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.

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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, 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.

Motions in amendment

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 26 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 amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, we have just finished debate in the House on a Conservative motion of non-confidence in the government. After nine years, so many Canadians are suffering as a result of the failures and frankly, in many cases the malicious failures, of the government that have undermined our national well-being and our social cohesion, as well as had a devastating impact on our economy.

I am looking forward to voting non-confidence in the government tomorrow. Tomorrow's vote will be a clear indication of where members stand. It will show which members of the House stand with the government and allow the government to continue, and which members of the House want to replace the government and give the Canadian people a chance to decide.

Our Conservative priorities are clear. We would like to bring Canadians a carbon tax election and present our proposals for axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime.

Now we are debating Bill S-205, a Conservative private member's bill that seeks to advance our agenda of stopping the crime. It is a Conservative bill that would combat domestic violence by creating expanded measures for electronic monitoring. When I addressed the House about the bill last time, I noted that the bill would create a mechanism whereby a judge could 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.

In giving judges additional tools for facilitating the monitoring of perpetrators, the bill is simply common sense and would provide additional protection and confidence for victims. It is a bill that would facilitate accountability for criminals and a greater degree of security for victims.

Sadly, the Liberal response to Bill S-205 follows a familiar pattern. When it comes to violence in general and domestic violence in particular, we hear plenty of words of solidarity from Liberal politicians. The Liberals are eager to verbally express that they care about people who are victims of domestic violence, yet when it comes to voting on measures that would actually make a concrete difference in making people safe, they back away. In fact they put forward amendments at committee and supported amendments at committee that have weakened the bill substantially.

Here at report stage, Conservatives are proposing to reverse the acts of vandalism to the good bill before us that happened at committee. We want to restore the bill such that it would live up to what was proposed and what was passed by the Senate to protect victims of crime. It is sad to see that, despite how members of all parties make statements opposing violence against women, when it comes to actually supporting measures that would meaningfully impact that reality, Conservatives are often standing alone. Certainly, we are trying to build coalitions in this place, without the support of the government, to advance the important legislation before us.

I am very proud to speak in support of the bill, vote in support of the proposals from my colleagues that would reverse the damage done to the bill at committee, and allow Bill S-205 to pass and do the work that it is supposed to do to effectively stop crime, combat domestic violence in this country and give women a greater sense of security that those people who commit acts of violence against them would be held accountable.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill S-205. It is a very important bill.

When researching the bill, I found out that one woman is murdered every 48 hours in Canada. In fact, last year, 205 women were murdered in Canada, and we know that about 60% of murdered women in Canada were murdered by their intimate partner. This bill looks to address that. It looks to provide additional measures to protect women.

I would just like to say off the bat that we know it is not exclusively women who are victims of intimate partner violence. Men can be as well. However, overwhelmingly, we know that it is women who are victimized and abused by their intimate partners, as well as their children. This bill aims to provide additional protections for them with more tools in the tool box to save their lives and the lives of their children.

Unfortunately, through the democratic process, we saw some unfortunate moves from the NDP, the Bloc and, notably, the Liberals at the committee stage, where they gutted a lot of very important provisions in this bill to protect women. I am going to get into that in a moment.

Before I do, and before I talk a bit more about the details of the bill, I do want to thank the original creator of this bill, Senator Boisvenu, who recently retired from the Senate. This bill originated in the Senate, and I was honoured to be asked to sponsor it in this place.

Senator Boisvenu has an extraordinary story in very tragic and victorious ways. His entire career has been dedicated to safeguarding women, fighting against domestic violence and providing more security tools for women who have been victims of intimate partner violence. It was inspired by his own daughter, who was kidnapped in a parking lot and murdered by a stranger. She would have been in her twenties at that time.

As a mother now, I cannot imagine what that would have been like for a parent. It is one of the more inspiring things I have heard of since being elected as a member of Parliament, that someone turned a horrific tragedy into the motivation to protect all women across Canada. He worked tirelessly throughout his Senate career to do that, and I thank him very sincerely for his courage and hard work on this. It is truly inspiring, as an elected official, to see that. It reminds us that we can really make a big difference in this place.

