Status of Women Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You can give a quick reply now and then give the rest in writing, please.

[Emilie Coyle]

Okay.

Coercive control is a whole other issue that I would love to speak to you about. I'm also eager to hear about this recommendation from Quebec. I think there's a lot to learn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Perfect. Thanks very much. I know it's a much bigger issue than in a 10-second reply, so if you wish to put that in writing, that would be wonderful. I know there's lots of work being done on that as well.

Leah, you have two and a half minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

I want to acknowledge that I think all of us are on the same page in terms of wanting to address intimate partner violence. We're all pretty intense about it. I know I've spent a career being intense about it.

In saying that, I think one thing we need to remember as legislators is that many of us haven't had this lived experience and we're making the laws. One of my concerns is specifically the fact that the very people who are overrepresented in terms of experiencing intimate partner violence will not even use this system, because they don't get a response. We know this from the national inquiry. When indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA call for help, whether it's to deal with it or even look for them, nobody shows up.

I want you to expand on that, Sarah. You spoke to an amendment. Why is that amendment so critical if we're going to address the statistical majority of people experiencing intimate partner violence?

[Sarah Niman]

Thank you for the question.

My answer relies on the lens of the UNDRIP. What that obligates legislators to do is craft legislation that takes into consideration indigenous peoples' rights. Under article 22 of that international human rights treaty and domestic legislation, there's an obligation for states to take action to protect the vulnerable, specifically indigenous women, from violence.

While this bill seeks to reduce intimate partner violence, and prevent it in some cases, it's just not tailored to indigenous women's lived experiences. Therefore, our concern is that while it will help some victims, it won't impact the lived experiences of those who have distrust of the colonial system that oppresses them and have distrust in the people who are legislated to protect them, but oftentimes don't.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I asked because we passed legislation in the last parliament, Bill C-15, and all legislation going forward has to be consistent with the articles contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Does this bill do that? It's a legal obligation for us now. Does it do that?

[Sarah Niman]

No. I understand that there's not an UNDRIP lens through which each bill is being examined, the same way that it's done for the charter and for gender-based analysis.

We suggest that in the near future—and why not now?—we begin by making sure that all legislation passed aligns with an indigenous-led approach.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's actually Canadian law now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much.

We're past our time, so we're going to do the last couple of seconds. We'll have five minutes for Dominique and then five minutes for Sonia.

Dominique, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to respond to the argument that this bill duplicates what was done by Bill C‑233, if memory serves. These two bills affect two completely different parts of a process. This is a bill that comes into play upstream, when women experience spousal violence and are completely without resources. I say women, because it is much more often women.

We heard some pretty poignant testimony on Monday, probably among the worst I have ever heard. You heard me react. At one point, it became unbearable to hear. So I have trouble imagining how these women can continue to survive as they do, with so much strength, after experiencing that violence.

I would also like to point out that the Quebec Native Women association supported the Quebec initiative to use electronic bracelets, about which Ms. Larouche and I have said a lot today, which is a beacon in this area. It is a positive experience. In this field, as in others, we can take inspiration from Quebec, and I do not hesitate to say it.

This is what we are trying to do with this bill, which was introduced and sponsored by Senator Boisvenu, with all his passion and heart. I would remind us that he has experienced a major tragedy, the loss of his daughter, who was murdered. He has devoted his life to this cause: to protecting women.

At the beginning of the week, we heard testimony from two witnesses: Diane Tremblay and Martine Jeanson. They came to tell us, bluntly and unequivocally, how important it is to support this bill. I do not think that anyone here intends to play petty politics with this issue. I do not sense that, in any case. We are trying to identify the best possible elements of this bill, but we all heard these women's testimony on Monday. They told us not to waste time, and that we had to support this bill, with no amendments. They spoke to us from the heart.

I would like to read you a short passage from Ms. Tremblay's testimony: "I can't tell you just how important the electronic bracelet will be once the bill is adopted."

No one said that this bill was the only solution. In fact, it provides for other tools, including therapy and revision of section 810 of the Criminal Code, which serves virtually no purpose. Quoting Ms. Tremblay again: "We have our reasons for requesting that there be no amendments to the bill. We are here before you to tell you what actually happens. We are the ones who really know. We want to be protected and we want to protect our children."

