Bill C-233

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device.
The enactment also amends the Judges Act to provide for continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships.

Criminal Code

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am also here to speak to Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act regarding interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders.

Bill S-205 proposes amendments to the bail and peace bond provisions of the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act to address intimate partner violence, a cause that all of us in the House should be seized with. I will start by thanking the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for their work on the bill. The committee looked carefully at Bill S-205 and identified ways to strengthen it while maintaining the original spirit of the legislation. I also want to recognize the contributions and expertise of the witnesses, all of whom shared their diverse perspectives, which were often of a deeply personal nature.

Bill S-205 has two main components, bail and peace bonds, and I will touch on each of these in turn, starting with bail. Bill S-205, as passed by the Senate, proposed four changes to the Criminal Code related to bail. First, the bill would have required a justice, before making a bail order for an offence involving intimate partner violence, to ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused had been consulted about their safety and security needs.

The committee voted in favour of removing this proposal because it would have been duplicative of existing bail provisions. Moreover, it could have had the unintended consequence of endangering victims. Under this proposal, victims could have had details about their safety needs revealed to an audience, potentially including the accused, in court. This goes against protecting their security. Victim support services are better positioned to discuss safety and security needs with the victim in a more private setting, without the accused present.

Second, Bill S-205 would have required bail courts to consider imposing a condition that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device, for any offence charged, at the request of the Crown. This provision was removed from the bill because, under section 515 of the Criminal Code, it is already possible to impose electronic monitoring. Explicitly adding it as an optional condition could result in it being routinely imposed, even where it is not warranted. Most importantly, this provision was removed because it runs counter to the approach of Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act regarding violence against an intimate partner, which received royal assent on April 27, 2023.

Bill C-233 ensures that electronic monitoring is specifically considered as a bail condition in cases of intimate partner violence. This tailored approach is crucial. It signals to judges that intimate partner violence is a crime for which electronic monitoring may be especially successful in protecting victims. If we had extended this condition to all offences, intimate partner violence would no longer be singled out for special consideration from judges. Our government supports the tailored approach of Bill C-233 to best protect women and other victims of intimate partner violence.

Third, Bill S-205 proposed amending the reverse onus bail provisions in section 515 of the Criminal Code. A reverse onus is where the accused must demonstrate that they should be released instead of the burden of proof being on the prosecutor to demonstrate that they should be detained. The proposed change would expand the existing intimate partner violence reverse onus for bail to apply not only to accused individuals who were previously convicted but also to those who were previously discharged on an intimate partner violence offence. This amendment remains in the bill and is identical to a change our government made in Bill C-48, which passed last year after receiving unanimous support in the House.

Finally, Bill S-205 would require the justice to ask the prosecutor if the victim has been informed of their right to have a copy of the bail order after a decision on bail has been made. I support this measure to improve transparency in the justice system and enhance victims' access to information.

Moving on to the peace bond regime, Bill S-205 would create a new peace bond focused on preventing domestic violence, which is understood as violence directed at an intimate partner or child of either partner. Peace bonds are entirely separate from criminal punishment or sentencing. They can be sought when there is a reasonable fear that a crime may occur, and they are designed to prevent crimes from taking place. The committee adopted several amendments to the peace bond proposed in Bill S-205, to strengthen the original intent of the bill.

For example, Bill S‑205 proposed that the defendant's intimate partner be allowed to apply for a recognizance to keep the peace. This approach differs from existing recognizance to keep the peace provisions in the Criminal Code, which allow a person other than a person who may be a victim of the alleged offence, such as a police officer or a family member, to apply for the recognizance on their behalf.

The committee's amendments would ensure that the new domestic violence peace bond could be brought forward by someone on behalf of a person who fears that a crime will occur, as is the current practice for other peace bond regimes. I am somewhat surprised to see amendments from my Conservative colleagues to restrict this back to only the victims. This seems counterintuitive to a victim-centric approach.

The committee also made several amendments to ensure that the duration, conditions and procedures of the new recognizance to keep the peace provision are consistent with similar existing recognizance provisions in the Criminal Code.

For example, in the new provision, the maximum duration of the recognizance to keep the peace would be 12 months, or two years if there is a prior conviction, which is consistent with recognizance to keep the peace provisions that apply to organized crime, forced marriages, serious personal injury offences and sexual offences against a minor. Similarly, the maximum term of imprisonment for failure to sign a recognizance to keep the peace would be 12 months in order to align with all other recognizance to keep the peace provisions in the Criminal Code.

Bill S-205 also proposes conditions that could be imposed on a defendant in a peace bond. The committee made several changes to the list of conditions proposed, which included removing the condition requiring the defendant to refrain from using social media.

It is important to point out that peace bond conditions are not intended to be punitive, but preventative, and they are to be tailored to a specific threat. The use of social media could be interpreted broadly by the courts to include things such as job searches or shopping for second-hand furniture. While some uses of social media may be linked to a specific threat posed by the defendant, in many cases it may not be, yet breaching the condition would still be considered a criminal offence. Moreover, defendants in a peace bond would already be prohibited from contacting in any way or stalking the person who sought the peace bond, so the social media prohibition is not necessary for protection.

Next, I will speak to the peace bond condition that would require the defendant to refrain from going to specified places, such as the home or work of the intimate partner. This is essential to ensure the safety and security of the victim and is often the main reason for seeking a peace bond order.

The committee voted to expand this condition to further prohibit the defendant from going within a specified distance of a place to allow for the imposition of a radius within which the accused would be prohibited from going. For example, the condition could provide that the defendant must not go within 500 meters of the victim's home to prevent stalking behaviour, such as sitting in a car outside the victim's residence. I would support this amendment, which would strengthen the existing protections for victims of intimate partner violence. My colleagues across the way also appear to want to repeal this amendment, which I am of the firm belief gives stronger protection to victims.

The last amendment I want to talk about was proposed as a result of an NDP motion to allow an alternative to the peace bond process when the informant or the defendant is indigenous. Under this change, the judge must determine whether it would be appropriate, instead of ordering a recognizance to keep the peace, to recommend that indigenous support services be provided if available. The purpose of this amendment is to address the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system by allowing the use of alternative justice methods for healing. I support this change.

To conclude, Bill S‑205 makes targeted but important changes to criminal law to better address domestic violence.

I urge all members to support the bill.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start my speech with a sad statistic. As of May 28, 2024, in Quebec, there have been as many femicides as in all of 2023. My thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑332, which would amend “the Criminal Code to create an offence of engaging in controlling or coercive conduct that has a significant impact on the person towards whom the conduct is directed, including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities”.

This is a subject that is very important to me since I raised this issue at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we are currently conducting a study on the matter. I will talk about the definition of coercive control, some of the details of this bill and a few reservations I have about the bill.

First, coercive and controlling behaviour includes physical, sexual and emotional abuse, financial control, implicit or explicit threats to the partner or ex-partner, and against their children, belongings or pets.

Coercive and controlling behaviour does not relate to a single incident, but a pattern of behaviour that takes place repeatedly. It is important to understand that certain behaviours, taken in isolation might be considered normal, but it is the pattern and repetition of those behaviours that make them coercive or controlling violence.

Megan Stephens, one of the witnesses who took part in the study at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, indicated that there is no universal definition. However, a few definitions were discussed during the study, including restricting a person's movements, refusing them access to the home, controlling what they eat, disconnecting phone lines, breaking their cellphone and preventing them from going to work or to school. Taken together, these behaviours amount to coercive control.

Coercive control is low-level and repetitive. It often does not involve physical violence and takes away a person's sense of personal agency. Victims no longer make decisions based on what their own best interests are or what their driving motivators are, but they make decisions based on fear of what the other person will do to them if they don't make a decision in a certain way. It is generally understood as a course of intimidating, degrading and regulatory practices used by abusers to instill fear and threat into the everyday lives of their victims. Victims are deprived of their liberty and autonomy. The intent is to gain and maintain power and control and strip away a person's freedom and their sense of self.

Abusive behaviours are intended to cause fear and gain power and control over a woman’s thoughts, beliefs and actions. Controlling another person’s thoughts, beliefs and actions does not require specific overt acts of violence, although those acts certainly may be occurring as well.

Abusive partners use isolation, both physical and psychological, as a means to control their partner's contact with friends and family to emotionally bind the partner to them with the shackles of fear, dependency and coercive control tactics. In some cases, abusive partners use state-sanctioned structures to continue to coerce and control women through custody of and access to the children. The legal system is used as a weapon against the victim.

Second, I want to look more specifically at Bill C-332, introduced by the member for Victoria. It is part of a growing trend among legislators who work against coercive violence. In recent years, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights produced a report on this issue. I mentioned it earlier. It was tabled in the House on April 27, 2021.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying this issue. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women dealt with this issue during their study on safe practice in sport.

In the last Parliament, the NDP member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke introduced Bill C‑247 in October 2020. In November 2021, during this Parliament, he introduced Bill C‑202, which is essentially a new attempt to revive the legal framework, definitions and criminal consequences relating to coercive or controlling violence.

Bill C‑332 is the NDP's third attempt to put this issue on the agenda. The fact that it passed first reading and was added to the order of precedence of the House on September 20, 2003, makes Bill C-332 the most successful so far and the most likely to complete its legislative journey.

More recently, there was also Bill C‑233 from the Liberal member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle. It received royal assent on April 27, 2023, after study by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. This piece of legislation amended the Criminal Code to require judges, in cases of domestic violence and before issuing a release order, to consider whether it would be desirable for the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device. In addition, the bill amended the Judges Act to require continuing education seminars on matters related to sexual assault, intimate partner violence and coercive control.

According to a study published by Statistics Canada in April 2021, intimate partner violence, including controlling or coercive behaviour, is an integral part of this problem. It is a scourge. It is difficult to put an exact figure on the scale of violence in this country, as most cases are not reported to the police. This is the main obstacle when it comes to identifying and documenting this behaviour as well as implementing solutions for victims.

In her testimony before the committee, Lisa Smylie, the director general of communications and public affairs at the research, results and delivery branch of the Department for Women and Gender Equality, reported that approximately 36% of domestic violence incidents and only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police.

Based on data reported by police services in 2018, women in rural areas experienced the highest overall rates of intimate partner violence in the country. The committee also noted that marginalized women, including indigenous women, racialized women, women with disabilities and migrant women, face the greatest risk of violence, not to mention children. Furthermore, although coercive and controlling violence can occur in other contexts, it is present in 95% of relationships where there is domestic violence as we know it.

Today, this coercive and controlling violence is facilitated by technological advancements. GPS systems make it possible to track women. Small cameras can be used to film them. Smart phones and social media platforms are used to spy on them. All these means and tools make it easier for abusers to continue to extend harm, isolation and control regardless of victims’ physical locations. As we saw, there are also the traditional forms of blackmail on social media, impersonating the victim, sending persistent threatening messages, or even distributing private information or sexual content about the victim.

Third, the committee noted a few problems in enforcing the current law in the cases of victims of coercive or controlling violence. I will go over them quickly. The victims distrust current mechanisms, police services and the justice system and have little confidence they will adequately address their trauma. Unfortunately, this attitude is particularly pervasive among groups that are most often targeted by these acts, in other words, indigenous or racialized women, marginalized populations and immigrants. Women who are immigrants or who do not have Canadian citizenship fear the repercussions that reporting the abuse will have on their immigration application.

Furthermore, several stakeholders report that victims believe that they will not be taken seriously. They know that there are myths out there and they want to avoid being judged by institutions on their credibility when they come forward. It is undeniable that the fear of being blamed in turn means that few victims come forward. Victims are limited in what they can do because they may be dependent on the abuser, financially for example. They are caught in a vicious cycle where they could lose everything, end up on the street or lose custody of their children.

This point was raised by several witnesses during a committee study on women's economic empowerment. While aspects of coercive control and controlling behaviour may be present, the police and the justice systems often say that the victim's word alone is not enough to file a complaint. The numerous cases of femicide and harassment show the limitations and major flaw of the infamous “810 order” in cases where violent men pose a high risk of reoffending. They must be treated differently and be forced to use a monitoring device.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois supports the objective of Bill C‑332. However, we believe there are significant shortcomings that will need to be studied in committee. For example, we will have to study the possibility of expanding the scope of the bill so that ex-partners and other family members can testify in order to address the problem of one person's word against another's. We will also have to address the severity of the sentences and the consideration given to children in cases of coercive or controlling violence, as well as the connection between the new offence and the impact on family law and protection issues. Many other aspects need to be studied.

