THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 24, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:34 a.m. [ET] to study 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.
The Deputy Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
I’d like to begin by having the members of the committee introduce themselves, starting with the senator on my right.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: I am Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Pate: Kim Pate from here on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator from Saskatchewan.
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I am Renée Dupuis, an independent senator, and I represent the senatorial division of The Laurentides, in Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: I am Pierre Dalphond, an independent senator representing De Lorimier, in Quebec.
The Deputy Chair: I am Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, the deputy chair of the committee.
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).
I am the sponsor of the bill, so if no one objects, I’m going to ask Senator Dalphond to chair today’s meeting.
Please take the chair, Senator Dalphond.
Senator Pierre J. Dalphond (Acting Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Without further ado, let’s proceed. The first panel is made of two representatives of corporations providing monitoring services. From SafeTracks GPS Canada Inc., we have Mr. Vince Morelli. You can hear me well this morning. From Recovery Science Corporation, we have Mr. Peter Marshall. Can you hear me well, Mr. Marshall?
Peter Marshall, Chief Executive Officer and Legal Director, Recovery Science Corporation: Yes, good morning.
The Acting Chair: As an individual, we have Mr. Brian Simpson, retired police officer from the Edmonton Police Service. First, I apologize for last week. Mr. Morelli and Mr. Marshall were online. They work in technology. Sometimes, technology can be faulty. We had some problems. I apologize for that, but I thank you very much for having made yourselves available today.
We’ll start with Mr. Morelli, five minutes, please.
Vince Morelli, President, SafeTracks GPS Canada Inc.: Thank you and good morning.
First, we are honoured to be asked to participate in this committee. I am the president of SafeTracks GPS Canada, located in Red Deer, Alberta, on the traditional lands of Treaty 6. SafeTracks is honoured to be recognized as a certified Aboriginal business.
My opening statements will be in support of the deployment of electronic monitoring technology for the disruption of domestic violence.
It has been SafeTracks’ mission, envisioned since 2009, to end domestic violence — survivors, not victims. SafeTracks is dedicated to the creation of intervention solutions by using state-of-the-art technologies and services that will provide life-changing solutions for those individuals living with intimate partner violence and/or domestic violence. We ran a pilot project here in Red Deer to monitor offenders of domestic violence. Community stakeholders were designated to operate and supervise this worthy program. Women’s shelters, RCMP, probation officers and Crown prosecutors were all part of the solution to a resounding approval rating after three years.
Our goal is to support these survivors and allow them to maintain their independence, quality of life and an increase in their safety and security. Whether utilizing our GPS ankle bracelets or our emergency GPS duress panic buttons, our technology is paramount to the common goal of ending domestic violence. Electronic monitoring using GPS ankle bracelets is being used with offenders released into the community based on pretrial, probation, parole or other alternatives to incarceration.
SafeTracks has a deep understanding that re-entry into the community requires both the structure and accountability that the electronic monitoring brings to reduce recidivism and address the needs of offenders to have them integrated back into their communities. This new capacity now permits a greater ability to ensure compliance with court-ordered supervision orders and to construct what are literally no-go zones.
We are especially important for proactive survivor protection and high-risk offender monitoring. Case in point, Prince Edward Island published through CBC that our technology has been used in 155 cases over the last five years, providing victims with a greater peace of mind and likely has saved lives. With technology ever evolving, we’re able to implement our domestic violence smart application called Empower. Coupling that with our GPS ankle bracelets, SafeTracks can now provide a more effective solution to unwanted encounters between offenders and survivors.
Once again, we would like to thank the committee for this invitation to express our thoughts and comments. SafeTracks has been honoured to work with the Senate committee to create a proof-of-concept to illustrate and educate all of those involved.
The problem has been identified. The solution has been tested. It is time to provide a proactive solution and not a reactive one.
In closing, I would just like to say that we need to be tough on domestic violence while being honest about domestic violence so that we can be smart about domestic violence. The only thing harder than stepping up to stop domestic violence is explaining why we didn’t. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Morelli.
Now, Mr. Marshall, you have five minutes for your presentation.
Peter Marshall, Chief Executive Officer and Legal Director, Recovery Science Corporation: Good morning.
Recovery Science Corporation is an Ontario-based company. We’ve been operating GPS-monitoring programs since 2012, beginning with our own privately paid GPS-monitoring program, which has been used in well over 2,000 cases, mostly bails. We also now operate the government-funded program recently established by the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General that uses GPS monitoring for bails, conditional sentences, paroles, intermittent sentences and temporary absence permits.
I am a lawyer and have a master’s degree in criminal law. It is my hope that our practical experience and my legal background may be of assistance to the committee today.
That concludes my opening remarks.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
I’ll now ask Mr. Simpson to make his presentation. You have five minutes, sir.
Brian Simpson, Retired Police Officer, Edmonton Police Service, as an individual: Senators, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.
I was a police officer for 36 years. The first 30 years were with the RCMP, and the last 6 with the City of Edmonton. In those 36 years, I was also involved with women’s shelters, first through the board in Ermineskin in the community of Maskwacis in central Alberta, then in Red Deer at the Central Alberta Women’s Emergency Shelter and then at the provincial level at the Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters.
I’ve been involved in this process and dealing with domestic violence as a police officer, but also as a concerned individual recognizing the need for change.
I’m going to give some quick thoughts in terms of what I have experienced, and I would be happy to elaborate later in questions. The first thing is that the victims in these situations were involved in the research project in the city of Red Deer, and the biggest thing I saw for the victims was the fact that they saw that we cared. We actually took action and demonstrated that we took their issues seriously and that we were doing something about it. It was more than a piece of paper, and it carried a lot of weight in terms of supporting those individuals as they dealt with it.
An interesting anecdotal observation also was with the accused. Often, they were surprised at the level of attention they were getting as a result of their actions. Unfortunately, in terms of their life experience, they had grown up in a situation where their actions were often minimized or, to a certain degree, accepted. This process actually created accountability and told them that we were taking it seriously and that their actions would not be tolerated in the community.
From a policing perspective, monitoring helped in terms of investigational time, being that it provided actual hard physical evidence. Often, in some of these cases, there were just two individuals vocalizing their observations and thoughts about how events unfolded, with no independent witnesses, technology or evidence to support the actual event.
The other piece was that by having the monitoring done outside of the policing agency, it actually didn’t encumber the police in terms of administrative time in terms of working through the monitoring process. Those are direct benefits derived.
Regarding the experience in terms of urban versus rural, there are challenges in both: in an urban setting, you have the challenge of the volume of cases, and the rural issue is time and distance. Once again, you have to do a risk assessment when you are exposed to these situations and see what can work best. This idea of electronic monitoring mitigates — it doesn’t solve — but it moves things in the right direction and becomes a tool that can be used in either environment, depending on the circumstances.
Funding is also an issue with this. Most provinces and territories have funding models for victims of crime that help support such programs. That is just a consideration and thought as this moves forward.
The key component here is education. First and foremost for the police, the generalists who respond to calls needed a basic understanding of what these programs need. Then for the specialists within the policing agency, it’s important they understand and then do follow-up around the day-to-day-monitoring of individuals.
The other piece is the education of judges and lawyers so that they have an understanding and appreciate what this tool can do and when it should be applied and not applied. There are risk-assessment tools out there — each province has one — to look at where we need to do this, because it’s not realistic to monitor each and every individual. But that’s where the risk assessment becomes important.
With that, I just wanted to say that I do support the amendments proposed by Bill S-205. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Simpson. Now we’re going to go to questions. Each senator will be entitled to four minutes to make sure we have a full round first. I’ll start with Senator Boisvenu, to whom I will give five minutes because he’s the sponsor of the bill.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you all very much for being here today. Your participation is very important to help us understand the technology that can be used for GPS monitoring.
My first question is for Mr. Marshall. Two thousand cases is a pretty sizable number when it comes to determining the measure’s effectiveness. Can you tell us a bit about how the monitoring works? We’ve often heard that the device is active on two levels, one that is preventative, and another that is triggered when the offender is closer to the victim. Can you explain how the monitoring process works and talk about its effectiveness concerning the margin for error?
[English]
Mr. Marshall: I can begin by explaining the process.