I also want to thank the incredible member for Peterborough—Kawartha. In my absence in the last year after I had a baby, she shepherded the bill through committee and fought valiantly against what the Liberals and the other parties were looking to do to water it down. She did an incredible job. In fact, she has moved amendments in the House that we will vote on in the coming days. We are trying to convince everybody to put the bill back into its original form. It was stronger and provided more protections for women and victims. It was tougher on their abusers. We are looking to do that, so I thank her very much for her initiative to put forward those amendments to return it to its original stronger form. I thank her very much for her hard work.

What this bill has been left with is still very important. It is about peace bonds in particular. For those who do not know what a peace bond is, I will briefly tell them. They are sort of like restraining orders. A lot of people are familiar with that term. However, peace bonds are criminal court orders often related to the safety of property or of an individual, whereas restraining orders are non-criminal court orders often related to custody and family court issues. They are similar, but different.

Bill S-205 would allow for a peace bond to be imposed if a victim demonstrates a reasonable fear of domestic violence. A number of conditions could be added to those peace bonds. This would allow a justice, the court process and prosecutors to ask for things such as therapy for the abuser as part of the peace bond. They could also ask that those with a peace bond cannot go to certain places or have to stay within a certain area. They may have to abstain from communication with the victim, or abstain from drug and alcohol consumption.

Most notably, it would provide the option within the peace bond to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. These really have come a long way in recent years. We are seeing in Quebec, which was one of the first to institute some of these, that it has had great success in the protection of women who have been victims of domestic violence. The abuser wears the bracelet. It has a GPS in it, which is connected to their former intimate partner's phone. If he or she, but notably he, comes within a certain distance of the person they had victimized, an alert centre would be notified and would immediately call that abuser to tell them that it is time to back off because they are getting a little close. If the abuser does not co-operate, or if there is a reason to believe that it is too tense of a situation and that it needs to send the police right away, it would do so.

It provides an alert system so that people can be informed of what is going on. Women can be alerted if they are in fear of their lives or if an individual is coming close. It involves a route for police to be sent directly to where an individual is and provides a barrier of protection. It is another tool in the tool box.

This bill has been isolated to peace bonds, which is very good. I am excited to see it pass, as it will save lives. However, in its original form from the Senate, it was much more broad. Justices would have had the option to apply electronic monitoring bracelets to anyone who was getting bail, which was key. It would have been a monumental milestone to have that in the Criminal Code, particularly for those who have been victims of domestic violence and intimate partner violence. Notably, intimidation, breaking and entering, and being unlawfully in a dwelling or house, those kinds of things, could have triggered a justice to make someone on bail wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. It would have given them another checklist option, whereas now it is not front and centre for justices in those scenarios.

We know about this from Senator Boisvenu and the research he has done. In particular for intimidation, breaking and entering, and being unlawfully in a house, when physical contact of an assault has not occurred but a relationship has become a tense situation, a woman could decide to seek legal help to get a peace bond or make a request through the court process for an electric monitoring bracelet. That opportunity could tip off justices that there are precursors to domestic violence, and they could institute a monitor on an individual. That was the key part missed at committee.

We recently passed something called Keira's law, which we all supported. It was a very important law. For those who are not familiar with what happened to Keira, it is a devastating story, and it is wonderful that this place came together and passed something important. It was a good bill. Some argued that the bills were similar and did the same thing, but that is not entirely accurate. In fact, Keira's law was much more narrow. Although it was still very good, the original bill was going to have much broader impacts that considered all of the different violations of our law that occur in the scope of domestic violence, leading up to it in particular.

It is quite disappointing that something that would have provided a broader scope was so limited at the committee stage. This was the status of women committee, so it was surprising and bizarre to see it being gutted piece by piece by members of the committee. I read through all the testimony, and I am still scratching my head over why they would weaken protections for victims of intimate partner violence and their children. Perhaps they will respond to clarify, because nothing has been clear in everything that I have seen communicated from them. It has been very disappointing.

They gutted another provision as well. This one was really wild. There was a provision in the bill, right at the beginning, of paramount importance saying that victims would have to be consulted on their safety and security needs. During the process, a justice would have had to consult the prosecutor to see whether the victim had anything else they should know about so they could implement related protections for her. That was completely tossed out. Having a victims' rights option in there to have her voice heard on what she needs would have been required. We know there are a lot of problems in our judicial system about victims not being consulted, but that was gutted as well. It is interesting, because with Keira's law, the victim's stepfather supported that provision.

