THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 23, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:16 p.m. [ET] to consider 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).
Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, good afternoon.
Before we begin our meeting, I would like to ask the committee members to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
[English]
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from Quebec. I represent the senatorial division of De Lorimier.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator for Saskatchewan.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Dupuis: Renée Dupuis from Quebec. I represent the senatorial division of the Laurentides.
[English]
Senator Pate: Kim Pate from the beautiful shores of the Kitchissippi of the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Deputy Chair of the committee, from Quebec.
Today, we are continuing our consideration 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).
Respected colleagues, if that is okay with you, since I am the sponsor of the bill, I will invite Senator Dalphond to chair today’s meeting.
Senator Pierre J. Dalphond (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you very much, Senator Boisvenu.
Today, we are hearing from Brian Sauvé, President of the National Police Federation. This is not his first appearance before us.
We also have with us, by videoconference, from the Ontario Provincial Police, Kari Dart, Commander of the Investigation and Support Bureau, and Bryan MacKillop, Commander of the North West Region. Finally, as an individual, we welcome Brian Simpson, retired police officer from the Edmonton Police Service.
Without further ado, we give the floor to Mr. Sauvé, who is in the room. You have five minutes.
[English]
Brian Sauvé, President, National Police Federation: Thank you for inviting me to appear today. My name is Brian Sauvé. I’m a Sergeant in the RCMP, but also president of the National Police Federation, the sole certified bargaining agent representing close to 20,000 members of the RCMP across Canada.
Bill S-205 addresses an issue that, as a society, we should be paying more attention to. Combating domestic violence and providing additional tools to ensure safer communities across Canada is something that the NPF and our members support and want to see implemented. According to Statistics Canada and Women and Gender Equality Canada, in 2019, of the 107,810 people aged 15 and over who experienced intimate partner violence, or IPV, 79% were women. Research to date has shown that women disproportionately experience the most severe forms of IPV, and as in previous years, the 2019 rates of IPV were more than 3.5 times higher among women than men.
This legislation is a great step to address domestic violence in Canada, however, without the federal government providing adequate resources to the police and the justice system, working on subsequent regulations with provinces and territory, the main goal of protecting those in need may not be achieved.
Bill S-205 takes a proactive approach to improve public safety, with the amendment of subsection 501(3) of the Criminal Code, judges and police will be able to include the wearing of an electronic monitoring device at every stage of the legal process if they consider it necessary to protect the victim’s life. This amendment will give greater power to police officers by allowing them to impose the use of an electronic monitoring bracelet.
Last year, Quebec became the first jurisdiction in Canada to adopt monitoring devices to protect victims of domestic violence. The program was first announced in late 2021 and is set to roll out in every region of the province by the end of 2023. In 2021 alone, 18 alleged femicides were committed by intimate partners in the province. All governments across the country need to ensure that victims of domestic violence feel safe, and the use of a monitoring device can be seen as an additional tool to guarantee that.
An important note is that in order to ensure that the provisions of this bill are adequately implemented, it is essential to have discussions about police resources. The number of offences against persons and offences related to harassing and threatening behaviours have generally been increasing since 2017, notably throughout the pandemic period. This increase already adds pressure on the courts and the police, making it more difficult to manage the workload with available resources.
This bill calls for increased police interventions, but that comes with a need for police resources, especially in rural communities. In cities, where population density is high, police can respond more quickly when alerted that the offender is in the prohibited zone; however, this high population also means more priority calls on any given day, and more police officers will be needed in order to maintain these response times. In rural areas, police officers are typically more spread out, given the lower density of the population and much greater distances to cover in order to respond to a call.
If this legislation is implemented, these critical resource needs must be increased for the intent of this bill to be met. Our members want to ensure that victims of domestic violence feel safe and can rely on the systems in place. Insufficient financial and human resources will continue to be a challenge if we only go halfway. We support the legislation’s intent to protect victims of domestic violence and encourage the federal and provincial governments to work with their public safety counterparts to implement added measures to address the root problems of domestic violence. We strongly encourage all governments to increase resources for police officers to meet both current and future demand to ensure ongoing public safety.
Thank you. I am happy to answer questions.
Bryan MacKillop, Commander of the North West Region, Ontario Provincial Police: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I’m regional commander of the Ontario Provincial Police North West Region. I’m joined by my colleague, Chief Superintendent Kari Dart, commander of the OPP’s Investigation and Support Bureau.
[Translation]
On behalf of myself, Commander Dart, and my colleagues at the Ontario Provincial Police, I would like to sincerely thank you for the invitation to participate in today’s meeting.
While I can speak French, I will deliver the remainder of my testimony in English, as that is the language in which I am comfortable discussing the very technical subject matter before us today.
[English]
The Ontario Provincial Police believes it is important that police services be given the opportunity to provide input on proposed legislation such as this, which has a direct impact on policing and public safety. We support the spirit of Bill S-205 in its aims to provide further protections to victims of intimate partner and domestic violence. The OPP is committed to a victim-centred, people-first approach to policing that treats victims with respect, compassion, fairness, integrity and dignity.
From a policing perspective, there are a few areas within the bill that we perceive may benefit from further discussion or clarification. These sections have been identified by our organization as terminology and definitions, electronic monitoring, treatment programs and multi-jurisdictional considerations. We would put forward for the consideration of the committee that several terms used within the bill may benefit from clarification or definitions in order to support the enforcement of this legislation. These include terms such as “violence,” “domestic violence,” “intimate partner,” “electronic monitoring device” and “social media.”
For example, there are some areas of the bill that refer to “domestic violence” and others that refer to “intimate partner violence.” The perspective of the OPP is to ensure that where the term “domestic violence” is used, the intention of the bill is to address matters related to any member within the household, including children, and where the term “intimate partner violence” is used, to ensure that the intention of the bill is only to address matters pertaining to the intimate partner.
Additionally, we would like to draw attention to areas within the bill that we believe would impact the bill’s efficacy should they not be given due consideration. These include proper resourcing in areas relating to the approval, maintenance and monitoring of electronic monitoring equipment as outlined in the bill; additional impacts on policing, including workload, personnel training and operations; and the availability, accessibility and diversity of court-mandated treatment programs as outlined in the bill.
As well, multi-jurisdictional considerations should be given to the responsibility of overseeing the reporting and compliance with stipulations made by the bill regarding court-mandated participation in a treatment program and/or the wearing of an electronic monitoring device.
I would like my colleague Chief Superintendent Kari Dart to discuss areas we’ve identified as electronic monitoring and some of the preliminary statistics we were able to gather in preparation for today.
Kari Dart, Commander of the Investigation and Support Bureau, Ontario Provincial Police: Thank you, Chief MacKillop.
I would like to begin by echoing my colleague in saying the information we are able to provide today is only preliminary, and we would welcome the opportunity to provide further detail and data to the committee in writing at a later time.
The data we have been able to collect thus far does support the spirit of the proposed bill and indicates that further protections for victims of domestic and intimate partner violence would be beneficial for said victims.
From 2017 to 2021, 32 homicides were committed by intimate partners in OPP jurisdiction. The OPP does not have access to all provincial data; therefore, this number excludes homicides committed in areas policed by other services.
From 2017 to date, the OPP has responded to more than 155,000 domestic disturbances. That equates to approximately 25,000 each year. Since 2017, more than 23,000 domestic disturbances involved an act of violence, such as assault, assault with a weapon and sexual assault, as defined by Statistics Canada. Of those occurrences, 83% were committed by an intimate partner.