In most of our cases in the past, which were mostly bail cases, and now also with conditional sentences in Ontario, it would be a judge making the decision about whether the individual before them would be detained pending their trial or released with conditions. The condition of GPS monitoring is available to them under what I call the “basket clause” of the sections of the Criminal Code that allow judges to impose conditions they consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
As Mr. Simpson said, a very important route of the process is the risk assessment that is being conducted by the judge in assessing the risk that the individual presents and applying legal tests for bail. Specifically, the assessment is around whether the risks the person can present can be satisfactorily mitigated with conditions, which could include GPS monitoring and conditions about how far away the individual needs to reside from the potential victim so there can be a distance between them in addition to electronic monitoring. The judge may consider conditions such as large no-go zones; that is not just a small distance around the victim’s home or workplace but is a large area where the victim knows the accused is not allowed to go. Therefore, the victim can move freely within that area, knowing the accused’s presence in that area would be detected and reported to police.
If the judge decides that the GPS monitoring can be a part of the release plan, the set of conditions, they order the monitoring, we install the bracelet and we do the monitoring and make any reports to police that may arise if the individual is not complying with their conditions.
Similarly, in conditional sentences, a judge is making that decision, applying the legal test to determine whether a person is eligible for a conditional sentence and whether the conditions with GPS monitoring would satisfactorily mitigate any risk the individual presents of committing offences if they’re allowed to serve a conditional sentence in the community. Again, that comes down to the risk assessment that the judge is doing. I very much agree with Mr. Simpson that education of judges, of Crown attorneys, of defence lawyers, of everybody in the criminal justice system is a key part of any use of electronic monitoring.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: What about the system’s effectiveness?
[English]
Mr. Marshall: I don’t think there’s a concrete answer to that. It’s effective in the sense that it provides objective data of the individual’s location. It provides evidence, as Mr. Simpson said, if the individual does breach. It’s not a he said/she said situation; you have objective evidence of whether they breached conditions or not.
To try to boil down effectiveness to an error rate or an overall effectiveness, we need to have a long and deep discussion with experts in criminology, for example, about what counts as being effective. Is it how often somebody breaches their conditions? If so, do you attribute either the breaching of the condition or the compliance with conditions solely to the electronic monitoring aspect, or do you look at other variables such as whether the risk assessment was effective in the first place, was it the right decision to make or were there other conditions that were used with the GPS monitoring that were effective or did they contribute to the non-compliance? There’s not an easy answer to that question.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
In your experience, Mr. Morelli, is electric monitoring an effective way to deter offenders who don’t comply with requirements to stay away from their victims? Is GPS monitoring an effective way to protect victims?
[English]
Mr. Morelli: Thank you very much for the question. I wholeheartedly support the use of electronic monitoring and GPS ankle bracelets. We’ve seen in our history that the technology works. It involves so many different factions. For the victims themselves, we can create static zones around the victim’s home, the victim’s work, the victim’s children’s schools and the victim’s family. At the same time, we can also create zones of inclusion where the offender has to stay during curfew hours or neighbourhoods that he’s not supposed to attend. That is the first step of the preventative maintenance for this individual.
We also have the ability with our system to put a phone app called Empower on a cellphone for the victim, and we can create a safe bubble around the victim as she travels throughout her everyday experience. If the ankle bracelet gets too close to her presence, then we would get alerted and we would do our protocols, for which we have a reaction time of three minutes.
The system works very well. It is that added level of safety and security that the victim desires, wishes for and needs.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our witnesses here on the panel.
My first question is for Mr. Marshall. Regarding your answer to Senator Boisvenu about the factor of error and effectiveness, your answer included the words that “it provides evidence.” What about the effectiveness of it? I have a few questions in that regard.
I’m not sure if your system works outside of the province of Ontario. Perhaps you can share that with me. In that regard, are there concerns about losing tracking ability if an accused flees the province?
Are there enough resources to cover ankle monitoring across Canada, including remote communities? With respect to remote communities, I picked up on something that Mr. Simpson said that I hadn’t thought about. I had been thinking about this in an urban context, but time and distance becomes a factor of success, if you will, in remote communities. I hadn’t really contemplated that. Can you comment on how that gap can get narrowed when the victim is in a remote area? In that regard, are there concerns about range limits for GPS in remote areas?
Mr. Marshall: I’ve made some notes of the various points in your questions. If I miss any, please let me know and I’m happy to come back to them.
In terms of effectiveness — and I think this relates also to your question about how to handle that remote community situation — the first thing any program needs to think about is what the expectation of electronic monitoring is. Is the expectation that you’re going to prevent non-compliance, that you’re going to prevent offending behaviour or that you are going to prevent catastrophic events from unfolding? Is it that you believe you can ensure or facilitate an intervention by the police in an immediate sense, that is, immediate enough to stop an event in progress from happening? Or is the intention and expectation the fact that the individual being monitored will have a deterrent effect on them and make it less likely that they will breach their conditions or potentially commit an act of violence?
In our experience — and I think this would be fairly widely agreed with — the latter is the most reasonable expectation. That is, you’re looking for deterrence and for objective evidence in the event of non-compliance. To have an expectation that the monitoring can prevent non-compliance or ensure an immediate intervention by the police in time to stop somebody from fleeing or committing a violent act is not a reasonable expectation.
How that relates to your question about the kind of distance between people in remote communities, the main concerns when GPS monitoring is being carried out in a remote area, is that you may end up with delayed delivery of the notifications of a breach or delayed delivery of the GPS data of where the individual wearing that bracelet has been. The GPS portion of the technology will still be working; it will still be connecting with the satellite to coordinate its location. However, if it has compromised access to a cellular system in order to deliver its accumulating location data and any violation alerts to the software and to the individuals receiving those alerts, then there’s going to be a delay in those notifications. That may be of concern if your expectation is an immediate intervention in an event. It may be of less concern if your expectation is deterrence and having objective evidence.
You asked one question about resources across the country.
The Acting Chair: In 30 seconds. Thank you.
Mr. Marshall: The answer is no, there are not sufficient resources around the country. That’s one reason why our private program became such a large program, because we enabled individuals to pay privately for the program. Of course, not everybody can. The Government of Ontario is now making it widely available through funding, but that’s not true in every province.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here today. My first question is for Mr. Simpson. Glad we were able to get you back today.
During its recent study on intimate partner and domestic violence, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women was told the use of electronic monitoring devices must come with training for police services to develop the skills needed to respond to the alarm signals sent by the devices. What needs to be done to ensure that police officers across Canada are properly trained on how to respond to the signals sent by the devices and to ensure that the safety of survivors is guaranteed?
Mr. Simpson: Thank you for the question, senator. It’s a good question.
There are two pieces to it. First, I looked at policing at various levels. It’s important for the generalists or the front-line response officers to have an understanding that the program exists and what it can do for them. They need a basic understanding so that when they’re responding, they know the information or intelligence they’re getting is accurate and important to act upon.
The other piece is for the specialists, your domestic violence units or like units, that support the victims and who do those types of investigations. They need to have a better understanding and relationship with the community and with whomever is providing those services to have good communication on the effectiveness of the tool as applied on a day-to-day basis and also follow up with the victims in terms of any concerns or issues they may have.
So it’s twofold.
In terms of the generalists, their education should be in line with the community’s education. The community should have the same level of understanding. It’s not a specific training program; it’s more about a communication process to make sure the community and those front-line officers understand the importance of this.
That is happening, because I expect my officers to have empathy and compassion, regardless of what the event was. That’s a key component, and that should be there long before that happens.
Senator Batters: Mr. Morelli, you indicated you’re from Red Deer. I’m assuming you have a fair bit of experience in the more rural and remote areas in Alberta, perhaps, with your particular organization. I’m wondering if you have any concerns about how electronic monitoring would be available to people in remote regions.
Second, if accused persons are required to cover the costs of electronic monitoring, are you concerned that only wealthier individuals will then be able to participate in electronic monitoring programs further to their judicial interim release conditions?
Maybe you could give us a bit of an indication as to what the possible costs are. Thank you.
Mr. Morelli: Thank you for that question.
In Alberta, as per what Mr. Marshall stated, with our system, we’re collecting the data every two seconds, creating a packet and we ship the packet via cellular notifications every minute. Cellular connectivity is a stumbling block in places where there are not enough cell towers.
