Status of Women Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much.

For two more minutes, it's over to Leah.

Go ahead Leah.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much. Thank you for this contribution. I know that we know that electronic bracelets are kind of one tool in a gamut of things that are needed to end violence. You've spoken a lot about the need for programs for men and boys, and I agree with you. Most programs are designed for victims, which is very important—certainly not adequate—but there's still not a focus on root causes. One of them is the normalization of violence against women, which we're trying to change in society.

What do you think the federal government should be doing in addition to this bill to ensure that this doesn't happen in the first place?

I do want to offer condolences for your daughter. I know this is probably a very deep and meaningful bill for you. What should we be doing so that we don't even have to put on an electronic bracelet?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

When the justice system is dealing with a perpetrator, whether of spousal or sexual violence, the zero-tolerance message has to be clear. When someone abuses his wife and is sentenced to two years less a day to be served at home, without therapy, a very poor message is being sent with respect to violence against women, because it means that it is condoned.

When we have people before us whose behaviour has been repetitive over time—spousal violence and sexual assault are behaviours at high risk of being repeated—the justice system has to make the perpetrator responsible and legislation has to be consequential with respect to this accountability process. Contradictory messages are sometimes sent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much, Senator.

We're now going to have two more questions. We're going to go for two minutes to Anna and for two minutes to Sonia.

Anna, you have two minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator. I know that Julie is looking down from heaven and thanking you for your hard work. I would like to thank you personally as a woman.

You mentioned something about Ontario, and I just recently got some statistics from the Yellow Brick House. As of September of this year, 46 women have been murdered due to gender-based violence in the last 44 weeks. That's more than one woman per week. I know that the electronic monitoring system is one mechanism that can be used to protect women. There's also the peace bond, which I really don't think works. That's my own personal opinion.

What I also fear is that the increase in violence against women is not reflected in the jail times for these individuals, these criminals who commit these crimes. Do you agree that, in order to protect women and stop the murder of women, it should go hand-in-hand that we should increase jail times?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

I've always believed that justice has to be done at two levels: rehabilitation and incarceration. They are not incompatible. Incarceration is a period during which perpetrators are told to think about their behaviour and make an effort to control it. In incidents of spousal violence, 80% of men have never gone to trial. I remind you that these are men who return home on the strength of no more than a recognizance to keep the peace, pursuant to section 810 of the Criminal Code.

When they are sent back home, they are required to seek assistance. If our justice system is not based on an obligation to seek help, we'll end up with what we had in the 1950s and 1960s with drunk driving, with 800 people killed every year on Quebec roads. It's now somewhere between 120 and 125, because men are now required to seek assistance if they have a drinking problem. This strengthens the justice system. A very clear message was sent to the effect that drunk driving was a criminal offence.

I don't think the message about spousal violence being a criminal offence is being sent. I don't think so. The message is rather that domestic violence is condoned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much, Senator.

Our last round of questions goes to Sonia.

Sonia, you have two minutes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator, for your hard work and for your efforts and your dedication on this bill. Thank you so much.

I have some stats here. The most common type of intimate partner violence is physical assault. While just over half, 53%, of victims of violence were female, the large majority, 79%, of victims of intimate partner violence were women.

My question is on the bill. Proposed subsection 810.03(7), in clause 2 of this bill, is the list of “Conditions in recognizance” with regard to offenders. It talks about refraining from social media. Also, proposed paragraph 810.03(7)(g) talks about abstention from the consumption of intoxicating substances.

How can this provision be adequately imposed?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

It's through a court order. Therapy must have conditions, as is the case for drugs or alcohol when people are released. People who have been released can be required, on 48 hours' notice, to undergo a urine test to determine whether they have been using intoxicating substances. The system will have to have similar checks.

I mentioned earlier that 50% of men didn't comply with their conditions, meaning that there will have to be a way of ensuring that they do. Otherwise, the justice system will have to make the consequences clear. What's the point of imposing strict conditions if there are no consequences for failing to meet them?

And yet, that's the situation right now. The judges are doing their work. They have been imposing strict conditions. Once the accused leave the courthouse, no one is dealing with them. The only person doing so is the victim, because she will continue to be browbeaten and harassed. The only person dealing with the perpetrator is the victim.

If we want to take violence against women and release conditions seriously, the system will have to have a follow‑up mechanism. At the moment, there is none.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much.

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

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

We are suspending for about a minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diane, you have the floor.

