Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, November is Family Violence Prevention Month in New Brunswick, so for me, it’s an important month to speak to Bill C-233, sponsored by our colleague Senator Dalphond. Recently, he spoke so passionately about the need for this important legislation. I also spoke not long ago on Inquiry No. 10, where I outlined some of the major issues faced by women who are victims of intimate partner violence in rural Ontario.

In New Brunswick, the Silent Witness Project honours women who were murdered by their intimate partners. Currently, the travelling exhibit includes 50 life-sized red silhouettes of these women and their stories. These stories are compiled by their loved ones on engraved metal plates, which are secured to the chest of each silhouette. Sometimes family members may put a scarf or a personal item around the silhouette’s neck.

One of the Silent Witnesses that touched me deeply is Monique Breau’s story from Moncton, New Brunswick. On December 19, 2005, at the age of 36, she was shot by her estranged common-law partner whom she hadn’t spoken to in nine months. He entered her home and fatally shot her and then turned the gun on himself. Monique was a nursing mom. When she was shot, she had her three-month-old baby in her arms. Monique’s two-and-a-half-year-old child was in a bedroom nearby. When the police arrived, it was a grim scene, and it was just before Christmas. Monique was a physiotherapist at our Moncton Hospital, and everyone was saddened and shocked by what happened. She was described as an honest, generous and fun-loving person. She was an outdoor enthusiast and loved painting, gardening and volunteering. No one knew the danger she was in, and now her two children are orphans as a result of this horrifying act.

I believe this story emphasizes the dangers of violent partners, especially as women are at the highest risk after separation. It also highlights that the victims of violence are not just women but their children as well, whose homes are so often destroyed. Monique’s two children didn’t just witness violence; they experienced it and will live with the consequences forever. Any act of intimate partner violence is an act of violence against the whole family, especially children. Reforms such as those proposed under Bill C-233 can help prevent and contain violence, but much more is needed. If I can make an analogy about domestic violence, ending intimate partner violence is like building a house. We need a foundation. We need the walls, the rooms and the roof. We need all the pieces put together to form a complete house. A national framework to end gender-based violence is imperative.

Here are a few important statistics: Between 2014 and 2020, there were 576 victims of intimate partner homicide in Canada, 80% of whom were women; 43% of women have experienced psychological abuse in their lifetime at the hands of an intimate partner; 23% have experienced physical violence; 12% have experienced sexual violence; and 30% of women who experienced intimate partner violence reported experiencing it repeatedly.

The psychological abuse often comes in the form of coercive control, an insidious and difficult-to-detect type of violence in which an intimate partner engages in a pattern of behaviours intended to isolate, humiliate, exploit or dominate their victim, thereby stripping away their freedom and their sense of self. Coercive control leads to a tightening grip on the victim and asserts the power of the abuser over every aspect of the victim’s life. Coercive control is a significant predictor of violence and murder.

In the 2022 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Towards a Violence-Free Canada: Addressing and Eliminating Intimate Partner and Family Violence, the committee noted the importance of recognizing coercive control in all areas of Canadian law. I note that in 2019, the update to the Divorce Act enacted through Bill C-78 took a step in the right direction by outlining how courts should consider patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour in a relationship with a family member in their assessment of the impact of family violence. This does not criminalize coercive control per se, though some bills such as Bill C-202, currently at second reading in the other place, do.

Bill C-233, on the other hand, seeks to further entrench the concept of coercive control in the justice system not by criminalizing it but rather by providing for training opportunities and seminars for judges. Though I believe coercive control should be criminalized, my views are informed by the committee’s observation that some witnesses expressed concern with the ability of the justice system to manage such a new offence, particularly if the system is not even nuanced enough to understand physical violence, let alone such an insidious act of violence like coercive control. I therefore believe that the training prescribed by Bill C-233 would provide the foundation for greater reforms.

Pamela Cross, Legal Director of Luke’s Place, observed that jurisdictions that combined the criminalization of coercive control with dedicated training programs were more successful than those jurisdictions that did not. In this light, by equipping judges with the most up-to-date and in-depth knowledge on the effects of coercive control, I believe we will be laying the foundation for greater access to justice for victims. I think the impact of such training would be immediate. It would dispel unfounded beliefs held by some judges that violence against a mother should not be considered a risk to the child.

In fact, the portion of Bill C-233 that compels training for judges is called “Keira’s Law” in reference to Keira Kagan. In her testimony to the House of Commons Status of Women Committee, Keira’s mother described her experience in the court system after she escaped from her abusive partner. A dozen different judges dismissed her experience of coercive control and abuse, and one even stated that the abuse she suffered was not relevant to parenting and her partner would therefore be granted unsupervised access to their daughter Keira. Sadly, Keira was later killed by her angry and dangerous father in an apparent murder-suicide. This happened in 2020, so it is clear that the attitudes that informed the decisions of the judges in this sad case persist in our courts.

