Justice Committee on April 20th, 2026

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 25 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 resuming its study of Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters.

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 would like to confirm that sound tests were made successfully. Is that correct? Okay.

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 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 would 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 mic. 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: the floor audio, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind participants that 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. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I would like to welcome the three witnesses.

As an individual, we have Mr. Colton Fehr, assistant professor from the University of Saskatchewan; Ms. Joanne Blinco from the Alberta Elder Abuse Awareness Council; and Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, appearing in person, from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

The floor is open for your opening remarks of up to five minutes, followed by questions from members.

Mr. Fehr, please go ahead.

[Colton Fehr, Assistant Professor, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Thank you for the invitation to comment on this important bill.

I’ll focus on proposed section 63, which proposes a safety valve clause for most minimum sentences of imprisonment. In support of this legislation, I’ll make four comments.

First, this legislation is the minimum constitutional response to the problems posed by mandatory sentences. As the Supreme Court stated in Lloyd, for a minimum sentence to survive charter scrutiny, there is only one requirement: “that the residual discretion allow for a lesser sentence where...the mandatory minimum...would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” That is precisely what Bill C-16 proposes. It is also well known that the phrase “cruel and unusual” in law means “grossly disproportionate”. The application of this standard ensures that Parliament maintains substantial influence over sentencing.

The ubiquity of the gross disproportionality standard in charter jurisprudence also ensures that courts have access to a rich body of cases to guide them in crafting exemptions. This leads me to my second comment.

Despite current jurisprudence, some judges will likely err for problematic reasons, including reasons that perpetuate sexual myths and stereotypes. I and others have accordingly recommended that certain factors be excluded from consideration when applying the exemption clause for, say, the sex offender registry, and a similar recommendation seems apt here.

Specifically excluded reasons might include the following non-exhaustive list taken from section 51 of South Africa’s Criminal Law Amendment Act. These include “the complainant’s previous sexual history”; “an apparent lack of physical injury to the complainant”; “an accused person’s cultural or religious beliefs” about sexual assault; and “any relationship between the accused person and the complainant”. Parliament may also consider excluding self-induced intoxication as a relevant factor, as it occurs under Australia's Northern Territory legislation.

My third comment is that Parliament should further contemplate how courts will use their exemption power in hard cases. Bill C-16 still requires the imposition of some prison sentence in cases where the exemption applies, presumably because paragraph 742.1(b) of the Criminal Code will thereby prevent judges from imposing a conditional sentence order. Judges will likely respond by sentencing some offenders to a one-day sentence and a probation order, which will likely be upheld on appeal in some cases. If Parliament thinks this would be imprudent, it should permit limited access to conditional sentence orders. In some cases, such a sentence may better achieve denunciation and deterrence.

Finally, a caution is warranted with respect to the minimum sentences that are excluded from the safety valve. While the minimum sentences for first- and second-degree murder were upheld in Luxton and Latimer, these cases applied a now overruled methodology for constitutionally assessing minimum sentences. A more expansive approach to foreseeable scenarios, combined with much improved evidence on the impact of long-term imprisonment on prisoners, as well as the repeal of the “faint hope” clause, suggests that rechallenges have a reasonable prospect of success, although I acknowledge that reasonable people may disagree on this point.

Even if those challenges fail, though, the minimum sentences for murder are problematic for another reason. They create a strong incentive to plead guilty to a lesser included offence, like manslaughter, despite the accused's possessing a potentially meritorious defence. This problem is particularly prone to arising for battered women who kill their abusers and plead self-defence. It may also arise when an accused presents strong evidence of a breach of charter rights during a police investigation, but exclusion of evidence is uncertain. Parliament may address this problem by either extending the exemption to all homicides or, more narrowly, allowing judges to circumvent a minimum sentence if the incentive to forfeit a defence unduly risks a wrongful conviction.

While these suggestions require detailed consideration, I want to close by re-emphasizing that the current legislation is a prudent response to Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville in this political moment. It also provides an excellent template to build upon after Parliament gathers evidence with respect to how the safety valve is applied.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Thank you, sir.

Moving on to Ms. Blinco, you have five minutes.

[Joanne Blinco, Executive Director, Alberta Elder Abuse Awareness Council]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Joanne Blinco, and I work with the Alberta Elder Abuse Awareness Council. Our work focuses on strengthening a community response to elder abuse across the province of Alberta through coordination, education and support for frontline service providers and communities.

Every day, we see the impact of elder abuse on older adults and their families. Elder abuse can take many forms, including financial exploitation, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and physical harm. One of the most difficult and least visible dynamics we encounter within these forms of abuse is coercive control.

Coercive control often underlies many situations of elder abuse. It involves patterns of manipulation, intimidation, isolation and control that limit the older adult's independence and ability to make their own decisions. This can include restricting their access to money, isolating them from family and friends, monitoring their communication or pressuring them to sign legal documents, such as powers of attorney.

Unlike a single incident of abuse, coercive control often develops slowly over time. Because of this, it can be extremely difficult for older adults, families and even professionals to recognize what is happening.

We also know that older women are disproportionately affected. Rates of abuse among older women are higher than they are among older men, particularly in situations involving family relationships, dependency and coercive control. For many women, this may reflect patterns of control that have existed for years and continue into later life.

In Alberta, we are in a unique position compared to other parts of Canada. Across the province, we have specialized elder abuse case managers and coordinated community response teams that work together to support the older adult who is at risk of abuse or currently experiencing abuse. These teams bring together community organizations, social services, law enforcement and other professionals to respond to complex situations and support the safety and autonomy of older adults. Because of this coordinated system, we are also able to see patterns that might otherwise remain hidden.

In our casework, we are seeing situations where coercive control is a significant factor in elder abuse, particularly in older women seeking support. This tells us that coercive control is not just a theoretical issue. It is something that is actively affecting older adults in our communities today.