In conclusion, I would say that we need to have a debate on the duty to protect the victims of controlling or coercive behaviour relative to the obvious right of the accused to a fair and equitable trial. Let us continue to reflect on this issue. That being said, this is done elsewhere in the world and there is not one country that would backtrack on this issue of coercive control.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C‑320, which amends the Criminal Code with respect to disclosure of information to victims. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill.

As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women since 2020, I have contributed to numerous studies aimed at addressing violence against women. The figures are very alarming. Many cities in Quebec and Canada have gone so far as to describe the situation as an epidemic. We need to come up with concrete solutions for victims, to prevent the violence from creating more victims. In a recent article, I promised to make this a priority in my status of women file.

Today, I will explain the Bloc's position in greater detail. Then, I will elaborate a bit on the benefits of this bill. In closing, I will reiterate the importance of making this a non-partisan issue.

First, the Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with its commitment to support initiatives that keep women safe and that address violence against women. We believe that victims have everything to gain from getting as much information as possible about their assailant and the situation surrounding the assailant's potential release. This position is in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C‑233. As a small reminder, that bill amended the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device. The Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and strengthen the relationship of trust between the public and our institutions.

Secondly, the bill before us now seeks to amend the Criminal Code to enable victims of a criminal offence to get an explanation about how certain decisions were made about their assailant. This includes the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, work release, parole or statutory release. Adding a mechanism that would give victims access to additional information about their assailant's situation and decisions being made about that person is certain to strengthen the justice system.

Over the past few years, Quebec has positioned itself as a world leader in enhancing victim protection and strengthening victims' trust in the justice system. For example, the Government of Quebec has launched a pilot project in a number of courthouses to create courts specializing in sexual assault cases in certain courthouses; one of them is near me, in Granby. There is also the electronic monitoring device pilot project, which was successful and has been deployed across the province. These advancements meet the objective of recognizing how vulnerable victims of an offence are and putting all the tools at their disposal so they can be safe. This way, the justice system can evolve and adapt to better serve the needs of victims of crime. In an effort to be consistent, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑320.

If they pass, these legislative changes will represent an added value for the victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence, for example. The justice system has to be more effective in general and more transparent, not least to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant. It also strengthens public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report it to the police.

Statistics show that there has been a spike in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse this troubling trend. The year 2024 is not off to a good start, since the first femicide in Quebec took place at the beginning of January in Granby, in my riding. Once again, my thoughts and sympathies go out to the victim's loved ones.

The reality on the ground highlights the gaps, including the status quo in the justice system: Many victims continue to fear their assailant, even while that person is in custody. We can only applaud an initiative that seeks to improve the victim's experience of the justice system throughout the process, starting from the moment she decides to file a complaint. We need to rebuild their trust. Actually, “Rebâtir la confiance”, or rebuilding trust, is the title of an important non-partisan report that was produced by elected officials in Quebec City on the issue of violence against women, highlighting victims' lack of trust in the system.

Thirdly, I would like to emphasize this non-partisan aspect that allows us to move this file forward. I know that the Conservative members will support this bill. We need to rebuild victims' trust in the justice system, which these same victims describe sometimes as lax. This bill seeks to better equip victims and their families so that they can obtain accurate and concurrent information on the court's decisions on their attacker. Victims and their families say that they are sometimes surprised to learn that the attacker is entitled to early release, long before the end of the 25-year sentence, for example. This needs to be taken into account. The Liberal caucus will also be in favour of this bill because it will improve the level of transparency in the judicial process. The NDP caucus, too, will be in favour of this bill because it will improve the level of transparency in the judicial process.

We all agree on the need to find solutions to help victims regain this all-important trust and further encourage them to come forward.

I would like to briefly come back to a few other measures that were recently brought in that seek to meaningfully work on this issue of violence. We know that adding meaningful proposals and establishing a real continuum of services will help victims. No magic wand is going to fix all of this in one shot.

I want to come back to the matter of the special court for victims of sexual assault. This is a recommendation from the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, that is currently being analyzed. The purpose of such a court would be to give victims a safe space where they can be heard by the justice system, a space where the workers at every level, including judges, are sensitive to the needs of victims. The first such court was set up in Valleyfield on March 5, 2022. It was a world first. Yes, Quebec became the first place in the world to set up a court specialized in domestic violence.

With regard to electronic monitoring devices, Quebec has once again been a leader in better protecting victims. Quebec became the first province in Canada to launch a two-pronged monitoring system for domestic violence suspects. However, threats still exist. From what I heard in committee, we need to be careful that these devices do not create a false sense of security and ensure that they are worn properly. We also need to consider the fact that connectivity may be a problem in some places, especially remote areas, which means that the devices may not work properly there. We need to address that.

I had argued from the outset that the government should follow suit and recognize Quebec's leadership on this issue. On May 20, 2022, Quebec was the first jurisdiction in the country to do this. It was ridiculous that only criminals sentenced to two years less a day should have to wear an electronic bracelet. The federal government should follow suit so that criminals with the toughest sentences could also find themselves subject to this measure under the Criminal Code.

We have seen study after study in committee, but concrete action is slow in coming. There was the committee study on intimate partner violence, which also demonstrated the need to broaden our perception of violence and include the notion of coercive control. Recently, there was the clause-by-clause study of Bill S‑205, which specifically aimed to broaden the scope of electronic bracelet use. There is also this question of trust in the system that was raised during the study on abuse in the world of sport. Victims questioned the complaints system and called for an independent public inquiry to restore their trust and encourage reporting. In fact, that was the top recommendation in the report by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The government must take action now.

In closing, I would say that it is important to send a strong message to the victims and to take additional measures. We have to set partisanship aside and ensure that we actually mean it when we call ourselves feminists, that we walk the talk. I have had enough of fake feminism. On the other side, they cannot claim to be feminists by boasting about getting tough on crime if they also infringe on women's right to control their own bodies.

We have to remain vigilant and not fall prey to demagoguery, disinformation, and dare I say even the erosion of law and order. That would be the logical conclusion.

It is going to take a lot more than common sense to find solutions. Let us all—elected members, justice officials and community stakeholders at every level—work toward a common objective: to save women's lives so that there is not one more victim.

Motions in amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the member said, and I think it goes without saying that every member of the House of Commons, of every political stripe, recognizes the gravity and importance of the issue.

With respect to domestic violence, I like to think we have seen significant investments, both from budgetary measures of investments into shelters and transitional homes and through government and private member legislation. I would remind the member about Bill C-233, introduced by the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, which recognizes the importance of electronic monitoring and which looks at specific cases dealing with domestic violence.

These types of issues are very touching. Just a week or so ago a great tragedy took place in Manitoba, where a man killed his entire family: his wife and three children. Our hearts and prayers go out to the family, friends and members of the community.

Recently, the Prime Minister made an announcement on health care with the premier. The premier, as the Prime Minister has done, emphasized the importance of getting to some of the root causes. Let us find out what is taking place and what we can do. I think that as legislators, whether at the provincial or national level, we all have a role to play, as the member pointed out. In the past we have seen a great deal of co-operation among members that crosses party lines. In particular I would cite the private member's bill of the former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose that was an attempt to provide education through our judicial system. The support for the legislation crossed party lines, and the bill passed virtually unanimously. There was a bit of a hiccup because of a Senate issue, so the government ultimately had to bring it forward in order for it to pass.

I say that because, at the very beginning of her comments, the member pointed out that Bill S-205 received quite a few amendments. She is right. Although I was not at the committee, but I believe she was, that shows me that there was likely a great deal of dialogue with respect to the different amendments, and I suspect a number of them passed. I have had the opportunity to look at a couple of them, and I believe that the legislation was enhanced by the passing of some of the amendments. When we look at the work the committee has done and how we continue to advance the issue, we see that there is a great deal of merit in voting for the legislation.

The member spent a lot of her time talking about electronic monitoring. I first looked into electronic monitoring in, I guess, the nineties. I argued then, when I was the justice critic in the province of Manitoba, how that technology could enable us to improve the quality of our judicial system. I believe that today it is a very effective tool that could in fact make a difference in a very real and tangible way. However, I think we have to be careful about electronic monitoring or ankle bracelets. Often they are of great value, but they are not necessarily the answer in all situations. They do not necessarily prevent a crime from happening, but I acknowledge that they can be an effective tool, if not directly then indirectly, in preventing crimes from happening.

That is one of the reasons why, when it came time for us to talk about Bill C-233, there was support for the legislation from all political parties. I believe that legislators at that time recognized the true value of bringing in that sort of technology and encouraging our courts and the judicial system to better utilize, in certain situations, ankle bracelets. I saw that as a very strong positive.

I am not too sure exactly why the member feels the legislation before us would be stronger than what Bill C-233 has actually done. Maybe members who follow her would be able to provide further explanation as to how Bill C-233 would be complemented by what the Conservatives are currently talking about.

When we look at the seriousness of the issue, it is important for us to highlight that victims of sexual assault are to be treated with dignity and respect throughout the entire process. It is one of the reasons we brought forward government legislation in the past to support victims. I can recall debates on the floor of the House about public disclosure and ensuring that we protect the identity of the victims. At the same time, what we found was that there was a bit of a catch in the sense that there were a number of victims who wanted to be able to share their stories in certain situations, and how the law made that complicated. The government brought in the legislation to enable victims to share their stories in certain situations.

There is an educational component that is very real. The member made reference to breaking the chain. At the end of the day, the federal government needs to demonstrate leadership through actions, and we have done that with legislative changes as well as budgetary measures. We also need provinces, and even school divisions, to look at how they could contribute to the debate.

I have always thought that in certain areas of public policy, there is great value in incorporating things into our educational system through our public curriculum. I think the potential of dealing with this specific issue is underestimated, whether through family, course-based curricula or looking at different ways that education could be elevated to a higher priority to deal with this very serious issue. It is important.

From a provincial perspective, we need to look at resources and to ensure that we have proper supports in place. Far too often, victims are put in a situation, out of fear, that may lead to a peace bond's not being issued, and legislation has enabled family members or others to be able to look at getting a peace bond issued.

These are types of issues that the Crown and others have to deal with on a daily basis. We can look at how advocacy groups could further enhance the safety of women in their homes. This is critically important. I look forward to the ongoing debate. Suffice it to say, all of us are concerned about intimate partner violence. We have to ensure that the victims of sexual assault are treated with respect and dignity.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying to the interpreters that I will try to talk slowly, but this is something that I am so passionate about, so when I do speed up I will look to the Speaker to say, “slow down”.

I wanted to start off this speech by stating the importance of making sure we add coercive control to the Criminal Code here in Canada. I want to read a story from the CBC on December 7, 2021. The title of it is “Coercive control, the silent partner of domestic violence, instils fear, helplessness in victims”. I will give a bit of background on it.

It is a story about a young woman who was in a relationship that she was trying to leave. Her friends and family knew she was trying to leave this relationship desperately, but unfortunately so did her partner, and with that the partner decided that he would take her life in order to deal with some of these issues.

I want to read from this story, because it is rather graphic:

In the last few weeks before a murder devastated people in her Halifax social circle, Ardath Whynacht began to worry.

“I had a sick feeling in my stomach,” she said.

Whynacht was concerned about two people she knew socially: a high school friend, Nicholas Butcher, and the woman he was dating, Kristin Johnston.

Butcher's friends knew that he was struggling to find work, in debt and depressed. People in their circle knew the two were having problems in their relationship.

Whynacht says she later learned in court that others among her friends knew Butcher was accessing Johnston's private messages. He also followed her movements ... [called] "stalking" behaviour.

Unfortunately these stories do not go away. I have had the honour of sitting on the status of women committee since 2015, with a small break when I went to PROC, but over and over we have talked about violence against women, and we know that violence against women is not just physical, that there is such an emotional piece to it. Coercive control is exactly what we are talking about today.

I want to read to members a second piece, and it is titled, “'A life sentence': No escape from abusive relationships when navigating family court system, say victims”. It states, “Victims, experts say courts often fail to recognize and protect people from non-physical forms of abuse”. This entire story talks about the torture, and I am going to use the pseudonym used here, of Sarah:

Sarah says her ex-husband's abusive behaviour slowly escalated after their family court decision in 2022. For instance, she says he began dropping off their kids with her later than the court order stated.

“What I've found is now that we no longer are living together as a family, I can't actually protect them,” she says.

Then, she says, the stalking and harassment began.

When she went to the police, she felt she wasn't taken seriously. Sarah says she was denied a peace bond because her ex-husband hasn't physically assaulted her or her kids recently.

