Evidence of meeting #25 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Fehr and Ms. Blinco.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Larry Brock
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
We now move on to Mr. Lawton for five minutes.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're doing a bang-up job, if I do say so myself.
One of my Liberal colleagues erroneously mentioned earlier that Conservatives are opposing Bill C-16, which is not the case. Conservatives did not oppose Bill C-16 at second reading. I can speak personally. I've had very favourable things to say about much of the bill and the objectives of the bill. I think the points of contention have been regarding making sure that it lives up to what it's supposed to do, in particular the sections to do with mandatory minimum penalties.
Dr. Fehr, I'd like to begin with you on this, because you were actually cited by both the majority and the dissent in Senneville, which I think speaks to the fact that you are quite respected in your work, and there's something in it for everyone. You indicated in your testimony today that Bill C-16, as it relates to minimums, is the minimum that we could do.
I was hoping you could elaborate on that.
Assistant Professor, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
It's an excellent question.
Bill C-16 applies to minimum sentences of imprisonment, minus those where life imprisonment is the minimum. This is the minimal response, because there are cases I have mentioned that upheld some of those life sentences—the homicide cases in particular, Luxton and Latimer.
When you survey the jurisprudence on other types of minimum penalties—I'm thinking here about things like mandatory minimum fines—we see some of those in the Criminal Code. In a book that I have coming out on section 12 of the charter, it seems quite evident to me when I weave that jurisprudence together that those punishments are being upheld by the court. They're not cruel and unusual. The main contention turns on minimum sentences of imprisonment. When Bill C-16 says that an exemption may apply when the minimum sentence would apply to the offender before the court in a way that is cruel and unusual, meaning grossly disproportionate, then they may be exempted from that standard. In many other jurisdictions, if we go to South Africa, some states in the United States, England, and certainly Australia, there are a variety of standards. Some of these standards may be prudent in some circumstances, but as Canada—
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you. I have to be mindful of my time, but I do appreciate that, Dr. Fehr.
Let me ask you about the safety valve approach. One thing we saw in the original trial judge decisions in Senneville and Naud was already a disregard for the mandatory minimums in place because of this finding of cruel and unusual punishment, which didn't even have to do with the reasonable hypotheticals that were brought in later. What is to stop judges who are inherently lenient from taking advantage of this safety valve to just circumvent mandatory minimums that Parliament has put in place?
Assistant Professor, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
That's another excellent question.
Whenever you apply any sort of standard-based rule, there's going to be some ironing out. What we will see, I suspect, is appellate courts doing precisely what they did in Senneville, where the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada overwhelmingly said, no, sentencing judge, you are wrong as to whether the punishment is unconstitutional for Mr. Senneville.
There will be some ironing out. That's pretty common with any new law, but I have some faith that appellate courts will show the requisite amount of deference.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I tend to be a fan of McIntyre's dissent in Smith from 1987, basically saying that reasonable hypotheticals shouldn't be brought in. The decisions should be made with the case at hand. I feel like that horse has left the barn in the last 40 years or so.
Let me ask you about the reasonable hypothetical in this case, because one of the challenges is that it's supposing that a charge would have even been laid in the most tolerable scenario imaginable under that.
Do you think that needs to be taken into account? Could there be a way to give judges direction on limiting these hypotheticals?
Assistant Professor, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
Again, that's an excellent question.
I proposed such a way. Four of nine judges agreed with me on trying to build in some middle ground, as the chief justice and Justice Coté called it.
I think the adversarial process has taken its course, and that idea was rejected by a majority of the court. As a result, the next most reasonable thing to do is precisely what Bill C-16 is proposing, which is to enact a safety valve and allow the courts to deal with this on a case-by-case basis, because now we don't need to think about the reasonably foreseeable scenario, except in the context of life imprisonment, where these exemptions don't apply.
Conservative
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair. I will echo Mr. Lawton. I think you're doing an excellent job today.
I also thought Mr. Lawton's questions were very good. I don't necessarily agree with McIntyre's 1987 dissent, but I'm sympathetic, particularly in the light of Senneville.
By the way, Mr. Fehr, I have to congratulate you on being cited both by the majority and by the minority in Senneville, because that is a rare feat, even if you would have preferred that the minority's hypothesis had won the day.
Thank you also to both of the other witnesses.
I'm going to start with Ms. Blinco, please.
Ms. Blinco, obviously I, and probably many others, are very sympathetic to the idea of what you're proposing, which is that coercive control at some point also be extended to other vulnerable groups, particularly seniors. Certainly what you said was very true. I'm seeing it happen more and more often as well in our communities.