Ladies, I hear what you are saying today and I thank you. You have taken the time to prepare your briefs. However, it is apparent that we do not agree with you, and we want to say so for the record. We want this bill to go through all the steps. We thank you for coming to meet with us, but evidently we will not find common ground, because to us, the bill is fundamental. It is a major tool that will offer concrete help for women everywhere in Canada who are afraid for themselves, but also for their children.

Madam Chair, I therefore urge all parliamentarians, the witnesses who are here and the associations they represent to reconsider their position on this bill and join us. Nothing is perfect. No one is saying it is perfect, but everyone is saying it is better than nothing. From that perspective, I believe we have to move forward.

(no text)

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

There are no questions from that, so I'll pass it over to Sonia. Sonia, you have five minutes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to make a comment before I start my questions.

As my colleague said, we want to find the best of the bill. Policies aren't made with yes-or-no questions. Nuances matter. Today these nuances mean respecting racialized and indigenous victims.

My question is to you, Ms. Niman.

In very brief terms, what amendments would you like to see that aim to protect indigenous women and women?

[Sarah Niman]

Thank you for your question.

NWAC would like to see an amendment to subsection 515(4) that provides judicial decision-makers with the option to consult with indigenous governing bodies when they're dealing with an indigenous accused or victim.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

On October 31, Minister Ien announced $5.5 million for several organizations, including LEAF, to address gender-based violence in Ontario and across the country.

Ms. Parsa, how are you going to approach your work in the implementation of this funding? I also want to point out that intimate partner violence can drastically impact victims' lives. What support measures do you provide to victims who are experiencing this violence?

[Roxana Parsa]

We don't provide direct support at our organization.

Something LEAF is very passionate about pursuing is looking at alternative avenues to justice outside the criminal legal system. We recently released a report on restorative and transformative models of justice and how survivors who may not want to go through the criminal legal system can seek mechanisms of justice and safety through other models. That is an area we are very eager to continue working in.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

It is essential for the Criminal Code to adequately address intimate partner violence. We also need to make sure we are working to stop the problem at its root.

What action can government and communities take to improve education about, and prevention of, intimate partner violence?

Anybody can chime in. We can start with Elizabeth Fry.

[Emilie Coyle]

We are spending a lot of time thinking about the issue of intimate partner violence with regard to a specific piece of legislation. This specific piece of legislation certainly focuses on section 810 and increasing the voices of people who have experienced intimate partner violence.

However, what we aren't doing is taking a step back and doing what the Mass Casualty Commission inquiry asked us to do, what the Renfrew inquest asked us to do, what the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report asked us to do, and what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, particularly recommendation number 30, asked us to do: reduce the number of indigenous people in our prisons. We're not stepping back and doing that. Instead, we're spending all of our time and energy on a very tiny piece of legislation that is not going to do what we need it to do in order to address the epidemic of intimate partner violence.

Survivors will tell you that they need social workers. They need universal basic income, financial assistance, housing, culturally specific resources, mediators, domestic violence specialists, shelters, peers, community intervention or de-escalation, faith community supports, legal services, crisis prevention measures, drug and alcohol services, and mental health services. There is a raft of things we should be doing.

We should not be spending all of our time looking at this tiny piece of law that is not going to do what we want it to do.

[Sarah Niman]

In terms of education, one thing I want to raise that hasn't been raised today—I think it answers your question—is how proceedings in the criminal court are “R. v.”—it's “the Crown versus”, not “the victim versus”. One thing this bill does that we haven't seen frequently enough is give victims a voice in those proceedings. Previous to this bill, they have not enjoyed that.

NWAC honours and celebrates the fact that if Bill S-205 passes, there will be legislated opportunities that require those who hold all the power to consult with the otherwise powerless victims and ensure they're at least made aware and consulted throughout processes that are typically stacked against them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You have 15 seconds.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Ms. Parsa, do you want to chime in?

[Roxana Parsa]

I agree with everything that's been said and I would reiterate that we think it is really time to move our perspective beyond just focusing on the criminal legal system. Prevention work is what is crucial.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

That's perfect.

