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)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code in respect of interim release and other orders related to intimate partner violence offences. The enactment also provides for recognizance orders to be made when there is a reasonable fear of domestic violence.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-320, which was introduced by the member for Oshawa.

This bill is very much in line with other private members' bills that have been introduced by various members from various parties. These bills demonstrate that there is complete unanimity on this issue, unlike in many other areas. All parties agree when it comes to the issue of protecting victims and integrating them better into the justice system.

For example, I can talk about two other bills that were debated very recently in the House, including Bill C-332, which was introduced by the NDP member for Victoria and seeks to criminalize coercive control. That bill focuses more on partners or spouses in a family context. I would like to read the bill summary:

This enactment 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.

This bill seeks to create a new offence for conduct that often occurs in a domestic context.

I was also pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-205, which was introduced by now former senator Pierre‑Hugues Boisvenu and has to do with intimate partners. Once again, by way of explanation, I want to read the bill summary as it appears in the bill. It states and I quote:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code in respect of interim release and other orders related to intimate partner violence offences. The enactment also provides for recognizance orders to be made when there is a reasonable fear of domestic violence.

This bill, which I spoke to in the fall, is rather large in scope when it comes to measures to protect victims of domestic violence.

The two bills I just talked about deal with keeping women safe and protecting female victims. We know that the number of femicides increased by roughly 7.5% between 2009 and 2019. My colleague from Shefford also mentioned this. There is a great deal of work to be done to protect women. That is also the purpose of Senator Boisvenu's bill. It talks about the use of electronic bracelets, but also about the obligation to give the victim a copy of the order regarding the accused and to ensure that the victim has been consulted about her safety and security needs when a bail decision is being made.

There was already a strong interest in ensuring that victims of domestic violence offences or sexual offences are given more information about, and also have a say in, an accused's release, should a peace bond be issued. The idea is to ensure that the victim is aware of the situation and that she can even be involved in the release process, in a way, by helping monitor the actions of an accused who is subject to certain conditions, such as maintaining distance. Unfortunately, law enforcement agencies do not always have enough eyes to ensure that release conditions are met. Perhaps this is one way to ensure better monitoring and enforcement of orders.

Bill C-320 has some minor nuances. In this case, we are talking about victims in general. It is not just about victims of sexual offences or victims of domestic violence, but would include the families of murder victims, for example. The definition of victim as set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act includes the direct victim, but it also stipulates that someone else can act on the victim's behalf. This could include the victim's spouse or the person who was their spouse at the time of the victim's death, someone who was cohabiting with the victim, a relative or a dependant. This means that the bill can apply to a broader definition of victim. What this bill does is make it mandatory to give the victim more information on certain aspects.

We are not calling into question the very concept of parole, for example. That is something that the Bloc Québécois supports, because we believe in rehabilitation. The parole system may not be perfect, but we must still support it in the sense that, in some cases, rehabilitation takes precedence over a very strict desire to simply keep people incarcerated when it is not necessary or appropriate and when there is a real possibility of social reintegration.

Under the bill, the victim must be informed of the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences or parole, and they must be given an explanation of how those dates were determined. The victim must also be informed when the offender is released on escorted or unescorted temporary absence, on parole and on placement, meaning when the offender is sent to a halfway house. The victim must be informed of the date on which the offender will be released and how that date was determined. In short, explanations are given regarding the parole system, temporary absences and orders to place the offender in a halfway house.

Without completely reforming the issue of parole, this bill ensures that the person does not learn through the media that an individual convicted of a crime committed against her or a member of her family was released without her full knowledge of the process, the mechanics of that decision. This will ensure greater confidence. In fact, I dare to hope that the bill will help give victims more confidence in the federal prison system and further involve victims in the process. If this transparency can make victims more confident, that can have an untold impact on certain aspects of the judicial process.

I mentioned this during the study of Bill S-205. One of the common problems encountered in court when the time comes to lay criminal charges against someone, and particularly in the context of domestic violence, is that the victim is often not a party to the case, but simply a witness. This witness is important because, often, they are the only witness the Crown can use to put someone in jail and proceed with a hearing. If the victim does not have sufficient confidence in the justice system, she may decide not to testify, for fear of retribution. It is often for these reasons that domestic violence hearings go nowhere, for lack of a victim.

This is an opportunity to improve overall knowledge of the justice system, from one end of the legal process to the other, as was done with the other two bills, and this one. We can help people understand the system better, have more trust in it and participate more in the process to ensure that those who have committed wrongdoing end up serving the sentence handed down for their actions.

However, we also need to ensure that better psychological supports are available. As soon as the institution is required to properly inform victims about the parole process, for example, this can retraumatize many victims. We must therefore ensure that there are sufficient resources and supports in place for these victims if we want to get this right. We will have to make sure that there is a useful purpose, but also that we think more about the victims in the sense that this bill puts victims at the centre of the process. We must not do just one part of the job. We have to make sure that the work is done properly and that victims are fully supported. Ultimately, we have to be able to say that the victim has been put at the centre of our concerns and is part of the judicial process. She is not just an outside witness.

This bill has good intentions, and that is why I am convinced that the parties decided to unanimously support it at second reading and in committee, and that they will support it now at third reading.

[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

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on Bill S-205, a bill that comes from a Conservative senator and a Conservative member of Parliament. It is a Conservative initiative aimed at combatting domestic violence.

Before I speak specifically about this bill, I do want to pay particular tribute to Senator Boisvenu, who is responsible for putting this bill forward. Senator Boisvenu has seen the impacts of this kind of violence on his family. He has turned personal tragedy into public advocacy, standing up for victims of crime. He has devoted his energies in the Senate and outside of the Senate to standing for justice and for the inclusion of victims' voices in various processes.

I want to take this opportunity to recognize his incredible work on this bill and on so many other different areas. He is now retiring, and I think all members from all sides in the other place and in this place would pay tribute to him, his commitment to public service and his work. Bill S-205 is one of many proposals he has put forward for combatting domestic violence and other forms of violence, as well as standing up for victims.

Bill S-205 seeks to deal with orders that go against perpetrators of domestic violence, which a judge would issue in order to protect victims and control the perpetrators' activities. In particular, it would create a mechanism where a judge can mandate that a perpetrator would wear an electronic monitoring device and also that victims would be consulted in the process of judges making decisions about the kinds of orders that apply to perpetrators.

These initiatives make sense. They are common sense. They would give victims of domestic violence a greater sense of security, and I believe they would reduce subsequent violence and would save lives.

Unfortunately, what we have seen in the process of this bill making its way through Parliament is that members of the Liberal government supported amendments at committee that would weaken the bill, so here we are in the House at report stage, which is when this bill comes out of committee, and Conservatives are working to add back in some of those critical sections that were removed at committee. There is a lot of discussion in this place about combatting domestic violence, but when the rubber hits the road, we have Liberals voting against critical measures that would actually protect victims of crime.

Victims of crime are not primarily concerned about words of solidarity from politicians. There are a lot of politicians who say they have had enough, that enough is enough and that it must stop, but the rubber hits the road with the concrete legislative initiatives we put forward that punish perpetrators of this horrible crime and that create the kinds of mechanisms, such as electronic monitoring, that will allow victims of these crimes to feel safer.

It is disappointing that, while having words to say about the problem of domestic violence, Liberal members have not actually supported the constructive initiatives that Conservatives in the other place and in this place have put forward.

As well, I wanted to mention an issue I have been working on and advocating for, and that is more bystander intervention training. I think one of the ways we can combat crime, domestic violence and other forms of violence, is by empowering bystanders, people who may be outside of a situation and see things that are going on, to know how to respond, how to intervene and what kinds of tools are available to them. I have been to a number of bystander training events, including in my own community, and I think these are very powerful tools for combatting this kind of violence. We have focused a lot, as we should, on punishing the perpetrator and protecting the victim, but I think we can also look at other people, bystanders and potential bystanders, in terms of how to engage them. I have put forward Motion No. 57 in the House that deals with promoting more bystander intervention, awareness and training, which I think is another step we should be talking more about in terms of combatting domestic violence.

Fundamentally, this is a phenomenal bill, a great bill, and I want to again recognize the excellent work of Senator Boisvenu throughout his life and career standing for and with victims of crime. However, it is unfortunate to see efforts by Liberals and others to water down these kinds of initiatives. Words of solidarity are not enough. We need action, we need policy, to punish perpetrators and protect victims. Those concrete initiatives are going to really make a difference to vulnerable people in our society. I hope that the House will support Conservative efforts to reverse the watering-down amendments at committee and to strengthen this bill again so that we can do the work that everybody talks about, which is to protect victims of domestic violence.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of this bill, Bill S-205, which was first introduced by Senator Boisvenu in 2021. First, I want to acknowledge his hard work and effort in putting this bill forward, as well as his courage in sharing his story about how gender-based violence impacted his own family. With that in mind, I think it was critical for him to ensure this bill passed through the House.

In general, this bill sets out to protect survivors of intimate partner violence through various amendments to the Criminal Code. These include ensuring judges consult the accused's intimate partner about their safety and security needs; allowing judges to consider the use of an electronic monitor for interim release; and establishing a new type of recognizance order, or peace bond, for survivors of intimate partner violence. If granted, the peace bond would allow the judge to impose conditions that could include electronic monitoring and a treatment or domestic violence counselling program.

Given that this bill is of great importance, especially because we know that rates of gender-based violence have increased since the pandemic, I can affirm the committee worked very hard to ensure that this bill was reviewed promptly so it could be passed into law. I am very excited to be here for the debate today and to keep this bill moving along. The committee also worked to make necessary amendments to address concerns expressed by the study's witnesses.

While discussing the bill, it is important to emphasize that intimate partner violence is a national crisis. We certainly know, as I indicated, that rates of violence within the home have increased since the pandemic. We also see a connection between intimate partner violence and the mental health crisis we are currently witnessing in Canada.

In fact, every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner. Given the severity of intimate partner violence, some Canadian cities, including Ottawa, Toronto and Kitchener, have gone so far as to declare it an epidemic. Therefore, we know that we need to address this crisis of violence. It is critical to put in place laws to ensure the safety of those who are experiencing violence.

Rates of intimate partner violence have been on the rise in recent years, especially, as I said, since the COVID-19 pandemic. Between 2014 and 2022, intimate partner violence rates increased by an alarming 20%. Intimate partner violence overwhelmingly impacts women, particularly young women. Forty-four per cent of women, or 6.2 million women aged 15 and older, have reported some kind of abuse in their intimate partner relationship. We often think about intimate partner violence in terms of those who are cohabiting, but even when we look at the impact on youth, the rates of intimate partner violence are alarming.

Women are similarly overrepresented in intimate partner homicides, which make up nearly one-fifth of all solved homicides in Canada. We also know that intimate partner violence disproportionately impacts low-income and indigenous women, as well as women who are visible minorities, disabled or 2SLGBTQ+. Particularly, there has been a rise of anti-trans hate happening in the country. We saw the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, fuelling the fires of anti-trans rhetoric last week when talking about safe places that will now exclude trans women.

We need to be vigilant in all areas of society to protect women. We know that the consequences of intimate partner violence are also very costly. The Department of Justice, for example, estimated the cost of intimate partner violence to be roughly $7.4 billion. It not only costs dignity and safety, it also costs us financially by turning a blind eye to the crisis of intimate partner violence.

One of the biggest concerns I had with this bill was the impact it might have on indigenous peoples. We know that the Liberal government throwing out the amendments to Bill C-318, as we heard this morning, is certainly not committed, but in the last Parliament, we did pass Bill C-15, which includes clause 5. It states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.”

Today, for example, it could have taken all the measures necessary to pass Bill C-13 and provide royal assent with the amendments to make sure it was consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It did not, but we know the Liberal government is not a champion of indigenous rights in this country as it continues to willfully violate our rights.

When we were amending Bill S-205, one of the concerns I had was related to indigenous peoples due to the ongoing legacy of colonial-state policies and laws. Indigenous people, as a result, are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system. We must make sure that our criminal justice system is consistent with Bill C-15, which affirms all legislation going forward. I know that this is a Senate bill, but, just as a matter of principle, it should be consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In 2018, indigenous adults made up 30% of admissions to provincial and territorial custody and 29% of admissions to federal custody, while representing 4% of the population. Indigenous women made up an even greater share of those admitted into custody, at 42%. I moved an amendment in committee to add cases involving indigenous people to enable judges to consider alternative, culturally appropriate indigenous support services rather than imprisonment. This type of amendment is not only morally necessary, it is legally necessary as well. Again, Bill C-15 requires all Canadian government legislation to be consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes requirements to prevent discrimination against indigenous people and respect the integrity of indigenous cultures and traditions.

The Gladue principles in Canadian law compel judges to recognize the unique experiences of indigenous peoples, including prevent discrimination against indigenous people and respect the integrity of indigenous cultures and traditions. Given these considerations, judges must consider alternatives to prisons while sentencing, such as, for example, alternative restorative justice.

I would like to thank everybody and congratulate Senator Boisvenu. I am looking forward to seeing this bill move quickly through the House. I would also like to thank the committee for the hard discussions we had getting this bill through committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois’s position has not changed since the bill was introduced. Obviously, we are in favour of it, since it is consistent with initiatives aimed at strengthening the justice and police systems in their fight against all forms of violence, including repeat violence. Our thoughts go out to victims of domestic violence, women who are victims of domestic violence. Gender-based violence is a scourge on our society. Obviously, we need to do more to prevent it.

I would like to begin by commending the sponsor of this bill, Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu. We are all familiar with his story. His daughter was murdered by a sexual predator in 2002. Following that event, he chose to dedicate his life to protecting crime victims and strengthening the rights of all victims of violence, and especially women, who make up the majority of victims. It is in a way his legacy to our institution.

I hope that, with the contribution of all members of Parliament, this legislative measure will take effect very soon. I sincerely believe that it will help many people become more involved in the entire judicial process, which can be extremely trying for obvious reasons. Despite our differences of opinion on various topics, the senator and I agree on this one.

Protecting crime victims’ rights is a priority for the Bloc Québécois. I am very pleased to speak today on this extremely important subject.

In Quebec and Canada, criminal and penal law must punish crime and ensure public safety. With the rise in the number of femicides and cases of domestic violence, it is important that we reinforce our mechanisms for protecting crime victims, as well as their children and other loved ones. This requires an amendment to the Criminal Code.

Bill S-205 is a firm step in that direction. It essentially seeks to get victims more involved in the judicial process by, for example, forcing the judge to consult them before issuing a release order with conditions.

The conditions that justify detaining an accused awaiting trial are set out in the Criminal Code. Let us take a closer look at what subsection 515(10) has to say:

For the purposes of this section, the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law;

(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice; and

(c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including

(i) the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case,

(ii) the gravity of the offence,

(iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used, and

(iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.

Consequently, the decision to detain someone awaiting trial depends on multiple factors specific to each situation. When the public interest justifies keeping the accused in detention, it must be recognized that they are being deprived of their basic rights, including the presumption of innocence, and the right to life, liberty and security.

Allowing more victim involvement in the legal process that concerns them is a praiseworthy step that we can support without reservation. Victims do not have to fight every day for justice to be served. The bill helps lower the barriers victims potentially face that could dissuade them from pursuing the courageous process of filing a complaint against their attacker.

The Bloc Québécois has always strived to defend victims of crime. As I stated earlier, our thoughts are with women and victims of domestic violence. Every victim is one too many.

Quebec is a world leader in protecting the victims of domestic and family violence.

Quebec's public safety department has launched an electronic monitoring device project province-wide. It is used to prevent femicides and to protect the victims of domestic violence or sexual exploitation.

According to an article in Le Devoir, “this protective measure was offered for the first time in the Quebec City area in 2022. It was then deployed [across Quebec].” The Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and northern Quebec regions have had this service since last September. Simply put, it prevents offenders from approaching their victim.

The article goes on to say, “the system consists of two interconnected GPS tracking devices, a bracelet permanently affixed to the ankle of the accused...and a mobile application installed on a smartphone held by the person to be protected. If the offender enters defined restricted areas around the victim, a notification is sent to a monitoring centre, which can then view the location of each of the two parties on a screen. An agent will ask the wearer of the bracelet to move away. If they refuse or continue to approach, the agent will request police intervention. Sometimes, the police are deployed immediately, without waiting for the offender's reaction”.

In the article, Isabelle Mailloux, director general of security at Quebec's correctional services, said that the idea behind this measure is to give victims some peace of mind and ensure their safety.

