Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu moved second reading of 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).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to second reading of 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).

In 2020, 160 women were murdered in Canada, 60% of whom were killed by an intimate partner. In 2021, 26 women were murdered in Quebec, and two thirds of those cases were connected to domestic violence. That is the highest number recorded in Quebec since 2008. The 2021 statistics on spousal homicides in Canada will be available next month, but I can already assure you that based on what we have seen in Quebec, those numbers will top the 2020 numbers.

Honourable senators, I stand before you today with an open heart and a lot of hope as I present, for the second time, a bill that is very close to my heart. I have put all of my energy and strength into this bill over the past three years.

As you know, since my daughter Julie was killed, I have been deeply committed to fighting violence against women. Over the past three years, I have travelled the country and met with hundreds of women. With pain and dignity, they openly shared with me their stories and experiences with the violence they had to endure, often for years.

Their testimony was very emotional, sometimes hard to listen to and often sickening. These women survived attempted murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault and psychological violence. These things happened repeatedly over the course of their ordeal.

These women experienced some very scary moments. Most of them still bear the scars of that violence. Since 1970, we have seen a steady decline in homicide in Canada. However, what makes femicide different from homicide is that the majority of the women were murdered in a family violence situation, after reporting their abuser to the police. More often than not, these murders were foreseeable.

During my consultations, most victims made it clear that the justice system was not there for them when they decided to report their abuser. They took refuge in women’s shelters and ended up in precarious situations where getting back to life in society is often very complicated. Left on their own, they have no confidence in our obsolete and ineffective justice system. They are not guaranteed any protection when they step outside their prison of silence. Some of them paid with their lives.

Diane Tremblay, a tremendously courageous victim of domestic violence, appeared before the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Her testimony was deeply moving. I will read an excerpt where she describes the ordeal she suffered for years. She said, and I quote:

My abuser would put the dresser in front of my bedroom door to keep me from leaving so that he could force me to have sex while I screamed and cried. Sometimes, my children could hear me. . . .

I told them that I was upset and that it wasn’t serious. My abuser even put a lock on the door to keep the children out. He was showing them that he had control over their mother. Julien rebelled a great deal, and rightly so. However, I told him to go away and that I had everything under control. . . .

My abuser threatened to kill us every day, so I kept quiet to protect my children.

This is just one example of the violence Ms. Tremblay experienced for four long years from 2003 to 2007, during which time her abuser sexually assaulted and tried to kill her numerous times, in front of her two children.

What stood out to me the most about her story is that, during those four years, Ms. Tremblay sought help from the justice system several times, but she did not receive any protection from her dangerous abuser. I have heard hundreds of stories like this one over the past three years.

When I had the idea of introducing a bill to combat domestic violence, I gave myself the objective of basing this bill on the testimony of victims. As I have said many times, they were the ones holding my pencil. As the father of a young woman who was murdered, I believe that victims are in the best position to educate the legislator on what needs to be done to effectively amend the existing legislation so that it meets their needs.

I’d like to quote some of what Elizabeth Sheehy, a distinguished professor of law at the University of Ottawa, told the committee during its study of Bill C-75. She said, and I quote:

We see very few convictions for VAW in the criminal courts, for the reasons we are familiar with: women do not report for many good reasons; women’s reports are not properly investigated or pursued; women withdraw from prosecution; men’s excuses and defences prevail.

The testimony of these women certainly shows how ineffective the justice system is, but so do the statistics on family violence.

In its 2019 report, Statistics Canada painted a rather worrisome picture of the evolution of domestic violence in Canada. Intimate partner violence represents 30% of crimes committed in Canada and has gone up 6% in the past year. Of the victims of intimate partner violence, 80% said the violence they experienced was not reported to police; 16% of sexual assaults are committed by an intimate partner; 57% of cases in adult criminal court involve crimes against an intimate partner.

In 60% of intimate partner homicides, there was a history of intimate partner violence. In 50% of these spousal homicides, the perpetrators were repeat offenders already convicted by the justice system for similar crimes.

Most of the women killed in Quebec since the start of the pandemic had reported incidents to police.

Given the statistics I’ve just shared, the Senate of Canada must understand that family violence is a national priority and that we can only address it by thinking about how to reform our justice system to make it tougher on these criminals who destroy the lives of their partners and children.

