Evidence of meeting #107 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was inquiries.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Tony Clement  Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
Arif Virani  Parkdale—High Park, Lib.
Laurelly Dale  Criminal Defense Counsel, Dale Law Professional Corporation, As an Individual
Michael Spratt  Criminal Lawyer, Abergel Goldstein and Partners, As an Individual
Rosellen Sullivan  Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
Richard Fowler  Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
Lisa Silver  Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Daniel Brown  Lawyer, Daniel Brown Law, As an Individual
Howard Chow  Deputy Chief Constable, Vancouver Police Department, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
Rachel Huntsman  Legal Counsel, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
Daisy Kler  Transition House Worker, Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter
Kathryn Smithen  Barrister and Solicitor, Child and Family Advocacy Services, Smithen Law, As an Individual
Elizabeth Sheehy  Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Joy Smith  Founder and President, Joy Smith Foundation Inc.
Maria Mourani  Criminologist and Sociologist, President of Mouranie-Criminologie, As an Individual
Marie-Eve Sylvestre  Full Professor, Faculty of Law, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Megan Walker  Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre

7:07 p.m.

Transition House Worker, Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter

Daisy Kler

That's the first time I have heard that argument, so I need a little more time to think that through. I'm not as quick as Professor Sheehy on that.

What I'm saying is what I—

7:07 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Go ahead.

7:07 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Ms. Kler, you have the floor.

September 24th, 2018 / 7:07 p.m.

Transition House Worker, Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter

Daisy Kler

Okay, I can't see all of you, so I don't know who you're talking to unless you say my name.

What I agreed with about reverse onus is that I thought it was a good start. The flaw I saw was that men who were convicted.... In the case of this batterer of a woman I was working with, who was convicted, he received a conditional discharge, so if he battered again—

7:07 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

I understand your point on the conditional discharge—

7:07 p.m.

Transition House Worker, Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter

7:07 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

He would no longer be subject to the reverse onus, even though he has a conviction.

Ms. Smithen, you were going to clarify your position.

7:07 p.m.

Barrister and Solicitor, Child and Family Advocacy Services, Smithen Law, As an Individual

Kathryn Smithen

I think my concern would be that if it's a first offence, there's no history identified. Quite often, police will have history in their data banks, and not necessarily were there criminal charges laid.

My view would be that if there is a history in addition to a charge, or no history but two or more charges, it should be a reverse onus. It's where there's some evidence that there's a pattern, that this isn't the first time up at bat for this alleged offender.

7:07 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Professor Sheehy, do you subscribe to that as well?

7:07 p.m.

Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy

Yes, I do.

It's not where I started. I was initially noticing the fact that those offenders who plead guilty or who are found guilty but have no conviction entered would be excluded from this bill.

I agree that when there is evidence of some sort of pattern of intimate partner violence, we ought to all be on the alert. There are some important risk factors that will only be accounted for, I think, if there is a reverse-onus hearing.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Fair enough.

Now, I certainly support the reverse-onus provisions of this bill and I am certainly open to looking at potential amendments to broaden the scope of how those reverse-onus provisions would apply.

That said, others, including the CBA, have taken the position that there's really no need for reverse onus. In that regard, they point to the fact that Bill C-75 would provide two criteria that judges must pay attention to in making a determination on bail. They include whether an accused was charged with an offence involving violence, or the threaten or attempt of violence, and, secondly, whether an accused had been convicted of a prior offence that is broader than simply an intimate partner violent offence.

I wonder what your take on their position would be, or what your response to the CBA would be on that point.

7:10 p.m.

Barrister and Solicitor, Child and Family Advocacy Services, Smithen Law, As an Individual

Kathryn Smithen

I don't presume to speak for the CBA, in any stretch of the imagination, but I think that position is short-sighted.

Bail decisions are frequently made by justices of the peace, many of whom don't have legal training. I have seen it play out that bail decisions are not uniformly applied across the board. There's a lot of room for discretion. I would be concerned that if there wasn't the reverse onus, people charged with intimate partner violence offences would slip through the cracks. There needs to be recognition that this is a serious offence.

I have friends who are police officers who have told me when they get calls—homicide is obviously one, and domestic violence is the second—they take it very seriously now. I'm concerned that inside the judicial system, it's not being taken as seriously. It's not being ascribed the potential for danger that it has, particularly if there's a pattern.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Fair enough.

Professor Sheehy, you provided some statistical evidence of breaches by individuals who are charged with intimate partner violence. One aspect of Bill C-75 is the establishment of judicial referral hearings when dealing with administration of justice related offences, which could include, obviously, breaches of bail conditions imposed. Do you have any concerns about the judicial referral hearing process, at least in the context of intimate partner violence?

7:10 p.m.

Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy

I don't have enough information to give you an informed opinion on that subject.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Okay.

7:10 p.m.

Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy

As to whether those enhanced procedures will do anything to protect women, I don't know enough about—

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

That's fair. I just thought I would ask.

7:10 p.m.

Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy

Yes. Thanks.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you very much.

Ms. Khalid is next.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for really putting that gender lens onto Bill C-75 and its impact.

We've heard from previous witnesses who've come forward that the reverse onus with respect to intimate partner violence would further increase the under-reporting of intimate partner violence and domestic abuse. Do you agree with that?

That's for Ms. Smithen, Ms. Sheehy, and then Daisy.

7:10 p.m.

Barrister and Solicitor, Child and Family Advocacy Services, Smithen Law, As an Individual

Kathryn Smithen

I don't think it does. For a lot of the women I interview, even getting them to talk about the offence is a long process. I don't think a lot of them, or the ones I've ever met—I include myself on that list—have thought that far through it. I don't see any evidence of that at all.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Ms. Sheehy, do you agree with that?

7:10 p.m.

Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy

I just don't even understand the argument. The argument is that women won't report if they think their partner will possibly be held? I find that hard to imagine, because when women are that desperate to involve police, they are usually quite frightened.

I don't know what the basis would be for that argument.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Right. I completely....

Daisy, do you want to comment as well?

7:15 p.m.

Transition House Worker, Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter

Daisy Kler

Yes. It's hard to actually argue against it when we don't know what the argument is. If somebody is saying that if the reverse onus is implemented, then somehow women will report less, it's just making a statement. There is no argument.

I agree with Ms. Sheehy that if women are using the police and using the criminal justice system, they are desperate at that point and very, very fearful. Because so few women will use the criminal justice system, it's usually their last resort. Regardless of a woman's reluctance or not, the state has an obligation to protect her. I think this is much more reinforced if there's a reverse onus.