Status of Women Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Can you give us an example of what a complaint would be and how it should be addressed?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

The Correctional Service releases an individual at two thirds of his sentence, which is still dangerous, but the victim isn't informed. The Parole Board holds a hearing for an inmate, but the family isn't invited. The CVBR applies in both cases.

The CVBR is “supra-constitutional”, meaning it stands above all other laws. Agencies and ministers must comply with the CVBR, since it's the law.

That's why I introduced three bills in the Senate to strengthen it. I gave the example earlier of photographs published by an individual. I introduced a bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I also introduced a bill to allow victims to ask questions of criminals who apply for parole because, currently, only counsel can do so. Families aren't represented, whereas the criminal is represented by counsel before the board. So I introduced a bill to put victims and criminals on the same footing when there's a hearing. That isn't the case right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

These may be small details to you, but they're a huge deal for families who are the victims and who are forgotten by the system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

MP Sidhu, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for your insightful testimony.

My first question is to Ms. Auger-Voyer.

Ms. Auger-Voyer, one of your team's publications brings up the idea that if we want to prevent gender-based violence, we need to ensure that children grow up in a safe and healthy environment. Could you tell us more about that?

Elaborate on how, if children are in a safe environment, that can be a part of violence prevention.

[Valérie Auger-Voyer]

For sure, early intervention is so key. We would like to see supports for parents, for children who witness violence and for children who experience violence, and better supports for youth exiting the child welfare system. Often that is a key recruiting ground for human traffickers, as are group homes, so we need more supports.

As I said, comprehensive sex education in schools is so important, and not the type that you have to opt in for. I would love to see the federal government take some leadership on common standards across the country. I know that's a provincial matter, but we've seen the government take the lead on different matters, and I think it's possible to have at least standards for comprehensive sex education.

We need free mental health supports, healing supports and addiction supports for men and for everyone, and, really, just funding for women's organizations that exist but struggle. They're chronically underfunded. They do good prevention work. They work in schools, and often that work is not even funded. It's not part of their core funding.

Maybe another piece is addressing the online culture—the “manosphere”. Some of you mentioned this already, but all of the misogyny online is an important piece as well.

I could go on, but....

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

My next question is for Senator Boisvenu.

Senator Boisvenu, you said that we need a national information strategy. I'm an MP from Brampton, Ontario. Most criminal cases in provincially run courts in Ontario are now ending before charges and trials. We even heard from the CBC a couple of weeks ago that criminal cases have been stayed for unreasonable delay in Ontario since the Jordan decision. There's a shortage of court staff, prosecutors and courtrooms to fix the justice system.

What are you saying about this?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

In 2014, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs did a comprehensive study on court delays. Its report is called the Runciman Report, since the Honourable Bob Runciman chaired that committee at the time. That report made 67 recommendations relating to the courts, but I don't know if even 10 of them were implemented.

Canadian courts face a number of challenges, but the main one is a culture of postponing hearings. In some domestic violence cases, hearings have been postponed 10, 15 or 20 times. Some have even been postponed 37 times—this happened in St-Jérôme, in the case of a sexual assault matter. So there's a widespread culture of postponing hearings and a lack of discipline in Canadian courts, which is what the report mentioned at the time. There's also a labour shortage in Quebec, whether it be for clerks or paralegals, for example. That being said, I think the main challenge for Canadian courts is the culture of postponing hearings. At some point, judges will have to say that enough is enough, for example in cases where a sexual assault trial has been postponed 15 or 20 times.

From what I hear from women who have been victims of domestic violence, there is an abuse of the legal process. The Quebec Minister of Justice clearly said that offenders are using legal procedures to delay trials because 50% of sexual assault victims will drop their complaint along the way. In my opinion, the Minister of Justice of Canada, in co‑operation with his provincial colleagues, must make this issue a priority, to change the habits that have developed over the past 10 or 15 years. If the continual postponement of a trial doesn't bother everyone, it does the victims, who abandon the proceedings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

MP Ferreri, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, again, for all of this.

It's critical that we get to the crux of how we actually implement change. One of the things that—I'll keep calling you “Senator Boisvenu”—the Honourable Senator Boisvenu said really stuck with me.

