Public Safety Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2022

[Louise Riendeau]

These are very complex situations. When a police officer's wife is housed, the only solution is often to call the superior, as there is sometimes collusion among colleagues.

Recently, in Quebec, we saw a police officer's union request an absolute discharge so that he would not lose his job. You are right to say that this is a serious concern, which weighs against any employment-based exemption criteria.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Madame Michaud please, for six minutes.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you. Mr. Chair.

Thank you ladies, for being here with us this evening.

I wanted to ask you about the red flag provisions on which we've heard several different points of view. I understand some of what you have been mentioning. Rather than ask why you are against measures of this kind, I will focus on your proposals.

Ms. Riendeau, your organization, and several other women's groups, signed a letter dated May 7 requesting that red flag measures be removed from the bill. In their place, you said that the proper use of existing mechanisms in the system, such as the person of interest criterion in connection with firearms, should be encouraged. For example, members of the community, including health professionals, should be encouraged to report any red flag situation.

A little earlier, I asked Dr. Kapur about Anastasia's law, a Quebec statute that you are probably familiar with. It allows health professionals to report any situation, as soon as they have suspicions. Do you think that the presence across Canada of that kind of legislative measure could be more beneficial than red flag measures like the ones included in Bill C‑21?

[Louise Riendeau]

Yes indeed.

If we want to protect victims of domestic or family violence, then there has to be a safety net for them. Family and friends have responsibilities, and professionals even more so. However, the latter should not be placed in a situation which they believe clashes with their duty of confidentiality.

I therefore think that the act should clearly ask professionals who have concerns to report a mental health problem or violent behaviour to the chief firearms officer or the police. That would certainly help many victims.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

My colleague Ms. Damoff raised the interesting scenario of a police officer's wife subjected to violence by her husband.

Section 36 of the bill says that "If a chief firearms officer determines that an individual who holds a licence has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking, the chief firearms officer must revoke the licence." An exception, however, would allow an individual to obtain a conditional licence if the individual establishes to the satisfaction of the chief firearms officer that "the revocation constitutes a virtual prohibition against employment in the only vocation open to the individual." That would mean police officers could benefit from this exception because the weapon is needed for their work.

Some groups have asked that this exemption in the bill be removed so that even professionals who need a weapon can have their licence revoked.

What do you think about that, Ms. Riendeau?

After that I would also like Ms. Martin and Ms. MacDougall to answer my question.

[Louise Riendeau]

We think that people's safety is more important than employment. There are not many people who are only capable of doing one particular type of job in life.

We are indeed in favour of removing this exemption. A police or security officer ought to be above suspicion. Having a weapon is a privilege. As we have seen, police officers can terrorize their spouses, who then feel caught in a trap because they have the impression that no one will believe them and that the system will not respond.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Ms. Martin, I think that you alluded to this earlier. I believe that you're in agreement with Ms. Riendeau, but please add something if you wish.

[Lise Martin]

Yes, of course.

My view is that there is no reason or circumstance that should make employment a determining factor.

Recently in Gatineau there was a case of domestic violence for which the accused admitted his guilt, but the judge determined that he should not have a criminal record so that he could keep his job.

That's unacceptable, and is indicative of the lack of understanding with respect to domestic or family violence in Canada, which has an impact on society and on many families.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. MacDougall, do you have anything to add?

[Angela Marie MacDougall]

I think it's really important that we recognize that police have so much power and that there is a disproportionate amount of domestic violence within families of law enforcement officers.

We as an organization are one of the few organizations in the country that have a specific program for victims of police-involved domestic violence. We see dozens of victims from all across the country. The weapon is definitely used in terms of coercive control, the weapon in the house and the way that the abusive partner uses the weapon to maintain power and control and to terrorize, both in the sense of while the relationship is in effect but also when the survivor leaves.

It is quite concerning to us, if this remains in the bill and if there isn't action taken on this specifically to recognize the fact that gun ownership is a privilege, that it is not something that should given...and that it should be revoked 100% when we're talking about law enforcement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, ladies.

We have Mr. MacGregor, please, for six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to also echo my colleagues around this table in thanking all three of you for appearing today and helping guide our committee through this study of this piece of legislation.

I think we've heard you very well on the concerns you've raised on the red flag provisions of this law. I think, similar to what Mr. Lloyd was saying, that the existing avenues that we have open to people who are experiencing domestic violence.... We need to focus efforts on improving those already existing lines, and that might be the preferable route for us as parliamentarians rather than adding a new system.

Ms. Martin, maybe I can start with you.

We've heard of concerns that many people might have in contacting the police. Can you also tell us the experience that many women have with the court system? It, too, is a pretty formidable system to go through. It can be quite intimidating. We know it's quite overburdened in many areas.

Do you have any thoughts on that? If we are to add a system whereby someone goes through the court system to get an emergency prohibition order, that could also be quite a daunting task.

[Lise Martin]

Yes, I think it is a well-known fact that the court system is very burdensome. It's a heavy system. We know that different provinces are taking different measures to address this, as in Quebec in the last year. Maybe Louise can speak more directly to that specific court system to try to address this.

