THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 17, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:31 a.m. [ET] to 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).
[English]
Mark Palmer, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of the chair and deputy chair and to preside over the election of an acting chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Cotter: Thank you, Mr. Palmer. I move that Senator Dalphond serve as chair for today’s meeting.
Mr. Palmer: We have a motion for Senator Dalphond. Are there any other nominations? No. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Cotter that Senator Dalphond do take the chair. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Pierre J. Dalphond (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, colleagues, for this trust. I am a member of steering, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to chair due to the unexpected unavailability of the chair and deputy chair. I hope that our chair will feel better and will be able to resume the chair position at our next meeting next week.
[Translation]
Today, we are continuing our study 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).
Honourable senators, as you know, owing to technical problems yesterday, the Senate meeting had to be cancelled. Therefore, we will resume at 1 p.m. today, which means that we have to reduce the number of witnesses.
I would ask my colleagues to keep their questions short. I will make sure that everyone has a chance to speak. There are not many of us here this morning, so you will have an opportunity to ask your questions.
Without further ado, we’ll start with the first panel of witnesses and then move immediately to the second panel of witnesses.
We have representatives from two companies that provide geolocation services. The first company is SafeTracks GPS Canada Inc. represented by its president, Vince Morelli.
Mr. Morelli, the floor is yours.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Mr. Morelli, you have five minutes.
Vince Morelli, President, SafeTracks GPS Canada Inc.: Good morning. My name is Vince Morelli. I’m the president of SafeTracks GPS Canada Inc. We are located in Red Deer, Alberta.
In appreciation of this being the Canadian National Métis Week, SafeTracks is located on the land of Treaty 6. SafeTracks is honoured to be recognized as a certified Aboriginal business.
We are very honoured to be a part of this program, and we look forward to answering any and all of your questions [Technical difficulties].
The Acting Chair: I’m very sorry, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Morelli. As I said at the beginning, we were planning to go with you both until 10 past noon, which is 25 minutes from now. Would you be agreeable to being rescheduled for next week? That would give us a full hour. You could have five minutes each to present your positions and then answer questions. We would be rushing you now. I don’t know if you’re available, but the next meeting is on Wednesday at 4:15. Is that agreeable to you?
Mr. Morelli: Yes, sir.
Peter Marshall, Chief Executive Officer and Legal Director, Recovery Science Corporation: Yes, I’ll make myself available.
The Acting Chair: That is appreciated. I’m so sorry. I don’t take the chair often. It’s not my fault that it’s breaking apart. I don’t want to blame anybody else, but I’m just saying that we have an unfortunate technical problem on the day when we are trying to shorten the panels. I appreciate very much that you both made yourselves available this morning. I apologize once more, and we’ll see you next week.
[Translation]
The Acting Chair: For those who are tuning in, we apologize for the technical issue. We will now move to the second panel.
Today we have Martine Jeanson, Khaoula Grissa and Dayane Williams.
[English]
Thank you for coming. I know you had to travel to be here this morning. Thank you for travelling and for arriving earlier than expected. Our first panel, unfortunately, had to be postponed until next week, so we’ll be starting with you. We’ll be here for the next hour. The procedure is that you each have five minutes to make your presentations, and then members of the committee will ask you questions.
Before we start, I’ll ask members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters from Saskatchewan, home of the Grey Cup this weekend.
Senator Cotter: Senator Brent Cotter from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, a senator from Saskatchewan and Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Senator Dupuis from the senatorial division of the Laurentides in Quebec.
The Acting Chair: Pierre J. Dalphond from Quebec; I am exceptionally chairing the meeting this morning as the chair is unable to be with us.
We will begin with you, Ms. Jeanson.
Martine Jeanson, as an individual: Good morning, everyone.
I would like to introduce myself. I’m Martine Jeanson, former victim of domestic violence, founder of the Maison des guerrières, and domestic and family violence worker.
Today, I am not only telling you my story, but also the stories of Cindy Gosselin, who was beaten over the head with a hammer, Marianne, who was strangled and raped by her spouse, and Josiane Boucher, who suffered a head injury after being beaten, or Louise, whose former spouse had 28 breaches of conditions to his credit.
In 1992, a victim of domestic violence, five months pregnant and refusing to have an abortion, I was gang raped and left for dead. I had tried to leave my partner several times and called the police countless times. However, no matter where I went, he always found me. To date, this man has seven other victims besides me.
Despite being forbidden to have contact with me, he kept coming back into my life, even hurting my daughter. Shelters for women victims of domestic violence exist, but for how many more years will we have to hide women instead of working directly on the source of the problem — the violent man?
I thank the shelters that help abused women. However, that is a temporary solution because the women stay there for one, two or three months and, when they leave, unfortunately, the violent men are still there. They come back to their victims with more violence and more anger, since they have completely lost control over their victims.
We, women, have to endure being stalked, harassed, spied on, and pursued by these men no matter where we go. This situation is like an act of terrorism. Every morning when we get up, we wonder if this will be the day when he will come to murder us. Why do we continue to build homes for abused women just to hide them? Instead, it would be wise to build therapy centres for abusive men, so that they can be surrounded by abuse experts to help them correct, if not fix, their abuse problems, because their violence rarely decreases.
The violent man completely loses control of himself when he no longer has access to his victim. The source of the problem is the violence committed by the man. That is where the justice system should act.
Electronic bracelets would also be a tool that should be implemented to protect women and enable them to be warned when their abuser is nearing their home, so they can hide before he arrives. This tool would also make it possible to notify the police.
