Moved:

That, in relation to Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders), the Senate agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the message from the House of Commons on 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).

This bill was introduced by former senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu on November 24, 2021. Most senators here are well aware of Senator Boisvenu’s essential mission to defend and improve the rights of victims of crime in Canada. In this lifelong mission, Senator Boisvenu is also committed to fighting violence against women and changing legislation to preserve and improve public safety.

This mission stems from the tragedy he and his family experienced on June 23, 2002, when his daughter Julie was abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered by a repeat offender in the city of Sherbrooke. Since that day, and throughout his mandate in the Senate, Senator Boisvenu has tirelessly fought to defend the rights of victims of crime. Thanks to him, Canada now has a Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, and we are grateful for that.

Today, we are once again considering Bill S-205, which has gone through various parliamentary stages in the Senate and the House of Commons since its introduction three years ago. What we now have before us is a message from the House about Bill S-205 with amendments made by our colleagues in the House of Commons. I will address the amendments made to the bill later.

Honourable senators, Bill S-205 is an important piece of legislation aimed at combating the scourge of domestic violence. In recent years, we have seen a significant and alarming increase in this type of violence, particularly against women. I would like to share some statistics available from the latest Statistics Canada report on this subject.

In 2022, Statistics Canada revealed that the rates of family violence and intimate partner violence cases increased by 19% between 2014 and 2022, whereas there had been a general downward trend from 2009 to 2014.

Women and girls make up the vast majority of victims, accounting for 8 out of 10. Women are also overrepresented when it comes to homicides. I would like to quote a passage from this report on the subject:

From 2009 to 2022, there were 6,920 victims of solved homicide . . . in Canada. One-third (32%) of victims were killed by a family member, while nearly one-fifth (18%) were killed by an intimate partner. These proportions were much more pronounced among women and girls (59% were killed by a family member and 46% were killed by an intimate partner) than men and boys (20% were killed by a family member and 6% were killed by an intimate partner).

According to the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, there were 184 women murdered in Canada in 2022, 60% of whom were killed by a current or former intimate partner. I remind you that this equates to one woman killed every two days in Canada.

Honourable senators, the statistics I have just shared must compel us to act to combat the scourge that claims far too many victims every year, the vast majority of whom are women.

Senator Boisvenu has repeatedly emphasized in his previous speeches that the vulnerability of victims of domestic violence is often at the beginning of the judicial process when a person decides to report the violence they are experiencing to judicial authorities. Numerous cases have been documented involving murder, attempted murder or serious assault during the period of judicial interim release or when a person is subject to a section 810 peace bond.

Bill S-205 was introduced to enhance the safety of victims during these stages of the judicial process by proposing important measures such as the electronic monitoring bracelet and imposition of mandatory therapy by the court.

Allow me, colleagues, to elaborate further. One part of Bill S-205 proposes the creation of a new section 810 peace bond specific to violence against an intimate partner and their child. Currently, the Criminal Code provides for different types of section 810 peace bonds, but none are adequately tailored to situations of family violence. Yet, as I demonstrated at the beginning of my speech, the statistical magnitude of this type of violence is undeniable. It is necessary to begin specifying this category in the Code and to include measures that will be truly effective. The bill therefore proposes the creation of a new peace bond with certain conditions.

First, it will be possible to impose the wearing of an electronic monitoring bracelet on a person subject to the new peace bond. The bracelet allows for the monitoring of a perpetrator’s behaviour and deters them from approaching their victim. In case of proximity, the electronic bracelet alerts both the victim and authorities of the perpetrator’s location. This device allows the victim to seek safety and the authorities to intervene. It is an important technological tool that must be used in the service of justice.

I would like to quote a passage from one of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill S-205. This is Martine Jeanson, a victim and survivor:

Electronic bracelets would also be a tool that should be implemented to protect women and enable them to be warned when their abuser is nearing their home, so they can hide before he arrives. This tool would also make it possible to notify the police.

An electronic bracelet would have helped protect me from this attempted murder by my former spouse. Currently, it is impossible to protect ourselves adequately from our violent former spouses because we are not warned of their presence. Victims no longer dare to report their abuser. They no longer trust the justice system because they do not feel protected. When we report abusers and we are not protected, we put our lives at even greater risk.

Second, the peace bond may require offenders to undergo a treatment program, such as one for substance abuse or family violence. Therapy is increasingly seen as a preferred approach to reduce a person’s violent behaviour, helping these individuals understand and change their actions. The bill strikes a balance between control measures and rehabilitation.

Senator Boisvenu initially proposed a two-year duration for this new peace bond and three years for individuals with criminal histories. Currently, the code provides for a one-year duration and two years for repeat offenders in the context of family violence. During consultations with victims, Senator Boisvenu found that a one-year period was insufficient to truly end all contact.

