Bill C-233

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device.
The enactment also amends the Judges Act to provide for continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Excellent. Thank you so much. I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

Emmanuella has no other comments.

Shall Liberal-5 carry?

Can we have a recorded vote, please?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

Excellent. Thank you so much.

I just want to make sure we have everything going here. Everything looks like it's fine.

Now let's get to the title of this. It is An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

Shall the title carry?

(Title agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

You guys are just being too easy on the chair today.

Shall the bill as amended be carried?

(Bill C-233 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

Excellent.

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

Is there a question?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

It is that Bill C-233 be amended by adding, after line 9 on page 2, the following new clause after the title “Coming into Force”: “This Act comes into force on the 30th day after the day on which it receives royal assent.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 20 of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I know that many of you are online and some people are just getting online right now. We have a very important day and the time is tight.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday April 29, 2022, the committee will begin its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of our witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute it when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of the screen of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Before we begin, I would like to welcome the Department of Justice officials who are here and will be discussing Bill C-233 with us. We have Shannon Davis-Ermuth, senior counsel in the criminal law and policy section of the policy sector; Claire Farid, director and general counsel in the family and children's law team of the policy sector; and Melissa Moor, counsel in the judicial affairs section of public law and legislative services.

We will be proceeding, but for some reason, Philippe, you are not in my introduction. I am sitting beside the legislative clerk, Philippe, who will keep this all in order and assist me with this if we have questions.

Because these were all confidential, there are some amendments that we may have questions on. You may want to ask one of the legal professionals about these, so that we can have a better understanding. I don't believe there are many lawyers in the room. I think we're all advocates for women and women's health.

We are going to proceed with clause-by-clause. I am going to move now to the agenda for clause-by-clause.

Do we have all of our members? I see Michelle and Shelby are on there. Fantastic.

Is Marc Serré here today?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Awesome.

We are coming to 5:30, the time I was told we have to end today.

On behalf of the status of women committee, I would like to thank all of you for being our important witnesses for Bill C-233, and that we could have this discussion.

Are there any issues? Are we ready to adjourn today's meeting?

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses for appearing today as part of our study on this bill.

I would like to begin by addressing Ms. Cross and Ms. Strauss.

As a preamble, I would say that there is a subsection of Bill C‑233 that adds a new condition that judges must consider when making an order for interim release with additional conditions under subsection 515(4.3) of the Criminal Code. If the Attorney General so requests, judges must consider whether it is desirable to require the accused to wear a remote monitoring device.

I would just like to know if you have been able to look into this. I would also like to hear from you that under this new legislation, a judge could not impose on his or her own initiative the wearing of an electronic device on an accused person when making a bail order with additional conditions. There must absolutely be a prior application by the prosecutor.

What do you think? How do you react to the fact that the bracelet would be imposed at the request of the public prosecutor, and not at the sole discretion of the judges?

Have you had a chance to look into this?

[Pamela Cross, Legal Director, Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children]

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm very happy to be with you to talk about Bill C-233. I do so on behalf of Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre in Durham Region where I'm the legal director. I'm happy to talk to you more about the work that we do with survivors of family violence if we have time during the question period.

First, with respect to judicial education, Luke's Place strongly supports judicial education on the issue of intimate partner violence, or IPV. The family law system in Canada is not always an understanding and safe place for women who have been subjected to IPV. Women face barriers in simply getting to the courtroom and, once there, they're often met with a legal system that does not understand their experiences or hear their concerns.

Just over a year ago, significant changes were made to the Divorce Act, making it mandatory for judges to consider family violence when deciding on parenting arrangements. These changes also introduced an expansive definition of “family violence” that goes well beyond the physical to include patterns of coercive control. As we just heard from Dr. Paterson, it's that coercive control that can be such a dangerous kind of IPV.

Those changes to the legislation, important as they are, are only one part of the solution when it comes to protecting women and children, to saving their lives. Education for those tasked with applying the law is equally important if judges are to have the tools and resources they need to make effective, safe parenting decisions.

Over the past year, we've seen excellent decisions that clearly reflect a deep understanding of the legislation and of IPV on the part of many judges. However, we also continue to see decisions that lack that understanding. When a judge does not fully understand what family violence looks like and its harmful long-lasting effects, decisions can be made that put women and children at risk. Stereotypes about violence and victims remain alive and women who have been subjected to subtle, non-physical forms of violence continue to be disbelieved, continue to be retraumatized, or even worse, they're vilified throughout the family law process.