An electronic bracelet would have helped protect me from this attempted murder by my former spouse. Currently, it is impossible to protect ourselves adequately from our violent former spouses because we are not warned of their presence. Victims no longer dare to report their abuser. They no longer trust the justice system because they do not feel protected. When we report abusers and we are not protected, we put our lives at even greater risk.
Victims would rather take the beating to stay alive even if they risk being murdered.
Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jeanson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Grissa, you have the floor.
Khaoula Grissa, as an individual: Hello, everyone.
My name is Khaoula Grissa, I am a former victim of domestic violence and a survivor.
In 2016, I got married following a true love story. I thought my dream of finding my prince charming had just come true. Three years later, in 2019, I was the victim of a crime. You have to understand that domestic violence knocks on every door.
One day, a prosecutor told me I had to move out. My answer was, “no.” No, because I had already done the impossible. I was housed in a home for women victims of domestic violence. Then I changed apartments, changed my car model and colour, within my means, got my hair cut and dyed and changed my glasses. In the span of a month, my daughter had been to five different daycares. My employer did everything necessary to protect me. We had a whole scenario worked out to get me to my car safely.
I told the lady prosecutor that this time it was up to the justice system to protect me. I had already made about twenty reports to the police and, despite all my efforts, that did not prevent the worst from happening. My former spouse hid in my closet and tried to take my life and that of my daughter. I was raped and confined, and he subsequently took his own life in my bedroom right in front me.
When I look at my left wrist injury, I see the paramedic who rescued me again. His eyes were full of tears, and I looked at the policeman crying as he avoided my gaze. I have thought often about their daily lives: Are they always so overwhelmed by the helplessness that they feel when such tragedies occur?
I lived in a shelter for five weeks and saw women from all social classes. In fact, I am re-extending an invitation to the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, to the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Trudeau, and to all the other premiers of the nine other provinces, to visit these women in a shelter and to be with them for 24 hours. They will live with them and they will see how scared they are. They will understand. Someone who hasn’t experienced domestic violence can’t understand.
Why do all these women and children have to flee their homes in order to protect themselves? Still in 2022, in Canada, unfortunately, the most dangerous place for these women and children is their home, as it was for me. My daughter, who is only five years old, will never see her father. Am I equipped to face this ordeal and to face the future?
Her father clearly needed help. As the coroner mentioned in his report, the police, the responders, the probation officers and all the other stakeholders did not know the full context for helping my former spouse accept the separation and get on with his life.
My tragedy repeats itself more often than one would imagine, with new perpetrators, in different locations, but always with the same motive. Domestic violence and family violence are a real problem. It is not a matter of a simple marital spat. It is a social scourge. As a society, we need to know how to protect children from and educate them about domestic violence because it exists.
Let’s make sure every woman can escape violence and live in safety and peace with her children. Let’s give hope to those who have lost it. Let’s no longer tolerate violence against women and children, for they are our future and our successors.
I also want to tell you that I had made reports to the police a number of times. I had to move. I lived in a big building with a big garage, and every day my daughter, who was two years old at the time, would say to me, “I never thought daddy was here. How is he going to get home, how is he going to know.”
My former spouse was constantly following me. He knew where I lived, and had he been wearing an electronic bracelet, he would not have been hiding in my closet. He could not have followed me and ended up in my garage. When I was confined for two and a half hours, he admitted to me that he was following me all the time, that he knew everything about my move. He knew everything. Despite all the reports I made to the police, he ended up in my home, in my closet.
I hope you’ll take my testimony into consideration, so you can help many women and many children.
Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Grissa.
Ms. Williams, you have the floor.
Dayane Williams, as an individual: Hello and thank you.
My name is Dayane Williams, and I experienced domestic violence with an Algerian citizen. The accused was arrested by the Montreal police and released on conditions, and he did not respect that order. I had to move with my children. This person threatened to take my children’s lives to get revenge.
I was also sexually assaulted, which turned my life upside down. I am currently being seen by a psychologist to overcome the post-traumatic shock that I experienced. Had my former spouse been wearing an electronic bracelet, the police would have been alerted the moment he approached my residence to rape me.
Through my research, I learned that the electronic bracelet can be set up so that the police are alerted the moment an accused individual is in a prohibited area. I am in an unsafe situation because the accused is on the loose and can arrive at my house at any time. I live with generalized anxiety because the system is not protecting me.
I’m asking the government to take action; it’s the least it can do, especially in a free country like Canada. In all honesty, I don’t have any freedom right now. I don’t go out anymore for fear of being assaulted.
I think the justice system has limits. People’s intentions can’t be read and they can’t be arrested when they are preparing to commit a crime. Neither the police, the system, nor the victim can know what is happening ahead of time.
This is why the electronic bracelet is so important. It’s not normal for me to have to stay locked up at home, while he walks around as if nothing happened. I cried and told myself that, if this is the case, I have to think about moving to another country that would ensure my safety. I don’t trust our justice system.
Thank you for listening to my testimony.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Williams: What I tell myself is that, had he had an electronic bracelet, I would have already called the police and then he would have already been arrested, but he didn’t respect the conditions. He was warned and told not to come near my home. He had conditions to meet. Someone rang the doorbell at my place. I just opened the door because I thought it was my daughter coming home from school, but it was him. I couldn’t call the police, I couldn’t do anything, I was raped.
