Justice Committee on April 22nd, 2026

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Good morning, everyone.

This meeting is called to order.

Welcome to meeting number 26 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 resume 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 by using the Zoom application. I would like to confirm that sound tests were made 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 would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members. Number one, 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, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. Number two, 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.

I remind you 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 as we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Welcome to our witnesses.

In the first hour of the meeting, we have the following witnesses:

from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Valarie Gates, inspector; from the London Police Service, Chief of Police Thai Truong; and from the Canadian Bar Association, Melanie Webb and, potentially, Kathy Batycky.

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

Ms. Gates, the floor is yours.

[Inspector Valarie Gates, Co-Chair, Victims of Crime Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to speak to Bill C‑16 and its focus on strengthening Canada's response to gender-based violence and victim protection.

From a policing and victim-centred perspective, we are increasingly aware that intimate partner violence is not always defined by a single incident. It is often a pattern of behaviour, one that includes coercive control, psychological harm and ongoing intimidation. These patterns can be difficult to identify, document and respond to within traditional, incident-based policing frameworks.

In Canada, police report over 110,000 victims of intimate partner violence each year. However, what these numbers capture are incidents that have already reached a criminal threshold. What they do not capture is the prolonged and cumulative harm caused by coercive control, harm that often precedes physical violence and in some cases domestic homicide.

Canadian data from Statistics Canada also shows that psychological abuse is widely experienced in intimate partner relationships. These behaviours of control, intimidation and isolation often occur without physical violence and are not always captured in traditional police responses. Research has also shown that patterns of controlling behaviour and escalation are strongly associated with domestic homicide.

Bill C‑16 represents a critical step forward by recognizing coercive control as part of the continuum of intimate partner violence. Importantly, the CACP recommends that the legislation explicitly include former intimate partners, regardless of living arrangements, to reflect the reality that control and abuse frequently continue after separation, often amplified and facilitated by technology.

Victim impact statements and testimonial aids, as supported in Bill C‑16, are essential tools. They ensure that the lived experiences of victims are meaningfully considered and victims are supported throughout the justice process. It is encouraging that Bill C‑16 is giving more weight to victims' rights.

Bill C‑16 includes provisions related to sentencing in certain areas. From a policing perspective, we also see that victims' confidence in the justice system can be influenced by their experiences with the process and outcomes. This can affect their willingness to engage in what is often a long and difficult process. From a policing perspective, by the time an incident meets a criminal threshold, there has often been an ongoing pattern of control and harm. Earlier recognition of coercive control is critical to better assessing risk and intervening sooner.

We are already seeing this shift reflected internationally. Such jurisdictions as the United Kingdom and parts of Australia have introduced coercive control legislation. Their experience shows us that this is an important step. However, it's one that requires careful implementation, strong training and clear investigative guidance. In Canada we are also seeing important work emerging in this space. Research led by Dr. Carmen Gill is helping to better define and measure coercive control in ways that will support both policy and practice.

From a policing perspective, this will also require us to evolve how we assess risk, including the integration of coercive control indicators into existing risk assessment tools. However, legislation alone will not be enough to change outcomes. To be effective, this bill must be supported by clear implementation strategies, including training for police and justice system partners, enhanced risk assessment tools and the ability to gather and present evidence that reflects cumulative harm over time.

There are also important considerations related to consistency in application and the potential for unintended consequences. One of the key concerns we need to be mindful of is the risk of misidentification or unintended criminalization of victims, particularly in complex cases where victims may present as resistant or defensive, or are involved in dual allegations.

Without a clear understanding of coercive control, there is a real risk that the person experiencing abuse could be misidentified as the offender. This reinforces the importance of trauma-informed approaches and specialized expertise in intimate partner violence investigations.

At the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, we have emphasized the importance of trauma-informed, victim-centred policing. Our national framework highlights the need to move beyond reactive responses and toward approaches that recognize the full context of victimization.

Bill C‑16 aligns with this direction. With the right supports in place, it has the potential to strengthen early intervention, improve victim safety and enhance accountability for those who cause harm.

To support the success of this legislation, we would recommend that the implementation be accompanied by national guidance, training and risk assessment tools to support consistent, trauma-informed application across jurisdictions.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion. I look forward to your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Thank you, Ms. Gates.

We will move now to Chief Truong.

[Chief Thai Truong, Chief of Police, London Police Service]

Chair, vice-chairs and honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear today.

My name is Thai Truong. I'm the chief of police for London Police Service in Ontario. I am here to provide an operational policing perspective on Bill C-16.

Overall, I support the direction of this bill. I support it because it recognizes what victims, families, frontline officers, investigators, the Renfrew county inquest and the Mass Casualty Commission have shown us, namely, that serious harm in intimate partner violence does not always begin with one physical assault. Too often, it begins with patterns of control, isolation, surveillance, intimidation, threats, financial dependency and fear.