Unfortunately, Liberal, NDP and Bloc MPs proposed amendments that reduced the duration of these new peace bonds to align them with the periods currently provided by law. Thus the maximum duration is reduced to one year, and two years in the case of repeat offenders. These modifications weaken the original intent of the peace bond by reducing the extended protection that Senator Boisvenu sought to offer victims who had indicated during consultations that a one-year duration was not enough time to fully sever contact.

Honourable senators, the peace bond also includes an important measure for victims’ rights: No condition can be changed without the justice consulting the victim regarding their security needs. This is a crucial provision that ensures respect for the rights to protections and participation included in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

The bill also included another important provision I mentioned earlier in my speech regarding judicial interim release. The bill proposed amendments to section 515 of the Criminal Code to allow for the imposition of electronic monitoring and the consultation of victims regarding their security needs by the justice at the request of the Attorney General. Both of these provisions were removed in committee in the House of Commons, which is very unfortunate for victims of domestic violence, because the consultation of victims was an important measure that strengthened their rights in the Criminal Code and allowed them to express what measures they deemed appropriate for their own safety. It was also a measure that strengthened the rights set out in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which I have previously cited.

This provision was added following the extensive consultation conducted by Senator Boisvenu and was supported by organizations such as the Native Women’s Association of Canada. I would like to quote a passage from the testimony of Sarah Niman, legal counsel and Senior Director of Legal Services at the Native Women’s Association of Canada:

Bill S-205 considers victims’ safety concerns at the earlier stages of domestic violence proceedings. NWAC supports that this bill contains mandatory victim consultations . . . .

I would also like to speak about the removal of the electronic monitoring bracelet at this stage of the judicial process. Senator Dalphond’s Bill C-233, which received Royal Assent on April 27, 2023, also introduced the use of electronic monitoring under section 515(4.2) of the Criminal Code, but it was limited to a certain number of specific offences. Senator Boisvenu noted that this more restrictive framework posed a problem because important offences that could be related to domestic violence, such as intimidation, section 423; breaking and entering, section 348; and unlawfully being in a dwelling house, section 349, might not be covered under this section.

When examining cases of domestic violence and listening to victims’ testimony, one quickly realizes that unlawful presence in a home and breaking and entering are often-mentioned offences in the context of domestic violence.

I would like to quote the testimony of Khaoula Grissa, a victim and survivor who testified on Bill S-205 before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:

One day, a prosecutor told me I had to move out. My answer was, “no.” No, because I had already done the impossible. I was housed in a home for women victims of domestic violence. Then I changed apartments, changed my car model and colour, within my means, got my hair cut and dyed and changed my glasses. In the span of a month, my daughter had been to five different daycares. My employer did everything necessary to protect me. We had a whole scenario worked out to get me to my car safely.

I told the lady prosecutor that this time it was up to the justice system to protect me. I had already made about twenty reports to the police and, despite all my efforts, that did not prevent the worst from happening. My former spouse hid in my closet and tried to take my life and that of my daughter. I was raped and confined, and he subsequently took his own life in my bedroom right in front me.

Bill S-205 proposed introducing electronic monitoring under section 515(4) of the Criminal Code, which would have allowed judges to impose this measure on a broader range of offences. This approach gave judges greater latitude in deciding whether to impose electronic monitoring, including in cases where offences often associated with domestic violence were not explicitly listed under section 515(4.2). It was an effective measure that has since been removed, and I also find that regrettable.

Honourable senators, despite these amendments to the bill, Bill S-205 remains an important piece of legislation for victims of domestic and family violence. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House of Commons for their support of the bill, particularly the House sponsor, MP Raquel Dancho, who has supported Senator Boisvenu throughout this fight and been attentive to the victims of domestic violence. Her unwavering commitment to the safety of victims and her dedication were essential to the advancement of this bill, and we are deeply grateful to her.

To conclude, I would like to convey this message from the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu:

Honourable senators, the Bill S-205, which we passed the first time, was primarily for the hundreds of women, all victims of domestic violence, whose safety and lives were threatened. It is the result of their courage in saying one day: “enough is enough,” so that they could finally take back control of their lives. To all these women, I say “thank you.” Thank you for believing . . .

Just for time to conclude the quote.

Thank you.

Thank you for believing in the Senate, for believing in yourselves, and that you will continue to defend their right to safety by passing S-205 before you today. Thank you, dear colleagues.

There is one more section which I missed.

Thank you. Yes, I concluded Senator Boisvenu’s personal note to us, and I conclude:

Senator Boisvenu worked with a large number of victims of domestic violence to draft this bill. After a long journey through Parliament, it is time for it to be passed in the name of all the victims who worked so hard to bring it to fruition.

With that, I ask you, honourable senators, to adopt the message from the House of Commons about Bill S-205, as amended.