She also said, and I quote, “The bracelet may be imposed on offenders who are serving their sentence in the community, who are released pending trial, who are released on parole, or who have to meet certain conditions upon their release from prison. In all cases, the victim must consent before the order for the bracelet to be worn is issued”.

Isabelle Mailloux also pointed out that Quebec was a trailblazer when it implemented this protection system, and that it remains to this day the only Canadian province to use it.

She also explained the following to Le Devoir: “Whenever I hear from a victim who tells me that she has regained some peace of mind, that she has started sleeping again at night, that, to me, is the best indicator of success”. She said that it can have a deterrent effect on offenders when they realize that they really are being monitored and authorities will actually call them.

As reported in the article later on, she hopes that, if the program becomes well known, more women will be tempted to take part in it if they ever need to.

Personally, I hope that the rest of Canada will follow Quebec's example. I think it is time to come full circle and make inmates released from prison subject to the same restrictions across the country. Measures like those proposed in Bill S‑205 could have a very positive impact on the safety of our communities.

These legislative changes are obviously an added value for victims. The justice system needs to be more effective and more transparent. We must also make the judicial process easier for victims, their families and their loved ones when the fateful decision is made to release the offender.

The bill could help build the public's trust in the justice system so that victims do not hesitate to report the crimes against them. We know that is far too often the case. The statistics are troubling and show how important it is to have the right legislative measures. Between 2009 and 2019, we saw a 7.5% rise in femicide and domestic violence. That number peaked in 2021: As many as 18,571 female victims were reported in Quebec, or 1,788 more than in 2020. I think that as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to contribute to reversing this very troubling trend.

I want to come back to the key components of the bill. I mentioned the requirement to consult the victim ahead of a release order with conditions. There is also the introduction of the concept of domestic violence, in which case a victim can apply to have the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace. There is also the preponderance of the victim's version of events, which could influence the choice of conditions the defendant will be subject to under the recognizance.

The Bloc Québécois promised to help improve this bill. That is what we did in committee. We agreed with most of the amendments that were made to this bill, which mainly sought to strengthen it and provide more support for victims. There is just one thing that we did not support, and that was the amendment to decrease the maximum time for good behaviour from two years to 12 months. As we saw in the news recently, abusive partners can act out years later. It is therefore important to be vigilant when it comes to those with a violent past. As for the rest, we will continue to support this bill, which I think will help keep our communities safe.

[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.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill S-205, in Clause 1, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 4 to 17 on page 1 with the following:

“1 (1) Section 515 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(3.1) Before making an order under subsection (2) in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the accused’s intimate partner, the justice must ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused has been consulted about their safety and security needs.

(2) Subsection 515(4) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (e):

(e.1) wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes the request;

(2.1) Subsection 515(4.2) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (a.1) and by repealing paragraph (a.2).

(3) Paragraph 515(6)(b.1) of the Act is replaced by”; and

(b) by replacing line 1 on page 2 with the following:

“(4) The Act is amended by adding the following”

Motion No. 2

That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 2 with the following:

“810.03 (1) A person who fears on reasonable grounds that their intimate partner will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to them, to their child or to a child of that intimate partner may lay an information”;

(b) by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 2 with the following:

“(5) An order under either subsection (3) or (4) must be made in a timely manner.

(6) The provincial court judge may commit the defen-”;

(c) by replacing line 1 on page 3 with the following:

“(7) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable”;

(d) by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 3 with the following:

“or to secure the safety and security of the informant, their child or a child of the defendant, including condi-”;

(e) by replacing line 20 on page 3 with the following:

“rectly, with the informant, a child of the informant or”;

(f) by replacing lines 1 to 5 on page 4 with the following:

“(8) The informant may provide submissions in writing on the conditions that the judge may add to the recognizance under subsection (7).

(9) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the informant’s safety or”;

(g) by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 4 with the following:

“(10) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (9) to a recognizance, the judge”;

(h) by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 4 with the following:

“(11) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (9) to a recognizance, the”;

(i) by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 4 with the following:

“(12) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in”;

(j) by replacing lines 29 to 31 on page 4 with the following:

“(13) When the defendant makes an application under subsection (12), the provincial court judge must, before varying any conditions, consult the informant about their”; and

(k) by replacing line 33 on page 4 with the following:

“(14) A warrant of committal to prison for failure or re-”

...

...

...

...

Motion No. 3

That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 15 and 16 on page 2 with the following:

“under subsection (1) may cause the informant and the person who is the subject of the information to appear”

Motion No. 4

That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing line 23 on page 2 with the following:

“not more than two years.”;

(b) by replacing line 30 on page 2 with the following:

“into the recognizance for a period of not more than three”; and

(c) by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:

“dant to prison for a term not exceeding two years if the”

Motion No. 5

That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 3 with the following:

“(f) to refrain from using social media;

(g) to abstain from the consumption of drugs — ex-”;

(b) by replacing line 28 on page 3 with the following:

“(h) to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of”; and

c) by replacing line 38 on page 3 with the following:

“(i) to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of”

Motion No. 6

That Bill S-205, in Clause 3, be amended

(a) by replacing line 10 on page 5 with the following:

“810.01(4.1)(f), 810.011(6)(e), 810.03(7)(h),”;

(b) by replacing line 15 on page 5 with the following:

“810.01(4.1)(g), 810.011(6)(f), 810.03(7)(i), 810.1(3.02)(i)”; and

(c) by replacing line 2 on page 6 with the following:

“810.01(4.1)(g), 810.011(6)(f), 810.03(7)(i), 810.1(3.02)(i) or”

Motion No. 7

That Bill S-205, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 7 with the following:

“directly, with the informant, the informant’s child or any relative or close friend of the informant,”

Motion No. 8

That Bill S-205, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 7 with the following:

“(e.3) refrains from using social media (section 801.03 of the Criminal Code);”

Motion No. 9

That Bill S-205, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 8 with the following:

“810.01(4.1)(g), 810.03(7)(i), 810.011(6)(f), 810.1(3.02)(i) and”

Motion No. 10

That Bill S-205, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 21 on page 8 with the following:

“fears on reasonable grounds that their intimate partner will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to them, to their child or to a child of that intimate partner, and a provincial”

Motion No. 11

That Bill S-205, in Clause 10.1, be amended by replacing, in subclause (2), the word “810.03(7)“ with the following:

“810.03(9)”

Motion No. 12

That Bill S-205, in Clause 10.1, be amended by replacing, in subclause (2), the words “the intimate partner’s safety” with the following:

“the informant’s safety”

Mr. Speaker, people watching at home may think that these are just so many amendments. That is the essence of what I am going to talk about today.

I must also always thank the people from Peterborough—Kawartha, my riding. It is always an honour to stand here and speak on something so critical that affects Canadians and families across this country.

We are speaking today about domestic violence in particular. This is a bill, Bill S-205, that was put forward by Senator Boisvenu. I will be talking a lot about him in this speech today because it is a very personal story of what he did to put forward this bill. We had the chance to study this bill in my committee, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, also known as FEWO.

Before we go into this and the amendments that we have put forward to this bill, I want to provide some stats for people watching at home, many of whom are living these stats.

Domestic violence in this country is an epidemic, and 94 Ontario municipalities have declared intimate partner violence an epidemic. In Ontario, 30 women were killed in a 30-week window between 2022 and 2023. Compared to 2014, intimate partner sexual assault was 163% higher. There has been an increase of 72% in domestic violence in this country.

I think, right now, people really have on their minds, especially my Albertan colleagues, a tragic story that happened just weeks ago in front of a elementary school. The headline reads, “Man who killed his estranged wife outside Calgary school was facing domestic violence charges”.

The man who killed his estranged wife outside of a Calgary elementary school was facing criminal charges for domestic violence and was charged with twice violating a no-contact order. This woman was murdered in front of an elementary school. Her three children no longer have either parent. This bill that we are talking about today, Bill S-205, could have prevented that tragedy. Let us break it down, and let us talk about why these amendments are critical and why I am asking every member in this House to support these amendments and to strengthen the bill that was originally created.

The senator who put forward this bill, Senator Boisvenu, is an incredible human. His daughter was murdered in 2002. She was 27 years old. She was randomly kidnapped and killed, because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, by a repeat violent offender.

The senator said, “Changing the system takes a lot of energy. But I had no right to miss the mission that Julie had given me....

One day I will return to Julie, it will be her, my judge. And I'm sure she'll tell me that we've done great things together, the two of us.”

I think it is very important that members in the House, people at home and constituents recognize that the intention behind this bill comes from a very personal place of the lived experience of a man who lost his daughter to domestic violence. He did his due diligence. He spoke with stakeholders and did all the legal correspondence that was necessary to ensure this bill was done properly. When it went to the status of women committee, FEWO, it was watered down beyond belief. The whole purpose of the bill was removed by the amendments put forward by the Liberals and the NDP.

Today, we are asking them to reconsider what they are doing to this watered-down bill and to approve the amendments we have put forward, to leave the bill as it was and to put victims first. I want to give us some victim testimony from the committee that verifies what we are saying here today. This is from Ms. Diane Tremblay. She testified at FEWO on November 20, 2023, about Bill S-205 and said:

If my abuser had been required to wear an electronic bracelet under a recognizance order pursuant to section 810 of the Criminal Code, as proposed in Senator Boisvenu's bill, my children and I would have been safer and I wouldn't have had to go through these attempted murders. Believe me, you don't emerge unhurt from an attempted murder. You suffer the after-effects for life.

I am asking the House of Commons, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Justice, the judges, all the provinces of Canada and the members to pass and enforce this new bill. It should be adopted immediately, without any amendments.

This is victim testimony.

It's very urgent. To conclude, I'd like to add that we have a right to live peacefully and safely under the law in our country.

For those watching at home and looking at these amendments, I will say that the Liberals removed the clause asking for the electronic bracelet to be worn by the attacker. That is the whole weight of the bill, the whole point of it. During the period of time between when a victim is strong enough and courageous enough to even report it, which is another issue, they are in a very dangerous position to be attacked or killed by their attacker, as are their children.

I think it is also really important for people at home to recognize something if we really want to think of the big picture and help prevent domestic violence. How many of those attackers grew up in a home where they witnessed domestic violence as children? We have to break the cycle. The impacts on children witnessing domestic violence are profound.

I want to go on to another victim's testimony. It is by Martine Jeanson, president, founder and frontline worker of La Maison des Guerrières. She testified November 23, 2023, giving powerful testimony in the status of women committee. She said:

Over the past 20 years, I've worked with hundreds of women who needed help. There is no way to hide them. Men can track them down at their place of work or through their family. They can follow children to school or to their friends' homes. The man will never stop stalking them, following them, harassing them and harming them. Until an electronic bracelet is required, women and their children will never be protected. Electronic bracelets may not be perfect, but that's all we have for the time being. We have no protection. That's why we are asking you, on behalf of all women, to pass the bill [unamended].

This is victim testimony.

I will reiterate this over and over again: We were elected to the House to elevate the voices of the people outside the House; we were not elected to push our own agenda and our own ideology. We were elected to make life better and safer, and right now, this country is not safe. There are serial killers who are eligible for day parole, retraumatizing their victims. There are children and mothers, people from all socio-economic classes, who are afraid to go to school. The men, the attackers, will find them wherever they are; they are stalkers. They control them and their lives, and they ruin children's lives. They ruin the lives of all the people around them.

The bill before us should be the most simple bill. We have an opportunity in the House to fix it. In committee, one of the members on the Liberals' side said they are just trying to keep it in line with how the current justice system works. The current justice system is broken, full stop. All we have to do is listen to the stats and read the paper. A CTV reporter tweeted this past weekend that she had someone criminally charged for harassing her. She was told to contact the police the minute he contacted her again. He is supposed to be in jail, but he is out. That is the danger, and that is why the bill and the amendments were put forward.

The bill would amend the Criminal Code with respect to bail pending trial and with respect to peace bonds, to provide that a judge, and in some cases a peace officer, may impose, as a condition of release, an electronic bracelet on an accused who is released pending trial or on a defendant who has entered into a section 810 peace bond. Electronic monitoring creates a security perimeter between the two intimate partners. The victim can carry a transmitter with them at all times, allowing them to maintain the safety perimeter even if they are away from home, giving the power to the victim.

I am asking every member of the House to please vote in support of the amendments. Let us strengthen our justice system and protect victims from domestic violence.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

There are 12 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill S-205.

Motions Nos. 1 to 12 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 12 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration 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), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, in relation to 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). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I would also like to say congratulations to Senator Boisvenu, who brought forward this bill and who has been a voice for so many victims across Canada. The 11 of us really appreciated working on such an important bill that had such personal intent.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Okay.

To go back to that other question, then, it's still at the judge's discretion whether or not this happens. Then we come back to judge training, etc., which is a whole other can of worms outside of this bill.

If I'm understanding correctly, with Keira's law, Bill C-233, the victim doesn't get to monitor the electronic bracelet; it's just the police officials and law enforcement. However, with this bill, Bill S-205, it was written into the bill. Is that correct?

It's not? Okay. I stand corrected.

[Chelsea Moore]

Thanks for the question.

To clarify, Bill S-205 would not be taking it out. What the changes—

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I think one of the big concerns around this one, and why it was so contentious, was that this was the foundation of the bill for the senator, in that the victim would have access to see where their attacker was.

My question to you, again through the legal world, is whether that would happen.

The other thing I can't reconcile here is that if it's covered in Bill C-233, why wouldn't it just be put in Bill S-205? I don't understand why you wouldn't do that for consistency.

There are two questions there. Number one, would the victim still be able to monitor and have that choice to monitor if this is removed? Number two, if it's already in Bill C-233, wouldn't it be more consistent to keep it in Bill S-205?

I apologize that you guys went to legal school and I did not.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

The reason I bring this up is that in my past life, I was a branch manager. Someone was released on bail with a bracelet, and he was not allowed to come within a certain distance of any bank—not just the branch I was at, but any branch.

Guess what? It didn't work. From what I was told by the police—and this happened a long time ago—there was a method in which he could still be wearing it but not have it correspond. I don't know how that works; I'm not a criminal.

That's what scares me. It scares me that we're still not putting the victims first, and I'm wondering if this is going to....

We need to pass Bill S-205, yes, but I want to make sure that all the protections for the victims are in place so that what happened to the senator's daughter doesn't happen again. That's my worry.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Just on that point, my understanding is that with Bill C-233, the judge has the discretion to require the ankle bracelet, so that's already in place today.

My understanding of the G‑1 motion that we had that Anna and Michelle were debating is that the amendment was removed because it would be automatically imposed, regardless of a judge's judgment, and this would then, we heard, penalize indigenous and marginalized women because it was automatic. The judge had no....

The way S-205 was written, it was explicit that the ankle bracelet would go on automatically, so there wasn't that discretion for the judge to decide.

The victims will be protected. I'm not a lawyer, as Michelle said, but that aspect, I thought, was because Bill S-205 would have penalized marginalized and indigenous women. Now the judge has the obligation and discretion in Bill C-233 not to marginalize and penalize indigenous women, but to make sure that if the ankle bracelet is needed, it would be put in place. Does that explain it?

[Chelsea Moore, Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I can speak to the effect of the G-1 motion that was voted on previously, if that's helpful to the committee.

The effect of the G-1 motion was that electronic monitoring would not be explicitly listed as a bail condition that a court could impose for all offences. That's what Bill S-205 had proposed—that electronic monitoring be added so that it could be imposed for all offences. Currently the conditions listed in subsection 515(4) of the Criminal Code are standard conditions that are routinely imposed and more broadly applicable to the different types of charges that come before the court.

For example, it says to report to a police officer, “remain within a [certain] territorial jurisdiction”, not to contact the victim or go to a certain area of the city. These are standard conditions that are routinely imposed, and that's why they fall under the standard bail conditions list.

Any condition that is added to the standard list does have the potential to become more routinely imposed, simply because it's easy to check off once it's on the list. While in many cases it could be considered a necessary condition, it could also be routinely imposed, even though it might not be reasonable or necessary. However, as mentioned previously, even if it's removed from that list—and it's not included in this bill—it would still be allowed to be imposed where appropriate, because a judge has this residual power to impose any condition that's reasonable or necessary. However, judges would be required to “consider” electronic monitoring as a result of the changes made in Bill C-233 in cases of domestic violence.

[Julia Nicol, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question.

