Status of Women Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[Roxana Parsa]

Thank you for that question.

I have not been looking too in depth at what has been happening in Quebec. I have read studies from other places in Europe where electronic monitoring has been used.

One thing that's important to point out and that I've seen emerge is that it's often found to be successful when it's paired with other interventions and other programming. It's very rare that electronic monitoring as a stand-alone measure is a comprehensive plan for protecting survivors of violence. That's something I have seen come up in studies. It's often in alliance with community integration supports, with training, police and other measures that are more preventive in focus.

I have not read too many of the details of the Quebec situation.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

Yes, when we examine the international situation, we see that it has worked in Spain and it is also being considered in France and Australia. That is why, in Quebec, it is part of a continuum of services for victims. So it is more than a recommendation; I think there are over 90 recommendations in the “Rebâtir la confiance” report. It is a full range, but it includes this measure. Obviously, it has to be expanded.

We know that subclause 1(2) of the bill amends the Criminal Code to add having the accused wear an electronic monitoring device to the list of conditions set out in subsection 515(4) that may also be included in an interim release order: release on bail. There has also been a study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on this subject. I know that my colleague, the justice critic, has also studied this issue in that committee. Judges may therefore already consider ordering that a bracelet be worn, but now we are told that its use must be expanded and that is what this bill means to do.

Ms. Coyle, apart from the experiments underway in Quebec and abroad and the study of the subject conducted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, do you see other possibilities for improvement? What would you add to the continuum of services? Are there things that should not be left out?

[Emilie Coyle]

I want to remind everyone, before I answer, that I come here bringing the voices of people who are often forgotten in these conversations, so—

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

It's already over the time, so you have 15 seconds or less.

[Emilie Coyle]

Oh, my goodness. Okay.

Well, we need social workers. We need universal basic income. We need robust mental health care. We need accessible counselling and legal, drug and alcohol services. The list goes on.

I'll stop. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

No, it's perfect. You have a lot to add. Thank you so much.

We're going to pass it over to Leah. Leah, you have six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

My first question is for Madam Parsa.

I know that in the Senate committee on November 16, 2022, your colleague Rosel Kim stated, “Ultimately, electronic monitoring is a reactive tool that provides a false sense of security for many survivors and does not address the systemic causes of domestic violence or the underlying issues that survivors face, like isolation and the lack of resources.”

I know we've spoken about.... Other witnesses have indicated that certain groups, such as indigenous groups, are oversurveilled. We know through the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls that when there are issues of safety, the very systems that are supposed to protect us don't. We're oversurveilled, and when we need support, we're not. Because of this, we've heard there's distrust of current systems. Now we're supposed to rely on those very systems as the main tools for safety. They have been proven—we know through research—not to protect us.

Can you expand on how electronic bracelets may be reactive tools that don't address the root causes in our current systems, which are perpetuating increases in intimate partner violence?

[Roxana Parsa]

Sure. Thank you for that question.

I think it's very important to point out what you were just highlighting: Relying on something like electronic monitoring, which is embedded in the criminal legal system, pushes a lot of survivors away from accessing support. Indigenous and Black women, racialized communities and migrant women.... Many people will not go to the police for many of the reasons you stated. The safety mechanism is not even available to them and will not be used by women in these communities.

When we talk about how this is a reactive response, what we mean is that we need to think about where we're putting our resources. Our resources should be funnelled more towards proactive, preventive responses. The real solutions to intimate partner violence lie in investments in community services and housing, in expanding shelter systems and in providing mental health resources. We see that shelters are constantly full and women are being turned away.

There are resources being spent on the criminal law that could be turned into an effective and functioning social support system—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a limited amount of time.

I know the current government cut $150 million from shelters. We know that by the time we get legal interventions, people have either been murdered or don't want to access the systems in the first place.

Why is there a concern that if we put this system in place, we'll see further cuts to the resources that keep people alive and safe and give them the programs and services they need to exit violence?

[Roxana Parsa]

I'm sorry. I didn't fully understand the question you're asking.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

There's a concern that resources that could be used for things like shelter and prevention programs.... Why do you have a concern that those resources would instead be allocated to electronic bracelets?

[Roxana Parsa]

I guess we can't say exactly which resources the government will choose to spend on. What we can say is that electronic monitoring devices are very expensive. We know this.

This money does not need to be spent on them. It could be spent on—and we would encourage the government to think about spending it on—social support mechanisms. As Ms. Coyle said, the Renfrew inquest and the Mass Casualty Commission recommendations point to prioritizing preventive work. That is where we will really see change with intimate partner violence.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Just to add on to prevention, one of the things that I've put forward is a bill in support of a guaranteed livable basic income, because we know through the national inquiry call for justice 4.5 that often people wanting to exit intimate partner violence can't because they don't have the financial resources to do so.

I know that in terms of the sector that works in IPV, there's been almost unanimous support to put in place a guaranteed livable basic income as one of the key ways to mitigate gender-based violence. I know that NWAC supports it. I know that the Elizabeth Fry Society supports it. I believe LEAF supports a guaranteed livable basic income.

Why is that necessary if we're going to get real about ending gender-based violence?

I'll ask Sarah.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

We have 45 seconds.

[Sarah Niman]

Alleviating some of the economic strife that is experienced predominantly by indigenous women and victims of gender-based violence and domestic violence is one key tool for reducing and eliminating gender-based violence. However, it isn't the only tool, so it needs to work in concert with community-based solutions and indigenous-led solutions, building into legislation opportunities and avenues for the legislature to consult with the indigenous community directly affected.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

How long do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You have 10 seconds left.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Do you want to add something, Emilie?

[Emilie Coyle]

What comes to mind is this: If you don't have a house, if you don't have anywhere to go, is this electronic monitoring bracelet going to help you in any way?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Perfect. Thank you so much.

We're now going to start our next round. I've gone through the time. We'll be voting at 11:49, and by the time Michelle's done, it will be 11:49. We can start off the first round with Michelle for five minutes before we take a break to vote. After that, we'll go to Anita, and then we'll continue from there.

Michelle, go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I have a quick question for each of the three witnesses. I have to be pretty quick with our time.

Do you think that policy should be led by victims or by people who work in the industry but have lived experience?

I'll start with Ms. Coyle.

[Emilie Coyle]

The voices of—

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

Just tell me if it should be people with lived experience or not, yes or no.

[Emilie Coyle]

We bring the voices of people with lived experience.

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

Okay, so it should be lived experience.

Ms. Niman, do you think policy should be set by people with lived experience or by people who don't have lived experience?