Justice Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I want to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

I also want to start with a reminder that literally hundreds and hundreds of women, primarily, are working to serve victims of intimate partner violence in this country, and give a reminder of the important work that your groups do each and every day in providing that support.

I think most of you will know the context at the beginning of the pandemic. When I talked to the frontline social service agencies about what was happening then, the social service agencies and the police both reported a spike in intimate partner violence.

To the representatives of Regroupement des maisons pour victimes de violence conjugale—that's a mouthful for me in French—have you seen a decline in that spike as the pandemic restrictions have receded, or has it stayed at very high levels?

[Louise Riendeau]

We've seen an increase in the number of requests. In Quebec, especially during the pandemic, there were a lot of awareness campaigns, because we wanted the message to reach isolated women. The Quebec government ran an excellent campaign on coercive control, as did groups like ours, and women heard the message. Right now, women are asking for help. It's always difficult to measure prevalence, but it's clear that requests for help have increased.

Also, we see that the police and prosecutors, who are our partners in the project, are much more sensitive and alert to this issue. For example, prosecutors have been instructed to consider coercive control taking place when people are released.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I think everyone around the table is clear that the idea of this bill is to provide another tool rather than to provide a solution. I know that all of the witnesses have mentioned other things that are needed. I want to thank the Regroupement des maisons again for pointing out that we can't do that in a private member's bill. A private member's bill can't require the government to spend money, so your call for a parallel government bill is quite welcome. I thank you for that.

I want to turn back to your experience with the U.K. and Scotland. You said something, Ms. Riendeau, about the positive impacts that they saw from this bill. There had been some discussion about how there was a slow uptake at the beginning in both the U.K. and Scotland, with prosecutors and police not really understanding. I'm assuming that your visit was very recent, so maybe you can give us an update on the impacts.

[Karine Barrette]

Of course, the pandemic was a contributing factor in slowing down the implementation of this legislation. That said, none of the stakeholders we spoke to said they would backtrack on criminalizing coercive control. They said it had brought about a major and essential change in the conversation and helped judicial actors better understand domestic violence.

Moreover, we need to understand all the danger associated with coercive control. This legislation is in fact a way for the system to respond to this danger.

So this measure has an impact. Of course, it's one tool among many others, like training, which will have an even greater impact over time. The more judicial actors are trained and have a good understanding of coercive control, the better they'll be able to detect the phenomenon and better welcome victims at the same time.

Victims also need to be aware of what coercive control is.

So it's all of these things that need to be put in place.

Indeed, on criminalizing coercive control, none of the players would change their minds.

[Louise Riendeau]

Please allow me to add a comment.

In the lessons learned, we saw that, in a certain case, the police had been trained but the prosecutors had not. The police mobilized and reported the complaints. However, the prosecutors didn't deal with them, which subsequently discouraged the police.

This is why, in our opinion, everyone needs to be trained at the same time. We therefore propose passing a bill and delaying its entry into force, to give ourselves time to train people, in order to avoid mistakes like those.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

There have been some concerns raised about the impact of this bill on marginalized women, including immigrant women and indigenous women.

I'm going to ask the Regroupement des maisons about your experience with marginalized women and coercive and controlling behaviour and intimate partner violence and how you think this bill might impact them.

[Karine Barrette]

Of course, women from marginalized communities also experience coercive control. That's what's happening. In our opinion, one of the solutions would really be for them to be part of the conversation, the discussion and the consultations. They must be invited to the table to talk about the problems and fears they may experience. That's a critical piece.

Furthermore, the wording itself will not prevent overrepresentation, just as the rest of the Criminal Code does not do that either. We really need to address the overrepresentation in conjunction with the work we do on coercive control.

In short, women from marginalized communities definitely need to be part of the discussion.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Okay.

You didn't get a chance to talk about your recommendations. I know it's very quick, but maybe you can say something about the recommendations for changes that you were thinking about.

