Status of Women Committee on May 10th, 2022

[Dr. Jean-Pierre Guay]

I will try to answer you as briefly as possible.

First, the offender wears an ankle bracelet. So the device is not visible and may be hidden, but it is definitely there.

Next, the victim, on the other hand, has a device equipped with a panic button, in case of emergency. A radius of action is determined within which the two devices must never be in contact. The number of kilometres of this radius, again, is at the discretion of the judge.

When there is a proximity alert, a call is sent to the central station, which determines whether it is a false alarm or whether a response is appropriate. The alert is then transferred to the police, who send two vehicles: one for the offender, the other for the victim. The offender is then arrested. Obviously, we want everything to happen quickly.

Does this answer your question?

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

Yes, that answers it perfectly.

How far do you think a defendant's privacy extends? Where does it end?

[Dr. Francis Fortin]

Based on our observations and analysis, the device does not record data until there is a proximity alert. If there is one, then an offence is committed. The device then records the geolocation data. The same applies to the victim.

This is the limit that is generally well accepted. If there is no need to use the information, it is not kept. Also, if a police officer asks for the information, it is not available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to flip it over to Emmanuella Lambropoulos.

You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to begin by thanking all of our witnesses for being here today to offer their amazing testimony on a very hard topic.

My first question is for Pamela Cross.

During your testimony, you mentioned that you would like to dive a bit more into the content of what should be taught to these judges. If you haven't had the opportunity to do so yet, are there any extra content pieces that you think should be included in the education they receive and also any additional circumstances that should be considered in terms of context? I'd like you to elaborate on those and to mention anything that you haven't had the chance to already.

[Pamela Cross]

The only thing I would add to what has been said this afternoon, not just by me but also by others, is that intimate partner violence looks so different from one situation to the other. We've talked a lot about coercive control, and that's important, because it is very under-recognized and often invisible to an outsider.

We also need to look at that whole spectrum of typologies of behaviours that constitute intimate partner violence. Judges need to understand that there's no “this is what a victim looks like” or “this is how a victim reacts, responds or behaves”—none of that. You can't tell by looking at somebody. You can't say, “she wasn't hit, so it's not as bad”, or that it was just a question of him being in charge of the money and doesn't mean that he was controlling her.

There has to be education that, as I've said, looks at that whole very broad range of typologies and tactics and understands that very often in a relationship there's a combination of tactics being used, and combined differently at different times, but generally escalating over the length of the relationship.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Strauss, if you would like to add anything, I know that you spoke to this as well.

I also have a final question for you, Ms. Strauss.

You also mentioned electronic monitoring. Is the only drawback the financial burden on low-income families? Is there anything else that you see as a drawback or is that the main thing that we should be taking from the testimony offered today?

[Cee Strauss]

Thank you for the questions.

I don't have anything to add to what Pam Cross has said and what I've already said regarding content. I had already mentioned—

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Our time is actually right at that spot anyway. I'm so sorry about that. Hold on to that thought, though, because you never know.

I'm going to now pass it over to Andréanne.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. Cross, as we know—the officials have made it clear—the monitoring bracelet, if we are talking about the administration of justice, will be administered by Quebec and the provinces. This device is already in place in Quebec.

More concretely, you talked about the collaboration that will be necessary between Quebec and the provinces and the federal government. Could you tell us more about that and what will have to be taken into account as part of that collaboration when it comes to something like the monitoring bracelet or the training of judges?

[Pamela Cross]

I think with respect to ankle bracelets the most important thing here is that Quebec already has this under way as a new practice. Let's all see how it plays out there.

Let's build on the research that we've already heard about today that's being done at the University of Montreal and see if this is something that's workable in a province that has a significant rural community and population and a very diverse population. Does it affect people from different diversities differently? I would guess it does, but let's hold off on making this something that's going to apply across the country until we can see how it works in Quebec and learn from that experience.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I'm going to ask one last question, since I have one minute left.

Ms. Cross, you touched on the fact that this bill would apply differently in rural and urban areas. I have previously mentioned to the committee that the accessibility of the airwaves in rural areas is important for the bracelet to work.

Do you have any notes or conclusion to give us on this disparity between rural and urban areas?

[Pamela Cross]

Rural areas are huge and police stations are often far from where a victim is. There needs to be time, and an electronic bracelet isn't going to provide that kind of protection.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Once again, this brings us back to the continuum of services. We need to provide better training for all stakeholders and make sure that everyone is working collaboratively to follow through on the implementation of this bracelet.

[Pamela Cross]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Excellent. Thank you so much.

We're now going to pass it over to Leah Gazan for two and a half minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

My question is for Madam Cross.

We know, and it's been widely researched, that certainly sexism and racism are common phenomena in the justice system. A report just came out about the toxicity in the RCMP and how it's targeted towards Black, indigenous and people of colour, and another report just came out, I think it was yesterday.

With that kind of bias, do you feel that the failure of judges to get proper training has resulted in costing lives?

[Pamela Cross]

I do. I believe that in terms of judges in the criminal court and judges in the family court. We've heard a little bit about Keira Kagan's story today. I think that the death of Keira is an example of what happens when the judge doesn't understand well enough the realities of violence against an intimate partner and who thinks, “Yes, sure, there was domestic violence, but that's got nothing to do with what I'm here to decide about today in terms of who the child is going to spend her time with.”

I think that women die because judges don't know enough about intimate partner violence, sexualized violence, and the discrimination and misogyny that those women are facing in many aspects of their lives.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much for that.

I have a follow-up question. Would you say that all judges should be provided with the training in this bill, but in order for it to be effective it would have to come from using a cross-cultural lens to ensure that judges are culturally proficient in their analysis?

[Pamela Cross]

Absolutely, and it needs to be developed by experts outside the judiciary.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

When you say experts outside of the judiciary, one of the things I find peculiar is that they're not experts in the field but they're deciding what they have to learn. Why is that problematic?

[Pamela Cross]

Because often we don't know what we don't know.

If you get to the position of being a judge.... It's even true for lawyers. I'm a lawyer, and I'll say it about our profession. We tend to think we already know everything we need to know.

If I don't know about something, someone else needs to tell me that I don't know that and help me know what it is I need to learn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for that last comment, Pamela Cross. I always say that I'm the mom, so of course I know everything.

Mike Morrice would like to ask a question, so I'm going to pass it over to him.

You have about one minute, 15 seconds.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank all the members of the committee for their warm welcome.

I want to follow up on the question that MP Lambropoulos asked Cee Strauss.

Would you be open to sharing more about your concerns with respect to low-income folks and electronic monitoring devices? Specifically, if you're recommending to simply strike out that part of the bill, is there another amendment that you would recommend to improve it?

[Cee Strauss]

We're recommending serious caution about implementing that part of the bill, and potentially just striking it out. It's our view that the Criminal Code actually already provides judges with the tools they need in this area. The problem is not that they don't have the tools; it's that they don't have the training to recognize the presence and significant dangers of IPV. Therefore, if a judge recognizes it in the criminal context, the judge has the ability to impose a condition of electronic monitoring. It's the understanding that is lacking rather than the tools that are already there.