SoVote

Context: Committee Evidence - FEWO-86 (FEWO) - Nov/20/23

Ms. Lisa Hepfner (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

04:28:10 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator, for your passionate work on ending gender-based violence and for bringing your personal experiences into this. I have similar questions as my colleagues. We've talked about this electronic bracelet monitoring and some of the challenges. For example, I know the Ontario chiefs of police are now reviewing whether this is an effective way to keep track of offenders. We also know that there have been breaches. As Leah Gazan mentioned, there are people who have been able to get these off. Are you concerned that if we rely solely or too much on this bracelet and it does have vulnerabilities, we will destroy the sense of safety that survivors are feeling?

120 words

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu

04:29:00 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you for that very important question. Electronic bracelets are not the only way to protect women. It's one of several options. Therapy for men is a way of protecting women. Aggressive men won't assault just one spouse, but two, three or four. There will be a series of victims. We therefore want to add a method that would achieve the desired result in perhaps 25%, 30%, or 40% of cases, but it's not a panacea that will eliminate all violence against women. Let's talk about the work done by the police. Currently, women who report their abuser are not believed. They might be believed the first time, perhaps because they still have bruises. However, when the abuser bullies his victim repeatedly on social networks or through friends, at some point, the police stop believing the victim. When she says that her abuser had been on her doorstep, it's her word against his. The monitoring bracelet is an infallible way of confirming that the abuser was at a specific address at a specific time. So when there is a recognizance to keep the peace under section 810 of the Criminal Code, perhaps 80% or 90% of abusers will comply with the conditions, compared to the 50% who do so at the moment, because there will be a technological means of determining where the individual was at the time the victim said he was near her door.

242 words

Ms. Lisa Hepfner

04:30:30 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you for that clarification. My other question about this legislation is that it asks the justice system to ask the survivors during the bail hearing about their safety concerns. I'm wondering how we go about doing that while protecting the victim. Isn't there a great likelihood that many victims won't want to discuss in open court their safety concerns? How do you address that?

68 words

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu

04:31:04 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

You are absolutely right. A judge must show extreme sensitivity in cases of domestic violence, violence against children and sexual assaults. A bully, when in the presence of the victim in court, continues to bully. The perpetrator establishes a power relationship through which he exercises control over his victim, and that continues, even in the courthouse. That's when the judge's role becomes important. The judge must establish a relationship with the victim and give the victim as much discretion as possible if she wishes to talk about the conditions she wants to include in the recognizance to keep the peace, because she is the person who knows her abuser best. It is therefore important to listen to the victim to know what conditions she wants to be safe and to feel safe. It's very important for the judge to be sensitive to the victim's needs. That's also why Bill C‑233 raises the matter of training for judges. You no doubt remember Bill C‑3, which was about training judges in matters of sexual assault. I had put forward an amendment to include domestic violence, but it was not accepted. Now, Bill C‑233 acknowledges that judges need training in this area.

213 words

The Chair

04:32:24 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

That's excellent. Thank you so much. For the next two minutes, we're going to Andréanne Larouche.

20 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

04:32:28 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Once again, thank you, Senator, for returning to the committee today. With everything I have been hearing, I'm very worried about my 21‑month‑old granddaughter. I wonder about the kind of environment she will be growing up in and what her relationships with men will be like. Getting back now to Bill S‑205, my understanding is that even someone who has been cleared of a previous charge of domestic violence would have to prove, if charged with another offence, that he does not deserve to be remanded in custody. That's more or less reversing the burden of proof. Can this create an imbalance between the defence and the Crown, because it amounts to removing the presumption of innocence before the guilty verdict is reached? A verification of whether the risk of criminal acting out prevails over the presumption of innocence principle, and of whether it should be applied to all accused, may be necessary. How do you see it?

167 words

S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders)

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu

04:33:41 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much for the question. To begin with, the government acknowledged this. There is a government bill whose intent is to withdraw this privilege from those who were discharged and then reoffended. The basic principle is fairly straightforward: when the justice system awards a privilege to someone, that person must demonstrate a high level of responsibility to retain the trust placed in them by the justice system. If a person who was previously convicted of spousal violence recidivism, that person must lose the privilege. When a person is granted a privilege that rests on the justice system's trust and that person reoffends, the trust disappears. It's on the basis of this principle alone that in such instances, the discharge is no longer applicable.

127 words

The Chair

04:34:34 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you so much. For two more minutes, it's over to Leah. Go ahead Leah.