This, to me, is the tragedy of what we are seeing in the justice system, and not just necessarily in the justice system, but in our society. What we are seeing is women being controlled, beaten and violated by men in the majority of these cases. I am not saying that coercive control cannot be reversed and cannot be applied to men as the victims, but we know the majority of these cases are women. What are we going to do about it?

In this House, Bill C-233 was passed unanimously, and I am so proud of the incredible work that we did as a Parliament to ensure that there are judges trained, when it comes to domestic violence issues, because we have to understand that domestic violence is not just physical violence. Of the cases, 30% may show physically, but the majority of these cases that we are seeing when it comes to domestic violence are coercive control.

What does that mean? I think that is what we have to get down to, and this is exactly what the member who has put forward the bill, whom I would like to thank for putting forward the bill, and I want to talk about: what coercive control is and why we as parliamentarians need to take it seriously for the safety of our women and girls.

The definition presented in Bill C-332 indicates:

(a) it causes the person to fear, on reasonable grounds, on more than one occasion, that violence will be used against them; (b) it causes the person's physical or mental health to decline; or (c) it causes the person alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities, including (i) limits on their ability to safeguard their well-being or that of their children, (ii) changes in or restrictions on their social activities or their communication with others, (iii) absences from work or from education or training programs or changes in their routines or status in relation to their employment or education, and [finally] (iv) changes of address.

This was all put forward by Evan Stark, an American forensic social worker, back in 2007. That is why I am really proud to see this definition in Bill C-332. It so important that we have this discussion.

In my role as the chair of the status of women committee, I can speak for every member of that committee on the strength and vulnerability of so many of the victims who have come to speak to our committee, knowing that when they go to the police, if they do not have a bruise, it is not going to be taken into consideration. Coercive control is not in the Criminal Code. Things like harassment are, but coercive control, that idea of controlling another individual, is not.

We have to take it into consideration. Let us look at the first case that I talked about. The young man was reading all of her emails and intercepting those types of messages. The prying into that relationship: That is control. It takes me back to a phone call that I had just last week from a teacher, who was very concerned. A young woman, an EA, had come to the school very fearful for her life. She had never had physical abuse. She had never been violated or anything like that. However, the fear of coercive control was there, because she was being controlled. What ended up happening to this young woman is that she did not go to work, flag number one.

This is important: Putting coercive control into our Criminal Code will give the opportunity for our police to understand what coercive control is. Thus, when they are investigating or going to a scene of a dispute, they can understand and know what they are looking for.

Right now, with its absence from the Criminal Code, how are police officers supposed to recognize it? Does it look like harassment? Are they being stalked? There are various different things.

The one thing we know about coercive control is that it does not just happen once. In physical abuse, someone can actually show and date the abuse, and all those things. They can go to the hospital, report it, show the bruises and provide evidence to the police or the doctors. With coercive control, that option is not there. How do they go and show somebody what another person said or that the person has read all their emails?

There is one thing that I found really disturbing from doing the research that we have done in the last number of years on this. That is the number of women who are not believed. This is really concerning to me. We have to understand that many women are isolated in their homes. We saw that through COVID-19. In March 2020, we saw an absolute increase. By May 2020, I believe, the government was saying that we need to help out shelters more. That is something we all agreed on. We know that, when women cannot leave a place where they are being victimized, they are not safe. That is exactly what happened with COVID.

Coercive control is one of those things that we must talk about. It is not just about the physical. It is about looking at the whole person.

I want to read a part that was received from the federal ombudsman for victims. It is very important that I read this, because when women are talking about coercive control, when we are talking about it, it is cumulative. It is not just one incident. It is something that could have happened yesterday and continues each and every day.

One of the stories I read was talking about a women who watched her husband driving up the laneway every day. She needed to see his facial reaction, because she needed to know how he was entering that house. Was he happy that day? Was he angry? Those are things that women who are victims of coercive control are thinking about all the time. They are always tiptoeing on glass. The fact is that they are worried about their safety. That is what we see with coercive control.

There is that threat down the road. Today they may not hit them, but they do not know what is going to happen later. We know from the Canadian Femicide Observatory that one woman is being killed here in Canada every other day. What is that telling us? We have to change our laws, and we have to take a better look at this.

The federal ombudsman for victims of crime has asked for this to be looked at thoroughly, recognizing that it is a pattern. It is not just a one-time incident.

Therefore, I ask the justice minister and his department, and everybody, to work together to ensure that we save women's lives.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑332, which amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of engaging in controlling or coercive conduct that has a significant impact on the person towards whom the conduct is directed, including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities.

The issue of controlling and coercive conduct has been an interest of mine for quite some time. This type of conduct includes physical, sexual and emotional abuse, financial control, and implicit or explicit threats to the partner or ex-partner and to their children, belongings or even pets.

First I will spend a little more time talking about the definition, before moving on to other measures we are currently looking at to address violence. I will conclude by explaining some of our concerns with the bill.

First, I have discussed the topic with my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord on a number of occasions. That is how I found out that Megan Stephens, one of the witnesses who participated in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' study, had mentioned a minor complication, namely, the fact that there is no universally accepted definition. However, the following are some of the definitions that were given over the course of the study: limiting transportation, denying access to household, controlling food consumption, disconnecting phone lines, breaking cell phones and preventing them from going to work or going to school. Combined together, all those forms of behaviour fall under coercive control.

Abusive partners uses isolation, both physical and psychological, as a means to control their partner's contact with friends and family to emotionally bind the partner to them with the shackles of fear, dependency and coercive tactics of control.

In some cases, the violent partner uses state-sanctioned structures to continue to coerce and control their victim by creating problems related to custody of the children and visitation rights. The justice system is used as a weapon against the victim. According to a study published by Statistics Canada in April 2021, intimate partner violence is a serious problem, and controlling and coercive behaviours are an integral part of that. It is difficult to know the exact scope of this type of violence in Canada, because most cases are not reported to the police.

I want to point out that, in 2021, we were in the midst of the pandemic and victims were at home with their abusers 24-7. The fact that most cases of intimate partner violence are not reported to the police is the biggest impediment to determining how many people are affected, documenting the situation and implementing solutions for the victims of these types of behaviour. It is difficult for them to find a way to talk so someone.

During her testimony in committee, Lisa Smylie, the director general of communications and public affairs for the research, results and delivery branch at the Department for Women and Gender Equality, said that only about 36% of domestic violence incidents and 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police. Those numbers are very low.

According to the data reported by the country's police forces in 2018, women living in rural areas experience intimate partner violence the most. That is also important to note. What is more, even though coercive and controlling violence may be present in other cases, it is present in 95% of cases of domestic violence as we know it.

Today, it is facilitated by technological advances such as geolocation systems, miniature cameras, smart phones and social media platforms. This makes everything more complex. All these things make it easier for the abusers when they want to continue to inflict harm and reinforce the isolation and control, regardless of where their victim may be. There are also the traditional forms of blackmail on social media, such as identity theft, the repeated sending of threatening messages or the disclosure of personal information or content about the victim that is sexual in nature.

In light of the testimony offered during the study at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, a rather high number of offences under the Criminal Code can apply to domestic violence. The committee noted a few problems with the enforcement of the current legislation in the cases of victims of coercive or controlling violence.

Victims are wary of and have little confidence in existing mechanisms, police services and the justice system to adequately deal with their trauma. A number of stakeholders noted that victims believe that they will not be taken seriously and they worry about myths. They do not want to be judged by institutions on their credibility when they report their abusers.

Abusers often create financial and other forms of dependence, which limits the actions that victims caught in this vicious circle can take, because they could lose everything, end up on the street or lose custody of their children.

The divide between the criminal justice system, family courts and community organizations needs to be addressed.

When elements of coercive control and other forms of control are present, the criminal and judicial systems too often say that simply telling one's story is not enough to file a complaint.

Lastly, one of the most serious obstacles is the under-enforcement of the law. Multiple charges against violent men are often reduced to a single charge, usually assault. This charge is then often withdrawn in exchange for a peace bond. This is the infamous section 810.

The many femicides and cases of harassment demonstrate the limitations and the weakness of section 810 in cases where violent men pose a high risk of reoffending. They must be treated differently and required to wear an electronic monitoring device.

Second, the bill proposed by the member for Victoria is part of a growing trend among legislators to focus on coercive violence. In recent years, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report on this issue, which was presented in the House on April 27, 2021. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women also touched on the issue during its study on intimate partner violence and made two motions a priority for the winter of 2024, one of which was my study proposal to look at international best practices in this area and try to learn from them.

I also examined this issue to a lesser degree at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, when I participated a few times in its study on safe practices in sport and the topic of coercive control came up.

More recently, the Liberal member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle's Bill C‑233, which was also examined by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, received royal assent on April 27.

The bill amended the Criminal Code to require judges, in cases of domestic violence, to consider whether it is appropriate for the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device before issuing a release order. In addition, the bill amended the Judges Act to include an obligation to hold continuing education seminars on issues of sexual assault, intimate partner violence and coercive control.

To a lesser extent, Bill C-21, which is currently before the Senate, focuses primarily on gun control and revoking possession when an individual is suspected of, or has engaged in, domestic violence, including coercive and controlling behaviour. This is part of a trend.

Third, Bill C-332 amends the Criminal Code, after section 264, by introducing the concept of controlling or coercive conduct as a criminal offence. The Bloc Québécois supports the objective of Bill C-332. However, we see several major shortcomings that will have to be studied in committee. The scope of the bill should be expanded to allow former spouses or other family members who are not part of the household to testify, in order to break the infamous “one person's word against another's” system. That is good.

What is more, consideration of testimony from neighbours, colleagues or others might also make it easier for victims to come forward. The severity of sentences and the consideration given to children in cases of coercive or controlling violent behaviour are other important factors. Reviewing the grounds on which prosecutors drop several charges and opt for the lowest common denominator shows that this can hinder the administration of justice and undermine public confidence and the victims' confidence in the courts that deal with these issues. We have to study all of that.

There are already 35 sections in the Criminal Code that can apply to domestic or family violence. They just need to be rigorously enforced, and we need to think of ways of ensuring that prosecutors rely on these sections more often in cases of coercive or controlling violence. We also need to address the difficulties associated with collecting evidence and ensuring solid and sound prosecution.

Megan Stephens, Executive Director and General Counsel at Women's Legal Education and Action Fund argued that Bill C‑247 and Bill C‑332 can make the legislation unnecessarily complex because new concepts are being introduced when the Criminal Code already contains very similar offences, particularly on criminal harassment and human trafficking. We will need to take a closer look at that.

The wording of the two NDP members' bills does not address the issue of victims having to relive their trauma. They will have to retell their stories over and over again, just as they do now, which has been roundly criticized. Furthermore, Bill C-332, as currently drafted, does not change how these matters are dealt with by the courts and the authorities.

In closing, if we want to ensure that this never happens again, if we want to put an end to this shadow epidemic, we must take action. We must take action because violence is not always physical, but it always hurts.

As a final point, the Quebec National Assembly has also made this call. I had a discussion with an MNA in Quebec City this summer. She told me that the Quebec National Assembly had done its part, that it had produced the report “Rebuilding Trust” and said that the ball was now in Ottawa's court. She said that the National Assembly does not have jurisdiction to study coercive control in the Criminal Code. I took it upon myself to heed the call from the Quebec National Assembly, a call made by female MNAs who did exceptional, non-partisan work.

Let us try to examine it intelligently in committee.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act. I am pleased to reiterate the government's support for Bill S-205. This legislation has the important goal of better protecting victims of intimate partner violence.

In light of last week's tragic instance of intimate partner violence in Sault Ste. Marie, we are reminded of the devastating impact these crimes have on individuals and communities. My heart breaks for the senseless loss of life in Sault Ste. Marie, and I am thinking of the victims' loved ones. Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence in general have no place in Canada. I know my colleagues from all parties share this sentiment.

Bill S-205 would make changes to the Criminal Code's bail and peace bond regimes in order to address intimate partner violence. The bill would also make consequential amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. These are important objectives. Today, I will elaborate on some concerns that we have with this bill and how we think it can be improved. I will also discuss our government's most recent complementary efforts to support victims of intimate partner violence and victims of crime in general.

As my colleagues have mentioned, Bill S-205 would require prosecutors to ask courts whether the victim has been consulted about their safety and security needs prior to making a bail order for an individual who is charged with an intimate partner violence offence. In addition, Bill S-205 would require courts to ask prosecutors whether victims have been informed of their right to request a copy of the bail order made by the court.