[Karine Barrette]

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

In terms of the approach, as I mentioned earlier, we propose removing the notion of “significant impact” from the bill and instead talking about an objective approach, whereby the following question would be asked: Would a reasonable person placed in the same circumstances likely believe that there would be an impact?

We also recommend a change with respect to mens rea. The perpetrator must know that the victim feels controlled or that, even though they know it, they don't care.

On the notion of “connected”, we've talked about this before. We suggest removing the two-year period and using the definition of “intimate partner” found in section 2 of the Criminal Code.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

We will now begin the second round of questions.

We'll go for five minutes, five minutes and then two and a half minutes and two and a half minutes. We'll allow all of that, but we'll watch the timing.

Go ahead, Mr. Van Popta, please.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will start by ceding a couple of minutes to my colleague Ms. Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, having practised in the family law field for many years before I became a member of Parliament, I want to say that I am very familiar with the mental and physical devastation of the pattern of coercive control in intimate relationships. With the utmost respect to our witnesses here, I am going to take a few minutes to interrupt their testimony to address another important matter of justice for women and families in British Columbia.

In a moment, I will move a motion that I expect will receive a short debate and hopefully unanimous support, so that we can return to this important witness testimony on Bill C-332.

Mr. Moore gave proper notice of this motion last week, and as his substitute, then, I move:

That the committee call on the Liberal government to ensure that Robert Pickton spends the rest of his life in prison and prevent any re-traumatization of the families of his victims through unnecessary parole hearings, and that this be reported to the House.

Madam Chair, with your indulgence I would like the committee to hear these names: Sereena Abotsway, Mona Wilson, Andrea Joesbury, Brenda Wolfe, Georgina Papin, Marnie Frey, Jacqueline McDonell, Dianne Rock, Heather Bottomley, Jennifer Furminger, Helen Hallmark, Patricia Johnson, Heather Chinnock, Tanya Holyk, Sherry Irving, Inga Hall, Tiffany Drew, Sarah de Vries, Cynthia Feliks, Angela Jardine, Diana Melnick, Debra Jones, Wendy Crawford, Kerry Lynn Koski, Andrea Borhaven, Cara Ellis.

Chair, these women are the known victims of vile serial killer and rapist Robert Pickton. This monster has bragged of murdering 49 women, with a stated objective of murdering 50. Most of these women and their families will never receive the justice they deserve.

He was known to prey on vulnerable women suffering from addiction. Pickton would take his victims to his pig farm in Coquitlam, where he would torture them and commit brutal murders, stabbing some while they were handcuffed, injecting others with antifreeze. After killing his victims, he would feed their bodies to the pigs, leaving behind very little evidence. Needless to say, monsters like him should only leave prison in a body bag.

Last week we learned that Robert Pickton has become eligible to apply for day parole. Should his case be reviewed by the Parole Board, the families of his victims will be forced to relive the trauma they experienced all over again. This is an outrageous insult to the families, who continue to suffer. They should not be subjected to further retraumatization.

I want to share their words with this committee. The mother of Stephanie Lane said, “Pickton should not walk on this earth. He doesn't deserve to take one step out of where he is. He needs to stay where he is until he dies.” She added, “I've been living in hell. It's been horrible. I always say that I am living in a Stephen King novel. I think of my daughter every single day, but I don't want to think of Robert Pickton every day.”

Tanya Holyk's cousin said, “The fact that he can actually apply is horrific.... That threw me right off. I didn't know and the other families that I'm close to didn't know...Our justice system is horrific.” She also said, “I already don't trust the justice system, and this just makes me not trust it even more because the fact that a person like this could be let out of jail...it's disgusting.”

The community recently held a vigil at the Pickton farm as they braced for the possibility of a parole hearing for the man who has caused them so much pain.

At the very least, Canadians should expect our justice system to protect victims of the most heinous crimes. Under Justin Trudeau's watch, the rights of criminals have been consistently prioritized over the rights of victims. I won't relitigate every case, but we have seen a flagrant disregard for victims in the cases of Paul Bernardo's transfer to medium security and Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer to a healing lodge.

