Justice Committee on April 22nd, 2026

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. My first question is for the CBA.

The CBA often emphasizes the importance of balancing strong protections with charter compliance. How do you assess Bill C-16 in striking that balance?

[Melanie Webb]

Thank you for that question.

For the most part, there are many provisions in Bill C-16 that we do support—I should mention that. For example, there are provisions referring to restorative justice and alternative measures, which I think may actually help with some of the challenges we face in terms of court delays.

That being said, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we continue to have a serious concern with regard to the proposed structural framework to introduce an alternative remedy to a stay of proceedings when there has been an acknowledged or recognized breach of the constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time. That is an area of significant concern in terms of charter compliance.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Could you please speak to how sentencing-related reforms in the bill, including any mandatory elements, interact with the principle of proportionality and judicial discretion?

[Melanie Webb]

Thank you for that question.

As I'm sure this committee is aware, the CBA has long opposed mandatory minimum sentences for a number of reasons. They fetter judicial discretion. They do not deter crime. They have a disproportionate impact on indigenous persons and racialized persons. They can thwart plea negotiations, but they can also impact plea negotiations in that they can result in outcomes or, shall we say, pleas to charges that are not necessarily appropriate.

With respect to the framework that's been proposed in Bill C-16 to insert a safety valve to the mandatory minimum sentences in the code, we recognize that this is an attempt to do that. What we have a problem or a concern with is that this still requires a minimum term of imprisonment, so that still limits the range of options available to a sentencing judge. To be clear, I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases of offences that carry mandatory minimum sentences, those offenders will be sentenced to prison time, but sentencing is very much an individual's exercise. There are always exceptional circumstances.

I appreciate that the wording of this proposed safety valve says that a court shall impose a shorter term of imprisonment if, in the circumstances, the minimum punishment “would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender”.

However, there may be circumstances where, for example, a conditional sentence order may be appropriate and, to be clear, it would be in rare and exceptional circumstances. Nonetheless, it's our view that this option should remain on the table to allow for those very rare and exceptional circumstances.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Webb.

My next question is for Chief Truong.

From your perspective, how are you seeing online harm such as exploitation and sexploitation impacting your own community?

[Chief Thai Truong]

There is an increase of online harm to society with the advancements of technology in the digital age that we are in. That comes with criminal exploitation, where criminals are going to exploit areas within society. That is an area the criminals will continue to exploit from an organized crime perspective and from an individual perspective. We are seeing that this is a concern.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Police services across Canada have raised concerns about youth being recruited into criminal activity online. Could you speak on how this is evolving and whether the measures in Bill C-16 help address this trend?

[Chief Thai Truong]

Yes, we're seeing that as something right across the country. Young people, more and more, are being involved and recruited into crime. I support the legislative amendments to Bill C-16 dealing specifically with the recruiting of young people for crime.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

If you could prioritize one change, legislative or operational, to improve victim outcomes, what would that be?

[Chief Thai Truong]

I would go back to my recommendation. A large part of this bill is naming and identifying femicide and coercive control. From the Mass Casualty Commission and the Renfrew county inquest, we know that there was a communication breakdown, if you look at some of the themes, where government and non-government organizations all have a piece of information but they're siloed. We're siloed because of privacy rights, and there's no formal way for us to share information with community and vice versa.

To answer your question, if there was federal legislation in place that is created or allows some direction in information sharing, that will essentially identify individuals at risk. It will identify suspects or individuals who are likely involved in coercive control. We know that those individuals are more likely to commit femicides.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Thank you, Chief. That's your time.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Truong and the other witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Webb, I would like to further explore the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. You talked about them in your remarks.

If I understand correctly, you prefer the approach taken in Bill S‑208, which is currently in the Senate but has not yet been studied by our committee. Unless I'm mistaken, when I looked at the bill, I don't think it includes mandatory minimum sentences. In fact, it seemed to give the court all the latitude it needed. I have to say that, fundamentally, I'm not opposed to that.

That said, those in favour of mandatory minimum sentences want them above all in order to keep offenders in prison for as long as possible, but they also want to send society the message that these are serious crimes that deserve a minimum sentence. I'm not going to give you my opinion on that, but those are roughly the two things that we're hearing.

After you answer my next question, we can talk about the safety valve.

In your opinion, is Parliament sending society the right message by setting a mandatory minimum sentence for a crime?

