Status of Women Committee on May 10th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, April 29, 2022, the committee will resume its study of Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their places during proceedings.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of our witnesses and 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 your mike 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, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Before we welcome our witnesses, for drafting amendments I would like to remind members to contact Alexandra Schorah, the legislative counsel, as soon as possible should there be any amendments to be drafted. The deadline for submitting amendments in both official languages is Wednesday, May 11, at noon. Amendments should be sent to the clerk.

On another note, I had a call this morning from Megan Walker. She is unable to attend today due to family circumstances. I have taken this to the clerk, and I would like to propose that her speaking notes be taken as read and appended to the evidence of today's meeting.

Do I have the consent of the committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

[See appendix—Remarks by Megan Walker]

I would now like to welcome our guests.

To our witnesses, I'm very sorry that we are running late and starting late today. We did have three votes, but we're all here now and ready for this.

As witnesses today we have with us, as an individual, Francis Fortin, associate professor, school of criminology, Université de Montréal; Jean-Pierre Guay, professor, school of criminology, Université de Montréal; as an individual, Corinne Paterson, obstetrician and gynecologist; from Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children, Pamela Cross, legal director; from the Recovery Science Corporation, Peter Marshall, chief executive officer; and Cee Strauss, staff lawyer, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund.

I'd like to thank each and every one of you for joining us. I'm going to be granting you five minutes each for your opening statement. You're going to see me start hooting and hollering over here, but since we have a large panel, I will be cutting you off at that five-minute point.

I am going to pass the floor to our first witness, Francis Fortin, with the Université de Montréal.

Francis, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Dr. Francis Fortin, Associate Professor, School of Criminology, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I thank the committee for the invitation and for their interest in our work.

Some countries have adopted electronic monitoring device systems as a means of preventing domestic violence, including spousal homicide. The monitoring bracelet allows the geolocation of a spouse or ex‑spouse, which, in the event that a set perimeter around the victim is crossed, sends an alert to the central station and allows a rapid intervention of police officers on both the victim's and the offender's side.

Jean-Pierre Guay and I were mandated to prepare a feasibility study that aimed to analyze the measure by identifying the main challenges related to the implementation of this device in the Quebec context.

For our methodology, we used 133 documents and synthesized legislation in 38 territories. We conducted interviews with police stakeholders in the justice environment, victims' groups and offender assistance groups, and we also conducted an assessment of the criminal history of offenders, which my colleague, Jean-Pierre Guay, will present to you in a few moments.

Here are our findings. Several initiatives have been implemented in a few countries, and their experience shows that the monitoring bracelet can be incorporated into the various measures to prevent domestic violence. First of all, it increases the well-being and sense of security of the victims, which means that we can intervene quickly. In addition, the bracelet increases compliance with treatment orders.

It should be noted that there can also be negative effects. So, good implementation should aim to reduce these, taking into account the following in particular. First, there are the legal issues, which include consideration of the stage in the judicial process where the bracelet may be appropriate, as well as the balance between protecting victims and respecting the rights of offenders. It is also important to understand that there are equivalent provisions to section 810 of the Criminal Code everywhere, in many countries. Everywhere, these orders are very difficult to enforce, and the bracelet enforces a measure that is already ordered by a judge in most jurisdictions.

The implementation of such technology also raises issues related to the choice of device, its underlying technology and an effective alarm and warning system. It also needs to be coordinated with a police response. We have highlighted the particular characteristic of Quebec, which is the unavailability of certain technologies in remote areas. We also find challenges related to the privacy of the parties involved.

In short, our report contains several recommendations to minimize the impact of this measure, in order to strike a balance between protecting victims and depriving offenders of their rights and freedoms.

Risk assessment and the selection of individuals subject to a measure such as this also merit careful consideration. My colleague, Jean-Pierre Guay, will address this specific issue.

[Dr. Jean-Pierre Guay, Professor, School of Criminology, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Professor Fortin.

First of all, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for inviting us. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be here to present our work on the electronic monitoring bracelet.

In order to better understand the people and situations that could benefit from a monitoring bracelet and to propose scenarios for its use, we conducted a relatively exhaustive study of the criminal histories of people who had committed spousal violence offences in Quebec over a long period of time.

