PRIORITY ISSUES AND LAW REFORM INITIATIVES

As we approach the close of this century, we hope that this year will end with a renewal and revitalizing of those who work with and on behalf of criminalized women. The realization of this vision will be exemplified by the closure of the Prison for Women in Kingston as well as the segregated maximum security units in men’s prisons, the development of community resources for women and the outflux of women from the regional prisons home to their children and communities of support.

Although systemic issues and difficulties of preceding years persist, CAEFS continues to enjoy the benefits of strengthened coalitions and mounting public concern about the blatant and intersecting layers of discrimination within the criminal justice system. Of particular not in this regard, was the publishing by Yvonne Johnson of her autobiographical account of her Stolen Life.

Yvonne’s book, co-authored with Rudy Wiebe, forces those who read it to directly confront the ripped and raw results of colonization, racism, misogyny, classism and poverty on a proud and courageous woman. It also spurs us to action and inspires a righteous rage that will help to fuel us in the future. Yvonne’s life story typifies this year, decade and century for me. Any and all who choose to work in and around our criminal (in)justice system must read it!

While we end another year with the persistent challenge of ensuring that women behind prison walls have access to justice, we also face the coming year with new hope, energy, ideas and enthusiasm. The manner in which CAEFS will need to proceed to fulfil our mandate, given the specifics of issues faced to date are highlighted in the following activity and issue summaries.

Federally Sentenced Women

A) Exchange of Services Agreement (ESA) for the Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women (BCCW)

As part of our ongoing concerns regarding the needs of federally sentenced women (FSW) at BCCW, CAEFS remains of the view that CSC cannot transfer away the rights of FSW at BCCW via its ESA with the BC Ministry of Corrections.

B.C. is one of two provinces (the other two are Newfoundland and Manitoba) with active ESA’s to house federally sentenced women in provincial jails. If the current evaluative process does not result in an acceptable re-negotiation of the ESA this year, CAEFS will examine the possibility of mounting a challenge in B.C. and/or joining the challenges that are currently underway. Two FSW have launched their own cases against the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of Corrections.

B) Three Years Later: the Status of the Arbour Recommendations

Regrettably, since the release of the Arbour Report, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has continued to deny that it has engaged in any further illegal activities. Attempts to cover-up legal and policy transgressions persist, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. We continue to see an organization focused upon maintaining a defensive image of righteous indignation in the face of evidence of significant wrongdoing and blatant disregard for the law.

CAEFS continues to play a key role in the forewarning, monitoring and exposure of procedural and policy problems highlighted and exemplified by the manner in which the Correctional Service of Canada chooses to address problems which emanate from or have been visited upon P4W and the regional women’s prisons. In addition to wishing to assist in elucidating the particular facts specific to incidents or events, CAEFS is also committed to ensuring that relevant policy issues are fully examined and addressed. Regrettably, as the Prison for Women sits poised yet again to close, and as the regional prisons and segregated maximum security units in men’s prisons continue their operations, CSC is reluctant to relinquish the vestiges of models designed to deal predominantly with the men in their prisons.

CSC is still a very insular, insecure yet self-righteously arrogant governmental department, where prisoners and anyone who questions CSC’s actions are similarly relegated to the margins and classified as unimportant and misinformed, regardless of the seriousness and implications of the matters raised. All energies seemed to be focused upon efforts to obfuscate the issues, discredit any perceived detractors and continue on with business as usual.

Other issues which persist in the regional prisons for women in Canada point to the need for national leadership in the area of women’s corrections. Although the Correctional Service of Canada appointed a Deputy Commissioner for Women following Madam Justice Arbour’s recommendation for same, they have unfortunately chosen to not implement the rest of the recommendations related to the position. Not only does this result in significant limitations to the authority of the position, but it also means that there continues to be a leadership vacuum, where the wardens of the new women’s prisons and the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge report to regional Deputy Commissioners responsible for the men’s prisons and community corrections in their respective regions. The Deputy Commissioner for Women still has no ability to veto decisions

made by the regional Deputy Commissioners, nor any separate authority to decide the manner in which the federally sentenced women's prison and community programs are implemented.

