Justice Committee on April 15th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Good afternoon, everybody.

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 24 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of February 2, 2026, the committee is meeting to continue its 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 remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to confirm that the sound tests were done successfully.

Before we continue, I would ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

I'd like to make 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 microphone, 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 in this regard.

Welcome to our first panel of witnesses.

In the first hour, we have, from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Monique St. Germain, general counsel; from Daughter Project Canada, Kristin Szabo, advocacy lead; and from the London Abused Women's Centre, Jennifer Dunn, executive director.

The floor is open to the three groups.

Each of you will have up to five minutes to make opening remarks. Following the conclusion of all of the opening remarks, I'll open the floor to questions.

Ms. Dunn, I'll start with you.

[Jennifer Dunn, Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Jennifer Dunn. I am the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre here in London, Ontario. For over four decades, our organization has supported women and girls who have been subjected to male violence, including intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation and trafficking, with long-term counselling, advocacy and support.

With my time today, I will focus on the proposed amendments related to femicide and the proposed criminalization of coercive and controlling conduct within Bill C-16.

The London Abused Women's Centre welcomes the recognition of femicide within this legislation. Treating murders that occur in the context of control, hate, sexual violence or exploitation as the most serious form of homicide and naming femicide as a distinct form of violence are important. It acknowledges what frontline organizations like ours, researchers and families have long known, which is that violence against women is gendered, patterned and deeply rooted in inequality. Recognizing femicide helps make visible the realities that too often go unnamed.

However, it's important to be clear that naming femicide alone will not prevent it. While recognition is meaningful, it must be accompanied by sustained investment in prevention to address the root causes of male violence against women and the systemic barriers that women face. Without that, we risk creating language without impact.

I would now like to turn to the proposed new offence of coercive and controlling conduct.

The London Abused Women's Centre agrees that coercive control is real, dangerous and often precedes lethal violence. It is a critical concept in understanding how abuse operates over time. However, we have serious concerns about the risks of criminalizing coercive control in the system as it currently operates. I urge you to consider the reality of mandatory charge policies in intimate partner violence cases, for example.

In May 1981, the London Police Service became the first police force in Canada to institute a mandatory charging policy for intimate partner violence cases. These policies were intended to relieve victims, most often women, of the responsibility of deciding whether their partner should be charged and to increase their safety. Police were directed to lay charges where there were reasonable probable grounds.

Introducing a new, highly nuanced criminal offence without addressing these systemic issues risks widening that harm. Police officers responding to intimate partner violence calls are often making decisions in highly volatile, time-limited situations. It is not possible to have a full picture of an intimate partner relationship when responding to an emergency call. There is a real and growing risk that survivors, particularly those who are seen to resist, defend themselves or present themselves as less ideal victims, could be misidentified and criminalized.

If this offence proceeds, it cannot stand alone. Coercive control is a deeply nuanced concept. Its identification requires an understanding of power, gender, trauma and systemic bias. We have seen this in other areas such as judicial education on sexual assault, that training cannot and should not ever be optional. We cannot afford to repeat that gap. There must be mandatory, ongoing and accountable training for police, Crown attorneys and judges. This training must include coercive control and trauma- and violence-informed practice. Without it, the law risks being applied unevenly and unjustly.

Finally, I want to emphasize what we know to be true. Criminal law on its own does not prevent violence. As highlighted in the brief by the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic and LEAF, criminalizing coercive control does not address the underlying causes of violence against women, nor the barriers that prevent survivors from reporting.

We know what does help prevent violence. In London, our high-risk action table for femicide prevention brings together police, community agencies and service providers to identify and intervene in the highest-risk cases before lethal violence occurs. This kind of coordinated, multisector response allows for a fuller picture of risk, which is something no single system, including policing, can achieve on its own. If we are serious about ending violence, we must invest in these coordinated, preventative models alongside early intervention, long-term advocacy and support for survivors, housing, and guaranteed livable income.

In closing, we support efforts to better recognize and respond to the realities of violence against women, including femicide and coercive control. This is a significant step forward. Legislation must be grounded in the lived realities of survivors and the systems that respond to them. Without careful implementation, safeguards and investments, there is a risk that these changes could unintentionally cause further harm to the very women they are intended to protect. We cannot afford to get this wrong.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you. You're right on time.

Ms. St. Germain, we'll go over to you.

[Monique St. Germain, General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection]

Thank you, Chair Maloney and committee members for inviting our agency to participate in this study.

