Debates of Oct. 27th, 2023

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I thought the hon. member was finished her sentence, but I have to interrupt. The hon. member will have eight minutes and 45 seconds the next time this matter is before the House.

The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the motion that Bill S-205, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my friend and colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned on September 21 and as my friend and colleague from Saint-Jean will reiterate in a few minutes, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-205 in principle and recommends that it be sent to committee for study.

Our position is consistent with initiatives that reinforce mechanisms aimed at making the justice system better aligned with public safety, especially to better protect victims of domestic violence.

Broadly speaking, Bill S‑205 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to require the judge who has to make a decision regarding the interim release of an accused person to make sure that the prosecutor has consulted the victim about their safety and security needs.

To that end, the judge can order the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There seem to be discussions going on in the House. I would ask hon. members to leave if they want to have discussions. They can use the lobby. That way, they will not disrupt our proceedings.

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, Bill S-205 essentially seeks to amend the Criminal Code in order to enable judges to order an accused to wear an electronic monitoring device at the request of the prosecutor; make it easier for the victim to obtain a copy of the order against the accused and require the judge to check with the prosecutor to ensure that the victim has indeed been informed; and enable the victim to report their assailant if they have reasonable grounds to fear for their physical safety or that of their child or children. If the fear is justified, the judge can then order that the accused enter into a recognizance. Refusal to do so will result in imprisonment.

The bill also seeks to give judges the power to set conditions in the recognizance to ensure good conduct. For example, the judge can require the accused to attend a psychosocial treatment program; move to a region other than the area where the informant lives; refrain from going to a specified place; and abstain from communicating directly or indirectly with a child, the informant or the child of the informant, or any relative or close friend of the informant. The bill also seeks to enable the judge to prohibit the accused from using social media and from using drugs, alcohol or other intoxicating substances. The judge can also require the accused to provide a sample to ensure that they are meeting that condition. Finally, the bill seeks to enable the informant to provide submissions in writing to help the judge determine the conditions in the recognizance.

Bill S‑205 has three main components: the obligation to consult the victim before making a conditional release order; the addition of the concept of domestic violence, allowing a victim to apply to have the accused enter into a recognizance to keep the peace, under sections 810 and following of the Criminal Code; and the preponderance of the victim's submissions, which can influence the choice of the conditions included in the recognizance issued to the accused.

Bill S‑205 therefore expands the scope of section 810 of the Criminal Code to allow the court to impose a good behaviour recognizance if the victim fears that the accused might cause personal injury or property damage to them, their child or their intimate partner. Relatives and close friends have been added to the list of potential targets.

Let us not forget that release, with or without conditions, allows an accused person to be released into the community while awaiting trial. In Quebec and Canada, criminal law and penal law have a duty to punish crimes and protect the public. With femicide and domestic violence on the rise, it is important to strengthen mechanisms to protect victims, their children and their loved ones. Modernizing the Criminal Code is an essential part of that, and that is exactly what Bill S-205 does.

More specifically, the Criminal Code sets out the conditions under which it would be justified to detain an accused person pending trial. The decision to detain a person awaiting trial depends on a number of factors specific to each situation. When it is in the public interest to detain an accused person, it is important to remember that the accused is deprived of the exercise of fundamental rights. These include the presumption of innocence and the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Allowing the victim to be more involved in the court case is a welcome improvement that the Bloc Québécois can support unreservedly. Victims should not have to fight for justice to be served. The bill will help reduce the obstacles that victims might encounter and that might dissuade them from taking the brave step of filing a complaint against their attacker.

The Bloc Québécois will always stand up for women and victims of domestic violence. One victim is one too many. Quebec is one of the most progressive nations when it comes to protecting victims of intimate partner and domestic violence. In fact, Quebec's department of public safety launched a Quebec-wide electronic monitoring device pilot project. In December 2022, more than 650 offenders on parole were fitted with such a device. Let us not forget that these are people being prosecuted for offences for which they could be sentenced to incarceration in a Quebec prison.