However, had he been wearing an electronic bracelet, that would have protected me. Still, he’s the one walking around free, he’s walking around everywhere. I don’t have a life anymore. I no longer go to the gym, I no longer do anything. I stay at home all the time because he attacks me in the street. I don’t even know when he’s going to attack me on the street; I’m worried. However, if he was wearing the bracelet, I would certainly be able to get my freedom back.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Williams.
We will now move to what we call the question period. Each colleague will have five minutes to ask you questions and invite you to answer them.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Thank you to the three of you for telling your stories and advocating your support for the significant dimensions of this bill.
I used to work at, and for some period of time run, a university legal aid clinic in Halifax. One of my jobs was to go and provide legal advice to women in shelters. They had to be blindfolded to be taken there because there was a desire to keep secret the location of the first- and second-stage housing accommodations for women and children. We did that, and that’s fine, but it felt to me, and it does in this dialogue, that we require the victims to go into hiding and the perpetrators, or potential perpetrators, not to. It feels like we have it upside down. As a result, I’m quite sympathetic to what this legislation can achieve.
The challenge is how we can restrain the freedoms of perpetrators and potential perpetrators in ways that meet legitimate legal requirements and achieve freedom and safety for victims of this kind of intimate partner violence. Do you think it’s possible to square that circle, from your point of view — not so much in magical legal terms, but from your sense of it?
As well, we have heard some evidence of the imperfection of electronic bracelets. From an almost psychological point of view, I’m interested in the degree to which the adoption of the use of electronic monitoring bracelets will moderate the kinds of anxiety that you probably live with every minute of your lives.
That question is for each or all of you.
[Translation]
Ms. Jeanson: I work as an advocate and currently, as you say, we hide women in centres.
Do you know that there are also many men who ask for help? There is a difference between a narcissistic pervert and an impulsive man.
I give workshops to impulsive men and you see change in these men; it is possible. These are men who have a history, who have wounds and who have inappropriate responses. However, they don’t have the tools, they don’t know how to change that behaviour. It takes specialized people to teach them to change these behaviours. We see it. I work with abusive men, and we have some great successes when it comes to changing those men.
As I was saying earlier, while the woman is in a women’s shelter, the man’s violent behaviours stay the same, or on the contrary, they don’t stay the same; they keep getting worse.
The government invests a lot in women’s shelters, spending money and constantly opening more shelters because violence against women is on the rise. Why not open treatment centres for men? Treatment is available for substance abuse and all kinds of issues. There needs to be treatment for men who are violent. Judges can order that these men receive therapy. Judges already do that for offenders with substance abuse issues. Judges already tell those men that they have to go to therapy for three months or six months. The same thing can be done in this case. Those places already exist, places where those men can be sent for treatment.
In court, it’s the victim versus their abuser. We have no one accompanying us, no one to speak to the risk that the man poses. If he were in therapy, being seen by experts, they could tell the court that the man was doing the work, that his behaviour was changing, or, conversely, that he was dangerous and may kill his wife. That would be possible because the experts would be familiar with his behaviours. I’m telling you: In every case, treatment is the answer for these men.
Keep in mind that children are also witnesses to domestic violence. The pattern of violence repeats itself, and many of them go on to become violent, but there is no help. One day a week or an hour-long meeting isn’t going to make these men change their behaviour. They need to be seen and monitored. The full range of their moods needs to be observed. Believe me — this is what I do. These men can be helped. More than three-quarters of femicides could be prevented.
A man who kills a woman and, then, kills himself is a man who is suffering and needs help. As was the case recently, a man hung himself. He needed help. If men like that had gotten the help they needed, they would not have killed their children or their wives and, then, killed themselves. If they had gotten help, all of those tragedies could have been avoided.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of you for being here. It takes a great deal of courage, and it opens you up to being exposed to all kinds of challenges.
[Translation]
I’m sorry. I was born in Quebec, but I’m not bilingual.
[English]
For many years, I have worked and walked with women. I have in my own family encountered the type of violence that each of you have described, sadly, including a murder. You may be familiar with what I’ve said because I think you were in the chamber when we were speaking about this bill.
I’ve also worked with men who are violent. Part of the reason I stopped working with men in prison is because many of the attitudes you’re talking about were reinforced by society at large and by many of the people working with those men. Men who really tried to change often did not have the support to do so; they were belittled for trying to address those issues. I’ve also worked with folks who have been subject to electronic monitoring and know that it is not very reliable. I know the crux of the issue is that, many times, women aren’t believed. Police don’t come when called. They aren’t protected. As we’ve just seen in an inquest into the death of three women here in Ontario, even when men were put into treatment, if they didn’t follow through, there wasn’t much if any response to that. I’ve also worked with women in prison who have been jailed because they responded to the violence of threats against them and used force, because if they engaged in hand-to-hand combat, as you know, many of them end up dead.
One of the things I worry about with this bill is that it creates a false sense of security, first, that this will solve the problem. The opportunity to use this kind of measure already exists in the law, and the fact that a new bill is being produced when it already exists tells me that the problem is not that the law doesn’t exist but that it responds to the system. Second, when most of these types of measures have been brought in, whether it’s mandatory charging for men or monitoring, they have ended up being used against the very women who are trying to escape violence.
This may be all that is offered, but I hear you very clearly, Ms. Jeanson, I hear each of you talking about wanting to be able to be safe. Many of the women I work with say they want economic security, they want police to come when they’re called and they want the system to respond. Besides what’s in this bill, what would you recommend we keep working on? As public servants, it’s our responsibility to you to keep doing this work. What are the things we need to be working on?