The former Solicitor General, the Honourable Andy Scott, had requested that CSC develop a plan to address the needs of federally sentenced women within the regional prisons, particularly those who are currently segregated in the maximum security units in men’s prisons. He was expected to make an announcement about this matter in early June 1998. The current Solicitor General, Minister McAulay, has indicated a continued interest in closing P4W and the segregated maximum security units in men’s prisons. As such, although we continue to have significant concerns regarding the future for federally sentenced women in Canada, CAEFS still has hope that CSC will continue to be challenged to develop new options for women.

Unfortunately, we remain apprehensive about the willingness and ability of the Correctional Service of Canada to institute the necessary reforms to address the needs and challenges of federally sentenced women. The projected image of a criminal justice system whose personnel promote the utmost respect for the law by modelling humane and just exercise of power is a stark contrast to the reality that the women and CAEFS experience.

Three years after the release of Madam Justice Arbour’s recommendations and nearly ten years after the completion of the work of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women issued its report, Creating Choices, we still await CSC’s articulation and action plan for a national strategy for the provision of community release or supervision options for federally sentenced women. With the exception of a halfway house in the Greater Vancouver area, a private home placement in Edmonton, and the purchase of two beds in E. Fry Saskatchewan’s provincially funded house there are still virtually no women-only day parole options for federally sentenced women west of central Ontario.

Regrettably, there is also one less halfway house in Ontario, as the EFS of Ottawa was forced to close their house due to the insufficiency of funding to finance the beds for FSW. As such, there are now only three halfway houses for women in Ontario. There is one in Quebec and none in Eastern Canada. CAEFS continues to urge CSC to develop a clear national community integration strategy and standards for the FSW initiative.

The experiences of women prisoners has tended to involve too many profoundly disturbing examples of oppression and abuse of power, as well as arbitrary decision making. In our view, the Correctional Service of Canada has repeatedly exhibited indifference to prisoners, disregard for its own policies, and disrespect for the very legislation pursuant to which it operates.

CAEFS would like to see CSC developing clear action plans designed to ensure that the needs of federally sentenced women are met in the institutional and community release contexts for those women still imprisoned at the Prison for Women, as well as of those in the regional prisons, the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge and the segregated maximum security units in men’s prisons. Much more emphasis is needed on the development of community supports for women prisoners.

In the new regional prisons, CAEFS and its membership continue to discharge our monitoring function in efforts to ensure that women's rights and entitlements are being provided and that CSC is adhering to the law governing its activities. CAEFS' preference is to not be involved in purely "operational" matters at P4W or the new prisons. Consequently, CAEFS continues to assert the need for regional governance bodies for the new prisons and a national advisory body for the area of federally sentenced women's corrections as a whole. Unless truly effective and representative independent mandatory advisory bodies are constituted, CAEFS will undoubtedly continue to be expected to intervene on behalf of the women.

c) Criminalization of Women Labelled as Having Mental Health Concerns

Within the context of the program strategy, multi-disciplinary external therapeutic and personal supports need to be encouraged. In order to facilitate a continuum of care for federally sentenced women, externally-located counselling, therapeutic and spiritual supports must also be respected and regarded as integral to the overall strategy by institutional partners. Rather than see CSC isolate the women in segregated maximum security units, CAEFS would prefer the notion of small centres associated with the regional prisons. We would like to see women who are engaged in "treatment" being able to maintain their relationships with their personal community of supports and to assist them in building and maintaining bridges to their communities of origin and/or support.

We also remain concerned about the ability of the regional prisons to accommodate a therapeutic milieu, whereby women-centred, holistic and intensive therapy or treatment would be the focus and opportunities would be provided to inspire women to create choices in a manner that does not infantilise or scapegoat them. We continue to encourage CSC to focus upon the development of an institutional atmosphere where staff model, support and reinforce positive attitudes and relationships and where trust is earned. In short, CSC management and staff must move away from power and control models and work on instilling hope and encouraging women. Furthermore, they must recognize that the responsibility for healing and growth does not rest solely with the women and that they must be able to model behaviours and be mentors to the women.

Many of the federally sentenced women who are currently classified as maximum security prisoners are women who are identified by CSC as having mental health needs. The practical reality is that mental health needs have been equated with risk. Physical and mental disability are included in s. 17 of the Regulations as factors which must be considered in determining security classification. This does not mean, however, that the presence of a disability should result in an increased security classification.

Mental health concerns that are disabling undoubtedly create very real needs for federally sentenced women and therefore for CSC. But, equating mental health disabilities with risks only serves to perpetuate a social construction of persons with mental disabilities as dangerous. This is precisely the kind of stereotyping which is prohibited by the equality provisions of the Charter. Many of the women identified as having mental health needs do not pose the kind of risks to which s. 17 of the Regulations is directed.

