Status of Women Committee on May 10th, 2022

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

We would just be moving those words.

[Cee Strauss]

It would be “matters of sexual assault law and intimate partner violence and coercive control, all of which includes social context, including systemic racism and discrimination.”

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

Yes. We would just move the location of it.

[Cee Strauss]

Exactly.

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

I was happy to hear both you and Ms. Cross speak about the need for it in the clause that deals with undertaking. If we were to do that, we could do the same thing there—ensure the wording is put prior to the words “social context”.

I heard your comments about electronic monitoring, and I saw that you put a tweet out earlier today, as well. Would you feel more comfortable if, in the clause around electronic monitoring, there were some definition around violence against an intimate partner? We could make it more defined, that it is intimate partner violence that is being threatened or attempted.

[Cee Strauss]

I think that clarification is already present. Right now, it is being considered for more offences than just against an intimate partner. Our concern is that, if wearing a device becomes a routine condition of bail in any circumstance, including IPV, those who can afford the device will be released and those who can't will remain in remand. Given the correlation among being low-income, criminalized and Black or indigenous, the effects of this proposed amendment would likely increase the over-incarceration of Black and indigenous people.

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

It's not prescriptive. Philip Viater spoke to me and he supports it, because it highlights it as just one option for a judge. Often, it doesn't go to a judge but to a justice of the peace. He actually thought it was a good thing, but I hear you and respect your opinion on this, as well. Certainly, those who have a lower income are more likely to be remanded. There's no doubt about it.

Ms. Cross, regarding electronic monitoring, one of the things I like about this bill is that there is a connection between the education of the judge so they can understand coercive control and domestic violence and knowing whether or not to ask for electronic monitoring.

Do you not think this education piece will enhance who is recommended to have the monitoring?

[Pamela Cross]

Certainly, it will.

My concerns are really practical in terms of the implementation of electronic monitoring.

I just came home a couple of days ago from spending a week in Renfrew County. Next month an inquest is beginning in Renfrew County into the triple femicide that took place there in 2015, which I'm sure many of you remember very well. I was talking to people in the community to put together a report to go to that inquest about the impact those murders have had on the community. One thing I heard again and again is that legislation that's written as though everybody lives in an urban area has to stop.

In that situation, some of those victims lived in locations where it wouldn't have mattered what kind of electronic monitoring was under way. The police would not have been able to respond quickly enough to save their lives.

When we talk about this, I want to have those conversations before we make something a law that is not going to give equitable access to justice. Cee has talked about economic and racialized lack of access to equal justice. I'm going to talk about people living in rural locations.

What happens when someone has electronic monitoring and there's a power failure or they live in a part of the province or the country where there isn't sustained access to good cell service?

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

I'm going to stop you there because I have another question. I think those are all extremely valid points. In fact, Ms. Gazan brought that up last week when we were discussing the bill. I don't know that it means we shouldn't move forward with it. It's an issue to recognize.

Coercive control is not defined in the Criminal Code. Do you think it would be helpful if we added coercive control, as it relates to intimate partner violence and family violence, into the definition? Do you think that would be helpful from the education perspective?

[Pamela Cross]

Absolutely.

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

Okay.

I think I'm almost done my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You have 40 seconds.

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

I'm just going to say I love the backgrounds when I come to status of women. I see Thelma and Louise and high-heeled shoes.

Chair, I'm going to give you back the time because I don't think I have time to get a response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

I'm now going to pass it over to Andréanne Larouche for the next six minutes.

Andréanne, you have the floor.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses for appearing today as part of our study on this bill.

I would like to begin by addressing Ms. Cross and Ms. Strauss.

As a preamble, I would say that there is a subsection of Bill C‑233 that adds a new condition that judges must consider when making an order for interim release with additional conditions under subsection 515(4.3) of the Criminal Code. If the Attorney General so requests, judges must consider whether it is desirable to require the accused to wear a remote monitoring device.

I would just like to know if you have been able to look into this. I would also like to hear from you that under this new legislation, a judge could not impose on his or her own initiative the wearing of an electronic device on an accused person when making a bail order with additional conditions. There must absolutely be a prior application by the prosecutor.

What do you think? How do you react to the fact that the bracelet would be imposed at the request of the public prosecutor, and not at the sole discretion of the judges?

Have you had a chance to look into this?