In London, our members responded to almost 7,000 intimate partner-related occurrences in 2025. Behind every occurrence is a person, a family and a picture of risk that is often more complex than one call for service can show. This is why the proposed coercive control offence is important. It pushes the law closer to the reality of survivors and gives police, Crowns and courts a clearer framework to recognize patterns before violence escalates to tragic, lethal harm.

This is not a simple implementation issue. It is a major operational shift from incident-based policing to pattern-based investigation. Officers will need training to identify coercive control, to document patterns across multiple occurrences, to gather digital and third party evidence, and to identify the primary aggressors so that this new offence is not misused or weaponized against victims.

The two-year coming into force period is responsible. It should be used deliberately for police training, Crown guidance, updated risk assessment tools, community sector engagement and consistent national standards.

I also support the bill's related measures modernizing criminal harassment, assessing threats to distribute intimate images and sexually explicit deepfakes, strengthening tools against child exploitation and sextortion, improving data preservation under the mandatory reporting act, enhancing victim rights and testimonial aids, and recognizing the connection between intimate partner violence and firearm access. They are practical community safety measures.

However, I would respectfully make one recommendation. If Parliament creates a coercive control offence, we must also address the lawful sharing of risk information before a case reaches the charge threshold. Police are not asking for broad surveillance powers. We are asking for a narrow, threshold-based harm prevention mechanism that allows risk information already held across systems to be connected before it is too late.

At an IPV call, police may identify serious warning signs: threats of suicide or self-harm if a partner leaves; escalating control, isolation or financial coercion; threats involving children, pets or firearms; and information that may be known to health, social service or victim support providers but not known to the police. Often, each agency has only part of the picture.

Privacy law, understandably, protects personal information. When interpreted narrowly, it can also create silos that prevent a complete risk assessment.

I recommend that Parliament, working with provinces and territories, consider where necessary a clearly defined IPV risk information-sharing authority. It should be limited to intimate partner violence, risk assessment and harm prevention. It should apply only at a clear threshold, such as reasonable grounds to suspect that a pattern of conduct creates a substantial risk of serious physical or psychological harm. It should involve only prescribed police, victim support, health and social services agencies. It should require minimal disclosure, documentation, supervisor accountability and review. It must be reciprocal because police cannot assess risk properly if relevant information can only flow one way.

This is not a choice between privacy and safety. It is about creating a lawful, narrow, accountable way to prevent protected information from remaining siloed until after violence occurs.

In closing, Bill C-16 is an important step, but legislation alone does not protect victims. Implementation does. Training, resources, digital evidence capacity, Crown-police coordination, judicial capacity, victims' services and properly funded community partners will determine whether this bill achieves its purpose. This includes support for non-governmental organizations assisting abused women and girls, and upstream investments that help prevent violence before it escalates.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Thank you, Chief.

I have either Ms. Webb or Ms. Batycky for five minutes.

[Melanie Webb, Chair, Criminal Justice Section, The Canadian Bar Association]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about Bill C-16.

The Canadian Bar Association represents 40,000 lawyers, students, academics and jurists across Canada. Our written submission was prepared by the criminal justice section, comprising both Crown and defence counsel, with the input of the family, child and youth and women lawyer sections. I am the chair of the criminal justice section, and a criminal trial and appellate lawyer.

I highlight in my remarks today two key concerns with this bill.

First, Bill C-16 would introduce the possibility of the imposition of an alternative remedy to a stay of proceedings where a person's right to a trial within a reasonable time has been breached. Delay has been a persistent challenge. In the 2016 decision in the R v. Jordan, the Supreme Court exhorted all justice participants to work together to achieve speedier trials. Unfortunately, delays have worsened in many parts of the country, for many reasons.

Introducing an alternative remedy to a stay risks weakening incentives for governments to invest in the criminal justice system to address these issues. This could ultimately result in even longer delays. Timely trials are critical not only for the accused but also for victims of crime. As recognized in the Jordan decision, delays prolong the suffering of victims and prevent closure. Delays can also undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. There is also a risk of added sentence reductions, which, combined with existing ones, may produce unfit outcomes.

Second, the proposed exemption in Bill C-16 that would permit a sentence below the minimum term set out in the Criminal Code, where it would amount to “cruel and unusual punishment for that offender”, would still mandate a minimum term of imprisonment. This limits the range of options available to the sentencing judge, including the conditional sentence order. We recognize that this proposal attempts to insert a safety valve to mandatory minimum sentences. However, in our view, the wording of the exemption will not allay our long-standing concerns. We suggest that the provisions proposed in clauses 1 and 2 of Bill S-208 instead may be a preferable framework.

We submit that both of these proposals will not reduce but may indeed increase court delays, resulting in unintended negative impacts upon victims. We urge careful reconsideration of these provisions.

Thank you. I'd be happy to address any questions you may have.

I now turn the floor over to my colleague Ms. Batycky.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Ms. Batycky, you have just over two minutes.

[Kathy Batycky, Lawyer, The Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association's family law section. As family law lawyers, our concern is not whether coercive control exists but whether this offence is drafted with sufficient precision to protect the victims, without creating unintended harm in high-conflict family disputes. Our core message is this: Careful drafting is essential. It will strengthen the offence, protect survivors and avoid unintended harm to the families it meant to help.