Fortunately, in Alberta, because of the oil programs, there are cell towers everywhere. But there are challenging areas. As you go east or west, there will be that challenge.
But before we take on any application for a GPS ankle bracelet conditional release or release, we will verify that we do have good connectivity in that area to support the court’s order. Our biggest thing would be to make sure that if there’s a victim involved, we can verify that we’re going to be able to provide that safety and security for her. If we do not feel that it’s acceptable, we would just make it known that it’s not a good fit to have that bracelet or for that individual to be released due to the connectivity of the communication links.
That’s how we do that.
In terms of the private rentals, some would say that’s a two-tiered relationship and only the rich get out. No, I don’t think so. There’s funding through legal aid. If an individual has a plan that, once released, they’re going into rehab or doing something to better their lives, we fully support that. If the offender who has been out of the community wants to become a different person in the community, to better himself and better his life, and he wants to pay for it, so be it.
The pricing varies in Canada from $400 a month to $750 a month, depending on how much we have to touch the file. Thank you.
Senator Cotter: Thank you to the witnesses for the enlightening presentations. They are much appreciated.
Senator Batters asked a couple of the questions I had contemplated asking, but the one that really jumps out for me is mainly a question for Mr. Simpson and Mr. Marshall. As I understand your presentations, pretty well all of the engagement with respect to electronic monitoring, in your experience and in your work, is connected with court-ordered electronic monitoring as part of a release order. Mr. Marshall, you referred to bail, conditional sentences, parole, et cetera.
One dimension of this bill contemplates that, as a component of an undertaking so that you would not be put in jail, a police officer would be in a position to order or require an undertaking that included electronic monitoring.
I noticed, in particular, Mr. Simpson, your reference to the need for judicial training to assess risk.
As valuable as electronic monitoring might be at these very early stages, is it practicable? Second, can we have confidence that police officers will be able to make the risk assessments in those circumstances that we are presently asking judges to do?
Mr. Simpson: Thank you for the very good question.
As I indicated earlier, there are generalists and specialists. When you have specialized units, they would have training above the norm to address these issues and would also have to go through the risk-assessment process.
As I stated earlier, you’re not going to apply this in every circumstance. You want to utilize your resources to the best of your ability and prioritize what you see as a risk to the community based on the information you have.
It will be very important to have the due diligence to ensure that there is a proper application of this process to meet that priority and the perceived potential risk in the community posed by these individuals. You have to ensure there is training for the individuals responsible for that piece of it, absolutely.
Mr. Marshall: I certainly wouldn’t categorically oppose the concept of police officers being able to include a GPS-monitoring condition in an undertaking.
Echoing what Mr. Simpson said, it’s complicated. I don’t think it’s a good idea to just throw in GPS monitoring as a condition sort of reflexively. To be effective, careful consideration must be given to the specific circumstances of a particular case and how the other conditions, such as inclusion zones and exclusion zones, are set up to manage the dynamics of that particular case and how GPS monitoring supports those other conditions.
It may be that, in many cases, it would end up being something that would be better dealt with through the process and perspectives that are involved in a court proceeding.
Senator Cotter: Thank you.
Mr. Morelli, along those same lines, you were describing that you would decline to take on an electronic monitoring case in a circumstance where maybe the GPS coverage is ineffective or for other similar technological reasons. If a police officer extracts an undertaking for somebody in these kinds of intimate partner violence circumstances as a condition of their release, would that work practically from your point of view? I’m trying to imagine the directive and the undertaking, and then you guys saying you can’t do it for that situation.
Mr. Morelli: Thank you very much.
I believe, and I believe Mr. Simpson has stated, that we need to have everyone at the table when these decisions are being made. The police need to understand and be educated about the limitations of the GPS cellular technology. That’s at the forefront. We do not want to put a victim in harm’s way because of poor cell service. We’ve run operations all across Canada, with Canada Border Services Agency and with Prince Edward Island. We just started up a new program in Quebec where we are using our technology to support the ministère de la Sécurité Publique by providing GPS ankle bracelets and our Empower app for domestic violence. In that scenario, we had everyone at the table: the police, the community leaders and the government. Everyone has to be there to have the buy-in and to make sure that everyone moving forward is working together, through and through.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
I have a question for Mr. Simpson. You are the first so far to tell the committee that GPS monitoring is a way to hold abusers accountable for their actions. If I’m not mistaken, you said that these were individuals who were used to their unacceptable behaviour being accepted. Do you have any specific data in that connection? It could be helpful to us.
[English]
Mr. Simpson: Senator, thank you for the question. I don’t have specific data. A lot of this information I’m giving to you is based on my anecdotal experiences in terms of talking with these offenders, hearing their perspectives, where they’ve come from and the impact of actually having the device on them. It really was an aha moment for them in terms of this is serious. It did make that difference. The other side, as I indicated earlier, was for the victims too. They saw this action as their concerns being taken seriously and that something was going to happen out of the process.
I don’t believe there’s any data that I’m aware of — I stand to be corrected — that would support your question. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Thank you very much for that answer, Mr. Simpson. I have a question for Mr. Morelli and Mr. Marshall. You said GPS monitoring could not be used in some rural or remote areas. You told us everything the system was capable of, but can you tell us about the other barriers of GPS monitoring? We may not have asked you the right questions so far. Can you tell us what the barriers are, on top of the fact that the system isn’t available in some areas?
[English]
Mr. Marshall: One of the big barriers is one that’s already been touched on, namely, the availability of resources to pay for the monitoring. It’s not just the basic monitoring cost of putting the ankle bracelet on an individual and monitoring them. Once we start talking about programs like the one Mr. Morelli is involved with in Quebec, and has been involved in elsewhere, where you’re involving the victim and victim notification, there becomes an expectation of more dedicated police units, and, obviously, those things have resource implications. How do you fund the supports for the victim, which they’re going to require if they’re getting notifications? They need to know what to do if they get those notifications. They need to have their questions answered. If there are going to be dedicated police units that are essentially standing by to respond to these notifications because the victim is expecting them to do so, that obviously has immense resource implications for the police. I’ll let Mr. Morelli carry on from there.
Mr. Morelli: What we have found — and I’m pretty sure that Mr. Simpson could quantify this — is that utilizing GPS ankle bracelets became a force multiplier. Instead of police monitoring these individuals and checking in on them, the technology created the data that was able to validate that the individual was being accountable and compliant with the court order, allowing the police to police, to do their job. We believe that we need the police involved in all aspects of this.
Electronic monitoring, domestic violence and the diversion program would be perfect where the police, who know the situation about what’s happening on the streets and in the homes, could provide that electronic monitoring to those individuals so they can try to get their life back on track. The victim can have her quality of life back, as can her children, her family, her parents — everyone is involved with this. We believe wholeheartedly that providing this technology would be a win-win for all.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Mr. Morelli, do you have any data from your pilot project on the rate of non-compliance with orders?
[English]
The Acting Chair: Mr. Morelli or Mr. Marshall, do you have any data that you could provide about non-compliance?
Mr. Morelli: Yes, sir.
The Acting Chair: If you could provide it to the committee in writing, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Morelli: Yes. I can supply you with the Alberta pilot and some information and data from the Prince Edward Island project, along with some information regarding the Quebec project that is on its way.
The Acting Chair: The same for you, Mr. Marshall, if you could.
Mr. Marshall: Yes. I’ll provide what I can. I would add the proviso again that this kind of data has to be taken with an understanding of the variables. Just because we report a violation or a possible violation based on GPS data — on a bail situation, for example — that doesn’t mean the individual is ultimately convicted of that breach offence. It may be that the police don’t act on it. It may be that those charges are dropped. There’s a lot of kind of fuzziness to that kind of data.
The Acting Chair: It would be quite appreciated if it could be done as soon as possible, if you have it handy, because we’re going to move to clause-by-clause consideration next week. It would be appreciated if you could send it to us before the end of the week. I know I’m imposing, but you work in a fast world, where everything is instant.