[Translation]
Ms. Jeanson: Frankly, there’s nothing else to recommend because women are already calling police, but their abusers are arrested and released. They just come after us again. The women, we go to women’s shelters; we lose our jobs. You mentioned economic security, but we are the ones in hiding. We are the ones who lose our jobs, our homes, our children, our pets, everything. Forget about economic security. If we didn’t have to live in hiding, we would have economic security. If our abusers weren’t there, we could keep our jobs, we could continue living our lives. The police have already been called. You said that women wouldn’t feel safe. Right now, it’s not just that we don’t feel safe — we aren’t safe.
Electronic bracelets may not be perfect, but the information they provide may be able to save a lot of lives. Bracelet monitoring isn’t all flawed; there are lives that will be saved. It won’t be the only thing women rely on, but right now, they have nothing to rely on. They can’t see their abuser coming, whereas with this measure, they’ll have a chance. However small this chance you are giving us may be, they’ll have a chance to know their abuser is coming. If I had had access to bracelet monitoring, what happened to me would not have happened, no matter how likely it was to work. I didn’t see it coming. I was gang-raped and left for dead. Maybe it wouldn’t have happened if bracelet monitoring had been in place. Whatever the likelihood that the technology will help, it could save a lot of lives.
Ms. Williams: Sometimes women call the police, but police don’t understand what it is to be a violent man or person. I called police and he was arrested, but the second time, when he came to rape me, no one knew. Only he did. I didn’t know. In some cases, the abuser arrives and police arrive, but it’s too late. Take what happened to the two children in Laval whose father killed them. They were friends with my daughter. They had said previously that their father was dangerous, but when police arrived, he had already drowned them in the tub. If he had been subject to bracelet monitoring, the family would have been alerted to his presence. No one can know what the man is contemplating; only he knows what’s in his mind. No one else knows, not even police. They don’t know what they’re walking into. If the person is ordered not to have contact with the victim and doesn’t comply, the bracelet will go off. It can be programmed, so victims are safer and have some peace of mind. The bracelet will go off and the man will be arrested. Whatever he was planning to do, he will have to explain to police, and they will investigate. The bracelet will at least prevent the person from carrying out the crime and provide that much protection.
Ms. Grissa: I would add, as Ms. Jeanson said, that if the measure isn’t at least tried, there’s no way to know what’s coming, whether the bracelet is flawed or not. Before you can make something better, you have to try it. This is the best way I can describe what would’ve happened in my case: with electronic monitoring, he couldn’t have hidden in my closet. The day before, he visited his daughter for the first time in six months. It was a supervised visit at the home of my best friend, a doctor. He told me that if he detected any signs of psychological distress, he would call police. He played along right until the end. He studied his victim and knew her well. He knew my new habits.
I was in a new apartment after staying at a women’s shelter. In the middle of the night, he managed to get into my building, and he hid in the stairwell all night. In the morning, I went down to the garage and I left the door open. When I came back in, I was in the living room for about 20 minutes and, then, I went to get something in my room. He came out of my closet with a knife. If he had been wearing an electronic bracelet, even if it was only half working, it could have saved me from that traumatic experience.
Today, nearly three years later, I never go out at night. I can’t sleep without medication. I try to be a functioning member of society: I work, I keep going, and I want to stay standing for my daughter and give her good values. She gives me the strength to keep going, but she has still lost her father. I don’t know how I’m going to deal with that when she gets older, how I’m going to explain it to her. I’m not there yet. I’m at the point where I will never go back down to the garage once I’ve entered my apartment. If I forget milk or something else, I have it delivered. I will never go back out.
He has been dead and buried for three years, and I don’t feel any safer because of the trauma I experienced. I’m seen by a team of psychologists, along with my daughter, who also feels very unsafe. A lot of factors come into play, but it’s one of the tools in the tool kit.
We have to talk about domestic violence and break the taboo. My ex-husband experienced violence, bullying and racism. I’m an immigrant and he was from Quebec, but he experienced all those things and they made him a violent man. We need to teach our children that violence exists, that it’s not a taboo, that we have to talk about it. Yes, an electronic bracelet could have saved me from going through all of that trauma — and it also could have saved him.
Perhaps he could have gone into therapy. When he got out of jail, it was the holiday season. He got out on November 26 and he committed a crime on December 15. He told his parole officer that he wanted to spend Christmas with his family, with his wife and daughter. The fact that he said that is very alarming, because my ex-spouse didn’t get it, he didn’t accept our separation. The police didn’t do anything because it wasn’t a violation of his parole conditions to say that. However, on his Facebook page, he had posted a message in big letters saying that he wanted to spend Christmas with his wife and daughter. That post was very alarming to me, but not to police, unfortunately. My answer is yes: Had he been wearing a bracelet, I wouldn’t be here today.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms. Grissa.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you so much, all of you, for being here. I’m sorry that I can’t communicate with you in French. My French became quite rusty during the pandemic. I really want to thank you for the very heartfelt stories that you have relayed to us today about the significant experiences you’ve all gone through. You’re so brave. I hope you know how many women you’re going to help by being here today, by being brave enough to do this and showing women who have suffered through these terrible domestic violence situations that they can also have the bravery to get help, to leave the situation, to find themselves safety and then to relay these very tragic situations to help other people.
Ms. Jeanson, I understand that you accompany women who are victims of domestic violence through the court process every day, even though you’ve been through these tragedies yourself. You have said today that there are some wonderful success stories that you’ve seen with some of these men who have previously been so violent once they find good help. There are wonderful success stories. I find that that’s such a hopeful story. I am wondering if you could tell us more about that.