We used police data concerning the arrests of all perpetrators of domestic violence offences in Quebec over a 10-year period. We analyzed all of these paths to bring out a number of main lines. We documented all the offences committed by these individuals over their lifetime.

We were able to paint a relatively detailed picture of the criminal history of these individuals, both in terms of general crime and domestic or sexual violence. In total, we counted 116,805 perpetrators of domestic violence offences between 2010 and 2020. About 30% of these offenders, or 33,999, were repeat offenders of domestic violence. In more than half of the cases, the gap between the first and second offence was less than 18 months. We studied the essential criminal history of these offenders, as well as recidivism in relation to domestic violence. The results revealed that recidivists had a relatively extensive and criminally diverse criminal history.

The best measure for the monitoring device is probably one that correctly identifies those most likely to benefit from it. Not everyone can necessarily benefit from such a measure, due to lack of human resources or technological problems, as Mr. Fortin mentioned.

The report we have proposed presents a series of data analyses and a short scale to guide decision-makers on the allocation of monitoring bracelets. It also attempts to estimate the risk of reoffending using relatively simple criteria regarding the criminal history of individuals. These criteria could potentially serve as a starting point for decision-makers. They could base their decisions on specific characteristics of the cases they are working on.

In Quebec, we are currently conducting a study on the effects of the monitoring bracelet. Specifically, we will be looking at offences committed, recidivism of offenders, victims' sense of safety, and the experience of people who wear the monitoring device. We have quite a lot of experience that allows us to put in place devices and understand the effects of the monitoring bracelet.

This study should allow us to adjust the measure so that it is as effective and optimal as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much.

We're now going to pass it over to Corinne Paterson.

Corinne, I have your remarks with me. I think we may be a little over time, but I will make sure that any of your remarks are put on the record for you, just in case I have to cut you off.

You have five minutes.

[Dr. Corinne Paterson, Obstetrician Gynecologist, As an Individual]

Thank you so much for inviting me to speak today.

My name is Corinne Paterson and I'm an obstetrician gynecologist in Manitoba. I've been practising here since 2011. I want to share with you my experience working with women experiencing intimate partner violence.

In residency we are trained regarding the basics of how to help our patients who are dealing with domestic violence. First, we're taught to ask about it, knowing that 25% of Canadian women will experience it. If a woman discloses domestic violence in her relationship, we talk about safety. We talk about having an exit plan. We talk about shelters. We support them if they wish to report to the police. We talk about leaving their abusive partner.

Most of us became doctors because we wanted to help people, and this seemed so straightforward when it was taught in university. Unfortunately, helping women in these situations is far more complicated. Women can go through all the right steps and still die or lose the lives of their children. The loss of life of women and children from intimate partner violence across Canada is appalling. It has become a public health emergency that has been made worse by the pandemic. A woman dies every 1.5 days in this country, and 30 to 40 children die every year from domestic violence. We can do better.

We also know from a medical perspective that children who survive domestic violence do not emerge unscathed. Exposure increases the risk of adverse health outcomes, including depression, anxiety and suicide. Physical illnesses, including obesity, heart disease and cancer, are increased as well.

If a woman tells me that she's being abused by her partner and she has children, we discuss leaving. However, in Winnipeg, as is common across the country, it is unlikely that we will be able to have a shelter bed available for her on the day that she happens to need one. I remember once calling a shelter on behalf of my pregnant patient who showed up to my clinic with two black eyes, and I was told the wait for a shelter bed would be approximately two weeks' time. That's not helpful.

Women like this are often scared, and so am I. I know her risk of dying increases significantly when she decides to leave a violent relationship. I will often encourage people to get a restraining order. I also know that in Winnipeg we do not always have the police resources to come right away. I know when she goes to a lawyer to talk about getting a divorce, they will possibly explain to her that a judge may feel—as did the judge in Dr. Kagan's case—that domestic violence is not relevant to parenting and they're going to ignore it.