Between 2017 and 2022, the OPP saw an 82% increase in domestic disturbances with an associated bail violation. In relation to electronic monitoring, the OPP would like to acknowledge that while the proposed bill adds the wearing of the electronic monitoring device to the existing list of undertaking and interim release conditions as already listed in the Criminal Code, it does not specify that other conditions must accompany it. Without additional conditions, that, for example, stipulate that the defendant not attend the complainant’s address, place of work, et cetera, the monitoring of a defendant’s location through an electronic monitoring device is unlikely to provide much more protection for a victim of intimate partner or domestic violence.
We again want to emphasize our support for the essence of the proposed changes to the Criminal Code to provide additional supports for victims and survivors of intimate partner and domestic violence. The OPP promotes an environment of crime prevention and community wellness, where victims and survivors feel confident and comfortable in coming forward to report crime. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Now we move to our fourth witness, Mr. Brian Simpson. Oh, he won’t be able to attend. Sorry. So that completes the presentation from the witnesses.
Now we’ll open the floor to colleagues to ask questions. Each will have five minutes to ask questions and get answers.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My first question is for Mr. Sauvé. According to a recent study conducted by the Université de Montréal and the Université du Québec à Montréal on compliance with “810” orders — orders where a judge can impose distancing between the victim and the aggressor — the aggressor fails to comply with the terms of the order in more than 50 per cent of cases.
Another disturbing piece of data indicated that the majority of homicides or femicides that had been committed, particularly in Quebec, had been committed during this time period — when the individual had been ordered to stay away from the victim.
My question is relatively simple. Does your data indicate that an electronic monitoring device, ordered by a judge for an aggressor who is likely to cause serious injury to the victim or the person who reported the aggressor, would help reduce delinquency in relation to orders and provide better protection for women?
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: I think it is a valid question. I’m all about being an optimist. The more tools that we give our legal system, which includes police officers, all the way up to probation officers and judges, the better that system can operate.
If we are talking about 810 peace bonds, judicial interim release and sentencing — there were some good comments made by my colleagues at the OPP about expanding the scope of the bill — not necessarily the scope, but the language that accompanies the addition of a monitoring bracelet so that it can be more specific in nature and use. We’re simple folk, us police officers; we’re not lawyers. Additional language would give police the ability to interpret more broadly what our job is. This bill will give us added tools to enforce those who violate judicial interim release, probation or 810 peace bonds.
That’s a long way to say “yes.”
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My second question is for either of the Ontario Provincial Police representatives. I believe Ms. Dart stated that an electronic monitoring device would not protect all women, especially if they are assaulted in the workplace. Data on feminicide has shown that the majority of feminicides are committed in the complainant’s home. I am thinking of a recent case in Beauce, where the murder took place in the complainant’s car. What happens in the workplace is much more harassment than physical assault, and it is often done through phone calls or interposed messages.
You mentioned over 160,000 reports or complaints in five or six years, which is a huge number. It is certain that these people go free, often very quickly. Besides the electronic monitoring device, what other tools could you propose to ensure the safety of women, knowing that we will never be able to put a police officer behind every aggressor?
[English]
Ms. Dart: Thank you for your question. I do agree with your concerns.
The point that I made earlier is that there could very well be more of an opportunity for us to further combine our efforts, including electronic monitoring devices, which would mean we need to further evaluate the technology, its viability and suitability in all parts of Canada.
As we know, in some parts of our country, technology does not work as well as it does in some of the other parts of our country. I feel it’s very important for us to be very careful and cautious in what we’re evaluating and how we’re deploying it.
I feel that deploying the use of the electronic monitoring device would further benefit victims of crime, if it is combined with other said conditions that the courts could issue, for example, ensuring that an offender recognizes that he or she is not to attend certain residences or locations. It is then understood and very clear then that the offender knows where he or she can or cannot go.
The electronic monitoring device would then further enhance our ability to monitor and hold the offender accountable, if any breaches occurred, if that helps answer your question.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
Ms. Dart: Thank you.
Senator Harder: Thank you, chair. I share the witnesses’ support for this legislation and its intent. I would like to get a better handle on, two issues: one is resourcing and the other is the effectiveness of the electronic bracelet.
On the resourcing side, Sergeant Sauvé, you referred to Quebec’s legislation, which was enacted at the provincial level, and its rollout. Do you have a sense of what resources were dedicated to this initiative in Quebec? It obviously didn’t need an amendment to the Criminal Code to be enforced.
My question is: Is the Quebec model the way to go, without reference to the Criminal Code of Canada? If so, the resourcing issues then become part of the policing infrastructure, which is provincially based across the country, even though it may be provided on contract with the RCMP.
Mr. Sauvé: That’s a good question. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we don’t represent the policing jurisdiction within the province of Quebec. I would have to go and talk to my colleagues at the association of Montreal police officers or the Fraternité des policiers et policières in Quebec; they would be the best to speak on the labour front from Quebec.
Globally speaking across Canada, I think it’s always good from a police officer’s perspective to have consistency in the legislation and application of that legislation. So the Criminal Code is the Criminal Code of Canada.
By doing what is proposed here, you’re actually looking at consistency of programming across Canada, consistency of judicial decisions across Canada and consistency of applications. So a police officer from Montreal can move to York, for example, and take up a career with a different police service, and you’re not changing the mindset or application of how they do their job.
Senator Harder: I have a question of Chief MacKillop on the resourcing side. You spoke of the need for additional resources should this be adopted. In the allocation of resources, is this the most effective incremental additional resource that you would ask for?
Mr. MacKillop: I think what is important is understanding what the potential scope of the legislation may be, how many occurrences it would impact. There’s an ability for officers themselves to impose those conditions. 810 application of electronic monitoring will certainly increase the number of judicial requirements to wear that monitoring. With that, from a due diligence perspective, comes an obligation to respond in a timely fashion.
Therefore, I think by default, adding on, in a broader way, this type of legislation will, in fact, require additional resources, not just to act in an expeditious manner but additionally to conduct the investigations, which now perhaps require judicial authorization to be able to enforce the law or to gather the relevant evidence. This is why it’s important, I think even within the contemplation of this legislation, that we consider opportunities to forego judicial authorizations under certain circumstances.
For example, would there be a need if we’re monitoring an individual who is wearing an electronic monitor to receive a court order to monitor that? If so, it would require resources to be able to do that. You can imagine how broadly that could impact policing resources.
So this is an opportunity to include within this legislation opportunities to forego things like judicial authorizations for very obvious things like monitoring individuals, which could mitigate some of the resource requests. Ultimately, by adding on this extra measure, which can be applied by an officer, at all levels of court, you will, by default, create an environment where more police officers will be required to be able to properly investigate the legislation, monitor the actual criminals, or accused, that are wearing the monitors and to enforce the act.
Senator Harder: Do I have time for one more question?
The Acting Chair: One minute.
Senator Harder: Let me follow up with Chief MacKillop. You’re from northwest Ontario, so that’s a lot of rural Ontario, small town and rural. Would you have a few words on the efficacy of the implementation of this initiative and the unique nature of rural Ontario with respect to what would be required from a technology and training point of view and on the issue of mitigation of distance?
Mr. MacKillop: Certainly. Now, the contract is held, of course, with the Solicitor General, and the technology that revolves around the use of electronic monitoring is certainly something that would have to be evaluated in our communities. As you know, we don’t necessarily have cell-phone service or opportunities to monitor like we would in a more urban populated area. We also have to consider this legislation contemplates two different components that are very important for our more rural areas, and that’s not just electronic monitoring but also treatment. There is no consistent access to health care across northern Ontario and many parts of Canada that would allow for the treatment option to be applied broadly and, more specifically, to those whom the courts decide are going to get it.