Originally, as was explained by the member, that's what would happen. However, you'll remember that subclause 1(2) of Bill S-205, regarding electronic monitoring, has been removed. Bill S-205 no longer deals with electronic monitoring in the bail context. It's still in the peace bond. At this point it's not necessary because we're not addressing the same things anymore.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 93 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-205 , an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act.

At the meeting of December 4, the committee adopted the following: clause 1 as amended by amendments G-1 and G-2; clause 4; clause 5; clause 9; and clause 10. At the meeting of December 11, the committee adopted amendments G-3 and G-4 pertaining to clause 2. At the meeting of January 30, the committee adopted clause 2 as amended by G-5, NDP-2, G-6 and G-7; clause 3 as amended by G-8; clause 6 as amended by G-9, G-10 and G-11; and clause 7 as amended by G-12.

(On clause 8)

Today we are resuming debate on amendment G-13, which pertains to clause 8. G-13 was moved by Lisa on January 30.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

Before I go to Madame Larouche, I want to say that this motion was referred to the subcommittee, and we will proceed to Bill S-205.

Madame Larouche, do you want to speak?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I really want to thank everybody today. This has actually been more productive than I expected it would be. There is definitely a concern that Bill S-205 was put forward and doesn't put victims' rights in the driver's seat. I know we have to work together to ensure that it's not amended to the point that it compromises victims.

With that being said, I think there are a few more amendments that our team wants to spend some time on, dive deeper into and discuss, because we have until April to get this bill back to the House to ensure that it passes for Senator Boisvenu.

In the interim, we've just come back from time in our constituencies, time to go home, time to listen and time to meet with people on the ground. Because we're the status of women committee, and I know you all care, I want to move a motion—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Sure. Thank you so much.

I want to move that Bill S-205, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 2 the following:

(4.1) If the informant or the defendant is Indigenous, the provincial court judge shall consider whether, instead of making an order under subsection (3) or (4), it would be more appropriate to recommend that Indigenous support services, if any are available, be provided.

I think it's something that was long fought for in terms of recognizing the impacts of colonization, the Gladue principles, and principles that were supported in the Ipeelee case.

I am merely ensuring that it's consistent with Canadian law. That's it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Right now, I'm torn about whether I want Bill S‑205 to pass. Honestly, it must pass.

Unfortunately, the year started badly for me. I learned through the media that the first femicide of the year in Quebec took place in my area, in Granby. In front of the media, I pledged to make every effort to help this committee take concrete steps to ensure that not one more femicide occurs.

I would like Bill S‑205 to pass. Everyone has questions. I would like us to try to move ahead with the consideration of this crucial and significant bill.

I'm trying to form an opinion on amendment G‑5. We obviously need to take steps to get this bill passed.

I also met with groups of women, just last week in Chicoutimi, who spoke about the need for access to a continuum of services, a term that often comes up. They also spoke about the need for society as a whole to take this issue seriously, both on a legal basis and as a public health, mental health and support issue. Our entire system must work together with community groups, which are doing an outstanding job.

In terms of amendment G‑5, I'm just trying to get a feel for it. I'm trying to understand what the legal experts are saying. Is this amendment sound? Does it make the bill less strict?

I'm having trouble forming an opinion on this amendment. I'll continue to follow and take part in the discussions. All I want is for Bill S‑205 to pass.

I understand that amendments have been moved. Ultimately, we must keep in mind that this bill is a vital part of our fight to end the femicide epidemic, which continues to claim too many victims across Quebec and Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Sonia Sidhu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act.

At the meeting of December 4, 2023, the committee adopted the following: clause 1 as amended by G-1 and G-2, clause 4, clause 5, clause 9 and clause 10. At the meeting of December 11, the committee adopted amendments G-3 and G-4 pertaining to clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Today we are resuming debate on amendment G-5 pertaining to clause 2, which was already moved. Now we are resuming debate on G-5.

Mrs. Vecchio.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Looking at the clock, we are past 5:30. I have a few more people on my list. Recognizing that there will be no way we're going to get through Bill S-205 today, I'm going to ask to adjourn shortly.

However, I'm going to let you know that I had a great walk over with a PS, who said, “Hey, what's Thursday looking like?” With everybody's agreement, Thursday's meeting will be cancelled so that we can continue on with everything.

Anyway, seeing that we have no further business today, I call this meeting adjourned.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

The questions have been raised.

As I understand it, the original version of Bill S‑205 stipulates that the defendant must keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than two years. Under this amendment, the period would change to 12 months, so I would like to understand the reasons for that.

What's the relationship to severity and consequences? Can one of the experts explain it to us? What is safer for victims? I will listen to what the experts have to say.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I think we're looking at the subamendment from Ms. Lewis. I just wanted to make a few comments.

As Leah pointed out, the Minister of Justice has also called gender-based violence an epidemic.

I just want to follow up on what Ms. Ferreri said about the changes to the original amendment. The idea is not to exclude intimate partners, but to include everyone who is close to the victim, so they have the right to provide information and request a peace bond. This is an improvement on the current situation because it removes obstacles.

That language is an improvement, because if we just put “intimate partner” in there, as Bill S-205 states, then family members or others cannot apply for a peace bond on behalf of the victim.

It is an improvement. I just wanted to add that. Now—

[Julia Nicol, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Here are some points for consideration.

The subamendment relates, as was mentioned, to the tests that a woman would have to meet to get a peace bond against her intimate partner. The current tests set out in Bill S-205 and in amendment G-3 require that she establish a reasonable fear of her intimate partner causing personal injury. The subamendment that we are now discussing would require belief on reasonable and probable grounds. The language added by the subamendment is not found in the existing peace bond provisions, so it would introduce a novel concept into the peace bond regime.

The six existing peace bonds require fear on reasonable grounds, which is a test known to the court and has been found to be constitutional—for example, in the case of R. v. Budreo in the Ontario Court of Appeal, which is often cited. There is a requirement that the person have the fear—the subjective part—but there is also a requirement, which has been interpreted in case law, for the judge to objectively assess whether that fear is reasonable, so that part addresses concerns that it would be an irrational fear and so forth. Case law has addressed that and interpreted the term to identify an objective requirement that the judge assesses.

It's not really possible to speculate on exactly what the courts would say on what the difference would be by adding “probable”. One possibility, which was alluded to earlier, is that it could be harder to get the peace bond. You would have to demonstrate that you don't just fear “on reasonable grounds” but that you fear “on reasonable and probable grounds” that you will be harmed by your spouse.

I'm not sure if that helps, but those are some considerations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'm going to remind everybody of the etiquette when it comes to making sure that we do not have our earpieces near the microphones and making sure that we put up our hands when necessary.

If we need to direct any questions, we have both Chelsea Moore and Julia Nicol here, who will be helping us today as we're going along through this.

Play with your mics and do everything properly. Let's not bug the translators. Let's be good.

Raise your hand if you have any comments. I will be keeping a speaking order throughout the day. Members in the room, if you wish to speak, also raise your hand.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the committee will commence consideration of 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.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-205. As a reminder, we did start it, but we had an amendment, and a lot of things go through there.

As members already know, this is an examination of all clauses of the bill in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call out each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to a clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no member wishes to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in your package. I will try to go slowly as we do this. Amendments have been given numbers, as everybody remembers. You have the numbers in the top corner.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These amendments must be submitted in writing. Just as a reminder, we do know that we need legal translation. If we're working ahead of time, let's just make sure that we're doing that.

Let's just get right to work. I think everybody is ready to get to work.

At the meeting on December 4, the committee adopted the following. We adopted clause 1 as amended by G-1 and G-2. We adopted clause 4. We adopted clause 5. We adopted clause 9, and we adopted clause 10.

(On clause 2)

We are resuming debate on clause 2 with the subamendment to amendment G-3. The subamendment was moved by Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis, I'm going to pass it back over to you, because we are on the subamendment to G-3.

I will start by passing the floor over to you for discussion.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Bill S-205 is still being studied, Michelle. I look forward to what comes out of this committee.

Thank you so much.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Michelle, it's good to see you.

First and foremost, our government under Minister Virani has declared intimate partner violence an epidemic. My home province of Ontario, under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, has not, so I will start there.

With respect to Bill S-205, it's my understanding, Michelle, that it's being studied by a committee and that clause-by-clause is still in progress. As a guest of this committee, I will not speak to the decisions of committee members and the decisions they are making here. However, I will say, with regard to intimate partner violence, that just this year Keira's law was passed.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here today.

There are some serious issues happening in our country. You said on record in your statement today, Minister, that “policy comes from things that are measured”. Those were your words. In the past year, more than 50 cities and municipalities across Ontario have declared intimate partner violence and gender-based violence to be an epidemic, including Toronto, Sudbury, Hamilton, Kingston and my hometown of Peterborough. One woman is killed every other day in Canada inside the terrifying rates of violence and, under this Prime Minister, violence against women has increased 79%.

This is my question for you today, Minister. We are studying Bill S-205 in this committee. The intention of Bill S-205 is to better protect individuals who file domestic violence complaints. As well, it creates a peace bond in the Criminal Code that is specific to and provides for more severe conditions for individuals accused of domestic violence, and the bill would allow the judge to require the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device if the judge determines that the victim's safety and life are at risk during the interim release period.

It is pretty important legislation that was brought forth by a senator whose own daughter was murdered, but in this committee, the Liberals and NDP voted to remove the two major components of that bill, one being victim consultation and the other being the words “intimate partner”. They voted to remove “intimate partner” and replace it with “persons”.

You've said here that we have an epidemic. You say we have an issue with gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. How can you justify your party's removing this from the bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Although that is the case, it needs to be legally translated. It cannot just be done by brilliant people like you. It has to be done as an official translation for legality reasons. It has to go through that.

I know we have some amazing people in here. We could translate that, but there are certain words that are very important, especially in a court of law.

Seeing no other questions or comments, I will just remind everybody that on Thursday we have the estimates with Minister Ien. We'll be rescheduling a portion for this meeting as well, so that we can get back to Bill S-205. We'll get a new schedule out to you, because we need to get back to this as well.

Seeing no other questions or comments, today's meeting is adjourned.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Just quickly, Madam Chair, I think this is simply technical, and I don't know about the aspect of clause 2, but essentially when we are looking at ensuring the two bills' language, I don't see that amendment G-14 takes away from Bill S-205. If I understand it correctly, it just aligns the two bills, and it doesn't take away or add. I thought this was a simple amendment.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

This is a technical coordinating amendment to ensure that Bill S-205 is in line with another bill that Parliament is studying, Bill C-21, should both bills be passed.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair.

It is that Bill S-205, in clause 2, be amended by (a) replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 2 with the following:

810.03(1) Any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to the intimate partner or a child of the other person, or to a child of the other person's intimate partner, may lay an information

(b) replacing lines 32 to 34 on page 2 with:

(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defen-

(c) replacing line 1 on page 3 with:

(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable

(d) replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 3 with:

or to secure the safety and security of the intimate partner or a child of the defendant, or a child of the defendant's intimate partner, including condi-

(e) replacing line 20 on page 3 with—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Amendment G‑2 is fairly straightforward.

It is that Bill S‑205, in clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 23 on page 1 with the following:

tenaire intime, s'il a été auparavant condamné

It simply involves changing the words “déclaré coupable” to “condamné”. The amendment is purely practical.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair. It's that Bill S-205, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 17 on page 1 with the following:

1(1) Paragraph 515(6)(b.1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by

and by replacing line 1 on page 2 with the following:

(2) The Act is amended by adding the following

If you want me to give the explanation, it's to remove measures that would require the court to ask whether the victim has been consulted about their safety and security needs prior to making an order for bail. That's why we are moving that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Good evening, everybody. It's Anita's birthday, so we'll be celebrating that. There's cake at the back.

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Everybody should understand, with the Zoom application, to just please put up your hand.

If I'm totally ignoring you—Emmanuella knows what this is like—just let me know. Say, “Karen, I need to hear from you.” For those in the room, just put up your hand and we'll make sure that we take down a list.

Interpretation, of course, is available. We've all used that before.

Today we have different people in the room, so for those who are on Zoom, it looks a bit different. We have Chelsea Moore here, and Julia Nicol. We also have some legislative clerks who are going to be helping us with this legislation.

We also have a new clerk, so he's going to be getting used to how it is to work with me.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the committee will commence consideration of 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.

When ready to start, we're going to go clause by clause. There have been a lot of different clause-by-clauses that we have done in the past in other committees, but this one is a little different. A lot of times we don't look at the justice bills.

I'm going to remind everybody that we're going to take it slowly. I think the most important thing is that we get this right. At the end of the day, this is all about the victims and ensuring that we get this right.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

As members already know, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package or in the bill. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. As Stephanie noted, we need them in both official languages so that we can circulate them around to everyone.

The Chair will move slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given a number. Everybody has the amendment. At the top corner, for instance, you will see a G-1, and that stands for Government-1. In your list and in the package, on the right-hand side you will see the number that we're referring to.

The amendment will then be open for debate. During debate on the amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. The report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Everybody has all of their information. You should have the bill, plus everybody should have the bill in PDF format. You'll see the line numbers on that.

I just want to make sure that everybody has a PDF format of the bill.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

I'm not sure if you know Bill S-205 that we're working on right now, sponsored by one of the senators who lost a daughter to the same situation. Hopefully we can make a difference in this Parliament to ensure that this never happens again with the electronic monitoring system, because it's a tragedy that we have no opportunity to protect the women we should be protecting.

Official Report

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

On September 21, during the debate at second reading on Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act on interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders, I read a quote on the record from Martine Jeanson, founder of the Maison des guerrières. Unfortunately, I mistakenly attributed the quote to Sarah Niman, legal counsel and assistant manager of legal services for the Native Women's Association of Canada.

The quote from Sarah Niman should have read:

Bill S-205 seeks to provide violence victims something of a voice. This bill places the onus on the criminal justice system to check in with victims, consider their safety through the proceedings, and produce outcomes that consider their safety. Bill S-205 does not create a response specifically tailored to Indigenous women, but it does create a framework for them to be seen and heard in a system that otherwise does not.

I deeply apologize for this error. I want the record to reflect accurately what was said and by whom. Therefore, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the Debates and any House multimedia recording of Thursday, September 21, 2023, be amended by deleting the words “Sarah Niman, from the Native Women's Association of Canada” and substituting the following: “Martine Jeanson, founder of the Maison des guerrières”.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

For the record, I know we were supposed to have the Liberal minister update that Victims Bill of Rights, but that hasn't been done.

Regarding bail reform, the Liberals passed Bill C-5, which allows dangerous sexual offenders to serve their sentences out on bail. You can imagine how this makes victims feel.

Given this legislative change, do you think that victims deserve initiatives and policy and legislation, such as Bill S-205, to give them more rights? Obviously, they are going to be consulted regarding electronic bracelets, which gives them a lot more power.

I will go to Ms. Mattoo to answer that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Latimer and Ms. Mattoo, thank you for being with us today to speak about Bill S-205.

Ms. Mattoo, regarding new subsection 515(3.1) that it is proposed to add to the Criminal Code, the justice hearing the application for interim release must first "ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused has been consulted about their safety and security needs", where the intimate partner is the victim of the offence alleged.

The present subsection 515(3) states that the justice making an order shall consider "whether the accused is charged with an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against their intimate partner". In a case in which the presumed victim is not the intimate partner of the accused, are there other things that should be done to protect the intimate partner or the victim?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to begin by thanking our witnesses for being here, the ones who are on the current panel and also the ones on the previous panel, who have come here to express the views they have and all of their experiences working with these communities who are under-represented and who are overly incarcerated. I appreciate the views that are being brought forward, because it's important to take into account all perspectives when putting forward legislation. I just want to make sure that it's known that I very much appreciate your presence here today.

To both of the witnesses on this panel, you've spoken to some of the shortcomings in Bill S-205. You specifically mentioned shortcomings with regard to prevention and how the bill does little to prevent intimate partner violence. Also, you mentioned the fact that it could put certain communities more in danger than they already are. It could make certain victims get the negative parts of this bill applied to them as well, so it will just increase the amount of inequality that exists in our society.

I am hoping that you heard the previous testimony as well, because there were certain recommendations that were brought forward by previous witnesses, including amendments that could be made to the bill in its current form.

Is there anything that you would like to add in terms of specific amendments that haven't been mentioned already that you think can help bring that prevention piece in or that you think can help those who don't feel protected by the justice system, by police, etc.? What are some of the things that you think we should be including in here if we weren't to completely reject the bill and we were to pass it eventually? What is missing from it, and could you be a little bit more specific?