I'm looking at the time. We are right at the very end of this panel. We've used every second we possibly could.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Sarah, Emilie and Roxana for being on today. Thank you for bringing your perspectives.

We are going to suspend because we need to get right back on. We have one check to do, so we'll suspend and start back up in about a minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

We are starting, so we want to switch it up. I'd ask the witnesses from the last panel to move out, because our next panel is trying to get in.

Right now I would like to welcome the two people on the next panel. We have Deepa Mattoo, who is the executive director of the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic. She is with us via video conference. We also have Catherine Latimer, who is the executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada.

I hope everybody has come back and is good.

I'm going to pass it over for the first five minutes to you, Deepa.

[Deepa Mattoo, Executive Director, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you, honourable chair and committee members. I am Deepa Mattoo, lawyer and executive director of the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic in Toronto.

I truly appreciate this opportunity to address you today and to present the submissions on behalf of the clinic.

The clinic offers trauma-informed legal services and representation, counselling, multilingual interpretation, and system transformation support to women and gender-diverse people who have experienced violence. Our efforts are rooted in the foundational principles of intersectionality, trauma-informed care, and a resolute dedication to a client-centred approach.

In my submissions today I want to focus on the voice of our clients. I will articulate four key points in response to the proposed amendments. I will talk about how these changes relate to the experiences of survivors of gender-based violence, the implications for the marginalized communities, an assessment of the current conditions of our system and finally a recommendation for evidence-based law reform.

Starting with the voice of survivors, I would like to begin by expressing my support for proposed subsection 515(3.1). We think it's a step in the right direction to require the justice overseeing a bail hearing to inquire with the prosecutor about whether the accused's intimate partner has been consulted regarding their safety and security needs.

This underscores the importance of taking into account the well-being and concerns of the intimate partner and provides an opportunity for survivors to explain what they are afraid of and what court orders might help them. We question, however, whether the provision goes far enough. Is there a way to ensure not only that survivors are consulted but that their concerns are actually presented to the court to assess how the conditions address them?

With a similar view, proposed subsection 515(14.1) helpfully requires the judge to ask if the survivor has been informed of their right to a copy of the court’s order. We submit that the amendment could also require that a copy be provided to the survivor. In the clinic’s experience, survivors can wait for a week to obtain a copy of the bail conditions, which are usually very general in nature, rather than tailored to the specific safety concerns during the ongoing legal proceeding.

With respect to the amendment to proposed section 810.03, which creates a recognizance order specifically for situations of intimate partner violence, we recommend an additional survivor-centred approach. Protection should be available for both current and previous intimate partners, as our experience shows that violence can persist after partners have separated and in many cases actually escalates to lethality at the time of the separation. In addition, informants seeking the recognizance order should be given the option to attend court on a different day than the defendant.

I wish to emphasize that many of the amendments in Bill S-205 are a step toward empowering individuals who fear potential harm from their intimate partners and reflect your commitment to creating a safer and more responsive legal environment. However, I want to submit that there are inadvertent repercussions for historically marginalized communities from indigenous backgrounds, Black backgrounds, non-status people, migrant communities and disabled people. From our observations, these consequences may include the following.

The first is misuse or false accusations against the survivors themselves. You have heard in detail from Elizabeth Fry Societies how the system is sometimes challenging for the survivors themselves when they have this complex relationship and they get charged.

The second is the chilling effect on reporting. That's another fear that we have: The legal repercussions may unintentionally deter people who are genuinely in need from reporting their concerns. It is vital to address any barriers that might discourage individuals from seeking the protections they require.

The third is the strain on already limited legal resources. I'm sure this committee has heard from other people on this aspect too. There is already a very stretched legal resources issue in this country. Adequate measures should be implemented to manage potential backlogs and maintain the efficiency of the legal system if these amendments go forward.

The fourth is the stigmatization of accused individuals. We must be vigilant about the unintended societal stigma that accused individuals may face, even if later proven innocent. Public perceptions can have lasting impacts on people's personal and professional lives. It can also lead to increased criminalization of marginalized communities—survivors who don't speak English, survivors who are from the migrant communities, and indigenous and Black survivors.

I submit that changes to the legal landscape like this need to go hand in hand with additional legal aid support for survivors and options—

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You have 30 seconds left.