Justice Committee on April 22nd, 2026

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

Okay.

I only have a minute left, but I'd like to discuss another topic with you.

Bill C‑16 includes sentences for the recruitment of young people for the purpose of committing a criminal act. I would like to know whether or not you think that is sufficient.

If you don't think it is sufficient, I was thinking about doubling the sentence for an adult who recruits a young person, particularly from criminal organizations, that the individual would have received if he had committed the crime himself. For example, if a member of the Hells Angels recruited a 12-year-old to commit a crime, he could face double the sentence that the young person would receive.

What do you think of that?

[Chief Thai Truong]

I hear what you're saying, sir. I'm in full support of sentences being reflective of the crimes committed. If it's a serious offence, such as recruiting young people for organized crime, I feel there should be a strong sentence that's reflective of that.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Folks, we have six minutes left. I propose reducing the time for the last two speakers to three minutes each, starting with you, Mr. Lawton.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Ms. Webb, you mentioned that your organization, as a general rule, does not support mandatory minimum sentences. Do I understand correctly that your view is that judges can be trusted to mete out the fair and appropriate sentence in all cases?

[Melanie Webb]

I think judges have a remarkably difficult job, particularly in sentencing. I think that judges across this country do a remarkable job of sentencing individuals as they should be.

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

To follow that to its logical conclusion, why have maximum sentences or an upper limit for sentences if judges can work within ranges?

[Melanie Webb]

That's a bit of a different idea.

First of all, I would say there are offences for which the judges certainly do hand out maximum sentences, but not for every offence. There are certainly certain types of offences where we will rarely see, for example, a life sentence, but it remains on the books and it's still possible that a life sentence could be imposed for certain kinds of offences other than murder.

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

Thank you. I'm making the point that if we constrain sentencing on one end, it doesn't seem entirely abnormal to constrain it on the other end too.

Chief, we know that London, sadly—which is not at all a reflection of your work—is a hotbed of human trafficking by virtue of where it is along the 401. Human trafficking is not something that's dealt with in C-16, but we know there is a very direct link in some cases between abusive relationships and human trafficking.

What can we do better as a committee in regard to human trafficking as we try to intercept escalations in femicides and abusive relationships with women? What would you like to see from legislation that would help that?

[Chief Thai Truong]

That's a good question, sir.

I would actually say the coercive control directly applies to human trafficking investigations and human trafficking offences. Often, the traffickers are involved in intimate relationships with the young woman or the young girl, so I think that applies.

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

Thank you very much.

I'm glad you were able to take up our invitation to join us here.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Thank you.

Mr. Chang, you have three minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

We're changing the time, so I'm going to take that, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Okay. Go ahead.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you to my colleague as well.

Chief, it's great to see you in Ottawa. We're very fortunate to have you serving in London.

In fact, I want to ask about that service. How long have you been a police officer?

[Chief Thai Truong]

It has been 25 years, sir.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I'm sure you've seen, through the course of your career, a number of things that are in need of continued attention, to put it mildly—

[Chief Thai Truong]

That is correct.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

—that have affected you and other officers in your position who have served so long.

How do you think this bill will help address some of the gaps that exist in the criminal justice system?

It's a general question, but I think it's fundamental to the matter at hand.

[Chief Thai Truong]

Thank you, sir.

This is a bill that our police officers and I are in full support of. It's important, and it addresses the needs of victims. It addresses new legislation, which creates new offences. It addresses the issue of deepfakes, and it also addresses the Jordan decision. I think it's a good piece of legislation, and I'm supportive of it.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is my last question.

You've become known in London for being extremely engaged with civil society organizations. One of those is the London Abused Women's Centre, which has called attention to the femicide offence and has advocated for that. I think it is, in no small part, because of their advocacy, but also the receptiveness your organization in London has shown to such an offence.

Can you talk about the femicide offence, what's being proposed, the importance of that and how it reflects a broad sentiment on the ground among organizations like the London Abused Women's Centre?

[Chief Thai Truong]

Thank you, sir.

In London, we're pretty blessed with great organizations that are working in this space, such as the London Abused Women's Centre. A lot of organizations have been calling on the government to name femicide. This legislation does just that: It recognizes femicide, and it recognizes coercive control. Truly, it is a piece of legislation that deals with and responds to the Mass Casualty Commission and the Renfrew county inquest, which are really trying to prevent further femicides from occurring.

People and communities in London are supportive of this particular piece of legislation.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

Okay. That completes the first round.

Witnesses, I'd like to thank you all for your participation.

I know I had to cut off quite a few of you, and I apologize for that, but we do have time constraints. If you were cut off but feel there is more to add to a question that was put to you, feel free to put that in writing and submit it to the committee for consideration.

I want to thank you for your participation.

We're going to suspend for a few minutes while we transition to the second panel and change out the chair.

For the second hour, the chair will be Monsieur Fortin. He will also be allowed to ask questions in addition to his responsibilities as chair, and that's with the agreement of all three parties.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair (Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

We are now resuming the meeting.

Welcome, everyone.

I would like to welcome the witnesses for the second panel.

From the Child and Youth Advocacy Centres of Canada, we have Leah Zille, co-chair of the board of directors.

Ms. Zille, you have the floor for five minutes.