I've heard from patients and from lawyers that their clients are aware of this phenomenon. It's become an unacceptable but understood fact amongst professionals: A woman can go through every step correctly, but the Canadian judicial system is unable to consistently protect abused women in this country.

Education on domestic violence is absolutely required to protect Canadian children. Specifically pertaining to this bill, we talk about educating judges. They act as the final gatekeepers to justice for women leaving the path of abuse. If they are unaware of the full implications of their decisions on the lives of women and children, how can we expect them to do their job properly?

If any individual were to argue with me that this education is unnecessary, I would ask them to picture what 280 mothers and children would look like. That's 10 classrooms full of women and children. Even if, with this bill, we manage to save 10% of them, that would be significant. We're asking judges to invest their time in learning how to save these lives.

We know that, according to the Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative, recent separation and domestic violence are the two biggest risk factors for domestic violence-related child homicide. Custody disputes increase this risk as well. If we can properly risk-score these perpetrators, perhaps we can save the lives of children. Every judge needs to know these facts.

I became involved in speaking about this bill because I was particularly touched by the media coverage of the case of Keira losing her life after her mother, a fellow physician, did all the right things. She left. She trusted the system; there are 53 court orders to prove it. Her daughter still died. Another physician, a mother of three, Elana Fric, lost her life at the hands of her husband after suffering from significant domestic violence and telling him she wanted a divorce.

A woman's risk of domestic homicide goes up 900 times when there is a history of coercive control, violence and a recent separation.

We are fortunate that research has been done which clearly demonstrates that ankle bracelet monitoring saves lives. Ankle bracelet monitoring for offenders, including notification of the victim and police if the perpetrator is violating a restraining order, has been shown to reduce intimate partner violence-associated deaths by up to 100% in some jurisdictions.

I wonder how many Canadians could be saved by this technology, and I sincerely hope we get the chance to find out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much, Dr. Paterson. I really appreciate those words.

We're now going to pass it over to Pamela Cross with Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children.

You have five minutes, Pam.

[Pamela Cross, Legal Director, Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children]

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm very happy to be with you to talk about Bill C-233. I do so on behalf of Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre in Durham Region where I'm the legal director. I'm happy to talk to you more about the work that we do with survivors of family violence if we have time during the question period.

First, with respect to judicial education, Luke's Place strongly supports judicial education on the issue of intimate partner violence, or IPV. The family law system in Canada is not always an understanding and safe place for women who have been subjected to IPV. Women face barriers in simply getting to the courtroom and, once there, they're often met with a legal system that does not understand their experiences or hear their concerns.

Just over a year ago, significant changes were made to the Divorce Act, making it mandatory for judges to consider family violence when deciding on parenting arrangements. These changes also introduced an expansive definition of “family violence” that goes well beyond the physical to include patterns of coercive control. As we just heard from Dr. Paterson, it's that coercive control that can be such a dangerous kind of IPV.

Those changes to the legislation, important as they are, are only one part of the solution when it comes to protecting women and children, to saving their lives. Education for those tasked with applying the law is equally important if judges are to have the tools and resources they need to make effective, safe parenting decisions.

Over the past year, we've seen excellent decisions that clearly reflect a deep understanding of the legislation and of IPV on the part of many judges. However, we also continue to see decisions that lack that understanding. When a judge does not fully understand what family violence looks like and its harmful long-lasting effects, decisions can be made that put women and children at risk. Stereotypes about violence and victims remain alive and women who have been subjected to subtle, non-physical forms of violence continue to be disbelieved, continue to be retraumatized, or even worse, they're vilified throughout the family law process.

We strongly support judicial independence and impartiality and the need to ensure that judges make decisions based only on the law and the facts before them, but to do so effectively and competently, judges require ongoing education about the laws that they're applying. This should not be controversial. We understand that a memorandum of understanding was recently signed by Chief Justice Richard Wagner and the Minister of Justice, David Lametti, recognizing the judiciary's autonomy over education. We believe that this bill can coexist with the memorandum through the permissive language found in the Judges Act.

While we generally support Bill C-233's proposed amendments, we suggest that it could be made stronger by including a provision that sets out suggested requirements for the creation and content of the training, similar to those in subsection 60(3) in respect of seminars related to sexual assault law. In the interests of time, I'll save my comments about the details of what we propose for that kind of education for the question period.