One thing that is happening with this bill, though, is we have included a two-year “coming into force” period to prepare the system. We need to fully assess the data, fully assess the impact and fully assess how it's functioning. Given that in the initial discussions about the bill, it was very much focused on one type of coercive control, which was relationship-based, would you support a system where, for example, the government, although maybe not including it in this bill, would include a review period and then would undertake consultations with respect to seniors, so we would get the input of a wide variety of stakeholders on how to best deal with this issue with respect to coercive control over seniors? I'm using perhaps the wrong words.
Executive Director, Alberta Elder Abuse Awareness Council
Thank you.
If it's possible to get it right from the get-go, being able to look at gender-based violence, intimate partner violence, and relatives, that will give us a better headway to be able to make a difference in elder abuse. If we continue to wait, those situations of elder abuse—and some of them are horrific—are going to continue to occur, and there isn't a way to resolve that.
Our preference would be to do that right away before we have more situations occurring. That's just my opinion.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Your opinion is very valid, and I'm not trying to in any way negate the importance of this issue. In my 10 years here in Parliament, I've watched how laws are crafted. Usually there's significant consultation that goes into crafting...certainly if it's a government bill, and even for private members' bills. I think what happened here, rightly or wrongly, is that the “coercive control” aspect focused on intimate partner relationships, one type of relationship, and didn't really consider this extended, very true situation. I'm sympathetic also to those who say we need to consult perhaps and set up a proper framework for it, but, again, I think your points were really well made.
I have just one last question. Do you believe the framework that is used here can just instantly apply, or should it be adapted by looking at the provisions in the bill related to coercive control, for example?
Executive Director, Alberta Elder Abuse Awareness Council
I would hope they could get instantly adopted. When I look at the elements at play, and people who are dealing with situations of gender-based violence, older women are within those criteria. They are, in that way, able to support where gender-based violence exists. When I look at my stats, 55% are with a family member and 24% are intimate partner violence. It still exists. We don't have specific stats, but what we look at is all of the elements that have been at play. When we look at our coalition that has come together, there is information out there that does identify those things in older women.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you.
Dr. Roebuck, I just wanted to say one thing. One of my colleagues kept talking about how some of your recommendations were ignored. I think you clarified that a number of the things you proposed were in the bill; the fact that some others weren't doesn't mean they were actually ignored.
Bill C-16 proposes to expand victims' access to information and awareness of protection measures, as you mentioned. Does the ability reduce the burden on the victim to opt in? Is this a better framework than we had before?
Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime
It's a great improvement. There are still areas that need to be improved in time, but it's much better.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Larry Brock
Thank you.
Dr. Fehr, I have one question. Actually, I have a couple of questions. What is the name of your upcoming book, and when will it be released?
Assistant Professor, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
Actually, I have two books that are generally on point, that are being released this summer, one in June and one in July. The first is called Rethinking Homicide: The Constitutional Case for Reform. The second is called Cruel and Unusual: Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Larry Brock
Thank you.
We're going to suspend for a few minutes while we get ready for the second panel.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Larry Brock
The meeting is back on.
For the second hour of the meeting, we have with us Nancy Boucher, a registered practical nurse.
We have Mr. Rizwan Khan, legal researcher and analyst from the National Institute on Ageing, and from Valora Place, we have Liz Brown.
You each have five minutes to provide your opening statement. That will be followed by questions from the members.
Madame Boucher, you may go ahead.
Nancy Boucher Registered Practical Nurse, As an Individual
Thank you.
My name is Nancy Boucher. I stand here today not only as a citizen, but as a survivor, a woman who knows in her flesh and in her memory what domestic violence is. It doesn't just leave bruises. It robs. It steals dignity, it smothers trust, it shatters peace and, too often, it kills.
My voice speaks for the absent and the ones who can still be saved. We're here as part of Bill C‑16, but it's not just another document to me. It is a dividing line between what we have tolerated for too long and what we now refuse to accept, a clear line that says, “This far and no further.”
Reconsidering minimum sentences is an essential step because it starts there. It's what the system says. It's the message it sends about what is unacceptable and what, unfortunately, still seems to be tolerated.
When a sentence no longer reflects the seriousness of the act or repeated acts, the message becomes dangerous. It reveals a system that abdicates its protective role, and without a firm response, the risk of reoffending grows. It takes root. It becomes predictable. However, there is an essential question: What have years of clemency and lenient sentences led to?
