SoVote

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

05:07:21 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

The motion is on the floor. Are there any questions or comments? Sonia, we spoke earlier. I just want to ask if it is one hour of the minister and one hour of officials.

34 words

Ms. Sonia Sidhu

05:07:34 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Yes, I want one hour for the minister and one hour of officials. An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

19 words

The Chair

05:07:37 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

It's moved. She just moved her motion, which she is allowed to do. It's on the minister. We had already spoken about this. Okay. We'd be having the minister for the estimates on December 7. Is it agreed? (Motion agreed to) The Chair: Fantastic. With the time remaining you have 35 seconds left. Go ahead—

59 words

Ms. Sonia Sidhu

05:08:03 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Chair, I just want to clarify that it's one hour.

11 words

The Chair

05:08:05 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

It's one hour for the minister and one hour for officials. We'll break it into that. It's two hours in total. Anna, you have 35 seconds left.

30 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts

05:08:15 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you. I'd like to ask a question of Martine. Thank you very much. You're very brave to come here, and I respect you for that. This is my question. Do you think it would be advantageous to help people going through this violence with their partners if they were notified if the partner was, say, within a mile radius of the individual?

65 words

Ms. Martine Jeanson

05:08:46 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I didn't quite understand your question. There were a few outages in my headset.

15 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts

05:08:54 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

That's okay. I'm just thinking of a way to acknowledge.... For example, if the criminal's wearing a bracelet, would it not be advantageous that you be notified if he is within, say, a certain radius of where you are located?

43 words

Ms. Martine Jeanson

05:09:12 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

That's how it would work. The bracelet triggers an alarm as soon as the person is within, let's say, a kilometre from the victim. The victim gets a warning and the police get one too. They know when they hear an alarm that he's inside the perimeter. A police officer will track him down. At the same time, it gives us evidence for the courtroom. When I go to court with a victim, we never have any evidence. The victim says that the individual was there, but there is no evidence, because the victim didn't have time to activate her cell phone because she had to get away. So the bracelet provides evidence for the courtroom. The police can come and testify that the victim was followed to her place of work, for example. That gives us the evidence needed to incriminate the perpetrator and prevent a murder. I personally would have liked to be able to go and hide. If the detection perimeter is set at one kilometre, then when the alarm goes off, the victim has time to go to a neighbour for help.

190 words

The Chair

05:10:15 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Excellent. Thank you so much. We'll now move it over to Anita.

13 words

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

05:10:20 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much. Before I start my questions, I just want to say to you that by taking the terrible experiences you have had.... Most people would not go forward publicly and retraumatize themselves by talking about it again and again in order to help other people. The fact that you're doing this to help others not to have the same kinds of horrible experiences says a lot about your characters, and I just want to commend you for doing that. I do want to ask a follow-up question. Ms. Tremblay, you said something that got me thinking because one of my questions.... Mr. Viater, thank you for being back before this committee. I'll let you answer more on the legal side of things, but on the personal side of things, I would ask Ms. Tremblay and Ms. Jeanson. The current Criminal Code does include a lot of protections for victims. It does include a lot of this, and, of course, Keira's law—I was here when our committee did that—even strengthened that. Obviously though, in your experiences, that hasn't been enough. There has been a failing in the existing system. You said something, Ms. Tremblay. You said that it's not just about keeping safe, and that one of the things that, for instance, a bracelet could do is allow you in court to prove if somebody broke their conditions, because it's very hard to actually find evidence of that. I wonder if the two of you could talk shortly about what this bill does that is missing in the current laws. Then I'd ask Mr. Viater to be a little more specific about how it complements Keira's law and even Bill S-12, which is before the Senate now. I'll start with Ms. Tremblay.

309 words

S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act

Ms. Diane Tremblay

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

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. Anita Vandenbeld

05:15:23 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

We are so grateful that you survived that. I know I have only a minute left, so it's very short. Mr. Viater, if I don't have time, you can respond in writing. Is that okay? Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Jeanson.

43 words

Ms. Martine Jeanson

05:15:35 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I too would like to talk about therapy. As I said earlier, I work with violent men that we have been able to help. People have to know the difference between a narcissistic pervert and a violent man. Violent men have often experienced violence; they have no resources and don't know how to manage the violence. So we work with them and give them some tools. These men cry over it because they would never have done any harm if they had had the resources. So yes, it is possible to change these men. Alongside therapy, we prepare reports for the court. We can tell a judge that a particular person will never change because he's a dangerous narcissistic pervert. A violent man is something else. What I'm saying is that therapy can change and eliminate many forms of behaviour. They go hand-in-hand. We need to help men and stop spending so much effort on therapy for women. Men are the problem, not us women. If we get to the bottom of the problem and pay more attention to education in schools, as someone pointed out, spousal violence could decrease. There is so much of it now because there are no resources for men. Therapy and bracelets may make them think, and they are the only tools we have at the moment to reduce the violence and increase safety for women.