We also submit that Bill C-233 should include an amendment to paragraph 3(b) to require that new judges undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to IPV and coercive control. This obligation already exists with respect to sexual assault law and social context, and it should simply be expanded to cover the topic of intimate partner violence.

Very briefly, we're not opposed to electronic monitoring as a mechanism for promoting the safety of victims and survivors of intimate partner violence. There's no doubt that this form of electronic tracking can provide women with an added level of security and no doubt that it has the potential to increase both actual safety and feelings of safety.

However, we need to do more before we codify electronic monitoring. In order to avoid unintended negative consequences, let's take the time to find out more about when and how it will be used, and whether it's appropriate in all circumstances.

We have a list of questions that we believe need to be answered before proceeding with electronic monitoring, and I'm happy to share them and discuss them during the question period, if time permits.

Let me conclude by saying that Luke’s Place supports Bill C-233, but encourages the committee to consider our proposed suggestions and amendments as a way to strengthen the bill and promote safer outcomes for women and children.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much.

We're now going to turn it over to Peter Marshall with Recovery Science Corporation.

Peter, you have five minutes.

[Peter Marshall, Chief Executive Officer, Recovery Science Corporation]

Thank you for inviting me to appear today.

My comments will be focused on the electronic monitoring provision of the bill and, to a lesser extent, on the education component.

By way of background related to the issue of intimate partner violence, I am a lawyer with experience in child protection and family law, having acted for children’s aid societies, parents, children and Ontario’s Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services.

In terms of experience related to electronic monitoring, my company, Recovery Science Corporation, started an innovative electronic monitoring program in 2010. We provide radio-frequency, GPS and alcohol monitoring. Because the availability of government-funded electronic monitoring programs is limited and inconsistent across the country, our privately paid program filled a need, as evidenced by the fact that our GPS monitoring program for bail developed into the largest such program in Canada, larger than any of the existing government-run programs. That experience gave us a front-row seat as Canadian criminal courts formulated their reasoning and developed a body of case law about the use of electronic monitoring as a bail condition. Based on that background, I have four main comments for your consideration.

My first comment is that, while the bill would require judges to consider the use of electronic monitoring as a condition of bail, it may be worth considering extending the same obligation to all forms of conditional release that a judge may be asked to consider or approve, such as peace bonds, conditional sentences, suspended sentences, intermittent sentences, conditional discharges, probation following a period of imprisonment, and parole.

My second comment is that it may be worth considering whether and how similar obligations can be extended to decision-makers other than judges. For example, when determining their recommendations, whether on bail, the withdrawal of charges in favour of a peace bond or sentencing, and although ultimately subject to a judge’s approval, Crown attorneys make decisions that have a significant impact on whether an individual is released into the community and, if so, under what conditions.

My third comment relates to the availability of electronic monitoring. As I noted earlier, the reason my company’s privately paid program became so successful was that the availability of electronic monitoring is so limited and inconsistent across the country. For example, any particular province or territory may or may not have a government-funded program at all, and when they do have a program, they may have technological limitations, such as only offering one type of monitoring. They may have eligibility limitations, such as only making it available for some forms of community supervision but not others and limitations in the number of cases they can accommodate.

If the intention is to ensure that decision-makers impose an electronic monitoring condition in all appropriate cases, then electronic monitoring needs to be available in all jurisdictions for every form of community supervision and needs to use the form of technology that best addresses the risk factors identified in each case.

My fourth and final comment relates to the judicial education provision of the bill. In addition to promoting general awareness among judges of matters related to intimate partner violence, it may be worth promoting the development of decision-makers' risk assessment skills and promoting practical knowledge of what can and cannot be expected of electronic monitoring. This will help decision-makers recognize the risk scenarios of where the use of electronic monitoring is and is not appropriate and, when using it, help them to craft an overall set of conditions that best addresses the circumstances of the case before them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much.

I would now like to turn it over to the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund.

