Thank you.
Anna, go ahead.
Evidence of meeting #93 for Status of Women in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-233.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #93 for Status of Women in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-233.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
I'm a little confused. I did miss a few meetings because I was on another committee at the time, so can you explain to me why we need to remove this?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
I understand that, but in Keira's law, it wasn't his ex-wife but the fact that the husband killed himself and the child, who complained to the mother and the judge on numerous occasions. How do we protect other victims and prevent this situation from happening again? I'm a little confused, so maybe you can clarify that for me.
February 1st, 2024 / 3:45 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In terms of the rationale for this particular motion or voting down this particular motion, there's no coordination needed anymore with Bill C-233 because the provision that would have needed to be coordinated has been removed in a previous motion on this bill.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
My understanding is that protection is already covered in Keira's law and it's just repetitive, so they would still be protected. It's just that you don't have to repeat it in other legislation, because they already have that protection.
Am I wrong? Is that wrong? I'm sorry, but am I incorrect in my understanding?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Just on that point, my understanding is that with Bill C-233, the judge has the discretion to require the ankle bracelet, so that's already in place today.
My understanding of the G‑1 motion that we had that Anna and Michelle were debating is that the amendment was removed because it would be automatically imposed, regardless of a judge's judgment, and this would then, we heard, penalize indigenous and marginalized women because it was automatic. The judge had no....
The way S-205 was written, it was explicit that the ankle bracelet would go on automatically, so there wasn't that discretion for the judge to decide.
The victims will be protected. I'm not a lawyer, as Michelle said, but that aspect, I thought, was because Bill S-205 would have penalized marginalized and indigenous women. Now the judge has the obligation and discretion in Bill C-233 not to marginalize and penalize indigenous women, but to make sure that if the ankle bracelet is needed, it would be put in place. Does that explain it?
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
That's my understanding about it as well, but the other issue is that in certain parts of the country we don't have proper cell service and stuff like that, so if you make it mandatory and the person's in a place where it's not even going to work, it's just useless. It's expensive and it gives people a false sense of security, and the people that are responsible for paying for it.... Those are some of the arguments that were brought up.
In fairness, I understand what the intention is, but it won't even work in a lot of places in Canada. You'd have a whole bunch of people with bracelets, but for what? People think they're safe, but they don't have cell service and they can't.... That's a problem too.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
If Bill C-233 were in effect, I think Keira would still be alive today.
Maybe I don't understand this bracelet because I'm not a criminal, but when a criminal gets this bracelet administered, is there not a limit or are there not restrictions requiring that he can only go a certain distance and he has to...? He can't just travel out of the country. Do you know what I'm saying? Wouldn't that be picked up if he's out of an area?
3:45 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Each province has different uses of the electronic bracelets, so it really depends on the jurisdiction and how efficient the technology is. It's hard to say right now if that technology would permit what you're proposing. I think it probably would in some places, but I just don't know how broadly it's being used for that purpose. From what I've read in some reports, I know that in Quebec it can be used for certain addresses, so as soon as an accused goes within a certain radius of a certain address, it can send an alert.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
The reason I bring this up is that in my past life, I was a branch manager. Someone was released on bail with a bracelet, and he was not allowed to come within a certain distance of any bank—not just the branch I was at, but any branch.
Guess what? It didn't work. From what I was told by the police—and this happened a long time ago—there was a method in which he could still be wearing it but not have it correspond. I don't know how that works; I'm not a criminal.
That's what scares me. It scares me that we're still not putting the victims first, and I'm wondering if this is going to....
We need to pass Bill S-205, yes, but I want to make sure that all the protections for the victims are in place so that what happened to the senator's daughter doesn't happen again. That's my worry.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I think one of the big concerns around this one, and why it was so contentious, was that this was the foundation of the bill for the senator, in that the victim would have access to see where their attacker was.
My question to you, again through the legal world, is whether that would happen.
The other thing I can't reconcile here is that if it's covered in Bill C-233, why wouldn't it just be put in Bill S-205? I don't understand why you wouldn't do that for consistency.
There are two questions there. Number one, would the victim still be able to monitor and have that choice to monitor if this is removed? Number two, if it's already in Bill C-233, wouldn't it be more consistent to keep it in Bill S-205?
I apologize that you guys went to legal school and I did not.
3:50 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thanks for the question.
To clarify, Bill S-205 would not be taking it out. What the changes—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No. Bill C-233 received royal assent on April 27, 2023, and came into force 30 days after that, at the end of May 2023. It requires that in every case of domestic violence in which violence was used, threatened or attempted, including violence against an intimate partner, the judge must consider imposing an electronic monitoring bracelet in all of those cases. That is not going to change with this bill. That remains part of the law.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Okay.
To go back to that other question, then, it's still at the judge's discretion whether or not this happens. Then we come back to judge training, etc., which is a whole other can of worms outside of this bill.
If I'm understanding correctly, with Keira's law, Bill C-233, the victim doesn't get to monitor the electronic bracelet; it's just the police officials and law enforcement. However, with this bill, Bill S-205, it was written into the bill. Is that correct?
It's not? Okay. I stand corrected.