The next element of Bill S-205 that I would like to highlight is the expansion of a reverse onus for bail on intimate partner violence crimes. The reverse onus would be expanded so that it applies not only to accused persons who were previously convicted but also to those previously discharged, conditional or absolute, for an intimate partner violence offence. This particular measure is also contained in our government's bill, Bill C-48, which already passed this House and is awaiting third reading in the Senate. We were certainly concerned to see that the senators voted to remove this measure from the bill, and I hope that my colleagues agree that we should reinstate it in Bill C-48. This provision builds upon previous government legislation that enhances our federal response to intimate partner violence, including former Bill C-75. I hope this House rejects the amendments to Bill C-48.

Next, Bill S-205 would require a justice to consider, on request of the Crown, whether the accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of release. I want to point out that this provision would also undo an important change made by Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act, violence against an intimate partner, which received royal assent on April 27. If Bill S-205 is passed, electronic monitoring would be identified as an explicit condition of bail that could be imposed in all cases, and not just in cases involving violence against an intimate partner as is now the case because of the changes enacted in Bill C-233.

Last, this bill would create a new peace bond specific to cases involving intimate partner violence with a duration of up to two years, or three years if the defendant was previously convicted of an intimate partner violence offence.

I want to reiterate that I support the objectives of this bill, but I believe that changes should be considered to better align the proposed amendments with its objective. These changes could also minimize the potential for unintended negative impacts on groups who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and ensure coherence with existing criminal law.

Next, I want to discuss how Bill S-205 fits into a broader framework of our government's support for victims of crime. I have already mentioned Bill C-48, which passed here on unanimous consent of all members. I want to thank colleagues across the aisle for their support and for recognizing the importance and urgency of Bill C-48. It is a direct response to requests made by the provinces and territories, as well as law enforcement agencies from across our country. This piece of legislation would strengthen Canada's bail laws to address the public's concerns relating to repeat violent offenders in offences involving firearms and other weapons.

Bill C-48 would introduce a reverse onus at bail on the use of dangerous weapons such as firearms, knives and bear spray. Bill C-48 would also create a reverse onus for additional indictable firearms offences, including unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking and entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm.

Through this bill, we are sending a strong message that crimes committed involving a firearm are unacceptable and represent a dire threat to public safety. We have seen too many lives lost to gun crime.

As I have mentioned previously, Bill C-48 would also strengthen the existing reverse onus that applies to accused persons charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence when they have a previous conviction for this type of an offence. Bill S-205 has this same objective, and I am glad to see members from all parties take intimate partner violence seriously.

Another proposal in Bill C-48 relates to what considerations the court must make when deciding whether to release someone on bail. A former bill, Bill C-75, passed in 2019, amended the Criminal Code to provide that before making a bail order, courts must consider any relevant factor, including the criminal record of the accused or if the charges involve intimate partner violence.

Bill C-48 would expand this provision to require courts to consider if the accused's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence. Bail courts would be specifically directed to consider whether the accused has any previous violent convictions and whether they represent an increased risk of reoffending, even when the proposed reverse onus does not apply. This change would enhance public safety, and I am again pleased that my colleagues support the passage of Bill C-48.

A second bill I wanted to highlight is Bill S-12. Just this week, we debated this legislation. Bill S-12 would improve our national response to sexual offences by strengthening the national sex offender registry regime. We have responded to concerns raised by the Supreme Court and law enforcement agencies in this legislation. The list of designated offences that qualify an offender to be registered on the national sex offender registry would be expanded by Bill S-12, and this list would include non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sextortion, two crimes that have had terrible impacts on the lives of Canadians, especially women and children. This would be a very positive step forward.

Bill S-12 is a direct product of conversations with survivors and victims of sexual crime. Bill S-12 would reform the publication regime to recognize the diversity of victim experiences and ensure that survivors have agency to tell their own stories if they so choose. Bill S-12 would also change the process for providing victims with information on their cases to better reflect the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Both of these changes are about one key element: choice. There is no one right way to be a victim. Bill S-12 reflects this reality.

I am happy to support Bill S-205, and I hope that the elements I have raised as potential concerns with the bill can be further studied at committee.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the debate on Bill C-320.

As my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia said earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-320. The Bloc's position is part of its commitment to supporting initiatives that ensure women's safety and that combat violence against women. We believe that victims will significantly benefit from obtaining as much information as possible about their abuser, as well as the situation surrounding his release, if applicable.

The Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with our support for Bill C‑233. As my colleague said earlier, that bill amended “the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device.” The Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and to strengthen the bond of trust between the public and our institutions. That last point is very important.

Our justice system is undoubtedly one of our most precious assets. We live in a society that is the envy of a lot of nations around the world. Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person”. These are the rights that the justice system has the duty to protect for all Quebeckers and all Canadians. This duty is the guarantor of a strong democracy that protects fundamental rights. As elected representatives, we are responsible for protecting and safeguarding these rights.

We know that our criminal justice system has many shortcomings, as shown by many studies and testimonies. According to the 2022 national justice survey, nearly 49% of Canadians believe that the justice system is not really fair. That is half the population. Almost 39% of them think that the justice system is not accessible to all. One cannot be against the idea of periodically reviewing a system that is mired in red tape and where the human element is commonly pushed aside.

We think that more transparency is needed, particularly with respect to victims. We need to strengthen and, in some cases, even rebuild the relationship of trust, which does not always seem to mean much.

It is vital that victims feel safe throughout the legal process and that they believe that the rulings handed down are enough to keep them safe. Otherwise, many people will not feel comfortable reporting their attacker. That is something that we have seen and continue to see far too often. Some think that the risks outweigh the benefits. When a person comes to that conclusion, then the system has failed in its primary purpose.

With the marked increase in family violence over the past five years, as demonstrated by Statistics Canada, women and girls are the greatest victims of this flaw in the system. It is already hard enough to report an attacker. These victims have to deal with judgment, prejudice, and procedures that are often far too long. They need to be very resilient and courageous to get to the end of the process, all the while hoping that the court will decide to put their attacker behind bars for a time.

Once that happens, survivors can catch their breath. They can feel a little safer. They resume their lives and go about their business. They regain their confidence. However, after a few months, sometimes years, they learn that their abuser has been granted a temporary absence, parole or statutory release, and they are given no explanation of the procedure that led to that decision. For many of them, it is back to square one. The feeling of insecurity returns with a vengeance. Our criminal justice system, at least in its current form, does not always know how to adequately protect victims.

In my riding, I had the immense privilege of speaking with a sexual assault survivor. I did so with great humility, and I must say I was impressed. Moreover, she was a victim of a repeat offender. Before assaulting my constituent, this individual had already been incarcerated as a serial rapist. It was not just one assault; it was a series of rapes. He was released on parole. He went back to prison for a few years because he assaulted a few women while on parole, but he was released again and he reoffended. Again, he assaulted more women.

What message are we sending to victims when we release such an individual without offering his past victims adequate reassurance or, if necessary, support?

My constituent that I was talking about is a real fighter. She stood up and fought to prevent the release of this offender despite her own injuries. I have deep respect for her.

I also have deep respect for every woman who finds the strength to stand up and urge her politicians to adapt our laws to guarantee her safety and peace of mind.

It seems clear to me, under these conditions, that providing victims with an explanation for the release of their attacker is a matter of basic respect. It shows the empathy we should demonstrate in enforcing legislation and in shaping our justice system.

It gives the survivors of such crimes the right to question decisions made by the system and to file an appeal, if needed, if they feel that it is necessary. It is about properly supporting them in the very essential healing process.

Although Quebec may not be perfect, it has always stood out as a leader in protecting victims, including by bringing in electronic bracelets and setting up courts specializing in cases of sexual violence. It certainly plans to continue to serve as a model within Canada and globally. It is always important to keep the interests of the victim at the heart of the process.

For the benefit of Quebeckers and Canadians, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑320. It is a small step, to be sure, but it is still a step toward building an effective justice system capable of fulfilling its mission.

This bill strengthens the right to safety of victims of crime, especially victims of domestic and sexual violence. It is somewhat in keeping with the spirit of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that I mentioned earlier that guarantees everyone the right to security of the person.

In short, when passed into law, this bill will strengthen the protection of victims, the transparency of the criminal justice system, respect for everyone's rights and, above all, democracy as a whole.

More importantly, it will help build confidence in our justice system among women who, all too often, still do not dare to report their attackers because the system does not always seem to be on their side.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by stating that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-320. Simply put, our party is committed to supporting initiatives that keep women safe and that address violence against women.

I believe that victims have everything to gain from getting as much information as possible about their assailant and the situation surrounding the assailant's potential release. Our position is therefore in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-233. That bill amended the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device. I sincerely believe that measures like this are good for victims. Members of the Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and strengthen the relationship of trust between the public and our institutions. It must be said that that relationship keeps getting undermined these days.

The bill before us now seeks to amend the Criminal Code to enable victims of a criminal offence to get an explanation about how certain decisions were made about their assailant. This includes the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, work release, parole or statutory release.

Adding a mechanism that would give victims access to additional information about their assailant's situation and decisions being made about that person is, in my opinion, certain to strengthen the justice system. That is why we support this bill.

Over the past few years, Quebec has positioned itself as a world leader in enhancing victim protection and strengthening victims' confidence in the justice system. For example, the Government of Quebec has launched a pilot project in a number of courthouses to create courts specializing in sexual assault cases. There is also the electronic monitoring device pilot project, which was successful and has been deployed across the province.

These advancements meet the objective of recognizing how vulnerable victims of an offence are and putting all the tools at their disposal so they can be safe. This way, the justice system can evolve and adapt to better serve the needs of victims of crime.

If it passes, these legislative changes will represent an added value for the victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence, for example. I would like to thank the member who introduced this bill because, although we are talking about a fairly simple change, it is these small changes that can really make a difference in the lives of many people who really need it.

The justice system has to be more effective in general and more transparent, not least to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant. As I have already stated, we need to strengthen public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report their assailant to the police.

Unfortunately, the numbers are representative of this lack of confidence in the justice system. According to the Institut de la statistique du Québec, only 5% to 6% of sexual assaults in Canada are reported to the authorities. According to data obtained by Radio-Canada through the Access to Information Act in 2018, 77% of women who came forward did not see their assailant get formally charged. We can understand why they would not want to embark on a lengthy and often costly legal process that could ultimately let them down and force them to relive and retell their experience again and again.

While the vast majority of women remain silent before a justice system that lets them down, statistics show that there has been a rise in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, for example, femicides increased by 7.5%. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse that trend.

The reality on the ground highlights the deficiencies in the justice system status quo. For example, many victims continue to fear their assailant even while that person is being detained. My team and I wanted to do a tour on the ground to see what is happening back home in the Gaspé Peninsula and the Lower St. Lawrence.

Regarding violence against women, the numbers are troubling. Community organizations that support victims are stretched to the limit. A women's shelter called L'Émergence, in Maria, in the Gaspé region, says it is receiving more and more requests for outreach services, meaning services for non-shelter residents, because the shelter is almost always full. With only 11 second-stage units and a housing shortage, women stay in their homes in spite of the risks they face. In the past few months especially, the number of high-risk cases has increased. High-risk cases refer mainly to the risk of femicide. Increasingly, the women seeking out the shelter's services face intersectional challenges, such as mental health issues on top of domestic violence and substance abuse. Very few of the women receiving services from the shelter report their abuser, and most of the ones who do come to regret it because of the complex procedures they have to deal with and the burden of proof that they have to bear. The results are also very often disappointing. As I mentioned earlier, the abuser either will not be formally charged or will get a sentence that is little more than a slap on the wrist. The number of women at the shelter who file an incident report, forgoing formal charges, is also declining dramatically.

In Matane, requests for assistance have increased by about 80% since the pandemic. At La Gigogne, shelter services are also constantly stretched to the limit. Management is forced to either turn women away or refer them to centres outside the region, uprooting them from their communities. Requests for outreach services have at least doubled since the pandemic. Across all organizations, less than a quarter of women ever file a complaint, mainly because of a lack of confidence in the justice system.

If this bill can restore victims' confidence in the slightest, so they do not feel they will be left to fend for themselves during the process or once the abuser is behind bars, I will definitely be voting yes. I think I can speak for the shelters and organizations in my riding that help women when I say that this bill is a good thing. We asked them, and they think it is a step forward. Why do they think that? It is because these organizations benefit when the women they help regain their trust in the justice system.

This is a step forward. Bloc Québécois members will always support initiatives that help victims of crime. We are pleased to vote in favour of this bill so that it can go to parliamentary committee. I heard the member who spoke before me say that there may be some amendments to propose, but we are quite willing to work on this bill.

Criminal Code

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and make consequential amendments to another act regarding interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders. I know that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul spoke about the incredible work Senator Boisvenu has done with regard to this work throughout that senator's career, but to have this bill brought forward through the Senate really shows the passion that the senator has with respect to this.

