under the bill, besides the safety valve?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm sorry. Who is the question directed to?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It was directed to Mr. Copeland. I thought I had made that clear.

[Peter Copeland]

Could you repeat the last part on the change to Jordan? I'm sorry.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

What I said is that we're all concerned about Jordan. Ms. Lattanzio raised the safety valve issue, but what I also pointed out is that there are now options other than stays of proceedings that are being afforded under the bill.

Could you talk about how that will impact the number that you raised of 10,000? This will mean that fewer cases will be thrown out.

[Peter Copeland]

Yes, exactly. I commend the government for these measures. I'm largely supportive of what's in here. As others have raised, there are many factors. I support additional resourcing for prosecution and for police as well, because that's certainly part of the equation.

I think a special note could be made of national security and organized crime as circumstances that warrant that extra discretion. I would just underline that point, as these are the cases that are driving our everyday violent crime issues. A lot of it is driven by organized crime, and there is frequently a foreign state involvement component, which affects national security. I think that would just ensure that those cases are not tossed.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Understood.

Quickly, I think my Conservative colleagues may have tried to trap you into an answer on the notwithstanding clause before, so let me give you the opportunity to opine on this.

The federal Parliament has never used the notwithstanding clause. You're not calling on the federal Parliament to use the notwithstanding clause here. Is that correct? You had talked about the dialogue between the courts, Parliament and legislatures. The issue with the notwithstanding clause has not been its inclusion in the charter. It's its pre-emptive use that prevents the dialogue between the courts and the legislature.

Are you actually asking the legislature here, for the very first time in Canadian history, to use the notwithstanding clause in this bill?

[Peter Copeland]

I think the pre-emptive use is very much a part of the dialogue, in fact, because it states clearly that this is the legislature's interpretation—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Then there's no dialogue. Don't say it's a dialogue between the courts and the legislature if you're saying that there shouldn't be a dialogue.

I asked if you are asking for the notwithstanding clause to be used on this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Copeland, do you want to answer that?

[Peter Copeland]

Sure.

It is part of the dialogue, because there's a five-year limit to it. What I'm saying is that I think this is a good measure. I think there are ways that it could be improved further. I would not rule out its use if courts do not respond appropriately to the law being put forward here.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Copeland, I have one quick question. Are you a lawyer?

[Peter Copeland]

No, I am not.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Just to wrap up quickly, because I know Mr. Brock wants to add something, we're going to complete the witness portion of this bill on the 22nd, and we're going to start clause-by-clause on the 27th. Proposed amendments should be submitted by noon on Thursday, April 23. I'd ask everybody to keep that in mind.

Mr. Brock, you had a question for me.