My name is Monique St. Germain, and I am general counsel for the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, a national charity that works across Canada and globally to reduce the incidence of missing and sexually exploited children.

We operate Cybertip.ca, Canada's tip line for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children. As of March 31, 2025, nearly 471,000 reports have been processed through Cybertip. Reports overwhelming pertain either to child sexual abuse and exploitation material or online luring.

We also operate Project Arachnid, a platform that prioritizes the removal of harmful child sexual abuse content online. As of this month, Project Arachnid has issued over 141 million notices requesting the removal of CSAM, child sexual abuse material, from the Internet.

We support the changes in Bill C-16 that are aimed at protecting children and victims of image-based abuse, including the following.

First, the expansion of the luring offence to include luring to facilitate extortion, criminalizing threats to distribute CSAM and intimate images, and the addition of sextortion as an aggravating factor on sentencing, are all great additions to the arsenal of available tools in the Criminal Code to address sextortion. Over the past decade, sextortion offences have skyrocketed. On average, Cybertip receives six sextortion reports per day. In 2024 alone, our support services department managed nearly 2,800 requests from children and their caregivers. In our experience, boys are typically extorted for money, while girls are extorted for more images. Tactics used can be very extreme and terrifying for the young person. In some tragic instances, the young people threatened feel so helpless and trapped they have died by suicide. This is an incredibly serious crime, and we are confident these new provisions will help.

Second is increasing the age of those protected by section 161 preventions orders from 16 to 18. A section 161 order is only available to a court once a person has been convicted of certain sexual offences. By adding to the offences for which such an order is available and increasing the age of children able to be protected by such orders, we are providing courts with a powerful tool to prevent future offending. This change is one our agency has long advocated for, and we feel strongly that it will make a tangible difference in protecting children from predatory conduct.

Third, we support the changes to the mandatory reporting legislation clarifying who is bound by the law, increasing the preservation requirement, and the new requirement for transmission data to be sent to police. These are all critical improvements to the law.

Fourth, we're pleased to see the addition of a safety valve to re-establish mandatory minimum sentences into the code. It has been incredibly disheartening to witness the dismantling of these sentences on the basis of hypotheticals.

We regularly monitor Canadian case law, and it's clear that the extent of offending against children is getting much worse. Most offenders we see before the courts have inflicted grave harm on victims and society, yet the seriousness of their crimes is downplayed when the focus turns to hypothetical offences and offenders. We are cautiously optimistic Bill C-16's changes will lead to more meaningful sentences that tie directly to the offender before the court and the actual offence that the offender committed.

Fifth, while we welcome the changes to address sexual deepfakes, we also want to see the creation of this imagery addressed. Cybertip processed 9,000 sexually explicit AI-generated images and videos of children and youth in 2024. The problem is harming more and more Canadians and it has to stop. It is the creation of this imagery that first violates the victim's privacy and sexual integrity. It's the creation that starts the chain of victimization. These images are also a powerful silencer of women and girls. They are not harmless products of the imagination.

Finally, while we are pleased to see distribution of bestiality imagery criminalized, we would like to see the law go further and also criminalize the making, possession and accessing of such materials.

In closing, while we support Bill C-16, we and the survivors we support also want to see Canada enact laws that hold online companies accountable and mandate the swift removal of CSAM and intimate images and provide better more accessible remedies for victims of such crimes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

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

[Kristin Szabo, Advocacy Lead, Daughter Project Canada]

Good afternoon, committee members. It is an honour for me to appear before you today.

Daughter Project Canada is a Canadian non-profit organization working to end the sexual exploitation of children and youth through awareness, prevention and advocacy.

As a national organization, our work is informed by direct engagement with communities across Canada and by the growing realities of online harm facing Canadian children. Daughter Project's publicly available resources, including the sextortion safety guide, were developed in response to a demonstrated need from Canadian families.

Daughter Project Canada supports the intent of Bill C-16. We welcome recognition of harms such as coercive control, online sexual exploitation and technology-facilitated abuse, particularly as they affect children and youth.

It is our view that any Canadian child accessing the Internet can quickly become at risk. With this in mind, Daughter Project has made two recommendations for amendments to Bill C-16 and two recommendations around implementation if it is passed.

First, strengthen the definition of intimate image to reflect a harm reduction standard. We recommend that the definition of intimate image in Bill C-16 be amended to replace the current standard, “likely to be mistaken for a visual recording of that person”, with “that is presented or capable of being presented as a visual recording of that person.” We submit that the harm of a sexualized deepfake or a non-consensual intimate image does not depend on how convincing it is. The harm lies in its creation and potential distribution and its impact on the dignity and well-being of the person depicted.