Senator Pate: Thank you to the witnesses. I’d like to pick up on the cost issues. We heard it’s $400 to $750 per month for one of the companies. I’d like to ask that we receive information as to how much it costs per person, per month and whether that is variable by region. Also, if there’s a map available to show where there is connectivity and not, I’d like to receive that. As was already pointed out by the chair earlier, we had connectivity issues last week for you, and you’re in central areas.
I’d also like to know what your annual profits are for your companies in terms of how much you’re making on this and whether, in fact, you’re still registered as lobbyists.
I have a particular question for Mr. Marshall. Given your experience as a Crown prosecutor and as legal counsel for the Children’s Aid Society, I believe it was you who, before the House of Commons committee, talked about the impact of these issues in child custody matters as well as family law matters. We heard yesterday from a witness about the fact that this technology has been used. One of the risks is that it’s being used against women in situations where child welfare notifications happen because of violence in the home.
If you could comment on that as well, that would be great. Thank you.
Mr. Marshall: I would ask for clarification on the latter part of that question. I didn’t quite understand the question about the child welfare connection.
Senator Pate: When there’s a violence against women notification, often child welfare is notified if there are children in the home in order to assess whether they are at risk. We heard yesterday evidence that women have been risking losing custody and have lost custody of their children.
Mr. Marshall: Not so much related —
The Acting Chair: To whom do you notify?
Senator Pate: It’s related to the monitoring in the sense that if it goes off, there’s a report, and if the woman is somehow seen to be responsible in the situation —
Mr. Marshall: I don’t think the monitoring company would have the information available to make a report, for example, to the Children’s Aid Society. Everybody does have a duty to report if there are concerns that a child is at risk. I’m not sure that we, as monitoring companies, would ever have information beyond the conditions contained in the court order. We would make reports to the police and then it would be up to the police, if they’re aware of circumstances that leave a child at risk or place a child at risk, to fulfill their duty to report.
Senator Pate: I was more interested because of your experience as a Crown prosecutor whether you would be concerned about that. It sounds like you’re not.
Mr. Marshall: To clarify, I wasn’t a Crown prosecutor. I worked for the government as an internal advisory lawyer, and I worked at the Children’s Aid Society, but I didn’t work as a prosecutor.
Senator Pate: My apologies for my mistake.
In terms of the profit issue, the costs, profit and availability of technology, would you both be able to answer that?
Mr. Marshall: Cost-wise, in our privately funded program the costs range from $360 a month to $540 a month. We have a sliding scale based on whether the individual has qualified for legal aid and on the amount posted on bail. The amount posted on bail reflects a means test essentially applied by the court.
Any cost that would be to a government agency funding a program would vary based on the requirements of the program. Profit-wise, we’re a private company, so I would respectfully decline to answer what our profits are.
Senator Pate: Mr. Morelli, same questions. Costs, GPS availability and your profits.
Mr. Morelli: There again, as per Mr. Marshall, we, too, are a private entity. We put back into our technology what we get out of it, for example, by building new servers, creating new technology, supporting different shelters and trying to help and fund stuff. There again, we’re not an open book when it comes to our financials. However, we do put back into the community and back into our corporation to increase and stay fast on our technology.
Senator Pate: And as to the availability of the technology across the country? Do you have a map or something describing where the technology is available and where it is not available?
Mr. Morelli: Our technology is available across Canada and the territories. Again, as I said in one of my first statements, we validate and verify before we move forward with providing technology. Common sense comes into play with this immensely. We would never put anyone in danger if we could not properly support the program.
Senator Clement: Thank you to the witnesses. I want to come back to the risk assessment comments that both Mr. Simpson and Mr. Marshall made. Mr. Simpson, you were saying that every province has a risk assessment tool. If you could speak to how consistent those risk assessment tools are across the country, that would be appreciated.
My second question is for Mr. Morelli. I know you’re going to be providing data, as requested by the chair, but we had a witness yesterday say that people wearing the bracelet can find ways to get around it and to continue to live their lives. It’s not seen as much of a punishment if they can continue to do their things. I understand there’s a protection piece for the victim, but could you comment on that aspect?
So risk assessment for Mr. Simpson and then Mr. Morelli.
Mr. Simpson: Thank you, senator. I’m familiar with the risk assessment process in Alberta because I have utilized it, but I do know they exist right across the country. There are a lot of common threads relative to those assessments in terms of what they look at in terms of the victim, the perpetrator and what’s gone on. All those pieces — basically, the facts of the case and the circumstances of the individuals — come into play in determining the level of risk related to the particular event. Past history is a big indicator in that whole process. That becomes part of it.
As part of an assessment, looking at the risk, connectivity and everything being available is great, but, in a rural area, if a police officer can’t get there for 40 to 50 minutes, the tool is not going to be of much use in a small community. Once again, there are practicalities that have to apply in doing that risk assessment to ensure that the individuals involved have an understanding and that things are in the proper perspective so that it doesn’t create a false expectation in terms of delivery of safety.
Mr. Morelli: Thank you very much for the question. We’ve seen individuals who are fitted with the GPS ankle bracelet. If they’re willing and actually wanting to reintegrate into the community and not become that prolific offender, we do see some great behaviours — that is, going to rehab, getting back into his job, his work, everything. I believe we should support that, as long as he’s being accountable and compliant to the court orders that have been put forth for him. We’ve seen great instances where, after six months, or a year, the individual is doing his best to be that good person that he once was and trying to move his life forward.
We had an instance in Edmonton where we had an ankle bracelet on a high-risk sexual offender. When it came time to take the bracelet off, as he was done, he mentioned to us that the bracelet was helping him. In his mind, there were two people, one of which was the guy who was abiding by the ankle bracelet because he knew that he was being monitored and he understood what a breach would mean to him. What was scary for him was thinking that if the bracelet was not there, then the other person would show up who would walk into that playground, and who knows?
I do believe that if the technology is used properly, we can fix a lot of this and get some people on the right track. No one wants to be a bad person.
The Acting Chair: We started a bit behind schedule, so we’ll extend for another few minutes.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My question is for Mr. Morelli.
Mr. Morelli, the main purpose of this bill is to protect women from being killed by their abusers and to deter abusers from violating their release conditions.
Do you think the bill will ensure that women are better protected and deter abusers from violating their release conditions?
[English]
Mr. Morelli: Thank you very much for the question.
I am 100% in favour of this bill. We’ve seen it, and we know how it works. It’s great technology, and it allows the victim or survivor to create the quality of life she deserves and desires. So I support this bill 100%. Thank you.
Senator Klyne: My question is for Mr. Morelli. I’ll make it quick. Hopefully, I’ll get quick answers, because I have another one for Mr. Simpson.
Do the zones that get set — where they can’t go and where they must be — come through a court order, or is that something that is an upsell, pardon the phrase?
Mr. Morelli: That comes through a court order. The court decides that the individual is, let’s say, in a house arrest scenario or a curfew scenario and cannot attend the victim’s home, the victim’s work, the children’s school, the victim’s parents —
Senator Klyne: I get that. Thank you.
GPS does have its limitations in that it can’t stop an accused person. If they’re hell-bent on it, they’re there. It can only alert the police. I’ll come back to that question with Mr. Simpson.
But I think the ideal objective here would be to prevent non-compliance or promote deterrence effectively and also promote immediate and timely intervention. You won’t have time to answer this, but in terms of the concerns of dealing with any shortcomings, what are the resolutions that might address those concerns? Again, if you can find the time to reply in writing, I’d appreciate it.
On the remote side of things, does your organization or the overall program consider anything like Starlink or OnStar to closing the gap on cellular issues?
Mr. Morelli: I’m going to take that question, I think.
For our solution for domestic violence, we have an ankle bracelet on that has a 95-decibel siren. We also have a cellphone built into it so that we can create an intervention immediately to assess the wearer’s frame of mind. Also, if that individual breaches the exclusion zone and gets into the house, with that phone that we have operational, we can check the temperature of what is going on in that house. Our second feature is one for which we use a phone app. We’ve partnered with Samsung and TELUS across Canada to provide cellular technology to the victims. An early warning to the victim will also enhance the survival, safety and security of the victim.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. On that note, we have to conclude this panel. Before thanking the panellists, I want to say about last week that we had to cancel not because of a problem of connectivity but because we had a technical problem on this side in the Senate Chamber. That is to clarify.