We have three main concerns.

First, the pattern requirement is vague. The offence provides no guidance for the frequency or duration of conduct required, creating a risk that isolated incidents are captured or that conduct years after a relationship has ended is not captured. The pattern must be more precisely defined to avoid capturing conduct outside of what is intended.

Second, we recommend introducing a “reasonable foreseeability” standard. Liability should turn on what conduct could reasonably be expected to cause fear for safety in the circumstances, not solely on subjective intent. This would improve clarity while preserving the purpose of the provision.

Third, we urge caution with a “recklessness” standard. Replacing intentional wrongdoing risks criminalizing emotionally charged but non-coercive behaviour, commonly seen at separation, raising concerns about overcriminalization and fairness.

Finally, we just want to give you the message that criminal law alone cannot address family violence. There is a risk of misinterpreting cultural practices, such as financial pooling or collective decision-making, as coercive control. At the same time, diverse communities experience coercive control more acutely. Investments in unified family courts and training for police and justice system participants, as well as community supports, are essential.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Thank you.

We're commencing our first round. We'll start with Mr. Lawton.

You have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

I'm going to devote most of my time to asking you questions, Chief Truong. I appreciate your coming here from London.

In 2023, London declared intimate partner violence, and femicide specifically, an epidemic. We have seen in our broader community a range of very high-profile cases. You had Cheryl Sheldon in 2024, who was allegedly killed by her boyfriend. You had Caitlin Jennings and Tiffany Gates killed by their partners in 2023. You had the.... I choke up thinking about it. Breanna Broadfoot, 17 years old, was killed by an intimate partner who had been released, and there were signs that something like that could happen.

You mentioned the 7,000 calls you get a year. Do you have a sense of how many of these are repeat offenders? How many of these are the same people? Is there an escalation or repetition of the conduct that's resulting in these calls?

[Chief Thai Truong]

Thank you.

Chair, through you, I don't have that data before me, sir.

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

It is not uncommon to have people who are engaged in behaviour where there have been previous interactions with police—bail releases, conditional sentences and previous calls. That's not an uncommon occurrence in this case. Is that correct?

[Chief Thai Truong]

That's correct.

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

I know that you and I have spoken about and this committee has previously studied bail. We saw in the Broadfoot case and in others really tragic examples of people who have been released and who have committed further acts of violence.

When we're looking at things we can do to intercept and stop that escalation, what more can we do? What would you like to see us as a committee do, either within Bill C-16 or even as part of broader measures you'd love to see brought forward?

[Chief Thai Truong]

Thank you for the question.

I would like to see some clarity on the application of Bill C-75 and what that has essentially done to the policing sector with respect to individuals we encounter on a daily basis who are the repeat offenders you are speaking about, as well as the application of prioritizing or having more of a balance toward determining release by really focusing on the victim and the community. I would like there to be more of a balance in the way we address those individuals who should be held for bail. There should be careful thought given to any type of release for those individuals.

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

When it comes to sentencing, after someone has gone through the process and been convicted, do you find that conditional sentencing—for example, house arrest—is resulting in people being out of custody who really shouldn't be?

[Chief Thai Truong]

In that particular instance of individuals who are breaching conditional sentence orders, we are seeing repeat violent offenders breach regardless. If they are released on a judicial order into the community, it's very common that those violent offenders find ways to breach those conditions.

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

One of the topics that's come up in this committee's work, and in particular on Bill C-16, is that of mandatory minimum sentences. We've heard even from a witness in today's session that there is a belief emanating from legal theory rather than reality that mandatory minimums don't have a place in our system.

I suspect I know the answer to this: Do you support strong mandatary minimum sentences for a series of crimes?

[Chief Thai Truong]

Thank you for that question.

I do, because we have to look at the impact on the victims of the crimes. In that regard, the sentences handed down by the courts after a conviction have to be balanced and reflective of the crime committed. If you're looking at the principles of denunciation and deterrence, that is important to consider.

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

We heard, before this committee's study, from survivors of intimate partner violence that one gap in the system is that victims aren't always notified when the accused perpetrator is released.

Is this something you've encountered? Do you have any guidance for how we could address that through the law?

[Chief Thai Truong]

Thank you for that.

I think it comes down to a matter of resourcing. That is an issue. The courts are overloaded. Police officers and police organizations are overloaded as well.

That is something that definitely needs to happen. When offenders are released, in theory and in practice, victims should be notified. When that doesn't happen, it typically is a result of workload.

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

I know that in London, which is a large community, you have had to arrest and charge people with child sexual exploitation and abuse material.

Do you believe that a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for someone who has hundreds or thousands of images or videos of children being abused is cruel and unusual punishment?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Please answer in 10 seconds or less.

[Chief Thai Truong]

I think the sentence must reflect the severity of the crime, and in those instances, that crime is very severe.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

Mr. Chang, you have six minutes.