For instance, if you were in northern Geraldton or northern Ontario and you wanted electronic monitoring, you would have the issues of how that device gets on you, how it’s monitored and the ability to actually follow you, which would depend on the technology. If you were to add on the application of something like treatment, where a person doesn’t necessarily have options for treatment there, all those things are considerations within this legislation that certainly are at the forefront of our minds.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much to all of you for being here, in person or virtually, and thank you very much for your service for the people of Canada and all the people you help every day.
My first question is to you, Mr. Sauvé. While electronic monitoring has been an option for judges to consider for some time, as you know, some provinces have recently been developing programs to increase its usage. The example of Quebec has been given, as this province has recently been implementing their program. Given that you’re here for the National Police Federation, I’m wondering if you can explain to us if you’re familiar with other provincial programs and whether they’re proving to be successful, and if you foresee more provinces taking a greater interest in developing electronic monitoring programs, and what can and should the Government of Canada do to make sure they assist the development of those programs?
Mr. Sauvé: Thank you, senator. I’ve spoken a lot about our legal system over the last number of months through different appearances before different committees. I have a lot of trust in our legal system, but I also feel that we, as Canadians, have allowed our legal system to languish from a resourcing level. When I speak about resourcing, I’m not just talking about cops on the street; I’m also talking about probation officers, corrections, judges, Crown prosecutors and such, so that legal system actually operates in an expeditious and timely manner.
It’s not fair to a victim or to an accused to be awaiting trial for a long period of time. Now, obviously we have the Jordan decision out of the Supreme Court, which is expediting things and also staying some proceedings because our legal system cannot hear those cases in a timely manner.
The more tools and resources available in the system — with police at the forefront being the pointy end of the spear because we will respond to the initial incident and complaints of violations of electronic monitoring or proximities or peace bonds and such — the more effective the system can be. Ultimately, we have to have a system with the tools in place so victims feel comfortable coming forward and feel comfortable that they will be safe throughout what has become a protracted criminal process.
Until we can fix the back end, we need to fix the front end.
Senator Batters: Yes, I agree with you. Looking in particular at electronic monitoring programming across the country, have you seen particular provinces that have certain aspects of those programs that have proven to be better success than others? If so, what are those? Again, with regard to the federal government on electronic monitoring in particular because this is what this bill is dealing with.
Mr. Sauvé: I think my colleagues from the OPP have touched on something — and we have spoken to it a little bit in the other place — which is public safety broadband network in Canada. We hear from our perspective, even just in regard to our own members’ radio communications, which will rely on a similar or the same network that these electronic monitoring devices will use, don’t work everywhere and rarely work in the North.
When we think about over-representation of populations within our criminal justice system, why is that? What’s the root of that problem? Is it access to care? Is it access to services? Or is it because they don’t have the ability to rehabilitate properly? And that goes back to the electronic monitoring devices. I think they are underused in the current system mainly because they aren’t tried, proven and tested in a pre-sentencing situation. Post-sentencing — i.e. patrol, conviction or a sentencing community — they are used, and in highly populated, dense areas, they have been effective, in my opinion, at least in British Columbia, where I’ve done all of my service.
Senator Batters: And what is the situation in British Columbia, since that’s where you have done your service? What sort of an electronic monitoring program do they have? Is it something that they have been recently improving or do you think there are particular measures you think could make it work better?
Mr. Sauvé: Not used often is where I would go. From my experience, not often used in a pre-sentencing or judicial interim release sentencing scenario. Post-sentence in the community, sometimes used. I think the default scenario, mainly because there’s a lack of resources. In all of those areas there is a reliance on parole and on corrections to have in-person, virtual or telephone reporting versus electronic monitoring.
Senator Batters: Are you in Vancouver area, or what area of B.C. are you in?
Mr. Sauvé: I was in the Lower Mainland, yes.
Senator Batters: Even there, where you would think they wouldn’t necessarily have broadband issues, things like that — I come from Saskatchewan so certainly in places like northern Saskatchewan it’s very dicey to have good broadband up there.
Mr. Sauvé: Yes, we get a lot of complaints from our members about broadband and public safety issues with respect to their communications in the northern Saskatchewan area. But even in the Lower Mainland, there no challenges with communications — it’s all digital; most of it is encrypted — however, is it a trusted resource today or are we relying on the old-school phone, in-person, virtual monitoring for parole and probation?
Senator Batters: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Your experience in B.C., is it related to a bracelet that is worn by the convict — because you said it was after sentencing — accompanied by a device on the cellular phone or otherwise of the victim in order to see that he’s getting closer, or is it just an ankle bracelet on the convicted person?
Mr. Sauvé: My experience has all been post-sentencing with respect to electronic monitoring bracelets. I have never arrested someone for a violation of electronic monitoring for judicial interim release or pre-sentencing. However, post-sentencing, they work very well, especially if you’re going to be doing surveillance on a parolee. You can follow them with a beep on your phone.
As far as victims of crime, I go back to what I’ve said from the beginning. The more tools that Canadians can put in place to have trust in that system, the better.
The Acting Chair: My question is more specific. Is that an ankle bracelet on the convicted person —
Mr. Sauvé: Yes.
The Acting Chair: — which is monitored all the time? Or is it something that also comes with a device on the cellular phone of the victim that tells the victims in real time if it’s getting close to the victim?
Mr. Sauvé: No. From my experience, it was ankle bracelets.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I thank the witnesses for being here. Ms. Dart, I’d like you to clarify what you mean when you talk about technology assessment across the country, as that doesn’t work in all regions.
Based on the Ontario Provincial Police’s experience, is the data that you referred to between 2017 and 2021, which you proposed to submit to the committee, disaggregated among urban and rural areas, Indigenous communities, and small and large cities?
[English]
Ms. Dart: Thank you for your questions. For the data I presented to you today, I do not have a breakdown by urban versus rural. I can determine whether we can access that and report back to the Senate, if that’s of interest.
The first part of your question was in relation to clarifying what I meant when I was talking about use of the devices in rural versus urban. It was very much centred on the accessibility of the technology to support the use of the device, which my colleague from the RCMP has discussed in more detail.
I will say that the Ontario experience right now with the use of electronic monitoring is facilitated by a private company that the Ministry of the Solicitor General has managed and is responsible for that relationship and agreement. The relationship with the police is with that private company, who, when they observe a violation, are then contacting the responsible police agency directly.
My point — which I know we’ve heard from the RCMP as well — is about the importance of consistency across Canada, which would be helpful for law enforcement so that we have a consistent approach in terms of how we’re monitoring and accessing the information. That would be my submission on that point, if I have answered your question.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Mr. Sauvé, thank you for reminding us that this is not the first time you have raised the issue of resources with us. That issue is critical.
I would like you to help us understand. There is the issue of resources and also the issue of police training. I asked you the question on another subject, but I am coming back to the training. Yes, there is the issue of resources, but in your opinion, is the training of police officers sufficient right now? If new technologies are being introduced, I assume training is provided to police officers to make sure they are going to master those technologies. Have you evaluated the different types of training programs?
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: No, I have not. Thank you for the question, senator. It is a good one. I am the union guy here, so, of course, I’m going to ask for more resources for just about everything. I’ll quantify that by saying that I’m not always talking about more boots on the ground or more police officers. We are going through a deployment of body-worn cameras for members of the RCMP late this year and into early next year. When we speak about resources and funding for programs from that perspective, perhaps it’s municipal employees, detachment services assistants or exhibit custodians who will assist in the downloading of the footage.
In terms of resources that I can think of off the top of my head, is this technology going to be monitored in our Operational Communications Centres? Are we going to have dedicated resources that are actually monitoring offenders with electronic monitoring bracelets in the community? Who will be the people who are going to be receiving the alarm, creating the file and dispatching out whatever resource is needed — whether it’s a police officer, probation, corrections or something to that effect?