To conclude, thank you very much, Mr. Morelli, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Simpson. You have brought to the attention of the committee a lot of useful information, and we thank you very much for participating today.
I now have the pleasure to welcome to the committee Ms. Emilie Coyle from the Elizabeth Fry Societies, who is a familiar face to this committee. As individuals, we welcome Ms. Diane Tremblay and Ms. Mary E. Campbell, who are in the room, and by video conference, we have Mr. Scott Newark, a former Crown attorney from Alberta and a former executive officer of the Canadian Police Association. Again, unfortunately, yesterday we could not connect with him, but today it’s working; he has the right microphone. Thank you very much to all the witnesses. We will start with Ms. Coyle. You have five minutes.
Emilie Coyle, Executive, Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies: I’m pleased to be with you here again today. As always, I’m grateful to bring forward the perspective of the criminalized women and gender-diverse people we work on behalf of and alongside.
In my role as Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, I primarily work on the unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinaabe territory, which is where I am today with you.
I’ll focus my comments today on CAEFS’s position on electronic monitoring. I’ll start by saying that I understand the desire of wanting to try to protect people who have experienced intimate partner violence by using whatever technological advances are available to us. Indeed, many, if not most, of the women and gender-diverse people that we work with have experienced this kind of violence. We can all agree that women and gender-diverse people are disproportionately victims of intimate partner violence as a result of the ways in which our patriarchal and misogynist society oppresses them.
Data from the Correctional Service Canada demonstrates that women and gender-diverse people in prison are more likely to have a history of physical or sexual abuse. This is especially true, as you have heard from other witnesses, for Indigenous women who also have the additional experience of colonial oppression, and thereby experience intimate partner violence at even higher rates than non-Indigenous women. With this in mind, we are concerned about how this legislation will affect the people that we work with, some of whom are the most vulnerable people in our society.
Every time we make legislative change in the name of protecting vulnerable people, we must ask ourselves key questions. Despite our laudable goals, what might be the unintended consequences of this initiative? Could we be making already vulnerable people more vulnerable with this effort?
In the case of this legislation, we must ask, will this legislation stop intimate partner violence from happening in Canada, or will it utilize necessary resources that could be spent on prevention? Will it address the root causes of intimate partner violence: misogyny and patriarchy? I have a strong suspicion that it will not.
These questions point us to examples where well-intentioned legislation has gone awry in the past and caused further harm rather than preventing it, largely because it was rooted in carceral responses. A clear example of this is mandatory charging in cases of intimate partner violence here in Ontario, which was initially applauded by those who worked in the violence against women sector.
This law targets the “dominant aggressor.” Assumptions were made that this would be the man and that women would be kept safer. However, the law led to dual-charging, a practice where both parties were charged because there were circumstances where the police could not ascertain who was the instigator; thus, the very people who were meant to be kept safe were ultimately duly punished by our justice system.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the woman fleeing violence who throws a toy in self-defence; this toy becomes the weapon in the assault-with-a-weapon charge that is then laid on her.
The women and gender-diverse people that we work with would not be — and I’ve said this before to this committee in the context of other bills — considered perfect victims. They are people who have been victims, yes, but also perpetrators of harm and, as such, there’s a very real possibility that, should this bill pass, they would be the ones who would be wearing the electronic monitoring bracelets.
The stigma that is associated with wearing the bracelet would exacerbate the marginalization they already face. We know that racism and other forms of bias exist in our justice system from policing to the courts. This piece of legislation, if passed, could potentially do more harm than good for the women and gender-diverse people we work with, given that they are already overly surveilled and overly punished.
Can you please tell me how much time I have left?
The Acting Chair: About one minute.
Ms. Coyle: Addressing gender-based and intimate partner violence cannot be reactive. It must be a multi-pronged approach. Action needs to be taken by introducing a swath of initiatives aimed at getting at the root cause of the harm.
We argue that in order to do this we need to shift our focus away from a carceral response to a more sustainable and long-term approach. We need national awareness-raising efforts. We need a robust mental health care system where everyone can access the support that they need to be healthy.
We need basic universal income to ensure people do not remain with their violent partners for economic reasons. We need readily available counselling services. After all, intimate partner violence is a social issue and not just a private one.
Survivors often list services like social workers, financial assistance, housing, culturally specific resources, mediators, domestic violence specialists, peers, community prevention or de-escalation — and the list goes on — in the services that they ask for.
We know that we must and we can interrupt intimate partner violence, keeping the survivors of intimate partner violence at the centre of all of our efforts. Any one of us in this room could have experienced this type of violence. Knowing this, would we not and should we not be concentrating all of our efforts on preventing harm from happening in the first place?
Ultimately, electronic monitoring is an expensive undertaking that does not touch on the underlying cause of intimate partner violence.
Thank you for your time.
[Translation]
Diane Tremblay, as an individual: Good afternoon. Thank you for having me, and thank you to Senator Boisvenu.
Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Diane Tremblay. I am Indigenous and I am a victim of domestic and family violence.
The reason I am here today is to express my full support for Bill S-205, sponsored by Senator Boisvenu — legislation that finally takes meaningful action to support victims, who, for the most part, are women. That includes Indigenous women who face domestic and family violence.
Specifically, I am here to show my support for Indigenous women, who are overrepresented in the victim population. The large numbers of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada attest to the widespread violence against Indigenous women.
As victims, we deserve a justice system that keeps us and our children safe.
I mention children because I protected mine by getting them out of the house. I had to spend three years away from them, putting them in their father’s care to keep them safe. I did not see my father, my mother or my friends for three whole years, because everyone around me was at risk. I had to shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that everyone I loved was safe. I want all of that to be taken into account, because it took tremendous effort and courage to keep myself away from my loved ones.
I bear the scars to this day. I do everything I can to protect women so that they don’t have to experience the violent behaviour and suffering I did. It marks you for life.
I am here today because I love life, I love my family, I love my friends, and I care deeply about women and victims who are going through what I did. It should not happen. I hope our voices will be heard today. It’s time for things to change. That wasn’t part of my prepared statement, but it comes from the bottom of my heart.
This is 2022. How many more victims of domestic violence do there have to be, how many more women and children have to be killed before you agree to change existing legislation in a major way?
I was a victim of domestic violence, and during that difficult time in my life, I was sexually assaulted, and I faced psychological, verbal and financial abuse. Not only did my abuser — a repeat offender — subject me to inexplicable and unimaginable violence, but he also tried to kill me twice. Had my abuser been required to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet under a section 810 order, as proposed in Senator Boisvenu’s bill, my children, my family, my parents and I would have been safer. I would never have had to endure multiple attempts on my life. Believe me, when someone tries to kill you, you don’t walk away unscathed. Those wounds are for life.
I sincerely believe that, if my abuser, a repeat offender, had been subject to electric monitoring, I could have easily proven that he had violated the conditions of his release multiple times. The police could have gotten involved sooner, saving me and my family from having to go through this horrific ordeal.
As an Indigenous person, and on behalf of those who live in rural areas, I can tell you how crucial this would be to our safety as women, since they, too, could have access to cellphone-based monitoring. They would be safe, and the electronic monitoring device would create a safety perimeter around the victim — a boundary between them and their abuser — while helping to prove that the offender had violated their conditions of release, because, most of the time, they do.
In addition to electronic monitoring, the bill includes measures to help violent men, such as being required to receive addiction treatment or domestic violence counselling. Some men can be helped, and they can change their behaviour, and that is the bill’s aim. The bill would actually benefit both sides: the man would get the opportunity to change, and the woman and her family would be safe.
The Acting Chair: Ms. Tremblay, unfortunately, you’re going to have to conclude your remarks. The senators have a lot of questions. Perhaps you can say one last thing?
Ms. Tremblay: I’ll wrap up right away.
On behalf of myself and all victims of domestic and family violence, I would like to thank Senator Boisvenu for the opportunity to lend my voice to this fight. I am calling on the Senate of Canada, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, judges and every province in Canada to implement this bill and take action. Otherwise, tomorrow will never come for many victims.
As soon as the victim’s safety is in danger, the offender must be made to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. We all have the right to live in peace, to be safe and to be treated fairly in this country. That is what we want. Protect us.