236 words

The Chair

05:17:17 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Philip, we'll go to you now. Go for it.

10 words

Mr. Philip Viater

05:17:28 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you. My comments mostly deal with the new 810 section, otherwise known as the peace bond provisions, because what Senator Boisvenu has done is very clever. He's created a two-tiered 810 system, in a way. We already have an 810 system, but that 810 system is somewhat limited. For example, they could give up to 12 months, and it's not really geared toward intimate partner violence. In Senator Boisvenu's bill, he has a separate system where, first, it goes before a provincial court judge. In the current 810 system, it actually goes before a justice. It could be a criminal court judge, but it could also be a justice of the peace. In addition, he's lengthened the restraining order provisions to now be two years, and perhaps even three years if there's a previous record. In the old version, when it doesn't deal with intimate partner violence, that doesn't exist. He's also increased, if you breach, the penalty to up to two years, whereas in the old one it's one year. It's a really good two-tiered system that recognizes intimate partner violence. Even the fact that it's here gives more publicity to the fact that this is an epidemic and it has to be taken seriously. It goes hand in hand with Keira's law, both federally and provincially. As judges hopefully get and implement that training, they'll be in a better position to know what the conditions are that we should impose, including that treatment program for domestic violence and including even the ankle monitoring.

271 words

The Chair

05:19:18 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Awesome. Thank you so much, Philip. I can tell you that in terms of Keira's law, we're still going to work on that. I think we're meeting with Jennifer, which is fantastic. We have some great and important things coming up. We have two last questioners. I'll pass it over to Andréanne Larouche for six minutes.

62 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

05:19:33 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank Mr. Boisvenu for his earlier testimony. And thank you for having come Mr. Viater, because you also experienced the death of a child. Ms. Tremblay and Ms. Jeanson, thank you very much. I always hesitate to congratulate you on your strength or your courage, because I'm not sure what you would really like us to retain from your time here. Your testimony about your own experiences was heart-rending, and we are here to listen to you and try to do our best as parliamentarians to change the way people think. It's surprising to hear about the extent to which we are in a period of violence and rising extremism, and how it all impinges on the erosion of women's rights, including instances of coercive violence. That's my impression. My question is for the three witnesses: Mr. Viater, Ms. Tremblay and Ms. Jeanson. Sometimes words are important. There are several troubling aspects to these cases of violence. For example, there is the loss of confidence in the system because of concerns about whether anyone will be listening. Then there is the question of conflicting descriptions of what happened, particularly in instances of assault and violence between intimate partners. We have clearly heard the message about electronic bracelets. However, I'd like to take a broader look at domestic violence. Might it be better to combine the terms "coercive and manipulative violence" and "domestic violence" to enable as many victims as possible to report their abuser without having to wait until they have bruises on their face?

277 words

Ms. Martine Jeanson

05:21:45 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Women don't report their abusers. I can tell you that because I'm with them on the ground, working with them in their homes. I'm not at a shelter. Everyone knows that abusers are arrested and then released. You can see it on television and hear it on radio. So women are afraid to report their abuser and don't want to do so because once he is released, he will automatically return home. I see that in my files. One such example is a man who tried to drown his wife in the bathtub, I mean really tried to drown her. He was arrested, released immediately and went straight back home to his victim. That's why women don't want to report their abusers. But if they knew they would be listened to, and if they began to see electronic bracelets being used and decisions favourable to women, they might conclude that if they were to make a complaint, their abuser would have to wear a bracelet and would not return to attack them afterwards. If we feel protected, we'll report our abuser. I say "we" because we represent these women. Right now, we can't report abusers. Even today, I wouldn't feel anymore inclined to report my abuser because I would be afraid. I've seen firsthand the police arrest men like this only to release them two minutes later. But if the abusers are wearing an electronic bracelet, we'll have protection.

250 words

Ms. Diane Tremblay

05:23:09 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I'm going to add something else. Right now, it's the women who are imprisoned. I spent three months at Maison Unies-vers-femmes. I didn't have access to my children. They weren't allowed in because they're boys. I'm not making this up. I had no access to my life, but he had access to his, as if he hadn't done anything. As Senator Boisvenu and Ms. Jeanson were saying, what message is being sent? Men are being told that they can beat up a woman, murder her, frighten her, bully her, and abuse her as much as he wants; she's the one stuck inside. Yet he is still free, living his life and assaulting other women. That has to stop at some point. The Criminal Code hasn't been changed for a very long time. I've read that there wasn't any legislation to protect women in 1982. And here we are now in 2023. When I say women, I mean women and children, and indigenous women. It's important to do something on their behalf too, because they need protection. They live in a rural setting. It's time to do something about it. Something should have been done a long time ago. Today, I would like you to listen to us and address our needs. We have a right to live and a right to our freedom, as do our children, our parents and our friends.

251 words

SoVote

House Committee