In addition to that, we will have to look at boots on the ground from a police officer’s or sheriff’s perspective, depending on the jurisdiction, because we are also adding a mandate, another task to police officers today — especially members of the RCMP — who are already over-tasked. Their mandate has grown over the last 20 years with relatively stagnant growth in the human resource perspective.
We welcome training. Again, I’m the union guy; I love the idea of training. The rollout of body-worn cameras will come in the form of training for that new technology. I suspect that electronic monitoring would be very similar, and our members would welcome it.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: When you talk about putting more boots on the ground, do you include women’s groups that would work with police officers in programs, not just to train police officers, but to support victims of violence?
Mr. Sauvé: Quite possibly. When we talk about resources, it is all the human resources around victims, even around the detachment and the police service, that are needed to complete the circle.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Thanks again to the witnesses for enlightening us.
I’m a lawyer; however, on topics like this, I’m a simple soul myself, and I appreciate the learning you’re providing us.
I wanted to ask a couple of questions related to training but from a slightly different perspective than Senator Dupuis asked.
First, I think it would be accurate that we are talking here about resources, at least in the status quo kind of world, which would be provided by provinces rather than by the federal government, since it’s the Quebec government that has financed the program there and that’s the natural way that policing tends to roll out, whether it’s OPP or contract RCMP jurisdiction. Mr. Sauvé, would I be more or less accurate in that understanding?
Mr. Sauvé: Yes, policing is governed by the provinces.
Senator Cotter: That does present for us a bit of anxiety — and maybe just a tolerance we have to have — that the supports that would be available for this or other initiatives are liable to vary from province to province because they will be the ones having to make the choices for resources. I think I’m right in that.
Turning to police training, we have heard here and elsewhere that there is — I don’t want to say “often” — but it’s not an unusual occurrence that police officers who do intervene in these circumstances — and this is a question that will be directed to all of you — are not always fully sensitized to the kinds of situations that really amount to intimate partner violence, almost always perpetrated by men against women. In fact, sometimes we choose words — frankly, “intimate partner violence” is attempting to use a neutral phrase to describe a non-neutral situation. I think one of the witnesses, Ms. Dart, described these as “disturbances,” as in “we had 155 disturbances.” I think that was the word she used, if I’m correct.
So I’m interested in the degree to which police training exists or needs to exist to heighten the sensitivities of police officers to the kinds of situations they’re dealing with so that they can, on the front line, deal with them more effectively.
Second — although I guess I would like to ask the chair more than anybody — I would like to ask about judicial training, because these matters usually come to provincial court judges at one time or another. Some concerns have been raised, including by the sponsor of the bill, that the judicial response is sometimes incomplete, not sensitive enough or not fully knowledgeable.
Could any of you or each of you comment on that?
Mr. MacKillop: I could start.
Training absolutely has to be an ongoing matter. Where I see an opportunity in this legislation to assist in the training and the understanding of officers, as well as in the judicial system, as you so aptly pointed out, is in ensuring a proper definition that allows for a proper understanding of the law. For example, with regard to the definition of “violence,” specifically, most acts of intimate partner violence involve different types of offences such as physical violence, psychological or emotional abuse and/or could include the administration of justice.
At times, this bill refers to violence against a victim. The committee may wish to consider whether the term“ violence” should include physical and psychological violence and events linked to those acts but that fall under the administration of justice. Clarification of that definition not only assists in its application but in the training for our officers and in giving the courts the information they need to be able to properly move toward a conviction.
Another example would be the difference between domestic violence, as you intimated, and intimate partner violence. There are certain sections of the bill that delineate the two, and it’s important from an enforcement, training and a corps perspective to understand that intimate partner violence is abuse or aggression that occurs in a romantic relationship, and the term “intimate partner” typically refers to both current and former spouses and dating partners. “Domestic violence,” on the other hand, is a broader term that refers to any violent or aggressive behaviour that occurs within the home.
The bill speaks to both particular definitions or terms. Properly defining those terms, again, allows for enhanced and better training; better, more rapid application of the bill once enacted; and a greater opportunity to convict and enforce properly.
So I highlight the fact there’s always a need for ongoing training for all of our officers, given that the dynamics of intimate partner violence and domestic violence are ever-changing. This law is a great opportunity to assist in that training by being very clear with the intent, purposes and definitions of the law, which we all know down the road is usually what leads to issues in court and could maybe restrict our ability to support victims to the extent that they can.
Ms. Dart: If I may, just build on Chief MacKillop’s comments, it’s also an opportunity for us to consider Bill C-202. I’m not here to say that I have all the details or am completely aware of the intricacies of that bill; however, I do know it is introducing language where we’re seeking to acknowledge and criminalize controlling or coercive conduct. If we’re examining definitions within this bill, it’s also perhaps an opportunity for us to further examine those definitions, because clarity is of the utmost importance for our officers. Clarity equates to necessary training, which we would need to further deliver so that they do have an understanding of what it is that they’re responding to and how they best position that response in light of the victimization that has occurred.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all the witnesses. I would like first to pose my question to Commander Dart, and then others might wish to respond as well.
I am just picking up on what you were just speaking about. As you will know, in June this year, the jury recommendations came out in the triple femicide that occurred in this area. Most of the recommendations had to do with believing women and providing supports to women when they were reporting violence. In fact, we heard from witnesses last week who were themselves victims. They talked about reporting incidents sometimes to police and not being believed or what they recognized as a threat not being understood as a threat by the police.
For those of us who have worked in this area for many years, we’ve heard many of those stories. I’m sure many of you have as well.
So if you had to decide where to prioritize putting resources, would it be, first and foremost, electronic monitoring or would it be some of the other recommendations that have been made by many people, including many of you in another context? Would it be into support services, awareness raising, community supports or would it be into electronic monitoring as a priority?
Ms. Dart: Thank you for your question.
As I mentioned earlier, I believe that for us to be successful in our approach in both supporting victims and survivors as well as holding offenders accountable, there needs to be a very dynamic and multi-pronged approach to how we address this very significant matter. I would suggest that, in addition to the electronic monitoring that we’re speaking of, the training we’re hearing about and the addition of considerations and amendments to the Criminal Code that we’re in support of, I can speak for the OPP in the sense that we are dedicated to being better and doing better by taking a very victim-centred approach. By that, I mean having due regard to both our legal obligations to assist and understand the needs of victims under the Police Services Act but also to refocus our understanding of investigative excellence.
That means including a victim-centred approach at its core, looking at how we engage with victims of crime, assess their needs and better support them. Those are all matters that the OPP are taking very seriously. We are adjusting and investing resources to better serve victims of crime, as well as supporting our officers and our members who are responding to the same.
Mr. Sauvé: I will add on to that.
I have been a police officer for 19 years, and I can say that with policing today and the members we work with today, it’s not the same world as it was 19 years ago. Policing has evolved. The training and the sensitization that have been spoken of and the resources that get devoted to restorative justice or victim services at the detachment, municipal or provincial levels have really started to take hold. We shouldn’t take our foot off the gas now. We need to continue to evolve and improve the training and the curriculum provided not only to police officers but the entire system, as spoken to earlier. Do victims feel trusted in the court process? How do we deal with accommodations for giving evidence, should you not want to face your accuser? Those types of things, I think, really need to be improved, and we can get better. We are better today than we were 20 years ago.
Senator Pate: Chief MacKillop, if you want to comment, this morning I had a call from a police officer who had been dealing with these exact situations. His response to me was that he thinks we need to ensure that supports are in place so women can actually be supported, have safe places to be and be comfortable that they’ll be believed in, not just by police, but by family courts and others and to have those supports in place. His thought was that should be a priority, first and foremost, and then, if those are not in place, we end up resorting to the kinds of mechanisms that are being proposed here. Would that surprise any of you?