Most certainly, some women with mental health needs might require additional supports to function at a lower security level, by reason of their disability. Section 15 of the Charter has been interpreted by the courts to clarify that equal treatment does not necessarily mean the same treatment. Persons with disabilities, for example, may require that extra measures be implemented to provide them with the same level of service as the non-disabled community. Similarly, if a federally sentenced woman with a mental disability is having difficulty coping at a lower level of security, the response should not be to raise her security level. Rather, the appropriate response would be to provide her with the extra support required as a result of her disability to help her function at that lower security level.

Using the need for mental health treatment as a reason to classify women as maximum security imposes harsher treatment on such women. Since this is based on their disability, it is clearly discriminatory and contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter.

d) Classification and Placement of Federally Sentenced Women

Last year, we reported that the Deputy Commissioner for Women (DCW), Nancy Stableforth, had requested that each region develop alternative accommodation options for FSW classified as maximum security prisoners. Although CAEFS has not been privy to the details of these plans, we have been advised by many CSC employees, including the wardens of the women’s prisons, that CSC is now of the view that housing the women in men’s prisons is not a viable option.

Recently, individuals within the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) have made a number of proposals concerning incarceral placement options for housing federally sentenced women classified as maximum security prisoners. These options have included, the construction of new maximum security prisons, the incarceration of women in isolated units in men's prisons, and the construction of new maximum security units at the regional women's prisons. CAEFS’ remains firmly of the view that all federally sentenced women should be confined in the new women’s prisons within their respective regions or at the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge, and that new maximum security units should not be constructed in those prisons.

CAEFS’ believes that no useful purpose is served by ascribing different security levels to the federally sentenced women population. CAEFS’ position in this regard is consistent with the majority of the research literature by concluding that women are over classified when tools designed for men are applied to them. It has been repeatedly recognized that the current system, which was designed for men, results in significant over classification when applied to federally sentenced women. This is particularly true for Aboriginal women who are disproportionately classified as maximum security.

The determination of a security classification, as required pursuant to the provisions of the CCRA, is based upon an assessment by the CSC of each prisoner’s probability of escape, level of risk to the safety of the public if s/he were to escape and the degree of supervision and control required in the penitentiary setting. As s. 17 of the Regulations indicates, those prisoners who pose a greater risk and need more control will be subject to more restrictive conditions of confinement. Because escapes from prison by women occur so rarely and have consequently not been sufficiently studied, it is not possible to make reliable predictions about a woman's risk to escape. Moreover, because it occurs in such a completely different context, any prior failure to return from a temporary absence pass is not considered to be a good predictor of escape risk. Risk to the safety of the public is also difficult to predict for women because they have a lower overall recidivism rate that do men and a much smaller percentage of the crimes committed by them are violent.

A gender neutral assessment of risk, based on women's offences, does not capture the circumstances in which women participate in violent offences and the fact that their violent offences are most often reactive and situational. Furthermore, women's offences are not contextualized by or correlated with their participation in institutional violence, or behavioural difficulties in prison.

If the security classification of federally sentenced women were based on demonstrated behaviour and individual achievements within institutional settings, as opposed to being predictions based upon criteria which has not been shown to have a reliable link to risk, and if women with mental health disabilities are properly supported to help them maintain a lower security level, then the number of women receiving a maximum security classification would be very small.

CAEFS’ believes that all federally sentenced women should be incarcerated in the new regional prisons and that all Aboriginal women who choose to commit to the healing focus should have access to the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge. This was the plan that was adopted by CSC following the tabling in 1990 of the report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, Creating Choices. The extensive research conducted by and for the Task Force, as well as subsequent research and planning activities conducted by the Federally Sentenced Women Program since then, reinforced the validity of this approach.

Although the Creating Choices report has been characterized by CSC as a philosophy statement rather than an operational document, much of the material produced by the Federally Sentenced Women's Program is specifically directed towards implementation of the philosophical approach adopted by the government in 1990. It is also important to emphasize that the reasons offered by the government for abandoning the plan to confine all women in the new regional prisons were the conclusions of Dr. Rivera’s Report and incidents which occurred at Edmonton Institution in 1996.

