Status of Women Committee on April 21st, 2026

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

What message does it send to women who have survived intimate partner violence and are looking to the courts for justice when they discover that their rights, while protected in theory, are not enforceable under law?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Let's take a step back and realize that the bill we are discussing and debating represents a series of changes that are generational in nature when it comes to taking more seriously threats made against women and violence committed against women in Canada. The message we're trying to send is that justice will be done. You will have an opportunity to have your case heard, to have it prosecuted to completion and to have justice served after an offence has been committed.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

I have time for one further question. Bill C-5, which became law in 2022, hollowed out Canada's justice system by striking down mandatory minimum punishments for 14 unique violent offences, including discharging a firearm and weapons trafficking. Why did you specifically exclude these offences for consideration in Bill C-16?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

The changes that touch on mandatory minimums included in this bill were motivated by the Senneville decision. Very quickly after that decision, we reoriented portions of the bill that would specifically address this issue. Given that the theme of this bill is, really, touching on gender-based violence and intimate partner violence, the mandatory minimums we sought to restore were the ones that had been struck down by the court, not those that had been removed through an act of Parliament.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

We're moving to Mr. Chen for six minutes, please.

Go ahead.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister Fraser, Mr. Ripley, Ms. Levman and Mr. Taylor, for appearing before this committee today.

Through you, Madam Chair, to the minister, last October the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the one-year mandatory minimum penalty for the offence of possession or access to child sexual abuse material. In response, you introduced Bill C-16 a few weeks later, restoring the minimum penalty and all others that had been invalidated by the courts. How does this bill ensure that these restored mandatory minimums will withstand judicial scrutiny and be enforced in practice?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thanks for the question, and this is an important one. I don't think it sat well with anyone that a serious crime could potentially not meet the punishment that parliamentarians have agreed would be appropriate, and we wanted to change that. We directly responded by taking guidance from the court—but not only the court. We adopted an approach that has been endorsed by members of different political parties, including the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party of Canada and, of course, now through the legislation, the Liberal Party. When there was a multipartisan consensus that reflected the potential direction the court had shed a light on, we determined this was the best path forward. That includes giving some limited discretion to the courts when it would be grossly disproportionate to have the mandatory minimum carried out. Typically this would happen, in my view, in circumstances that were not likely envisioned by the drafters of the original mandatory minimum that has been struck down.

There are other ways you could do that. For example, you could ring-fence more tightly the definition of the underlying offence. However, when we discussed this with certain stakeholders, they indicated to us that this might change the interpretation that has emerged through a body of case law on important offences that is designed to protect the victims of crime—specifically, sexual crime. The path forward will reinstate mandatory minimum penalties, not only for the offence that you mentioned but also for a series of others that have previously been struck down, while reflecting a very limited amount of discretion in those circumstances in which the penalty would be “grossly disproportionate”.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your touching on the safety valve.

Why is it important that this bill move forward quickly to better protect children from sexual predators at this time?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I don't know that there could be a more obvious reason to move more quickly than this: Every day that there is delay in implementing a change, there's the potential for an innocent person to be harmed, for another child to be made a victim, for another person in intimate partner violence to be abused. There appears to me to be widespread support for the vast majority of this bill from different political parties. I expect that after a rigorous study, both in the House of Commons and the Senate, this bill will become law.

We have to ask ourselves this: Are we willing to jeopardize the safety and well-being of the people who would benefit from this bill when there are victims experiencing injustices in real time? There are court cases emerging in my home province, in Ontario and elsewhere—I expect the pattern will continue—around the use of AI deepfakes to create intimate images. There are judges specifically drawing attention to the fact that, because we have not yet implemented the change included in this bill, there is no basis upon which a person can be convicted for committing completely heinous behaviour, creating AI deepfakes of intimate images of a person without their consent.

These problems are happening every single day in our community. Kids are being exploited. Women are being killed. People are being abused. We have an opportunity to make a difference. I would suggest that it would be inappropriate to delay for any reason other than necessary improvements that should be made to the bill.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Minister, it sounds as though this approach of restoring mandatory minimums, with the addition of a safety valve, underscores the importance of maintaining a principled, evidence-based and multi-party approach to criminal law reform, particularly when it comes to measures designed to both protect the public and ensure compliance with the charter. As you have just outlined, there is an evolution in the types of crimes that are now occurring, including the proliferation of deepfakes. Could you speak to the challenges that are currently being faced in the system when it comes to addressing them?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Your question touches on a number of issues. I think we'll only have time, with the one-minute signal I'm being given, to deal with the last aspect of it.

Technology changes, and law too must change if we're going to offer protections that people expect and so richly deserve. I've given a summary on the issue of AI deepfakes and why we need to change more quickly. However, this is not the only place in which this bill or other initiatives across government are seeking to adopt laws to respond to modern threats. Look at some of the changes included in this bill with regard to criminal harassment since people have the ability to track another person using GPS on their phone. This is a threat that didn't exist with everyone in society a few years ago, but now it's pretty easy if you have your phone set up in a way that shares a location with another person. We must have laws that reflect changing practices and emerging threats.

We have an entire bill, Bill C-22, designed to give access to digital evidence of crimes...that are being used for very serious offences, such as extortion, carjackings and home invasions, and for organized crime in planning large-scale criminal operations. Whether for AI deepfakes, criminal harassment or lawful access, it would be a disservice to Canadians if the Government of Canada didn't adopt laws to reflect the threats that reveal themselves as technology changes the world in which we live.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Minister, for being here today to answer our questions on Bill C‑16.

