Status of Women Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I know that a lot of things are happening at the international level, particularly in Spain, where measures like electronic bracelets, which are included in this bill, are in place. France and Australia are both showing interest in that. In other words, for other models, at the international level, measures included in the bill we are studying today have been considered.

Have you had a look at other laws, here or abroad, that require a judge to ask whether a victim has been consulted about their safety and security? Have you consulted people outside Canada?

[Deepa Mattoo]

In my work, one area that I am really keen on that could be potentially utilized is making sure the voice of survivors is heard by doing an expert risk assessment that is focused on the survivor's experience and not necessarily just on the perpetrator which, unfortunately, is currently what happens. If there is that expert opinion taken from a court support worker—maybe a social worker who is working with the survivor—that looks at the risk assessment and looks at the indicators of the risk and the safety planning, it could definitely be very helpful for a judge who is making the decision in making sure that the decision is really holistic in nature.

In my work here at the clinic, that's the area of focus that we have been advocating and asking for. There's definitely room for that amendment here.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Can you tell me in a few seconds whether you think it will be difficult to get prosecutors and judges to apply this provision?

[Deepa Mattoo]

It would not, other than in terms of the fact that our system is already overburdened with respect to the resources. From that perspective I do feel as though there might not be enough time or there might be a delay in the system, but legally speaking, I don't see why there should be a problem with hearing from an expert while asking the prosecutor to support the judge in that process. There is a huge—

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

We're passing it over to Leah. Leah, you have four minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

My first question is for Madam Mattoo.

You spoke a little bit about recognizance orders that are in the bill. You said that was concerning. Can you expand on that, please?

[Deepa Mattoo]

I can, absolutely. Thank you so much for asking.

My concerns are that in our experience here at the clinic—I just want to share this with all of you—we receive at least five calls every week from women survivors or gender-diverse survivors who are living under coercive control and who now experience criminalization because of the manner in which we charge people.

My challenge with these changes is that, as we know, there is criminalization of survivors from specific communities: racialized communities, indigenous, Black, non-status and migrant communities. This change could create an environment in which false accusations are coming forward from the actual aggressors—the men, in our case. That can create a chilling effect on reporting by the survivors.

While I think, notionally speaking, that it is an excellent idea that there should be room for people to come and get support and step forward—it gives them that environment—there is a real practical challenge that can create strain on the limited resources. I would not want a survivor to access this without getting independent legal advice. That's a big piece of the puzzle that I haven't seen anywhere in the bill. Are survivors expected to do all of this by themselves?

While this can also be weaponized against them, they are—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have limited time, but you're saying that the bill as it is places victims of the violence at greater risk.

[Deepa Mattoo]

But then—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay, I'm going to leave it there because I want to ask Madam Latimer a couple of questions.

This is where my concern is: We know that the justice system is riddled with systemic racism. You made some comments before. Are you concerned that this bill is a bit premature because we haven't dealt with the already existing systemic racism in our justice system? Does it place people who are already overrepresented, or in the case of what Madam Mattoo said in terms of the victims who are often Black or indigenous people, more at risk of being criminalized?

What are your thoughts on that?

[Catherine Latimer]

I think the mandatory charging policies, though well-intended, have led to a lot of people who are more likely to be victims than perpetrators being charged with the offences.

There are attempts made to try to correct that by giving people discharges, right? They get an absolute discharge: “It was probably a mistake that you were charged in the first place, but we have mandatory charging policies, so we had to do it.” They're stuck with a charge. They try to address it by giving them an absolute discharge. However, absolute discharges are now going to be part of the provision that leads to a reverse onus on bail, so you could end up seeing further numbers of indigenous women and Black women facing pretrial detention unnecessarily because of this bill.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

These are women who are victims.

[Catherine Latimer]

Absolutely, yes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

In terms of research that I have read, that's one of my main concerns.

I want to be very clear. I understand the good intentions behind the bill. Would you be in support if there were amendments to the bill, or do you just not support the whole bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Your time is up. We have one final round, so you'll get the question at the end.

I'm looking at the time. You know how sticky I am with time.

We are down to 10 minutes. I thought we had 15, but we're down to 10, so it will be Michelle for three, and three minutes over here to Sonia, and then two minutes and two minutes.

Go ahead, Michelle, for three minutes.

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

Thank you so much.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. My question is for both witnesses.

One thing that I think has been a bit conflated today is that this bill is about the rights of victims, not prevention. It's not intended to be a preventive measure. Do the witnesses believe that this bill will give more power and voice to the victims?

I can start with you, Ms. Latimer.

[Catherine Latimer]

There already is a Victims Bill of Rights, which is supposed to be giving victims a voice in all decisions being made by the criminal justice system. There's already something on paper. If that's not resulting in people getting access and having an opportunity to give voice, then I'm not sure how more paper changes are going to deliver that. There needs to be an operational change and not just a legal change.

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

For the record, I know we were supposed to have the Liberal minister update that Victims Bill of Rights, but that hasn't been done.

Regarding bail reform, the Liberals passed Bill C-5, which allows dangerous sexual offenders to serve their sentences out on bail. You can imagine how this makes victims feel.

Given this legislative change, do you think that victims deserve initiatives and policy and legislation, such as Bill S-205, to give them more rights? Obviously, they are going to be consulted regarding electronic bracelets, which gives them a lot more power.

I will go to Ms. Mattoo to answer that.

[Deepa Mattoo]

Thank you so much for the question.

In terms of whether we should have more client-centric and victim-centric—I use the language of survivors—and survivor-centric language in the bills and whether there should there be more law reforms around that, absolutely, but my point in response to you is that none of the law reforms should be without an evidence-based approach. There should be funding of appropriate research around law reform. There should be an impact assessment of law reform and the bills. There should be implementation of external independent evaluation of [Technical difficulty—Editor] the new changes, and there should be funding for doing all of this work.

Unfortunately, the reason you're hearing a lot of us having a visceral reaction to this bill is that it might actually deepen the problem rather than solve it. From our experience on the ground, there are lots of survivors who have found that the laws that were meant to protect them have been weaponized against them.

I hope that helps.

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

Thank you.

I have 30 seconds left.

My colleague Todd Doherty, who is sitting in today, has a quick question.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate the testimony.

Ms. Latimer, was it your testimony today that some of the criminals who are released on electronic monitoring are told to pay for the monitoring?

[Catherine Latimer]

Yes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Can you share evidence of that with us?

During this time, I've spoken to a friend of mine who's in the RCMP, and he says that's not even plausible. If you can table that evidence with this committee, I think it's.... I'd hate to say that your testimony is wrong or mistaken, but I would love to have that evidence, if possible.

[Catherine Latimer]

Sure, I can do that. I actually used to contribute to help someone pay for their electronic monitoring.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

That's perfect.

Thank you so much, Catherine. If you can make sure that's sent in, we'd really appreciate it.

We're now going to give the floor to Sonia. Sonia, you have three minutes.