16 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

04:34:37 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you so much. Thank you for this contribution. I know that we know that electronic bracelets are kind of one tool in a gamut of things that are needed to end violence. You've spoken a lot about the need for programs for men and boys, and I agree with you. Most programs are designed for victims, which is very important—certainly not adequate—but there's still not a focus on root causes. One of them is the normalization of violence against women, which we're trying to change in society. What do you think the federal government should be doing in addition to this bill to ensure that this doesn't happen in the first place? I do want to offer condolences for your daughter. I know this is probably a very deep and meaningful bill for you. What should we be doing so that we don't even have to put on an electronic bracelet?

161 words

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu

04:35:54 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

When the justice system is dealing with a perpetrator, whether of spousal or sexual violence, the zero-tolerance message has to be clear. When someone abuses his wife and is sentenced to two years less a day to be served at home, without therapy, a very poor message is being sent with respect to violence against women, because it means that it is condoned. When we have people before us whose behaviour has been repetitive over time—spousal violence and sexual assault are behaviours at high risk of being repeated—the justice system has to make the perpetrator responsible and legislation has to be consequential with respect to this accountability process. Contradictory messages are sometimes sent.

118 words

The Chair

04:36:58 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you so much, Senator. We're now going to have two more questions. We're going to go for two minutes to Anna and for two minutes to Sonia. Anna, you have two minutes.

35 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

04:37:07 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator. I know that Julie is looking down from heaven and thanking you for your hard work. I would like to thank you personally as a woman. You mentioned something about Ontario, and I just recently got some statistics from the Yellow Brick House. As of September of this year, 46 women have been murdered due to gender-based violence in the last 44 weeks. That's more than one woman per week. I know that the electronic monitoring system is one mechanism that can be used to protect women. There's also the peace bond, which I really don't think works. That's my own personal opinion. What I also fear is that the increase in violence against women is not reflected in the jail times for these individuals, these criminals who commit these crimes. Do you agree that, in order to protect women and stop the murder of women, it should go hand-in-hand that we should increase jail times?

170 words

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu

04:38:23 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I've always believed that justice has to be done at two levels: rehabilitation and incarceration. They are not incompatible. Incarceration is a period during which perpetrators are told to think about their behaviour and make an effort to control it. In incidents of spousal violence, 80% of men have never gone to trial. I remind you that these are men who return home on the strength of no more than a recognizance to keep the peace, pursuant to section 810 of the Criminal Code. When they are sent back home, they are required to seek assistance. If our justice system is not based on an obligation to seek help, we'll end up with what we had in the 1950s and 1960s with drunk driving, with 800 people killed every year on Quebec roads. It's now somewhere between 120 and 125, because men are now required to seek assistance if they have a drinking problem. This strengthens the justice system. A very clear message was sent to the effect that drunk driving was a criminal offence. I don't think the message about spousal violence being a criminal offence is being sent. I don't think so. The message is rather that domestic violence is condoned.

210 words

The Chair

04:39:41 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you so much, Senator. Our last round of questions goes to Sonia. Sonia, you have two minutes.

18 words

Ms. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.)

04:39:46 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator, for your hard work and for your efforts and your dedication on this bill. Thank you so much. I have some stats here. The most common type of intimate partner violence is physical assault. While just over half, 53%, of victims of violence were female, the large majority, 79%, of victims of intimate partner violence were women. My question is on the bill. Proposed subsection 810.03(7), in clause 2 of this bill, is the list of “Conditions in recognizance” with regard to offenders. It talks about refraining from social media. Also, proposed paragraph 810.03(7)(g) talks about abstention from the consumption of intoxicating substances. How can this provision be adequately imposed?

124 words

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu

04:40:47 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

It's through a court order. Therapy must have conditions, as is the case for drugs or alcohol when people are released. People who have been released can be required, on 48 hours' notice, to undergo a urine test to determine whether they have been using intoxicating substances. The system will have to have similar checks. I mentioned earlier that 50% of men didn't comply with their conditions, meaning that there will have to be a way of ensuring that they do. Otherwise, the justice system will have to make the consequences clear. What's the point of imposing strict conditions if there are no consequences for failing to meet them? And yet, that's the situation right now. The judges are doing their work. They have been imposing strict conditions. Once the accused leave the courthouse, no one is dealing with them. The only person doing so is the victim, because she will continue to be browbeaten and harassed. The only person dealing with the perpetrator is the victim. If we want to take violence against women and release conditions seriously, the system will have to have a follow‑up mechanism. At the moment, there is none.