Dr. Peter Jaffe, a leading expert on family violence, lends additional weight to Keira’s story. His research demonstrates that many misconceptions persist in the criminal justice system around intimate partner violence — in particular the view that as long as children are not abused directly, they are not harmed by exposure to domestic violence. Dr. Jaffe’s research has shown that children’s exposure to domestic violence consistently leads to negative outcomes ranging from trauma, flashbacks, nightmares, depression, regression to earlier stages of development and compromised academic and social development. Keep in mind that this is the damage done when the child is not abused directly, so the harm done can be multiplied exponentially. What is clear is that when our courts ignore the broader impacts of domestic violence, they are failing to protect the children. Abusers cannot be good parents. Dr. Jaffe stresses the need for training so that every actor in the judicial system understands the complete picture of intimate partner violence.

In New Brunswick, I think we are ahead of things because, for many years, we’ve recognized this. We knew this link between harm to children and witnessing their parents’ abuse needed to be recognized and treated. Dr. Jaffe’s research helped us find suitable training and education for mothers to help their children. We did this for many years, and it was certainly a big step forward.

I believe training for judges aligns well with recommendation 29 of the Ontario coroner’s inquest into the deaths of the three women in rural Ontario. It calls on the province to provide professional education and training for justice system personnel on intimate partner violence-related issues. It follows up with an invaluable list of training subjects, including indicators of coercive control and other risk factors of violence and possibly death. Though provincial in focus, the inquest’s recommendations are equally applicable nationally, and I have heard them repeated often in other jurisdictions over the years.

I would like to move to the second part of the bill, which would require a justice to consider whether it is desirable to include that an accused charged with an offence against an intimate partner be made to wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of the bail order. To be clear, Bill C-233 only contemplates the use of electronic monitoring as a condition of a bail order, a sensitive time where the victim has already endured violence but during which the alleged abuser may be released pending a trial. Research has shown that victims are at highest risk in the first several months after a separation, a period of time that is reflected in this legislation. As I mentioned previously, Monique Breau was murdered by her estranged partner only nine months after the relationship ended. Though this only covers a specific step in the legal process, it is an important one. Moreover, implementing Bill C-233 would not preclude taking additional steps through other legislation and, certainly, through a comprehensive national prevention strategy on gender-based violence.

Senator Dalphond provided a number of examples of jurisdictions that have implemented electronic monitoring as part of their strategy to protect victims of intimate partner violence. For example, Spain’s model stands out as a particularly interesting one, as it has been active since 2009 and therefore is a tremendous source of data.

It is important to understand that the use of electronic monitoring in Spain is part of a suite of reforms which includes specialized courts that deal with intimate partner violence — a truly whole-of-government approach to dealing with the issue, the collective impact of which was a 25% reduction in the number of femicides since 2004.

As a part of a wider tool kit, electronic monitoring, where available — and combined with effective and immediate police response — increases the well-being and sense of security of victims and increases compliance with treatment orders.

It must be noted, however, that electronic monitoring is not without issues. It may not be appropriate in every circumstance.

Pamela Cross, in her testimony in the other place, raised concerns with equitable access to justice. Offenders are expected to bear the cost of installation and monitoring, often done by private corporations, which can cost up to $600 a month. For a family that has already been impacted by violence, this additional financial burden seems unfair and even completely inaccessible for folks without the means.

The possibility exists, therefore, that justice may look differently depending on your socio-economic circumstances. This is also true for anyone living in rural areas, where access to cellular data may be spotty. For the women who were murdered in Renfrew County, the use of electronic monitoring may not even have been applicable. This is why it is crucial to consider social context in these circumstances, and I am pleased to see that social context is included in the training being recommended in Bill C-233.

Colleagues, intimate partner violence is a complex issue. Despite its brevity, Bill C-233 raises deep concerns and questions about what we are doing to end violence. When we have knowledge, as the bill seeks to do for judges, we are better able to make clear-eyed decisions on what works and what doesn’t. Bill C-233 moves things forward in a positive direction and, on the whole, I’m supportive of it.

Thank you to Senator Dalphond for being the sponsor and for sharing so much information with my office. I look forward to the possibility of studying it further at committee, along with other important measures being proposed by my colleagues to deal with intimate partner violence. Let’s keep working on this until every woman, girl and child is safe in Canada. Let’s do whatever it takes. Thank you.