Those who end up in federally run prisons, and therefore who have longer and harsher sentences, are not subject to the same conditions. It is time to settle this discrepancy and make offenders subject to the same restrictions.

If the bill passes, these legislative changes will represent an added value for the victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence. The justice system has to be more effective and transparent, not just to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant, but also to strengthen public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report it to the police.

Statistics show that there has been a spike in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. The idea is to bring these numbers down. They are currently on the rise. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse this troubling trend. The reality on the ground highlights the gaps, including the status quo in the justice system: Many victims continue to fear their assailant, even while that person is being detained.

We can only welcome an initiative that aims to improve the victim's experience of the justice system throughout the entire process, from the moment he or she decides to file a complaint.

Bill S-205 may contain loopholes that could jeopardize certain fundamental rights, such as the obligation to provide biological samples to prove compliance with a recognizance to be of good behaviour. This all must be studied in committee.

However, as I have said and will say again, as my colleague will say later, and as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord put it so well—better than I can—the Bloc Québécois unequivocally supports the principle of the bill. This is a laudable principle that aims to make our communities safer, which is a win-win situation for all Quebeckers. A sense of security within a community strengthens a nation's well-being. Finally, in committee, as I said and as we will say again, the Bloc Québécois will work constructively to improve this bill.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak on Bill S-205. The bill would amend the Criminal Code with respect to interim release and other orders related to intimate partner violence and offences. It is a critical step towards addressing the pressing issues around intimate partner and gender-based violence in Canada.

In this country, intimate partner violence has a long history; one that so many in our communities have fought hard to stop. There are a lot of processes in place, but a lot of those non-profits that do tremendous work in keeping women, gender-diverse people and children safe struggle to make ends meet just to get those services done. It tells us, as a country, that we have to continue to reflect on the impact that these communities are facing as we see so many women and gender-diverse people come forward to talk about the offences that are happening to them from their partners and they have so little voice to be able to fight back.

I have talked to a lot of women across my riding and a lot of people from gender-diverse communities who talk about doing what they can and, again, with their own will, having to fight and fight. We saw, especially during the pandemic, more and more women and gender-diverse people locked into situations that were incredibly violent. When they were in that isolated status and not able to come forward, they were feeling very unsafe. Also, as we hit this significant housing crisis across the country, we know it is having a big impact on intimate partner violence. So, Bill S-205, although there are some concerns that will be dealt with when it gets to committee, takes a step in the right direction to start to move us forward.

So that constituents back home in North Island—Powell River understand, the bill would allow judges to consider whether an accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of their interim release, and this is important. We know that in the U.S.A., 23 states have started to use this format and have seen a decrease in violence. One of the things that is a challenge is that women and gender-diverse people are always trying to explain to the police or the RCMP what is happening, and proving it is really a struggle. So, having this in place would make a huge difference in allowing those voices to be heard and understood without having to feel like they are fighting against a system that is not interested in protecting them when they are a survivor of intimate partner violence.

The bill would also require a judge to ask the prosecutor whether the victim of an accused intimate partner has been consulted about their safety and security needs. Now, this may seem very basic to so many across this country, but we know that it is not happening. We know that, again and again, the people who survive intimate partner violence are often put in a situation where they are having to interact with the person who abused them repeatedly. They have very little support from the system at this point, which leads to a lot of violence and sometimes death, and that is why this is so important.

We have to make sure, when situations arise in this country and somebody is victimized, that when they move forward to challenge it there are actually processes in place that put into consideration their safety and security. However, we know that is not the case. So many have come forward bravely sharing their story, and we know that it often results in a fundamental loss of rights. Sometimes people who are victimized, who are survivors, have no choice but to go back to the person who hurt them. We need to stop that, and the bill is an important step in doing that.