I would note that the bill originally goes back to 2021. It followed through the Senate process and went through committee in 2022, report stage at the Senate and, finally, third reading, before it made its way over to this chamber earlier this year. Of course, we are debating it this evening in hopes that we can get this through to committee, so we can have a more fulsome discussion about how we can advance the objectives that are set out in the bill.

I should state at the outset, as the parliamentary secretary did prior to me, that the government is certainly in support of the legislation. There are some slight concerns, and we are interested in a couple amendments. These primarily stem from the fact that some of the proposals that are put forward in the bill were actually already addressed in the bail reform bill that was debated in the chamber earlier this week. That bill ultimately passed on a unanimous consent motion at all stages and was sent off to the Senate.

As such, while we are seeing legislation here being sent to the Senate, at the same time, we are getting legislation back from the Senate, specifically with respect to the same issue. Nonetheless, I think it highlights the importance of the particular initiative set out in Bill S-205. I think we can all work together in a collaborative, non-partisan manner for the safety of women, in particular, throughout our country. That is exactly what we are going to get through a collaborative process that leaves the partisanship out of it and really focuses on protecting some of the most vulnerable in our community, as we saw this week with the unanimous motion to pass the bail reform bill at all stages.

Bill S-205 specifically addresses the issue of intimate partner violence through changes to the bail and peace bond regimes in the Criminal Code and making consequential amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In particular, Bill S-205 would first require courts, prior to making a bail order for an offence involving actual, threatened or attempted violence against an intimate partner, to ask prosecutors if the victim has been consulted about their safety and security needs. The courts would also be required to ask the prosecutor whether victims have been identified in their right to request a copy of the bail order made by the court. It would also expand the existing partner violence reverse onus for bail so that it applies not only to accused who were previously convicted but also to those previously receiving a conditional or absolute discharge for intimate partner violence offences.

It would also require a justice to consider, on the request of the Crown, whether the accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of release. Electronic monitoring devices would be identified as an explicit condition of bail that could be imposed in all cases, not just cases involving violence against an intimate partner, as is now the case because of changes enacted in Bill C-233.

Finally, it would create a new peace bond specific to cases involving intimate partner violence. This would have a duration of up to two years, or up to three years if the defendant was previously convicted of an intimate partner violence offence.

That outlines what the bill seeks to do, and as I indicated, some of these steps have already been covered in the bail reform bill that left the chamber earlier this week, particularly around the reverse onus provisions.

It is important to emphasize that our government remains unwavering in our commitment to ensuring that victims of sexual assault and gender-based violence are treated with respect and dignity. We will always fight to better protect victims of intimate partner violence, which is the most common form of police-reported violent crime against women. As we have heard, including from the sponsor in this chamber, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, a number of incidents have occurred that could have quite possibly had different outcomes had better supports, as proposed in this bill and other legislation, been in place.

We have taken steps to clarify and strengthen sexual assault laws to ensure that victims are treated with the utmost respect and are protected with an improved legal framework. We have demonstrated our commitment to bringing forward Bill S-12, legislation that gives more agency to victims and survivors of sexual crimes, in response to the Supreme Court to ensure that the national sex offender registry remains in operation.

As I indicated, we are supportive of this bill. We think it is extremely laudable in the sense that combatting intimate partner violence is absolutely in line with the objectives of not just the government, but indeed the entire House. However, through many of its proposed reforms, we are largely seeing duplicates of existing provisions in the Criminal Code. Nevertheless, it proposes additional targeted criminal law reforms that would help to reinforce the ability of the criminal law to address intimate partner violence and improve victim confidence in the criminal justice system.

Accordingly, the government supports this bill, as I indicated, with amendments to ensure its coherence with existing criminal law and to address legal, operational and policy concerns within the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the chamber to speak to Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act, bail and domestic violence recognizance orders.

This important bill was introduced by my esteemed colleague in the Senate, Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, a great defender of victims' rights. For over 20 years now, he has worked tirelessly to ensure that our justice system is one that cares for victims and their families. He founded the Murdered or Missing Persons’ Families Association and created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. He has left us with an immense legacy, and I would like to pay tribute to his colossal and necessary work. I thank Senator Boisvenu so much.

Just as necessary is the bill we are discussing today. Its purpose is to amend the Criminal Code to explicitly state that victims must be consulted about their safety and protection needs. This is another step towards protecting victims of domestic violence, most of whom are, unfortunately, women.

This new proposal goes one step further than Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act, violence against an intimate partner, which was passed last June, and which I proudly voted for as a Conservative. This legislation amended the Criminal Code so that the judge is required, “before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device.” Wearing an electronic bracelet is therefore only considered in cases where the accused has already appeared before the judge and is awaiting trial.

In the case before us today, the principle remains the same, but it broadens the scope of admissible offences. This means that a greater number of defendants could end up with an electronic bracelet, thereby protecting a greater number of women.

When a woman has the courage to denounce her attacker and initiate a legal process, she exposes herself. She puts herself in danger. As legislators, we have a duty to give all the necessary tools to those who apply these laws to protect victims throughout the judicial process. This proposed legislation is an excellent way of doing so.

The electronic bracelet is not a miracle cure, of course, but it does have its proven benefits, which is something we have heard. I was so happy to hear the member for Kildonan—St. Paul talk about the over 650 offenders in Quebec who are wearing one of these electronic bracelets under provincial legislation during that process time, which we know is one of the most difficult and risky times for those people who have been victims of intimate partner violence. We know that during this time, as things are heating up, many perpetrators will return to those victims and revictimize them with continuing violence.

I look at this piece of legislation as the chair of the status of women committee, and we did a study of Bill C-233 under Keira's law. Under Keira's law, we talked about what intimate partner violence looks like and the impact to not only the families but also the entire community. I heard the member earlier talk about a woman who could not leave her own home because of her safety. This is exactly what the electronic bracelet is supposed to do. It is supposed to give that little bit extra to ensure that a victim feels safe in their own community and is able to leave their home with safety.

A woman who has been a victim of crime has had many things torn away from her or him. However, I believe in over 87% of the cases the victims are women when it comes to intimate partner violence. Ensuring that a woman is able to go out of their home is not only about her safety but also, in many cases, about her family and children. This is something we need to take into consideration, which is women being able to live a life of freedom that, in many cases, they never had within an abusive relationship.

As I was looking at the bill, I looked specifically at the two things Senator Boisvenu had brought forward. We were looking at ensuring that this electronic bracelet was put on to ensure that women and girls who had been victims of intimate partner violence were safe. These electronic bracelets are something that we should be discussing as an option because there are problems.

It was great to listen to my NDP colleague talk about GPS monitoring. That is something that I think is really important but it has to do with more than just this legislation. There is other legislation that would ensure the government actually makes sure that Canadians are connected. Although this unit would work very well in our urban centres, we need to make sure that the government is going to ensure the infrastructure necessary for these GPS units that are going to be on perpetrators' ankles. We need to make sure that they can be found. In order for this piece of legislation to work, I am going to ask that the government makes sure that we connect Canadians. We know that in remote areas, maybe on reserves or in different parts of communities like my own, calls will be dropped. We need to make sure that when women are in a community that they are safe, that those bracelets are working and that they can rely on them.

One of the most important things is this. We know that in between the time when defendants are put out and the time of their trials there is a huge problem with them committing re-violations and revictimizing. There are some solutions to that. That is exactly what Senator Boisvenu has put forward, solutions to help victims of crime, to help women. In many cases when we look at femicides we can see that these numbers have continued to drastically change. Today I was trying to look at new statistics. By the end of the year in 2022, there were 184 women and girls killed here in Canada. We know that many of these murders were by people the victims knew. There is a correlation between intimate partner violence, family violence and the knowledge of the perpetrator. It is not an unknown attack.

We know that every 48 hours a woman is killed here in Canada. We need to do something about that. A lot of this has to do with why women do not go forward and explain to people what is happening. Why do they not go and say to the police, “I do not feel safe”? Why do they not go forward to ensure that this person is being charged for the crime that has been committed?

We have to understand that there are so many things going on with a woman. Sometimes it is because of financial insecurity that she cannot leave a perpetrator. Sometimes it is the coercive control where she does not think that she will ever be able to leave. Sometimes it is because, at the end of the day, she knows that if she leaves she may not be alive. That is why it is so important that when we are having these conversations we understand how difficult it is for women to come forward, to know that they are being heard and to know that they are going to be safe in their communities. Once they have come out publicly, it is extraordinarily difficult. I am so proud that this is another measure that we can take to ensure that women are going to be safe.

I have this as a solution. It is an amendment after section 810 of the Criminal Code which creates a new order specific to domestic violence. I am just going to read this. It reads: “To address the second problem, the bill creates a new 810 order in the Criminal Code that is specific to domestic violence and that provides for more severe conditions that are more suited to cases of domestic violence. The new order extends by one year the duration of the blanket order to which the defendant may be subject and amends some provisions. The new order will also include requirements to wear an electronic bracelet, attend addiction treatments or programs on domestic violence and counselling and refrain from using social media. We need to make sure that we are ensuring that women are safe.”

I want to quote something about why this is so important. This has a lot to do with the senator who put it forward. I am going to quote today from his speech because it is not only that gentleman who has gone through this issue. As I said, there were close to 200 women who were killed in 2022. These are unbelievable numbers.

I want to read a quote from the senator's speech because it is that passion that he brings to the subject, not just the passion but the compassion for those victims who have gone through this. It reads:

As you know, since my daughter Julie was killed, I have been deeply committed to fighting violence against women. Over the past three years, I have travelled the country and met with hundreds of women. With pain and dignity, they openly shared with me their stories and experiences with the violence they had to endure, often for years.

Their testimony was very emotional, sometimes hard to listen to and often sickening. These women survived attempted murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault and psychological violence. These things happened repeatedly over the course of their ordeal.

These women experienced some very scary moments. Most of them still bear the scars of that violence. Since 1970, we have seen a steady decline in homicide in Canada. However, what makes femicide different from homicide is that the majority of the women were murdered in a family violence situation, after reporting their abuser to the police. More often than not, these murders were foreseeable.

That is exactly what this bracelet is doing. This is what the legislation, Bill S-205, would do. It would put another measure in to ensure that women are safe. At a time when violence continues to be on the increase, when we see more sexual violence, when we are seeing children being violated and more family and intimate partner violence, we need to ensure that we are doing the right thing.

I urge everybody to pass Bill S-205.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate today of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act, interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders, which was passed in the Senate this past April.

I think all members would agree that the objective of Bill S-205 is laudable. The proposed amendments aim to better protect victims of intimate partner violence, which is the most common form of police-reported violent crime against women, particularly against indigenous women and increasingly against those who have other intersecting identities. Overall, the government supports the bill, as I believe its objective is important. However, as I will discuss further below, I am concerned about some of the proposed changes.

Bill S-205 seeks to address the issue of intimate partner violence through changes to the bail and peace bond regimes in the Criminal Code and by making consequential amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In particular, Bill S-205 would require courts, prior to making a bail order for an offence involving actual, threatened or attempted violence against an intimate partner, to ask prosecutors if the victim had been consulted about their safety and security needs. The courts would also be required to ask the prosecutor whether victims have been informed of their right to request a copy of the bail order made by the court.

Bill S-205 would also expand the existing intimate partner violence reverse onus for bail so that it would apply not only to accused who were previously convicted but also to those previously discharged, conditional or absolute, for an intimate partner violence offence. The government has done this exact change in Bill C-48, which received unanimous consent in the House earlier this week, and I hope will pass the Senate very quickly. In a reverse onus situation, the accused has the responsibility to demonstrate that detention in custody while awaiting trial is not justified. In addition, Bill S-205 would require a justice to consider, on request by the Crown, whether the accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of release.

Earlier this year, Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act, violence against an intimate partner, received royal assent. My colleague, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, brought forward that important legislation, and I was very proud to support it. The bill also included a provision related to electronic monitoring that could apply in cases involving intimate partner violence.

Bill S-205 would undo this change, which is one of my concerns. Undoing my colleague's bill would mean that, if this bill were passed, electronic monitoring would be identified as an explicit condition of bail that could be imposed in all cases and not just in cases involving violence against an intimate partner, as is now the case because of the changes enacted through Bill C-233. This is something that we would need to review at committee to ensure that the two pieces of legislation work together.

Last, the bill would create a new peace bond specific to cases involving intimate partner violence with a duration of up to two years, or three years if the defendant was previously convicted of an intimate partner violence offence. I want to reiterate that I support the objective of this bill, but I believe the changes should be considered by the status of women committee to better align the proposed amendment with its objective.