Cee Strauss, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Cee Strauss, Staff Lawyer, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

My name is Cee Strauss. I'm a staff lawyer at the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, LEAF. I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear today from the unceded lands of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabeg peoples in the place that is now called Montreal. LEAF works to advance the equality rights of women, girls, trans and non-binary people through litigation, law reform and public education.

I'd like to start by thanking and recognizing Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater for her leadership in pushing for this important and necessary call for judicial education on matters related to IPV and coercive control. LEAF supports judges receiving this training; however, we believe the bill requires specification about how it should be implemented. These are details that I will discuss shortly. On the other hand, LEAF has serious concerns regarding clause 1 of the bill amending the Criminal Code.

I will begin with our support for judicial education.

Intimate partner violence is the most widespread type of violence against women, accounting for 45% of all violence reported by women aged 15 to 89. The risks of IPV are greater for women who are indigenous, Black and racialized, as well as for women with disabilities and migrant women. These risks are also greatly increased for people who are 2-spirit, non-binary, trans and gender nonconforming.

Victims and survivors of IPV have struggled to make courts understand both the impact of intimate partner violence on themselves and their families and the risk that such violence will occur. It's because of legal system actors' lack of attention to family violence and its impacts that LEAF strongly advocated for and celebrated amendments to the Divorce Act. These amendments, among other things, added a definition of “family violence” to the act and mandated that family violence be a consideration when determining the best interests of the child. Significantly, IPV, including coercive and controlling behaviour that is not physical, constitutes family violence.

However, identifying the presence of IPV or coercive control in a partnership requires training. IPV is an umbrella term that encompasses complex, varied forms of abuse. It's often misrecognized due to gendered myths and stereotypes, as Dr. Paterson and Pamela Cross so eloquently shared. This needs to change, and it will not change without training. However, in order for such training to be effective, we believe the bill requires specification in certain areas.

First, we recommend that training on matters related to IPV and coercive control include social context. The way the amendment is currently worded, social context is only relevant for training on sexual assault, yet systemic inequality in Canadian society, including colonialism, systemic racism, ableism, homophobia and transphobia, has led to and can exacerbate intimate partner violence and stereotypes about survivors of such violence. In 2021, indigenous women and girls made up 19% of femicides in Canada. Women with a disability are twice as likely as women without one to have been the victim of a violent crime. It is critical that judges are aware of these realities when assessing the presence and impacts of intimate partner violence.

In addition, educational materials on IPV and coercive control should be created in consultation with survivors of intimate partner violence and organizations that support them. For this reason, we would recommend that a similar provision be added to subsection 60(3) of the Judges Act in respect of training on IPV and coercive control. Training should include information on the different forms of IPV, the well-documented social reality that family violence is a gendered phenomenon and the impact of trauma on a survivor's memory, demeanor and well-being.

Finally, we would recommend, as Luke's Place does, predicating eligibility to become a superior court judge on a person's undertaking to participate in continuing education on matters related to IPV and coercive control. This was a crucial element of Bill C-3, formerly Bill C-5, as without it, one could not be sure that any judges would attend training on sexual assault law at all. This bill should provide the same reassurance.

Briefly turning to the bill's proposed amendments on electronic monitoring, there are some concerns that should not be ignored. It's important to note that electronic monitoring is already available to judges as an option when considering bail conditions. Electronic monitoring may make some survivors of intimate partner violence feel safer and may serve to protect survivors and their children from harm in certain cases. However, as it has already been said, this will not be the case for every person. For this reason, electronic monitoring should be a condition that is available to judges, which it already is, but it should not be something that judges are required to consider, as is proposed in this bill. This is because there is a significant likelihood that if judges are required by the Criminal Code to consider a particular condition, it will end up being added to bail conditions as a matter of course.

With electronic monitoring devices costing hundreds of dollars a month, the routine addition of electronic monitoring as a bail condition will have devastating consequences for low-income families. This may detrimentally impact the interests of, at least, some survivors.

Thank you for your time. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much to our witnesses on our panel today.

In our first round of questioning, we'll be starting off with six minutes for each party. I will be passing the floor over to them, but I'm going to remind people that we're at six minutes for our first round, so I will be cutting people off since we're tight on time today.