The fact that Dr. Rivera’s Report does not support this approach has been referred to above. Furthermore, the Edmonton incidents were the subject of a national Board of Investigation, the results of which did not suggest that maximum security women cannot be confined in the regional prisons, but rather that there were a number of critical deficiencies in the operation of the Edmonton Institution for Women (EIFW). For instance, the investigative report indicated that the prison opened despite the reality that the construction of the physical plant was not complete, and that there was insufficient staff training, negligible programming, and little to no psychological or therapeutic treatment.

Finally, we must point out that prior to the opening of the regional prisons, in the Ontario and Prairie regions, the CSC was attempting to develop alternative accommodation strategies for federally sentenced women. This was occasioned by an increase in the number of federally sentenced women in those regions which exceeded the capacity of those regional prisons for women. In order to address these accommodation issues, CSC was considering the same sorts of options that they subsequently chose to utilize following the incidents at EIFW, namely, new construction within the regional prisons for women or the placement of women in units in men’s prisons.

If separation is maintained instead by dynamic rather than static security measures, institutional security could be adapted so as to have less impact on the freedom of movement of the women classified as medium and minimum security. These women might very well otherwise have their movement restricted in order to accommodate movement of the maximum security population within the institution. In addition, the enhanced security and segregation units would be available for use in the case of crises. They might also be used to facilitate the transition process for women who previously have been kept in a high static security environment.

In order to maintain a more structured environment for maximum security women, CAEFS envisions increased complements and consequent availability of staff in the maximum security houses. Additionally, as maximum security women move throughout the prison, they would likely be accompanied by staff, as they moved through the institution either as a group or individually. Examples of such movement and circumstances might include visits, medical and other appointments, and programs with others at lower security classification levels in the general prison population.

The CSC was quite prepared to commit staff to a number of dynamic security measures to keep the federally sentenced women separated from the male population at the RTC in Kingston Penitentiary. In fact, they planned such resource rich approaches as escorting and bussing the women from the range to the yard, regular visits and Private Family Visits (PFV) in on-site trailers, medical and programming activities. In short, staff were going to escort women to all activity areas and remain with them at all times. In addition, staff in the rest of the prison were going to be required to keep all of the men away from the women, including away from windows so that the women would not be viewed while in the prison exercise yard. The same level of separation would of course not be required in the regional prisons, but an appropriate level of attention by staff could permit the maximum security women to interact safely within the prisons.

Finally, as those responsible for women’s correctional services in other jurisdictions internationally have reinforced, an integral part of any plan to house federally sentenced women, particularly maximum security women, is the opportunity for them to participate in meaningful programming. Meaningful employment and educational opportunities, especially vocational training, are some of the most crucial programming components required to enhance the likelihood of successful community integration for all federally sentenced women. And, as experiences in men’s minimum prisons, Minnesota’s Shakopee facility and Australia’s Emu Plains institution confirm, the possibility of gaining marketable skills and work release options provide a powerful motivational force for prisoners to work to reduce their security levels.

e) Minimum Security

Following the incidents which occurred at EIFW in the spring of 1996, and prior to CSC’s decision to change policy so as to preclude women classified as maximum security prisoners from being placed in the new regional prisons, the CSC decided to enhance the static security measures in all of the regional prisons and at the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge. To this end, security fences were erected, razor wire, new cameras and other security devices were installed. The result is that women classified as minimum and medium security prisoners are now subject to the same perimeter security.

In CAEFS’ opinion, this situation creates a significant distinction between the treatment of women and men who are classified as minimum security prisoners. Minimum security men live in prisons without fences. This distinction represents more than a difference in the physical structure, but includes the availability of work releases, temporary absence passes, employment opportunities and other release planning, as well as the likelihood of favourable consideration by the NPB.

Initially, the design of the new regional prisons for women provided minimal static security because research and international experience supported the use of dynamic security approaches. Since women prisoners pose minimal risk to the safety of the public within the meaning of s. 17 of the Regulations and therefore have lower security requirements than men, there should be increased opportunities for progressive experimentation with respect to dynamic security models within women’s corrections. Unfortunately, the original design has been reversed. The result is that static security has been increased for all federally sentenced women. It cannot possibly be argued that minimum security women have higher security needs than minimum security men.

One of the recurring historical criticisms of the Prison for Women in Kingston was that all women were subject to the same high security measures, regardless of their security classification. This situation has now been replicated in the new regional prisons.