To achieve this, the responsibility falls to us, the legislators, to reform this system because Canadians, especially Canadian women, have given us senators the power to change the laws in their name, in their interest, when necessary. It is up to us to respect this privilege and to use it to respond to the calls from the thousands of women who desperately hope to see this change and whom we do not have the right to ignore. It is now up to us to act through this bill, which was written by women, for women.

Let me be clear. This bill is not about incarcerating more criminals, but rather about monitoring them when the justice system decides to release them.

On this matter, I’d like to quote the opinion of Justice Locke of the Supreme Court of Canada in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada, which was upheld in 2019 by Justice Rowe on behalf of the Supreme Court in R. v. Penunsi:

The power to legislate in relation to criminal law is not restricted, in my opinion, to defining offences and providing penalties for their commission. The power of Parliament extends to legislation designed for the prevention of crime as well as to punishing crime.

My bill amends two sections of the Criminal Code that correspond to the beginning of the legal process, after a victim files a complaint with police, makes a submission in court or is preparing for a trial.

If we look at the spousal homicides committed in Quebec in 2021, we see that most of the time, these women notified the authorities and were killed for making that brave and even audacious choice.

When victims decide to seek justice, they are automatically in danger and become vulnerable to their spouses.

If that spouse is not incarcerated and is on interim release, there is a significantly higher likelihood of the violence escalating and resulting in death.

Furthermore, even if the accused agrees to sign an order to keep the peace, known as an 810, there is no way to guarantee the victim’s safety. As I have often heard from these women, these victims, an order is just a piece of paper. We know this because accused individuals so often violate these conditions with impunity.

I would like to share some of the testimony of the father of Daphné Huard-Boudreault, who was killed by her boyfriend:

On that tragic day, numerous warning signs should have alerted the authorities. Despite several police officers responding to Daphné’s call for help, despite the fact that the man who would go on to murder my daughter had committed numerous offences, that man left by taxi without even being questioned . . . .

Daphné was worried, so she went to the police station after her shift to explain the situation and get help or at least advice. Everyone knows how the story ends. Daphné was murdered.

The purpose of my bill is to be proactive, to save as many lives as possible, because, in the end, a person’s conditions of release are not subject to any monitoring mechanism. That’s why it’s necessary to implement a surveillance mechanism that’s fit for 2022, to provide a credible response.

In drafting this legislation, I reached out to Canadian provinces, in particular those with very high rates of violence. I worked with most of the justice ministers and public safety ministers in those provinces in order to tailor my bill to their realities. I can now count on the support of Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick.

These provinces support this bill because the approach I’m advocating provides them with effective tools to address this scourge.

On the issue of technical monitoring, I looked to countries like Spain and France, which have introduced electronic monitoring devices.

I commend the bill brought forward by the Province of Quebec, which requires offenders who have been found guilty of domestic violence and released from a provincial prison to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.

In December 2022, 650 offenders released in Quebec will wear an electronic bracelet.

The federal government must now take responsibility and pass this bill in order to complement the provincial legislation. Quebec, for example, will require an electronic bracelet solely for those released from a provincial prison, so those awaiting trial who are released from a federal prison will not fall under Quebec’s bill.

In my bill, I want to add the option for judges to require offenders to wear an electronic monitoring device at every stage.

Initially, when the police arrest a person suspected of committing an offence related to domestic violence, in most cases, they would have the option of releasing the accused pending his appearance before a judge. At this stage, the police have the option of issuing a promise to appear with certain conditions that the accused has to abide by. With the amendment of subsection 501(3) of the Criminal Code, the police will be able to include the wearing of an electronic monitoring device in these conditions, if they consider it necessary to protect the victim’s life.

Furthermore, the bill would add the wearing of an electronic monitoring device to the conditions for making an interim release order pending trial, which corresponds to section 515 of the Criminal Code. When an accused makes their first appearance in court, the judge determines whether the case will go to trial. If the answer is yes and the judge decides to make an interim release order, this bill would allow the judge to require the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the judge determines that the victim’s safety and life are at risk.

Lastly, I want to add the condition of wearing an electronic monitoring device to the new section 810 peace bond that I am proposing and that I will describe later in my speech.

Electronic monitoring helps establish a safety perimeter between two intimate partners. In the event that the offender breaks the safety perimeter, the victim and the authorities are immediately alerted. This gives the victim a chance to get her children to safety and allows authorities to intervene quickly to prevent a tragedy. This information can also be invaluable for the police, in order to prove that the perpetrator did not respect the conditions of his order. Otherwise, it always comes down to the abuser’s word against the victim’s.