The bill would also re-establish a new type of recognizance order for survivors, which, if granted, would allow the judge to impose conditions, including electronic monitoring, treatment, or a domestic violence counselling program. Again, we have to find systems in our country where we do not put the onus on the person who is suffering the consequences of somebody else's violence. We have to say that there is a system in place and we will not allow them to carry this on their own. This is a step in the right direction.

Across this country, every six days a woman is killed by her intimate partner. This is a crisis, and one that we have not taken seriously enough. The bill is a small step, but hopefully we will get there soon.

Across my riding, there are a lot of organizations that do very diligent and hard work to support people who experience intimate partner violence. It is incredibly important. I want to thank the Powell River and Region Transition House Society, the Comox Valley Transition Society, the North Island Crisis and Counselling Centre and the Campbell River and North Island Transition Society. These organizations do tremendous work in the regions they serve, and they do a lot to build awareness. They have, in some cases, available housing and secondary housing.

One thing, of course, that is very concerning is that we see people fleeing violence and getting the help they need but there is no second-stage housing for them. In rural and remote communities, this can become a bigger challenge. We need to make sure that those resources are put in place and that these organizations are given the resources they need so that they do not always have to do so much fundraising on top of the amazing work they do.

That is why I think it is important to mention that $150 million has been cut by the Liberal government from 600 women's shelters across this country. If we are serious about protecting women, gender-diverse people and the children of our country, we have to put these dollars in the system so that people can be cared for. Hopefully we will see that change really quickly.

I cannot talk about violence against women and gender-diverse people in this country without talking about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and gender-diverse people. We know that at this point, only two of the recommendations of the 231 calls for justice from the national inquiry regarding missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and gender-diverse people have been implemented. I think we need to do a lot better.

This leads me to a quote. Sarah Niman, legal counsel and assistant manager of legal services at the Native Women's Association of Canada, said this about the bill:

Bill S-205 seeks to provide violence victims something of a voice. This bill places the onus on the criminal justice system to check in with victims, consider their safety through the proceedings, and produce outcomes that consider their safety. Bill S-205 does not create a response specifically tailored to Indigenous women, but it does create a framework for them to be seen and heard in a system that otherwise does not.

It is very clear that incredible work still needs to be done, particularly for indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. Again, if this country is fundamentally committed to things like feminist principles, non-violence and reconciliation, making sure that these populations are honoured and respected in these processes has to happen.

Of course, one of the key things that have been asked for again and again is the red dress alert. We need indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people to be found when they go missing. They need to be treated like every other Canadian, and that means they need a red dress alert, because we know that this population in particular goes missing without any accountability.

I want to thank, in my riding, the Indigenous Women's Sharing Society and the Lil' Red Dress campaign. Both of these organizations work diligently on bringing forward these voices, telling the stories and letting our region know about missing indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. They work diligently every day, and I am so grateful for that commitment. If it were not for the folks who come up every day and continue to fight, the voices would not be heard. I am really glad to be here in Parliament reminding everyone that if we are serious about reconciliation, the red dress alert must be implemented.

I look forward to seeing this bill move to committee. Hopefully, we will have some positive changes that reflect the needs of this country.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to add what I hope are meaningful words on today’s bill. How we in this place can act to prevent intimate partner violence is an issue that has impacted my personal work here over these eight years. I know it concerns all members in this place.

Statistics Canada reports that, in 2021, there were 537 women per 100,000 people who were victims of domestic violence. Intimate partner violence accounts for almost one-third of the crimes committed in Canada and has increased 6% in the last year alone. Violent crime as a whole has increased 39%. Sexual assaults have gone up 71%. This is part of a larger pattern of increased levels of crime after eight years of the Prime Minister’s catch-and-release bail policies.

These statistics have an even greater impact when we consider that 80% of criminal activity involving an intimate partner goes unreported. We must ask ourselves why this is the case. Why is there such a lack of faith in our justice system? Why do victims feel there is greater benefit in not initiating criminal proceedings? Why do they not feel protected throughout a traumatizing period in their lives?

