Status of Women Committee on Jan. 30th, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act.

At the meeting of December 4, 2023, the committee adopted the following: clause 1 as amended by G-1 and G-2, clause 4, clause 5, clause 9 and clause 10. At the meeting of December 11, the committee adopted amendments G-3 and G-4 pertaining to clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Today we are resuming debate on amendment G-5 pertaining to clause 2, which was already moved. Now we are resuming debate on G-5.

Mrs. Vecchio.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thanks so much, Sonia.

I want to look at this clause. What we see is that it's changing most of these things down to 12 months, rather than, in some cases, three years and two years. Can we understand why there is a reduction in time specifically on the recognizance order? The bill notes, “good behaviour for a period of not more than two years.” Under “Duration extended”, there was a request for “a period of not more than three years.” Then, when it comes to the defendant, “prison for a term not exceeding two years”. All of these have been reduced to 12 months.

I'm wondering if I can find out why we're reducing them from three years to 12 months.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Thank you.

Lisa.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also want to address this. I was hoping we could turn to the officials in the room to ask them.

My understanding is that it would bring this legislation into coherence with other pieces of legislation we have, but perhaps we could turn to the officials for more explanation.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Can an official explain, please?

[Chelsea Moore, Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question.

The provisions of this bill currently allow the peace bond to be imposed for a duration of two years in any case where the court finds there's a reasonable fear of domestic violence, or three years if the court makes its determination and the defendant has a prior conviction for domestic violence.

All of the existing more specialized peace bonds in the Criminal Code—such as for terrorism, organized crime, forced marriage, serious personal injury offences and sexual offences against a minor—start at 12 months. Then, each can be extended for up to two years if there's a prior conviction for similar conduct, with the exception of terrorism. Terrorism starts at 12 months, as well, but can be extended up to five years if you have a prior conviction for terrorism.

The policy surrounding the specific peace bond durations was developed while being mindful of the seriousness of the specific conduct being targeted by the peace bond and of the purpose of the peace bond regime, which is to prevent certain types of offending in a minimally impairing way, since no offence has yet been committed in the peace bond regime. It's very distinct from the sentencing regime, where the more serious the conduct, the longer your sentence would be. In the peace bond regime, since there hasn't been an offence committed yet, courts have taken a less restrictive approach.

Basically, the effect of these changes would simply bring the durations of this peace bond in line with all the other peace bonds in the regime, in particular peace bonds targeting equally if not more serious conduct.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Lisa.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I have a follow-up question to clarify.

There is no other offence for which a peace bond starts at two years.

[Chelsea Moore]

That's correct. They all start at 12 months.

The section 810 peace bond, which is the peace bond people typically go to right now for domestic violence, is for 12 months as well, and there are no means to have it extended. This peace bond for domestic violence would be distinct from that process right now, because you could still extend it. That's what makes it a bit more unique, and also the fact that it has more curated conditions for domestic violence.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Michelle.

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

Thanks, Madam Chair. It's nice to see you in the chair.

Welcome back, everybody, and happy new year.

I understand my colleague's point that this has never been done before, but I think that there's an opportunity here for us as legislators to change the status quo. What I mean by that is that in my community, for example, domestic violence is considered an emergency, and we're seeing this across the country, so why wouldn't we want to create legislation that is proactive? We also know that we have violent offenders out on the street, that crime has increased 40%, that public safety is a massive issue for this country and that people don't feel safe.

To the official's point—and thank you for explaining everything; I appreciate it—you're saying “less restrictive”. I think we are not in a position right now to be less restrictive. We have crises across this country of women and children who are unsafe, so why wouldn't we take this bill? It has been laid out by a senator whose own daughter was murdered as a result of domestic violence, so we know the intention is not partisan. It comes from a place of genuine intent to protect those he couldn't, to create legislation that should have been there for his daughter but wasn't.

I understand that right now maybe we don't have peace bonds of more than 12 months for people, but why? If we are here as legislators to create a safer community, to create more safety for women, and we know that there is an epidemic, a crisis across this country, why wouldn't we use this opportunity, then, to change the legislation and set the bar? We can say, “We are the status of women committee, and we actually care.” Let's try this. If it doesn't work, we'll come back and revisit it, but clearly what we have right now doesn't work because people aren't safe.

That would be my question to everybody in the room. I know we care. Why not set a different standard that says, “Enough”?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Anna, go ahead.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome back, everyone.

Maybe you can help me understand this. The report that came out said that Canada's violence is at the highest point since 2007 and the homicide rate is the highest it has been in 30 years. I guess my point is this. Help me understand why, as the status of women committee, we would lower that when we're trying to protect women. If our job here is to ensure the safety of every single woman and child—because, let's be honest, the majority of these crimes happen to women—why are we considering giving criminals that benefit and not the victims?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Go ahead, Mrs. Vecchio.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thanks very much.

