Evidence of meeting #97 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was control.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I'm sorry for interrupting, but I only have a few seconds left.
Can you briefly tell us how we can explain the fact that some victim protection groups are asking us to pass Bill C‑332?
How do you explain the differences between your respective opinions?
Staff Lawyer, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
That's a difficult question. I certainly understand groups who are advocating in support of this. I think our experience is based on research and a wider lens in terms of how these laws have been used to—
Liberal
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to be here today, covering for my colleague, MP Garrison.
I want to thank the witnesses for bringing further information. There's a lot of important additional context to this discussion that I've heard today.
My first question is for Ms. Mattoo.
You were discussing marginalized and racialized people and the additional barriers they face, and the lack of trust in the legal system as one example of the barriers that are being faced.
I want to make sure this is very clear and recorded. Can you expand on that a bit and perhaps provide a couple of examples further than what you have?
Executive Director, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic
In terms of the barriers that racialized and marginalized communities experience, especially the ones who don't speak our official languages and require interpreters and language access in bringing forward their challenges to the legal system, they have a lot of lack of trust of the system because of how they are routinely treated in the system.
Ms. Parsa, just a few minutes back, talked about the low conviction rates of a lot of these cases that come forward in the system, and the traumatization of the survivors. Traumatization of survivors who experience inherent bias in the system is even greater. They face that whenever they come forward. They are not necessarily trusted. They find themselves charged. That's one of the historical changes in the Criminal Code that we are still seeing the repercussions of, and we haven't really found the solution for it.
Just very quickly, in closing on this question, I want to say that I think it is incorrect for us to create a dichotomy between whether this is to support survivors or whether it is not to support survivors. I think the challenge lies somewhere in between. The system is not working, and the system needs fixing before we go on to bring more charges to the books and more Criminal Code changes. On the surface, they look really good, but unfortunately, they become window dressing.
I have been in front of you and your colleagues in the past, many years ago, talking about the same thing with respect to forced marriage cases. I said not to criminalize it, because it will put the issue under the rug. It did put the issue under the rug.
Coercive control has made a lot of progress in our jurisprudence. The judges are understanding it in the family law context. There are cases in which judges are understanding in a much better way. I don't want coercive control to become another action that goes under the rug and that people stop talking about because it's so hard to prove.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you.
I think I might move to a different part of the questions that I wanted to ask you, based on your response.
I heard Ms. Parsa talking about the conviction rates. I'm wondering if you could talk a little more about the reporting rates and what you think.
Just expand a bit more on how you feel that relates to this bill and whether you feel we would see an increase of women reporting abuse as a result of a tool being brought forward to enable them to do so.
Executive Director, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic
From my personal experience, I doubt it. I have seen what has happened with FGM and forced marriages. I don't necessarily believe there will be an increase in the reporting rate, and going by the experience of England and Wales, where there was an increase in the reporting rate, I want to highlight that only 6% of the charges brought forward actually saw a prosecution. It's not necessarily the case that the reporting rate would mean that more people would be made accountable. Unless there is balance and accountability, I think the purpose and ethos of the criminal justice system will not be met.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you.
I do recognize that there's a low reporting rate and a low conviction rate, but would the reporting in itself provide opportunities for looking at other supports, looking at different forms of moving forward with a more restorative process, looking at increasing supports or looking at getting the pattern of abuse documented? What are your thoughts on perhaps the benefits of seeing an increase in reporting that may result from this tool?
Executive Director, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic
Unfortunately, with regard to an increase in reporting without really a proper solution offered, we don't have the mechanisms, such as restorative justice and the transformative justice system. I also want to highlight that if we come to those solutions, there will be further discussions and further advisories and further conversations needed. We don't have that in existence in the system right now, hence our reservation.
I work with an organization that serves 14,000 people who survive violence every year. I should be the first to say, “Yes, please bring in another tool.” My challenge is that I provide those services in an environment that is really broken for the most marginalized. People from immigrant communities and non-status communities don't even want to come forward and report crimes for fear of deportation or further repercussions.
In that environment, I find it really difficult to support the idea of creating another law without those supports.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you for the additional information.
I'm trying to navigate this. I agree with much of what you're saying. I agree that there are serious problems in our justice system. I agree that we need to be looking at this through a systemic lens and that there are serious issues in the supports—
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
We have a few minutes left. I'm trying to manoeuvre our time, so perhaps what I'll do is cut it in half.