Thank you. Kitchi meegwetch.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Tremblay. I know how hard it is for a victim to appear before a group of senators or members of Parliament. I know this isn’t your first time speaking in Parliament. You were here a few years ago. Let me assure you that, every time you appear before parliamentarians, we appreciate it.
[English]
Ms. Campbell, you have five minutes. Thank you.
Mary E. Campbell, as an individual: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the chance to appear before this committee once again. I appreciate very much the leadership this committee has shown in taking on these issues, which are, as my friend has so graphically described, so important for everyone in this country. I think we’re all united in the goals of greater safety for everyone in the country, especially those who are particularly victimized.
Ms. Tremblay: Thank you.
Ms. Campbell: I want to speak very briefly to the two parts of the bill. We have heard nothing this morning about the peace bond section, so I do want to touch on that a little bit.
Being a lawyer, I started, of course, on the section 501 and section 515 elements of interim release by reading the current sections to see what was in there and what might be lacking or unclear. I must say that both of those sections are quite comprehensive. They both have basket clauses that allow for any reasonable conditions to be imposed. There are specific ones listed, but those are examples, as we all know.
Some of the amendments that would be made to section 515 are a little bit problematic, for example, imposing treatment on someone who has not yet been to trial or entered a plea. They are presumed to be not guilty and, therefore, could rightly say that a treatment order would be out of line. The bottom line on that part of the bill is that I just don’t see the changes as being necessary. What is in there is more than ample.
I don’t want to leave that area without touching on electronic monitoring. I have followed electronic monitoring, along with my colleague Dr. Jim Bonta, for, probably, three decades now. The reason? If you know anything about me, you know that I would leap at anything that would keep people safely out of the hellhole of prison, so you might be surprised to hear that I am not a fan of electronic monitoring. I started by paying attention to what was involved and then by following the research, and, of course, Dr. Bonta has been central in that research.
I’m sorry, but the research really is, at best, inconclusive that EM, electronic monitoring, adds anything. There will be particular situations; there will be anecdotes, but overall, the research is not there to support it. What is supported? I can give you a long list of things that do work, but EM, unfortunately, is not supported as one of them.
Very quickly on the peace bonds, I guess I’m one of the last living public servants who worked on expansion of the peace bonds back in the early and mid-1990s. I’m happy to be alive, so that’s the good news. In my background document, I tried to set out what the pressures were at the time when we created two new peace bonds — and they were very particular pressures — and what we tried to achieve with those.
We now have, as I note, an expansion of the number of peace bonds. I think we’re up to six different section 810 orders, a recognizance under section 83, and now we have potentially two more section 810 orders with this bill and a private member’s bill from the other place.
I wish I could give you data on the history of section 810 orders and whether they’ve been successful. Are they followed? Are they breached? Are they good at protecting women in particular from partners who may be seeking to do harm? Unfortunately, that information is not collected routinely by the Department of Justice Canada or Statistics Canada. I spoke to a colleague there about getting a special survey done. I love you all, but I don’t love you $500 much, I’m afraid.
If any senator were to try to get the data, I suspect you could get it at no cost, so we would know how many orders are out there, what the success rate has been and what the problems have been. We just don’t have that.
In terms of the new peace bond order that would be proposed here, it really is identical to what exists, particularly to section 810, the original peace bond, other than in — if I may put it this way — the harshness of the penalties. We know from research that harshness is not a deterrent. Most people don’t know what the penalties are — they don’t have any idea — and that’s the last thing that is really going to deter them.
The thing to remember about peace bonds is that the person has not been convicted of anything. Nothing. They are sitting at home one day, and the next day they’re brought into court to answer to the fears that have been raised, and I don’t minimize those fears at all.
My submission is that the new peace bond really could be achieved through the existing section 810. Indeed, if you look at the transition clause of the bill, an 810 order that is begun prior to this coming into force is simply rolled over into the new bond. Ergo, the two are the same. I would be very leery about creating another one, as people are then dealing with multiple bonds, possibly, and there is no data at this point about how they work.
Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Campbell.
I should have introduced you as retired director general of the Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate in the federal department of Public Safety Canada. You alluded to your expertise, but I wanted everybody to be aware of the context. Thank you very much.
We’ll move to our next witness, Mr. Newark, who is online with us. Mr. Newark is a former Crown attorney in Alberta and the former executive officer of the Canadian Police Association.
Mr. Newark, you have five minutes.
Scott Newark, as an individual: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for inviting me here today.
I’d like to take some of my opening remarks and give you a bit of the background experiences that show the perspective I have on this particular bill.
I’d like to open by congratulating Senator Boisvenu for introducing the bill. While I agree with many of the comments that have been made not only by the panellists immediately preceding me but over the course of your hearings, I think the bill has some significant improvements. I will provide some context for why I think that is so. It is something that I certainly support.
I should mention, first of all — and I won’t bore you with all the details — that I ended up, accidentally, as a biker prosecutor back in 1981, when I started. As a result of that, I got connected to the intelligence side of policing, particularly the RCMP but also the Edmonton and Calgary police. That was important for me because it opened my eyes to some of the realities within our criminal justice system and the importance of dealing with, whether we liked it or not, what were some of the hard realities, such as — as is true today — the fact that a disproportionately large number of crimes are committed by a disproportionately small number of offenders. If you target that reality with either operational policies or public policy, you can get significant public safety results.
Again, as I say, I won’t bother getting into all the details, but as a result of those connections that I had with policing in Alberta, I got involved in some very high-profile cases. Senator Pate might remember a few of them. In effect, we exposed the terrible cases of murders committed by people who had been released from prison who never should have been released from prison. As a result of the connections, I was able to get the information, expose the truth and point out the kinds of changes that needed to be made.
As I’ve subsequently said, I love being a prosecutor, but I also, as I put it, got tired of tripping over the mistakes of the parole system in my courtroom. I realized that the only way to change it was to change laws. Given our criminal justice system, that included federal laws.
One of the cases I had been involved in concerned the murder of a young Edmonton police officer, which is how I got connected to the Canadian Police Association. I founded the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. It was that combination of front-line law enforcement and crime victims trying to get a voice in order to make changes that would make a difference.
People tend to forget. I very much agree with Ms. Campbell’s remarks about keeping a memory of the system. In those days, victims didn’t have a voice in the criminal justice system. Frankly, they weren’t even allowed to attend parole hearings.
Things have definitely changed, and I can tell you that the events Ms. Campbell was referring to with the development and expansion of the peace bonds into preventive recognizances, I was directly involved in that work. I worked closely with the then-Justice Minister, Allan Rock — great guy — as well as Herb Gray, who was Solicitor General at the time. It was targeting things so that we had specific tools so as to be able to deal with specific kinds of circumstances.
One of the principles that I would suggest was apparent then and that is as true today is that in our criminal justice system, one size does not fit all. It’s important to keep that in mind. This sometimes surprises people, but in my view, the genius of our criminal justice system is in its ability to deal with this offender, this offence. That’s what I like in particular about this use, as Senator Boisvenu has put forward, with respect to Bill S-205.
I will mention a couple of points in closing. I’ve sent a note to the clerk, Mr. Chair, with some suggestions in relation to the bill, issues that might be considered.
One is to consider other applications that these kinds of provisions could apply to. I think it was referred to as the “basket clause,” the part that mentions other appropriate conditions. The point of it is that it actually goes back to a 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision called Stillman, which said that anything that will have a significant intrusion on a person’s privacy needs to be either articulated expressly by Parliament or approved by the courts. That’s why putting it into the legislation itself, if you’re going to use electronic monitoring, is important. Equally so, it’s good to see that it’s left as a discretion and not mandated, because that is the reality in which our criminal justice system operates now, as we’re seeing from different Supreme Court rulings —
The Acting Chair: We’ll conclude on this, Mr. Newark, because we are beyond the five minutes. Thank you very much.
We’ll have a first round of questions by Senator Boisvenu.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome to our witnesses.
Ms. Campbell, you said that section 810 orders do a good job of protecting women, so I encourage you to have a look at a recent study. It was done by the Université de Montréal in 2020, and it revealed that, in 50% of cases, the abuser did not comply with section 810 orders, especially the condition to stay away from the victim. If you are looking for research on that, you can check out the Université de Montréal’s study.