I'd also like to mention that an open letter was published this morning on the issue of femicide. In fact, this letter was addressed mainly to the Government of Quebec, but we should remember that since there have now been nine femicides in Quebec, that's already more than all the femicides committed last year.

I'd still like to emphasize the fact that, even though this letter is more about a bill that I hope will be debated soon in Quebec City, the federal government should also go down this road with Bill C‑16, which we're discussing today. In fact, Quebec is often a forerunner when it comes to violence against women. I'm thinking of the “Rebuilding Trust” report in particular.

What we want is for there to be “not one more”.

Minister, if Bill C‑16 isn't accompanied by a substantial tax transfer to the provinces for court funding, wouldn't that be a way to shift the political responsibility from the federal government to the provincial governments and the judges?

You know that the Criminal Code falls under federal jurisdiction and that the administration of justice falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. If there aren't any transfers to acknowledge that there will be consequences for the justice system in Quebec and the provinces, I find myself wondering the following question.

Isn't it your responsibility, at the federal level, to ensure that the means are provided?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

First of all, regarding your comment on the issue of femicide, I want to emphasize that every femicide is a tragedy. Since the start of the year, it's shocking to see that there have been as many as nine femicides, and it's unfortunate that this problem persists.

Thank you, Ms. Larouche, for sharing your concerns on this matter. I haven't read the article you referred to, but I'll have a chance to do so this afternoon.

I personally believe it is essential to consider the proposals the provinces have made to me.

At the same time, when I make changes, it's necessary for the provinces to acknowledge them. They're also responsible for the administration of justice within their jurisdictions.

If there are challenges at the national level—such as issues with data, for example—the federal government can contribute by providing funding to move things forward on a given issue. However, when it comes to the administration of the courts, for example, that falls under provincial responsibility. The provinces aren't telling me they need a lot of funding to adopt regulations when changes need to be made.

We continue to discuss with the provinces to understand the appropriate role the federal government should play.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes, but I'll still point out that this is a good illustration of the fiscal imbalance. We pass laws here, but subsequently, the Government of Quebec is responsible for providing the necessary financial resources. That's why I was talking about substantial fiscal transfers to Quebec and the provinces.

Minister, in May 2024, your predecessor, Arif Virani, stated in the House of Commons that Bill C‑392, which had been introduced by the Bloc Québécois, constituted an attack on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the Liberal Party would always protect the rights enshrined in the charter. At the time, the Liberal government flat out rejected the use of the notwithstanding clause by other parties. However, Bill C‑16 takes a different approach. It pursues the same objective: to limit procedural rulings.

Minister, in what way is your approach in Bill C‑16 constitutionally more legitimate than the one your own predecessors condemned?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm not aware of my predecessor's comment.

Does your question concern time limits?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Actually, if you had been listening, you'd know that what I was saying was that the Liberal government flat out rejected the use of the notwithstanding clause by other parties to—

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

All right. I understand your question now.

I'll answer in English to clarify the details.

First, I thought the use of the notwithstanding clause would be less appropriate in these circumstances, in terms of making a difference. One of the main reasons is that it is temporal in nature, so it wouldn't permanently change the law. It would only allow a law to exist for a five-year period, after which it would be sunsetted.

The approach that we've taken—again, reflected with support from comments in public from members of different parties—creates an opportunity to permanently change the law and give Canadians confidence in the long term that they are going to have a constitutionally compliant law and that there would be a mandatory minimum penalty in place for heinous crimes, such as the one that was at issue in Senneville.

In my view, it was a better approach—before you even get into philosophies about the notwithstanding clause. As a matter of ordinary consideration, we would be best served by trying to operate within the constitutional framework and ensure that, wherever possible, we have rights. Where we're going to bump up against what would normally be permissible, we use the abilities provided in section 1 that allow us to establish reasonable limits on that right.

To use a notwithstanding clause would signal that our desire is to go beyond a reasonable limit. I think we should avoid that whenever we can.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

How much time do I have left?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You have 20 seconds.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I will come back to the Jordan decision later, during my next turn, Minister.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Madame Larouche.

We'll move on to Ms. Roberts for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us today.

You made a comment earlier, and I hope I've written this down properly. You said that people are being killed and that we have a responsibility to protect our citizens. I would include women in there.

I want to quote something for you. Ninety-three per cent of human trafficking is against women, and 76% of intimate partner violence is against women. In 2024, we had a meeting to address the urgency of this issue. Cait Alexander was one of the witnesses, along with Megan Walker. Unfortunately, they were shut down by your government because it didn't want to address the issue.

It is important. I agree with you that we must protect women, so why do these numbers continue to escalate? Bill C-16 is not assisting in protecting women. How are we going to change that?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for the question.

I would disagree with your characterization, respectfully, with regard to the bill's protection of women. Femicide, specifically—by definition—impacts women disproportionately. A coercive control law is being put in place because we have heard, through deep engagement, including the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission in my own province and the County of Renfrew inquest.... Different voices have been calling for these changes because of the disproportionate impact that violence against women has on Canadian women. You will see measures around criminal harassment, AI deepfakes, intimate images and sextortion, which all disproportionally impact women in Canada. This is why many of these pieces were put in place.

We don't want to communicate that this bill, and this bill alone, would solve all these problems. We know there needs to be a broader strategy that includes frontline support—community organizations supporting victims fleeing violence—and upstream investments in the long term to help build healthier communities.

This is part of a multipronged strategy, but it's all trying to solve the same problem.