That raises the question: Why, in so many cases, does impunity still seem to be the norm? A clear, firm and real penalty can disrupt a tendency. It can cause an awakening. It can break a cycle before it destroys a life.
Domestic violence is not abstract. There are scared children. There are broken families. Sometimes there are coffins that come too soon. What we are choosing today is whether these children will have a future or just a memory.
When there is no remorse and no change, no one can be complacent. The system's response must be firm, constant and unequivocal. The Criminal Code already has mechanisms for dangerous and long-term offenders. They must be fully used, especially in cases of repeated intimate partner violence, because at that point, it's no longer an accident. It's a known, repeated pattern. However, a repeated choice requires accountability.
Every day we delay is one day too many. Meanwhile, women hesitate and remain silent for fear of not being believed and protected, and silence becomes dangerous. They are asked to be perfect, beyond reproach, to remember everything, to remain consistent despite the trauma, to speak precisely when they have survived in fear, as if the trauma did not exist, as if survival were linear. The question is this: Is the justice system beyond reproach?
I'm here to stop silence from being the answer. Domestic violence is not an isolated incident. It's a process, a grip, a control, a fear that slowly sets in until it becomes an invisible prison.
Femicide is not a starting point. It is an end point, the ultimate step in an escalation of violence. Femicide must be recognized and treated with the utmost seriousness, as first-degree murder, because it is not an unavoidable crime. It is a crime that we can prevent, combat and reduce to the point of eradication. It is not a private tragedy. It is a collective failure that is preventable. We know the mechanisms. We know the signs.
Bill C‑16 is an opportunity to send a clear message that domestic violence in all its forms has no place in our society and that it will never again be minimized, excused or tolerated.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Larry Brock
Thank you, Ms. Boucher.
You may have some more time, depending on the questions presented to you, but that is your five minutes.
Mr. Khan, you have up to five minutes for your opening statement.
Rizwan Khan Legal Researcher and Analyst, National Institute on Ageing
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for this opportunity to testify before you.
I am a lawyer at the National Institute on Ageing, the NIA, a research and policy institute housed at Toronto Metropolitan University.
For the past 10 years, we have worked to build a Canada where older adults feel valued, included, supported and better prepared to age with confidence.
We appreciate the government's effort under Bill C-16 to criminalize coercive control. Coercive control captures a pattern of gradual but escalating abuse that may involve intimidation, isolation, financial exploitation and interference with a person's autonomy. It is precisely this kind of abuse that too often goes unrecognized when the law focuses only on discrete incidents rather than cumulative patterns of harm. Recognizing coercive control is especially important in addressing violence against women, as it is a known precursor to intimate partner homicide.
Our central message today is simple. The proposed coercive control provisions under Bill C-16 are too narrow, leaving many older adults behind, particularly older women. This risks creating a two-tiered system of justice.
The coercive control offence under Bill C-16 is currently limited to intimate partner relationships. That may capture an important part of violence against women, but it does not capture the full reality of abuse experienced by older women. Many older women are not being coercively controlled by a spouse or partner. They are being controlled by sons, other relatives and, in some cases, informal caregivers, yet if the same pattern of abuse is carried out by a son rather than a spouse, the proposed offence would not apply.
This means that justice would depend on how a relationship is labelled, rather than the nature of the harm itself. This gap matters, because if Bill C-16 is meant to respond to gender-based patterns of coercive control, then it should not exclude a whole segment of women simply because the abuse occurs in the context of another family relationship.
Data also makes this gap harder to ignore. As our submission noted, Statistics Canada shows that 36% of older adult victims of family violence were victimized by their child, while 28% were victimized by a spouse. When siblings and extended family are included, non-intimate partner abuse accounts for the majority of cases involving older adults.
The question is this: Should a proposed offence designed to protect women from a pattern of escalating abuse exclude older women who are subjected to a comparable abuse by family members other than intimate partners? In our respectful submission, the answer is no.
The caregiving context is also important. Most caregivers provide compassionate and appropriate support, but not every caregiving relationship is free from harm. Where one person depends on another for daily living, there is an obvious power imbalance. In some cases, that imbalance can be exploited in ways that are functionally indistinguishable from coercive control by an intimate partner. That is why leaving caregivers outside the scope of the offence creates an additional and significant gap.
International experience also supports a broader approach. As noted in our submission, England and Wales recognize coercive control where parties are personally connected, and Queensland, in Australia, expressly extends protection to include wider family members as well as informal caregivers.