[Pamela Cross]

Ultimately, the judge has the discretion whether the request.... Sorry, let me put that the other way around. Even where an attorney, and presumably that would be the Crown attorney, fails to make the request, under present legislation judges have a wide array of options available to them in terms of what happens to this accused person during the remand period.

I haven't looked at that question in detail. As I said in response to an earlier question, my interest in the bill is more focused on ensuring that it's actually something that, if introduced, will work in an equitable way for people wherever they are in this country.

Cee, I don't know if you want to add any comments to that.

[Cee Strauss]

Sure. Thank you very much for the question.

The standard way that bail works is that bail is supposed to be issued without conditions unless otherwise required. It's up to the Attorney General to oppose bail and to oppose judicial interim release. It's up to the Attorney General to provide reasons for that, which is why it's up to the Attorney General to request this condition.

I don't see anything wrong with that. I think that makes sense in terms of the standard course of things. Our worry is that bail conditions often develop into a standard set of conditions requested by the Crown, regardless of the individual circumstances of the accused.

In all cases, judges do have discretion. Judges should have the flexibility to decide whether to impose this or not, as they already do.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much. I understand what you're saying.

I thank both witnesses.

Now I'm going to address Mr. Fortin and Mr. Guay.

Gentlemen, do you feel that the bill, as it stands, contains enough elements to be properly implemented?

[Dr. Francis Fortin]

It will be difficult to give you a clear answer, but I will give you parts of answers that might shed light on the various debates.

Our sample may not be representative, but we consulted with police officers, justice stakeholders, and groups, and, generally speaking, what came out was that they wanted the judge to be able to impose this sanction.

On the other hand, we are not lawyers, but as far as the application of the bill is concerned, in broad terms, this seems to me to be a good way of presenting it. It should be seen as a toolbox. It would be difficult for me to denounce a piece of legislation like this and impose a way of doing things on judges.

What emerged from our work is that the judge will be able to assess the situation and take into account aggravating or mitigating factors. We should not go against that, because the judge is the best person to determine whether the measure applies.

I don't know if Mr. Guay wants to add anything.

[Dr. Jean-Pierre Guay]

No, that's absolutely right, from my point of view.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Very well.

Research seems to prove that the monitoring device can be effective, despite some possible negative effects. However, what are the expectations for the decrease in assaults in Quebec and Canada that could result from the implementation of this monitoring device bill and training for judges?

Have you looked at the effects that have occurred elsewhere?

[Dr. Jean-Pierre Guay]

The literature review suggests that there is a decrease in violence against women following the use of a remote monitoring device, on the one hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Sir, I do have to cut you off. I'm sorry about that. I do know the question is a lot longer, but I do need to cut you off so that we can go over to our next six minutes of questions with Leah Gazan. We'll get back to this, if you don't mind, but I'm going to pass the floor over now to Leah Gazan for six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

I have questions for Madam Paterson, Madam Cross and Madam Strauss. I'll ask for brief responses. It's so nice to see everybody, and I just love your brains. I wish I had more time.

It's so nice to see you again, Dr. Paterson. You spoke specifically about Winnipeg and the lack of shelter, something that I'm fighting really hard about in our community. We don't have space. I ask this question because it becomes especially concerning and more volatile for women who choose to disclose something very difficult, especially if they choose to take a legal route to deal with their perpetrators. With this in mind, how important do you think it is for judges to get proper training to improve their judgment in cases of intimate partner violence?

[Dr. Corinne Paterson]

Frankly, it's essential.

What happens now is that if somebody tells me they are experiencing intimate partner violence, I will put in the time, and I will do everything I can to find a shelter bed or alternative places for her to go. I do have some excellent social work resources, but it's not simple when they ask and they assume that the courts are going to take care of them and that if they leave their abusive partner they will be able to have custody of their children and that's going to be taken into account. I sometimes have to explain and I'll often say they should talk to their lawyer about that.

I have friends who are lawyers, and it's an unspoken problem in this country that the lawyers fully know that it really just depends on the judge. There are excellent judges who are well educated on the topic, and then there are those who are not. I have to believe that Canadian judges don't want women and children to die. I think we can all agree across the country that we can do better, and the way we can do better is by proposing this bill. Is it perfect? No. There will still be loss of life. There's still going to be violence. It's not going to get into every pocket of the country, especially in rural areas, as was mentioned, but that's like saying we shouldn't treat cancer because we know some people won't survive and it's not fair. It can make an impact.