Michelle Ferreri, I'm going to pass the floor over to you for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for your great testimony. Thank you for being here today with your thoughtful and insightful suggestions.

I'm going to start with Pamela Cross.

Ms. Cross, you recently completed the delivery of domestic violence awareness training to approximately 2,700 Legal Aid Ontario staff, community clinics and lawyers across the province. What was the result of this training? Do you believe that same training would be beneficial and useful for judges?

[Pamela Cross]

Thank you for the question.

I'm going to answer the second part of it first, if I might. I think that what judges need to know is somewhat different from what lawyers need to know. The training work I did with Legal Aid Ontario was aimed not just at lawyers but at all of their staff, and in addition to understanding what intimate partner violence is, it was very much focused on coercive control and how to identify it. That's not really something a judge is in a position to be doing to the same extent.

While I think there are some commonalities between the work that we did with Legal Aid Ontario, the education that we're talking about for judges—and Cee Strauss has gone into this in some detail in their presentation—needs to focus on what's going to help a judge make a decision when they're hearing two stories very differently told by the two parties who are appearing in front of them.

As for whether or not the work we did with Legal Aid Ontario was effective, I would say yes, although I'm probably not an impartial judge of that. One of the things that was great about it was that it happened before the pandemic, so we could train people in person sitting in a room having conversations, and I think that's a really important part of learning. It was a full day of training, so it was rich in terms of the material that we could cover. The evaluations that were completed by the participants were extremely positive.

Maybe this is the most telling thing I can say, Michelle, in response to your question. A lot of people came to that training reluctantly, thinking they already knew what they needed to know or thinking that they were going to be turned into anti-father, biased lawyers. I can't tell you how many people spoke to me personally at the end of those days of training, saying, “Wow, this isn't what I was expecting at all. I learned a lot here. I'm going to be able to take these very practical tools away and put them into practice in my work as a lawyer representing moms, dads, children and various people who require representation in family court.”

You'd have to talk to Legal Aid to get a more comprehensive assessment as to whether or not they feel that there have been long-term benefits from the training, but even three years after we completed that contract, we still hear from lawyers who say how helpful it was to them.

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

Thank you so much. That is very helpful.

I was going to ask a different question, but you've opened the door for a conversation I'd like to have. I'm actually going to direct it to Cee if that's okay. I've been contacted about this bill by multiple people, in particular, fathers who've also been victims of abuse. I am curious what your thoughts are on the way the bill is worded, to ensure that gender equality is taking care of all genders, that it's not specific just to women.

[Cee Strauss]

Thank you very much for the question.

Right now, the bill is worded to ensure gender equality, I believe. I think it's important to understand the reality that women and children are those most harmed and affected by family violence. While of course they are not the only people affected by family violence—fathers and men are as well—the reality is that intimate partner violence is a gendered phenomenon, and we believe this should be a part of training for that particular reason. While, right now, I do believe that the bill is drafted in a gender-neutral way, we actually think that training should ensure that judges understand the gendered nature of intimate partner violence and family violence.

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

Thank you very much for that.

I have one other question, and it is for Francis Fortin.

Francis, you mentioned the negative impacts of the ankle bracelet. Could you expand on what you mean by that?

[Dr. Francis Fortin]

In taking stock of the measures introduced, we noted the stigmatizing effects of wearing the bracelet and, for the victim, of having to carry a device around with them at all times. Other negative effects were mentioned by previous witnesses.

For our part, we recommend being very careful not to have false positive effects. In other words, you should take the time to carefully choose the person who will benefit from the monitoring device. In some cases, it is not an adequate measure. This exercise is important to avoid negative effects. It's all about what this measure can mean to both parties involved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I do have to cut you off, sir.

[Dr. Francis Fortin]

We also have to think about privacy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Hopefully, you'll be able to get back to that.

I'm going to pass it over to Pam Damoff for the next six minutes.

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

Thank you.

My first question is for LEAF.

You mentioned concerns around social context. If we were to move the wording so it says “sexual assault law” and moved “matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control” before the words “social context”, would that address your concerns?

[Cee Strauss]

Yes, precisely, it would.