We've seen an increase in crime in this country—over 100%—and you said to me that for every criminal, for every incident of crime, there is an increase in victims. That really stuck with me, because that increase in crime is an increase in victims.

You came before this committee one year ago to the day. We were studying one of the most powerful bills that you had written, Bill S-205. This was one of the many things you did in honour of your daughter Julie, who was murdered. It was an amazing bill to protect victims and keep women and victims safe. It was passed, and that was good, and it was adopted, but it was extremely disappointing because many parts of the bill that had a lot of meat and potatoes were cut off by the Liberals and the NDP.

The changes to section 515 of the Criminal Code—the provisions concerning intimate partner consultation on security matters and the wearing of electronic bracelets—were removed. With regard to the recognizance order in section 810.03, the initial duration of the order was reduced to one year; it was initially two years. The extension of the order that was set at a maximum of two years was three years initially. With regard to refusal to contract a section 810 prescription, the prison sentence for refusal was reduced to one year; it was initially two years.

As you can see, all of these have been reduced, not increased. Among the other section 810 changes is that imposing a condition of refraining from using social media was also removed.

You said in your opening statement that we need to toughen up on criminals, yet these things were cut out of Bill S-205. Can you please explain how these cuts affect your bill, and what we can do to fix this and help restore safety to victims?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

Thank you very much for the question.

First of all, there's a reason why the application period for orders under sections 515 and 810 of the Criminal Code was extended to two years. That's because, especially for section 515 orders, trials often take from one to three years. If the order is only enforced for one year, attackers will go back to harass their victims and force them to drop their complaint. That's why there were longer timelines, to make sure that victims were protected at least until the trials.

Why was there a longer sentence for breach of an undertaking made under section 810? That's because the Université de Montréal conducted a study in Quebec on compliance with commitments made under section 810, and it found that 50% of men didn't comply with conditions imposed by the courts. If there are no longer any consequences for men who approach their victims when they're under a no-contact order, aggressors will know about it. We thought it was important that this bill include a minimum number of consequences for individuals who fail to comply with the conditions imposed by the courts.

And then, you also took out the section of the bill that prohibited criminals from using social networks, their main tool for harassing victims, particularly Facebook. You targeted the wrong thing by removing that from the bill, when it allowed victims to feel confident, because we gave them tools.

You also deleted the part of the bill that required that victims be consulted when an order was issued under section 515, to find out what form of protection they wanted. I didn't understand the reasoning behind your decision to remove things that were often meant to deal with the consequence of harassment and intimidation of victims.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

For clarity, I'll add that it wasn't we who took it out. It was certainly not the Conservatives. We fought very hard to keep that part in the bill, and it was very disheartening to have that.... It was pick your poison. We had to pass that bill, but it was so weakened by what the Liberals and the NDP took out of it, exactly to your point, that it's very hard to comprehend why they would want to do that.

I know that we're probably out of time, but if you ever want to submit to committee as to why you think they did that, I think it would be helpful.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

MP Damoff, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm happy to get some more time with these witnesses.

Before I start with questions, though, I want to echo what my colleague Ms. Hepfner was saying about Jordan. I share her concerns. It makes me absolutely sick that in Ontario, from 2016 to 2023, 580 cases have been stayed, and that 145 were sexual assault cases.

We have a Constitution in Canada and provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. This was a Supreme Court decision, which we actually relitigated, and the courts basically sent us packing, so we've been trying to work with the provinces and territories.

However, for me, in Halton, it's personal, because in 2017 a new courthouse was announced. It was to start construction in 2019 and it would have been finished in 2023. We would have had a year of this new courthouse that featured new technology to make the court run more efficiently. Instead, we're dealing with a courthouse where jurors are being interviewed in the cafeteria and judges refuse to sit because of mould and asbestos.

It is absolutely tragic that when the Province of Ontario put $29 million into the courts, the president of the Ontario Crown attorneys said that Ontario's investment doesn't even come close to what is needed. I share the concern that the witnesses have expressed about this.

