Status of Women Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In connection with education, in your opening remarks you referred to therapy, particularly for alcohol problems, which in some instances can be an aggravating factor. You said that you had consulted Quebec and the provinces.

How do you see this collaboration, knowing that Quebec—and I'll be asking you another question afterwards—uses therapies like this as part of its health and social services system? How do you think your federal bill will relate to what is already being done in Quebec from the therapy standpoint?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

Thank you for that question. It's a good one.

The federal government has to be involved, as it was for women's shelters. The federal government spent millions to support these shelters. In connection with therapy for men, it's important not to leave the provinces to their own devices from the financial standpoint. A national program is needed, like the one for domestic violence. There has to be a national policy on rehabilitating these men, because it's clearly a matter of rehabilitation. The federal government needs to be there to support the provinces.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Discussions are needed, given that Quebec has its own vision. You have no doubt had discussions with MNAs in Quebec who worked on the “Rebâtir la confiance” report. Another problem, of course, is the loss of confidence in the system. You spoke earlier about how few victims are willing to report their abuser, even today. Did you have discussions with these MNAs?

The electronic bracelets stemmed from a recommendation in the report, as did the specialized courts. One member I spoke with told me that one of the future objectives would be to define what is meant by violence. If more work on prevention is to be done, then it has to be acknowledged that what we're talking about is coercive control.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

I don't want to brag, but Bill 24 was adopted in Quebec one year after we sat down with Minister Guilbault, who was public safety minister at the time , and Mr. Barrette, who was minister of justice. We worked closely with both of them on the electronic bracelet issue. We begged the province to launch a pilot project because there was a lot of reluctance about the cost and over how effective they were. One year later, Quebec decided to embark on the project because the Quebec women's shelters were in agreement, as were most of the municipalities in Quebec that were consulted, because they were also struggling to deal with with the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much, Senator Boisvenu.

I know you're so passionate about this, sir. You have so much information in that head, and you want it all out.

I'm going to pass it over to Leah for six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Just in regard to that section, I was wondering why the addition was not limited to instances of intimate partner violence, as you did in other subsections. What was the reasoning behind that?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

Initially, the scope of the bill was somewhat broader. The Senate cut it back with a number of amendments, in an effort to make sure that the bill would be adopted. The goal was not really to put forward a version of the bill that would include all my aspirations for the protection of women. What we wanted was for the bill to pass and to amend the Criminal Code by making domestic violence a defined offence. We wanted to send Canadians the message that special attention henceforth be paid to domestic violence. We particularly wanted to send the following clear message to women: “If you report your perpetrators, we will protect you.”

It's true that we could have been more ambitious, but we wanted to succeed and limited ourselves accordingly to what the senators wanted.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Senator, I know you mentioned some organizations that had concerns about the bill. I know the Women's Legal Action Fund, LEAF, and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies have raised concerns about electronic monitoring. One of the criticisms they have is that it provides victims with a false sense of safety against further acts of violence.

This committee heard, during the study on intimate partner and domestic violence in Canada, that this is especially true in rural and remote areas. I know you spoke about limited Internet connectivity, and I know you responded to that earlier. My concern, however, is that we know, if we look at rates of violence, that they're higher among indigenous women, many of whom live in rural and remote areas. With this in mind, how do you think the federal government can ensure that victims of domestic violence are more protected and supported?

I know we often talk about incremental approaches. I know you have, and it makes sense. You want to get something started. The issue, though, is that it's still not addressing a very high number of women, particularly in rural and remote areas, who don't even have, for example, shelters to go to and also can't access the technology to keep them safe against perpetrators. I'm wondering if you could comment on that.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

Thank you very much for your question.

We had some very productive discussions with indigenous communities, particularly in western Canada. Yes, it's a concern. In many instances, young people and adults live in very unfortunate socioeconomic circumstances. There is an isolation problem. There's also a problem with returning perpetrators into the community, which is often small and cannot prevent close proximity between victims and perpetrators. Only last year in northern Quebec, two indigenous women were murdered in the same week by men who had previously been released three or four times.

So the circumstances are very specific and the bill will not be addressing them. However, over the next few years, it will be essential to work very closely with indigenous communities to determine whether electronic bracelets might be able to discourage perpetrators.

The company told us that the mere fact that a bracelet was being worn reduced attempted recidivism by 50%. Feeling monitored inhibits a perpetrator's desire to go towards the victim. Opportunities for the use of monitoring bracelets in these communities need to be evaluated, and solutions will have to be found to problems that are much broader than domestic violence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much, Senator.

Because we are trying to get everything in, I'm going to go to four minutes, four minutes, two minutes, two minutes and then two minutes and two minutes. It reduces everybody's time a little bit, but it gives everybody time too. We'll start off with four minutes with Michelle, and we'll run ourselves around.

Michelle, you have four minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much, Senator, for your work on this.

I think this is really important for people who don't know the backstory. When bills come forward, it's really important for people at home to understand why somebody puts work into what they do. You referenced Julie. I think it's really important that we say Julie's name when we're at this. It was your daughter who was murdered.