Also, in Senator Boisvenu’s bill, there would be a condition that a court could impose therapy to a person subject to a section 810 order, which would reduce the risk of reoffending for some violent men. What do you think about that? Maybe explain to us a little bit more about how you think that rehabilitation for these violent men might be possible.
[Translation]
Ms. Jeanson: I think so, and just as much for women. I help put women back together. I don’t just help women through the court process. I help put women and children who are victims of domestic violence back together. I think men can be rehabilitated as well.
Earlier, Senator Pate said that men in prison weren’t able to rehabilitate successfully. There is no such thing as therapy in prison right now. In the prison system, men are with men. They get a bit of counselling and go back to a violent situation. You can’t change a man by giving him an hour of counselling and sending him back into an environment of violent men. He has to be conditioned.
When we work with them, we ensure follow-up. We see all their highs and lows, as they arise. A man will tell us that he feels a certain way, that he hasn’t heard from his wife, for instance. Right away, we step in and work with him. How does he feel? How does he see the situation? We give him tools such as breathing exercises or we suggest going for a walk. There are countless ways to teach a man how to control his behaviour. We work with those men every single day. We don’t skip a day. They need help every day. We provide that support, and, day by day, they perform the exercises. They can’t change in a single day. When they apply the behaviours they are learning, they feel a sense of pride — we see it.
The reality is that these men don’t feel pride in anything. They have no self-esteem. That’s why they lose control. When you help them rebuild from the inside out, they develop a sense of pride. They learn to worry about themselves instead of focusing on their spouse, wondering where she is and what she’s doing.
We’ve even been able to save couples. They were violent men, but they didn’t lose control or take things any farther. All of the women I’ve worked with who have gone to women’s shelters went back more than once because of these men, either because they were afraid or because they hadn’t put themselves back together. We have to seize the opportunity we have to help these men. If they don’t have the necessary tools, they will simply become more violent. Eventually, one of their victims will pay the price.
When you look at these men’s files and records, you see that most of them have left more than one victim in their wake. Even if the first victim is hidden, there will be another because the man’s behaviour hasn’t changed. There will be a second victim and a third victim. If we don’t give men the tools, no one will, and femicides will continue.
[English]
Senator Batters: Ms. Williams, you made a very wise comment when you said, “If he was wearing an electronic bracelet, I could have my freedom back.” Many of you have pointed to the fact that women get hidden away in shelters as if they’re the ones who have something to be ashamed for here, and they are not. They’re the victims. These abusers are the ones that need to be dealt with properly. I wanted to hear from you, Ms. Williams. With this electronic monitoring device that Senator Boisvenu’s bill is proposing, do you believe that that device would have helped you from experiencing the tragedy that you did and that it could help to protect other female victims of domestic violence?
[Translation]
Ms. Williams: If he had been wearing a bracelet, yes, I could have gone to the gym. I could have had my freedom. If he comes after me in the street, I have to hide constantly, I have to call 911 and I don’t have that freedom. If my ex-spouse is wearing a bracelet, it will ease my anxiety and I can have my freedom back. I’m in therapy, and they tell me that I have to go for walks, that I have to go to the gym, that I can’t stay locked up. I am constantly thinking about the possibility of him attacking me when I’m with my children. If he decides to kill me, I’m not safe.
If he’s wearing a bracelet and approaches my location, the police will be there before I call 911. The bracelet will alert them. He has committed a crime, but he gets to walk around as if he’s done nothing, and I’m the one who has to hide at home. Right now, he has won — he has his freedom and I do not. I don’t have freedom.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Thank you to our witnesses for being here. I have to and want to echo what my colleague said earlier about you being here and the bravery that this takes. This is very important, and we highly appreciate the stories that you’ve shared. It heightens the concern and importance of it. I have a couple of questions, and I welcome all of you to answer, if you feel free.
I’m getting the sense you would agree that ankle monitoring may be enough to make victims of domestic violence and their families feel safe. I say that because I’ve heard it improves the odds, if you will, but also helps alleviate the anxiety. I ask the question because the GPS monitoring doesn’t actually stop an accused person from entering an area. It only alerts the police. What I’m hearing is that there isn’t always an immediate response, and sometimes it’s not even taken seriously. I’m wondering what concerns you see with the limits in the technology and if there should be something added. I think about when that bracelet is worn and they’re entering your sphere of what you might consider your safety area. If they breach that and you had a panic button to say no, then they might see that they’re entering your sphere and that is a panic and this is real. That might heighten the awareness for the police to respond with a great sense of urgency.
I’m also wondering if you think that police — this almost requires a special unit, it seems — if all police should have that sensitivity and awareness training about what the seriousness of this is and fully appreciate the dire situations you find yourselves in.
[Translation]
Ms. Jeanson: Usually, the man wears a bracelet and we wear a bracelet. Let’s say police don’t take us seriously. We take it seriously. It gives us a chance to get out because we know he’s coming. If we are at work, we won’t leave the building; we’ll stay hidden. If we are home, we can barricade the door with chairs. The woman who was bludgeoned with an axe opened the door and got an axe in the head. Women won’t open the door if they know their abuser is in the area.