[Melanie Webb]

As I indicated in my remarks earlier, the CBA has been opposed to mandatory minimum sentences for several reasons. Certainly, I think we share the minister's and the government's concern for public safety and for ensuring that sentences appropriately fit the crimes that people have been convicted of, but with respect, mandatory minimum sentences are inappropriate for the reasons I've already articulated.

I should also indicate, to reiterate, that we are not of the view that they truly deter crime in the way I think some might hope mandatory minimum sentences do.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

In your opinion, isn't it important to send society the message that particularly violent crimes deserve minimum sentences?

[Melanie Webb]

What I would say is this: In criminal justice, in criminal law, for many offences, there are established sentencing ranges that the appellate courts have set out in many cases, and they are well known to the courts. It would be a rare and exceptional case for a sentence to fall above or below that range.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Okay.

My speaking time is limited, but I'd like us to talk about the famous safety valve.

You said earlier that, in exceptional circumstances, a mandatory minimum sentence could be harmful. Under BillC‑16, however, the court could waive the mandatory minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances because it would be unfair.

Doesn't that protection seem sufficient to you?

[Melanie Webb]

Our concern with respect to the safety valve that's been proposed is that when you look at the other provision that's elsewhere in the bill, you see that it does mandate a minimum term of imprisonment. What that means, in effect, is that this will completely eliminate the possibility of a conditional sentence order for any sentence that carries a mandatory minimum sentence, because conditional sentence orders cannot be imposed for offences that carry a minimum term of imprisonment. That's really our main concern there.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I appreciate that. Thank you for the clarification, Ms. Webb.

I'd like to discuss another topic with you, but I don't have much time left.

I thought I heard you say that Bill C‑16 would undermine the fight against unreasonable delays, so to speak. I'd like you to elaborate on that.

We think the approach taken in Bill C‑16, which seeks to establish specific criteria for calculating delays, could help prevent mistrials. Would you not agree with that?

[Melanie Webb]

To be clear, the CBA has not articulated a concern with respect to the guidance or direction that's been provided in other provisions with respect to how to evaluate delay in complex cases. Our concern is with respect to the introduction of an alternative remedy to a stay of proceedings, which would be a significant change—a completely new change, I should say—in respect of how we treat paragraph 11(b) charter violations—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Ms. Webb, I apologize for interrupting you, but, as I said, my speaking time is limited.

I agree with you, and I understand. We agree that, ideally, all trials should be held within 18 to 30 months. In practical terms, however, that is unfortunately not always possible.

What would you suggest that is different from what's in Bill C‑16 to prevent unwarranted mistrials?

[Melanie Webb]

First of all, I think we should.... Again, our concern is that this is going to have the effect of potentially leading to even longer delays in the system.

I should just say that I was called to the bar almost 18 years ago, and I remember when trials took markedly shorter time, even for serious criminal offences. Now we are seeing trials that routinely take 18 to 30 months or longer. It's our concern that if this framework is imposed, who knows where we'll be in 10 years? Perhaps we'll be seeing trials routinely taking five years and up.

Rather than perhaps—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Ms. Webb, thank you. We're out of time. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

That completes our first round.

Moving on to the second round, we will start with Ms. Rood.

You have five minutes.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Chief Truong, thank you being here from London. It's great to have you to testify on this important piece of legislation.

Chief, Bill C-16 creates a sweeping safety valve that lets judges ignore mandatory minimum sentences for almost every serious offence, including many violent and repeat offences, whenever they decide the minimum would be cruel and unusual.

Given the documented rise in violent crime and repeat offending in London, do you believe this change will make it harder for your officers to keep dangerous offenders off the streets? Will it undermine the deterrent effect that mandatory minimums have historically provided?

[Chief Thai Truong]

I would say that it is very important that sentences reflect the severity of the crime. That is extremely important. It is important with respect to denunciation and deterrence, but it is very important when you have victims involved. If the victims see that the sentences that are handed out are not proportionate to the crime, it creates a loss of confidence in the justice system and a loss of confidence in society. It also causes implications in policing and trust with police in the court system.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Right now, we have the government packaging this massive weakening of mandatory minimums inside a bill that is being sold as protecting women and children. I'm wondering if you, as chief, support or oppose giving judges this new discretion to go below mandatory minimums for serious violent crimes in London. Do you believe it will help or hinder your force's ability to reverse the local crime increases that we're seeing right now?