Although we are not in favour of any additional construction at the regional prisons, CAEFS remains of the view that, at the very least, federally sentenced women classified as minimum security prisoners should live in houses situated outside the fences of the regional prisons as is the case for minimum security men. There is no operational reason why this could not be accomplished at the regional prisons in the same way that the Isabel MacNeil House operates outside the walls of the Prison for Women in Kingston.

Indeed, the entire women’s prison population in the state of Minnesota, from minimum to maximum security, mental health and remand prisoners, are all housed in the unfenced Minnesota Correctional Facility - Shakopee. Shakopee was the prison that the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women and the FSWP utilized as a model for the new regional prisons for women.

f) LSD Experiments on Federally Sentenced Women

CAEFS has offered assistance and support to Dorothy Proctor, 1 of at least 22 who were used in LSD experiments while in segregation at the Prison for Women over 35-40 years ago. To date, only Ms. Proctor has been willing to be identified. Other women have expressed a desire to remain anonymous, as their families are not aware that they were ever incarcerated -- some are now grandmothers, some are dead.

Rather than proceed to implement the recommendations supported by the findings of the Board of Investigation in their report, Board of Investigation into Allegations of Mistreatment by a Former Inmate at the Prison for Women Between March 22, 1960 and August 1, 1963, CSC appointed the McGill University Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law "to obtain independent advice concerning the long term effects of LSD, and to develop guidelines, or protocols, for addressing each individual case". They also suggested that women identify themselves to CSC health services.

It is difficult to imagine what further proof CSC might require of "a direct link" between the treatment and current difficulties of at least the two women whose histories are chronicled. As the investigators point out, it seems abundantly evident that the administration of L.S.D. to these women while they were imprisoned at the Prison for Women did indeed result in "substantial, debilitating, long term negative effects". One wonders how much more direct a link the women must establish.

CAEFS has urged the Commissioner of Corrections to immediately offer compensatory settlements to Ms. Proctor and the unnamed former prisoner who was also interviewed by the Board of Investigation. We also urged him to continue efforts to locate the additional 20+ women who were part of the experiments. Given the obvious sensitivity of these issues and the likelihood that women may not wish to have their families and circumstances jeopardized by unwanted publicity, we further urged him to encourage women to come forth by providing assurances of anonymity.

Given the reality that their past experiences may discourage women from coming forth voluntarily to re-identify themselves to/with the Correctional Service of Canada, CAEFS also offered assistance in this regard. Conversations with the members of the Board of Investigation confirmed that there is a need for some assurances of confidentiality and anonymity before other women are likely to come forth. Even then, none may.

CSC needs to be in a position to satisfy themselves of the veracity of women’s claims. CAEFS also faced such challenges in the past during the research phase of our battered women’s defence work. We faced the challenge of trying to locate women who wanted assistance, but did not wish to be identified publicly. Accordingly, CAEFS offered to facilitate contacts for women, as well as provide personal support and assist women wanting to come forward. We would, of course, respect the wishes of those women who want to retain their anonymity, while simultaneously facilitating the collection of information necessary to substantiate their claims.

The Minister, Andy Scott, had stated that he is committed to ensuring that the women prisoners who were subjected to the L.S.D. experiments are now treated fairly and that they will finally experience a speedy and just resolution in this matter. The Minister expects to receive the report from the McGill Centre before the House of Commons rises for the summer.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)

November 2, 1998, marked the 6th anniversary of the proclamation of the CCRA. The legislation includes a provision that it be reviewed after five years. Accordingly, in March of 1997, the Solicitor General commenced national and regional consultations on the Act and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are scheduled to review the Act during 1998 and are expected to issue a report by the end of 1999.

Overall, the legislation is not the problem, the lack of implementation of components of the Act is the real problem. As such CAEFS has encouraged the Solicitor General to ensure that life is breathed into the progressive provisions and have proposed the following amendments to the legislation:

1. Section 11 of the CCRA should be amended to prohibit the incarceration of women in federal penitentiaries for men.

2. Given the discriminatory application of s. 30 to federally sentenced women, the CCRA should be amended so as to exclude women from the application of s. 30.

3. A definition of administrative segregation should be included in the CCRA. Administrative segregation should be defined as confinement which restricts the entitlement to associate beyond that which is provided to the general prison population. In addition, the Act should include clear parameters for the use of administrative segregation.