Adding a panic button is a good idea, but we need to be alerted just as much as police do. It gives us the chance to go to a neighbour’s, to scream for help and to really protect ourselves. We have to protect ourselves first, while we wait for police to arrive. However, we do not receive any warning at all. If he shows up here, I can’t see him coming. If he’s approaching, I have to rush into the first building I see and scream for help. As things stand, I can’t see him coming. I don’t know he’s there.
Ms. Grissa: I fully agree. In my case, he was hiding in my closet, and I didn’t know he was in my home. I was in my living room for half an hour before going into the room and seeing that he was there.
If I had been informed, I would not have gone up. I would’ve left immediately to go to the neighbour, screamed or asked for help. I think it is an excellent idea to inform victims too, so that they can protect themselves and protect their children. When this kind of event happens, it really is a nightmare.
Ms. Williams: I would say the same thing. Police officers reassured me. They told me they had arrested him and that now, he had conditions to meet, not to worry, that everything would be okay.
However, the day he came back, my child was coming home from school. I was cooking. I pressed on the intercom button to open the door. There was no camera, and there was nothing I could do. It’s an apartment building. Even with all the technology, I could not know who had rung the doorbell. I thought it was my child, because of the timing. Out of habit, I opened the door, thinking that it was my child coming home. He was the one who came in. I couldn’t call the police; he was already there.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Do you think the mandatory requirement for a justice to ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused has been consulted about their safety and security needs will be helpful to make sure there’s some consultation about what you feel your needs will be in this regard and to help you feel safe?
[Translation]
Ms. Jeanson: Yes, because we’re not currently aware of the conditions. Even with the Crime Victims Assistance Centre (CAVAC), or compensation for victims of a criminal offence (IVAC), we’re not in the loop. We know that there is an 810, an order to stay away from us, but that’s all we know. The police officer or the court will inform us, but as it is, we know absolutely nothing. It is important to be informed because we are the victims. We know nothing, then we leave the court, and we know nothing more than before we went to court. That is not normal, not at all.
Ms. Grissa: I fully agree. We’re not considered. It’s always the victim who has to do the work, to ask and find out what’s happening. We have a big responsibility and a heavy burden. Furthermore, we have to flee our homes, and our home always remains the most dangerous place.
Ms. Williams: I agree.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you, Ms. Jeanson, Ms. Grissa and Ms. Williams, for your testimony. What is striking in your testimony is that, until now, electronic bracelets were presented as a way of controlling or monitoring the aggressor, the batterer. But I think what you have highlighted is the other aspect, which is the need for security and the safety feature that this type of tool could offer to women who have been victimized. Could this tool be better developed? Perhaps. In all three accounts, the need to set up measures to ensure women’s security is striking.
I want to make a connection with the taboo you talked about, Ms. Grissa. It is extremely important to say it clearly, and you did so. When Ms. Jeanson said that the Premier of Quebec had been called on to visit shelters and take the measure of the fear and insecurity that women are experiencing, besides physical means such as the electronic bracelet or other tools, do you think that the authorities have work to do?
You mentioned the Premier of Quebec. There are other premiers, as well as the federal prime minister. There’s been a strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence since 2017. I think you raised a very important point, however, about breaking the taboo and recognizing the reality of women’s position in the justice system. Right now, when they are victimized, they aren’t given the opportunity to be informed, as you said, Ms. Jeanson.
My question for you is the following: Beyond the electronic monitor, based on your experience as a worker, is there anything that should be added to this type of tool? I am sure you have thought about it. You said that you are a family violence worker, and that you support women and men. Should your organizations be stakeholders in the judicial process and mobilized to support women? Should women have access to support programs as part of the judicial process? Are there other measures? If we gave you the choice of measures to use, based on your experience, do you think other things should be implemented?
Ms. Jeanson: I’ve said it several times, but it’s part of our big system. It’s the foundation of school, of education: building self-esteem, from the beginning. That is exactly what we do with men in rehabilitation.
Despite the femicides… People see them all on TV. We see them, and we see the women who have died. People know about it, and yet, it still doesn’t stop. Education is all well and good, but the bill was not developed by the senator alone. I have a group of women; more than 150 of us worked on it. We looked at all the needs to see what was necessary and ask, what do we need to be able to stay alive? Because every one of us lived through this experience.
We have been through the system. We have gone to the police, and we have all cried for help. Every single one of us has called the police. The system is deeply flawed for us, the victims of domestic violence. We all worked together to figure out what it would take. We didn’t just throw it out there. We worked on it. We said that we needed something to warn us, for men to get help, and to be kept in the loop about the 810s. We’re really fed up and exhausted.
Today, as survivors, we look at all this and wonder about the respect the system has for us, even as survivors. We are nothing. We’re thankful to be alive today, but the system ignored us, abandoned us and failed us. Every single one of us has been to court, and today, we feel humiliated and misunderstood. It is not normal to have to beg a government to protect us. That is not normal. We keep telling you that it’s getting worse. Help us, and save these victims. We don’t know how else to ask you.
As victims, it’s about the tools. We all worked together, and we are the ones who talked. Senator Boisvenu is working on justice and working with us, but he really consulted us as women. He is not a victim, none of you are. We are the ones who went through the system. You’re at the top, and you see the surface, but all of us went through every single step. We know which steps we need to deal with the biggest part of the problem until things get better and better, without ever being perfect.
Ms. Grissa: Basically, I’d like to add — yes, to the electronic monitor and men’s rehabilitation — that violence exists and we have to talk about it, report the abusers and, above all, we mustn’t judge.