These changes could also minimize the potential for unintended negative impacts on groups who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system and ensure coherence with the existing criminal law. For instance, the requirements for courts to ask if an intimate partner has been consulted about their safety and security is duplicative of existing provisions. The Criminal Code already requires courts to take into consideration the safety of any victim of an alleged offence when crafting a bail order and to include in the court record a statement that they did so. Duplicating provisions always carries the concern of creating confusion with prosecutors and judges, and we want to avoid that at all costs.

Other concerns centre around the proposed amendments regarding electronic monitoring. As I mentioned, Bill C-233 amended the Criminal Code to explicitly provide that a court consider the imposition of electronic monitoring as a condition of release for an accused charged with an offence involving the use, attempt or threat of violence against their intimate partner. In contrast, the current provisions of Bill S-205 would explicitly list electronic monitoring as an optional condition for any offence, which has much broader application. If we want to focus on protecting victims of intimate partner violence, we need to be clear about the intention on whom the courts should be focusing on for use of electronic monitoring.

Available data shows that the poverty rate for indigenous people living off reserve and for racialized individuals far exceeds that of non-indigenous and non-racialized populations. I am worried that this broad application of electronic monitoring will negatively impact these groups who, as we know, are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

There is also cause for concern that should electronic monitoring be explicitly added to the Criminal Code as a potential condition for release on bail, it could become more routinely imposed, even in cases where it may not be warranted.

For these reasons, I do not support the electronic monitoring changes as drafted in Bill S-205. I am, however, generally supportive of the changes to enact a peace bond specific to intimate partner violence. At the same time, I see ways in which this provision can be improved.

For example, consideration should be given to amending the provision that states who may apply for the peace bond. Currently, the provision is drafted so that the person who fears that injury would be caused to them, or their children, can apply for the peace bond. I believe that it might be more appropriate to broaden this so that anyone can apply, for example, a police officer.

I also think it is worth considering whether the proposed duration, conditions and procedures of the new peace bond should be amended so that they are consistent with peace bonds already contained in our Criminal Code.

About a month ago, our government called gender-based violence an epidemic, as have a number of municipalities, including my own in the city of Toronto. It is important that we work to combat gender-based violence in all its forms, including intimate partner violence.

I know that we are all committed to taking action to address intimate partner violence. This was demonstrated by the passing of my colleague's bill, Bill C-233.

I look forward to working with all parliamentarians to continue advancing this important objective, while remaining mindful of the unintended consequences some provisions of this bill may cause.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the member has also received a new role, and I congratulate him very much on that.

It is an excellent question. I believe he is mentioning Bill C-332, which was passed. My understanding is that there is a bit of a nuanced difference that is key. Certainly, Bill S-205 proposes an electronic bracelet after an abuser has appeared in court and before he, and we will use “he” for now because it is mostly males, as we know, is sentenced and released. That is the difference there. This is a critical time, as I outlined in my speech, during which many abusers reoffend.

Certainly, if tweaks need to be made to get this over the finish line, I think all parties would welcome that discussion, I know we would as well, as long as it does not make the bill weaker in any way. If anything, we want to make it stronger if at all possible, so I am happy to work with him and other members if there is a way we can make it even better.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to disclosure of information to victims. I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑320. This bill is an essential measure to ensure greater transparency in our justice system and to strengthen our fight to end violence against women and girls.

As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I was involved in the study on domestic violence in the fall of 2021. Sadly, as I listened to the extensive committee testimony, I realized that we live in a world where violence against women and girls is all too common. These abhorrent acts leave indelible scars that prevent many people from achieving their full potential. That is why we have a duty to take firm action and send a loud and clear message that we will no longer tolerate it. I would like to explain a little more about the Bloc Québécois's position. I will then talk about the progress made in Quebec. I will conclude by talking about other initiatives that will need to be monitored and analyzed, with the aim of working to end this scourge once and for all.

First, the Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with its commitment to supporting initiatives that keep women safe and that address violence against women. We believe that victims have everything to gain from getting as much information as possible about their assailant and the situation surrounding the assailant's parole, when applicable. Our position is therefore in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-233. Let us remember that that bill amended the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device, also known as an electronic bracelet. The Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and strengthen the relationship of trust between the public and our institutions.

Bill C‑320 essentially seeks to amend the Criminal Code to enable victims of an offence to be given an explanation about how certain decisions were made about their assailant. This includes, for example, the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole. It would strengthen the justice system to have a mechanism that would give victims access to additional information about their assailant's situation and the decisions being made about their assailant.

Second, over the past few years, Quebec has positioned itself as a world leader in enhancing victim protections and strengthening victims' trust in the justice system. For example, the Government of Quebec has launched a pilot project to create courts specializing in sexual assault cases in certain courthouses, like the one in Granby, in my riding of Shefford. It also launched a pilot project requiring electronic monitoring devices to keep victims and their abusers apart, which has been a success and has been deployed across the province. These advancements meet the objective of recognizing how vulnerable victims of an offence are and putting all the tools at their disposal so they can be safe. This way, the justice system can evolve and adapt to better serve the needs of victims of crime.

In an effort to be consistent, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑320. If it passes, these legislative changes will represent an added value for the victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence. The justice system has to be more effective and transparent, not just to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant, but also to strengthen public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report it to the police, which still happens far too often, unfortunately.

Statistics show that there has been a spike in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. We all know that this situation was exacerbated during the pandemic. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse this troubling trend. The reality on the ground highlights the gaps, including the status quo in the justice system: Many victims continue to fear their assailant, even while that person is being detained. We can only applaud an initiative that seeks to improve the victim's experience of the justice system throughout the process, starting from the moment she decides to file a report.

I believe that we could work on this bill without too much partisan bickering, because I fully expect that Conservative members will support this bill to further punish offenders and above all to restore victims' confidence in the justice system, which the Conservatives often say is soft on crime.

The member for Oshawa, who is the sponsor, says he presented the bill to empower victims and their families to obtain more accurate and timely information about the court's decisions concerning their assailant. In his opinion, too many victims and their families have been surprised to learn the assailant was released early, well before 25 years were served, for example.

It would seem that the Liberal caucus is also in favour of this bill to increase transparency in the judicial process. The same goes for the NDP caucus, which believes that this bill could possibly increase transparency in the judicial process.

Third, I will also be monitoring the implementation of the recommendations in the report “Rebâtir la confiance”, a report produced in Quebec that seeks to address violence against women in a targeted and non-partisan way. It recommends the creation of a special court, which I spoke about in the first part of my speech.

In fact, a member of the Quebec National Assembly, the MNA for Sherbrooke, recently contacted me to suggest that we look into the notion of coercive control, which could broaden the possibilities of action in the face of domestic violence.

I fully intend to listen to women's groups and to the requests coming from elected officials in Quebec City, who are also asking that this issue be addressed at the federal level, since it falls under the Criminal Code. That is why I will be going back to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with the following motion: that the committee undertake a study on coercive behaviour, with an emphasis on studying countries or jurisdictions around the world that have already passed legislation on this issue.

The concept of coercive control was first introduced by American researcher Evan Stark, who has proposed a shift away from an understanding of domestic violence based essentially on acts of violence and visible signs of abuse. Although considerable efforts have been made in recent years to ensure the recognition of forms of violence other than physical violence, including psychological violence and harassment, domestic abuse still tends to be regarded as acts of violence committed by an individual.

As an alternative, the concept of coercive control advocates an understanding of the complex dynamics that enable abusers to establish and maintain control over their partners or former partners. This should lead to a better assessment of domestic violence situations and the risks they pose to the safety of women and children.

Coercive control was recently introduced into the criminal codes of England and Scotland.

The concept of coercive control makes it possible to analyze female victims' accounts in their entirety before looking for a discrete incident that corresponds to a particular offence. It highlights the different techniques an abuser may use to maintain power and control, because violence is not always about hitting, but it always hurts.

If we want to take serious action, these two measures, namely specialized courts and coercive control, should be examined carefully. We must also remember that lack of housing has repercussions on women's ability to regain power and on their opportunities to break the cycle of vulnerability that keeps them in a cycle of violence.

In conclusion, by strengthening the ties between victims and judicial institutions, we are providing a meaningful response to the insecurity that many victims experience.

To come back to the bill that is before us today, this bill would be a valuable tool, one more tool to help us stop violence against women and girls, but it will not fix everything. At least it will make information on the possible release of offenders available to victims, so that they are better able to protect themselves and take the necessary steps to keep themselves safe.

In the long term, this measure could help prevent further acts of violence by giving victims a way to report any suspicious activity to the proper authorities.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations recently referred to violence against women as the shadow pandemic. Let us therefore ensure that victims have as much information as possible so that they can get into the light and break the cycle of violence.

I would be remiss if I did not mention an absolutely wonderful meeting that I had last week. My colleague from Mirabel invited me to meet a group of students from Oka Secondary School, who came to Ottawa to read me their plea to stop femicide and to implement effective public policies to keep women and girls safe.

I want to commend them for that. They were heard. I will share their plea and try to find ways to be their ally in this fight against violence against women and girls. I thank them.

Keira’s Law

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Keira Kagan was going to change the world, before her life was taken at the age of four.

Her mom Dr. Jennifer Kagan and stepdad Philip Viater have been tireless advocates for Keira's law, which has sparked a national conversation regarding domestic violence, coercive control and the safety of our children.

Bill C-233 will be Keira’s legacy of hope, and it is a huge step forward for survivors and victims at the forefront of judges' decisions in court. Keira’s law recently received royal assent, and it will provide judicial education about domestic violence and coercive control, thanks to the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, the member for York Centre, Senator Pierre Dalphond and so many others who ensured Keira will forever be a beacon of protection.

Keira would have been turning eight years old on May 29. Please join me in wishing Keira a happy heavenly birthday later this month.

Keira's Law

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my eternal gratitude to my colleagues in this chamber who voted unanimously for Bill C- 233, also known as “Keira’s law”.

I express my heartfelt appreciation for Senator Dalphond, who sponsored my bill at the Senate, and senators, organizations and individuals who supported this fundamental change to the Criminal Code of Canada. This bill received royal assent last week.

We have all worked very hard to break the cycle of violence and empower those who are suffering. This legislation will strengthen laws surrounding domestic violence and coercive control.

For the very first time in the context of the Criminal Code, coercive control will be taken into account, because all judges will now be required to receive training on intimate partner violence and coercive control.

Electronic monitoring devices will also provide complainants with greater safety, security and peace of mind. This law sends an unmistakable message to violent intimate partners.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my eternal gratitude to my colleagues in this chamber, who voted unanimously for Bill C-233, also known as Keira’s law. I extend my heartfelt appreciation to Senator Dalphond, who sponsored the bill in the Senate, and the senators, organizations and individuals who supported this fundamental change to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Last week, the bill received royal assent. My colleagues have all worked together to help break the cycle of violence and empower those who are suffering. This legislation will strengthen laws surrounding domestic violence and coercive control.

For the first time ever under the Criminal Code, coercive control will have to be taken into consideration, since it is guaranteed that all judges will receive training on domestic violence and coercive control.

In addition, electronic bracelets will provide greater safety and peace of mind for complainants. This law sends a clear message to abusive spouses: Our justice system is equipped to monitor all aspects of their behaviour, even the subtle and devious ones.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

April 27, 2023

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that on behalf and at the request of the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Deputy to the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 27th day of April, 2023, at 6:26 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Maia Welbourne

Assistant Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were S-214, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day—Chapter 5; Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985—Chapter 6; Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)—Chapter 7; and Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 8.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what I have said time and time again during the precious time that I have in this debate. This is the power of collaborative work when it is done. I have seen it in my own work on Bill C-233, and I know that when there is the will of members of the House to get good work done on behalf of Canadians, lost Canadians in this case, it can be done.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will share with the member that I am quite familiar with the process, having successfully passed with my colleagues Keira's law, Bill C-233, and understanding the immense value of unanimous consent and when members work across party lines because issues are so important.

I do not think any of this is partisan. I think this issue affects many families, including my own, and many constituents in my riding of York Centre. As a matter of fact, the member for Thornhill would attest to that as well, as we share similar constituency demographics in that sense. She is a member on his benches, and I would encourage him to perhaps speak to her about the many families in similar situations.

There is always an opportunity to work collaboratively, and I certainly hope the member will consider it.

Justice and Human Rights

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her intervention. I know she has worked very hard on this issue with Bill C-233 for a number of years. I admire the depth to which she and her colleagues have gone to ensure that it not only passes but also brings everybody together. I think she has successfully managed to do that.