[Diane Tremblay, Artist, As an Individual]

Kwe. Good afternoon, everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On my own behalf…

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Diane, are you almost through? You have just a couple more seconds.

[Diane Tremblay]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I hadn't noticed that my speaking time was up because I was concentrating so hard.

On behalf of all spousal violence victims, I'd like to thank Senator Boisvenu for having allowed me to add what my voice to this struggle. 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. 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.

Thank you, meegwetch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Excellent. Thank you so much, Diane, and I'm sorry. I know your testimony is so darned important, but we have so many things that we have to do, procedurally, so thank you so much.

Martine, I'm passing it over to you, for five minutes.

[Martine Jeanson, President, Founder and Front-Line Worker, La Maison des Guerrières]

Good afternoon.

My name is Martine Jeanson, a former victim of spousal violence, the founder of Maison des Guerrières, and a spousal and domestic violence worker.

I'm not just going to tell you my story, but also the story of Cindy Gosselin, beaten with hammer blows to the head, or Marianne, strangled and raped by her spouse, and Josianne Boucher, beaten and suffering head trauma, Jessica, whose vagina was smashed with a baseball bat, and Louise, whose ex‑spouse failed to comply with his conditions more than 28 times. She has moved eight times, but still feels threatened.

In 1992, I was a victim of spousal violence. I was five months pregnant and refused to have an abortion. I was gang raped and left for dead. I tried to leave my spouse numerous times. I called the police frequently. However, my spouse was always able to find me, no matter where I went. In addition to me, he had seven other victims.

There are shelters for women who are victims of violence, but for how many years are we going to continue to hide women, rather than work directly on the source of the problem? I am pleased that there are shelters for women who are victims of violence, because that's where these women can get some help, but it remains a temporary solution, because women stay there for one or two months, and when they leave, the violent man is unfortunately still out there, waiting to return to his ex‑spouse with even more violence. We women have to live a life that is stalked, harassed, spied upon and pursued by these men, no matter where we go. It's more or less a form of terrorism. Every morning when we get up we wonder whether today is the day he's going to murder us.

Why are we still building shelters to hide victims of spousal violence? It would make more sense to consider building intensive internal therapy centres for violent men so that they could be surrounded by experts who could help them adjust and even solve their violence problem. On the personal side, I also help violent men who have spent time in these facilities and the success rate is very high. The man loses complete control over himself when he no longer has access to his victim. The source of the problem is the man's violence, and that's what the system needs to focus on.

Electronic bracelets are a very important tool that would protect us and give us a warning that the man, our perpetrator, was on the way, and enough time to warn the police. They would also reduce the number of femicides, which has been increasing every year. They would also provide judges with clear evidence that these violent men are not complying with their conditions.

If my former spouse had been wearing an electronic bracelet, I would have been shielded from his attempted murder and all his other victims would have been informed. In fact, they could have been informed that their former spouse was hanging around their home, which might prevent a woman's death. With a warning of the danger, they can taken steps to protect themselves.

The way things stand, it's impossible to protect ourselves properly from a violent ex‑spouse, because we have no warning of his arrival. The group of 100 women we worked with on the project consists exclusively of spousal violence victims, at least half of whom were subjected to an attempted murder. We all agree that the only thing that might protect us is an electronic bracelet, because there is nothing to protect us at the moment.

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much, Martine. We really do appreciate that.

We're going to go online to Philip.

Philip, I'm going to give you the floor for five minutes.

[Philip Viater, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you for having me here.

Senator Boisvenu, thank you for bringing forward this bill.

For those who don't know me, I am a lawyer. I practise predominantly family law, with some criminal law, and I've been doing that for about 15 years.

I bring a bit of a unique element to my experience because, as was alluded to before, I am the stepfather of Keira Kagan, who was involved in a murder-suicide that ended up resulting in Keira's law being passed through Bill C-233, along with provisions for ankle monitoring.

When I reviewed this bill, I was quite optimistic. Because of my unique experience as both a survivor of domestic violence through my stepdaughter and a lawyer who deals with a lot of victims of domestic violence as part of my work, people from all across Canada reach out to me quite regularly—and I mean literally every province and territory—and I hear all the stories, in addition to my own practice. I think this bill is quite important to implement.

As a matter of first priorities, a lot of people have trouble coming forward. They fear they may be disbelieved and, even worse, they fear that if they are disbelieved and no charges are laid, they may get it even worse once their intimate partner finds out that they have gone to a police officer to make a complaint. The stakes can be quite high.

