The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met on April 20, 2026, to study Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters. Witnesses appearing were Colton Fehr, assistant professor at the University of Saskatchewan; Joanne Blinco, executive director of the Alberta Elder Abuse Awareness Council; Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime; Nancy Boucher, a registered practical nurse and survivor of domestic violence; Rizwan Khan, legal researcher and analyst at the National Institute on Ageing; and Liz Brown, executive director of Valora Place.
Colton Fehr supported the bill’s safety valve for most mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment, calling it the minimum constitutional response to the problems posed by such sentences, and recommended that Parliament exclude certain factors—such as a complainant’s previous sexual history, lack of physical injury, cultural or religious beliefs about sexual assault, relationship between accused and complainant, and self-induced intoxication—from consideration when applying the exemption. He also suggested that Parliament consider permitting limited access to conditional sentence orders in some cases where the exemption applies, and warned that the exclusion of murder from the safety valve could incentivize wrongful guilty pleas, particularly for battered women who kill their abusers, recommending either extending the exemption to all homicides or allowing judges to circumvent a minimum sentence when the incentive to forfeit a defence unduly risks a wrongful conviction.
Joanne Blinco described how coercive control underlies many situations of elder abuse, involving patterns of manipulation, intimidation, isolation and control that limit an older adult’s independence, and noted that older women are disproportionately affected. She explained that in Alberta, specialized elder abuse case managers see coercive control as a significant factor, often perpetrated by sons aged 45 to 49 who present as helpers, and that recognizing coercive control in policy and legal frameworks would allow earlier and more effective intervention.
Benjamin Roebuck strongly supported the bill, calling it the most significant advancement in federal victims’ rights since the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in 2015, and recommended that sections 27 to 29 of the CVBR be repealed to allow enforcement, or that the complaints mechanism be made clear, accessible and effective. He also recommended that the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime be named in the CVBR complaints provisions, that the list of federal entities with information-sharing obligations be explicitly non-exhaustive and include the Canada Border Services Agency and the Department of Justice, and that survivors have a right to know when the person who harmed them has been removed from Canada.
Nancy Boucher, speaking as a survivor, argued that femicide must be recognized and treated with the utmost seriousness, as it is the end point of an escalation of violence, and that including it in the Criminal Code would send a clear message that domestic violence will no longer be minimized or excused. She criticized the justice system for not believing or protecting victims, noting that events are often consolidated into a single charge and that women face greater risk when they report, and called for harsher sentences from the beginning to deter escalation.
Rizwan Khan argued that the proposed coercive control offence under Bill C-16 is too narrow because it is limited to intimate partner relationships, leaving out older adults who are controlled by sons, other relatives or informal caregivers, and that this creates a two-tiered system of justice. He recommended that the offence be amended to apply also to relatives and informal caregivers, citing data showing that 36% of older adult victims of family violence were victimized by a child, and pointing to international examples from England, Wales and Queensland that have broader definitions.
Liz Brown raised significant concerns about criminalizing coercive control, warning that it would have disproportionate effects on marginalized communities, including indigenous women, racialized women and women living in poverty, and that it would increase the likelihood of women who have experienced harm being criminalized themselves. She recommended no changes to the current criminal harassment legislation, no removal of the subjective fear requirement, mandatory training for police, Crowns and judges, a public education campaign before implementation, and implementation of the Mass Casualty Commission’s recommendation V.8 on a common framework for women-centric risk assessments, while supporting increased support for survivors, restorative justice processes and the expansion of the intimate image definition to include deepfakes.
The committee also heard questions from members, including exchanges on the definition of femicide, the impact of bail decisions on survivors, and the need for better harmonization between levels of government, but no procedural debate, motions or votes occurred during this meeting.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.