Of course, this is an important conversation starter, but it should not be the end. Back to the point that my friend from Kamloops made, it is one of the important tools to ensure that sentencing, for example, is appropriate and that judges are informed of the peculiarities, special circumstances and risks involved in intimate partner violence. Therefore, I think it is an important and smart first step, but of course, there is much more to do.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his hard work over the years on this issue. We have spoken extensively on the need to ensure that coercive behaviour and controlling behaviour is addressed.

I would ask the member's opinion on Bill C-233, which passed the House, in terms of how the bill would assist us in addressing coercive and controlling behaviour.

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the speech he made today.

As a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I will also add my voice to that of my chair. This type of non-partisan bill that addresses the safety of our young women and our young girls is essential. As my colleague mentioned, we worked together on Bill C‑233. I will not elaborate on this, but I just wanted to say that, to me, it is essential to finish the year on this note, with no partisanship, to ensure the safety of our women and girls.

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

Madam Speaker, I really would like to thank the member for putting the bill forward. Ensuring that our children are safe is probably the number one priority for all Canadians and for members in the House.

I recall the work we did on Bill C-233, which was called “Keira's Law”, and the importance of getting it through, because all parties recognized the importance of the bill. At committee, at all stages, we ensured that we allowed debate to collapse so that it could move forward. I really do hope that we will be able to get this bill through immediately so that we make a change to the Criminal Code and ensure that our children are safe.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure everybody in the lobby is surprised that I actually did that at the right time.

Tonight is one of our last evenings sitting in the House of Commons before we adjourn for the summer and return to our ridings. The speech that I am going to give tonight is truly based in what I am seeing all around us. It has become a culture of violence.

Tonight, we are speaking on Bill C-28. Although I support it in principle, we do have a lot further to go. Tonight, we have the opportunity to begin this discussion, which I hope becomes a much larger national discussion. We need to continue this conversation, especially with women's organizations, which have come out and cannot support this legislation.

A good ally of mine and friend, Megan Walker, discussed this legislation with me yesterday. She cannot support it and shared her concerns about the ability of the Crown to prove it. She feels that this legislation is tokenism

Women's organizations are stepping forward and asking us to halt this legislation, while other organizations are in full support of the legislation. To me, this is a clear yellow light that we have to be cautious and that we need to re-address this: that what we are doing today is just not enough. This needs to continue.

My last six months in my role as the shadow minister for women and gender equality and youth have given me the honour to work with people, especially in the committee on the status of women.

I can share with members that it seems like we are in a real mess, and I can tell us that we need change.

Let us start with this piece of legislation. I want to address it by sharing the letter that was received by the National Association of Women and the Law. It reads, and I quote:

Feminist organizations in Canada have long been concerned about the connection between men’s use of intoxicants, and violence against women. Study after study has shown that there is a direct link between so-called ‘drunkenness’ and sexual violence. There are studies that report an average of 50% of sexual assault perpetrators consumed alcohol at the time of the assault, with other studies showing a variance of between 30 and 75%.

Looking back to the 1994 Daviault decision, in which the Supreme Court ordered a new trial based on the accused’s extreme intoxication at the time of the incident, the ‘gap’ in the law quickly becomes apparent. Mr. Daviault had voluntarily consumed an excessive quantity of alcohol before forcing intercourse on the complainant, an elderly woman with a disability. In response, feminist groups like National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) pressed the government to restrict the defence of extreme intoxication. The federal government enacted section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, closing the gap by preventing those who voluntarily consume intoxicants and then commit acts of violence from using the defence of extreme intoxication for general intent offences.

In May 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous decision in Brown struck down the law set out in s. 33.1, declaring it unconstitutional and stating that voluntarily taking intoxicating substances cannot replace the criminal intent required for a conviction. This decision re-opens the ‘gap’ left by the 1994 Daviault decision, once again leaving women vulnerable to crimes of violence when the accused can demonstrate that his intoxication put him into a state of automatism. Despite the assurances of some defence lawyers and their allies that reliance on extreme intoxication will be rare, research analyzing the extreme intoxication defence indicates that it will be raised with some regularity. Indeed, research shows that it will be used overwhelmingly by men, and that the majority of victims will be women.

I know that I shared a very lengthy part of that letter, but to me, this is what we are talking about. Yes, this legislation came out very quickly. That means we need to get it passed to stop the gap today, but that does not mean that the gap has fully been filled. That is why I am urging the government to say, yes, we have got Bill C-28 done but we need to do more. I am urging the government to get on the road and let us start doing those consultations. Let us start talking more.

I want to go back to stuff that we have also been hearing about Hockey Canada. We just heard that Hockey Canada receives one to two formal complaints annually and that there are investigations.

I want to talk about all of this, because one thing that I can indicate is that sexual violence and violence against children should never happen. We are seeing it more and more. In the past number of weeks, as I have been dealing with my role as the shadow minister for women and gender equality, and in chairing the committee on the status of women, we are talking about violence and more violence. Our one study on intimate partner violence was talking about domestic violence. Following that, we talked about Kyra's Law, named for a young girl, a young child, who was murdered by her father, basically to get back at the mother.

I am looking at what is happening with Hockey Canada. We talked about a young girl who was allegedly raped by eight hockey players, and there is no responsibility. Then we can talk about what we are talking about here today, Bill C-28. To me, it is really clear. We are talking about things that are a social issue. It is a sexual assault issue.

When I look back at that link between what I am talking about with Hockey Canada and the eight players, and what we are seeing here, the bottom line is that it should never be happening in the first place. In Hockey Canada, we are hearing about a civil law suit that went through. Hockey Canada actually paid out, rather than having this go through the criminal court system. Unfortunately, I understand why someone would choose a civil suit over our justice system right now. We know it is not perfect. With the help of Bill C-233 and other bills that have been put forward in the past, we need to ensure that there is proper training for judges, but it is not just judges. It is everybody involved.

When I look at this, I look at who is responsible. Ultimately, the perpetrator has to be responsible. Although this legislation closes that gap in which we are talking about the state of automatism, we also have to look at what is next.

Just weeks ago, we passed that important piece of legislation, Bill C-233 with unanimous support. It was an all-party effort. I believe it started a conversation, and I believe what we are doing here tonight is also starting that conversation. Just as the minister stated, I had the same conversation with my 18-year-old son. He called me the very next morning and asked me about it when I was in Ottawa. I said, “Son, I'm working on this.” We recognize that it does not mean that someone has to be drunk and this could happen, but there needs to be extreme intoxication. For a young woman, anything is a barrier, including the fact that somebody may use this defence. Everything like that is a barrier.

People are coming out and saying that this law is just window dressing and is not really tackling the real issues. I think what we have to tackle is the culture of sexual violence, because we seem to be ignoring it. I was thinking about it a lot over the past few days. Working on the Hockey Canada case has really brought things to light. These are our kids we are talking about. These are the kids that our kids go to public school with. These are the children, whether they are the perpetrators or the victims. These are just kids. Sometimes we get lost on our way and we confuse what is right and wrong. Is extreme intoxication good enough, or is because someone is an athlete or a politician good enough?

We know, from the recent Supreme Court ruling on May 13, that women's organizations have spoken up. Because of that, we know this needs to be addressed. The government has addressed it through this legislation as Bill C-28. I thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. We pushed on this and we asked for this to be done, so I thank him for doing so.

We need more transparency for victims, and we need to remember that victims have rights, too. This is the problem. We talk so much about the rights of our perpetrators, but our victims need to have rights too. This is what we are losing a lot of the time in these conversations, whether I am talking about Hockey Canada or extreme intoxication. No is no, and there must be consent.

Finally, I want to end this with a quote. I go back to the National Association of Women and the Law:

While they may not be successful in making out the defence – pleading the defence, in itself, will result in increased timelines and lengthy court processes for victims. Ultimately, C-28 is a missed opportunity to close the door on the use of the extreme intoxication defence where alcohol alone is used.

I am coming back and I am saying that this summer I will be working on this. I will be working on providing any information that I can to both the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth and the Minister of Justice, because we can do better, and we need to make sure that we listen to everybody. We need to be listening to the victims, and we need to be working to end sexual violence.

Judges Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to address the House virtually today.

There are a number of thoughts that I would like to share with respect to this piece of legislation. It is legislation that has been in the works for a considerable amount of time. As much as I have been enjoying some of the questions and answers, especially when the Conservatives are being pushed as to when they are going to look at it or whether they would consider the passage of the legislation. Just given the context of what the official opposition members are saying, I do not anticipate that the bill will be passing before summer. I think the Conservatives have some spin notes that they want to try to leave on this particular legislation.

The biggest one that comes to my mind is the issue of “soft on crime”. It is especially members of the Conservative hard-right element who like to say that they are much harder on crime, that government needs to be tough on crime and that if it is not a Conservative government, it is soft on crime. Whether it makes sense or not, that is the line that the Conservatives like to give because of public perception.

That said, the bill will pass when it will pass, ultimately. I am hopeful that, as we can sense, the majority of the House see the value in Bill C-9, because it is something that is needed.

I want to start by making a couple of observations from some of the stakeholders. I want to do that this time around because I really do respect our judicial system as one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy. Our rule of law, our judicial system and the idea of independence are held dear by, I would like to think, all members of the House.

For that reason, I thought it was important to start off with a quote. It is from the Right Hon. Richard Wagner, Chief Justice of Canada and chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council. He stated:

Over the past few years, the Council has consistently called for new legislation to be tabled in order to improve the process by which concerns about judicial conduct are reviewed. The efforts of members of Council to develop proposals in this regard have been fruitful, and we appreciate the openness with which the Minister of Justice has engaged the Council in his consultations.

I will go to another quote from the Canadian Judicial Council. It states:

While the Council will take some time to carefully review the proposed amendments, we are confident that these reforms will bring about much needed efficiency and transparency to the judicial conduct review process.

I wanted to start with those opening quotes because of the respect that I have for judicial independence. I also recognize that there has been a great deal of work, whether by the minister or by administration or by civil servants. They have worked very closely with the many different stakeholders while at the same time respecting the importance of judicial independence. That is why, when I look at the legislation—and I concur with some of the comments being made by my New Democratic Party colleagues and Green Party members, who seem to support the legislation and its speedy passage—I would like to think that the bill itself should not be controversial. It is actually fairly straightforward. There will be other opportunities for the opposition members to try to score their political points, if I could put it that way.

I do think there would have been a great deal of value in seeing Bill C-9 at least pass through second reading so that it could go to committee stage, possibly during the summer, when feedback could be heard from the public and experts, with the idea of coming back in the fall for report stage and third reading.

The Conservative members who spoke before me were interesting. I picked up on two comments; one was the issue of “soft on crime”, which I have already referenced and maybe will go into a little more later, but they also brought up the issue of appointments of judges. I was somewhat taken aback by some of the comments that were put on the record.

We were being criticized because we did not make appointments shortly after being elected into government, as we were reviewing and establishing a more independent, apolitical, transparent appointment process to ensure that our judicial system would be that much more transparent. Yes, there might have been some delays in those appointments, but they were taking the extreme position that murderers went free because of some delays in appointments. I would welcome and challenge the Conservative members to cite specific examples of someone who not only allegedly murdered but did murder an individual and ultimately, because they could not get a day in court, were let go without any charges being laid in that situation. I would be very much interested in a name. If they could provide me with one, they can always send it to my P9 email or raise it inside the House.

The member went on to talk about Jody Wilson-Raybould, being very critical of her for not making appointments and implying in the comments that she would only make an appointment if the person donated to the party. Again, those were very extreme statements being made by the Conservative Party. It is not fair. It is interesting how they seem to have forgiven the past—at least, most of the Conservative caucus has—in regard to Jody Wilson-Raybould, but I remember the allegations a number of years ago on that front.

It is important to look at the appointments that have actually been made. The government has made somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 appointments since 2016. If we do the comparison, I would love to hear the numbers from the previous administration. When it comes to this administration, out of the hundreds of appointments to our judicial system, 55% have been women. I would love to hear a comparison with the previous 10 years under Stephen Harper.

About 3% of our appointments, or marginally just above that, were indigenous. That is important to recognize. Over 10% are visible minorities. The LGBTQ2 appointments are over 5%. Not only are we identifying ideal, competent, incredible individuals, but as a result of a more transparent, depoliticized appointment process, I believe that overall the appointments are more effective in better reflecting what our society looks like today.

On both of those points, whether it is judges and the appointment of judges or the issue of the Conservatives being soft on crime and saying the government is not tough enough on crime, I would challenge the Conservatives to prove their points, not necessarily on this legislation, but on other pieces of legislation so we can ultimately see Bill C-9 pass.

