44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 20, 2023
- 03:58:06 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
The second part of Bill S‑205 pertains to the recognizance orders to keep the peace and be of good behaviour provided in section 810 of the Criminal Code, which means approximately 80% of domestic violence cases. Take note of that number: 80% of domestic violence cases end up with a recognizance order under section 810, that is to say without a trial or a charge. This section provides a general preventive justice regime, without any offence having been committed, but it establishes a source of criminal responsibility.
In November 2020, a report on section 810 was presented by the Université de Montréal and the Université du Québec à Montréal, in partnership with the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale. The report shows that this section is being used increasingly in domestic violence cases, even though it has been altered very little since its 1892 version. The report also notes a troubling finding, which is that section 810 is now most often used to avoid a trial, even though perpetrators subject to an order under this section fail to comply with the conditions in 50% of cases.
Bill S‑205 amends section 810 of the Criminal Code by adding to the current general order another that is specifically related to domestic violence. Electronic monitoring can establish a safety perimeter between the victim and the potential perpetrator. This means that police can intervene more quickly. It can also protect children, and the woman herself. Political action in Spain to combat domestic violence began in 1997. That country adopted electronic bracelets in 2009. Since then, some 950 women have been protected thanks to the bracelet, and no women were murdered when the bracelet was worn.
According to the new order, if a person has previously been convicted of a similar offence, the order would be for three years rather than two years. If the person refuses to comply with the conditions of the order, the prison term would be two years rather than the current one year.
The new proposed order would allow a justice to impose substance abuse or family violence therapy, which is something new in the Criminal Code. Every case is different and we have to allow justices the discretion they need to decide whether the accused should undergo therapy to help deal with their problem of violence and also put an end to the revolving doors in our courthouses.
I'd like to conclude with two comments. The first is from Justice Laskin, from the Budreo decision:The criminal justice system has two broad objectives: punish wrongdoers and prevent future harm. A law aimed at the prevention of crime is just as valid an exercise of the federal criminal law power under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 as a law aimed at punishing crime.
My final comment is a reminder that in only a few weeks, it will be the unfortunate anniversary of the event that occurred on December 6, the most deadly ever for women in Canada. I am hoping for one thing only: that we give them this bill as a sign of our support for December 6.
Thank you. I would be happy now to field any questions you may have.
563 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:06:23 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much for your answer.
You spoke briefly about Bill C‑233, which has force of law in Canada and says that a justice may decide to require a person who committed a violent offence against a woman to wear an electronic bracelet. Now you're saying that you don't want this to apply solely to cases of violence against women, but to be used more widely. Can you tell us why you decided to widen its applicability in Bill S‑205?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:08:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much.
Some people are required to wear an electronic bracelet as a means of reintegrating them into society, which is already the case in Quebec. However, some remove the bracelet and commit offences. Can the bill that you are proposing, Bill S‑205, help to reduce this risk? Have you taken this into consideration? Has something been provided in this bill that might be a solution to the problem?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:10:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Boisvenu.
I know that you are appearing in a specific context. You've been conducting a lifelong battle and are approaching your 75th birthday, when most people would be retiring.
As for me, when I graduated from my CEGEP in 2002, I returned to the Eastern Townships. As a Quebec woman, I was struck by the fact that I had my whole life ahead of me.
We are at the moment trying to make sure that there isn't “yet another one”. I think that's the sort of thing you have in mind. As you mentioned December 6, I'd like to start with some context.
I read a disturbing story in the news about rising instances of misogyny in schools, with some people going so far as to celebrate Marc Lépine on social networks. The teachers don't know what to do about it. Without saying anything more about Bill S‑205, what do you think about the issue of education, social networks and the role they play in violence against women?
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:11:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you for the question.
That leads me into a discussion of my second career, which consists of giving talks at elementary and secondary schools. There is indeed a problem between girls and boys, particularly when they are involved in their first emotional experience. I'm not talking about love. This relationship often involves intimidation and power, even at a young age.
I remember something that happened in grades eight and nine at a school in northern Montreal. A young girl was huddled in a corner. She seemed to be crushed and bullied by the group. When she got into the bus, she told her teacher, who was there, that no one was ever going to bully her again.
Women have to be taught to take control of their lives, to be sure, but men also need to be taught to respect women, because violence against women is primarily something that men do. It's important to stop believing that women alone will be able to control spousal violence. Men are the cause of spousal violence and women are on the receiving end. That's why Bill S‑205 focuses on therapy.