Second, address online exploitation through not only criminal penalties but also shared responsibility. Children are being exploited online in environments designed for engagement and addiction, not safety. Effective prevention requires shared responsibility among individuals, platforms, communities and governments. Individual accountability is essential, but systems shape risk. Criminalizing conduct after images are created or shared does not stop initial harm. Therefore, rapid takedown mechanisms, platform accountability and digital literacy education are essential complements to the law. If the bill is passed, we recommend that criminal offences are paired with mandatory national prevention.

Our mandate focuses on preventing exploitation before a child is harmed. Our concern is with ensuring that laws do not unintentionally place victims, especially young people, in greater danger or discourage disclosure of abuse. Children and youth who experience exploitation often require years of trauma-informed counselling and supports such as stable housing and family connections. Without sustained investment, we risk seeing survivors cycle back into vulnerability even after their abusers have been convicted. Root causes such as harmful gender norms, online normalization of sexual exploitation, lack of digital safety education and economic vulnerability are not addressed through criminal offences alone. Addressing these requires prevention strategies alongside legislation.

Lastly, mandate national data collection and public reporting on child sexual exploitation. Daughter Project Canada recommends the introduction of statutory obligations to collect standardized national data on child sexual exploitation and technology-facilitated abuse, and to publicly report on trends, prosecution outcomes and prevention gaps.

Bill C-16 defines and criminalizes new forms of exploitation, but it does not require systematic data collection or reporting. Other organizations appearing before this committee have highlighted that a lack of data undermines both prevention efforts and accountability.

In closing, Canada cannot arrest its way out of child exploitation. If Parliament recognizes new harms, it must also invest in stopping those harms before a child becomes a victim. Prevention reduces victimization upstream of the judicial system. Education for parents, caregivers, educators and communities, especially around online grooming and coercive behaviour, is one of the most effective ways to reduce demand for criminal justice intervention.

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for your commitment to the safety of Canadian children and youth represented in this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

We'll start the first six-minute round of questions with Mr. Lawton.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for your time today.

I'd like to start with you, Ms. Dunn. By way of disclosure, I'll share that my wife sits on the board of the London Abused Women's Centre. Due to my deep appreciation for your work, I want to start with you.

I know that LAWC has done a lot on human trafficking, which I was hoping to see addressed in Bill C-16. We know this has a direct connection to intimate partner violence in some cases. We also know that London, St. Thomas and that whole 401 corridor have really become a terrible hot spot for these sorts of crimes.

Could you speak to what you think the law could do that would better address that concern?

[Jennifer Dunn]

You're absolutely right. London and area have been recognized as a hub for sex trafficking because of our proximity to the 401 corridor. I think it's really important to look at it as a full picture. We need to focus on prevention and education, as young as elementary school age. Educators need to know what to recognize when it comes to human trafficking, what to do about it and how to respond.

As well, we need organizations like ours that can support women and girls who have been subjected to trafficking and not in a way that's going to be an overnight fix. Based on the work that we do, we know it takes quite a while for a woman to trust us, for example, to share her story of what she's been through. It's very, very important that we have proper resources available for women who have been subjected to trafficking.

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

When we look at intimate partner violence, there are a lot of offences that you can see along the way that escalate over time. Bill C-16 looks at this in the context of animals. We have also seen, again, an escalation of behaviour from coercive control to violence.

One of the challenges we have in the system right now, as we spoke about when you testified before this committee last time, is that in some cases, people who do commit violent acts against intimate partners are not staying behind bars. We've seen in London the tragic consequences of this with Breanna Broadfoot.

We also see in this that there has been an attempt to restore mandatory minimums with some guardrails. Do you believe that mandatory minimum sentences can save lives and can protect women and that those are an important part of sentencing?

[Jennifer Dunn]

My answer is going to be similar to the last answer, even though it's a completely different topic.

I think that all of the systems need to work together. We need to look at what the minimum penalties would be and how they would apply. When you're looking at high-risk repeat offenders, that's going to look a lot different from something that's considered maybe a less serious charge.

I'm going to go back to the prevention and education piece as well. We need to look at alternative methods to justice. We often hear women sharing with us that they want to choose what their journey to justice looks like. It's very important to have multiple different avenues for justice.

With regard to mandatory minimums, again, I'm going to circle back to what I said at the beginning. It's really important to look at what crime is being committed, because it's not one-size-fits-all.

