Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner). While I am speaking today as the critic of this bill, I should state at the outset that I support the legislation and its objectives. However, as I have said before, I believe that much more needs to be done at the national level to address the growing rate of violence against an intimate partner.

The topic of intimate partner violence has been discussed at length in this chamber over the past couple of months. It has been the topic of motions, amendments and new legislation amending the Criminal Code, as is the case with Bill C-233. The discussions have also been the impetus for my own private member’s bill, Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence. I look forward to your support on this very important and timely piece of legislation.

While the statistics on intimate partner violence are heartbreaking, the fact that we are simultaneously bringing forward multiple initiatives to target this heinous reality fills me with a sense of hope.

This legislation has two key provisions which seek to protect against domestic and intimate partner violence. First, it requires a justice, before making a release order for an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device. I support this requirement.

In 2021, the Quebec government commissioned a study to examine the use of electronic tracking devices in domestic violence cases. Jean-Pierre Guay and Francis Fortin, professors of criminology at the Université de Montréal, found that:

. . . the bracelets increases victims’ sense of safety and spawn a “feeling” of empowerment and autonomy in victims, while “allowing for a more focused and optimized police response.”

An article in The Lawyer’s Daily pointed out some other important findings from this study. In particular, in Spain, where tracking devices have been used in domestic violence cases since 2009, there was some effectiveness, as there was a decrease in the number of women killed by their intimate partners: 45 in 2020, compared to 72 in 2004. However, the most conclusive evidence came from Australia, which demonstrated an 82% reduction of high-risk incidents. Of course, this is a relatively small tool in a judge’s tool box, but I believe it is an important one.

While I am certain the technology is not perfect, I do believe that anything that can improve the feeling of safety and control for abuse victims can serve as a powerful instrument toward the rebuilding of their lives.

The second major provision is the amendment to the Judges Act. Bill C-233 stipulates a continuing education requirement for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control. This part of the bill is called “Keira’s Law” as it is named in the honour of four-year-old Keira Kagan, a girl from Milton, Ontario, who was tragically killed in what her family believes to have been a revenge-driven murder-suicide by her abusive father, Robin Brown. Keira’s mother, Jennifer Kagan‑Viater, described Brown as a controlling, violent man and a pathological liar who created a fictional existence.

The judge who presided over their divorce hearing when Keira was eight months old contended that Ms. Kagan-Viater was, in fact, leaving an intolerable situation. However, the judge who oversaw the custody hearing determined that the history of lies and abuse was of little relevance when it came to Keira. The judge acknowledged Mr. Brown’s propensity for lying and acknowledged at least one confirmed incident of physical abuse; however, he concluded, “I am of the view that there is no risk to Keira.” As a result, Mr. Brown received a very generous custody arrangement.

When Keira turned three, her mother remarried and had a baby boy with her husband. There were signs that Keira was being emotionally abused by her father. Judges had given Keira’s father warnings that his access would be curtailed due to his behaviour and failure to obey court orders. Two weeks prior to Keira’s death, Ms. Kagan-Viater sought a motion to suspend or supervise Brown’s access to their daughter because she was worried that Keira was at risk. The presiding judge said the evidence was “serious” and “persuasive and compelling,” yet said the motion was “not urgent.”

Jewish Family and Child Service was called in to investigate. They sent in a caseworker to meet with Mr. Brown on a Friday. According to the Viater family, the caseworker confirmed that Mr. Brown was in fact displaying behaviour consistent with someone who would harm or kill their child, but that her supervisor wanted to wait and talk about it on Monday. But Monday was too late; Keira died on Sunday.

While it may be baffling to some of us that a father with a proven history of domestic abuse and subsequent court warnings could have this level of unsupervised access to his child, family law experts say courts often look at custody cases with the belief that an abusive partner can still be a good parent, even though the evidence suggests children are at a greater risk.

Last year, the Department of Justice Canada studied and reported on the risk factors for domestic violence and child abuse and noted there is indeed an overlap in risk, meaning those who abuse an intimate partner pose an increased risk to their children. The risks are amplified when there is a divorce or separation, as the non-abusive parent is unable to monitor or intervene.

Despite these risk factors, judges, who are tasked with making weighty, life-altering decisions in custody cases, are not required to undergo intimate partner violence training. Bill C-233 seeks to correct that. In effect, the bill signals to the Canadian Judicial Council the importance of continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships.

This provision builds on the work of our former colleague and former Conservative Party leader the Honourable Rona Ambrose. After identifying a disconnect between the experience of sexual assault victims and the societal assumptions and misconceptions often leading to an unjust outcome in trials, Ms. Ambrose worked tenaciously to advance her goal of enhanced judicial education. Her tireless efforts ensured the passage of Bill C-337, requiring the Canadian Judicial Council to establish seminars relating to sexual assault and social context, which will undoubtedly lead to more just and fair outcomes for sexual assault victims.

Given the risk factors that are statistically overlooked in cases of intimate partner violence, we too have an opportunity to give judges the tools they need to make the right decisions for families like Keira’s and to keep children safe from those who present serious risks.

Colleagues, while I support this legislation, I am hopeful that this is just the start of a broader reform and, indeed, a national strategy to protect victims of family and intimate partner violence. Please join me in moving forward this legislation and all initiatives seeking to prevent abuse. The further we force the truth about intimate partner and family violence out of the shadows, the closer we will be to putting an end to this shameful reality.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]