Thank you for your courage, Ms. Tremblay. I have tremendous compassion for what you’ve been through. As the chair pointed out, you’ve shared your story of domestic violence before. It’s horrific, and unfortunately it’s a reality many women in Canada face. You represent a group of individuals the justice system does not protect. That is the great contradiction in our system: we ask women to come forward when they are assaulted, but we don’t protect them when they do.
I have just one question for you, and it goes to the very foundation of the bill. You touched on this in your opening remarks. If this legislation had been in place when you were experiencing domestic violence, would you have had to suffer the nightmare of putting your children in the safe care of someone else, fleeing your home and living with the violence to this day, the fear of your abuser, who is still around you? Would the electronic monitoring bracelet have saved you that nightmare in the face of your domestic abuse?
Ms. Tremblay: Yes, definitely. I could have gotten to safety, and the police would have done something right away. This bill provides controls. It’s important to look at the positive side for victims, family safety and children. Creating this framework through the bill, tightening the rules for abusers and, in many cases, murderers, will subject them to scrutiny. Electronic bracelet monitoring and the bill, as a whole, will do that. Offenders can receive treatment and counselling.
I also think the bill will help prevent endless postponements of court hearings. Abusers like to be in control, so they won’t want to be stuck wearing an electronic bracelet and going to counselling for very long. Their own freedom will be impeded. As victims, we have lost that freedom. We have to stay locked up in women’s shelters, in our homes. We can’t come and go as we please. We don’t know when our abuser might kill us. We don’t know when they are going to lose it.
The impact this will have on the abuser’s freedom will certainly incentivize them to change their behaviour, at least I hope so. What’s more, this will protect the victim’s safety and save them all the waiting caused by endless hearing postponements. Every single time the hearing is postponed, the victim relives their ordeal. It never ends. In fact, there should be a law limiting the number of postponements allowed; after so many postponements, the case should have to proceed. That’s an important factor the bill should take into account.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much.
My fellow senators can have the rest of my time to ask questions.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms. Tremblay.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests and thank you for your presentations and opening remarks. My first question is for Ms. Coyle; however, others are able to answer as well.
In your opening remarks, you mentioned that one course of action could be proactive in nature and address the cause. That might include rehabilitation and safe integration and introducing behavioural change. There is also the reactive course of action, which is a deterrent and timely intervention that this legislation offers or affords, which in many cases allows the victim a sense of safety and freedom, freedom to try to lead a normal life.
My question to you is: Why can’t there be both?
Ms. Coyle: That’s an interesting question because there’s been a lot of talk at this committee about the Spanish example of electronic monitoring, which has been ongoing, I believe, since 2009. There have been descriptions of the people who have been using the electronic monitoring. In those stories they told, even now, they do not feel safe leaving their homes, despite the fact that they have the electronic monitoring in place. The reasons for that are unique to each person. In the articles that I was reading, the women said, “We still stay in our home. Our children still stay in our home and we’re monitoring constantly this little phone we have with us every day.”
While I would hope that something like this would be helpful, I still question putting money into something like this. I would prefer for that person to never have been harmed in the first place. A Band-Aid solution like this doesn’t stem the tide of the bleeding that happens to the people that we work with. We want to stem that bleeding. When we take effort and resources away from stemming that bleeding, I worry that we’re going to think this is the answer and we’re going to leave it alone.
Senator Klyne: I’m thinking about the victims because the cause is to meet the cause head on. Ideally, there will be no crimes committed or assaults against victims. But we do have some live, walking victims that would really like to have a normal life.
Ms. Coyle: Of course.
Senator Klyne: From what I’ve heard from witnesses in that case, they get that sense of safety and security and the ability try to lead a normal life with that envelope; that’s the sense they have.
Ms. Coyle: If I may give one other anecdote, there’s a story out of the northern part of Canada where two women who were on conditions of parole were having a party with their partners. It became violent and they called the police. Their conditions of parole were not to drink alcohol. When they called the police to the home to protect them, the police actually charged them with breaching their conditions of parole, and they ended up back in prison.
What I worry about for the people that we work with is that these types of carceral measures are going to end up punishing the people who are the most vulnerable already. I use that as an example every time I think about whether this is going to actually help the people that we want to help.
[Translation]
Ms. Tremblay: That’s a specific case, but as a victim, I’ve spoken to many women and I’ve even helped someone else who was the victim of my abuser. He tried to kill her as well. I went to court with her, and I saw numerous violations of probation conditions. I just helped another young woman. She’s about 30 and she’s constantly having to deal with probation violations.
Just being here makes me feel safer. I genuinely believe that other measures need to be adopted. We are caught in a redundant system. It’s the same thing over and over again.
Can you believe I have spent a decade fighting for the laws to change? I could’ve been doing something else, but I believe this is important. I think victims are entitled to feel safe, and to have a normal life, not a life that is shattered. Our voices must be heard. We know what we are talking about. We are living it. We need safeguards.
The Acting Chair: Sorry, Ms. Tremblay, but I have to stop you there. We need to move on to the next senator.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you to all of you for being here. I want to start by saying, Ms. Campbell, that you’ve testified before this committee many times over the years I’ve been on it. There was a remark that you made in your opening remarks — I’m sure you didn’t mean it to come off as flippant, but it sort of did — when you said you’re happy to be alive. You were referring to the fact that you worked on peace bonds many years ago. I know you didn’t mean it like that, but we’re dealing with a situation here where there are many domestic violence victims that, because we don’t have the sort of protections that we should have in this country, are not alive anymore. I just wanted to make that point.
I wanted to give my time today to Ms. Tremblay. I saw that you have a lot more to say in the opening remarks that you have prepared, so I want to give my additional time to you to be able to say more of what you wanted to tell our committee today.
[Translation]
Ms. Tremblay: Meegwetch. I will stick to the three minutes I’m being given.
I don’t know whether Senator Boisvenu agrees, but I wanted to convey the message I came here today to deliver. Thank you so much.
First, I’d like to say to Ms. Campbell that I was taken aback when she said that she was alive. I don’t hold it against you. The way that comment hits us is that you are lucky to still be alive. Make the most of it, because what happened to me and so many others could happen to anyone. What matters is living, not surviving — I am still in survival mode.
There is one question I would like to answer today. What would I like to say to senators, to lawmakers, as a victim of domestic violence?
Thank you for listening and for showing respect to us all. Our stories are our heartfelt pleas. The violence has to stop. We need to raise our consciousness, the consciousness of abusers and the consciousness of all Canadians. A life isn’t something you can buy. It doesn’t have a price tag. It can’t be replaced. Victims of domestic violence have the right to be safe and to lead a normal life. They should be able to do more than just survive.
With this bill, you are giving us the ability to escape the hell of domestic violence by making us feel safer and by placing limits on abusers. I remember that, during the trucker crisis, a number of ministers received psychologically and verbally abusive threats, to the point that some had to have bodyguards protect them.
For those of us victims who are ordinary people, mandatory electronic bracelet monitoring immediately following the first complaint and the passage of this bill will serve as our bodyguards. This device could finally protect us from our abusers. The right to life is fundamental, but unfortunately, many victims are torn from their lives too soon.
Let’s stop waiting and let’s do this together now, hand in hand, to put an end to irreversible tragedy, so that all of us have the right to lead a normal life. I want to stress that on behalf of Indigenous women, who unfortunately did not — and still do not — enjoy all of those rights. It does not make sense.
This violence must stop. Please listen to us. We know what we are talking about. We have lived it. The statistics matter, but the lives of women and children are priceless. You are going to make such a positive difference to our lives. I feel it already. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms. Tremblay.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Thank you to all the witnesses.
I just wanted to express my appreciation to Senator Batters for forgoing any questions she had to enable the remarks to be able to be completed by Ms. Tremblay.
I have two completely independent questions. My first question is for you, Mr. Newark. You indicated support for the bill and that it’s a significant improvement. Thinking about some aspects of it, Ms. Campbell suggested that the present provisions are adequate to respond to the individualized interventions of the justice system. She specifically spoke to the fact that, with respect to undertakings, electronic monitoring is actually available as a tool already. Could you respond to why you think that provision in particular is needed?
Then I have a question for Ms. Campbell.