We can point to larger trends. Between 2004 and 2014, cases where failure to comply with a court order, when they were among the charges, grew by 25%, and cases involving charges related to a breach of probation increased by 21%. When intimate partner violence is reported, insufficient steps are taken by the justice system to deter further violence. This is despite the fact that in 60% of homicides involving an intimate partner, there was a history of violence. Half of these homicides involve an offender who has already been convicted on similar offences.

The Senate sponsor of this bill referred to one particularly egregious case, which I will now put on the record in this House. In Quebec, an individual accused of femicide had committed 50 criminal offences in his lifetime, including three sexual assaults and 11 instances of domestic violence. After violating his bail conditions a third time, he was arrested, but subsequently released. Just over one week later, he murdered his former partner. No wonder trust in our system has been shattered.

For the sake of victims, we need to do a better job of listening to and acting on their concerns. Bill S-205 is about providing our justice system with every tool we can to empower victims of intimate partner violence to come forward when crimes do occur and ensure that their rights are placed above those of their offender from the start of the legal process. It would ensure victims are consulted about their safety and security needs before conditions of release are imposed on an accused person. These conditions must take the victim’s opinion into account. If the victim is an intimate partner of the accused, they have the right to be made aware of the bail conditions.

A judge may choose to require the accused to wear an electronic bracelet upon their release, effectively creating a barrier between the victim and her attacker and ensuring law enforcement is alerted if the safety perimeter is broken. The bill would also extend the length of peace bonds and increase penalties for violating them. Again, this is proposed with the victim top of mind, allowing them a larger window of time after the attack takes place.

There is always more that can be done to bolster trust in criminal justice and to encourage victims to report their attackers without fear of retribution, but as it currently stands, an individual’s conditions of release are not subject to any monitoring mechanisms. This is not fair to victims, the public at large or our current understanding of intimate partner violence. What we know is not being reflected in the laws we have.

That is why this bill is one of many initiatives we should be adopting. I was pleased to speak in support of Bill C-320, or the truth in sentencing bill. It was just recently passed in the House with all-party support. The bill is another common-sense tool that would ensure we are prioritizing victims’ rights over those of the offender. At the core of Bill C-320 is transparency, which would ensure that victims are informed of why specific decisions are being made concerning an inmate’s parole date, temporary absence or work release. The victims should know all of those circumstances in advance of them happening and have the opportunity to contribute.

I am also proud of the work I did earlier this year on protecting pregnant women from violent men through Bill C-311. We know that, when women are pregnant, they are more susceptible to violence. We know that this is something that takes place in our country more than we realize when these situations are not top of mind. They are not handled within our court system in ways that draw more attention to the fact that these things are taking place.

It was affirming to me to know that the majority of Canadians who read the bill for what it was knew full well that it would have provided judges with new aggravating factors that are not consistently enforced at this time. In other words, these were Canadians who understood exactly what the purpose and intent was and that it was a very straightforward bill. At this time, a judge can choose to consider the fact that a woman was pregnant and that a child was injured, but they are not required to. This is just another scenario where, as with this bill, we need to do everything we can to protect women in situations of intimate partner violence.

There is a common theme among these bills. Victims believe that the justice system is not there for them when they choose to report their abusers. It is very clear, with the number of catch-and-release bail circumstances we find in this country, that violent crimes are continuing to take place. We need more deterrence and more reasons for individuals to reconsider, or not commit the crime in the first place, as well as to ensure that they are not carrying on with crimes when they are released prior to facing their court cases or on bail.

Individuals who are victims of violence believe that the subsequent steps that are being taken by courts after they have come forward and taken the risk of being attacked or abused for presenting their case, leave them at risk. This bill, Bill S-205, would make a significant difference in that situation. It takes a proactive approach. In other words, we are not waiting for other horrific situations to take place; we are curtailing them. That is just common sense.

