Status of Women Committee on Feb. 5th, 2015

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Okay.

This question would probably be for you, then, Gerry. What other funding do you receive? Do you receive any other funding from any other federal departments, or the province?

[Gerry Mills]

Yes, we do.

We receive funding from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and ESDC—that's federal funding—and then we receive provincial funding as well.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

What type of project did you do with the Citizen and Immigration funding? What was the project for that one?

[Gerry Mills]

We have 120 staff, so about half of our funding is federal and half of it is provincial. With federal funding, we provide services to refugees. So, literally, it's picking people up at the airport, giving them temporary accommodation, permanent accommodation, getting the kids in school. We also provide settlement orientation, language, employment. Also, the other part of the coin is the volunteer...the community capacity-building.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I think I read somewhere that you obviously do a lot of partnering with some other organizations. I come from a riding with a fairly high number of immigrants in my area in London. We have some great organizations there and they do a lot of partnering, and they have a lot of great things that they do too.

I was just wondering with maybe some of the initiatives that you've partnered with, do you have a best practice? Do you have something that you've done, some program.... Because you sound like you have so much experience, is there some program that you did that you think has worked really well and would maybe help someone else?

[Gerry Mills]

I can talk about the work we've done with foreign credential recognition. We have, I think, 11 or 12 multi-stakeholder tables. I'll just give you one example. There's a multi-stakeholder table for internationally educated pharmacists. Around that table will sit the educational institution—so the university—the regulatory body, the professional association, ISANS, the provincial government, the federal government, plus the internationally educated pharmacists, and they will determine, first of all, the barriers and the pathway to becoming a pharmacist in Nova Scotia.

Once we've determined the pathway and the barriers, then from all the stakeholders around the table we determine who can affect this. When we're determining who is responsible, it takes a lot of time for that trust to build. When we started these, probably eight or nine years ago, there were a lot of trust issues, but we've made huge systemic changes in processes. In Nova Scotia right now our pass rate is 93%—in the rest of the country for pharmacists, for examinations, it's about 48% or 49%—because we have the processes in place and all the stakeholders around the table. I appreciate that in somewhere like Nova Scotia that's much easier, because first of all, we know the stakeholders, and secondly, we can say, “Next Thursday, can you meet?”

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much. That's wonderful.

I have a question for Claudette from NWAC. Can you tell me about the funding you receive from Status of Women Canada? I know you've done some great work with a lot of the women there. Can you tell me a bit about how much funding you had and what it was used for? What's your favourite program that you felt helped women and girls?

[Claudette Dumont-Smith]

When I got to NWAC, they were finalizing the Sisters in Spirit project, which ended March 31, 2010. That was when they conducted secondary research into the number of missing and murdered aboriginal women and developed that database. Following that, the Evidence to Action I and II kicked in from the Status of Women, and tools were developed to help families when someone goes missing. There were awareness programs and information. Family members were included in gatherings to explain their needs to NWAC. So Evidence to Action was a lot of that work. Recently we got funding from Status of Women, and we're working on Project PEACE. The PEACE project, which will be for the next two and a half years, will be more focused on prevention of violence. We'll be working with men and boys and women and girls. The project started just a month ago.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

That's great. Thanks.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Thank you very much, Madame Truppe.

Mrs. Freeman, or rather Ms. Freeman, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all our witnesses for being here.

My questions are for Deepa Mattoo.

Thank you so much for being here. I've been looking at your research and I'm really impressed with the work, so I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. I'd like to start off by asking you what this committee can learn from your work with women fighting violence and addressing its causes. What can we learn from these women?

[Deepa Mattoo]

Most of the work the South Asian Legal Clinic has been recognized as leading is on the issue around forced marriages and the voice we have given to that issue. We also work with a lot of women with immigration law issues, conditional permanent residency, and sometimes when they are themselves considered to be committing a fraud while they are facing violence and not committing a fraud with immigration.

Our experiences have taught us that violence against women is not something that is specific to the community. That's something we are struggling with because we know that a lot of discourse around violence against women and violence against women of colour suddenly becomes about who they are rather than what they have experienced. I think that's what we have learned. It's not about their background. It's not about their religion. It's not about their culture. It's about their individual stories. Unfortunately, when we are trying to look at a policy, we're trying to bring in law reform, we get caught in the fact that they are Muslim women, or we get caught in the fact that they are South Asian women, but unfortunately that's not what it is about. It is about everyone's individual experience and the lack of sensitivity in the system around trying to learn what that individual experience is.