I'm reading a very powerful quote from you. You said:

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

Joining the Senate gave me the opportunity to be part of a change.

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.

It's pretty powerful when we appreciate where this bill came from and the intention behind it. We are a very powerful committee here. I heard my colleague, Ms. Gazan, say there's criticism that it will give a false sense of security.

What we're talking about, for those watching, is a bracelet for people who are at risk of repeat offending domestic violence. Right now, there's no security. There's nothing in place.

The thing that jumped out at me, Senator, is that you've said this bill will amend section 515, so that the victim must be consulted. That is significant when we look at victims' rights in this country, where they feel like they're in the back seat and that the criminals are first. How are you going to ensure with this bill that victims are consulted and they know where their attacker is?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

You began by quoting a sentence that I wrote several years ago, in which I said that Julie would be the judge of my actions. There are also hundreds of dead women whose lives could have been saved who will be judging not only my actions but yours too. Time is running out to protect women victims of violence.

I gave a few examples of countries that have been using electronic bracelets, like Spain. Yes, electronic monitoring bracelets will save lives, even though they won't save all women. A bracelet would not save the life of a woman who one fine morning decides to leave home and is murdered by her husband, who was not monitored and perhaps didn't even have a criminal record. We can never save all women, but we will be able to save those who report their perpetrator and who are no longer living with him because he has left the home. Even if we rescue only 10% to 15% of these women, they would tell us that we did our job.

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

I agree with you.

The other thing you referenced is that right now many victims don't even report it because they know nothing is going to happen. Not reporting it makes them so vulnerable to acts that often result in death and murder.

How do you think this bill will encourage victims to come forward and report their aggressor's behaviour?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You have 20 seconds to respond.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

Thank you for your questions.

This bill would accomplish two things: it would tell victims that we are protecting them and tell men that enough is enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

I'm now going to pass it over to Lisa for four minutes.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator, for your passionate work on ending gender-based violence and for bringing your personal experiences into this.

I have similar questions as my colleagues.

We've talked about this electronic bracelet monitoring and some of the challenges. For example, I know the Ontario chiefs of police are now reviewing whether this is an effective way to keep track of offenders. We also know that there have been breaches. As Leah Gazan mentioned, there are people who have been able to get these off.

Are you concerned that if we rely solely or too much on this bracelet and it does have vulnerabilities, we will destroy the sense of safety that survivors are feeling?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

Thank you for that very important question.

Electronic bracelets are not the only way to protect women. It's one of several options. Therapy for men is a way of protecting women. Aggressive men won't assault just one spouse, but two, three or four. There will be a series of victims. We therefore want to add a method that would achieve the desired result in perhaps 25%, 30%, or 40% of cases, but it's not a panacea that will eliminate all violence against women.

Let's talk about the work done by the police. Currently, women who report their abuser are not believed. They might be believed the first time, perhaps because they still have bruises. However, when the abuser bullies his victim repeatedly on social networks or through friends, at some point, the police stop believing the victim. When she says that her abuser had been on her doorstep, it's her word against his. The monitoring bracelet is an infallible way of confirming that the abuser was at a specific address at a specific time. So when there is a recognizance to keep the peace under section 810 of the Criminal Code, perhaps 80% or 90% of abusers will comply with the conditions, compared to the 50% who do so at the moment, because there will be a technological means of determining where the individual was at the time the victim said he was near her door.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you for that clarification.

My other question about this legislation is that it asks the justice system to ask the survivors during the bail hearing about their safety concerns. I'm wondering how we go about doing that while protecting the victim. Isn't there a great likelihood that many victims won't want to discuss in open court their safety concerns? How do you address that?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

You are absolutely right.

A judge must show extreme sensitivity in cases of domestic violence, violence against children and sexual assaults. A bully, when in the presence of the victim in court, continues to bully. The perpetrator establishes a power relationship through which he exercises control over his victim, and that continues, even in the courthouse. That's when the judge's role becomes important. The judge must establish a relationship with the victim and give the victim as much discretion as possible if she wishes to talk about the conditions she wants to include in the recognizance to keep the peace, because she is the person who knows her abuser best.

It is therefore important to listen to the victim to know what conditions she wants to be safe and to feel safe. It's very important for the judge to be sensitive to the victim's needs. That's also why Bill C‑233 raises the matter of training for judges. You no doubt remember Bill C‑3, which was about training judges in matters of sexual assault. I had put forward an amendment to include domestic violence, but it was not accepted. Now, Bill C‑233 acknowledges that judges need training in this area.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

That's excellent. Thank you so much.

For the next two minutes, we're going to Andréanne Larouche.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

Thank you very much for the question.

To begin with, the government acknowledged this. There is a government bill whose intent is to withdraw this privilege from those who were discharged and then reoffended. The basic principle is fairly straightforward: when the justice system awards a privilege to someone, that person must demonstrate a high level of responsibility to retain the trust placed in them by the justice system. If a person who was previously convicted of spousal violence recidivism, that person must lose the privilege. When a person is granted a privilege that rests on the justice system's trust and that person reoffends, the trust disappears. It's on the basis of this principle alone that in such instances, the discharge is no longer applicable.