Thank you, honourable members and Chair. It is such a pleasure to be with you today, although, as you said, this is a very difficult topic.
I work as the executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. Our work is situated predominantly here on the territory of the Algonquin nation, although our work takes place across Turtle Island.
We work primarily to address the persistent ways that criminalized women and gender-diverse people are denied their humanity and excluded from community.
To begin, I wish to delve into the recommendations emanating from two recent inquiries that relate to intimate partner violence: the Renfrew inquiry, which happened not too far from here, and the Mass Casualty Commission from Nova Scotia.
Both inquiries advocate treating intimate partner violence as an epidemic, emphasizing the necessity for a comprehensive, all-government effort to eradicate this pervasive form of violence. They also underscore the urgency of epidemic-level funding for gender-based violence prevention and interventions and urge a society-wide response.
The Mass Casualty Commission report, at recommendation 16, specifically highlights the vital need to shift funding away from carceral responses and towards primary prevention, including by addressing poverty and promoting healthy masculinities.
My focus today, then, is on the carceral response to intimate partner violence— that is, the electronic monitoring piece contained in Bill S-205.
Obviously, we share the goal of addressing and preventing intimate partner violence, or IPV. Women and gender-diverse people disproportionately experience IPV due to the ongoing patriarchy and misogyny that we all experience, and this is even more pronounced for the indigenous women and gender-diverse people we work with who are contending with colonial oppression and also experiencing higher rates of intimate partner violence.
Many of the people we work with and alongside have experienced such violence. Data from the Correctional Service of Canada indicates a higher prevalence of physical and/or sexual abuse among the women and gender-diverse people we work with in prisons. These people represent some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
Despite these stark realities, those we work with are not considered ideal victims, and that circumstance can lead to insufficient contemplation of the consequences of implementing carceral solutions, such as electronic monitoring, in their lives.
Legislative changes aimed at protecting vulnerable populations necessitate a critical examination of potential unintended consequences. In pursuing our goals of eradicating intimate partner violence, we must ask whether our efforts could inadvertently render already vulnerable individuals more susceptible.
With regard to this legislation, I question whether it will effectively curtail intimate partner violence in Canada or divert necessary resources that could be invested in prevention. Will it genuinely address the root causes of intimate partner violence, namely misogyny and patriarchy? I'll leave you to answer these questions for yourself.
Historically, well-intended legislation rooted in carceral responses has backfired, causing more harm than good. For instance, I'm sure you've heard of mandatory charging policies in intimate partner violence cases, which were obviously initially lauded by the sector advocating against violence against women. However, these policies resulted in dual charging—punishing both parties due to the perceived inability to determine the instigator, even though the “weapon” that may have been used by one party could have been a child's toy thrown as they were fleeing.
Similarly, there's a tangible risk that if this bill passes, the most vulnerable individuals may be the ones who end up wearing the electronic monitoring bracelets, further exacerbating their marginalization. The stigma associated with wearing these bracelets could intensify the challenges faced by individuals who are already overly surveilled and overly punished.
You are all very aware of the statistics regarding the overincarceration—or what some refer to as the mass incarceration—of indigenous women and gender-diverse people in this country. It is a crisis and it is shameful.
Electronic monitoring, as a reactive carceral response, falls short in addressing the deeper issues surrounding this violence. Tackling gender-based and intimate partner violence requires a multi-faceted approach that delves into the root causes of harm. Our focus should shift from a carceral response to a more sustainable, long-term approach.
Survivors have emphasized the need for social workers, financial assistance, housing, culturally specific—