Remarks to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-16 (Protecting Victims Act)

Chair, Members,

We are meeting today on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. As we mark Red Dress Day on May 5th, I want to acknowledge the families of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and Two Spirit people, and other survivors calling for justice.

Bill C‑16: A Substantive Advancement

Bill C‑16 represents the most significant advancement in federal victims’ rights since the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was enacted in 2015.

It responds to half of the recommendations from our national systemic investigation, Rethinking Justice for Survivors of Sexual Violence, which included consultations with thousands of survivors, frontline workers, service providers, justice professionals, and experts across Canada.

Including:

• recognition of victim interests in delay and Jordan applications;
• presumptive access to testimonial aids
• a Criminal Code framework for restorative justice
• expanded protections for sexual offences and sexual exploitation
• expansion to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including a new right to respect and fairness.

Enforceability, Remedies, and Procedural Fairness under the CVBR

The CVBR is quasi‑constitutional legislation. Parliament gave it primacy and linked victims’ rights to the Charter and the proper administration of justice.

At the same time, the CVBR imposes extraordinary limitations on enforcement:

• section 27 denies legal status on the rights
• section 28 denies civil remedies
• section 29 denies appeals based on CVBR violations.

Victim rights in other countries are not so constrained. Sections 27 to 29 should be repealed. If they remain, procedural fairness requires that the complaints mechanism chosen by Parliament be clear, accessible, and effective.

Clarifying Oversight in the CVBR Complaints Process

C‑16 expands the scope of admissible CVBR complaints. One improvement Parliament can make is to name the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime in the CVBR complaints and remedies provisions, including section 25(2).

This is not mandate expansion, it is procedural clarity.

Other quasi‑constitutional statutes have named oversight bodies to support independent review and consistent application. Under the CVBR, we still have practical gaps, including limits on access to information required to assess complaints—particularly under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

If victims are directed to a complaints‑based system as their primary form of redress, that system must be capable of meaningful review.

Federal Entity List and Removal Orders

Proposed section 8.1 of the CVBR, identifying federal entities with information‑sharing obligations, is a positive development. The list must be explicitly non‑exhaustive.

The provision should state “including, but not limited to”, and it should explicitly name Canada Border Services Agency and the Department of Justice.

Survivors should have a right to know whether the person who harmed them has been removed from Canada as a result of a criminal offence, regardless of whether a sentence has expired. This is a narrow, safety‑focused clarification to address CVBR complaints. In one case, a survivor spent years in witness protection and has no right to know if the person who harmed her has been removed from Canada.

Therapeutic Records: Protection, Delay Reduction, and System Integrity

I strongly support reforms to better protect therapeutic records.

These reforms respond directly to our investigation and the advocacy of survivors. We heard that subpoenas for counselling records forced survivors into impossible choices between seeking mental health care or participating in the justice process.

In our national survey:

• 20% of survivors avoided counselling due to fear of subpoena;
• 13% chose not to report to police for the same reason.

One survivor told us:

“When I heard he was applying for my counselling records, I wanted to die.”

Beyond the human cost, these practices drive delay and inefficiency. Records applications are often brought mid‑trial, triggering adjournments, Jordan risks, prolonged proceedings, and increased costs across the justice system.

By raising the admissibility threshold to “innocence at stake,” Bill C‑16:

• protects survivors’ access to life‑saving care;
• reduces speculative and last‑minute applications;
• minimizes delay; and
• strengthens public confidence in the justice system.

This reform safeguards full answer and defence by allowing access to records when they are necessary, while eliminating practices that have a discriminatory impact on women’s access to health care.