201 words

The Chair

04:42:09 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you so much. On behalf of the committee, Senator Boisvenu, I would like to thank you so much for coming here and bringing forward Bill S-205. These are things that this committee is very passionate about when it comes to violence against women, so thank you for coming forward and bringing your testimony today. We're going to suspend. Hopefully, we will only be seconds. I'm going to ask the new panellists to come up, and we will switch over. We are suspending for about a minute.

90 words

S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders)

The Chair

04:45:01 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I would like to welcome Diane Tremblay and Martine Jeanson. Online, we have Philip Viater, whom many of us may recognize from Keira's law. It's really wonderful that you could join us online today, Phil. I'm glad we were able to make this work. I would like to thank all of you for coming and for your testimony on Bill S-205. If you have any questions with your mikes.... Here is one thing: If you need to turn it to interpretation for French or English, it's at the very top that you can turn it to floor, English or French. Then it also allows you to increase the volume. What I would like to do now is welcome Diane Tremblay, an artist. From La Maison des Guerrières, we have Martine Jeanson, president, founder and frontline worker. As an individual, we have Philip Viater, a lawyer, who is online by video conference. We will be providing each of you with five minutes for your opening comments. When you see my arms start going wacky, just try to reduce it, because you have about 10 to 15 seconds left. I'm going to pass the floor over to Diane first for her opening comments. Diane, you have the floor.

214 words

S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders)

Ms. Diane Tremblay (Artist, As an Individual)

04:46:08 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Kwe. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Diane Tremblay and I am a former victim of spousal and family violence. I prefer using the term "survivor", because that's really what I am. I'm here today to give my full support to Bill S‑205, which was introduced by Senator Boisvenu, and to represent and stand firmly with those victims, most of them women, who have been entangled in spousal and domestic violence. More specifically, I would like to show my support for indigenous women, who are overrepresented. The extent of the violence being committed against indigenous people can be seen in the large number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada. We the victims deserve safety for ourselves and our children from the justice system. We are in 2023. How many more victims of spousal violence, and murdered women and children, will it take before you agree to make major changes to existing legislation? I myself was a victim of spousal violence. During that difficult period of my life, from which I still bear the scars, I suffered from sexual assaults and two attempted murders by my perpetrator, along with every possible form of violence. If my abuser had been required to wear an electronic bracelet under a recognizance order pursuant to section 810 of the Criminal Code, as proposed in Senator Boisvenu's bill, my children and I would have been safer and I wouldn't have had to go through these attempted murders. Believe me, you don't emerge unhurt from an attempted murder. You suffer the after-effects for life. With electronic monitoring, I could have easily proved my abuser's failure to comply with his conditions and the police could have intervened much more quickly to put a stop to what was happening, and prevented what I, my children, my parents and my friends, went through. An electronic bracelet establishes a safety perimeter between victims and their abusers and can prove any failure to comply with conditions. I'm going to add something that is not in my brief. Even though I frequently reported my abuser, he always got off scot-free, unlike me. So I'm begging you to seriously consider requiring the wearing of an electronic bracelet. I believe it's a no‑brainer. We deserve to be heard, and for our rights and essential needs to be respected. In addition to requiring the wearing of an electronic bracelet, Bill S‑205 puts forward alternatives for violent men, such as the requirement to undergo spousal violence and substance abuse therapy. In some instances, violent men can be saved and changed. Therapy can address the root cause of the problem. Currently, violent men in prison are given six hours of therapy. I underwent five years of therapy. So I believe that six hours is unacceptable. You can't call that therapy. No one can acquire a proper awareness of their own violence and their assaults in six hours of therapy. That just a rap on the knuckles in my view. I also believe, and this applies to what I underwent, that the right provided in Bill S‑205 for the victim to be consulted by a justice of the peace with respect to her safety and protection needs is absolutely essential to address the immediate safety measures being requested by the victim. What really prevents women from breaking out of the domestic violence cycle is the feeling that the justice system doesn't protect them, which happens to be true. Governments often promise funding for women's shelters, but that's not the solution for contending with spousal violence. The causes of violence are what have to be attacked. That means measures like those proposed in the bill, which also provides a specific protection order for spousal and domestic violence. On my own behalf…

658 words

S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders)

The Chair

04:51:25 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Diane, are you almost through? You have just a couple more seconds.

12 words

SoVote

House Committee