I think we all do, but my question to you, Ms. Voyer, that is we have limited ability. We can't tell the provinces what to do, but would you agree with me that provinces and territories need to step up to make investments in the courts so that they can run efficiently?

[Valérie Auger-Voyer]

Well, yes and no.

Yes, I believe that survivors who want to get protection from the court and who want to report to the police should have access to processes that are timely, survivor-centred and trauma-informed. They should also get the free legal advice to navigate that.

However, as I said, I also think we need to take that step back and see the broader picture when we're talking about gender-based violence and not focus only on the courts, so it's yes and no.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I agree with you, except that we had Cait Alexander testify and give us very powerful testimony about her feelings on her case being dismissed because of these issues.

I think those women and men who are brave enough to go into the court system—it's not an easy decision to make in the first place—shouldn't be faced with these decisions because we have a literally rotting courthouse in Halton where they can't get a timely trial. I've had women reach out to me with their cases, both from family court and from criminal court, and it's absolutely tragic.

Just changing direction a bit, Ms. Voyer, you talked about data collection. One of the things we know is that women are more at risk for a femicide if there's a firearm in the home. I'm wondering if you would support additional data collection on the use of firearms in gender-based violence.

[Valérie Auger-Voyer]

Yes, for sure. I think the work that you put into Bill C-21 was really important in limiting the use of assault-style firearms. Yes, I think we need accountability around that, because right now there are regulations that are going to be put in place to make sure that the bill is enacted, but we need to make sure that it is done in a way that works for survivors.

I would refer you to the work of NAWL—the National Association of Women and the Law—on this, because they have been working on how to implement the regulations, as well as PolySeSouvient.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Yes. Actually, I worked with NAWL to make sure those amendments did get into Bill C-21 that will see firearms removed from the house within 24 hours of a prohibition order, because right now that's not the case. Even in Bill C-71, firearms owners had to surrender their firearms to the Crown, and that was new. In the past, they could just give them to a buddy or a brother who had a firearms licence.

Would you agree that this is also important legislation that we've put in place?

[Valérie Auger-Voyer]

Yes, for sure, without knowing the details of the bill, but yes, it's important for perpetrators to surrender their firearms as soon as possible when there is evidence of domestic or sexual violence.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I had a friend who was in that situation. It was before the bill was passed. Her husband's guns were actually given to his brother because he had a firearms licence. She was terrified that her husband knew where the brother kept his guns. His brother was a was a fine individual, but having them surrendered to the Crown would have given her an awful lot of peace of mind.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

MP Larouche, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In five days, on November 25, the 12 days of action against violence against women campaign will be launched in Quebec, culminating on December 6 with the day commemorating the Polytechnique massacre. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the AFÉAS, a group of feminist women in Quebec, which will launch Operation Reach Out during those days of action.

Ms. Auger‑Voyer, you talked about online posting. I no longer know how to reach out in the current context with these masculinist movements, this backtracking, this misogyny that's on the rise everywhere. A lot of it is happening online.

I'll link this to December 6. Why do groups of influencers, particularly those from the “incel” community, praise Marc Lépine and present him as a god today, in 2024? I don't know what to do with that anymore. Frankly, I don't want to interfere with anyone's freedom of expression, but I think that at some point we'll have to look at how far we can go online to determine what we won't tolerate from a criminal standpoint. For example, there are some comments in certain areas of the dark web. At some point, we'll have to look at that. Without wanting to infringe on freedom of expression, because that's not the goal, we need a law to address online hate content, in particular to prevent it from contributing to this toxic masculinity and misogyny.

What do you think? At the federal level, we're increasingly talking about this idea of looking at online hate speech to find out what we should be doing about it.

[Valérie Auger-Voyer]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, you're absolutely right. There's very much a backlash against women and against feminists in particular, too, online. We're hearing young men in the U.S. right now saying “Your body, my choice.” They are very much emboldened by the types of narratives that they're hearing, that rape culture narrative and the skewed gender norms.

I think it is important to act on misogyny online, and we would like to see the government actually name that as a type of hate when they are working on bills such as Bill C-63.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

MP Gazan, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.