I just want to carry on about the 12 months, and I just want to ensure.... It indicates 12 months. Is that the maximum? I think I heard Ms. Moore talk about an extension of a peace bond. I don't note it in this legislation, but can you share with us how a peace bond can be extended in a situation like this, in which they're showing up to two years or up to three years? Could we not have a minimum of 12 months and then extend it? I'm just wondering what those are.

For me, you would want to protect the victim for a longer period of time, so I'm wondering if there's a way that it could be 12 months with an addition, not just a strict 12 months. How are peace bonds actually extended?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Go ahead, Leah.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I do support this amendment, and this is my reasoning for it. I actually share concerns that were brought up by some of my Conservative colleagues about addressing violence. We know that carceral responses to violence don't work. In fact, they often don't solve it, which is why, when we had witnesses come forward, they spoke about the need for therapeutic responses as a way to mitigate future violent behaviour.

I'll just share that if you look at the recidivism rates, it is very clear that it doesn't matter how long you lock somebody up. Recidivism rates are high because jails do not do the job of helping those who exhibit violent behaviour change that behaviour. You cannot develop prosocial behaviours in a totally anti-social, violent environment, so I do support this amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Before I go to the next speaker, could an official answer Mrs. Vecchio's question?

[Chelsea Moore]

Yes.

I believe the question was about the extension of the peace bond. Extension, I guess, is not the most helpful word, but basically you can apply for a longer peace bond. This motion would change it so that a peace bond of up to two years could be applied for if there's a past conviction of intimate partner violence, because of the studies that show that if you have a past conviction of intimate partner violence, you could be more at risk of harming someone in the future. That's why if you have a past conviction for this type of conduct, you could actually apply for a longer peace bond.

The starting point is 12 months, which could be renewed each year. Even though it's 12 months, what people typically do right now is come back to the court to have it renewed for another 12 months.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

The next speaker is Dominique.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the legal experts for their explanations. We're looking at a bill. We can take a cerebral approach. However, I think that we must also look at the heart of the matter. We must think in terms of deterrence.

In Quebec, we went through Senator Boisvenu's tragedy. We're still talking about it today, because the situation is getting worse and not better. Violence has increased by 32%. We see it on the streets of Canada and Quebec, in homes and in couples. Things aren't going well at all. When Senator Boisvenu lost his daughter, all of Quebec mourned. I think that all of Canada shared the grief. He's introducing this bill because the situation hasn't improved.

I think that reducing the time for an order makes it less strict. Actually, that's the point of the bill. The bill seeks to protect victims. It's basically about protecting women and their children, and addressing any soft approaches.

One of my colleagues was talking about recidivism. I think that it's worth nothing. In my opinion, we should at least stick to what's written in the legislation.

I also want to refer to the testimony of the two women who spoke to the committee on the same day as Senator Boisvenu. They begged us to pass the bill as it stood.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Madame Larouche.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Right now, I'm torn about whether I want Bill S‑205 to pass. Honestly, it must pass.

Unfortunately, the year started badly for me. I learned through the media that the first femicide of the year in Quebec took place in my area, in Granby. In front of the media, I pledged to make every effort to help this committee take concrete steps to ensure that not one more femicide occurs.

I would like Bill S‑205 to pass. Everyone has questions. I would like us to try to move ahead with the consideration of this crucial and significant bill.

I'm trying to form an opinion on amendment G‑5. We obviously need to take steps to get this bill passed.

I also met with groups of women, just last week in Chicoutimi, who spoke about the need for access to a continuum of services, a term that often comes up. They also spoke about the need for society as a whole to take this issue seriously, both on a legal basis and as a public health, mental health and support issue. Our entire system must work together with community groups, which are doing an outstanding job.

In terms of amendment G‑5, I'm just trying to get a feel for it. I'm trying to understand what the legal experts are saying. Is this amendment sound? Does it make the bill less strict?

I'm having trouble forming an opinion on this amendment. I'll continue to follow and take part in the discussions. All I want is for Bill S‑205 to pass.

I understand that amendments have been moved. Ultimately, we must keep in mind that this bill is a vital part of our fight to end the femicide epidemic, which continues to claim too many victims across Quebec and Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Emmanuella, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to begin by saying that I completely agree with Leah's rationale. I know that hurt people hurt people, so if you don't offer therapy and allow these people to heal, then the violence won't stop.

With that being said, I have more of a technical question and I'd like a bit of an explanation. We are talking about lowering the maximum duration of the peace bond from two years to 12 months, but you've been speaking about how, as it's written for other peace bonds, it's starting at 12 months. For me, that's still.... I don't know if you explained it, but I don't know why we're using the word “maximum” if it's starting at....

Could you just clear that up?