The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to study Bill C-16, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Witnesses included Suzanne Zaccour from the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL), Louise Riendeau and Karine Barrette from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, Sylvie Champagne and Michel Marchand from the Barreau du Québec, Peter Copeland from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and Dr. Crystal J. Giesbrecht from the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan (PATHS).
Suzanne Zaccour of NAWL urged several technical amendments to Bill C-16, warning that provisions on coercive control, mandatory minimums, and constructive first-degree murder could backfire against survivors. She recommended removing language about controlling how a partner cares for children, changing the criminal harassment test to include subjective fear, and expanding the definition of deepfakes beyond realistic images. Zaccour also called for closing loopholes on firearms for police officers and on sexual history evidence, and for raising the threshold for producing all personal records, not just therapeutic ones.
Louise Riendeau of the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale strongly supported the criminalization of coercive control, calling it a major step forward for recognizing the full experience of victims and as a predictor of homicide. She stressed that implementation must include training, guidelines, and resources to avoid unintended consequences, and recommended that the coercive control provisions not come into force for two years after royal assent.
Karine Barrette of the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale added that fears of the offence being used against victims did not materialize in Great Britain, where training helped identify the primary aggressor. She recommended expert panels for coordinated implementation, data collection, and legislative reviews every two years for six years. Barrette also opposed giving police the power to apply alternative measures in domestic violence cases and suggested clarifying the French wording of the bill.
Sylvie Champagne of the Barreau du Québec supported the bill's objectives but raised concerns about its consistency, noting that criminal harassment, coercive control, and femicide rely on similar behaviours and could fragment the law. She called for tightening the definition of femicide to specify the link between domination and homicide, and warned that the proposed safety valve for mandatory minimums could shift the burden to the accused and create two-tier justice.
Peter Copeland of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute commended the bill's scope but argued that the coercive control definition is dangerously loose and should follow a predicate-offence model like Scotland's, which had higher prosecution rates. He recommended removing the term "femicide" as misleading, and suggested that mandatory minimums should include narrow, objective grounds for exceptions rather than the proposed safety valve. Copeland also called for a 48-hour takedown requirement for platforms hosting non-consensual images and for recognizing organized crime and national security cases under the Jordan framework.
Dr. Crystal J. Giesbrecht of PATHS supported the coercive control offence and recommended expanding the definition to include conduct that causes distress or disruption to daily life, not just threats to safety. She also proposed adding manipulation of vulnerabilities as a form of conduct, requiring a no-contact order upon conviction, and establishing training guidelines for legal professionals during the two-year implementation period.
Michel Marchand of the Barreau du Québec raised concerns about the bill's approach to mandatory minimums, arguing that the safety valve effectively reverses Supreme Court precedent and could lead to case-by-case litigation, increasing the burden on the justice system. He also cautioned against automatic deductions under the Jordan framework, advocating instead for more resources and stricter prosecution guidelines.
The committee also heard exchanges on the use of the notwithstanding clause for mandatory minimums, with Copeland suggesting it could be legitimate if courts do not respect the law, while clarifying he was not calling for its use in this bill. No procedural motions or votes were recorded in the transcript.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.