Mr. MacKillop: No, it wouldn’t, senator. A lot of this legislation focuses on how we’re going to hold the offender accountable. What I’m very pleased to read is the inclusion of the victim-centred approach, as contemplated within the legislation. Allowing for electronic monitoring, as Chief Dart indicated, is another layer and another opportunity to ensure deterrence and to investigate a person without necessarily relying on more testimony or more interaction with the victim. That extra layer of monitoring would be an additional tool for our officers and judicial system, which would support the information provided by a victim, or perhaps we wouldn’t even need that information. It would be an opportunity to intercept that individual prior to having to deal or potentially have an occurrence of re-victimization.
I have also mentioned a few times that I appreciate the inclusion of mandatory treatment or request for treatment. That’s where I want to highlight an opportunity to make sure that we clarify language around whether a person be required to attend treatment or to complete treatment. That language within the law is very important. I also want to highlight the opportunity to include that the program or agency that is conducting the treatment should be required to themselves report directly any non-compliance to police. Both of those are examples of additional resources and additional levels of accountability that can be used to make sure that the offender or accused can be held in check. They are levels of deterrence, and they add other people, agencies and groups that are supervising their behaviour and doesn’t necessarily put all the onus on the victim to report everything to us. I think that this legislation does put that onus and focus back on the offender and may alleviate some of the burden of the judicial process on the actual victim.
Senator Clement: I want to thank the witnesses and all of you for your work. I want to come back to the issue of resources and the questions asked by Senators Dupuis, Cotter and Harder. When I was mayor of the City of Cornwall, I sat on the police services board, and we had conversations there about police budgets. We know that the money comes from the province, but these are very much community conversations around police budgets. They are covered by local media. The people of a city, with the municipal force, will be involved in budget discussions.
My question is, what if you don’t get the resources? What if this bill passes and you don’t get the resources for whatever reason, where are you going to feel the pressure? What is going to give if you don’t get the resources and you have to do this work that is imposed by this bill?
Mr. Sauvé: Our members will uphold and respond to the calls, even without the added resources because that’s just who they are. They have been doing it for years with flat budgets, whether it be at the municipal level, the provincial level or even the federal level. Will we burn them out? Eventually. Resources have to be part of the equation.
Ms. Dart: Thank you for the opportunity. I know, Chief MacKillop, you may also want to comment on resources. I do agree that with the addition of any opportunity that allows us to be further successful, with not only just the enforcement efforts that this bill would represent. The additional responsibility of enforcement, which we are here to do and we do so willingly to serve, means that there are going to be opportunities for us. When we are holding offenders accountable, there is additional work and time that comes with that. For our officers to dedicate additional time and support of — for example, if we are successful as a result of electronic monitoring, that is a success in holding an offender accountable for a breach. It also means that there will be officer time associated with investigating that breach, preparing the information and the package for the courts. With all of that, there is a bit of a ripple effect for officer time.
Our officers are spread thin in responding to all types of crime. With increasing demands, there is an impact on police resources. We need to be mindful of ensuring that for every one of these great opportunities that are presented for us to police, we also need to make sure that we have the adequate resources to be able to do it. That is my point.
Mr. MacKillop: I’ll approach this from a different angle. The multi-jurisdictional nature of crime and these investigations that could occur requires a national approach, as Sergeant Sauvé indicated. You were in Cornwall, ma’am; I was the commander for Hawkesbury for many years, and I can tell you there’s an interprovincial piece that needs to be contemplated within this legislation where individuals use services or reside across provinces. If there’s a lack of resources, I would hate to see victims’ needs not met, not served or underserved because an individual took advantage of a jurisdictional issue, where we have a have and have-not community or a have and have-not province. This is an opportunity to create a national standard, which will, by default, require funding across the board. As you know, in Cornwall, if you have a domestic issue that happens as a result of a couple who are from Montreal, I would hate to see a disparity in the opportunity to take advantage of this act and legislation.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. As time is running out, we have to, unfortunately, come to a close. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Mr. MacKillop, Ms. Dart and Mr. Sauvé for their appearance today. Their comments were most useful. If Ms. Dart could send us the data she has referred to, unfortunately, it would need to be in the coming days, if possible. I don’t want to put on too much pressure, but the committee will have other witnesses this week, and next week we will do the clause-by-clause, so if you can provide us information on that, it would be quite appreciated.
I’m sorry to say that we have a technical problem with Mr. Newark’s connection. He doesn’t have the proper appliance for the microphone, so we cannot provide translation, unfortunately. He is watching, and he will provide us a copy of his written statement.
If you hear questions, Mr. Newark, that you’d like to answer, please add the replies to your statement. We’ll be pleased to share it with members of the committee. I do apologize on behalf of the committee for this technical glitch.
We have with us, fortunately with the proper equipment, our next witness, Mr. James Gacek, assistant professor at the University of Regina. He is the author of a book, which sounds very interesting, at least by the title, Portable Prisons: Electronic Monitoring and the Creation of Carceral Territory.
He has done his doctoral thesis in criminology, Carceral Territory: Experiences of Electronic Monitoring Practices in Scotland. It took place where there’s a lot of countryside, so we’re anxious to hear about your experience.
You have five minutes, Professor Gacek.
James Gacek, Assistant Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual: It’s a pleasure to be here. I appreciate speaking to you all.
Honourable senators, thank you for inviting me to speak today as a witness on the bill for your consideration. As I was nicely introduced, my name is James Gacek, and I’m an assistant professor in the Department of Justice Studies at the University of Regina. My research focuses on corrections and community justice. In part, this research continues to explore the effectiveness of electronic monitoring in different countries and jurisdictions around the world, including but not limited to Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom.
Having reviewed Bill S-205, I would urge caution against legislation that includes the use of electronic monitoring devices for men who have committed violence against women and for offenders generally. I will briefly outline my thoughts as to why caution should be considered.
My research on electronic monitoring was recently published in my book, Portable Prisons: Electronic Monitoring and the Creation of Carceral Territory. In it, I focus on Scotland as a case study to examine the direct, indirect and collateral consequences of this type of punishment used upon offenders. I interviewed current and former Scottish prisoners and shadowed G4S Scotland, the private sector company, and those workers to explore how this type of punishment operates and the impact it has upon marginalized communities.
While there are many findings to discuss, for the sake of brevity and time, there are three findings I wish to bring to your attention today. First, my findings suggest that electronic monitoring as a form of stand-alone punishment to impose upon an offender does nothing to address the challenges faced by either the offender or the victim. Senators, as you’re well aware, technology like this does not unravel the fabric of misogyny, racism and class bias which fuel violence against women and intimate partners and which continue to this day in our society. When governments decide to impose a sentence of electronic monitoring upon offenders, the effort to address societal, economic, racial and gender inequity is sacrificed for expanded and unnecessary surveillance.
Second, offenders became creative to mobilize their un-curfewed or free time to interact with family, friends and communities, as I’ve discovered in my research. Several respondents highlighted how they still engaged in drugs and alcohol consumption and parties with anti-social and gang-related peers.
Moreover, others in my research suggested they continued these activities within the home even while on curfew. Electronic monitoring, then, is not a silver bullet that will stop offenders’ habits abruptly. Rather, this means that violence against women and intimate partners has, unfortunately, the potential to continue even if a sentence of electronic monitoring is imposed.