I'll start with Ms. Mattoo because I see her on the screen, and then we'll go to Ms. Latimer.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Do the excerpts that I read just now, from the testimony of women who came here to the committee, not reflect the reality and very concrete lived experience that urge us to adopt Bill S-205? Does that testimony not say something like: "We are the ones who experience it, we have experienced this situation and we help women, hundreds of women, to try to get out of it"? Should that not be enough to persuade us to take action today?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Hello, Ms. Mattoo.

If I understand correctly, you support the bill. You may want there to be improvements, but you support Bill S-205, is that right?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

It seems to me that the testimony we have heard and the experience we have had in Quebec with anti-approach bracelets compel us to act and to adopt Bill S-205. Sincerely, I find it hard to see how technical effects can try to persuade us not to adopt this bill.

I am going to stop here, because I do not have much time, Ms. Latimer. It would have been interesting to continue the discussion.

Ms. Mattoo, you are in virtual mode, is that right? Are you there?

[Catherine Latimer]

Well, I think there are technical reasons as well as substantive reasons for not proceeding now with Bill S-205. The primary one is that Parliament has already looked at almost the exact wording of the provision in the judicial interim release reverse onus provision, so it will already have made a determination. That bill, Bill C-48, includes a review provision so that the effect of those particular provisions can be looked at and changed more if need be.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Latimer, thank you for travelling today to appear before our committee.

We have the transcripts of the testimony that was heard on Monday, and I am going to read you a short excerpt from Diane Tremblay's testimony:

An electronic bracelet establishes a safety perimeter between victims and their abusers and can prove any failure to comply with conditions. ... Even though I frequently reported my abuser, he always got off scot-free, unlike me. So I'm begging you to seriously consider requiring the wearing of an electronic bracelet. I believe it's a no‑brainer. We deserve to be heard, and for our rights and essential needs to be respected.

I am a bit surprised that you have told us today not to adopt Bill S-205, at least not right now. I think you were in the room earlier. I am really very surprised, and even speechless, given the...

[Catherine Latimer]

In conclusion, the John Howard Society of Canada urges the committee not to pass Bill S-205 at this time, as the House has unanimously passed Bill C-48 and the bill is now in the Senate, which gave attention to the issue of intimate partner violence during the bail process and already includes a key measure that is proposed in this bill. Further, the range of section 810 recognizance orders is already adequate to deal with the fear of intimate partner violence, and the proposals in Bill S-205 are disproportionately harsh.

I agree with what the witnesses had to say before. The criminal justice system has a very limited range of tools that it can use to assist with intimate partner violence. The better answers lie outside the criminal justice system.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee members. It's a great pleasure to be here. I want to thank you very much for seeking the views of the John Howard Society on Bill S-205.

As a charity, we're committed to effective, just and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. The John Howard Society is concerned about preventing crime, and about appropriate and effective consequences for having committed crimes.

Preventing intimate partner violence is a shared goal, but our assessment is that there's very little in Bill S-205 that would make a difference in preventing violence.

Bill S-205 amendments really pertain to two areas. One is the judicial interim release provisions, or bail provisions, and the other is the new category of recognizance orders relating to the fear of domestic violence.

In terms of the judicial interim release provisions, there is a heavy reliance, as the other witnesses have mentioned, on electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial release if it is sought by the Attorney General.

We would first point out that the research on electronic monitoring has been inconclusive in terms of its effectiveness in preventing crime.

Second, the technology is very expensive, and it is important to note who would be paying for the device and for its monitoring. Given that it is the AG who is seeking it, can we safely assume that it would be the AG who is paying for it? That's not always the case; often, individuals who are released on bail or on community sentences are being asked to pay for the monitoring. This actually worsens a class bias in the criminal justice system through which the affluent are more likely to benefit and the marginalized and impoverished, including members of the indigenous and Black communities, are more likely to be denied.

The reverse onus provisions that are being proposed in paragraph 515(6)(b.1) mirror the contentious provisions that were included in Bill C-48, which make prior discharges equivalent to convictions, triggering the reverse onus provision for bail for prior intimate partner violence offences. Many witnesses appearing before the Senate on Bill C-48 cautioned that including discharges would raise charter concerns.

There is almost a retroactive application to this provision, which is troubling. Many accused, including women who are also often charged when it is unclear who initiated the domestic conflict, might have agreed to plead guilty to an offence that might otherwise have been successfully contested at trial on the understanding that the discharge would have no future negative criminal justice implications for them. Now it would.

In any event, the equivalent of this section will have already been accepted or dropped in Bill C-48, making this section duplicative or possibly inconsistent with the will of Parliament.

The second major area is the recognizance orders. Our view is that the proliferation of section 810 orders to reflect the fear of certain types of future crimes is unnecessary and bad policy. Existing sections 810 and 810.2, which specifically refer to intimate partner violence, are adequate to cover those fearing domestic violent offences.

It should be noted that the proposed intimate personal violence recognizance in this bill is triggered by a fear of a personal injury offence, yet section 810.2 recognizance is triggered by a fear of a “serious personal injury offence”. This indicates that the latter category applies to persons who pose more of a threat of serious harm, yet Bill S-205 proposes much harsher treatment of the former for the 810 order than for the 810.2 orders, and this will create a sense of a disproportionate, unfair response based on the severity of the risk posed.

There are also some amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but I won't get into those for fear of running overtime.

[Deepa Mattoo, Executive Director, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you, honourable chair and committee members. I am Deepa Mattoo, lawyer and executive director of the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic in Toronto.

I truly appreciate this opportunity to address you today and to present the submissions on behalf of the clinic.

The clinic offers trauma-informed legal services and representation, counselling, multilingual interpretation, and system transformation support to women and gender-diverse people who have experienced violence. Our efforts are rooted in the foundational principles of intersectionality, trauma-informed care, and a resolute dedication to a client-centred approach.

In my submissions today I want to focus on the voice of our clients. I will articulate four key points in response to the proposed amendments. I will talk about how these changes relate to the experiences of survivors of gender-based violence, the implications for the marginalized communities, an assessment of the current conditions of our system and finally a recommendation for evidence-based law reform.

Starting with the voice of survivors, I would like to begin by expressing my support for proposed subsection 515(3.1). We think it's a step in the right direction to require the justice overseeing a bail hearing to inquire with the prosecutor about whether the accused's intimate partner has been consulted regarding their safety and security needs.

This underscores the importance of taking into account the well-being and concerns of the intimate partner and provides an opportunity for survivors to explain what they are afraid of and what court orders might help them. We question, however, whether the provision goes far enough. Is there a way to ensure not only that survivors are consulted but that their concerns are actually presented to the court to assess how the conditions address them?

With a similar view, proposed subsection 515(14.1) helpfully requires the judge to ask if the survivor has been informed of their right to a copy of the court’s order. We submit that the amendment could also require that a copy be provided to the survivor. In the clinic’s experience, survivors can wait for a week to obtain a copy of the bail conditions, which are usually very general in nature, rather than tailored to the specific safety concerns during the ongoing legal proceeding.

With respect to the amendment to proposed section 810.03, which creates a recognizance order specifically for situations of intimate partner violence, we recommend an additional survivor-centred approach. Protection should be available for both current and previous intimate partners, as our experience shows that violence can persist after partners have separated and in many cases actually escalates to lethality at the time of the separation. In addition, informants seeking the recognizance order should be given the option to attend court on a different day than the defendant.

I wish to emphasize that many of the amendments in Bill S-205 are a step toward empowering individuals who fear potential harm from their intimate partners and reflect your commitment to creating a safer and more responsive legal environment. However, I want to submit that there are inadvertent repercussions for historically marginalized communities from indigenous backgrounds, Black backgrounds, non-status people, migrant communities and disabled people. From our observations, these consequences may include the following.

The first is misuse or false accusations against the survivors themselves. You have heard in detail from Elizabeth Fry Societies how the system is sometimes challenging for the survivors themselves when they have this complex relationship and they get charged.

The second is the chilling effect on reporting. That's another fear that we have: The legal repercussions may unintentionally deter people who are genuinely in need from reporting their concerns. It is vital to address any barriers that might discourage individuals from seeking the protections they require.

The third is the strain on already limited legal resources. I'm sure this committee has heard from other people on this aspect too. There is already a very stretched legal resources issue in this country. Adequate measures should be implemented to manage potential backlogs and maintain the efficiency of the legal system if these amendments go forward.

The fourth is the stigmatization of accused individuals. We must be vigilant about the unintended societal stigma that accused individuals may face, even if later proven innocent. Public perceptions can have lasting impacts on people's personal and professional lives. It can also lead to increased criminalization of marginalized communities—survivors who don't speak English, survivors who are from the migrant communities, and indigenous and Black survivors.

I submit that changes to the legal landscape like this need to go hand in hand with additional legal aid support for survivors and options—

[Sarah Niman]

In terms of education, one thing I want to raise that hasn't been raised today—I think it answers your question—is how proceedings in the criminal court are “R. v.”—it's “the Crown versus”, not “the victim versus”. One thing this bill does that we haven't seen frequently enough is give victims a voice in those proceedings. Previous to this bill, they have not enjoyed that.

NWAC honours and celebrates the fact that if Bill S-205 passes, there will be legislated opportunities that require those who hold all the power to consult with the otherwise powerless victims and ensure they're at least made aware and consulted throughout processes that are typically stacked against them.

[Sarah Niman]

Thank you.

I'm going to lean on two truths that we hold to be true: One is that disproportionately, indigenous women are victims of domestic and intimate partner violence, and that indigenous women are overincarcerated in our federal prisons.

NWAC's position on Bill S-205, to respond to your question about whether there are unintended harms, is to ask that this committee, in its study, be alive to some of those unintended consequence vis-à-vis overincarceration of indigenous women.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Niman, Ms. Coyle and Ms. Parsa, thank you for your testimony.

The committee held its first meeting on Bill S-205 on Monday. We heard victims testify and explain the importance of this bill, to protect them. As victims, they asked us, as legislators, to move forward. We also heard the testimony of Senator Boisvenu.

I spoke with Senator Dalphond, who collaborated on this bill. He has had serious discussions, in particular with representatives of associations of shelters for victims of spousal violence in Quebec, who asked him to work to have this bill enacted.

The Government of Quebec worked conscientiously to produce the “Rebâtir la confiance” report, which contains hundreds of pages and is the result of non-partisan collaboration. All political parties in Quebec worked on the report, taking a feminist approach, and perhaps a less partisan approach than elsewhere. It is great to see how they were able to produce this report and how they gave it a very meaningful title, one that means rebuilding confidence. The loss of confidence is at the heart of the problem in the system at present. Victims have no confidence. They need tools, they need concrete action that shows them we are acting and we want to restore their confidence in the system, we want to hear them and listen to them.

This summer, I met with a member of the provincial legislature of Quebec who told me that the ball was now in the federal government's court. The Government of Quebec has done its share of the work. It has enacted a bill concerning electronic bracelets and launched a pilot project of courts specializing in sexual violence. Listening to victims and having better trained judges can happen in tandem with using anti-approach bracelets. At present, this system is operating in various places in Quebec.

Some hesitation has been expressed, particularly as regards connectivity, but Senator Dalphond told me yesterday that this was not a valid objection since cellphone coverage will continue to expand in Quebec and elsewhere, in rural areas. In Quebec, as elsewhere in Canada, there is still work to be done in certain rural areas, but it is being done and it is moving ahead. The senator is confident that coverage is going to expand.

Ms. Parsa, as I explained, electronic monitoring has therefore been one of the options that judges can consider for some time now, particularly in provinces like Quebec, which has launched its pilot project, its anti-approach bracelet program. Have you started to examine that project and look into the results? Although it is a pilot project, have you studied what is being done in Quebec? Could you explain a bit of what you have learned?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I was on a roll when I was interrupted, but I know where I was.

I am going to read an excerpt from the testimony given by Martine Jeanson, who said:

If my former spouse had been wearing an electronic bracelet, I would have been shielded from his attempted murder and all his other victims would have been informed.

And others had said it before her.

The way things stand, it's impossible to protect ourselves properly from a violent ex‑spouse, because we have no warning that he is coming. The group of 100 women we worked with on the project consists exclusively of spousal violence victims, at least half of whom endured an attempted murder. We all agree that the only thing that might protect us is an electronic bracelet, because there is nothing to protect us right now. Over the past 20 years, I've worked with hundreds of women who needed help. There is no way to hide them. Men can track them down at their place of work or through their family. They can follow children to school or to their friends' homes. The man will never stop stalking them, following them, harassing them and harming them. Until wearing an electronic bracelet is required, women and their children will never be protected.

The two witnesses who spoke to us are women who were stalked by their spouses for years. What they told us is not just that we have to adopt Bill S-205, but that we have to adopt it as it stands, with no amendments.

I will conclude by saying that Senator Boisvenu is not a hothead; he is a poised, calm, very moderate and very progressive person. He experienced the murder of his daughter and he came, with evidence and statistics, to beg us to support this bill.

How can it be argued today that it is not a good idea to support Bill S-205, when it also includes everything that has been mentioned, including therapy and revision of section 810 of the Criminal Code?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the three witnesses who have made themselves available today.

I am going to come back to the testimony of the two victims of spousal violence who addressed the committee at the start of the week.

I am a bit amazed at what I heard this morning. I have the feeling that tools that could be put in place if Bill S-205 was adopted are being treated as an either‑or situation. This morning, a lot has been said about therapy, but also about the revision of section 810 of the Criminal Code, with which we are familiar and which really needs a good crank, as they say in Quebec. There was also discussion of the possibility of adopting electronic bracelets, an experiment that is being conducted in Quebec at present.

I think Bill S-205 will not in any way eliminate the right to rehabilitation. That is absolutely not its objective. Similarly, it will also not infringe the rights of accused persons or anyone else in civil society.

Where I come from, in Quebec, we say you cannot be too careful. If we can go for both belt and braces, we should do it, particularly when there are victims involved.

Before giving the floor back to the witnesses, and to Ms. Coyle in particular, I would like to read—if you will permit me, Madam Chair—an excerpt from the testimony we heard from Martine Jeanson at the start of the week, who had—

[Sarah Niman, Senior Director, Legal Services, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Hello. Bonjour. Boozhoo.

Honourable committee members and Chair, thank you for inviting NWAC to bring indigenous women's voices into your study on Bill S-205 here on unceded Algonquin territory.

The indigenous women, girls, two-spirit, trans and gender-diverse people NWAC represents remind us that it is one thing to be heard in these hallowed halls, but it's another to see change in their communities.

Indigenous women are much more vulnerable to domestic violence than other women in Canada. They face the highest, most disproportionate rates of domestic violence and are targeted in an ongoing MMIWG genocide.

In this committee's study of Bill S-205, I want to talk about power. Bill S-205 gives victims more power, but it does not account for indigenous women's systemic disempowerment. Here is what I mean.

Bill S-205 would not have helped the Inuk woman and domestic violence survivor in R. v. L.P. at the Quebec Court of Appeal in 2020. She was displaced from her community by colonial policies. She was unhealthy because she lived in poverty and without supports to get well. She was dependent on her abusive partner and was vulnerable to his repeated and increasingly aggressive physical and sexual assaults.

If Bill S-205 had been enacted at the time, she would not have gone to the police for help or would not have asked a court to lay an information to protect her.

Violence is one of the key means through which abusers control women's agency and power. This Inuk woman was not empowered to ask for help, because in her lived experience, and in that of most indigenous women, the police are not there to protect them, and the trust is broken.

Indigenous women recently told NWAC that on the one hand, police are always watching them and are ready to catch them violating a condition or to alert social workers to remove their children from their care. On the other hand, when they are being abused within their homes, the police don't seem to be watching closely enough to be able to step in. This distrust poses a significant barrier that will prevent indigenous women from accessing the victim supports intended by Bill S-205.

This bill must incorporate indigenous justice principles. Many indigenous legal orders hold specific laws against gender-based violence. They hold offenders responsible and they aim to repair relationships between the victim and the community.

Victims also have a role in determining the abuser's punishment while receiving healing services of their own. Indigenous communities need indigenous-led approaches to resolving gender-based violence, and they need resources and supports to do this work. Much of this need is reflected in the findings of the MMIWG calls for justice.

NWAC recommends that this committee amend Bill S-205 by adding conditions under subsection 515(4) that are recommended by indigenous governing bodies with the authority to govern the accused. Where this bill allows a provincial court judge to lay an information before any physical family violence occurs, it could go further and could mandate judges to consider the available indigenous support services.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples directs legislators, including this committee, to work with indigenous people to protect indigenous women from all forms of violence.