Within our preoccupation with the national action plan is also to ensure that the systems in place are the same across the country and that the levels of services and protections available to women and their children do not depend on their postal code. That is the case today.

We have seen many times how there have been bad decisions that have impacted very negatively on specific families. There is also the impact it has on other victims of violence, in terms of decisions taken by judges who were not properly informed about the impacts of domestic violence on children, for example. For this whole piece of training of judges, part of it is training federal judges, but it's just as important to train provincial judges.

In all of this, when we're talking about gender-based violence, to me we can't keep on passing the buck or throwing the ball and saying that it's the feds or it's the provinces.... We're talking about people's lives here. This is an issue that impacts us as a society. We really need to address it together and make sure there is coordination, clear definition, implementation and accountability.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

I'll invite Ms. Riendeau and Ms. MacDougall to also comment on that last question.

I had heard mention that you wanted the definition of “protection order” contained within the act and not left to regulations. Can you just repeat specifically what you're looking for us to insert as a definition? I just want to make sure I didn't miss it.

I'm not sure which of the three of you spoke about that in your opening remarks. I think it might have been you, Ms. MacDougall.

[Angela Marie MacDougall]

I think it's the definitions of “domestic violence” and “family violence” that we need to see in the act, and we need to draw on that definition that already exists within the Divorce Act. That would be an important piece.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Ms. Riendeau, do you have any other comments you'd like to add to this?

[Louise Riendeau]

A definition of "protection order" broad enough to include all types of orders, whether provincial or under the Criminal Code, needs to be included.

To return to your question about the court, even if research has shown that domestic violence continues after a separation and that there are repercussions on the children who experience it, many judges appear to ignore such facts. There is therefore no guarantee that going to court to request the revocation of a licence to possess a firearm would be any more effective than speaking to the police, because they would rely on the same criteria.

Absolutely everyone needs training on domestic violence, on the risks of the presence of weapons in such situations and on the need to take these risks seriously to prevent the deaths of women and children resulting from domestic violence.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

That's it for me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We're going to our second round. We'll have to shoehorn it in to get it done, so we're going to cut down the Liberals and Conservatives to four minutes each and the NDP and the Bloc to two minutes each.

With that, I welcome Mrs. Kramp-Neuman to our committee.

Please go ahead for four minutes.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The reality is that domestic violence and gender-based violence in rural and urban settings can be next door to any of us. It can be anyone's neighbour. I'd like to begin by thanking our witnesses for their time and advocacy. Physical violence, verbal violence, psychological violence, sexual violence and socio-economic violence.... I get it, and it's extremely difficult. Again, thank you.

For my first question, I'll start with Ms. Martin.

A significant number of women's organizations oppose the ex parte red flag measure, which invites victims to go to court themselves to have firearms removed from their abusers. If you could be so kind, please explain why you oppose this measure and what we, as legislators, can do to bridge the gap in this regard.

If you'd like to start, and then allow the others to entertain the question as well, that would be great. Thank you.

[Lise Martin]

I think Louise explained quite well the preoccupations or the reservations that exist in terms of the red flag part of the act. I think this is a technicality. I'm not sure whether I said in my brief I that oppose it, although I agree with the brief submitted by the National Association of Women and the Law, which has had more time to consider this.

Having said that, I think we need to take into account measures for certain groups of people who are not comfortable for many justifiable reasons. Certain groups that we haven't mentioned are new immigrant and refugee women to the country who may not feel comfortable going to the police, as well as racialized women.

My concern is ambiguity. We have to make sure there is no ambiguity in the bill. I think this needs to be further considered.

I'll pass it on to Louise and Angela.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Go ahead.

[Louise Riendeau]

I believe that the current system, in which you can contact either the police or the office of the chief firearms officer, is a good one. It could be improved, however, and that's perhaps why some effort is required. It's important to ensure that all requests are taken seriously and that victims have clear options. The fact that the office of the chief firearms officer is separate from the local police can help some women.

Sending out more information about how the system works is also important. It's not as simple as just knowing where to telephone to report the situation. So those who administer these measures need more training, and there has to be more public information to ensure that victims or others who may be concerned know whom to call. This would greatly facilitate the lives of people trying to protect themselves via these measures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. MacDougall, do you want to weigh in on this?

[Angela Marie MacDougall]

Yes, please.

There are so many things that a victim or survivor has to do when they enter into the system. There are so many considerations that they have in the sense of their safety, their children's safety, employment and just managing the day to day. So many survivors don't have the benefit of an advocate and are navigating the system alone.

Though the intention of the red flag is good, it creates potential conditions that put an unreasonable burden on a victim or survivor to address their safety. We've discussed this a bit so far. When that happens and we create that kind of opening, where the survivor is somehow responsible for their safety, the system orients itself in that way and begins to question whether the victim has done everything she should have done, based on the interpretation.

There's a lot of work to be done already, just in terms of the amount of victim blaming that exists. The red flag, although I think the intentions are solid, creates another potential loophole and a chasm in which survivors can find themselves without an advocate and without understanding how to navigate the system. They are then blamed if they are not following through in the ways in which the system thinks they should with respect to this measure—