Spain, for example, adopted a policy to fight domestic violence in 1997 after a woman was burned alive by her partner. After various bills were introduced, Spain decided to bring in electronic monitoring bracelets in 2009.

I relied on the author Lorea Arenas Garcia, a well-known academic in Spain who has done extensive work on electronic monitoring. Her work showed us that Spain has an effective national strategy for combatting domestic violence. The Spanish legislation, the comprehensive law against gender-based violence, created specialized domestic violence courts with specially trained judges. Quebec’s Bill 24 created a similar kind of court specializing in domestic violence. I would like to quote some of Ms. Garcia’s comments:

There is a widespread perception among police officers and legal experts and within departments that this measure may be an effective tool for combatting violence against women. Public debate on electronic monitoring has focused on its ability to prevent deaths. Practitioners find this tool to be 100% effective, and feminist organizations and some media are calling for even broader use of electronic monitoring tools.

Over a three-year period, Spain fitted almost 800 women and 800 men with electronic bracelets, and then supplied 800 warning devices for the women. There were three deaths, two of which were homicides, out of 800 women. The bracelets have already proven to be effective.

France’s National Assembly has passed an act that is similar to the one Spain passed in late 2019 introducing the electronic bracelets. It was proposed by member Aurélien Pradié. Here is an emotional passage from the speech he gave to the French National Assembly:

No politician, government official or legislator can make excuses and claim they are unaware. None of us can say that we need more time to think about solutions. The time has come for strong action. Not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow, but today. This bill, which we have the honour of presenting to the National Assembly, certainly does not solve everything, but it can respond to the vital urgency, to the appeals of these women, of their loved ones, of associations on the ground, of experts who for months have been calling for and demanding new measures to protect women and keep them safe from being murdered by an intimate partner. Today we must answer those calls. Everyone here has a collective responsibility.

We also have a collective responsibility to take a stand on violence, which affects too many women in Canada.

The amendment to section 515 of the Criminal Code set out in this bill would change the law in several different ways.

First, it would ensure that victims are consulted and can express their needs and concerns about their safety and the conditions to be placed on the offender when he is released.

When a judge makes a decision about the conditions to be imposed on someone accused of an offence where violence was used, threatened or attempted against their intimate partner, they must consider the victim’s opinion. The goal is to put the victim back at the centre of the judicial process in intimate partner violence cases, in accordance with the right to participate enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

I would like to remind senators that it is often already very difficult for victims to take legal action. That’s why guaranteeing their safety and listening to what they need when they decide to take that step is crucial.

This amendment is consistent with the directives for Crown prosecutors set out in the Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook. Here is an excerpt:

Crown counsel should be aware of the interest of victims and witnesses in the release of the accused on bail, particularly in situations where the conduct reflected in the charges may imply a potential threat to the victim or witness.

The second condition I wish to add will give the judge the option of ordering province-approved addiction treatment or treatment for family violence under the court’s supervision. Each case is different, and we must give judges the necessary discretion to decide whether the accused needs treatment for a violence problem for the sole purpose of ensuring the safety of the victim and breaking the vicious circle of domestic violence.

The other proposal in the bill has to do with providing a copy of the order. The judge must first verify that the intimate partner of the accused has been informed of their right to request a copy of the interim release order provided for under subsection 515(14) of the Criminal Code.

This amendment would uphold the principles of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, namely, the right to be informed of the accused’s conditions of release. The act already stipulates that the victim may be provided this information upon request.

However, based on the testimony I heard, I think the nuance here is that victims are often not made aware of their rights and, as a result, they are left to their own devices in a process that is difficult to understand. This point would address one of the recommendations made by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

The last element of my bill concerns peace bonds under section 810 of the Criminal Code, “sureties to keep the peace.” A judge can order the accused to sign a peace bond, and the individual must agree to comply with the conditions set out in this bond.

In Canada, section 810 of the Criminal Code is a general instrument of preventive justice that dates back to 1918. It creates a source of criminal liability. Breaching any of the conditions imposed in the peace bond can result in the defendant being charged under section 811 of the Criminal Code and, if convicted, being sentenced to a maximum of four years in prison.