Lastly, just to conclude, the original bill also made a peace bond last two to three years. It takes a lot of effort and courage to get peace bonds, and 12 months, especially for mothers, goes by quickly so they have to keep going back. We could have had a two- or three-year option for women. Now they would have to go back every 12 months. That was gutted by the Liberals.

It is deeply disappointing to see them prioritizing the abuser over the victim. We worked so hard to get this bill here. I would urge them to please consider our amendments. There are women's lives at stake. Let us do this together. Let us pass the strongest bill possible. Let us do it for women.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is another issue that should not be hijacked by partisanship.

I rise today to speak to a bill that is important for women who are victims of domestic violence. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill S‑205. This is bill is consistent with the initiatives that have strengthened the justice and policing systems to address domestic violence. Gender-based violence is a scourge, and we believe that this bill is a step in the right direction for achieving this goal. To follow on the work we did in committee, we are maintaining our support for Bill S‑205. The Bloc Québécois' position is consistent with the initiatives that seek to strengthen the mechanisms to better align the justice system with public safety, particularly to ensure better protection for victims of domestic violence.

I will give an overview of this bill and then talk a bit about parole and the reservations we have. I will close by talking about the progress made in Quebec on this matter.

First, I too would like to acknowledge Conservative Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Essentially, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to require a judge who is making a decision on the interim release of an accused person to ensure that the prosecutor has consulted the informant about their security needs. The bill would allow the judge to order the wearing of a monitoring device, commonly known as an electronic monitoring bracelet, when the prosecutor so requests. The purpose of the bill is to make it easier for the victim to obtain a copy of the order against the accused, and it requires the judge to ask the prosecutor whether the victim has been informed of the order. The bill also seeks to allow victims to lay an information before a judge about their abuser, if they have reasonable grounds to fear for their physical safety or that of their child. If the fear is justified, the judge may order the defendant to enter into a recognizance under threat of imprisonment.

The bill also gives the judge the authority to set the conditions for a good behaviour recognizance by imposing such things as psychosocial follow-up, relocation to a geographic area other than that of the informant, the obligation to refrain from going to a specified place and the obligation to refrain from communicating directly or indirectly with a child, the informant, the informant's child or any relative or close friend of the informant. The bill also allows the judge to prohibit the abuser from using social media and consuming drugs, alcohol or other intoxicants and to require that they provide a sample to check compliance with this condition. The bill also permits the informant to provide submissions in writing to the judge regarding the conditions of the recognizance to be set by the judge.

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 the infamous section 810 of the Criminal Code; and 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.

Bill S‑205 broadens the scope of section 810 of the Criminal Code, which empowers the court to order the defendant to enter into a recognizance to be of good behaviour if the victim fears that the defendant will cause personal injury to them, their child or their intimate partner or damage to their property. The bill adds relatives, close friends and other people who may be targeted to that list.

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 must punish crime and protect the public. With femicide and domestic violence on the rise, it is important to strengthen mechanisms for protecting 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.

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 legal process 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 abuser. There might be gaps in the bill that could compromise certain fundamental rights, like the requirement to provide biological samples to prove that the defendant has not breached a recognizance to be of good behaviour.

We supported the amendment made in committee to clause 1, which deals with the criminal history of a violent intimate partner. The amendment excludes cases of limitation and focuses only on whether the person has already been convicted, regardless of which crime they have been charged with. This has the effect of covering a broader range of offences for the benefit of the victim. The same goes for the list of amendments in clause 2, which clarifies the legal definition of partners and their children, who are included in the risk assessment and the protections granted. For most of these amendments, it is a matter of aligning the amendment with the relevant section of the Criminal Code, as it currently stands. We heard that in committee from experts.

We are in favour of the amendments dealing with specialized services for first nations, although all citizens should be entitled to the best support services available. However, we are not in favour of reducing the maximum time the judge can order the defendant to be of good behaviour from 2 years to 12 months. I still do not understand why this amendment was made at committee. In recent news, we have seen that spouses can act years later, motivated by revenge. Finally, we are in favour of the new clause 10.1 proposed by the committee. It includes the new amendments to the Criminal Code regarding firearms and all other types of weapons. This new section allows the judge to determine whether to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, crossbow and prohibited device, for example.