It is important to recognize that we do need to see a balance. We have the fundamental pillar of our judicial independence and it is important there be a high level of confidence held by the public in the administration of justice. I believe the legislation we are looking at deals with that in a very fair fashion.

The amendments will ultimately allow for the Canadian Judicial Council to continue to preside over the process proposed in the legislation. This would start with a three-person review panel ultimately deciding to investigate a complaint of misconduct. In some situations, if the complaint is serious enough, it might even warrant dismissal or removal from the bench. In situations like that, it could be referred to a separate five-person panel.

In the first case, it would be strictly a three-person review panel made up of CJC members. A judge and a layperson could impose sanctions such as public apologies and continuing education.

The current process has turned out, in many ways, to be exceptionally costly at times, and equally as important, it is not very timely. We have seen situations where it could take years before anything is actually concluded.

That is the reason our judicial system is saying that we need to make changes. Today, judges facing possible removal from office because of serious allegations of misconduct have several opportunities throughout the process to launch these judicial reviews. However, as I indicated, the process in some cases can be too long and can be at a fairly significant cost.

Replacing the process through which the Canadian Judicial Council reviews the conduct of a federally appointed judge is the essence of what the legislation is proposing to do. It establishes a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a judge's removal from office and makes changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made by the Minister of Justice.

The new process would allow for the imposition of sanctions for misconduct which, while not serious enough to warrant removal, may warrant sanctions that are quite different. The current process does not allow for such sanctions. The member for Mount Royal highlighted some examples. Where a judge's actions have been deemed to have offended something and there needs to be a consequence for the actions, there are more opportunities for different types of consequences.

We could see anything ranging from verbal warnings to written warnings, to suspensions or public apologies. We could even see additional training being required, and ultimately, of course, judges being released. This legislation enables a suite of actions that could be imposed on a judge, given a certain behaviour or comment that is made publicly.

Not only have we heard today, but we have also heard it in the past. We have had private members' bills. I think of Rona Ambrose. She talked about educating judges, particularly in the area of rape victims. Her piece of legislation ultimately received support from all areas of the House. Parliamentarians from all political stripes recognized the need to have some form of educational programming for newly appointed judges to take things into consideration. In fact, my daughter, who is a local representative in the province of Manitoba, had also taken that particular initiative after hearing about what Rona Ambrose had done.

Ultimately, the government pushed that legislation through in the years that followed after Ms. Ambrose left the House of Commons, but we attribute it to Rona and we attribute it to the fact that there is a universal desire for that training.

It was not that long ago when we had another private member's bill, one from one of my colleagues from Montreal. There was a great deal of effort by members on all sides of the House to see that legislation, Bill C-233, which is still before the House today, pass second reading and go to committee. It came out of third reading because of that desire.

For those who are not familiar, Ms. Ambrose's piece of legislation is recognized as Keira's law for good reason. I will quote from an article, “When I brought forward the evidence about abuse of Mr. Brown, we had a judge, for example, who said that domestic violence is not relevant to parenting and, 'I'm going to ignore it.'”

Periodically statements come out of our judicial system that call into question the public confidence. That is one of the reasons it is so important that we pass this legislation. It recognizes that our independent judicial system and our judges, who we do need to respect, can make mistakes. Obviously, a vast majority of judgments are done in a way in which they meet the expectations of Canadians, but on occasion, when that does not happen, there needs to be a more effective mechanism to ensure there is an appropriate consequence. This legislation would enable some variation of consequences for judges, at times, who cross the line.

I have appreciated the opportunity to share a few thoughts and will be more than happy to answer any questions.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to stand here as we discuss the business of supply and the main estimates for 2023. I would like to begin by thanking a lot of people who have been talking to me over the last three weeks about the Supreme Court ruling that was made on May 13. I would like to thank the member who just spoke earlier, the hon. member representing New Brunswick. I would like to thank people from the London Abused Women's Centre, especially Jennifer Dunn and Megan Walker, and all those who have connected with me to ask if this is really the truth, if this is really happening.

I want to go to what happened on May 13 and the discussions that started following a Supreme Court ruling. On May 13, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a major decision indicating that criminal defence in cases involving assault, including sexual assault, would be able to use a defence known as self-induced extreme intoxication.

It is really hard for me to look at this. I am not a lawyer. I am just a normal human being who has children, who has family and who loves her community. I want to ensure that things like this do not exist in a court of law. I have reached out to some of these lawyers, to some Crown attorneys, and we have amazing support here from the member for Brantford—Brant and the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, just the work they have done to share with me what is going on here. These are the things we need to talk about. I am not going to blither anymore. I am going to talk about what has actually happened.

On that date, there was a ruling saying that extreme intoxication could be used, because otherwise it goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 7 and 11. I started looking at this, what it actually means and how it happened, and I went back to the history of why section 33.1 exists in the Criminal Code in the first place. This had to do with the fact that someone had been charged and there was a problem because at the end of the day, they were allowed to use this type of defence, the fact that this person was totally intoxicated and yet sexually assaulted someone.

I started looking at some of the different cases and asking why this is such an important thing to Canada and how we can ensure that this would never happen again. How can we ensure that someone would never be able to use extreme intoxication, especially when it is an offence on another individual, especially when it has to do with sexual assault, bodily harm, or any type of violence against a person? This is why I am so concerned with this.

When this Supreme Court ruling came out, I asked my colleagues about three key issues: What needs to be addressed in the Criminal Code? What are the specific loopholes? What can we do to address this issue immediately? The first thing we did as a group, and there were four of us who signed on, was to send a letter to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada explaining that we wanted to talk about this and that we knew there was an issue. We indicated that these decisions imperil the safety of sexual assault victims by permitting the dubious defence of non-insane automatism due to self-induced intoxication. Sexual offences disproportionately affect women and vulnerable people. The Attorney General has had sufficient time to study this ruling. The ruling clearly implores the government to act. The government has not. We have only heard silence from the government.

That is why I am here today. This judgment was made on May 13. Today is June 7. We already know that when it comes to victims of sexual abuse and exploitation, the chances of people coming forward are already very slim, going into the criminal justice system. We just finished Bill C-233 last week, where we talked about judges' training and we talked about the fact that there is such a disconnect there. Understanding domestic violence, understanding criminal law, understanding what it is like to be a victim is so important. That is why l will continue to ask and continue to advocate for judges having training on domestic abuse, on sexual exploitation, on rape, all of these things, and how important it is. Although Bill C-233 is expected to pass through the Senate, we still need to make sure that judges are taking this.

That is why, when we look at this decision, we say, oh my gosh, the victim is lost throughout the entire discussion. That is why I have so many issues with this. We sent this letter over two weeks ago, and we are still waiting for a response. I recognize that the minister has spoken to us in question period, but we are waiting for action, and that is what I am calling for today. We want action.

We have people like Jennifer Dunn, the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre, who said, “Women are already disproportionately affected when it comes to assault and sexual assault so this will affect them tenfold.... To be able to use that as an excuse and potentially not be convicted for their crimes is absolutely absurd.”

That is why I want to continue to have this discussion. We are talking about a person and the fact that if people are violated, there is a fear of coming forward after everything. Whether it is the judge's training, or whatever it may be, the fact is that someone could even use extreme intoxication as a defence. I am sorry, but if it were my daughter who was raped and someone used extreme intoxication, as a mother watching my child, I would ask, how could anyone let that happen? I ask every person out there to reflect on this: If this was a member of their family or a member of their community, how would they feel if they knew that they did nothing?

It has been three weeks now. Let us get this done. I am just going to ask the minister to get this done. We know that section 33.1 is unconstitutional, based on the nine Supreme Court judges saying it is unconstitutional, and they have come back to the government and indicated, even in their decision, that the government could do something, so I am asking where the government is on this. Why have the Liberals not done anything?

I know that on an issue just a month ago, they had an immediate response. At that moment they were talking about oil and gas. That day, they talked about the fact that they were going to appeal that decision. We are talking three weeks later, and we still have not heard from the government what it is planning on doing.

I want to go back and talk about why section 33.1 was put there in the first place, so that members have an idea of what can happen and why this is so important. I am looking through these notes, and there were two cases that involved men who were high on drugs when they killed and injured family members. The extreme intoxication was used to acquit one man and order a new trial for the other. Right there, we have people high on drugs who killed and injured family members.

With the case that just came up here recently, I know there has been lots of discussion on that one. It is not up to me as a parliamentarian to judge what is right and wrong, but it is to fill in those holes. We sit here and ask if this is fair. This is where the rights of the victims are lost and the rights of the criminals are talked about as being charter rights under sections 7 and 11.

I ask members, what if they were the ones violated and every single right was gone because the violator took those rights away from them? What if their rights were taken away and all we were worrying about were the criminal's rights? I sit here and think that the criminal's rights are outweighing the victim's rights. Something is absolutely wrong there.

The case that brought this all up, and the reason we are having this discussion, was the May 13 decision. It was about a case that involved a man who had consumed alcohol and magic mushrooms. He broke into the home of a female victim and violently assaulted her with a broom handle, leaving permanent injuries. He was declared by the courts to have been in a psychotic state and to have had no will to control his actions.

I sit here and wonder how we define extreme intoxication. How many times have people gone to somebody's Facebook and seen that somebody had written “I was extremely intoxicated”? I have spoken to friends and different people who will talk about not remembering what happened that night. What we are doing here is actually saying that if people are not able to make that choice, although they voluntarily consumed the alcohol or the drugs, they are involuntarily doing the thing, because they do not have the state of mind to make the right judgment.

I go back to point one: They had the choice to drink, and they had the choice to take drugs. There are some cases where awful things have happened when people have been given drugs. We understand that this happens as well, so we have to look at that, but when people are voluntarily doing something and then the next time they are actually victimizing somebody else, why are we sitting back and allowing that to be the case? Why are we sitting there and saying extreme intoxication can be used? We know that it is very minute, because we know that there is a threshold, but my problem is that one is too many. That could be somebody's daughter. That could be anything like this. We have to look at the victims first. We have to look at the violators first, and that is what we are not doing.

I think the decision made by the Supreme Court, whether it is right or wrong, gave direction to the government to do something, and I am asking the government where it is at making this decision.

We know that, as I said, people are not going to come forward if they think this can be used, so I am very concerned as we are moving forward. There is a lot of work we need to do here. When it comes to intimate partner violence, when it comes to violence and when it comes to offences on other victims, I believe we can all agree that the victims matter and that they should come first, so I urge the government to do something now, not three weeks from now, but now.

Status of Women

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Recommendations following the study of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)”. It states:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee has considered Bill C-233, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner), and wishes to make the following recommendations to the Government:

That the committee considered issues and consequences around the availability of cell service in the use of e-monitoring and recommends the Government of Canada move as soon as possible to ensure access to cell service is available across Canada, and that the committee feels strongly and recommends that when developing training for new judges, the issues of intimate partner violence, coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships, and social context be included.

Domestic Violence

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Keira Kagan was going to change the world.

I wish I had met Keira. She was a bright and beautiful four-year-old whose life was stolen by an angry father who killed himself and Keira two years ago today. Keira should be playing with her brother and making her mom, Jennifer, and stepdad, Philip, laugh and smile. Instead, Jennifer has had to become an advocate for changes to the court system to educate judges on domestic violence and coercive control. I cannot begin to imagine the heartbreak that Jennifer faces every day, but I can support her advocacy work to ensure that no other child is killed because our judicial system does not recognize that domestic violence and coercive control are real, and must be taken in to account. I can continue to work with Jennifer to see Keira’s Law, which is part of the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle's private member's bill, Bill C-233, become a reality in Canada.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago today, we were horrified to learn of four-year-old Keira Kagan’s death at her father’s hands. Despite her mother, Dr. Jennifer Kagan’s pleas for Keira’s safety and providing ample evidence of a history of coercive control and abuse, the court system failed her and a bright little girl was lost.

Dr. Kagan’s cry for action as a mother resonated across Canada. For victims of domestic abuse and coercive control, their struggle to protect themselves and their children is a real and terrifying challenge played out in mediations and family courts across the country.

On Monday, I joined my colleagues from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle and Oakville North—Burlington in tabling Bill C-233 to ensure training and education of judges on the warning signs and dangers of domestic violence and coercive control.

I want to thank the many families who joined Dr. Kagan not only in her pain but in her courageous advocacy to protect our most vulnerable. We hear Jennifer. We hold her in her pain, and we will work to protect others from this harm and abuse. Keira’s light shines bright and her memory is forever a blessing.