Before I conclude, I want to raise the point that it is very important for this committee to study Bill S-205 in a way that does not worsen indigenous women's mass incarceration. Canada's correctional investigator's recent update noted that indigenous women make up more than half the adult prison population. In some prisons this is as high as 75%.

We heard in the other place that indigenous women often face double charging when police attend a domestic violence call. That means the police charge both the aggressor and the victim. At bail hearings for those charges, courts are still using unnecessary and unreasonable bail conditions against indigenous people at disproportionate rates.

NWAC agrees with the amendments to Bill S-205 that remove some reliance on electronic monitoring bracelets but presses this committee to remove all references to them.

As a grassroots organization, NWAC walks with indigenous women who seek help. We can provide resources, tool kits and supports, but there are systemic forces at play that are much too powerful for our organization to remedy on its own.

Bill S-205 must go further to account for indigenous women's lived realities if it is going to help reduce violence for all victims, especially the marginalized and vulnerable within this group.

Thank you, and NWAC remains available for further questions.

Meegwetch.

[Emilie Coyle, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies]

Thank you, honourable members and Chair. It is such a pleasure to be with you today, although, as you said, this is a very difficult topic.

I work as the executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. Our work is situated predominantly here on the territory of the Algonquin nation, although our work takes place across Turtle Island.

We work primarily to address the persistent ways that criminalized women and gender-diverse people are denied their humanity and excluded from community.

To begin, I wish to delve into the recommendations emanating from two recent inquiries that relate to intimate partner violence: the Renfrew inquiry, which happened not too far from here, and the Mass Casualty Commission from Nova Scotia.

Both inquiries advocate treating intimate partner violence as an epidemic, emphasizing the necessity for a comprehensive, all-government effort to eradicate this pervasive form of violence. They also underscore the urgency of epidemic-level funding for gender-based violence prevention and interventions and urge a society-wide response.

The Mass Casualty Commission report, at recommendation 16, specifically highlights the vital need to shift funding away from carceral responses and towards primary prevention, including by addressing poverty and promoting healthy masculinities.

My focus today, then, is on the carceral response to intimate partner violence— that is, the electronic monitoring piece contained in Bill S-205.

Obviously, we share the goal of addressing and preventing intimate partner violence, or IPV. Women and gender-diverse people disproportionately experience IPV due to the ongoing patriarchy and misogyny that we all experience, and this is even more pronounced for the indigenous women and gender-diverse people we work with who are contending with colonial oppression and also experiencing higher rates of intimate partner violence.

Many of the people we work with and alongside have experienced such violence. Data from the Correctional Service of Canada indicates a higher prevalence of physical and/or sexual abuse among the women and gender-diverse people we work with in prisons. These people represent some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Despite these stark realities, those we work with are not considered ideal victims, and that circumstance can lead to insufficient contemplation of the consequences of implementing carceral solutions, such as electronic monitoring, in their lives.

Legislative changes aimed at protecting vulnerable populations necessitate a critical examination of potential unintended consequences. In pursuing our goals of eradicating intimate partner violence, we must ask whether our efforts could inadvertently render already vulnerable individuals more susceptible.

With regard to this legislation, I question whether it will effectively curtail intimate partner violence in Canada or divert necessary resources that could be invested in prevention. Will it genuinely address the root causes of intimate partner violence, namely misogyny and patriarchy? I'll leave you to answer these questions for yourself.

Historically, well-intended legislation rooted in carceral responses has backfired, causing more harm than good. For instance, I'm sure you've heard of mandatory charging policies in intimate partner violence cases, which were obviously initially lauded by the sector advocating against violence against women. However, these policies resulted in dual charging—punishing both parties due to the perceived inability to determine the instigator, even though the “weapon” that may have been used by one party could have been a child's toy thrown as they were fleeing.

Similarly, there's a tangible risk that if this bill passes, the most vulnerable individuals may be the ones who end up wearing the electronic monitoring bracelets, further exacerbating their marginalization. The stigma associated with wearing these bracelets could intensify the challenges faced by individuals who are already overly surveilled and overly punished.

You are all very aware of the statistics regarding the overincarceration—or what some refer to as the mass incarceration—of indigenous women and gender-diverse people in this country. It is a crisis and it is shameful.

Electronic monitoring, as a reactive carceral response, falls short in addressing the deeper issues surrounding this violence. Tackling gender-based and intimate partner violence requires a multi-faceted approach that delves into the root causes of harm. Our focus should shift from a carceral response to a more sustainable, long-term approach.

Survivors have emphasized the need for social workers, financial assistance, housing, culturally specific—

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English, or French. For those in the room, please use your earpiece. You will find—you may already see this—your English, French and floor options as well.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to our interpreters, so I'm going to remind everybody to be careful with their mikes and be careful with their earpieces. Take all of those things into consideration on their behalf.

This is a reminder that all comments should come through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, just raise your hand. For those on Zoom, use the “raise hand” function.

Today we're going to be continuing with Bill S-205. I am going to give a trigger warning, because after my husband watched our meeting the other day, he said it is mandatory that we give a trigger warning.

Before we welcome our witnesses, I would like to provide this trigger warning. We will be discussing experiences related to violence and assault. This may be triggering to viewers with similar experiences. If you feel distressed or if you need help, please advise the clerk or look at me and we will do whatever we can to help. Let's get through all of this.

Now I would like to welcome our witnesses. It is wonderful to have our witnesses here today.

I would like to welcome Emilie Coyle in the room. She is executive director for the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. We have Sarah Niman, the senior director of legal services at the Native Women’s Association of Canada, who is also right here. We also have Roxana Parsa, who is a staff lawyer with the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, and we welcome her online.

What we will be doing is providing everybody with five minutes for their opening statements. I ask that you keep them to those five minutes so that we can have as much time for questions and answers as possible. When you see me start to move my arms, please bring your remarks to a close within about 15 seconds.

Today, as we continue with Bill S-205, I would like to invite Emilie for the first five minutes.

Go ahead, Emilie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Perfect. We are spending that money. If we need to discuss further, we can schedule committee business, but I would be looking for any amendments that you would want for Bill S-205 to be in by next Wednesday, November 29 at noon. That's where we were going. Does that sound good, everybody?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Unbelievable. I'm sitting up here just in shock.

We're actually at the end of our testimony today, although I believe we could probably listen to this group of people—you ladies and Phil and everybody else—for hours on end.

Thank you so much for the incredible testimony that the three of you have brought today.

Thank you very much, Senator Boisvenu, for bringing forward this bill and bringing forward witnesses who have this experience.

Before we leave I have two really quick things. I need to seek approval for a budget of $17,750 for Bill S-205. Does everyone agree?

[Diane Tremblay]

There are a lot of gaps at the moment. We aren't protected and Senator Boisvenu said so several times. We agree, and so does Ms. Jeanson. We are not the only women in this situation. We need protection. We are faced with an abuser and it's a matter of life or death. That's where we stand now.

Bill S‑205 will provide women with a tool that can keep them safe, as Ms. Jeanson said, before the assailant gets to the house.

I remember one occasion, among others, when I thought after three weeks that things had calmed down, when my abuser broke down my door. I jumped over the railing, ran down the street and climbed a fence. He caught up to me, forced me to the ground and put a knife to my throat. I shouted "fire" as loud as I could, because someone told me that when you shout "help" nobody will come. So I shouted "fire" and my neighbour came to my rescue with some others and surrounded him. But listen to this: he called me from the police car because they had forgotten to take away his cell phone. It was March 26, 2007. He called me when there was a police officer in the house with me, to tell me to drop my complaints. I won't tell you what he called me. He told me that I'd better watch out for what would happen to me if I didn't drop the charges. The policewoman who was there took some action afterwards. I'm saying this just to point out that he was in the police car when he called me and broke his conditions.

I can't tell you just how important the electronic bracelet will be once the bill is adopted. We have our reasons for requesting that there be no amendments to the bill. We are here before you to tell you what actually happens. We are the ones who really know. We want to be protected and we want to protect our children.

My abuser attacked my parents. I didn't see my parents for three years. I didn't see my sons for three years. I had taken my children and left them with their father. I'm telling you this because it was a very difficult time for me, and I'm only alive because of my neighbours. Because I jumped over the handrail and was able to run away. He followed me, caught me and threw me to the ground. I had a knife at my throat and I fought as hard as I could.

I can tell you that I'm very pleased to be here with you today, with Ms. Jeanson and Senator Boisvenu, to testify about all this.

[Martine Jeanson]

Yes, the perpetrators always know where we are. What they want is to get close to us, but we never know when they are going to arrive. If the Bill S‑205 is passed, we would hear an alarm warning us to leave and hide, and telling us that the police are on their way. We could go to a neighbour's, for example. If we were at work when the perpetrator shows up, we could stay in the office. We wouldn't go out alone on the street.

So the bracelet gives us a warning. The women who were murdered didn't see their perpetrator arrive. When the attempt was made on me, I didn't see him coming. He came in the back door. Once the perpetrator is there, it's too late. We need to have enough time to leave and hide.

[Diane Tremblay, Artist, As an Individual]

Kwe. Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Diane Tremblay and I am a former victim of spousal and family violence. I prefer using the term "survivor", because that's really what I am.

I'm here today to give my full support to Bill S‑205, which was introduced by Senator Boisvenu, and to represent and stand firmly with those victims, most of them women, who have been entangled in spousal and domestic violence. More specifically, I would like to show my support for indigenous women, who are overrepresented. The extent of the violence being committed against indigenous people can be seen in the large number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada.

We the victims deserve safety for ourselves and our children from the justice system. We are in 2023. How many more victims of spousal violence, and murdered women and children, will it take before you agree to make major changes to existing legislation?

I myself was a victim of spousal violence. During that difficult period of my life, from which I still bear the scars, I suffered from sexual assaults and two attempted murders by my perpetrator, along with every possible form of violence.

If my abuser had been required to wear an electronic bracelet under a recognizance order pursuant to section 810 of the Criminal Code, as proposed in Senator Boisvenu's bill, my children and I would have been safer and I wouldn't have had to go through these attempted murders. Believe me, you don't emerge unhurt from an attempted murder. You suffer the after-effects for life.

With electronic monitoring, I could have easily proved my abuser's failure to comply with his conditions and the police could have intervened much more quickly to put a stop to what was happening, and prevented what I, my children, my parents and my friends, went through. An electronic bracelet establishes a safety perimeter between victims and their abusers and can prove any failure to comply with conditions.

I'm going to add something that is not in my brief. Even though I frequently reported my abuser, he always got off scot-free, unlike me. So I'm begging you to seriously consider requiring the wearing of an electronic bracelet. I believe it's a no‑brainer. We deserve to be heard, and for our rights and essential needs to be respected.

In addition to requiring the wearing of an electronic bracelet, Bill S‑205 puts forward alternatives for violent men, such as the requirement to undergo spousal violence and substance abuse therapy. In some instances, violent men can be saved and changed. Therapy can address the root cause of the problem.

Currently, violent men in prison are given six hours of therapy. I underwent five years of therapy. So I believe that six hours is unacceptable. You can't call that therapy. No one can acquire a proper awareness of their own violence and their assaults in six hours of therapy. That just a rap on the knuckles in my view.

I also believe, and this applies to what I underwent, that the right provided in Bill S‑205 for the victim to be consulted by a justice of the peace with respect to her safety and protection needs is absolutely essential to address the immediate safety measures being requested by the victim. What really prevents women from breaking out of the domestic violence cycle is the feeling that the justice system doesn't protect them, which happens to be true. Governments often promise funding for women's shelters, but that's not the solution for contending with spousal violence.

The causes of violence are what have to be attacked. That means measures like those proposed in the bill, which also provides a specific protection order for spousal and domestic violence.

On my own behalf…

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I would like to welcome Diane Tremblay and Martine Jeanson. Online, we have Philip Viater, whom many of us may recognize from Keira's law.

It's really wonderful that you could join us online today, Phil. I'm glad we were able to make this work.

I would like to thank all of you for coming and for your testimony on Bill S-205. If you have any questions with your mikes.... Here is one thing: If you need to turn it to interpretation for French or English, it's at the very top that you can turn it to floor, English or French. Then it also allows you to increase the volume.

What I would like to do now is welcome Diane Tremblay, an artist. From La Maison des Guerrières, we have Martine Jeanson, president, founder and frontline worker. As an individual, we have Philip Viater, a lawyer, who is online by video conference.

We will be providing each of you with five minutes for your opening comments. When you see my arms start going wacky, just try to reduce it, because you have about 10 to 15 seconds left.

I'm going to pass the floor over to Diane first for her opening comments.

Diane, you have the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much.

On behalf of the committee, Senator Boisvenu, I would like to thank you so much for coming here and bringing forward Bill S-205. These are things that this committee is very passionate about when it comes to violence against women, so thank you for coming forward and bringing your testimony today.

We're going to suspend. Hopefully, we will only be seconds. I'm going to ask the new panellists to come up, and we will switch over.

We are suspending for about a minute.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Once again, thank you, Senator, for returning to the committee today.

With everything I have been hearing, I'm very worried about my 21‑month‑old granddaughter. I wonder about the kind of environment she will be growing up in and what her relationships with men will be like.

Getting back now to Bill S‑205, my understanding is that even someone who has been cleared of a previous charge of domestic violence would have to prove, if charged with another offence, that he does not deserve to be remanded in custody. That's more or less reversing the burden of proof. Can this create an imbalance between the defence and the Crown, because it amounts to removing the presumption of innocence before the guilty verdict is reached?

A verification of whether the risk of criminal acting out prevails over the presumption of innocence principle, and of whether it should be applied to all accused, may be necessary. How do you see it?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

That's the advantage of Senator Dalphond's amendment. If Bill S‑205 is adopted, there will be a correlation between the two bills. Combining the two would expand the use of electronic bracelets. However, it must never be forgotten that only a justice can order the wearing of an electronic bracelet. The justice's decision must be based on the victim's safety, in terms of protecting both her life and her health. I don't believe the bill would be contradictory, but rather complementary. The scope of the act would simply be broadened for justices when they have a victim before them. Bill C‑233 limits the number of victims who might be affected and the number of criminal circumstances, while Bill S‑205 broadens the scope. However, decision authority will always rest with the justices.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Senator, and thank you for being a good ally, participating in an end to gender-based violence. Thank you for your work.

I know this is your last bill, so I commend you and thank you for that.

We passed Bill C-233, which provides for electronic monitoring in cases of intimate partner violence. I know in your bill, the current wording of Bill S-205 would allow the Attorney General to request electronic monitoring for any release order under subsection 515(2). Do you think that subclause 1(2) of the bill is redundant?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

Thank you for the question.

That leads me into a discussion of my second career, which consists of giving talks at elementary and secondary schools. There is indeed a problem between girls and boys, particularly when they are involved in their first emotional experience. I'm not talking about love. This relationship often involves intimidation and power, even at a young age.

I remember something that happened in grades eight and nine at a school in northern Montreal. A young girl was huddled in a corner. She seemed to be crushed and bullied by the group. When she got into the bus, she told her teacher, who was there, that no one was ever going to bully her again.

Women have to be taught to take control of their lives, to be sure, but men also need to be taught to respect women, because violence against women is primarily something that men do. It's important to stop believing that women alone will be able to control spousal violence. Men are the cause of spousal violence and women are on the receiving end. That's why Bill S‑205 focuses on therapy.

Until an emphasis is placed on mandatory therapy for domestic violence problems—as Ontario has done for a number of years now with considerable success, as indigenous communities in western Canada have done with considerable success, and as has been done for 18‑ and 19‑year‑olds in court for drinking and driving—the number of murdered women will be the same in five years. Work needs to begin at both levels when people are still very young, rather than waiting until they have reached adulthood.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Boisvenu.

I know that you are appearing in a specific context. You've been conducting a lifelong battle and are approaching your 75th birthday, when most people would be retiring.

As for me, when I graduated from my CEGEP in 2002, I returned to the Eastern Townships. As a Quebec woman, I was struck by the fact that I had my whole life ahead of me.

We are at the moment trying to make sure that there isn't “yet another one”. I think that's the sort of thing you have in mind. As you mentioned December 6, I'd like to start with some context.

I read a disturbing story in the news about rising instances of misogyny in schools, with some people going so far as to celebrate Marc Lépine on social networks. The teachers don't know what to do about it. Without saying anything more about Bill S‑205, what do you think about the issue of education, social networks and the role they play in violence against women?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much.