4. Sections 33 and 34 of the CCRA ought to be amended to provide for either of the two segregation review models proposed by the Arbour Commission.

5. Section 37 of the CCRA should be amended so as to remove the phrase "security requirements" and articulate a positive obligation on CSC to provide sufficient dynamic/staff support and physical structures which enable separated prisoners to exercise most of the entitlements of the general prison population.

6. Section 16 of the CCRA should be amended to provide that federally sentenced prisoners may only be confined in provincial jails with their consent and on a voluntary basis.

7. Sub-section 77(b) of the CCRA should be repealed and replaced by a new s. 77(b) that establishes a National Women’s Advisory Committee, chaired by CAEFS, to provide advice to the Service and monitor the provision of correctional services to federally sentenced women in accordance with domestic law and international agreements.

8. New provisions, similar to sections 79, 81 and 84 of the CCRA, should be enacted to provide opportunities for federally sentenced women to serve their sentences and be released on parole to community organizations and facilities which provide services to women.

9. Section 87 of the CCRA should be amended to prohibit its application in any manner that might disadvantage prisoners with mental disabilities.

10. Sub-section 88(4) of the CCRA should be amended so as to restrict the participation of prisoners in demonstration treatment programs to those in which members of the public also participate. Such demonstration treatment programs should also be administered and evaluated by doctors external to the CSC Health Services.

11. Sub-section 125(3) of the CCRA should be amended so as to delete "social history" from the factors to be considered by the National Parole Board.

12. Sub-section 179(3) of the CCRA should be amended so as to require that the Commissioner of Corrections and the Chair of the National Parole Board are bound to act on a finding or recommendation by the Correctional Investigator with respect to a breach of the law.

13. The CCRA should be amended so as to direct the Correctional Investigator to report directly to Parliament.

14. The CCRA should be amended to include a new provision which would entitle prisoners to apply to court for a reduction of a fixed term sentence or, if the sentence is a mandatory minimum one, a declaration that the sentence was illegally or unfairly administered.

Young Offenders Act (YOA)

The Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, has announced that she will reform the juvenile justice system by repealing the YOA and replacing it with the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. CAEFS does not regard this as good news, as the Minister is taking this approach despite a fairly positive report from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs following their "Phase II" review of the YOA. CAEFS presented a brief to the Standing Committee during the Phase II review.

CAEFS has serious concerns about the overall impact of the Act upon juvenile justice for young women. The increasing numbers of younger women in the provincial and federal prison systems are of particular concern to us. Unfortunately, unless the Minister resists the calls for more punitive and regressive scapegoating of Canadian youth, and, instead, embarks upon a public education campaign to inform Canadians about the excessive penalizing and incarcerating of youth in Canada, we are not likely to see much change in the current slide away from justice for young people.

Private Members’ Bills

Over the next few months, CAEFS will also appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bills C-251 (designed to abolish concurrent sentences for murder convictions) and C-284 (designed to eviscerate pardons), as well as proposed legislation regarding the role of victims in the criminal justice system.

On November 30, 1998, the parliamentary rules governing private members’ bills were amended in two significant ways: 1) unless a private member bill is amended, it does not necessarily die on the order paper when the Parliamentary session during which it was introduced prorogues; and 2) any Member of Parliament who files a bill with a one hundred other MPs’ signatures (with at least 10 MPs from a majority of parties in the House of Commons) is eligible to place such a bill in the order of precedence and table it in the House.

The changes to the rules for introducing private members’ bills into the House of Commons are resulting in the successful introduction of many more such bills. Most of the private members’ bills involve regressive changes to criminal justice legislation. As a result, CAEFS and other groups are being invited to appear 3-4 times before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights over the next few months. We generally will have one such appearance per year at the most, so this signals a significant new development.

If this current proliferation of private members’ bills continues, it has the potential to significantly impact the nature of the CAEFS’ workload. The research and preparation of position papers is a very time-consuming process.

Continuation of CAEFS’ Battered Women’s Defence Work

CAEFS has previously distributed the discussion documents from the Department of Justice regarding proposed amendments to the defences of self defence, provocation, and defence of property. The Department has agreed to consult with national women’s groups before proceeding further. Kim indicated that Justice is not addressing the fundamental issue of the role of mandatory minimum sentences. CAEFS and other women’s groups plan to focus the discussion around this issue. In the event that Justice does not follow through on their commitment to host a consultation, Kim will seek resources to facilitate same.