Recognizing coercive control within policy and legal frameworks would help communities, professionals and systems respond earlier and more effectively to protect older adults.

Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Thank you.

Moving on to Dr. Roebuck, you have up to five minutes.

[Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime]

Thank you, Chair.

We're meeting today on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. As we mark Red Dress Day on May 5, I want to acknowledge the families of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people and other survivors calling for justice.

Bill C-16 represents the most significant advancement in federal victims' rights since the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in 2015. It responds to half of the recommendations from our national systemic investigation, “Rethinking Justice for Survivors of Sexual Violence”, which included consultations with thousands of survivors, frontline workers, service providers, justice professionals and experts across Canada. The bill includes recognition of victim interests in delaying Jordan applications, presumptive access to testimonial aids, a Criminal Code framework for restorative justice, expanded protections for sexual offences and sexual exploitation, and an expansion of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including a new right to respect and fairness.

The CVBR is quasi-constitutional legislation. Parliament gave it primacy and linked victims' rights to the charter and the proper administration of justice. At the same time, the CVBR imposes extraordinary limitations on enforcement. Section 27 denies legal status on the rights, section 28 denies civil remedies and section 29 denies appeals based on violations of the CVBR. Victims' rights in other countries are not so constrained. Sections 27 to 29 should be repealed. If they remain, procedural fairness requires that the complaints mechanism chosen by Parliament be clear, accessible and effective.

Bill C-16 expands the scope of admissible CVBR complaints. One improvement Parliament can make is naming the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime in the CVBR complaints and remedies provisions, including in subsection 25(2). This is not mandate expansion, but procedural clarity. Other quasi-constitutional statutes have named oversight bodies to support independent review and consistent application. Under the CVBR, we still have practical gaps, including limits on access to information required to assess complaints, particularly under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. If victims are directed to a complaints-based system as their primary form of redress, that system must be capable of meaningful review.

Proposed section 8.1 of the CVBR, on federal entities with information-sharing obligations, is a positive development, but the list must be explicitly non-exhaustive. The provision should state “including but not limited to”, and it should explicitly name the Canada Border Services Agency and the Department of Justice. Survivors should have a right to know when the person who harmed them has been removed from Canada as a result of a criminal offence, regardless of whether a sentence has expired. This is a narrow, safety-focused clarification to address CVBR complaints. In one case, a survivor has spent years in witness protection and has no right to know if the person who harmed her has been removed from Canada.

I strongly support reforms to better protect therapeutic records. These reforms respond directly to our investigation and the advocacy of survivors. We heard that subpoenas for counselling records forced survivors into impossible choices between asking for mental health care or participating in the justice process. In our national survey, 20% of survivors of sexual violence avoided counselling due to the fear that their records could be subpoenaed, and 13% chose not to report to police for the same reason. One survivor told us, “When I heard he was applying for my [counselling] records I wanted to die.”

Beyond the human cost, these practices drive delay and inefficiency. Records applications are brought mid-trial, triggering adjournments, Jordan risks, prolonged proceedings and increased costs across the justice system. By raising the admissibility threshold to innocence at stake, Bill C-16 protects survivors' access to life-saving care, reduces speculative and last-minute applications, minimizes delay and strengthens public confidence in the justice system.

This reform safeguards full answer and defence by allowing access to records when they're necessary while eliminating practices that have a discriminatory impact on women's access to health care.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Thank you, Dr. Roebuck.

We're now moving on to members' questions.

Mr. Gill, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and their contribution to our committee's study on this bill.

Dr. Roebuck, my questions will be for you today.

First, I want to thank you for your service in protecting and advancing the rights of victims of crimes in Canada.

Your 10-year progress report on the Victims Bill of Rights stated that the Liberal government ignored all 15 recommendations you made in 2020 to improve the bill. Does this bill include any of those recommendations?

[Benjamin Roebuck]

It does. The bill includes extensive recommendations that our office has made, both to improve the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and in other areas of substantive fairness for survivors.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Have you raised to the minister the issue that the Victims Bill of Rights is not enforceable?

[Benjamin Roebuck]

We've raised that issue consistently, across every platform imaginable.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

What did they tell you?

[Benjamin Roebuck]

This is something for all of Parliament. It's not a one-party issue.

I think that in this committee you can decide together how you want to address the enforceability of those rights.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Given that the bill you oversee is amended by Bill C-16, I assume you had input on the drafting process as well.

[Benjamin Roebuck]

We function as a special adviser to the minister and provide input regularly. We don't have access to cabinet confidence, so we can't see the technical provisions before they're introduced to the public, but we do provide answers to questions.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Did you recommend more changes to the bill of rights beyond those that appear in Bill C-16?

[Benjamin Roebuck]

Yes, in both progress reports, the five-year and the 10-year, there are recommendations beyond what's included in the bill.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Did the government ever explain why it ignored your other amendments? How will victims be affected by the half measures it has taken?

[Benjamin Roebuck]

We still need stronger enforcement on the victim rights, and we need courts particularly to recognize the quasi-constitutional nature of the CVBR.

One of our biggest challenges is that even though this is meant to guide the interpretation of the Criminal Code, it's still not included in provincial licensing exams to practise law where it's an error in law to not consider some of these rights and decisions. It needs to be picked up.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

How many femicides are there per year?

[Benjamin Roebuck]

That's a great question. I don't know the number offhand.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

In what percentage of those cases are police, child services and judicial or mental health systems aware of the offender prior to the killing?

[Benjamin Roebuck]

It's common that there's awareness prior to a homicide.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

In what percentage of those cases are police, child services and judicial or mental health systems aware of the offender prior to the killing?

[Benjamin Roebuck]

It's common that there's awareness.