We strongly support judicial independence and impartiality and the need to ensure that judges make decisions based only on the law and the facts before them, but to do so effectively and competently, judges require ongoing education about the laws that they're applying. This should not be controversial. We understand that a memorandum of understanding was recently signed by Chief Justice Richard Wagner and the Minister of Justice, David Lametti, recognizing the judiciary's autonomy over education. We believe that this bill can coexist with the memorandum through the permissive language found in the Judges Act.

While we generally support Bill C-233's proposed amendments, we suggest that it could be made stronger by including a provision that sets out suggested requirements for the creation and content of the training, similar to those in subsection 60(3) in respect of seminars related to sexual assault law. In the interests of time, I'll save my comments about the details of what we propose for that kind of education for the question period.

We also submit that Bill C-233 should include an amendment to paragraph 3(b) to require that new judges undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to IPV and coercive control. This obligation already exists with respect to sexual assault law and social context, and it should simply be expanded to cover the topic of intimate partner violence.

Very briefly, we're not opposed to electronic monitoring as a mechanism for promoting the safety of victims and survivors of intimate partner violence. There's no doubt that this form of electronic tracking can provide women with an added level of security and no doubt that it has the potential to increase both actual safety and feelings of safety.

However, we need to do more before we codify electronic monitoring. In order to avoid unintended negative consequences, let's take the time to find out more about when and how it will be used, and whether it's appropriate in all circumstances.

We have a list of questions that we believe need to be answered before proceeding with electronic monitoring, and I'm happy to share them and discuss them during the question period, if time permits.

Let me conclude by saying that Luke’s Place supports Bill C-233, but encourages the committee to consider our proposed suggestions and amendments as a way to strengthen the bill and promote safer outcomes for women and children.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, April 29, 2022, the committee will resume its study of Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their places during proceedings.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of our witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute your mike when you are not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Before we welcome our witnesses, for drafting amendments I would like to remind members to contact Alexandra Schorah, the legislative counsel, as soon as possible should there be any amendments to be drafted. The deadline for submitting amendments in both official languages is Wednesday, May 11, at noon. Amendments should be sent to the clerk.

On another note, I had a call this morning from Megan Walker. She is unable to attend today due to family circumstances. I have taken this to the clerk, and I would like to propose that her speaking notes be taken as read and appended to the evidence of today's meeting.

Do I have the consent of the committee?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank you, ladies, for being here this afternoon.

I don't have many questions for you. However, I do have one that relates to one of your answers, which surprised me a bit.

Ms. Davis-Ermuth, in response to a question from one of my colleagues about the application of the new provisions of Bill C‑233 and how all of this was going to be verified on the ground, as well as my question earlier this afternoon about how the effects of these new provisions were being analyzed, you responded that Statistics Canada was going to be doing that work.

Did I understand correctly?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

This is my final question.

You've seen Keira's law, which is Bill C-233. I'm wondering if you can tell us if you believe that this bill would help children and women in these situations in the future. Would it help empower women when it comes to divorce and when it comes to an abusive partner?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Okay. Thank you so much.

I have what I feel is a delicate question. Obviously, I think this whole committee is very passionate about this, and we've come together because we know how important this bill is. I think sometimes when we're super-emotional, we can forget about something that can happen, perhaps negatively, as a result of a bill.

Just to ensure.... I've had a lot of questions and feedback from male victims of intimate partner violence and male victims of domestic abuse as well. Do you see this Bill C-233 and the education being applied to judges protecting all people, regardless of gender?

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law and Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today to the reforms proposed by Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am joining you from my home and place of work that is situated on the traditional territories of the Haudenosaunee and the Algonquin Anishinabe nations.

I propose to provide a brief overview of the bill's reforms with reference to the relevant existing legal frameworks, and then my colleague, Melissa Moor, and I will be happy to attempt to answer any questions you may have.

As you know, the bill proposes two sets of amendments, one to the Criminal Code's interim judicial release, commonly known as bail provisions, and one to the provisions in the Judges Act for continuing education seminars. I will address each in turn.