Until an emphasis is placed on mandatory therapy for domestic violence problems—as Ontario has done for a number of years now with considerable success, as indigenous communities in western Canada have done with considerable success, and as has been done for 18‑ and 19‑year‑olds in court for drinking and driving—the number of murdered women will be the same in five years. Work needs to begin at both levels when people are still very young, rather than waiting until they have reached adulthood.
287 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:17:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you so much, Senator, and thank you for being a good ally, participating in an end to gender-based violence. Thank you for your work.
I know this is your last bill, so I commend you and thank you for that.
We passed Bill C-233, which provides for electronic monitoring in cases of intimate partner violence. I know in your bill, the current wording of Bill S-205 would allow the Attorney General to request electronic monitoring for any release order under subsection 515(2). Do you think that subclause 1(2) of the bill is redundant?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:18:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
That's the advantage of Senator Dalphond's amendment. If Bill S‑205 is adopted, there will be a correlation between the two bills. Combining the two would expand the use of electronic bracelets. However, it must never be forgotten that only a justice can order the wearing of an electronic bracelet. The justice's decision must be based on the victim's safety, in terms of protecting both her life and her health. I don't believe the bill would be contradictory, but rather complementary. The scope of the act would simply be broadened for justices when they have a victim before them. Bill C‑233 limits the number of victims who might be affected and the number of criminal circumstances, while Bill S‑205 broadens the scope. However, decision authority will always rest with the justices.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:05:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, the perpetrators always know where we are. What they want is to get close to us, but we never know when they are going to arrive. If the Bill S‑205 is passed, we would hear an alarm warning us to leave and hide, and telling us that the police are on their way. We could go to a neighbour's, for example. If we were at work when the perpetrator shows up, we could stay in the office. We wouldn't go out alone on the street.
So the bracelet gives us a warning. The women who were murdered didn't see their perpetrator arrive. When the attempt was made on me, I didn't see him coming. He came in the back door. Once the perpetrator is there, it's too late. We need to have enough time to leave and hide.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:12:13 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
There are a lot of gaps at the moment. We aren't protected and Senator Boisvenu said so several times. We agree, and so does Ms. Jeanson. We are not the only women in this situation. We need protection. We are faced with an abuser and it's a matter of life or death. That's where we stand now.
Bill S‑205 will provide women with a tool that can keep them safe, as Ms. Jeanson said, before the assailant gets to the house.
I remember one occasion, among others, when I thought after three weeks that things had calmed down, when my abuser broke down my door. I jumped over the railing, ran down the street and climbed a fence. He caught up to me, forced me to the ground and put a knife to my throat. I shouted "fire" as loud as I could, because someone told me that when you shout "help" nobody will come. So I shouted "fire" and my neighbour came to my rescue with some others and surrounded him. But listen to this: he called me from the police car because they had forgotten to take away his cell phone. It was March 26, 2007. He called me when there was a police officer in the house with me, to tell me to drop my complaints. I won't tell you what he called me. He told me that I'd better watch out for what would happen to me if I didn't drop the charges. The policewoman who was there took some action afterwards. I'm saying this just to point out that he was in the police car when he called me and broke his conditions.
I can't tell you just how important the electronic bracelet will be once the bill is adopted. 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.
My abuser attacked my parents. I didn't see my parents for three years. I didn't see my sons for three years. I had taken my children and left them with their father. I'm telling you this because it was a very difficult time for me, and I'm only alive because of my neighbours. Because I jumped over the handrail and was able to run away. He followed me, caught me and threw me to the ground. I had a knife at my throat and I fought as hard as I could.
I can tell you that I'm very pleased to be here with you today, with Ms. Jeanson and Senator Boisvenu, to testify about all this.
477 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:32:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Unbelievable. I'm sitting up here just in shock.
We're actually at the end of our testimony today, although I believe we could probably listen to this group of people—you ladies and Phil and everybody else—for hours on end.
Thank you so much for the incredible testimony that the three of you have brought today.
Thank you very much, Senator Boisvenu, for bringing forward this bill and bringing forward witnesses who have this experience.
Before we leave I have two really quick things. I need to seek approval for a budget of $17,750 for Bill S-205. Does everyone agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Perfect. We are spending that money. If we need to discuss further, we can schedule committee business, but I would be looking for any amendments that you would want for Bill S-205 to be in by next Wednesday, November 29 at noon. That's where we were going. Does that sound good, everybody?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Seeing no further business, I would like to thank Diane, Martine and Philip so much for being here. If there's additional information that you want to send in, we would love to hear it. Thank you very much.
Today's meeting is adjourned.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