Third and finally, several respondents indicated in my book that they were able to evade or find loopholes in the electronic monitoring range. This means that when a home is ranged by G4S Scotland, the private sector company creates a digital blueprint of the house so the tag can pick up where the tagged offender may be. If the home is not ranged correctly or there is service disruption, offenders may be able to briefly evade surveillance. These evasions do nothing to assist women and intimate partners in the violence they face.
Moreover, the technological challenges of electronic monitoring are more likely to upset and unsettle offenders’ families, who are groups of people that I found in my research were already marginalized, living in ramshackle housing estates and in disreputable squalor.
To conclude my opening statement, I want to thank you, honourable senators, for your commitment to ending violence against women and intimate partners. I recognize there is still much work we need to do to end such violence. Yet there are several ways we can tackle this issue without resorting to electronic monitoring. Only a massive reinvestment in social welfare, public education, comprehensive and universal health care, affordable housing and a guaranteed basic income can begin to address the structural and domestic violence women and intimate partners face daily. Regrettably, and as I have already detailed, electronic monitoring and the approach proposed by including electronic monitoring in this bill is not the most appropriate to pursue. I would adamantly urge caution and resist legislation that would suggest otherwise.
Thank you for your time, and I yield my remaining time back to the chair and committee.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. Right on time.
[Translation]
The first questions will be asked by Senator Boisvenu, the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Boisvenu: I thank our guest.
The first thing I could say is that I completely agree with you that the electronic monitoring device is not a miracle solution. It is one tool among many to try to save the lives of women who are in danger. You said that electronic monitoring devices increase violence. Do you have any data on that?
[English]
Mr. Gacek: Thank you, senator, for the question. I wouldn’t exactly say that my focus is that it increased violence. I would say that there are chances, like any others in life, that there could be increased worry, concern and risk to those who are still in the home. We have seen research, not only in Canada but in the U.S. and the U.K., that does suggest that there are mixed findings about having electronic monitoring, especially when, as we saw during the pandemic, there were concerns about having individuals trapped at home and having larger concerns about women and intimate partners being, unfortunately, trapped along with their spouses, partners and offenders.
I wouldn’t exactly suggest there was an increase in violence. I would suggest there was an increase in harm and risk.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Okay, I have understood.
So that’s an assumption you’re making. You also say that men can evade electronic monitoring. Do you have any data on the ineffectiveness of electronic monitoring devices?
[English]
Mr. Gacek: Yes, actually, within my own book. I did speak to several men who, when I asked about their issues with electronic monitoring, responded to me about the inability for them to seek out social services and social welfare agencies and being unavailable to meet their work and appointment commitments. It very much does happen with men as well.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Have you analyzed the Spanish experiment?
[English]
Mr. Gacek: That’s a good question. My knowledge about some of the Spanish studies seem to suggest that those results are quite mixed. I know there is a conversation about victims having some sort of surveillance associated with the electronic monitoring tag. I would raise caution with that as well. That’s already increasing victims’ privacy concerns when we involve private sector interests in victims’ privacy rights. It seems to be mixed results.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Are you aware that the experiment conducted in Spain has reduced the number of women murdered in that country by 25 per cent?
[English]
Mr. Gacek: I’m not familiar with the particular study that you’re referring to, senator, unfortunately.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Okay. I have no further questions.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Gacek. You and I are both from Regina, and unfortunately, Saskatchewan has a terrible situation with respect to domestic violence. As I know you’ll be aware, Indigenous women in particular are so often the victims of domestic violence.
When you said in your opening statement that you did not support this particular measure because of the “impact on marginalized communities.” What about those from marginalized communities who are victims of domestic violence? You didn’t spend a lot of your time talking about that, so perhaps you could go into that in more detail.
You said that this was “not a silver bullet.” But, Mr. Gacek, isn’t it a helpful step for those women who are at such a high risk of domestic violence? It can provide them with one measure to give them some safety for even a time that would allow them to get to a safe space, make arrangements with their family and have a bit of a level of control they haven’t had throughout their unfortunate situation with the abuser.
Mr. Gacek: Thank you for the question, senator. When we consider the issues with regard to marginalized and racialized communities, there are already tools within the criminal law that would suggest that the police already have the supports necessary to engage with these types of communities.
Imposing electronic monitoring on offenders may actually do more harm than good. There is a conversation about what tools we can already be using, such as having community services or crisis response teams that would allow these individuals — women and intimate partners — to find the resources and supports they need without having to go through a period of electronic monitoring.
Senator Batters: Victim services, community services and crisis services are used all the time with these kinds of cases. How would you think that electronic monitoring would make it worse?
Mr. Gacek: I’m so sorry, senator. It seems the question is being cut off, so I’m not exactly picking up every third or fifth word.
Senator Batters: I don’t know what’s going on with these microphones here, but apparently this particular seat has had ongoing microphone issues. Hopefully, that can be resolved before the next committee meeting.
You were saying that electronic monitoring could potentially make things worse. I don’t really understand how you think that it could make it worse. Also, when you refer to community and crisis supports, those are used all the time. Maybe you can just explain further how you think that electronic monitoring could make a situation worse when we’ve actually directly heard directly from three domestic violence victims in one of our last committee meetings. This bill is not just something that was thought up by Senator Boisvenu but was actually the result of 150 victims coming together to say that this is exactly the sort of thing they think is necessary.
Mr. Gacek: I certainly don’t want to disregard any concerns that victims want to share. I think it’s very important that we embrace that kind of conversation in terms of this bill.
I suppose what I’m trying to say here is that, again, we already have tools at our disposal within the criminal justice system to properly deal with offenders. Adding another layer of surveillance onto offenders who are already marginalized and most likely racialized individuals seems to be a lot of heavy-handedness by the government. Like I said before and like you said, senator, there are already community response measures in place.
Ensuring that those community response measures are properly funded and resourced is where we really should be focusing our efforts. To have electronic monitoring as an additional tool seems quite unnecessary to me.
Senator Pate: Thank you for appearing. You mentioned a number of other options that you would prioritize over electronic monitoring. As you probably know, the costings have shown several hundred dollars minimum for the equipment alone, let alone the monitoring.
If you could please expand on how you would see some of those other measures, why you would prioritize them and how, that would be helpful.
Mr. Gacek: Absolutely. Thank you, senator, for the question. I think when we consider some of the other concerns regarding, as I mentioned before, economic and health disadvantages over surveillance, I don’t have a cost breakdown per se of some of these other initiatives, but I think there are certainly some aspects, some pieces, that we need to really reconsider when we talk about, again, violence against women and intimate partners.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a cost breakdown per se, but I certainly still see the value of focusing on the civilian crisis response teams, triage support, safe spaces for those who have experienced domestic and intimate-partner violence, shelters for these marginalized groups and finding ways we can serve the community rather than resorting to electronic monitoring.
Senator Pate: [Technical difficulties] Saskatchewan, and we know from the situation, it wasn’t only violence against women but we know that racist and misogynist violence were a part of the whole panoply of issues in the situation in James Smith Cree Nation. Have you had any experience or could you comment on what members of the Indigenous communities are calling for with respect to these issues, both for those who are victimized as well as those who are perpetrators of violence?
Mr. Gacek: Thank you for the question, senator. Unfortunately, I don’t have that information. I’m currently in conversation with many of my Indigenous colleagues to see, particularly, what more meaningful action they would like to see, but unfortunately I don’t have that information at this time.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Harder: On the same theme, I’d like to have a better sense of your preference on the hierarchy of intervention that would be better placed than this measure in dealing with the issues that this bill is attempting to deal with. In other words, give us a sense of where you would spend an incremental resource as opposed to electronic monitoring.
Mr. Gacek: Thank you for the question, senator. I think that given what we know about the typical offender, the fact that they are already marginalized, racialized individuals; the high levels of substance, alcohol and drug abuse; low levels of education; high levels of family dysfunction; potentially intergenerational trauma, there are conversations about how we provide more resources for mental health initiatives.