What we also find is that, once a police officer does agree or finds grounds to lay a charge, victims oftentimes feel silenced. They feel that they don't have much control over the process and that things are just done without their input.

One of the very first provisions that struck me was something so easy and something that should be done regularly, which is to get the victim's input on their safety and security needs. That could be done so easily in the stages where the police officer takes their statement. They could, just at the very end, ask about their security and safety needs. They could be taken through victim witness services. It is a really easy thing to do, and it's really important.

By way of a very quick example, I was involved in a case where the husband was charged—they were pretty bad charges—and, of course, we had the regular no-contact provisions. They didn't consult with the wife on this one, and the unique aspect of this particular case, for example, was that these people were very religious and went to their temple a lot—multiple times per week. Police didn't know this and the Crown didn't know this, because nobody had asked the wife. What the husband was doing was going to that temple a lot more than usual in the hopes of continuing to see the wife. Now, when the wife reported this to the police, the husband had plausible deniability—“I'm here just to go to my temple”—even though he was going at times and on dates so much more often than he used to go.

That became a problem, because nothing was really getting enforced. At a minimum, it could have been considered.

Similarly, even informing people of the conditions to get the order—it's part of this bill—is really important, because most victims don't even know that. If they don't have a lawyer, sometimes they don't even receive it.

Finally, I want to talk about the peace bond process, because it is really important and is really well done, in my opinion, in what this bill accomplishes.

First of all, a peace bond is a separate process to a criminal proceeding. In a criminal proceeding, you have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for there to be a conviction. With a peace bond proceeding, number one, the standard of proof is a balance of probabilities—just what is more likely than not—and, number two, the other key difference is that somebody could lay a peace bond information just based on having reasonable grounds for fear for their safety or of violence, which is a really important distinction. A criminal offence does not even have to have taken place, but if intuitively a victim knows that something bad may happen, they could lay an information.

In addition, and what is also really important and is perhaps an unintended consequence, because the courts are really concerned with unreasonable delay due to the charter, and because the criminal burden is so high, oftentimes prosecutors make deals. Right now, they're very limited in terms of the deals they can make when there's a peace bond, but Senator Boisvenu's bill has provided them further opportunity to make a much better resolution, which would still, hopefully, protect the victim, if they really need to go that route.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you. I thought that maybe he's worked with me long enough to know what I'm like when I just start flailing.

What we're going to do—I know we have three tremendous witnesses—is have six minutes each. I'm going to leave it up to the parties to try to figure out how you're going to manipulate your six minutes.

I'm going to pass it over to Michelle, and whoever needs some time here, to share the six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll share my six minutes with Ms. Roberts. If you could tell me when three minutes are up, that would be ideal.

Thank you very much, ladies. That was very profound. Your stories are powerful and graphic, and they need to be. Thank you for what you've said.

I think what jumped out at me is that we hide women. That really stuck with me. It's like, what are we doing? That really impacted me when you put it into that context. We have to go away and we have to hide, and the criminal can be free. That was very powerful.

I do want to say on the record—and I haven't said this and I know it's insinuated but I do feel compelled because I have many people who message me who are victims—that sometimes men are victims of domestic violence. I know we're here because we're the status of women committee, but I do feel that I need to say that on the record.

Many people are calling this an epidemic, and this legislation, I think, is a really good step in the right direction.

Phil, if I can refer to you, with your legal background and your own personal experience.... First of all, it's great to see you again. Thank you for all that you do, and thank you for being here. I think of you often, and Jennifer and Keira.

Just quickly—I know I only have one minute—how valuable will this bill be for victims?

[Philip Viater]

I think it's really valuable. At an absolute minimum, just providing their input and making them feel more involved will give them a better sense of security. In addition, as I alluded to, even the peace bond provisions giving a greater breadth of the remedies available to them can assist. I think this is a very big, positive step, quite frankly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Dominique, I know you had a tiny question, so go ahead.

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

I have a brief question.

Thank you for your testimony, ladies. It's truly heartbreaking to hear what you're telling us. It's difficult to take in, and I can't even imagine what it's like to live through it.

You're saying that if there had been bracelets before you were subjected to spousal violence, things would likely have turned out differently for you. To help us understand, I'd like to know who would receive a warning when the security perimeter is breached. Would the victims have an alarm device?

[Martine Jeanson]

The victims and the police would have an alarm. The police would know whenever a perpetrator breaches a specified perimeter, signalling that they are near us. We would know too, and that would allow us to leave and hide.

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

Do the perpetrators have information about where you are so that they would know that if they get too close, they need to back off?