Amendments to the Criminal Code would require a justice of the peace to determine whether an accused charged with an offence against his or her intimate partner should be required to wear a remote monitoring device as a condition of bail, commonly referred to as a “bond”, when requested by the Attorney General.

Currently, the Criminal Code allows courts hearing bail applications to impose any conditions they deem necessary, as long as they are justified, in any of the following cases: to ensure the accused's presence in court, for the protection or safety of the public, including victims, and [Technical difficulty—Editor] so as not to undermine section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

In particular, they may impose any conditions they consider necessary to ensure the safety of victims or witnesses to the offence, which may include the requirement to wear a remote monitoring device as a condition of release for any offence, including offences against an intimate partner. The electronic monitoring of accused persons on bail is a matter of administration of justice, and therefore a provincial and territorial responsibility. The use of such a device varies across the country. Some provinces and territories provide electronic monitoring programs and pay for the device, while others require the accused to pay for it.

Now I will turn to Bill C-233's Judges Act amendments, which would add intimate partner violence and coercive control to the list of continuing education seminars for judges that the Canadian Judicial Council may establish. That list of continuing education seminars already references “matters related to sexual assault law and social context, which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination”, as enacted by Bill C-3, which came into force in 2021.

“Coercive control” is a term coined by sociologists to refer to a pattern of controlling behaviour that takes place over time in the context of intimate partner or familial relationships and serves to entrap victims, eliminating their sense of freedom in the relationship. A broad range of controlling conduct may be employed, but the focus is on how a pattern of such conduct serves to subjugate, not the individual incidents in which abusers exercise control.

The concept of coercive control has been used in both family law and criminal law contexts. In the family law context, the concept was recently added to the Divorce Act's definition of family violence. Although there are no specific offences of intimate partner violence or coercive control in the Criminal Code, numerous Criminal Code offences of general application can address this type of conduct, such as homicide, assault, threats of death or bodily harm, sexual assault and criminal harassment.

That concludes my remarks. I welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Good afternoon. We are starting our second hour of debate and discussion on Bill C-233.

For our second panel, I would like to welcome members of the Department of Justice. We have Melissa Moor, counsel of the judicial affairs section, public law and legislative services sector, as well as Shannon Davis-Ermuth, senior counsel, criminal law and policy sector.

You have five minutes together. When you see me start rolling my pen, if you could start wrapping it up, that would be fantastic.

I'm going to pass the floor over to you. I'm not sure who would like to get started, but I'm passing over the floor to the Department of Justice. You have five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Awesome.

On behalf of the status of women committee in the first hour of the debate on Bill C-233, I would like to thank Anju Dhillon and Pam Damoff for coming forward and presenting today.

To Jennifer and to Phil, thank you so, so much. I can't agree more with Pam about the work you have done and the advocacy you're done in memory of Keira. We're all there. Thanks for letting us join your train and making sure that we change things for all Canadians. Thank you so much.

We are now going to suspend for a few seconds. We will be welcoming the justice department.

You can hang up. Once again, thank you so much for joining us.

We are suspended.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Ms. Dhillon and Ms. Damoff, thank you very much, once again, for introducing Bill C‑233. I also thank Dr. Kagan-Viater and Mr. Viater for being here.

I would like to remind you that talking about this issue is not new. Dr. Kagan-Viater, you pointed out that violence is not always physical, but it always hurts. There was an ad campaign that ran at the time that made an impression on me as a young woman. It was my partner who was behind the campaign, who thought of it. I thought it summed up what coercive control is all about.

If I understand correctly, the electronic bracelet might not have saved your daughter. You recalled that it was more the training of the judges that was at issue in this case. That is my understanding.

For survivors and victims of intimate partner violence, the important thing is that there are no other victims, but also to give women back their confidence so that they want to report these situations, feel that they will be listened to and that their situation will be given all the importance it can have.

Dr. Kagan-Viater, I would like you to talk about the impact that better training of judges will have, and the fact that women will be encouraged to report these situations.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Of course.

In closing, Madam Chair, I would like to ask a question of our colleague Ms. Dhillon.

Instead of a sunset provision, would it have been appropriate for Bill C‑233 to include a provision that would provide for an analysis of its implementation? So we could have looked at what it would have achieved in three or five years, perhaps?