This is a common-sense bill. It is about putting the victim at the centre of the judicial process and giving them more power to participate right from the start. Therefore, when the individual is facing charges and is being released, even in that circumstance, the preference is being given to protecting the victim.

I believe that we need to do everything we can in the House to pass any bill that would protect women from violence. That is certainly the case with Bill S-205. I encourage the House to move quickly and efficiently on it. It enables us to reflect even more on the opportunities that we have in this place, which we sometimes do not take for political reasons. Members can believe me that those who face violent crime cannot understand why we do not take every opportunity we have to do more to protect victims and to ensure that they are cared for.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act. I am pleased to reiterate the government's support for Bill S-205. This legislation has the important goal of better protecting victims of intimate partner violence.

In light of last week's tragic instance of intimate partner violence in Sault Ste. Marie, we are reminded of the devastating impact these crimes have on individuals and communities. My heart breaks for the senseless loss of life in Sault Ste. Marie, and I am thinking of the victims' loved ones. Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence in general have no place in Canada. I know my colleagues from all parties share this sentiment.

Bill S-205 would make changes to the Criminal Code's bail and peace bond regimes in order to address intimate partner violence. The bill would also make consequential amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. These are important objectives. Today, I will elaborate on some concerns that we have with this bill and how we think it can be improved. I will also discuss our government's most recent complementary efforts to support victims of intimate partner violence and victims of crime in general.

As my colleagues have mentioned, Bill S-205 would require prosecutors to ask courts whether the victim has been consulted about their safety and security needs prior to making a bail order for an individual who is charged with an intimate partner violence offence. In addition, Bill S-205 would require courts to ask prosecutors whether victims have been informed of their right to request a copy of the bail order made by the court.

The next element of Bill S-205 that I would like to highlight is the expansion of a reverse onus for bail on intimate partner violence crimes. The reverse onus would be expanded so that it applies not only to accused persons who were previously convicted but also to those previously discharged, conditional or absolute, for an intimate partner violence offence. This particular measure is also contained in our government's bill, Bill C-48, which already passed this House and is awaiting third reading in the Senate. We were certainly concerned to see that the senators voted to remove this measure from the bill, and I hope that my colleagues agree that we should reinstate it in Bill C-48. This provision builds upon previous government legislation that enhances our federal response to intimate partner violence, including former Bill C-75. I hope this House rejects the amendments to Bill C-48.

Next, Bill S-205 would require a justice to consider, on request of the Crown, whether the accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of release. I want to point out that this provision would also undo an important change made by Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act, violence against an intimate partner, which received royal assent on April 27. If Bill S-205 is passed, electronic monitoring would be identified as an explicit condition of bail that could be imposed in all cases, and not just in cases involving violence against an intimate partner as is now the case because of the changes enacted in Bill C-233.

Last, this bill would create a new peace bond specific to cases involving intimate partner violence with a duration of up to two years, or three years if the defendant was previously convicted of an intimate partner violence offence.

I want to reiterate that I support the objectives of this bill, but I believe that changes should be considered to better align the proposed amendments with its objective. These changes could also minimize the potential for unintended negative impacts on groups who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and ensure coherence with existing criminal law.

Next, I want to discuss how Bill S-205 fits into a broader framework of our government's support for victims of crime. I have already mentioned Bill C-48, which passed here on unanimous consent of all members. I want to thank colleagues across the aisle for their support and for recognizing the importance and urgency of Bill C-48. It is a direct response to requests made by the provinces and territories, as well as law enforcement agencies from across our country. This piece of legislation would strengthen Canada's bail laws to address the public's concerns relating to repeat violent offenders in offences involving firearms and other weapons.

Bill C-48 would introduce a reverse onus at bail on the use of dangerous weapons such as firearms, knives and bear spray. Bill C-48 would also create a reverse onus for additional indictable firearms offences, including unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking and entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm.

Through this bill, we are sending a strong message that crimes committed involving a firearm are unacceptable and represent a dire threat to public safety. We have seen too many lives lost to gun crime.