In 2020, the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale and researchers at the Université du Québec à Montréal presented a report on section 810 of the Criminal Code.

The report stated that section 810 of the Criminal Code is being used more and more in the context of domestic violence. The report made the troubling observation that using the 810 recognizance order would be a good compromise for settling cases of domestic violence by avoiding legal proceedings and, therefore, a trial. Section 810 is being used more and more, and trials are becoming shorter and shorter.

The section 810 peace bond is an order that can be used for general matters that do not at all reflect domestic violence. It is, by definition, not designed for a domestic violence situation involving a specific context where criminal acts are perpetrated. Consequently, misuse of this peace bond is dangerous to the safety of victims, as highlighted by this passage of the report:

Regarding the usefulness of the conditions imposed by means of a section 810 order or in the context of a release pending trial, many women noted that they are useful only if non-compliance with the conditions is detected, taken seriously and punished. Otherwise, they are only symbolic, serving as a smokescreen that contributes to a false sense of security and cynicism with respect to the justice system.

I would like to continue by providing a very concrete example that took place two years ago. In December 2019, in Montreal, Ms. Khellaf, a 42-year-old mother, and her two children were murdered by the father, Nabil Yssaad. He will never be brought to justice because he took his own life.

Ms. Khellaf had been a long-time victim of domestic violence. She had finally sought justice. The year before, the murderer had been charged with assault and assault with a weapon against the victim. A few days before the tragedy, Mr. Yssaad signed a section 810 peace bond, but the conditions imposed on him were not sufficient to deter him from committing a triple homicide. This is a sad story that unfortunately happens far too often.

Manon Monastesse, the director of the Fédération des maisons d’hébergement pour femmes de la région de Québec, said that peace bonds often give victims a false sense of security. To rectify this problem with our justice system, I am proposing the creation of a new order specifically for family violence, which I think will enable judges to issue orders that are tailored specifically to the safety issues that victims face.

I’d like to add that I am not inventing anything new here. There are already other 810 orders in the Criminal Code for specific cases. There is an order associated with section 810.2 of the Criminal Code, “Where fear of serious personal injury offence,” that is commonly used and is similar to the one I am proposing, and there is also an order under section 810.011 regarding terrorism.

The first change with respect to the general order has to do with the duration of recognizance orders. Under the Criminal Code, an accused can be under an order for one year. We will extend that to two years to prevent victims from having to apply for the order to be renewed the following year.

The second change applies to reoffenders. If a person was found guilty of a similar offence in the past, the order will last three years instead of the two provided for in the Criminal Code.

If an accused refuses to comply with the conditions of the order, he may be sentenced to two years in prison instead of the one year currently provided for in the Criminal Code.

We will also include the condition that the judge may impose the same measures as those we added to section 515, namely the electronic bracelet and court-supervised addiction treatment or family violence counselling programs.

Our last measure has to do with changes to the recognizance order conditions. We will include a section that will ensure the victim can be consulted in the event that any change is made to the recognizance order, at the request of the attorney general or the offender, that would affect the victim’s safety and security. Until now, victims have not been consulted when the offender requested changes to his conditions. Several victims have seen their abuser reappear because he requested a change to his conditions that was approved by the court, unbeknownst to the victim.

Honourable senators, I think it is vital that this bill pass through the various stages of the parliamentary process to become a law that will guarantee that the voices of victims of family violence are clearly heard and that these individuals are better protected. The statistics show that there is an important and urgent need to reform our system. Let’s not allow this situation to continue when we have the tools at our disposal to change things and all we have to do is use them. The legislation needs to be adapted to the realities. That is an objective that this new bill tries to meet. I therefore appeal to each senator’s sense of responsibility.

Finally, I would like to quote Justice Laskin of the Ontario Superior Court in his ruling in Budreo. He said, and I quote:

The criminal justice system has two broad objectives: punish wrongdoers and prevent future harm. A law aimed at the prevention of crime is just as valid an exercise of the federal criminal law power under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as a law aimed at punishing crime.

Honourable senators, I will end my speech at second reading with this comment. In domestic violence trials, judges are basically facing potential murderers. In most cases, they decide to let these abusers go free.

The fundamental question that we must ask ourselves is this: What is the justice system’s responsibility? If we look at what’s been done in many other countries, I think this bill answers that question. Now, the responsibility is on you, and I urge you to quickly send this bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for study in order to save lives.

Thank you very much.