So I do support, in spirit, legislation that would ensure that mental health supports are properly funded and a comprehensive plan is put in place, certainly with interprovincial buy-in, of course. I would see more efforts put into mental health supports, given that when police do come into contact with individuals and offenders, most often there is a conversation about whether a mental health support is properly perceived in this interaction.
I do think mental health is a much more important conversation to have than suggesting that we need more surveillance during this unfortunate situation between the offender and the victim.
Senator Harder: Are you aware, professor, of any research being done in Quebec with respect to the experience that they are having — although it’s early days — with the implementation of electronic monitoring at the provincial level? Is this an academic area of interest that you have and are pursuing?
Mr. Gacek: That’s a good question, senator. I am interested in whether provinces feel electronic monitoring is effective within their jurisdiction. I am interested in that. You’re right, it is still early days, given that some of these studies, the ones I can recollect at this time, are slightly outdated. I would have to refresh my memory, so to speak, and look into this.
I think there is that conversation about whether we do see electronic monitoring being effective at the provincial level, whether there’s a buy-in from the public, whether they feel there’s confidence in having this sort of tool given to the criminal justice system within that jurisdiction. Also, who would be in charge of that, what authorities, and what’s the accountability should the surveillance fail?
Senator Harder: My question, again, is whether or not your research has been able to determine whether the issue of electronic monitoring has been raised at the federal-provincial meeting of ministers responsible for Solicitors General or Attorneys General activities. Have they requested electronic monitoring be given higher priority than it has? Is that, in your research, the best way of going about criminal law amendments? In other words, the level of government that is often implementing the law could work with the Government of Canada in its responsibilities for the Criminal Code to ensure that amendments to the code are actually coming from the jurisdiction that is both paying for and closer to the decision making as to its efficacy. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Gacek: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I’m not aware of such a conversation. My research more or less focuses federally and internationally, so I’d have to have a bit more time to engage with provincial and territorial matters, but I think it’s a fascinating conversation to have.
Senator Harder: Thank you.
Mr. Gacek: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I thank our witness.
I would like to come back to three elements that you mentioned and to the conclusions you have drawn from your analysis of other countries’ experiences with electronic monitoring.
I understand the first element very well. However, I would like you to come back to the second and third elements, namely that those who are accused seem to take advantage of the system. I would like you to elaborate on the conclusions you reached and the loopholes that can occur in the application of this kind of electronic monitoring.
Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Gacek: Yes. Thank you for the question, senator. So in terms of my second item, my research found that when I spoke to respondents about how they engaged with electronic monitoring, that was the concern, that they were still able to find ways to engage in deviant activity and albeit almost criminal activity while on curfew and while off. So this lack of concern about whether they were being surveilled by the private sector company certainly sparked concern with me, not in terms of whether they would engage in future reoffending but almost the effectiveness of the technology itself.
It is a conversation about where government or public sector resources are being put to good use and how we can ensure that the community is being protected and feels safe in that process. That is a concern. I never researched or engaged with individuals who committed large-scale or heinous crimes. Most of the respondents, if not all, were involved in relatively minor offences. However, the point is that they didn’t see the use of this technology as a punishment.
The way we talk about punishment has to be part of this conversation too. That would be one of the ways that I would certainly caution against the effectiveness of electronic monitoring for us.
In terms of the third question, yes. I want to echo the thoughts of other witnesses here. When there is service disruption, Canada doesn’t have consistent, strong bandwidth of internet access across the country. When there are service disruptions and power outages, when offenders are able to find ways to disrupt the tag or home monitoring unit itself, this can lead to greater concerns about electronic monitoring’s effectiveness and whether this punishment is appropriate given the other concerns that might be going on in the offender’s life.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I don’t know if you had a chance to listen to the police officers earlier, but they explained that in the rural areas where the system did not reach — and even if it did reach — the number of police officers is so low that there is no way to reach the individual in question.
In the research you have done, have you come across any information about this aspect of resources dedicated to monitoring?
What data have you found on the additional training that would have been provided to the police forces in question where this type of service was implemented?
[English]
Mr. Gacek: Thank you for the question, senator.
It’s so important to talk about this too, because as I was shadowing G4S Scotland workers, that certainly came up, especially when looking at the case study of Scotland. There are still rural areas in that country where service disruption happened frequently, especially in the northern parts of the country. G4S Scotland workers who have to drive up to ensure that the tag and the technology are working, in certain cases, simply cannot do that.
There are concerns, not only about service disruption, but as we’ve seen rurally in Scotland and in areas across our own country, that when there are no mental health services in rural or remote areas, what type of conversation are we truly having? That’s where we have to question if surveillance is actually an effective measure to deal with offenders and to assist and support victims in their journeys.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: In the research you’ve done, have you come across people, data or information about the involvement of women’s support groups as direct stakeholders with police officers and then in the justice system to try to address women’s mistrust of and lack of confidence in the justice system?
[English]
Mr. Gacek: That’s a really good question, senator.
Unfortunately, my research did not touch on that. The respondents who were female who wanted to have access to social welfare services, their concern with electronic monitoring is they simply couldn’t access it, given the work responsibilities and the child rearing that they had to take on throughout the days. There were concerns about how their private life and their domestic life would interfere with that type of service.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I just wanted to inform our witness before I asked my question.
We all agree that you will never be able to put a police officer behind every aggressor who is accused or commits acts related to domestic violence; that is completely utopian.
We also know that police officers say that domestic violence complaints are steadily increasing and that victims will often file dozens and dozens of complaints against the same individual.
We also know that in 50% of cases, according to the study conducted by the Université de Montréal, the aggressors will not respect the conditions set by the court, including the condition of respecting a distance between the victim and themselves.
This bill also has a very important component of support for aggressors by requiring them to undergo therapy, in order to prevent justice from becoming a “revolving door” for them.
Knowing that a large proportion of aggressors do not comply with conditions set by the court — such as staying away from the victim — and knowing that victims are usually murdered before a trial is held, what tools do you suggest to victims, so they can get better safety measures from the justice system?
If electronic monitoring devices are not used, what would you advocate for the safety of these women who report their aggressors?
[English]
Mr. Gacek: Thank you for the question, senator. I do appreciate the context in which you provided the question, of course.
Again, I would have to refer back to a more comprehensive structure and plan where we’d have safe spaces and shelters for women and those who suffered intimate partner violence, where we’d have greater funding available to community crisis interventions and community crisis response teams.
There are already community-based initiatives that we can certainly look to that are happening across the country where electronic monitoring isn’t part of the conversation. There are already plans in place, and certainly I would hope that we could have a conversation about these safe spaces and shelters for victims of domestic and intimate partner violence so that we can hopefully start to tackle this violence.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Gacek, there are centres for women who are victims of violence in every municipality in Quebec, compared to 40 years ago when there were about 10 establishments. Now there are hundreds.
For 40 years, women have been told to leave their homes and go into hiding. Don’t you think we need to change the culture so that men undergo therapy instead of women being hidden? Until therapy is effective, shouldn’t there be at least some coercive way to keep them from approaching their victim, especially after a report, which is a critical time in the rise of violence?
Don’t you think we need to change that culture and to now turn to the aggressor, to reduce the number of assaults and ensure that we reduce the “revolving door” effect in the justice system?
[English]
Mr. Gacek: Thank you, senator, for the question.
I completely agree. There are ways in which this legislation, this bill, could focus on mental health initiatives, and I certainly support that. I feel within the spirit of the legislation that should be a priority for our communities. I would still suggest that mental health matters be an important aspect of ensuring that offenders and victims get the support that they need.