Mr. Newark: It is simply a matter of pragmatics. It’s been my experience — and I’ve also worked inside government with the Ontario government; we set up the Office for Victims of Crime — that the reality of our justice system is that it may be in a “basket clause” — it’s already there that you can do it — but if it’s actually there in black and white, it tends to produce the result that prosecutors and judges recognize it as a tool that should be used, so there is real value in doing that.
The Supreme Court of Canada in the Charkaoui case around the security certificates already upheld the use of electronic monitoring even though there wasn’t a specific authorization, which meant that it’s okay. But it has definitely been my experience, senator, if it’s there in black and white, there’s a much better chance that the officials are actually going to use it.
Senator Cotter: Thank you.
Ms. Campbell, I have almost the opposite question. You suggested that most of what’s available here is in this legislation is already covered. Second, you cast some doubt on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring. A number of provinces and provincial governments have implemented programs with respect to electronic monitoring, and the Government of Quebec is investing $40 million or $50 million a year in its new program. It seems to me you’re denouncing the wisdom of provincial governments here by calling into question the efficacy of it. Could you speak a bit more about that?
Ms. Campbell: It’s an interesting question. Thank you.
Of course, governments do all kinds of things for all kinds of different reasons, and I think you are well placed to know that. The tragedy — and it is a tragedy to me — is that, as you say, this program of EM is tens of millions of dollars. That’s just one province — $40 million to $50 million — for a program for which the empirical research is just not there. It has nothing to do with me, personally. The research is just not there.
As taxpayers and citizens, we have the right to expect something of value for tens of millions of dollars being spent across the country. Imagine if Ms. Tremblay’s family had been given $1 million to buy real protection. I just think it’s tragic that we continue to invest that kind of money in something we know is of very limited value.
We have other organizations out there. We work with Circles of Support and Accountability, or COSA — some of you know them. They’re about to close their doors because they don’t have enough funding. Theirs is a wraparound service for very high-need sex offenders. They have been evaluated and been found to contain and reduce recidivism. They are struggling not for millions of dollars but tens of thousands of dollars.
I think we’re all united in what we’re trying to achieve; there’s not a person in this room who doesn’t want the same goal. The question is this: How do we get there, and what’s the best investment of very scarce taxpayer dollars?
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I have a question for Ms. Tremblay and, after that, one for Ms. Campbell. I want to start by thanking the witnesses for being here.
Ms. Tremblay, you were very clear about the fact that you had lost your freedom. We just heard a former Crown prosecutor say that electronic monitoring is an option that’s already provided for in the Criminal Code but that it isn’t used. Now, if we add a condition requiring an offender to wear an electronic bracelet and the provision isn’t used, would you say we are fixing anything? My specific question to you is this: Should we work on ensuring that judges receive training and that women’s support groups are involved in the court system? That way, if the judge doesn’t realize that the tool is available, as the former Crown prosecutor mentioned, they would have to read the provision because it’s there in black and white.
Do you see a special role for victims’ support groups in the process, one that starts when women report the abuse to police right up until the end?
Ms. Tremblay: Absolutely. I agree with what you just said. Judges, organizations and police need education. That’s imperative. It ensures that everyone has the same information and is working together, creating a supportive environment. Victims and abusers will benefit from closer follow-up. It’s time to raise everyone’s awareness. It’s time for change.
I listened to what Ms. Campbell said. The current system doesn’t work. I’ve been saying that for 10 years. It has to change. What are people afraid of? That lives will be saved? Saving lives can’t be measured in dollars and cents.
Training and education have to be provided. I am in favour of electronic bracelet monitoring. Once people have the training and determine that the victim’s safety and life are at risk, they should immediately require the offender to wear an electronic bracelet. That is an appropriate thing to do for victims.
Thank you for your question.
Senator Dupuis: Mr. Newark, you said something fascinating we haven’t heard so far in our study. I believe you said that a very small number of people commit a large number of crimes. Did I catch that correctly? Do you have any data on that?
[English]
The Acting Chair: Mr. Newark, the question is directed to you. You said in your testimony that a small number of offenders are responsible for a great number of offences. Do you have any data to support that statement?
Mr. Newark: Actually, there is some, although it’s become more obscure over time. You can look at the Juristat reports that come out yearly. There are different ones. The crime reported statistics one came out a couple of months ago. Lacking a social life, I used to do a review of those reports. It’s the methodology that makes it difficult. In fact, one of the recommendations I made, senator, was to have them report exactly what you just asked about: How many of these crimes are being committed by people who are on bail, probation, conditional sentences — all of those different things? I can tell you as a prosecutor that we collect that data; we just don’t report it. It would be a huge improvement were we to do that, in my opinion.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Thank you, Mr. Newark. You took the words right out of my mouth. Improvements are needed on a number of fronts.
Now, I’m coming back to Ms. Campbell. Did I hear correctly that you had trouble getting statistics? We just heard that the statistics exist but aren’t reported. The problem I have with that is the accountability of the justice system to the public.
[English]
Ms. Campbell: It has become increasingly a problem, and that should not be the case. It is very difficult — and I’ve learned this in the past almost 10 years of retirement — to get up-to-date statistics federally. Of course, often the federal government is reliant on the provinces to report, as Mr. Newark says.
Whether you’re looking at the correctional agencies, the Department of Justice Canada or Statistics Canada — and I have great respect for the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics — as I say, as an independent researcher, you have to pay if you want a run of numbers. On many issues, and certainly on peace bonds, there was no data. I’m pretty dogged in my research, and it’s just not available. I do think that’s a tragedy and that it doesn’t serve this committee well. You can’t possibly know what you’re doing unless you have some data behind it. I could throw my hands up in the air; that’s how big a problem it is.
Mr. Newark: Senator, I can tell you that a couple years ago I helped my old friend Jason Kenney, who was then head of the United Conservative Party. They were putting together an election platform, and we included in it a commitment that they would pass the public’s right to know act, which was how many crimes — violent crimes, specific crimes — were committed in each judicial district by people who were on bail, probation, conditional sentence, parole, subject to deportation or previously removed for criminality. That has not yet been accomplished, but — and I agree with Ms. Campbell — it is something that could be done.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. Because we referred to the Quebec experience and since I’m the one who brought it to the attention of the chamber, I want to say that the program provides $41 million for five years. I have the details in front of me as I speak. It provides for 500 devices, which includes the device, constant monitoring and the training of the officers who will be using it, especially in correctional services. It’s a full package, including training, monitoring and devices. It is about $8 million per year for 500 devices. In order to control the cost and to make sure it goes to the cases that deserve it, a judge can order it only if the Attorney General of the province requires it.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’ll be quick. In 2012, when we studied Bill C-10, the data showed that 20% of criminals were responsible for 70% of crimes and that an offender returns to federal prison four times, and to a Quebec prison, eight times.
At the time, Mr. Thériault used to call it the revolving door.
My question is for Ms. Campbell. You said the millions of dollars that will be invested in electronic bracelet monitoring should be spent elsewhere. What figure would you put on Canada’s economic losses from the murders of 173 women in 2021?
[English]
Ms. Campbell: To correct the record, I don’t think I said it was too much; I said it was not going to give you have the kinds of results that you would like to see for that kind of money. We’re aware of many other programs that will, in fact, give you a much greater return.
You don’t know the personal stories of any of the witnesses who appear here. The bottom line is that we’re all united in the same goal. I think prudent governance is that the people’s money be invested in what will give real results.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Why, then, do the majority of provinces have electronic bracelet monitoring programs? France, Spain and nearly half the U.S. states use the devices in domestic violence cases. Are they all wrong?
[English]
Ms. Campbell: I can only repeat my previous comment to Senator Cotter, which is that governments do many things for many different reasons. I’ll simply leave it at that.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. This brings us to a close. We’re already beyond the time we’re supposed to adjourn, and the translators and support staff are entitled to a break before the Senate Chamber sits at two o’clock.
Thank you very much to our witnesses on the second panel — Ms. Coyle, Ms. Tremblay, Ms. Campbell and Mr. Newark. You all brought different perspectives to these important issues that have been raised by the bill. I thank you very much for that. I’m sure all members of the committee agree with me that your testimony was helpful and will be included in our thinking and rethinking about these important issues. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)