As I have mentioned previously, Bill C-48 would also strengthen the existing reverse onus that applies to accused persons charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence when they have a previous conviction for this type of an offence. Bill S-205 has this same objective, and I am glad to see members from all parties take intimate partner violence seriously.

Another proposal in Bill C-48 relates to what considerations the court must make when deciding whether to release someone on bail. A former bill, Bill C-75, passed in 2019, amended the Criminal Code to provide that before making a bail order, courts must consider any relevant factor, including the criminal record of the accused or if the charges involve intimate partner violence.

Bill C-48 would expand this provision to require courts to consider if the accused's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence. Bail courts would be specifically directed to consider whether the accused has any previous violent convictions and whether they represent an increased risk of reoffending, even when the proposed reverse onus does not apply. This change would enhance public safety, and I am again pleased that my colleagues support the passage of Bill C-48.

A second bill I wanted to highlight is Bill S-12. Just this week, we debated this legislation. Bill S-12 would improve our national response to sexual offences by strengthening the national sex offender registry regime. We have responded to concerns raised by the Supreme Court and law enforcement agencies in this legislation. The list of designated offences that qualify an offender to be registered on the national sex offender registry would be expanded by Bill S-12, and this list would include non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sextortion, two crimes that have had terrible impacts on the lives of Canadians, especially women and children. This would be a very positive step forward.

Bill S-12 is a direct product of conversations with survivors and victims of sexual crime. Bill S-12 would reform the publication regime to recognize the diversity of victim experiences and ensure that survivors have agency to tell their own stories if they so choose. Bill S-12 would also change the process for providing victims with information on their cases to better reflect the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Both of these changes are about one key element: choice. There is no one right way to be a victim. Bill S-12 reflects this reality.

I am happy to support Bill S-205, and I hope that the elements I have raised as potential concerns with the bill can be further studied at committee.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, just like my colleague from Joliette, who eloquently covered many points just before I rose, and my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who also spoke during the study of this bill, I too reiterate the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill S-205.

The goal of this bill, offering better protection to victims of domestic violence, is definitely commendable. As we know, statistics show the sad reality of a dramatic rise in femicides and domestic violence. Just between 2009 and 2019, domestic violence offences spiked by 7.5%. Given this situation, we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to act. Bill S-205 is a step in the right direction, even if I can already foresee a few issues about what is covered in the bill.

I will only address some parts of Bill S-205 because it covers a lot of ground in many different areas. I will not go over the entire bill; I will just focus on certain parts.

Bill S‑205 would add to subsection 515(3) of the Criminal Code the new subsection (3.1), which reads as follows:

Before making an order under subsection (2) in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the accused's intimate partner, the justice must ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused has been consulted about their safety and security needs.

This ensures better safety for the victim because the prosecutor will have to consult the victim about her needs, which will likely allow them to make better recommendations thereafter, even better requests of the judge with respect to the various parole conditions that the accused might have.

This could also improve the victim's sense of security. We know that victims are not party to criminal hearings, they are witnesses. Unfortunately, often victims end up withdrawing out of fear. They no longer want to testify and, since they are the only witness or at least the key witness in these cases, then these cases could get thrown out. This bill also ensures better administration of justice, in a way, by having a double effect, by also protecting the victim.

Bill S‑205 also adds an item to subsection 515(14) of the Criminal Code. Subsection (14.1) is added, which reads as follows:

Upon making an order under subsection (2), the justice must ask the prosecutor whether victims of the offence have been informed of their right to request a copy of the order.

The fact that the victim is fully aware of the conditions imposed on the accused for his release may not only reassure the victim, but also ensure that these conditions are respected. In order for the conditions to be respected, someone must monitor the accused. It would be impossible to keep a constant eye on the accused, but the victim, for example, would know if the accused approached her, thereby failing to comply with this or that condition. The victim can then report that the conditions have been violated. In a way, the victim is included in the enforcement of the conditions imposed on the accused.