In spite of our reservations regarding the bill as a whole, the Bloc Québécois will support it because it is commendable and seeks to make our communities safer, which is a net benefit for all Quebeckers. A sense of security within communities reinforces a nation's well-being. If passed, these legislative changes will represent an added value for victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence. 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. This is still a problem in 2024—victims are still reluctant to come forward and report their abusers.

Quebec is one of the most progressive nations when it comes to protecting victims of family 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. Federal offenders were not subject to the same conditions. It is time to settle this discrepancy and make sure that all inmates released from prison are subject to the same restrictions.

Statistics show that femicide and domestic violence are on the rise. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. The updated statistics are chilling, particularly the ones released by Statistics Canada this summer. In Quebec alone, 14 femicides occurred in 2024, and eight of those women were killed by their partner or former partner. The first femicide took place in the riding of Shefford. I would like to once again offer my condolences to the victim's loved ones, whom I had the opportunity to meet during a difficult time this summer. They decided to turn their tragic experience into something positive by organizing an event to help raise funds for Maison Alice-Desmarais, a shelter for women fleeing domestic violence. The shelter is located in Granby.

As I was saying, the situation is now catastrophic. It is imperative that we use this solution, which may not be perfect but is still the best solution. As we know, electronic bracelets with geolocation save lives. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse this disturbing trend. The reality on the ground highlights the shortcomings of the status quo that prevails in the justice system. Many victims continue to fear their abuser, even when that individual 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. I would like to point out that Quebec elected officials produced a non-partisan report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, or rebuilding trust. Politics were set aside to tackle this problem. I say bravo for the specialized courts and the electronic monitoring bracelets.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois will stand up for women who are victims of domestic violence. Even one victim is one too many. Several communities have declared femicide an epidemic. We need to take action. I want to say one last thing. Last Friday, I marched with the Coalition des groupes de femmes de la Haute-Yamaska et de Brome-Missisquoi and many other groups from across Quebec. I was deeply moved to be joining those women once again this year.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to join tonight's debate on Bill S-205, a Senate public bill that is now before the House after a very long journey. It has gone through the Senate, and it is now before us for report stage and third reading. I believe we will come to the consequential votes of this particular bill tomorrow. Recently, of course, it has gone through six meetings at the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It finds itself here via former senator Pierre‑Hugues Boisvenu and is now being sponsored here in the House by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

I also want to recognize another member, my NDP colleague the member for Winnipeg Centre, who is a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Not only in her own riding but indeed right across this country, she has been a stalwart champion for women and for raising these particular issues. I know that our entire caucus is extremely proud of the work she does on this issue every day. We are certainly very grateful for the work she did as our caucus member of that standing committee so the House could consider the committee's work on the bill that is before us today.

Intimate partner violence is absolutely a national crisis, and we know that the statistics outline that in very stark ways. We know that about every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner. That statistic is very troubling to me personally, being a father of three daughters.

We know that globally, before COVID, one in three women experienced some form of intimate partner violence. We know that the rates are highest in households that are low-income and indigenous. There has been a surge in recent years in gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence. We know that the number of cases for women and girls in Canada involving a male accused increased by 27% in 2022 compared to before the pandemic in 2019. We know that in recognition of the massive surge of violence, the aforementioned Standing Committee on the Status of Women just recently undertook a study into this very important and concerning issue.

We know that the situation is dire. In several Canadian cities, places like Ottawa, where the House of Commons is located; Toronto; and Kitchener, this is recognized as an epidemic.

There is a role, of course, for us as federal legislators and for the federal government. We have jurisdiction over how the Criminal Code is structured, and indeed the bill before us has some important amendments to it. We cannot alone legislate ourselves out of the problem. It is worth repeating here, as many of my colleagues have consistently done, that the current Liberal government has implemented only two of the 231 calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, there is a relatively high indigenous population. From speaking with many female indigenous members of my community, I know that this is a particularly galling statistic and one that they take great issue with. They feel that they are not being seen and that their personal circumstances are not rating high enough for the government's attention.