Other jurisdictions, such as New South Wales and Ireland, which started with a narrower model for coercive control, are now reconsidering their approach. Rather than adopting an underinclusive framework now and revisiting the issue later, Canada can get this right from the outset.
Amending Bill C-16 to include relatives and informal caregivers would not weaken the offence. It would ensure that the offence is faithful to the legislative intent behind its creation and ensure that older women are not carved out of a response aimed at protecting women from a pattern of sustained control and abuse.
For that reason, the NIA recommends that Bill C-16 be amended so that the coercive control offence applies not only to current or former intimate partners but also to relatives and informal caregivers. Without this amendment, many older women facing serious abuse through coercive control will remain outside the law's protection, simply because of the label attached to the relationship.
Thank you once again for considering my testimony.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Larry Brock
Thank you, Mr. Khan.
Ms. Brown, you have up to five minutes.
Liz Brown Executive Director, Valora Place
Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to join you today. Thank you also for your work. It's deeply heartening that the federal government has focused on gender-based violence.
There's evident care and clearly a lot of positive intent behind the almost two pounds' worth of paper that has come from Bill C-16. There's a lot of heart that has brought it to this stage and put the issue of gender-based violence front and centre. That is really important.
Six years ago today, the reverberating horror of mass casualty was felt across Canada. In 13 hours, from April 18 to 19, one man in 2020 continued his long-standing pattern of coercive control with a physical assault against his intimate partner and then proceeded to end the lives of 22 people. A mass casualty commission was created. Its final report is both powerful and sobering. It has a clarion call to action that includes recommendations that are highly relevant to consider in review of the proposed changes included in Bill C-16.
We know that gender-based violence occurs in the context of relationships. It is with someone that we know and love and sometimes loved, in the past tense. It is intentional. It's not a single act; it's rather a pattern of behaviours and actions that are designed to reduce our sense of safety, well-being and self-efficacy. It increases fear. It increases vigilance, and it is the heart of abuse. It includes social isolation from family, friends and colleagues, financial abuse, psychological abuse, monitoring and not giving us our basic human rights in terms of when we go to the bathroom, when we sleep or when we are able to contact our friends.
It threatens our animals, our pets and the people who have meaning to us, along with threats by the perpetrator to self-harm or to end their own lives by suicide. It does include criminal harassment, it does include physical assault, and it does include sexual assault. It upends our sense of self. It is so insidious that we can begin to question our very own sanity and live in a constant state of vigilance and fear. It isolates and erodes our autonomy.
Coercive control is largely invisible at first glance. We can't see it on a person. It's a pattern of actions that are knitted together in a web so tight that it is often outside of both public and community view. It's done by usual people. Folks we couldn't profile are considered reasonably likely to cause harm. It is widespread in homes across postal codes, rural routes, town streets and city intersections.
Bill C-16 is presented to address these concerns. It is well intended, but there are some significant concerns to consider as to what will happen when we criminalize coercive control. Criminalization has significantly greater and disproportionate effects on marginalized communities, including indigenous people, racialized people and people living in fiscal poverty. This impact is gendered. It's experienced with greater severity and frequency by indigenous women, racialized women, trans women, disabled women and women living in fiscal poverty.
The unintended consequence of Bill C-16 is also that it will increase the likelihood of women who've experienced harm being criminalized too. This happened when, back in the 1980s, we implemented mandatory charging, and more women were charged with forms of harm and control against their partner. More women were also criminalized.
In our country, we have more indigenous women in federal incarceration. Over 50% are indigenous women, way more than the 5% of indigenous women on Turtle Island.
We encourage the federal government to implement recommendation V.8 of the Mass Casualty Commission, to look at the development of a common framework for understanding women-centric risk assessments that really understand the unique challenges that people who identify as women face.
We recommend that there be no changes to the current criminal harassment legislation, no removal of subjective fear requirements and a change to the objective fear requirement.
We do support inclusion of increased support for survivors and witnesses in proceedings, increased emphasis on and meaning of the appropriate use of restorative justice processes to heal, and the expansion of intimate image definition to include deepfakes.
We assert that police, Crowns and judges require new and specific mandatory training to address what constitutes coercive control.
We'd recommend a public education campaign before implementation and throughout to encourage understanding of this pattern of intimate partner violence.
It's really important to heed the call from the Mass Casualty Commission, which is to pay attention to the epidemic of violence against women and intimate partner harm, with epidemic-level funding for gender-based violence prevention and intervention.