Like Martine said, it starts at school. Personally, I’m a teacher, and I asked management to put up signs for SOS violence conjugale, as well as numbers and videos for La Dauphinelle, the shelter I went to. Management did it to break the taboo and start talking about it. When we start talking about it, that’s when we need to see the light at the end of the tunnel and come out of the darkness.
Also, above all, I want a legal system and police system that understand us. When I called the police and said that my ex‑spouse had contacted my friends, had put photos of me up on Facebook and wrote that he wanted to spend Christmas with his wife and family, they told me that those were not threats, that I was not naked on the photos, and they could not take that into account. I’m happy for police officers who haven’t been through this violence, but it’s not necessary to live through it to understand it. Maybe they need tools and training.
Also, when I told the prosecutor that he followed me, she told me that he denied it. I checked the mall where I had been, and there was a camera. She had to get the videos to believe me. Afterwards, she believed me and said that she was sorry. Everything that I had said… I did not add a word. Everything was recorded by the mall’s camera. Victims must be believed, because every time I called the police, I felt misunderstood.
One time, I called the police while I was moving; my ex‑spouse went by on a motorcycle. I called the police because he was not allowed to be there. The police asked me if I had taken a picture. I answered that I was coming down when he went by. I am the one who bought the motorbike, the shoes, the coat, the helmet. But the police told me that they couldn’t. Victims must be believed, because they mustn’t be told, “No, you didn’t get a good look.” Our lives are in danger.
And I’m still furious. I invited Mr. Legault and Mr. Trudeau, and I invite all ministers to go live with these women in shelters, to see how it works. Because when you leave your house, apartment or condo to go and live in a little room with your kids and share a bathroom, share all your things, comply with obligations, it’s not because you love doing it, it’s because you have to, and above all, you must protect your children. So, thank you.
Ms. Williams: For example, on arrival… I’ll talk about police officers. For me, after the crime happened, I went through what I went through, but all the officer could say to comfort me was:
[English]
“I’m so sorry. You don’t deserve that.” I can understand the situation, but no one protected me.
[Translation]
I lost trust. He took my freedom. I don’t have that freedom today and, once again, he tried to destroy my car’s electronics. I said that I didn’t have any problems with anyone, that just about everyone likes me, that I am not a violent person or problematic, but there was no proof. I’m the one who had an accident on January 7, which turned my life upside down, but there was a lack of proof. Where I live, the cameras didn’t record anything.
What is he going to do next? I’m expecting him to take one of my children’s lives. He said I’ll have to call the director of Youth Protection to protect us. What are they going to do? Are there more tools? Because I don’t have any freedom anymore. We’re talking about a freedom that I don’t have. He’s walking around, and every time he thinks of another surprise, I’m the one who has to deal with it all.
Ms. Jeanson: When we go to court and conditions were breached, conditions that he failed to respect under section 810, we don’t have any evidence. With the electronic bracelet, it would prove that he came, that he overstepped the limits. There would finally be evidence.
The Acting Chair: Let’s move on to the next question so that everyone has an opportunity to ask one.
Senator Clement: I don’t have any questions, but I just want to thank you. I’m listening. You have been very eloquent. You’re doing very emotional work. You’re transparent, and that is work. We appreciate it, and we will continue to be grateful to you. You are a teacher; it’s very powerful for you to talk about the things you do, even within your own school. Ms. Williams, the fact that you’ve told us that you don’t trust the judicial system is devastating, but it’s a call for us to act, obviously.
So, we understand. The lack of trust is justified.
Ms. Williams: He was the one who meddled with my car, but there was no proof. If there had been a way of alerting police officers, if there had been proof that he was the one who meddled with my electronic system… My steering wheel jammed up in the middle of the highway. I nearly died and would have left two children behind.
[English]
It’s too much. That’s enough. We have to do something.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: We’re listening to you. Thank you to you as well, Ms. Jeanson, for the Maison des guerrières and the work you do, and thank you for talking about the things that need to be done.
The Acting Chair: We will now move on to the second round. Two senators want to speak, and I will give each one a maximum of three minutes.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Just briefly, on the question of the level of security you would feel around the use of the electronic bracelets, Senator Pate observed some of the circumstances where they prove to be less reliable. Do you have a sense that you and the women with whom you’ve worked and associated would achieve a significant level of psychological safety and comfort, or would there still be anxieties in relation to those being the techniques for providing your protection, safety and freedom?
[Translation]
Ms. Jeanson: That, honestly, is very meaningful. Like Dayane, these are women with whom I work. Dayane would go out. We talk about it every day. Currently, she doesn’t go out. Our goal would be to say, I am free, I can walk around, and I am safe. Right now, as I said earlier, we aren’t safe at all. But we could be. This could be our chance to say that we have the right to live, to walk around, to go to work, to see our family members, and yes, for us, that would be one of the biggest sources of safety.
[English]
Senator Klyne: At one point, you made a statement that we’re up here and you’re down here. I’m getting a great sense of comfort that you find some comfort with this bracelet system and that that will assist in a great way.
While we’re here and we’re listening, as Senator Clement says, is there anything else we should be considering to bring an even higher level of comfort and safety to this?