Some people are required to wear an electronic bracelet as a means of reintegrating them into society, which is already the case in Quebec. However, some remove the bracelet and commit offences. Can the bill that you are proposing, Bill S‑205, help to reduce this risk? Have you taken this into consideration? Has something been provided in this bill that might be a solution to the problem?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much for your answer.

You spoke briefly about Bill C‑233, which has force of law in Canada and says that a justice may decide to require a person who committed a violent offence against a woman to wear an electronic bracelet. Now you're saying that you don't want this to apply solely to cases of violence against women, but to be used more widely. Can you tell us why you decided to widen its applicability in Bill S‑205?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

The second part of Bill S‑205 pertains to the recognizance orders to keep the peace and be of good behaviour provided in section 810 of the Criminal Code, which means approximately 80% of domestic violence cases. Take note of that number: 80% of domestic violence cases end up with a recognizance order under section 810, that is to say without a trial or a charge. This section provides a general preventive justice regime, without any offence having been committed, but it establishes a source of criminal responsibility.

In November 2020, a report on section 810 was presented by the Université de Montréal and the Université du Québec à Montréal, in partnership with the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale. The report shows that this section is being used increasingly in domestic violence cases, even though it has been altered very little since its 1892 version. The report also notes a troubling finding, which is that section 810 is now most often used to avoid a trial, even though perpetrators subject to an order under this section fail to comply with the conditions in 50% of cases.

Bill S‑205 amends section 810 of the Criminal Code by adding to the current general order another that is specifically related to domestic violence. Electronic monitoring can establish a safety perimeter between the victim and the potential perpetrator. This means that police can intervene more quickly. It can also protect children, and the woman herself. Political action in Spain to combat domestic violence began in 1997. That country adopted electronic bracelets in 2009. Since then, some 950 women have been protected thanks to the bracelet, and no women were murdered when the bracelet was worn.

According to the new order, if a person has previously been convicted of a similar offence, the order would be for three years rather than two years. If the person refuses to comply with the conditions of the order, the prison term would be two years rather than the current one year.

The new proposed order would allow a justice to impose substance abuse or family violence therapy, which is something new in the Criminal Code. Every case is different and we have to allow justices the discretion they need to decide whether the accused should undergo therapy to help deal with their problem of violence and also put an end to the revolving doors in our courthouses.

I'd like to conclude with two comments. The first is from Justice Laskin, from the Budreo decision:The criminal justice system has two broad objectives: punish wrongdoers and prevent future harm. A law aimed at the prevention of crime is just as valid an exercise of the federal criminal law power under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 as a law aimed at punishing crime.

My final comment is a reminder that in only a few weeks, it will be the unfortunate anniversary of the event that occurred on December 6, the most deadly ever for women in Canada. I am hoping for one thing only: that we give them this bill as a sign of our support for December 6.

Thank you. I would be happy now to field any questions you may have.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Senator, Quebec (La Salle), C]

Thank you very much.

First of all, I want to apologize that my notes are not in English. I would have preferred to send you my notes, but I had very little time to prepare, so they are only in French.

However, if you have questions in English, I will answer in English.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for this invitation to appear before you at this key stage in the study of Bill S‑205, which I introduced to combat domestic and spousal violence.

Ever since a repeat offender murdered my daughter Julie in 2002, I have been deeply involved in combatting violence against women. It is therefore with pride, deep emotion and feelings of hope that I speak to you today to underscore the importance of Bill S‑205. This bill is one I have discussed in recent years with hundreds of women in every corner of the country. They told me their stories openly, painfully, and in a dignified manner. These women were repeatedly subjected to attempted murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault, and psychological violence as they underwent these traumatic experiences. Once again, I want to thank all these courageous women for their invaluable assistance.

In the course of my consultations, most of these victims clearly explained to me that the justice system had failed them when they decided to report their abuser. Left to their own devices, and without any protection, these women who drew from their store of courage to break the silence, have all too often put their lives at risk by doing so. The numbers speak for themselves: in 2019, 136 women were murdered in Canada, a number that increased to 184 in 2022, a rise of 36% in four years. In 2021 in Quebec, 26 women were killed, mostly as a result of domestic violence, a sad record since 2008. Of them, 60% were murdered by an intimate partner.

Statistics Canada figures are indicative of an alarming reality in terms of violence against women: domestic violence accounts for 30% of crimes in Canada, with 107,810 victims. In addition to the violence against intimate partners must be added violence against children under 17 years of age. For 2018 alone, Statistics Canada reported 60,651 child victims. Of all these victims, 80% never reported violence to the police and 28% had suffered serious acts of violence. In criminal courts, 57% of trials were in connection with offences against an intimate partner. In 60% of domestic homicide cases, there was a known criminal history.

Of the women killed in Quebec since the pandemic, 90% had reported their circumstances to the police. That's indicative of the danger victims run when they report their abuser, particularly when he is on interim release. When a victim decides to report her abuser, she automatically becomes vulnerable to her spouse. If the spouse is not incarcerated and on interim release, the risk that violence might lead to death increases significantly.

The essence of my bill is therefore to take pre-emptive action to save as many lives as possible, in view of the fact that release conditions for an individual are neither followed up, nor do they prescribe a monitoring device. That's why the introduction of a monitoring mechanism in keeping with 2023 technology is absolutely necessary to keep the women of Canada safe.

While drafting this bill, I also relied upon expertise and advice from nine Canadian provinces where rates of violence are very high. Accordingly, I worked closely with most of the ministries of justice and public safety in these provinces to tailor my bill to their realities. No other private member's bill has ever led to such extensive consultation.

The ministers in these provinces support the bill, because the approach I am proposing would provide them with effective tools to combat this epidemic, particularly in terms of electronic monitoring. I also drew inspiration from countries that have adopted the use of electronic bracelets, like Spain and France, not to mention Quebec's recent adoption of them here in Canada.

The bill proposes amending section 515 of the Criminal Code to specifically state that victims have to be consulted about their safety and protection needs. The purpose of this measure is to give guidance to the Crown prosecutor by ensuring that the victim is consulted before asking the justice to place conditions on the accused's release. The bill would add to that section of the Criminal Code a condition stipulating that a justice could, if the decision is to release the accused while awaiting trial, require that the accused wear an electronic bracelet.

The bill also requires that the judge ensure the victim is informed of the right to request a copy of the conditions placed on the accused's interim release. This recommendation was also made by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

If we are ending at 5:30, I'm going to cut down the panels a bit. We'll make it very functional. I will work on that as we're doing this.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses. Pursuant to the order of reference on Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the committee will commence consideration of 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.

I would like to welcome the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who will provide opening remarks to begin this important study.

Senator Boisvenu, I would like to thank you so much for being here. I will pass the floor over to you, for five minutes.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I made an error in my vote on Bill S-205. I wish to vote yea. I ask for unanimous consent from this House to have that changed.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-205 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, just like my colleague from Joliette, who eloquently covered many points just before I rose, and my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who also spoke during the study of this bill, I too reiterate the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill S-205.

The goal of this bill, offering better protection to victims of domestic violence, is definitely commendable. As we know, statistics show the sad reality of a dramatic rise in femicides and domestic violence. Just between 2009 and 2019, domestic violence offences spiked by 7.5%. Given this situation, we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to act. Bill S-205 is a step in the right direction, even if I can already foresee a few issues about what is covered in the bill.

I will only address some parts of Bill S-205 because it covers a lot of ground in many different areas. I will not go over the entire bill; I will just focus on certain parts.

Bill S‑205 would add to subsection 515(3) of the Criminal Code the new subsection (3.1), which reads as follows:

Before making an order under subsection (2) in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the accused's intimate partner, the justice must ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused has been consulted about their safety and security needs.

This ensures better safety for the victim because the prosecutor will have to consult the victim about her needs, which will likely allow them to make better recommendations thereafter, even better requests of the judge with respect to the various parole conditions that the accused might have.

This could also improve the victim's sense of security. We know that victims are not party to criminal hearings, they are witnesses. Unfortunately, often victims end up withdrawing out of fear. They no longer want to testify and, since they are the only witness or at least the key witness in these cases, then these cases could get thrown out. This bill also ensures better administration of justice, in a way, by having a double effect, by also protecting the victim.

Bill S‑205 also adds an item to subsection 515(14) of the Criminal Code. Subsection (14.1) is added, which reads as follows:

Upon making an order under subsection (2), the justice must ask the prosecutor whether victims of the offence have been informed of their right to request a copy of the order.

The fact that the victim is fully aware of the conditions imposed on the accused for his release may not only reassure the victim, but also ensure that these conditions are respected. In order for the conditions to be respected, someone must monitor the accused. It would be impossible to keep a constant eye on the accused, but the victim, for example, would know if the accused approached her, thereby failing to comply with this or that condition. The victim can then report that the conditions have been violated. In a way, the victim is included in the enforcement of the conditions imposed on the accused.

There is also an additional condition that I think is the crux of the bill. When Senator Boisvenu speaks so passionately about his bill, he presents it as the electronic monitoring device bill. That is the key measure in the bill, at least in his view.

We know that releases can come with certain conditions, including reporting at specified times to the peace officer or other specified person; remaining within a specified territorial jurisdiction; notifying the peace officer or other specified person of any change in address, employment or occupation; abstaining from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any victim; and depositing all passports. The bill adds a new condition, that of wearing an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes the request.

There is a lot to say on that last point. When the bill gets to committee, it would be a good idea to analyze how things were done in Quebec, since Quebec already has a similar system in place for offences falling under its jurisdiction, where the accused would be sent to a Quebec prison if convicted.

Since the system is already up and running, it would be good to take stock of this option's implementation. Ultimately, if the bill moves forward, that would allow for alignment between the relevant federal and provincial measures. However, it would be nice to learn from past mistakes or missteps based on what was done in Quebec.

What is more, I am concerned that having the accused wear an electronic monitoring device that makes it possible to geolocate them provides a false sense of security. I will give what is, unfortunately, a very real example. Members will perhaps remember the police officer who was killed in December 2022 by an individual who was released on bail after committing gun offences. The individual was in a car with a partner, and a police officer was killed.

One might wonder how that person was able to leave their home, despite the fact that they were wearing a GPS monitor. Why did the monitor not alert the authorities? Why were no precautionary measures taken and why did the police officers who stopped him not know that they were in the presence of a person who was wearing a GPS monitor? One has to wonder about the company that makes those monitors. Is the warning system adequate? Once an alert is triggered, are there sufficient resources to ensure the safety of the victim? We must not be lulled into a false sense of security because the accused is wearing an electronic monitoring device. There is a whole series of other measures that need to be implemented. I would just like to warn the House about that.

Some of the other release conditions listed in the bill deserve further study to see if they can actually be implemented. It is one thing to have a bill filled with good intentions, but if it is impossible to implement on the ground, it is nothing but an empty shell.

I am thinking of the obligation to abstain from consuming drugs, for example. This condition already exists. To prove this, the person will have to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation. That is an additional condition. It can be done at the request of a peace officer, if he or she has suspicions, or at regular intervals.

We have to wonder if this condition passes the charter test, specifically when it comes to the invasive nature of certain screening tests. It is one thing for alcohol, but for certain drugs, it can involve a blood sample, a urine test, a saliva test or a hair sample, which can be fairly invasive. We need to weigh the desired result against a minimal infringement on human rights. It would be interesting to hear constitutional experts on this.

Another condition is being created in relation to the section 810 order, and that is to refrain from using social media. I understand the intention behind that, but I still wonder about the balance between the end goal and protecting privacy rights. This condition could be included in the order without any actual follow-up to determine whether it is being respected. In that case, however, it would become a bit of a bogus order.

How would we ensure compliance with that order? Do we monitor the accused's phone and computer use? Is that not too invasive and excessive? Is that not an invasion of privacy? Does the end justify the means? Should we rely on victim reporting instead? If the victim sees a social media post and knows that there is an order prohibiting the accused from using social media, she could notify the police, for example. I am curious to see how this could be implemented.

Finally, there is another aspect that I would like hear from constitutional experts about in committee. I am talking about the reverse onus for release. Under Bill C‑75, which was adopted four years ago, if a person has already been charged with and found guilty of a violent crime against a domestic partner, then that person has to prove that detention is not justified. Under the new bill, we would add the case where a person has already been absolved of a crime against an intimate partner. We might wonder whether that passes the charter test when the onus is reversed not following a conviction, but following an absolution.

There are some elements that might be interesting to analyze. In any event, the bill generally has an absolutely noble objective. I look forward to seeing how the work in committee will unfold when it comes to the different aspects I have raised.

[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.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to add what I hope are meaningful words on today’s bill. How we in this place can act to prevent intimate partner violence is an issue that has impacted my personal work here over these eight years. I know it concerns all members in this place.

Statistics Canada reports that, in 2021, there were 537 women per 100,000 people who were victims of domestic violence. Intimate partner violence accounts for almost one-third of the crimes committed in Canada and has increased 6% in the last year alone. Violent crime as a whole has increased 39%. Sexual assaults have gone up 71%. This is part of a larger pattern of increased levels of crime after eight years of the Prime Minister’s catch-and-release bail policies.

These statistics have an even greater impact when we consider that 80% of criminal activity involving an intimate partner goes unreported. We must ask ourselves why this is the case. Why is there such a lack of faith in our justice system? Why do victims feel there is greater benefit in not initiating criminal proceedings? Why do they not feel protected throughout a traumatizing period in their lives?

We can point to larger trends. Between 2004 and 2014, cases where failure to comply with a court order, when they were among the charges, grew by 25%, and cases involving charges related to a breach of probation increased by 21%. When intimate partner violence is reported, insufficient steps are taken by the justice system to deter further violence. This is despite the fact that in 60% of homicides involving an intimate partner, there was a history of violence. Half of these homicides involve an offender who has already been convicted on similar offences.

The Senate sponsor of this bill referred to one particularly egregious case, which I will now put on the record in this House. In Quebec, an individual accused of femicide had committed 50 criminal offences in his lifetime, including three sexual assaults and 11 instances of domestic violence. After violating his bail conditions a third time, he was arrested, but subsequently released. Just over one week later, he murdered his former partner. No wonder trust in our system has been shattered.

For the sake of victims, we need to do a better job of listening to and acting on their concerns. Bill S-205 is about providing our justice system with every tool we can to empower victims of intimate partner violence to come forward when crimes do occur and ensure that their rights are placed above those of their offender from the start of the legal process. It would ensure victims are consulted about their safety and security needs before conditions of release are imposed on an accused person. These conditions must take the victim’s opinion into account. If the victim is an intimate partner of the accused, they have the right to be made aware of the bail conditions.

A judge may choose to require the accused to wear an electronic bracelet upon their release, effectively creating a barrier between the victim and her attacker and ensuring law enforcement is alerted if the safety perimeter is broken. The bill would also extend the length of peace bonds and increase penalties for violating them. Again, this is proposed with the victim top of mind, allowing them a larger window of time after the attack takes place.

There is always more that can be done to bolster trust in criminal justice and to encourage victims to report their attackers without fear of retribution, but as it currently stands, an individual’s conditions of release are not subject to any monitoring mechanisms. This is not fair to victims, the public at large or our current understanding of intimate partner violence. What we know is not being reflected in the laws we have.

That is why this bill is one of many initiatives we should be adopting. I was pleased to speak in support of Bill C-320, or the truth in sentencing bill. It was just recently passed in the House with all-party support. The bill is another common-sense tool that would ensure we are prioritizing victims’ rights over those of the offender. At the core of Bill C-320 is transparency, which would ensure that victims are informed of why specific decisions are being made concerning an inmate’s parole date, temporary absence or work release. The victims should know all of those circumstances in advance of them happening and have the opportunity to contribute.

I am also proud of the work I did earlier this year on protecting pregnant women from violent men through Bill C-311. We know that, when women are pregnant, they are more susceptible to violence. We know that this is something that takes place in our country more than we realize when these situations are not top of mind. They are not handled within our court system in ways that draw more attention to the fact that these things are taking place.

It was affirming to me to know that the majority of Canadians who read the bill for what it was knew full well that it would have provided judges with new aggravating factors that are not consistently enforced at this time. In other words, these were Canadians who understood exactly what the purpose and intent was and that it was a very straightforward bill. At this time, a judge can choose to consider the fact that a woman was pregnant and that a child was injured, but they are not required to. This is just another scenario where, as with this bill, we need to do everything we can to protect women in situations of intimate partner violence.

