Status of Women Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

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

I would challenge you a bit on that, because I think it does get partisan when the policy doesn't protect victims. I think that's where it is partisan, because the politics are preventing the victims from having their rights enforced.

In Bill C-75, now in the Criminal Code as section 493.1, it says, “In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances”. For people who don't know, the word “shall” is considered mandatory language. This was in Bill C-75 and is now in the Criminal Code, which means that a judge has to give the least number of conditions and the least onerous conditions that are appropriate.

When we look at your statement, we hear what you're asking and what you've said:

At the same time, violence associated with drug trafficking and firearms causes significant harm to Canadians. Many victims of crime have supported mandatory minimum penalties, believing they provide meaningful consequences. In addition, since victims and offenders often know each other and live in the same communities, support for longer sentences relates to personal safety.

Bill C-75 is prevented victims from having the justice they want, because, to Cortney's story, Ms. Harris, they're getting released. Would you like to see a change in this particular section?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I think the document from our office that you just read makes a clear recommendation to better consider survivor safety in release decisions.

There should be a duty to consult with survivors. We can't assume what protections might be effective; we have to talk with people in order to understand. The CVBR says that every victim has the right to protection, and we have to interpret that at an individual level. However, we can't assume that will happen. It has to be brought into the Criminal Code so that the CVBR has effect.

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

Do judges have the tools to consider victims' perspectives when sentencing?

I see you shaking your head, Ms. Harris. Do you want to comment?

[Sgt Lisa Harris]

Yes. I can give you a lot of very recent examples of the victim's safety not being considered when it came to imposing conditions on individuals upon release.

Police officers are bound by that very bill. We try to have the most lenient conditions and err we in elements of restraint. We try not to impose too many unreasonable conditions on individuals. However, from my perspective, through the offices I've worked in, we say that for intimate partner violence in particular, we should impose the conditions that are going to provide the greatest safety. We've had situations in which judges have released male offenders to reside at the address where the victim resides, saying the police will remove the victim from the residence. We will absolutely not impose that.

We're lucky that we have a very good working relationship with the Crown attorneys in Newfoundland. However, the consultation is not there with judges in particular, nor is the training there to get—

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

I hear that so often about the training, but I only have a few seconds left.

I was going to turn it over to my colleague to get some questions in, but I want to put this on the record. This was the story you guys shared with me at the round table:

The St. John's Syrian community is grieving and expressing shock following the slaying this week of a mother of five children who went to police several months ago about alleged abuse at the hands of her husband.

He was out on bail.

Is that correct?

[Sgt Lisa Harris]

He'd been out for 42 days when he kidnapped and killed his wife—his ex-partner.

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

I just saw the heartbreak in your eyes, both of you investigators. You knew it was going to happen and felt like your hands were tied. There is trauma not just for the victim but also for the frontline staff. I want to take a minute to recognize that as well. You guys are also victims, because you see the train coming—the trauma and the murder—but your hands are tied because of the justice system and these policies.

Thank you for what you do.

[Sgt Lisa Harris]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you, MP Ferreri.

MP Sidhu, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will share my time with Emmanuella.

My questions are for Mr. Roebuck.

Last year in Ontario, 59 sexual assault cases were stayed or withdrawn for unreasonable delay. We know a lack of provincial court resources is driving this.

Could you tell us more about the impact that stays or withdrawals have on the victims in these cases?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

Oh, they're devastating. It's such an entire waste of public resources to make people come and testify on the stand, and wait, and appear at different hearings, and then see it all collapse at the end. It has a significant trauma impact.

There are ways to reduce delays by providing better protections to survivors, which I'd really like the committee to explore, if you're able.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

You've also spoken in the past about how survivors experience retraumatization in the justice system. They can feel disposable once their testimony is heard.

Is there a need to train and educate court officials on trauma in victims? What needs to be done on that side?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

Absolutely. The descriptions we hear from survivors who were cross-examined and went through the court are very much like sexual violence. In any other context, we would recognize it as being sexual harassment when people are, through power, forced to be exposed and told that they liked it and wanted it to happen. It's all condoned by the state. That's not okay.

We've heard from too many people that this process caused more harm to them than the sexual assault itself, so we definitely need to be more attentive to trauma.

There are ways to improve the truth-seeking function of the courts by providing better protection so that survivors feel they can participate safely.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

It's over to Emmanuella, Chair.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you to all of the witnesses.

My question is also for Mr. Roebuck—Benjamin.

It's on the Jordan decision. I know a lot of that falls within the province's lack of resources. I think that's a huge reason that a lot of these cases are stayed.

I'm wondering if you can share what the federal government specifically could do to improve this situation. What is our role?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

As part of our investigation, we've been talking with Crown attorneys across the country and, I think, in most provinces and territories at this point. One of the examples that was given to us was five days that were set aside for a human trafficking trial. Three days were spent arguing whether or not the sexual activities connected to trafficking could be admissible, and two days were spent contesting testimonial aids.

Crowns have asked us to recommend adding human trafficking to the rape shield laws in section 276, and they have said that this would save a lot of time and pain for survivors. Then we'd like to see testimonial aids being more presumptive. There's no need for somebody to contest what the survivor needs to participate safely.

The federal government could strengthen both of those provisions, and many more, in a way that strengthens the protections for survivors, actually reduces delays and saves money.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Just for my own knowledge and the knowledge of the members here, when we say there is an unreasonable delay, what do we mean? What kinds of delays are considered unreasonable in these cases to cause them to be stayed?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

It's really tied to a timeline. There are better people who can speak to the legalities of it, but there's Crown delay and defence delay. Regardless, once it's past that timeline, then there's a risk that it will be being stayed.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

A defence team can purposely delay it, and when it reaches that amount of time, then....

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

It can be discounted. If it's deemed that the defence was intentionally delaying, then that comes off the clock. However, what we're seeing is that motions that are allowable because they can be described as beneficial to the case are increasing to also drive the clock.

[Sgt Lisa Harris]

I'll just add from a police perspective that the investigations we see today are much more complex than they were back when Jordan was first heard.

We have several trials that are scheduled in the near future that are automatically scheduled for a five-week or six-week time period. These trials involve significant child sexual exploitation and potential human trafficking, so you can imagine how complicated that investigation is.

To get through that five-week to six-week period without any significant.... Also, the defence has the right in Canada to provide justifiable arguments against certain processes. That's part of where the delay comes from, but those Jordan timelines were set when investigations were less complex than they are today.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Is there a reason for that change in complexity over the last while?

[Sgt Lisa Harris]

We all have one of these, a cellphone, in our hand. The ability for our computer forensics units and our analysts to crack these devices, which will assist in investigations, is very delayed, very behind. We're always trying to play catch-up.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I have less than 30 seconds left, so I'll just thank the witnesses for being here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

MP Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.