I also want to take some time to recognize the organizations that are working on the ground in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. There is the Cowichan Women Against Violence Society, which works from a feminist perspective to provide a supportive environment primarily to women and children who have been impacted by violence. It is there to support diversity, change, choice and growth through counselling, advocacy, emergency shelter services, community development and education. There is also the Victoria Women's Transition House, which has been supporting and advocating for women since 1974. That organization is active in the southern part of my riding, in the great city of Langford.

When we turn to Bill S-205, there are a number of elements. I do want to recognize that the bill is not in the same form as when the Senate handed it over to the House of Commons. I know that following those six meetings at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, a number of amendments were made to the bill, and I know we have some report stage amendments before us. We will, as a House, be deciding on the final form that we eventually want to have.

Some notable elements in the bill include mentions of the use of electronic monitoring devices, and I think some of the biggest parts of the bill deal with the recognizance orders that could be put in place for survivors of intimate partner violence, which would allow judges to impose conditions on these or for a domestic counselling program.

If we were to delve into the bill and look at those recognizance orders, first of all, there are a lot of different examples in the bill. It should be noted that the overall purpose would be to prevent serious harm by imposing conditions on a person, which can ultimately restrict their behaviour or their movement and essentially be a barrier the court could impose to reduce the risk of them committing a future offence.

We have to go back to section 810 of the Criminal Code to find existing provisions, and this bill would add some amendments to those particular sections. For example, there could be an order to attend a treatment program, to remain within a specified geographic area, to wear an electronic monitoring device so the person's whereabouts are known at all times, to abstain from communicating, to refrain from using social media or to abstain from the consumption of drugs and alcohol. Again, these all could vary based on the facts of the case before the court.

I want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her hard work. We, as a caucus, will continue to support this bill. We believe that through the provisions in this bill, the legislative changes would be of benefit to survivors of intimate partner violence. It would provide some of the legislative guardrails that are necessary.

However, we are not going to legislate ourselves out of this problem. This is one piece of the puzzle that we as legislators can have a positive impact on, but we have a responsibility as a society to act swiftly and decisively to prevent and eliminate intimate partner violence and to support survivors. Bill S-205, on balance, would be a step in the right direction, but I think many people who are listening to this debate and who have that lived experience would agree with me that the work is far from over. We certainly must keep this issue top of mind.

With that, I will conclude my remarks. I appreciate being able to speak to this particular issue on behalf of my constituents.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge all members to support the bill.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, many women helped create Bill S‑205 by joining forces and working hard. I want to pay tribute to these women and their resilience. Their insights and hard work have led to the tabling of this legislation before us which seeks to strengthen the Criminal Code and to put in place preventive safety measures called interim release at the beginning of the legal process, when a woman decides to report the violence she has experienced.

I rise in the House to speak to a bill that proposes a solution to the issues that affect thousands of victims of domestic violence by providing them with the protection and supports they desperately need to regain their safety and dignity. Bill S‑205 invites us to reflect on the fate of victims who have come to testify about how their domestic violence complaints were dealt with at the reporting stage by the police, as well as the entire process dedicated to such complaints.

I would especially like to talk about victims of sexual assault in sports, because over the past two years, as I reviewed the accounts of several athletes who were victims of violence and abuse, I realized to my great dismay how the system does not do justice to the victims. In routine court proceedings, lawyers agree on a number of things, such as a publication ban on the identity of the victim, a witness or a stakeholder in the justice system, even before the trial begins. What about the victim's right to lift the ban? One of the first things I noticed was how little opportunity there is in the system to consult with victims who are subject to a publication ban. That issue was pointed out by the people at My Voice, My Choice, whom I salute.

I rose several times in the House with the hope that the Prime Minister would open an independent, public inquiry into the sports and that this would highlight the absurdity of the mechanisms chosen to address violence and sexual assault, as well as the need to better protect our athletes and children. Why are athletes in vulnerable or power imbalance situations treated differently, outside the courts? That is a debate we should take the time to get into in the House.

When Rick Westhead's article came out, were it not for my intervention in the House and for the motion on Hockey Canada being adopted unanimously, what would have happened in the now high profile case of the alleged victim of gang rape by Hockey Canada players? Sport Canada was informed in June 2018, but did nothing. The chief of the London police apologized for not getting to the bottom of things at the time, and I could list everything the victim went through. The system allowed for the imposition of a non-disclosure agreement—or her silence in exchange for monetary compensation. Two years of work at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and public pressure help put this case back on track, where it should have been from the start. The victim, in this case, could apply to have the publication ban lifted at any time during the trial, when she feels safe enough to do so.