There is also an additional condition that I think is the crux of the bill. When Senator Boisvenu speaks so passionately about his bill, he presents it as the electronic monitoring device bill. That is the key measure in the bill, at least in his view.

We know that releases can come with certain conditions, including reporting at specified times to the peace officer or other specified person; remaining within a specified territorial jurisdiction; notifying the peace officer or other specified person of any change in address, employment or occupation; abstaining from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any victim; and depositing all passports. The bill adds a new condition, that of wearing an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes the request.

There is a lot to say on that last point. When the bill gets to committee, it would be a good idea to analyze how things were done in Quebec, since Quebec already has a similar system in place for offences falling under its jurisdiction, where the accused would be sent to a Quebec prison if convicted.

Since the system is already up and running, it would be good to take stock of this option's implementation. Ultimately, if the bill moves forward, that would allow for alignment between the relevant federal and provincial measures. However, it would be nice to learn from past mistakes or missteps based on what was done in Quebec.

What is more, I am concerned that having the accused wear an electronic monitoring device that makes it possible to geolocate them provides a false sense of security. I will give what is, unfortunately, a very real example. Members will perhaps remember the police officer who was killed in December 2022 by an individual who was released on bail after committing gun offences. The individual was in a car with a partner, and a police officer was killed.

One might wonder how that person was able to leave their home, despite the fact that they were wearing a GPS monitor. Why did the monitor not alert the authorities? Why were no precautionary measures taken and why did the police officers who stopped him not know that they were in the presence of a person who was wearing a GPS monitor? One has to wonder about the company that makes those monitors. Is the warning system adequate? Once an alert is triggered, are there sufficient resources to ensure the safety of the victim? We must not be lulled into a false sense of security because the accused is wearing an electronic monitoring device. There is a whole series of other measures that need to be implemented. I would just like to warn the House about that.

Some of the other release conditions listed in the bill deserve further study to see if they can actually be implemented. It is one thing to have a bill filled with good intentions, but if it is impossible to implement on the ground, it is nothing but an empty shell.

I am thinking of the obligation to abstain from consuming drugs, for example. This condition already exists. To prove this, the person will have to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation. That is an additional condition. It can be done at the request of a peace officer, if he or she has suspicions, or at regular intervals.

We have to wonder if this condition passes the charter test, specifically when it comes to the invasive nature of certain screening tests. It is one thing for alcohol, but for certain drugs, it can involve a blood sample, a urine test, a saliva test or a hair sample, which can be fairly invasive. We need to weigh the desired result against a minimal infringement on human rights. It would be interesting to hear constitutional experts on this.

Another condition is being created in relation to the section 810 order, and that is to refrain from using social media. I understand the intention behind that, but I still wonder about the balance between the end goal and protecting privacy rights. This condition could be included in the order without any actual follow-up to determine whether it is being respected. In that case, however, it would become a bit of a bogus order.

How would we ensure compliance with that order? Do we monitor the accused's phone and computer use? Is that not too invasive and excessive? Is that not an invasion of privacy? Does the end justify the means? Should we rely on victim reporting instead? If the victim sees a social media post and knows that there is an order prohibiting the accused from using social media, she could notify the police, for example. I am curious to see how this could be implemented.

Finally, there is another aspect that I would like hear from constitutional experts about in committee. I am talking about the reverse onus for release. Under Bill C‑75, which was adopted four years ago, if a person has already been charged with and found guilty of a violent crime against a domestic partner, then that person has to prove that detention is not justified. Under the new bill, we would add the case where a person has already been absolved of a crime against an intimate partner. We might wonder whether that passes the charter test when the onus is reversed not following a conviction, but following an absolution.

There are some elements that might be interesting to analyze. In any event, the bill generally has an absolutely noble objective. I look forward to seeing how the work in committee will unfold when it comes to the different aspects I have raised.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, we respectfully ask for a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 2:17 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:17 p.m.)