Evidence of meeting #128 for Status of Women in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was femicide.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
The experience in Longueuil you're referring to, Ms. Gagnon, also concerns human trafficking.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Shelby Kramp-Neuman
Unfortunately, your time is up.
MP Lisa Hepfner, you have the last five minutes.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I would like to direct my next question to Chief Betts. It might take me a minute to get there, though.
When you started out, you talked about how you didn't like Bill C-75 and would like to see changes to it. We know Bill C-75 reverses the onus so that the accused has to prove to the justice of the peace, in most cases, that he should be let out on bail. It also forces justices of the peace to take intimate partner violence into consideration as an aggravating factor in a bail condition.
I'm wondering what you would change in there. Is it how justices of the peace interpret an existing law what you're really concerned about, in fact? For example, we heard at this committee that a lot of JPs don't want to send an accused to jail because provincial jails are overcrowded. That's where you go when you're on bail: provincial jail.
The National Police Federation recently released a bunch of recommendations for provinces that include more data collection and sharing on intimate partner violence and bail in order to better inform the people who make bail decisions. They include recommendations for bail enforcement monitoring systems and for justices of the peace to have standard qualifications before they're appointed to the job. We know that right now they don't need to have any legal experience in order to serve as a justice of the peace.
Perhaps you could comment on that. What specifically about Bill C-75 would you change, or is it that you don't like how it's being implemented in the system?
October 30th, 2024 / 6:15 p.m.
Chief of Police, Peterborough Police Service
Thank you.
Chair, through you, there were quite a few points in there. I'll try to get them all for you.
To start, with Bill C-75, I think the application of the particular legislation right now is difficult. We know that release from custody is a ladder principle and that the least onerous form of custody is to hold that person accountable for their behaviour while they're awaiting a trial, and that is what we are letting people out on. Often, that is perhaps underserving victims in our community because the least onerous, depending on the nature of that offence, is insufficient to protect our community once they've been released.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Just to reiterate and just to underline what you said, it's the application of the law; it's not the law itself.
Chief of Police, Peterborough Police Service
I'm sorry. It is the law itself as well, because it is how it's currently being applied but it is also the law. What it doesn't allow us to do is to jump to the top rung, which may be the most appropriate for the crime that has happened. That is what we used to do.
What we've done now is essentially flipped it on its head, and we are now letting people out of custody whom we wouldn't have let out of custody prior to that. Is there an overcorrection? Probably there has been an overcorrection as a result, and that's why I said that I'd like to see that particular piece of legislation modified.
I believe that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and many of the police associations have all signed on to that. It's not to say that people shouldn't be let out; it's just to say that this particular piece of legislation needs to be amended in order to allow for a better application.
I think we agree on the data sharing. There is insufficient data sharing with regard to intimate partner violence across jurisdictions, and even within our own provinces and across borders. If somebody has not been charged, then the likelihood that they will appear in a database that's accessible to another police agency is next to nil, so there can be people who move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and as we've heard, within rural jurisdictions there's a particular risk to people who are there, and there's a lack of resources.
What was the other question you had?
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
It was about standard qualifications for justices of the peace, for JPs.
Chief of Police, Peterborough Police Service
I absolutely agree that there should be some standard qualifications for justices of the peace. We often find that police officers are trying to provide just the most basic of education when we're dealing with JPs.
I spoke earlier with regard to hate crime, for example. There is a Criminal Code definition. We do have a definition for hate crime, and if we have to explain that to a justice of the peace, we're losing the momentum, and oftentimes we don't even have the opportunity to do so. There are a lot of nuances at play here.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I appreciate that, Chief. Thank you very much for your insights.
I'm wondering if Julie or Lenore want to weigh in on the bail system or anything else, or if you're good. I know the chief is the expert, so if you don't want to weigh in, that's totally fine.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Shelby Kramp-Neuman
At this point, you are out of time, and that does conclude our panel.
However, I certainly would like to recommend—and I encourage this—to any witnesses who were posed questions and didn't have the opportunity to answer them in the time provided to please send us information on anything you were not able to answer. The committee would certainly welcome that information.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all of the witnesses, both online and those of you in the room, for your sensitive testimony this afternoon. Thank you again for that.
To committee members, prior to adjourning, there are a few housekeeping things that I would like to touch on. It's currently 6:25, so we do have a few minutes. It's with regard to our next study.
In the meantime, those witnesses who are in the room are invited to stay for the last five minutes and watch some housekeeping, or you can excuse yourselves if you wish. Again, thank you.
Members, with regard to our next study, the study of violence targeting the 2SLGBTQI community, we will need to submit witness lists to the clerk by Thursday, November 7. Are we comfortable with Thursday, November 7, for witnesses to be suggested to the clerk?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Shelby Kramp-Neuman
It's the study of violence.
Mark it on your calendars. I'm not seeing anybody disagreeing with me, so I will affirm that Thursday, November 7, is the deadline for submitting witnesses for our next study, the study of violence targeting 2SLGBTQI.
With regard to the news release, does the committee agree that the clerk and analysts of the committee, in consultation with the chair, prepare a news release for publication on the committee's website at the start of the study and upon presentation of the report to the House?
I'm seeing consensus there.
If the group would like to see a draft for review prior to publishing, I'm happy to do that as well, or I can just go ahead.
Okay. I see agreement. Thank you. I'll go ahead with that.
Next, with regard to deadlines for the public to submit written briefs, there has been a little bit of leniency with regard to briefs over the last couple months, but we need to be consistent for our clerk and analysts. We want to be able to get the information we need, but we need to ensure that it is a maximum of two pages. That's 1,000 words. We're looking at Monday, December 2, at 4 p.m. I will be firm with that—Monday, December 2, at 4 p.m. There has been some leniency, but we'll be firm with that so that we're able to keep moving forward.
Finally, with regard to mental health support for witnesses, does everyone agree that we again offer those supports to witnesses on this study moving forward?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Shelby Kramp-Neuman
Okay. Arrangements will be made.
Two witnesses who were not able to join us today because of some technological difficulty will be joining us on Monday at our next meeting. We will have a full panel of witnesses. We can update that, just so you're aware of who's coming.
Seeing no other business, is it the will of the committee to adjourn?
Conservative