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

A point you raised when you testified previously that I think is relevant to Bill C-16 is that decisions around sentencing and, in that context, bail, are life or death decisions for some women. I think there is an urgency here that we get this right as much as possible.

What do you think we could do beyond what's in the bill already? What's missing from this? Understand that we are tasked with looking specifically at federal legislation and can't necessarily, in this bill, solve all of the interconnected system challenges you've raised.

[Jennifer Dunn]

It's important to look at what can be done. I know this is federal.

For example, police have a really big job to do when they're responding to these crimes. It's important that we look at that in a way of police operations. I know that's not a federal issue, but we need to look at proper training, proper education and the way the systems, including policing, are implementing these offences. You brought up Breanna Broadfoot. Between the years of 2023 and 2024, there were four femicides in London alone. Those four women lost their lives because of their intimate partners. We need to look at what's going on in these situations and how we can do better as a community together, not in isolation.

What you said is absolutely true. We need to be looking at those high-risk repeat offenders, what we're doing and why they are being released, especially when I had mentioned in that appearance before you the issues of strangulation, for example. We need to take all of that seriously, and that's going to come down to training and education across the entire justice system.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

Ms. Dhillon, we'll go over to you for six minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.

I'll start with Ms. St. Germain.

Bill C-16 addresses gaps by criminalizing the invitation to a child to expose themselves for a sexual purpose and by creating a new offence for recruiting youth into crime. In your view, how important is it to close these kinds of gaps to better reflect the realities of how predators are operating today?

[Monique St. Germain]

The invitation to expose, modifying that particular offence, is definitely necessary to close the gap. A lot of offending, when it comes to that particular offence, is occurring online, where that is the invitation that is happening by the offender in terms of what they are asking the child to do. That is a very important provision to be adding to the code.

The other one you mentioned in terms of the recruitment of a child is another important one. I did not mention that in my opening remarks primarily in the interest of time. One thing that may bear looking more closely at is whether or not the offence itself needs to have the limitation that the person be in a position of trust or authority.

There is a lot of case law that has developed in the meaning of that term and, although I know there is a provision in the bill that clarifies that, if the person is over 18, that puts them in a position of trust or authority. That doesn't quite accord with how the case law has developed. There might need to be some tweaking on that, but fundamentally, the recruitment of a child to commit a criminal offence is real, it happens, so it is important to have that reflected in our offences.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Could you speak to the engagement that your organization has had with the government in developing these measures? Do you feel that the bill reflects the expertise and recommendations of organizations such as yours that will work to protect these children?

[Monique St. Germain]

Our organization is constantly reviewing case law and picking up on various gaps. We put together documents to assist in terms of ideas that may be helpful in Criminal Code reform. Some of the provisions that ended up in this bill are the product of previous advocacy by our organization. The section 161 changes that I mentioned in my opening remarks are an example of that.

We believe that criminal law reform is an ongoing process. This bill does a lot to close a lot of the gaps that we see. We certainly have some other ideas that we would like to put on the table, but we understand the bill the way that it is, and we are very pleased with a lot of the provisions as they pertain to children.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

My next question will be for Ms. Szabo.

The bill would expand mandatory reporting obligations to include all online platforms, extend data preservation to 12 months and improve transparency. From your experience, are these tools essential for law enforcement to effectively stop offenders?

[Kristin Szabo]

They are, without a doubt, vital. Right now, when these offences occur, a lot of it is a child at home alone, and parents feel like they don't know what to do. They don't even know where to begin. If the data is saved, it gives more power to law enforcement to give them the time needed to approach it, because they need to keep in mind—and I think it needs to be remembered—that trauma-informed care is vital, especially when it comes to handling minors and even their parents. There are many layers of trauma to these types of offences, so in preserving the data and giving law enforcement time to review the case, that can add to providing the trauma-informed care that is absolutely vital when it comes to working with children as victims.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

You've spoken at length about the rise of online exploitation, including the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Bill C-16 would also create a specific offence for threatening to distribute child sexual abuse material. Would you agree that explicitly criminalizing sextortion in this way is the necessary and overdue step that was needed?

[Kristin Szabo]

I agree that it's very overdue. In the last just over 10 years, this offence has increased almost 350% in Canada. That is an atrocity. It's something that we are very far behind on. In particular, we've heard from our communities—parents, guardians, teachers, educators and our supporters—that they don't know how to deal with this. We've developed resources funded purely by our donors to deal with this and to educate the public about it.

Without a doubt, we are behind on this. I welcome this being part of our legislation.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.

Mr. Fortin, it's over to you for six minutes.