[Translation]
Ms. Jeanson: Are you talking about just the bracelets? Therapy for men — we want the men to be locked up, not us. We know that so far, it hasn’t worked in jail. We are sincerely asking you, from the bottom of our hearts, to send these men to therapy so that they get care. That’s another source of safety for us. It’s not up to us to go and hide. We are fed up with hiding. We are fed up, fed up, fed up. They’ve named us, with our children. We are not the ones who should hide. We’ve already been subjected to violence. We’ve already lost everything. We are the ones who are locked up. Stop putting us in jail and solve the problem at the source: these men need therapy. It’s like treatment to fight alcohol abuse. If they don’t do it the way they are supposed to, the judge sends them to jail. But we have the right to live in freedom. We are here in Canada, we have the right to life, to live freely and to live in safety. That is what we are asking of you.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Thank you. Are there any other comments?
[Translation]
Ms. Grissa: It was three years ago that I went through that drama and I still do not feel free today. Every time a closet is open, I see him coming out of it. I am still not able to go into my garage at night because, in my head, he is always there. An electronic bracelet could have spared me and my daughter that drama. I do everything I can to keep going, to be a good mother, a good teacher and a good friend, and I do everything I can to be a good person, but the drama is always there. Whenever I have a free moment, that is all I think about. An electronic bracelet could have spared me that.
[English]
Ms. Williams: I’ve lost my smile. I think it’s too much. I’m scared all the time. I’m not safe. I think that we have to do something.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: You talked about your children.
An electronic bracelet would have alerted you and in a way made you safer. In your experience, are there any specific mechanisms that should be implemented to safeguard children other than an electronic bracelet?
Ms. Jeanson: It is really complicated because of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but in Quebec we have the DYP. I don’t know how it works in all the provinces, but children are usually a provincial responsibility. It is impossible for us to make decisions. Everything is managed by the provinces. I work with DYP cases, and I can guarantee you that if you support our bill, it will allow us to change laws for the youth protection system as well, because intimate partner violence is not recognized right now. In cases involving children where assistance is required, the children are separated from the family and intimate partner violence is not recognized.
If you accept treatment, that will automatically enable use to show the DYP that the man received treatment and is truly violent, based on expert reports that could be filed, and that will also protect our children.
Senator Dupuis: Will that also protect them at their school?
Ms. Jeanson: Yes, because the reports will show how dangerous those men are, because that is not part of the justice system now. Children are considered a family matter, so the DYP is responsible for them. From our point of view, it is a criminal matter. They are not linked in any way, but with this bill, priority is given to our children, so the bill would help us.
Senator Dupuis: Would it help both you and your children?
Ms. Jeanson: Yes, it would help us and our children, because we would have expert reports.
Ms. Grissa: Also, when there is an order from the outset, for example, I made a request to the police and everything, when I made my complaint, the order prevented him from see just me, not my daughter.
After violating his conditions several times, he could no longer see my daughter either, but he could see her initially. That is why I put my whole life on hold and went into hiding at a women’s shelter. When I wanted to go see my daughter at day care, he could follow me. In my case, his violence was directed at me, but who’s to say he would not have targeted my daughter as well? What guarantee did I have that he would not direct his violence against her to punish me?
When that happens, it is usually an 810 order, as it is called, which is really an order against seeing the children also, not just the mother.
Ms. Williams: I agree with my colleague Martine, because I called 911 and the DYP was informed.
I had another traumatic experience since my girls had to be placed in care because they were not safe. They said that because I had had that experience and had been sexually assaulted, my children should be placed in care urgently, so nothing else happened. After what I had been through already, that was not my choice, I did not want that, I did not want to go through that. I was already in therapy, had to manage that and look after myself, and you come and take away what was dearest to me in my life; that was too much.
So if I had been alerted, I would have spared me the stress of the DYP and asking for my children to be put into care, because there was a violent man in my life, you never know.
The Acting Chair: Unfortunately, I have to end our meeting.
Many thanks to Ms. Jeanson, Ms. Grissa, and Ms. Williams for being here today.
My two main takeaways from your testimony are as follows. You talked about the use of a bracelet, an anti-approach bracelet, which is linked to a bracelet or your cellphone and sends you messages, giving you a measure of protection. You know it would not necessarily be 100% protection, but it would be a level of protection that you don’t currently have and would like to have.
Further, I understand that you would also like it to be clear that, when judges issue pre-trial release orders following the charges, the violent men are not sent to prison but are required to take treatment. We need to monitor the treatment to see whether they are participating and making progress, to make sure that is all presented in court as part of the judicial process, so the judge knows whether these people are making progress. Otherwise, the judge sends them to prison because they are dangerous and are not making progress, if that accurately summarizes what you said.
Thank you very much Ms. Jeanson, and I would point out that you even wrote a book, Guerrière — Avant que l’amour tue, which can be roughly translated as Warrior, Before Love Kills. I don’t know if this would be too much to ask, but perhaps you could send us two or three copies of your book, to the attention of our clerk. We could make it available to committee members and, once we are finished, we will make sure it goes to the Library of Parliament.
I would also like to thank Ms. Grissa and Ms. Williams. Your work is very useful, not just your being here today, as Senator Clement pointed out. You are not doing it just for yourselves, but for other women and children, to make sure these dramatic scenarios don’t repeat themselves. I think that is important for us. As you said, we have a vision, from our vantage point; we are not aware of everything. It was helpful for you to come and speak to us today.
Ms. Grissa, you gave an interview to Radio-Canada and alerted the public of the situation. We are extremely grateful to you for that.
Ms. Williams, you told your story in an interview to La Presse, and I think society really benefited from that.
Unfortunately, it is asking a lot for you to tell us your stories, because you have to re-live them. I have to thank you, though, because what you are providing for me, my colleagues and society is education, information, awareness, and that should lead to results.
Thank you very much for being here today.
(The meeting adjourned.)