There is a common theme among these bills. Victims believe that the justice system is not there for them when they choose to report their abusers. It is very clear, with the number of catch-and-release bail circumstances we find in this country, that violent crimes are continuing to take place. We need more deterrence and more reasons for individuals to reconsider, or not commit the crime in the first place, as well as to ensure that they are not carrying on with crimes when they are released prior to facing their court cases or on bail.

Individuals who are victims of violence believe that the subsequent steps that are being taken by courts after they have come forward and taken the risk of being attacked or abused for presenting their case, leave them at risk. This bill, Bill S-205, would make a significant difference in that situation. It takes a proactive approach. In other words, we are not waiting for other horrific situations to take place; we are curtailing them. That is just common sense.

This is a common-sense bill. It is about putting the victim at the centre of the judicial process and giving them more power to participate right from the start. Therefore, when the individual is facing charges and is being released, even in that circumstance, the preference is being given to protecting the victim.

I believe that we need to do everything we can in the House to pass any bill that would protect women from violence. That is certainly the case with Bill S-205. I encourage the House to move quickly and efficiently on it. It enables us to reflect even more on the opportunities that we have in this place, which we sometimes do not take for political reasons. Members can believe me that those who face violent crime cannot understand why we do not take every opportunity we have to do more to protect victims and to ensure that they are cared for.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak on Bill S-205. The bill would amend the Criminal Code with respect to interim release and other orders related to intimate partner violence and offences. It is a critical step towards addressing the pressing issues around intimate partner and gender-based violence in Canada.

In this country, intimate partner violence has a long history; one that so many in our communities have fought hard to stop. There are a lot of processes in place, but a lot of those non-profits that do tremendous work in keeping women, gender-diverse people and children safe struggle to make ends meet just to get those services done. It tells us, as a country, that we have to continue to reflect on the impact that these communities are facing as we see so many women and gender-diverse people come forward to talk about the offences that are happening to them from their partners and they have so little voice to be able to fight back.

I have talked to a lot of women across my riding and a lot of people from gender-diverse communities who talk about doing what they can and, again, with their own will, having to fight and fight. We saw, especially during the pandemic, more and more women and gender-diverse people locked into situations that were incredibly violent. When they were in that isolated status and not able to come forward, they were feeling very unsafe. Also, as we hit this significant housing crisis across the country, we know it is having a big impact on intimate partner violence. So, Bill S-205, although there are some concerns that will be dealt with when it gets to committee, takes a step in the right direction to start to move us forward.

So that constituents back home in North Island—Powell River understand, the bill would allow judges to consider whether an accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of their interim release, and this is important. We know that in the U.S.A., 23 states have started to use this format and have seen a decrease in violence. One of the things that is a challenge is that women and gender-diverse people are always trying to explain to the police or the RCMP what is happening, and proving it is really a struggle. So, having this in place would make a huge difference in allowing those voices to be heard and understood without having to feel like they are fighting against a system that is not interested in protecting them when they are a survivor of intimate partner violence.

The bill would also require a judge to ask the prosecutor whether the victim of an accused intimate partner has been consulted about their safety and security needs. Now, this may seem very basic to so many across this country, but we know that it is not happening. We know that, again and again, the people who survive intimate partner violence are often put in a situation where they are having to interact with the person who abused them repeatedly. They have very little support from the system at this point, which leads to a lot of violence and sometimes death, and that is why this is so important.

We have to make sure, when situations arise in this country and somebody is victimized, that when they move forward to challenge it there are actually processes in place that put into consideration their safety and security. However, we know that is not the case. So many have come forward bravely sharing their story, and we know that it often results in a fundamental loss of rights. Sometimes people who are victimized, who are survivors, have no choice but to go back to the person who hurt them. We need to stop that, and the bill is an important step in doing that.

The bill would also re-establish a new type of recognizance order for survivors, which, if granted, would allow the judge to impose conditions, including electronic monitoring, treatment, or a domestic violence counselling program. Again, we have to find systems in our country where we do not put the onus on the person who is suffering the consequences of somebody else's violence. We have to say that there is a system in place and we will not allow them to carry this on their own. This is a step in the right direction.

Across this country, every six days a woman is killed by her intimate partner. This is a crisis, and one that we have not taken seriously enough. The bill is a small step, but hopefully we will get there soon.

Across my riding, there are a lot of organizations that do very diligent and hard work to support people who experience intimate partner violence. It is incredibly important. I want to thank the Powell River and Region Transition House Society, the Comox Valley Transition Society, the North Island Crisis and Counselling Centre and the Campbell River and North Island Transition Society. These organizations do tremendous work in the regions they serve, and they do a lot to build awareness. They have, in some cases, available housing and secondary housing.

One thing, of course, that is very concerning is that we see people fleeing violence and getting the help they need but there is no second-stage housing for them. In rural and remote communities, this can become a bigger challenge. We need to make sure that those resources are put in place and that these organizations are given the resources they need so that they do not always have to do so much fundraising on top of the amazing work they do.

That is why I think it is important to mention that $150 million has been cut by the Liberal government from 600 women's shelters across this country. If we are serious about protecting women, gender-diverse people and the children of our country, we have to put these dollars in the system so that people can be cared for. Hopefully we will see that change really quickly.

I cannot talk about violence against women and gender-diverse people in this country without talking about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and gender-diverse people. We know that at this point, only two of the recommendations of the 231 calls for justice from the national inquiry regarding missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and gender-diverse people have been implemented. I think we need to do a lot better.

This leads me to a quote. Sarah Niman, legal counsel and assistant manager of legal services at the Native Women's Association of Canada, said this about the bill:

Bill S-205 seeks to provide violence victims something of a voice. This bill places the onus on the criminal justice system to check in with victims, consider their safety through the proceedings, and produce outcomes that consider their safety. Bill S-205 does not create a response specifically tailored to Indigenous women, but it does create a framework for them to be seen and heard in a system that otherwise does not.

It is very clear that incredible work still needs to be done, particularly for indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. Again, if this country is fundamentally committed to things like feminist principles, non-violence and reconciliation, making sure that these populations are honoured and respected in these processes has to happen.

Of course, one of the key things that have been asked for again and again is the red dress alert. We need indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people to be found when they go missing. They need to be treated like every other Canadian, and that means they need a red dress alert, because we know that this population in particular goes missing without any accountability.

I want to thank, in my riding, the Indigenous Women's Sharing Society and the Lil' Red Dress campaign. Both of these organizations work diligently on bringing forward these voices, telling the stories and letting our region know about missing indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. They work diligently every day, and I am so grateful for that commitment. If it were not for the folks who come up every day and continue to fight, the voices would not be heard. I am really glad to be here in Parliament reminding everyone that if we are serious about reconciliation, the red dress alert must be implemented.

I look forward to seeing this bill move to committee. Hopefully, we will have some positive changes that reflect the needs of this country.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, Bill S-205 essentially seeks to amend the Criminal Code in order to enable judges to order an accused to wear an electronic monitoring device at the request of the prosecutor; make it easier for the victim to obtain a copy of the order against the accused and require the judge to check with the prosecutor to ensure that the victim has indeed been informed; and enable the victim to report their assailant if they have reasonable grounds to fear for their physical safety or that of their child or children. If the fear is justified, the judge can then order that the accused enter into a recognizance. Refusal to do so will result in imprisonment.

The bill also seeks to give judges the power to set conditions in the recognizance to ensure good conduct. For example, the judge can require the accused to attend a psychosocial treatment program; move to a region other than the area where the informant lives; refrain from going to a specified place; and abstain from communicating directly or indirectly with a child, the informant or the child of the informant, or any relative or close friend of the informant. The bill also seeks to enable the judge to prohibit the accused from using social media and from using drugs, alcohol or other intoxicating substances. The judge can also require the accused to provide a sample to ensure that they are meeting that condition. Finally, the bill seeks to enable the informant to provide submissions in writing to help the judge determine the conditions in the recognizance.

Bill S‑205 has three main components: the obligation to consult the victim before making a conditional release order; the addition of the concept of domestic violence, allowing a victim to apply to have the accused enter into a recognizance to keep the peace, under sections 810 and following of the Criminal Code; and the preponderance of the victim's submissions, which can influence the choice of the conditions included in the recognizance issued to the accused.

Bill S‑205 therefore expands the scope of section 810 of the Criminal Code to allow the court to impose a good behaviour recognizance if the victim fears that the accused might cause personal injury or property damage to them, their child or their intimate partner. Relatives and close friends have been added to the list of potential targets.

Let us not forget that release, with or without conditions, allows an accused person to be released into the community while awaiting trial. In Quebec and Canada, criminal law and penal law have a duty to punish crimes and protect the public. With femicide and domestic violence on the rise, it is important to strengthen mechanisms to protect victims, their children and their loved ones. Modernizing the Criminal Code is an essential part of that, and that is exactly what Bill S-205 does.

More specifically, the Criminal Code sets out the conditions under which it would be justified to detain an accused person pending trial. The decision to detain a person awaiting trial depends on a number of factors specific to each situation. When it is in the public interest to detain an accused person, it is important to remember that the accused is deprived of the exercise of fundamental rights. These include the presumption of innocence and the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Allowing the victim to be more involved in the court case is a welcome improvement that the Bloc Québécois can support unreservedly. Victims should not have to fight for justice to be served. The bill will help reduce the obstacles that victims might encounter and that might dissuade them from taking the brave step of filing a complaint against their attacker.

The Bloc Québécois will always stand up for women and victims of domestic violence. One victim is one too many. Quebec is one of the most progressive nations when it comes to protecting victims of intimate partner and domestic violence. In fact, Quebec's department of public safety launched a Quebec-wide electronic monitoring device pilot project. In December 2022, more than 650 offenders on parole were fitted with such a device. Let us not forget that these are people being prosecuted for offences for which they could be sentenced to incarceration in a Quebec prison.

Those who end up in federally run prisons, and therefore who have longer and harsher sentences, are not subject to the same conditions. It is time to settle this discrepancy and make offenders subject to the same restrictions.

If the bill 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.

Statistics show that there has been a spike in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. The idea is to bring these numbers down. They are currently on the rise. 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 welcome an initiative that aims to improve the victim's experience of the justice system throughout the entire process, from the moment he or she decides to file a complaint.

Bill S-205 may contain loopholes that could jeopardize certain fundamental rights, such as the obligation to provide biological samples to prove compliance with a recognizance to be of good behaviour. This all must be studied in committee.

However, as I have said and will say again, as my colleague will say later, and as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord put it so well—better than I can—the Bloc Québécois unequivocally supports the principle of the bill. This is a laudable principle that aims to make our communities safer, which is a win-win situation for all Quebeckers. A sense of security within a community strengthens a nation's well-being. Finally, in committee, as I said and as we will say again, the Bloc Québécois will work constructively to improve this bill.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my friend and colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned on September 21 and as my friend and colleague from Saint-Jean will reiterate in a few minutes, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-205 in principle and recommends that it be sent to committee for study.

Our position is consistent with initiatives that reinforce mechanisms aimed at making the justice system better aligned with public safety, especially to better protect victims of domestic violence.

Broadly speaking, Bill S‑205 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to require the judge who has to make a decision regarding the interim release of an accused person to make sure that the prosecutor has consulted the victim about their safety and security needs.

To that end, the judge can order the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device—

The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the motion that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[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.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to stand today and speak in support of Bill S-205.

This bill, which would amend the Criminal Code with respect to interim release and other orders related to intimate partner offences, is a critical step towards addressing the pressing issue of intimate partner and gender-based violence in Canada.

About every six days, a woman in Canada falls victim to violence at the hands of her partner. This is not acceptable. Rising gender-based violence was already a crisis before the pandemic and things have only gotten worse. The number of women and girls killed in Canada from a male accused partner increased by 27% in 2022.

We also know that indigenous women and those living below the poverty line are more at risk of intimate partner violence and have less access to supports. The situation is so dire that cities across Canada, including Ottawa, Toronto and Kitchener, here in Ontario, have recognized intimate partner violence as an epidemic. To make matters worse, the Liberal government has only implemented two of the 231 calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

We know that because of a history of colonialism and racism, which continues today, unfortunately, indigenous women are even more likely to be victim of abuse than their non-indigenous counterparts. The calls to action need to be implemented today, and should have been implemented long ago.

Despite this epidemic of violence, the Liberals have cut $150 million from 600 women's shelters across the country. At a time when an epidemic of intimate partner violence is tragically higher than ever, it is most certainly not a time to make cuts to shelters for women and families fleeing violence. In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I hear from women who remain in homes with partners who abuse them because they have nowhere to go. The few options that could be made available are too often full with long wait lists. Women fleeing violence need timely, safe and accessible options available when they need them.

To make matters worse, I speak with women who remain in unhealthy relationships with concerns and red flags of abusive behaviour because they cannot afford to leave. This is yet another example of ways in which the increased cost of living and lack of affordable housing is disproportionately impacting those most vulnerable in our communities. As more and more struggle to make ends meet, safe spaces are even more important and are inevitably in higher need.

I cannot reiterate enough the importance of people having access to their most basic needs, and when they do not, our communities as a whole feel the consequences. They need an affordable place to call home, food on the table, access to head-to-toe care including mental health supports, and a guaranteed livable basic income. We know that poverty and violence are undeniably interconnected.

When people are living happy, healthy lives through accessing their basic human rights as a bare minimum, we see less violence in our communities. The government has an obligation to take all necessary measures to protect women and to end violence. They should be providing a robust support system for all those escaping abusive relationships, but that is not what we see today.

While Bill S-205 contains measures that represent progress in supporting survivors of intimate partner violence and making our justice system more sensitive to the safety of women, gender-diverse individuals and children, New Democrats acknowledge that more must be done.

There are legitimate concerns from women's organizations, as an example, regarding electronic monitoring that must be heard and addressed during the committee's deliberations, notably, the reliability of these devices in rural and remote areas where Internet is not always accessible or stable.

I think about a quote from Sarah Niman, from the Native Women's Association of Canada that I thought was particularly important for us to hear. She says, “Electronic bracelets may not be perfect, but the information they provide may be able to save a lot of lives. Bracelet monitoring isn't all flawed; there are lives that will be saved. It won't be the only thing women rely on, but right now, they have nothing to rely on. They can't see their abuser coming, whereas with this measure, they'll have a chance. However small this chance you are giving us may be, they'll have a chance to know their abuser is coming. If I had had access to bracelet monitoring, what happened to me would not have happened, no matter how likely it was to work.”

It is clear that there are problems with electronic monitoring devices that need to be overcome, but if the device can save just one life, give one person a chance to flee to safety and provide a life-saving warning of their abuser being close by, these are problems that can be worked through.

Electronic monitoring has been proven to reduce recidivism and rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. I have an example we can look to. In Connecticut, counties using GPS monitoring saw a significant decrease in domestic violence-related murders since the implementation of electronic monitoring. Quebec, right here in Canada, also has electronic ankle monitoring to protect victims of domestic violence, since 2021.

Although this bill provides some help, it alone will not address intimate partner violence. This is why my NDP colleagues and I will continue to push the Liberal government to provide necessary resources for low-barrier shelters in urban, rural and remote communities; reverse the $150-million cut to women's shelters; and introduce timelines and targeted funding to implement all calls for justice from the national inquiry looking into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and two-spirit people.

What is vitally important is that when women express fear, they are believed, and that timely and appropriate action is taken. Marnie Boers, a dedicated domestic abuse advocate in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, shared with me that women know their abusers best. Unfortunately, they have been too often navigating the abuse for many years. They understand well the risks, patterns and signs when things are escalating.

One pattern that is clear is that too many women become victims of domestic abuse after a separation. When women fear for their safety, they need to be taken seriously, and again, appropriate and timely actions must follow. We are seeing over and over again the dire and unacceptable consequences when action is not taken and women are not believed.

The changes resulting from this bill would significantly benefit survivors of intimate partner violence by ensuring that their safety and security needs are considered. Intimate partner violence is a national crisis. The statistics and the impacts on women, girls and two-spirit people are deeply troubling. We have a responsibility to act swiftly and decisively to prevent and eliminate intimate partner violence and support survivors. We know that Bill S-205 is a step in the right direction, but the work is far from over to begin saving lives.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and confirm that we believe that Bill S‑205 is a good bill. We intend to support it, at this stage at least, so that it can be referred to committee and studied both rigorously and seriously.