Just last week, Jeremy Vojkovic, a man who raped a woman and burned her alive, was granted temporary leave on Vancouver Island despite a psychiatric assessment that expressed “grave concern” over the risk he poses to the public and over the objections of the victim's family.

Eight years of Trudeau's radical left agenda have created a system of injustice. Canadians have lost faith in our systems. That's why this committee should take the first step toward restoring this trust.

My motion calls on Trudeau's government to ensure that Robert Picton spends the rest of his life in prison and prevent any retraumatization of the families of his victims through unnecessary parole hearings. The Minister of Justice has a department full of lawyers who can prepare options that are charter-compliant and that protect the families of his victims. I call on my colleagues at this table to support this motion and stand up for these victims. They've been traumatized enough.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

We will move to debate. Would anybody like to say anything...?

Before we start that, if you don't mind, I think the witnesses in front of us can tell that our first panel has now ended.

If there's anything you didn't have an opportunity to provide verbally, please submit it to us in writing. Thank you very much for coming.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Chair, if I may, before you dismiss the panel, is it Ms. Findlay's proposal that we debate and vote on this motion today, or is it just being tabled now?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I'm seeking debate and a passage of the motion.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

All right.

I'm sorry to interrupt, Madam Chair. I will have some comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

The motion was distributed Friday, so if that is her wish, yes, that was my understanding.

Thank you for clarifying that, just to ensure that we're correct.

Am I okay to dismiss the witnesses, Ms. Findlay?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Okay.

Thank you very much. We very much appreciate the information you provided to us.

Mr. Maloney, go ahead, please.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Ms. Findlay for tabling this motion.

I will say this individual's name once and only once. To suggest that any member of Parliament from any political party holds any view other than the fact that this person is a monster and should be punished to the full extent of the law is over the line. If I had my way, I would never hear this person's name again. It's as simple as that. I think politicizing this discussion in the way that has been done, bringing it to this committee, is a form of retraumatization in itself. It's unfortunate, given the view that I believe every member of Parliament holds.

I don't propose that we debate this motion, because there's nothing to debate. I suggest a small amendment. I would take the word “Liberal” out of the proposed wording, before “government”, and I would remove the words “and that this be reported to the House”. I believe we can move forward very quickly, dispense with this motion in a way that would be satisfactory to everybody and not have to either debate something that we shouldn't be talking about or mention this individual's name ever again.

Those are the two amendments, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

That's a valid amendment.

I have two people up. I apologize. I don't know who's first. It's Ms. Findlay and Mr. Garrison.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I am comfortable with the word “Liberal” coming out before “government”, as long as “government” is a capital G, because “government” refers to the government today.

I am not comfortable with taking out “that this be reported to the House”. This is a very serious matter. One of the easiest ways to ensure that we don't have to mention Robert Picton's name again is to pass this motion, have it go to the House and ensure that the parole hearings don't keep coming up. Then we can thankfully stop talking about this perpetrator.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Garrison, go ahead, please.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I first have to express my disappointment that we did not get to hear the remainder of the testimony from witnesses. It flags my concern that we have all-party agreement on coercive and controlling behaviour and we tried to finish expeditiously with our hearings and any amendments and get it through the House. This does not bode well for that. That is disappointing.

On the proposed amendment, with the amendment suggested by Mr. Maloney, I can support this motion. I think Mr. Maloney put it very well, and I'm trying not to say the name. I appreciate Ms. Findlay reading out the names of the victims. I think that is much more important.

My problem with the motion as it stood originally was that there are other ways. If we are serious about dealing with the problems that the Conservatives have identified, then a study in the public safety committee, which is responsible for the corrections act, is a way that could move forward with concrete suggestions. As this stands, this simply makes it a public debate and a retraumatization without providing any solutions. If this were being referred to as a study to look for solutions to those problems, we could have that debate. The public safety committee is probably a better place.

With those amendments, I could support this motion today.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

Mr. Housefather, go ahead, please.