The Acting Chair: Do people have additional questions? No.
I will take a few minutes. Sorry to keep you online for a few more minutes.
Professor Gacek, we were told that the highest risk period for victims of domestic violence is after the separation. It’s a high-intensity period, six months to eight months, the first year. After that, pressure goes down and the risk diminishes.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with these numbers and if what your research has shown is also the situation you have seen on the field.
Mr. Gacek: Thank you for the question, senator. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t have those numbers for you. My research doesn’t exactly focus on that in particular.
The Acting Chair: Does your research focus more on the offenders and the sentencing process?
Mr. Gacek: Yes, that would be correct.
The Acting Chair: Assuming this is true, based on the data we have been provided with, that the highest-risk period is after the separation, that will correspond, more or less, to the bail period. That’s the legal proceedings starting, police charging and the trial to be held at some point, some disclosures before.
Do you see some advantage for electronic monitoring during the bail period, where you provide an opportunity for the victim to feel relatively safe or at least to feel that the accused is monitored?
Mr. Gacek: Thank you for that question, senator.
I think there is a conversation about ensuring victim safety, and I certainly don’t want to discount that. However, the research that we have, especially in the U.K. and the U.S., suggests that when there is pre-detention electronic monitoring, too often it focuses on marginalized and already racialized individuals. It creates more surveillance of groups that are already downtrodden.
Again, I don’t want to discount individual accountability. I want to uphold victim safety, but we do need to be cautious about extending surveillance when we already have those tools in place to properly deal with offenders.
The Acting Chair: In your research, what kind of monitoring have you been working on, the bracelet that provides constant monitoring of the accused or of the offender, if it’s after sentencing? Did you work with some monitoring where the accused is being monitored while the victim or alleged victim is also connected to the system, and through, for example, her iPhone or regular phone, she will be told if the alleged offender is in the vicinity or a kilometre from her home or two kilometres away, or she’s going to the market and he happens to be close by or close by her place of work? Have you done research on that type of monitoring? That is what we’ll call dual monitoring. That is, both the aggressor and the victim are connected to the system, and, of course, the police or the agency is monitoring the whole thing.
Mr. Gacek: Thank you for the question. Yes. In terms of my own research, it was predominantly, if not all, ankle bracelets that were placed on the accused or the offender at different moments throughout their criminal justice process.
In terms of dual monitoring, my research does not focus on that, but there are select studies that have come out from Europe that provided mixed results on whether that truly provides victims any sort of security or safety. I wouldn’t be familiar enough with those studies right now to provide any sort of result or finding from them since I did not conduct them, but I am familiar with them. As I said before, the research that I have done generally focuses on ankle bracelets.
The Acting Chair: If I could importune my colleagues a bit more and keep you on the line for a few more minutes. I was rather quiet for the first panel.
Is one of your concerns the fact that there’s a cost associated with this monitoring? For example, in Ontario, there’s a company called Recovery Science Corporation that charges about $500 to $600 per month to do the monitoring. Is that a concern to you, that the person who has been accused has to support the cost, and that person might be part of the marginalized group, and therefore, we add another burden on people who have insufficient resources?
Mr. Gacek: That’s another good question, senator.
I think my concern here is how we look at the larger issues regarding — I’m sorry, could you repeat the question?
The Acting Chair: In some provinces — I think this is the case in Ontario for sure; I don’t know about the case in Saskatchewan — the accused person will sometimes offer to the judge in the bail order to wear a monitoring device, but the accused will have to pay for that monitoring device. Is that one of your concerns, that marginalized people will either be deprived of sufficient funds or that they will remain in jail because they cannot pay for the system?
Mr. Gacek: Thank you for the question, and I appreciate the clarification.
Yes. There are two issues in that regard. It is not only the cost of electronic monitoring. I could be wrong on the dates here, but I believe Correctional Service Canada provided a report where they did outline some of the costs of electronic monitoring for federal prisoners. We do realize that to hold a federal prisoner in prison is around $115,000 a year versus one year of electronic monitoring supervision which costs generally around $36,000 a year. So one could make the argument that we do see less cost being attributed to the public sector because the surveillance allows us to keep people out. That would be true if the data didn’t already suggest we still have double, if not triple, bunking in prison. It’s not about how much this is going to cost the public sector, but it is a concern of how this technology is effective.
To your other question, senator, about the concern about fines. We do see that marginalized individuals are too often unable to pay fines, and that is a question of whether the criminal justice system is arbitrarily imposing fines on people who will never be able to pay. So having electronic monitoring may be bifurcating or creating categories of offenders who are able to pay versus those who can’t, and too often it will be the latter versus the former.
The Acting Chair: If we take the example of the Quebec experience, would you say that’s alleviating some of your concerns, because this is the province providing the system, so the system is free for both the accused and for the alleged victim?
Mr. Gacek: Thank you for that question. I think there was a conversation about how the criminal justice system as a public institution can be part of engaging in a holistic understanding of justice.
My concern with having government intervention here is that too often, as we’ve seen in other research, governments who are unable to provide this type of service end up inevitably contracting the work out to a private sector company. Dealing with the private sector brings up a whole other host of issues that I’ve seen in my work, where we don’t know how data is kept and archived when this surveillance is going on, and we have to question, whether it’s becoming more effective as a punishment if the private sector is involved.
So there is a question here that I would be concerned about, and that is how this punishment is truly meaningful to those victims who are trying to be safe and secure. That is something that I would raise again.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. I think there is the privacy issue that you are alluding to.
Mr. Gacek: Yes. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Mr. Chair, your questions prompted another question for me.
In the Scottish experiment with electronic monitoring, in their report on its use, the review of the electronic monitoring revealed that in the challenges and successes of using electronic monitoring, they found it was not an effective strategy to reduce reoffending, but that it contributed to net-widening, and that the more effective intervention was adequate bail supervision.
Is that consistent with the research you’ve done, and does it lead to any further recommendations to us in terms of where resources might be better allocated, both in terms of protecting those who might otherwise be victimized but also in terms of preventing the perpetration of violent acts?
Mr. Gacek: Of course. Thank you very much for the question, senator. I completely agree. I am familiar with that report.
My research would echo what that report suggests, that electronic monitoring only net-widens and that it provides more surveillance than is required. There are conversations from my Scottish counterparts that would suggest we need to talk about the proportionality of it as a punishment to impose in the criminal justice system and whether we can have accountability controls in place to ensure that it’s not seen as another way of moving beyond incarceration to e-carceration as it creates a situation where someone is trapped in their home and is inevitably stuck within their life. So there is that conversation.
As I’ve echoed before, I think there are greater initiatives in terms of education and community outreach, but also in mental health services and supports. Too often we look at the offender profile, and mental health is a significant issue that, as we all know, electronic monitoring will not solve.
The Acting Chair: Are there any more questions? I see no more.
Professor Gacek, is your book available the internet? Can we buy it through the website or could you send us a copy or two for the committee?
Mr. Gacek: I would be happy to. It’s available through McGill-Queen’s University Press, and I hope it would be available through your local bookstore.
The Acting Chair: If you could send a copy to the clerk of the committee this week, and we’ll make it available to the members of the committee. I promise that once we are finished with it, my friends at the Library of Parliament will make sure that the copy goes to the Library of Parliament and becomes available for the rest of the parliamentarians.
Mr. Gacek: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: That brings us to the end. I would like to thank you, Professor Gacek, for your presence.
Mr. Newark, I’m sure you were listening to us for the last 50 minutes. We look forward to receiving your documents, and thank you in advance for providing them and any additional remarks you would like to add based on the questions that were asked by senators. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)