I agree with my colleague opposite regarding some of his reservations about electronic monitoring devices. The Criminal Code already contains some related provisions, and a pilot project has been set up by the Quebec government. I look forward to hearing from police officers, and perhaps Crown prosecutors and defence lawyers who are already working with these provisions. We can benefit from the experience they have gained over the past few months.

It will not be easy. Let us not forget that electronic monitoring devices come with technical challenges. There are also more philosophical issues. I agree with my colleague who said that we must be careful. Electronic monitoring bracelets must not become a sort of fail-safe mechanism that the courts give themselves by almost systematically ordering offenders to wear these devices when they are released on bail. I think these devices should be used sparingly in serious cases such as those set out in the bill. We will have to ensure that the provisions we adopt are written in a way that is consistent with our intention. We have to proceed carefully on this issue.

I also have some concerns about the biological samples. We know that biological samples can be useful in many cases, and I think we need to make use of them in such cases. There too, however, we must be careful. The electronic monitoring device and the order to provide a biological sample, two measures that are often systematic, violate the rights and freedoms of every citizen under the charters in place.

When rights as fundamental as the right to bodily integrity and the right to freedom are on the table, legislators must act prudently and with restraint. I do not think anyone in the House wants us to end up in a totalitarian state where everyone is subject to strict, rigid rules that are not necessarily justified in all cases. When it comes to these provisions, I recommend prudence.

That being said, we in the Bloc Québécois are very concerned about the issue of intimate partner violence, and that is why we want to support Bill S‑205 so it can go to committee. In recent months, the number of intimate partner violence cases has surged. I do not remember the exact numbers, but rates have gone up by a few dozen percentage points over the past two or three years. This is disturbing, and we need to work on it in earnest.

The notion of domestic violence is also being broadened. It already includes violence between intimate partners; however, this bill creates a notion of domestic violence that includes not only intimate partners, but also the partner's children, and even the children of the alleged abuser if there is reason to fear that the abuser may attack their own children. Obviously, we agree with this. We need to ensure the safety of everyone, anyone who is in any way involved with an individual who is considered to be dangerous. It is an interesting provision, but again, we have to be vigilant and ensure that we do not overstep the bounds of what is reasonable.

In addition, this bill will also expand victims' rights by requiring courts to consult with victims before issuing release orders.

Take for example an abused woman who fears for her health or safety should her spouse be released. Under clause 810, the victim or person who fears for their safety will be consulted. They already were, but now it is included in the provisions of the Criminal Code and they will have to be consulted before the order is made. I think that is good and will contribute to reducing the number of tragedies we hear about far too often and lament in the House so frequently that it has become unsettling.

Another aspect of these provisions to which we need to pay close attention is discharge. Until now, certain parts of release orders were applied as soon as the individual was convicted of a violent crime. This concept is being broadened so that they will be applied when someone is found guilty or discharged for crimes set out in the act. I agree that discharge implies that the individual has already been found guilty or has already pleaded guilty, but the fact remains that the individual was discharged and, in principle, the crime for which they were discharged should not be subsequently held against them. I say “in principle” because we are undermining that principle. Is it justified? Personally, I think it could be. As I was saying earlier, I look forward to hearing from expert witnesses on this, both Crown prosecutors and defence attorneys. These are major changes that could have a significant impact on many Quebeckers and Canadians. This needs to be examined carefully.

The recognizance provisions I just mentioned will now apply to teens as well through amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is another matter we need to examine carefully. Just how far are we willing to go in terms of imposing extreme conditions on teenagers? In some cases it may be warranted, and in others, it may not. In any case, the matter will have to be carefully considered, and the scope of our bill clearly defined to ensure that it helps stop crime and improve our society, not make it too repressive.

My colleague spoke of harmonizing the different provisions. I support that as well, but I disagree with his decision to vote against electronic bracelets. I have a lot of concerns and apprehensions about electronic bracelets, but I think they are useful at times. We will have to consider the matter carefully, listen to everyone and, once again, learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions, including Quebec.

[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.

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

moved that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am deeply honoured to be here today talking about Bill S-205, which ultimately is about electronic bracelets. It is an act to amend the Criminal Code and make consequential amendments to other acts regarding interim release and domestic violence recognisance orders.

This is a very important moment for women and domestic violence survivors. It is a very big deal, and I am very honoured to have this opportunity. However, I can take absolutely no credit for this at all. It is Senator Boisvenu, a senator from Quebec, who has really done all of the work here. Senator Boisvenu has been leading the charge in both chambers on standing up for victims. It is an incredible body of work he has done in his career, and I sincerely thank him on behalf of all the women's groups that I have met with. His efforts have made a tremendous difference in their lives. It is wonderful to see someone standing up for victims of domestic violence and women in general who are impacted by many things like this. It is great to know a real crusader who stands up for women on such a regular basis.

I will brag a little more about him. Senator Boisvenu is the founder of the Murdered or Missing Persons’ Families Association. He is the co-founder of Le Nid, a shelter for abused women in Val-d'Or, Quebec. He is also the founder of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which is an incredible document that I encourage all parliamentarians to read. Again, I am very honoured to sponsor his legislation in the House of Commons.

I will start off with a story about a woman who had a very difficult time with domestic violence and whose life and safety would have been greatly improved if something like this had been in place when she was going through a very difficult time in her life.

Her name is Elisapee Angma. She was a 44-year-old mother to four children and worked in an early childhood centre in Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec. In November 2020, her ex-partner had been ordered not to try to contact her or to be in her presence in an act of denunciation after he was accused of assault with a weapon. Her ex-partner subsequently broke this order on three different occasions over the span of three months. After his last breach of conditions, he was again arrested by police and the Crown in the case opposed his release.

However, five days later, despite objections from the director of criminal and penal prosecutions and fears that he would reoffend, her ex-partner was released pending further proceedings. On the morning of February 5, 2021, Ms. Angma was found suffering serious injuries and was rushed to hospital where she succumbed to her injuries and died. Her ex-partner was found deceased in his home later that day.

The tragic reality is that Ms. Angma's death could have been prevented. Women's rights groups have warned that this release was the chronicle of a death foretold and that the numerous breaches should have been taken into account. Our justice system failed. It failed her, it failed her four children and it failed many women like her.

This bill is looking to address this and save the lives of women like her today and for many years to come. It is very important that all members of Parliament from all parties take serious consideration of their support for this bill. There should be no more stories like this in Canada. If we can prevent them with tools like this, then we should. This is really a story of one too many. We all have tragic cases in our communities like this. In Canada, a woman is murdered every 48 hours. Just last year, 184 women were murdered in Canada, of which 60% were killed by an intimate partner.

Leaving an abusive partner and seeking legal action is an act that takes immense courage and resilience, and those women deserve to be protected. However, our judicial system seems to focus far too often on releasing criminals and what is good for them rather than protecting the vulnerable victims. When a person is arrested by police for domestic violence, the police or the judge may release that person on an interim basis pending trial. In the Criminal Code, this mechanism falls under compelling appearance of accused before a justice and interim release. The judge or the police can set conditions that the accused must meet or be returned to custody. Once the conditions of release are set, the accused may be released until the date of their trial, which is the really difficult period when a lot women have been abused and murdered.

Currently, there is no monitoring mechanism in place to ensure that potentially dangerous behaviour by the accused is detected. Many victims of domestic violence have lost their lives or have been victims of attempted murder at this stage in the judicial process. This bill would directly impact that specific area of vulnerability for women.

I will give a little more testimony. This is from Diane Tremblay, and just to forewarn the House, what she talks about is a bit graphic. However, I think it is relevant for the context of this debate and how important it is that we bring forward tools like this to protect women in domestic violence situations. She has tremendous courage.

She appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to give her testimony about this important bill. It was deeply moving, and I will read a bit of what she described of the ordeal she suffered for years. The court had ordered her partner to stay away from her, but he violated that condition and caused her significant harm. Her words were as follows:

My abuser would put the dresser in front of my bedroom door to keep me from leaving so that he could force me to have sex while I screamed and cried. Sometimes, my children could hear me....

I told them that I was upset and that it wasn’t serious. My abuser even put a lock on the door to keep the children out. He was showing them that he had control over their mother. Julien rebelled a great deal, and rightly so. However, I told him to go away and that I had everything under control....

My abuser threatened to kill us every day, so I kept quiet to protect my children.

It is difficult to read that testimony. I cannot imagine the courage it took for her to put it on the public record when she appeared before committee in the Senate.

This man did these things to her while he was ordered not to be near her. Had there been an electronic bracelet on him at the time, the police could have better enforced the protection order for her. Again, it is a very difficult thing, but unfortunately her story is not unique in this country or around the world. There are a lot of women who suffer this type of abuse by their intimate partner.

What stood out to me most during the four years that she suffered was that she argued she did seek help from the justice system several times but did not receive the protection she needed. There are many stories that many of us have heard, and certainly I have heard them in my role as shadow minister for public safety.

Bill S-205 would correct this in many ways. It is a critical step that would prevent the deaths of women and children fleeing situations of domestic violence. This bill would offer the electronic bracelet as a means of supervision when a person who is released on bail or is subject to a court-ordered recognition poses a risk to the safety of his or her spouse and breaks the cycle of domestic violence. It would empower judges to impose the wearing of an electronic bracelet on a violent spouse or ex-spouse as soon as he or she is released and pending trial. This bill would primarily protect vulnerable women and children trying to flee these situations of domestic violence.

On the issue of electronic monitoring, we have looked to other countries, such as Spain and France, which have introduced similar electronic monitoring systems. There is also a great success story here at home in Quebec. The Province of Quebec passed legislation that requires offenders who have been found guilty of domestic violence and released from a provincial prison to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. Quebec has taken this amazing provincial step. This bill would add this across the country, and that is a very important first step for all women in Canada.

In my remaining moments, I would like to outline some of the impacts of this bill.

In December 2022, there were 650 offenders released in Quebec who will be wearing the electronic bracelets. That is 650 people's families and children who may be protected because of a provincial bill just like this one. It is now up to the federal Liberal government to take responsibility and pass this bill to complement that provincial legislation. Quebec requires the electronic bracelet solely for those who release from provincial prisons. It really does not impact federal offenders. This bill would do that.

It also proposes therapy to end the cycle of domestic violence. I think this is a very excellent preventative step built into the legislation. We know that in some cases therapy can be effective, as some people have substance abuse problems or have issues in their history that they need to work through. If we can rehabilitate some of these individuals, then we should try. That is built right into the bill. It also offers court-ordered therapy as another alternative to protect victims of domestic violence. This was suggested by one of Canada's best known psychiatrists, Dr. Chamberland, as a tool to counter domestic violence at its source and prevent the deaths of innocent women and children.

The bill would ensure our judicial system prioritizes the rights and protection of victims over the release of criminals. Again, this is very important to the Conservative Party and many others in this chamber. That really is the foundational value of this bill.

The bill also includes several provisions designed to enable victims to be consulted about their safety and to be better informed of the judicial process, something I repeatedly hear from victims groups. They would like more information and they would like access, and this bill would do that.

We really should be looking to pass this bill quickly. The quicker we do it, the more women and children who can be protected. As I mentioned a few times in the House, the latest StatsCan data on sex abuse against children, for example, is up 126% over the past eight years and sexual assaults are up 71%. Things are going in the wrong direction. Now more than ever, we need legislation like this to protect victims of domestic violence.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to get up in the House to speak about this. I want to conclude with one more testimony from a woman named Dayane Williams, who is a survivor of domestic abuse. With respect to this bill, she said:

If he [her abuser] had been wearing a bracelet, yes, I could have gone to the gym. I could have had my freedom...it will ease my anxiety and I can have my freedom back. I'm in therapy, and they tell me that I have to go for walks, that I have to go to the gym, that I can't stay locked up [but] I am constantly thinking about the possibility of him attacking me when I'm with my children. If he decides to kill me, I am not safe.

She went on to say:

If he’s wearing a bracelet and approaches my location, the police will be there before I call 911. The bracelet will alert them. He has committed a crime, but he gets to walk around as if he’s done nothing, and I’m the one who has to hide at home. Right now, he has won — he has his freedom and I do not. I don’t have freedom.

That is quite a powerful testimony in favour of this bill. I am sure members would agree.

In conclusion, Bill S-205 would save lives, particularly those of women and children. It would save survivors and the many victims of domestic abuse considerable stress, anxiety and, frankly, terror. I hope that all parties will give this bill serious consideration to quick passage. I look forward to working with them to make that happen.

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

moved that 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), be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to move this bill, seconded by my hon. colleague, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Ultimately, this bill would save lives, particularly those of women fleeing abuse and life-threatening situations. It would ensure that dangerous abusers of women wear ankle bracelets during important times throughout the criminal justice process. This would ensure that women at risk of abuse or murder by their abusers are immediately alerted if their abusers come near them. This is supported by the provincial governments of Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick, and it would align the federal government with the good work already accomplished by the Province of Quebec.

I want to give sincere thanks to the creator of this critically important bill, Conservative Senator Boisvenu, who has dedicated his life to protecting women. I am honoured to be on this journey with him for greater justice for women.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills to which the concurrence of the House is desired: 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); Bill S-210, an act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material; and Bill S-246, an act respecting Lebanese heritage month.

[Jennifer Dunn, Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the committee for inviting me here today. It is nice to see you all again.

My name is Jennifer Dunn. I am the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre, or LAWC, here in London, Ontario.

LAWC is a feminist organization that supports and advocates for personal, social and systemic change directed at ending male violence against women and girls. Our centre is non-residential. We are an agency that provides women and girls over the age of 12 who have been abused, assaulted, exploited, trafficked or experienced non-state torture with immediate access to long-term woman-centred counselling, advocacy and support.

On April 8, the Honourable David Lametti said, “Community safety is what we want. These reforms will...make [it] happen.” We do partially agree with the honourable minister. Community safety is what we want. However, we do not believe Bill C-5 is what will make it happen, the way it is. There are two issues that I want to address today. One is conditional sentencing. The other is mandatory minimum penalties. I'll start with conditional sentencing.

With Bill C-5, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender's behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community. Some of the offences listed in Bill C-5 are sexual assault, criminal harassment, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, material benefit and abduction of a person under 14. Women and girls are five times more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault, and sexual assault is a violent crime on the rise in Canada. With conditional sentencing, many women will be stuck in the community with the offender, which places them at even higher risk.

A conditional sentence does nothing to stop an offender from continuing to commit violence. Women need the courts to see this. A conditional sentence for these offences undermines the seriousness of these crimes.

I have a quote here from a woman I am proud to work with. Her name is Caroline. She is a peer support worker and a survivor. She said:

I know a case where two men got 4 years and for trafficking, that’s nothing when women face a lifetime sentence after being trafficked, many women will never get over it and at minimum those women face years and years of counselling and constantly watching their back.

We know from our work that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Victims and perpetrators live in the same communities. An offender being placed back into the community with a conditional sentence is not always the answer.

The second issue I want to address with you today is the repeal of mandatory minimum penalties for some offences in the Criminal Code. I urge the committee to think about the most marginalized individuals when considering if this is good enough. Repealing some mandatory minimum penalties over others does not help with public safety. Women are not protected by the law unless all mandatory minimum penalties are considered.

For example, a mandatory life sentence for women who end up convicted of murder in situations where they were reacting to male violence is inappropriate. Each year 40% to 50% of women sentenced to life in prison are indigenous, and 91% of them have histories of physical and sexual abuse.

Canada's longest mandatory minimum penalty, the mandatory life sentence for murder, has resulted in countless miscarriages of justice for women. It has been proven time and time again that there is not a full understanding of the impact of violence against women in the criminal justice system.

When listening to the previous sessions of the study, I also heard more than once that there are cost savings with Bill C-5. I would ask if cost savings should actually be a point of concern when we are discussing the lives of women. We need systemic change. We need to protect women. Women deserve to live free from violence. The courts need to see that women are easily placed at more risk.

On Wednesday in the Senate, while speaking about a different bill, Bill S-205, Senator Pate said the following:

...let’s ensure that we address the issues, attitudes and ideas that fuel misogynist violence in society and our criminal, legal and penal systems, while simultaneously implementing the sorts of robust social, health and economic support systems that can truly assist women to avoid and escape violence.

This could not be more true for Bill C-5 as well.

In conclusion, we know that Bill C-5 is an attempt to tackle systemic racism in Canada's criminal justice system, but the committee must remember that many of the victims of these offences are also part of the most marginalized and vulnerable. The government has a responsibility to make decisions based on the best interests of all.

Thank you.