I'll go to Mr. Van Popta for two and a half minutes.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Good. We'll do our best with two and a half minutes.
This question will be for you, Ms. Parsa. We heard from you and Ms. Mattoo and other witnesses earlier in this study that Bill C-332 is not the answer. We recognize that fully. It's just another tool, we're saying. We're being told, and we've heard from you as well, that education is more important. We heard from earlier witnesses about training for police, education for Crown prosecutors and enhanced court worker programs. Aren't we creating a false dichotomy, though, between law and education? Why can't they both be done? Why is one mutually exclusive to the other?
Ms. Parsa, there's a great quote in your submission: “The expressive power of law may also send a message of condemnation of this form of violence to society.” I fully agree with that. The law itself could be educational.
Staff Lawyer, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
I think that's from our written brief. I do agree with that in certain situations. I think that is one of the benefits that is being put out as a reason for criminalization. However, in our brief, as we say, we do not think these benefits outweigh the many risks that are posed by creating a new criminal law.
I understand your question about why it's a dichotomy. I actually think the question should be this: Why does training exist only when there's a new law? What we're advocating is increased training around coercive control within the current system so that police, law enforcement, justices and actors become aware of the complexities of what this abuse looks like. You don't need a law to gain a deeper understanding of intimate partner violence.
In addition to training, I think there should be more public awareness campaigns, so that women and survivors are also aware of situations of coercive control and can begin to think about their own experiences through that lens. While some may say that criminal law has an expressive power, and it certainly can in situations, that doesn't outweigh the many risks I've written about in the brief as well and that we've been talking about.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Yes. Thank you very much.
Madam Dhillon, you have two and a half minutes.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I've been listening very carefully to the witnesses. My question will be for whoever cares to answer it.
Do you not think having this kind of mechanism in the law would allow those who are voiceless to step forward, if it's their choice, to come and report such abuse being perpetrated on them? Does it not at least give them that option, that choice, to raise a voice against this? I mean, not having anything at all is more harmful than being able to have a mechanism that allows you to express such insidious abuse.
We've heard other witnesses talk about how even pets are being used in this type of abuse. Do you not think it's important that a person who is going through this be able to come forward, if that's their choice, and protect themselves in some way?
Thank you.
Executive Director, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic
I can start and then pass it on to Roxana, if there's time left.
I just want to say that I don't think Roxana and I and others who are talking about the systemic challenges currently, which don't allow survivors to come forward safely, are talking about survivors not having a choice. We work in a trauma-centric, survivor-centric way. We definitely believe that survivors should have all of the choices and all of the options. They should have a full set of options to choose from in terms of what actions they want to take.
Unfortunately, honourable member, what I am trying to talk about is that when they make those choices, they are in an environment in which there are risks associated with those choices. Studies tell us that a number of women who come forward are at much higher risk of fatality compared with women who don't interact with the system. You have a system that's just so broken that it doesn't do risk assessments of their situations properly and doesn't provide them the support in coming forward.
Creating another Criminal Code change, making another criminal law change and bringing forward a crime of coercive control can potentially create window dressing and potentially create more harm and retraumatize survivors, because they will come forward and there will be no action taken. They will be putting themselves at risk with no recourse available to them. That's where our fear is with this change.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Do they not put themselves at risk in any other law that helps to protect women who are victims of intimate partner violence? Any time they step forward, there's always a risk. Do you not believe that is the case?
Do I have time for a quick answer?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
No, that's time, I'm afraid.
That said, based on the questions they're getting, I would encourage the witnesses to please send in writing to the committee anything they believe needs to be further clarified or added.
In the interest of fairness, I'll give Mr. Fortin the floor for one minute, but only if he has a question he really wants to ask.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I'll attempt to do in one minute what my colleague struggled to do in two and a half.
I acknowledge that the suggested amendments contained in the brief submitted by Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children, which were supported by the representative for the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, are worthwhile.
I'm skeptical about training as a stand-alone measure, but I remain convinced of the necessity to provide training and run public awareness campaigns.
Your testimony has been precious. It confirms my thoughts on the importance of these steps. Once again, I will reread your brief closely in the hopes of finding great ideas for improving Bill C‑332.
Thank you.
Liberal