I see the similarities with Bill S‑205. We must give victims back the power to decide whether or not to be informed. We should not be making decisions for them. We must give them tools to ensure they have some sense of safety, such as requiring the alleged abuser to wear an electronic device if they are released on bail. We must take the time to do the right thing and implement preventive safety measures. What do we know about “peace bonds”, often referred to as “810s” in legal jargon? We know the system uses them too often, and perhaps too quickly. Here again, we are confronted with that reality in each and every case that is reported in the newspapers. Orders issued under section 810 of the Criminal Code and the amount of red tape involved in filing complaints too often result in victims withdrawing their complaint.

I want to talk about indigenous women because, in rereading the testimony heard in the Senate, and given my role in connection to indigenous relations, I paid close attention to testimony from the Native Women's Association of Canada, represented by Sarah Niman, the organization's legal counsel. I would like to echo those voices. I am addressing my colleagues with a deep concern for indigenous women who, when they experience violence, are often abandoned by a system that is supposed to protect them. Too often, when an indigenous woman finds the courage to ask for help, she is confronted with a system that turns its back on her.

Instead of protecting her, the Criminal Code allows the abuser to remain free and keep hurting her while we wait for a solution to be found. The wait can seem endless at times, however. It is unacceptable that the safety of an indigenous woman should depend on her ability to persuade others of her worth and her right to protection.

That is why we must support Bill S‑205. This bill is far more than a piece of legislation. It is the promise of justice. It seeks to redefine our approach to violence against indigenous women by putting their safety and security at the heart of the legal process. Bill S‑205 not only creates specific intervention for indigenous women, it establishes a framework that will allow them to be seen, heard and respected in a system that too often ignores them.

This bill puts the criminal justice system under an obligation to consider the safety of victims at every stage, from the initial request for assistance until the end of the proceedings. The time has come to give victims a voice and restore their power to choose a path to justice. By supporting this bill, we are taking a decisive step toward a more just society where every woman, no matter her background, deserves to be safe and protected.

We are in favour of the amendments on specialized services for first nations, even though all citizens should be entitled to the best support services available. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of most of the measures set out in Bill S‑205. Allowing victims to be more involved in the legal process that concerns them is a good step forward that the Bloc Québécois can fully support. Victims should not have to go to great lengths to seek justice. The bill helps to reduce the obstacles that victims may face and that may dissuade them from courageously pursuing their complaint against their abuser.

We support the amendment made in committee to clause 1, pertaining to the criminal record of a violent intimate partner. The same goes for the list of amendments to clause 2 to clarify the legal definition of partners and the children of partners and include them in the risk assessment and the protections that are granted. We are opposed to reducing the maximum period of good behaviour from two years to 12 months. Finally, the committee improved the bill with a provision that enables judges to decide whether to prohibit the accused from possessing prohibited and restricted firearms, prohibited devices and crossbows.

Quebec is recognized as one of the most progressive nations when it comes to protecting victims of family violence. It has rolled out some promising initiatives, including electronic monitoring devices that help keep victims safer by restricting the movements of abusers. As of December 2022, more than 850 offenders had already been fitted with these devices. However, we know that challenges remain. The same protections do not apply to persons convicted at the federal level. It is imperative to standardize the conditions of release for all abusers so that all victims are kept safe, free from discrimination or distinction.

The legislative changes we are proposing will genuinely benefit victims, especially women affected by domestic or sexual violence. We need to make our justice system more efficient and more transparent. This requires clear and timely decisions regarding the release of abusers. However, it also demands greater awareness, so that all victims can report crimes without fear.

The numbers are chilling. The Quebec government's report on rebuilding trust noted an alarming 7.5% increase in femicide and domestic violence between 2009 and 2019. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to reverse this worrying trend. The reality on the ground demonstrates that many victims continue to live in fear of their abuser, even when he or she is in custody. This is unacceptable. It is essential to create an environment in which victims feel supported, listened to and protected. That is our duty.