My colleagues from Nova Scotia here are talking about the leadership program they have and I'm a big fan of those programs. When you let the women who have survived and women who have lived experiences lead education and lead these programs, it actually adds a different dimension. It informs you differently and you will think above and beyond what their religion is or what their background is or what their colour is.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I think that's a really important point you're making, that violence against women is something that all women face in Canada or around the world, regardless of country of origin or immigration status or religion. I feel like that's what you're saying to us, in other words.

[Deepa Mattoo]

Yes, definitely.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I have the report “The Incidence of Forced Marriage in Ontario”, which you participated in. The final recommendation, number 9, is to not criminalize forced marriage as a separate Criminal Code offence. Could you speak to that?

[Deepa Mattoo]

Most definitely.

When we started working on the issue of forced marriages we were very much being informed by the women who are experiencing this form of violence. Just to clarify, when we started working on this issue, right from the beginning—I'm talking about since 2005—one thing that we have been clear about is that it is part of the continuum of violence against women and nothing else. It should be dealt with within that same framework. We were never wanting it to be dealt with any differently.

Again, we wanted the systems to be sensitive and alive to the issue of the distinct experiences of the women who faced this form of violence, but we wanted it to be included in the violence against women framework. But unfortunately it has been somehow discussed in a way...and we know there's Bill S-7 that is on the table at this point as well.

There is an assumption that is coming that somehow the current legal system does not have enough in it to address this issue, whereas our education from our clients, the survivors, and our education from the communities, very much tells us that the existing systems and the structures are enough to serve the needs of the population if they want to access the law and justice in that way.

Unfortunately, I think we haven't learned enough from what we see, that women don't necessarily want to report. My colleague on the panel from Nova Scotia also spoke to that briefly, that women don't necessarily want to leave their families. Women don't necessarily to want to leave their.... I'm not saying that they shouldn't or they should, but the point is that the choice should be theirs. It should be a decision made by them. The system shouldn't expect them to make the decision because it wants them to, and the criminalization most definitely is a path towards that, where we are trying to put responsibility again on them to protect themselves rather than accepting that we are responsible for preventing any form of violence against women.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

So it doesn't make sense—

[Deepa Mattoo]

I'm sorry, am I clear?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Yes, very clear. It doesn't make sense to fight violence against women by amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, like Bill S-7 does.

To be clear for the rest of the committee, we're talking about the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

That's basically what you're saying, that it's not helpful to the women you work with.

[Deepa Mattoo]

Yes, it is not. I think we have spoken to that eloquently when we have found the opportunity.

I want to say that this recommendation is based on our experience with the people who have lived this. It's not based on just the data; it is based on the interviews and information we have gotten from the people who have experienced this form of violence.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

One recommendation you make, recommendation 8, is for better protection for permanent residents and persons without status.

Could you speak a little bit to that?

[Deepa Mattoo]

Most definitely I can.

Women, when they face violence and are in a precarious immigrant status, which sometimes does not give them a substantial connection to Canada, definitely have less protection within the systems available to them. They sometimes are threatened with deportation by the abusers. Also, the system is built in such a way that they can actually face, as a consequence of that violence, being deported. Irrespective of whether or not they reported it, they can face the consequences of being deported because they were violated or because they chose to report abuse. That's something that we see with various provisions, whether they be for conditional permanent residency or for misrepresentation or for a domestic charge against their co-applicant. We see all that happen in various areas of immigration provisions, and this is something that needs to be changed.

Again, there needs to be a cultural shift within the immigration policies to be more sensitive to the violence that women experience while being precarious. Unfortunately, it is as though they are in some kind of invisible chains that are put around them through these immigration policies. Those invisible chains need to be taken care of. At this point, the changes we are proposing through this committee are that our policies shouldn't be there to basically bind them into violence; our policies should be to free them from violence.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Freeman.

Ms. O'Neill Gordon, you have the floor.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being with us today. You continue to add a lot of information to our study, which we find important.

My first question is addressed to Lana Wells. I want to say how important it was to hear the 10 points your association deals with and puts in place and that they give a lot of food for thought as we go along.

I want to assure you that, over the last few weeks, one key message we've heard along the way in many of our meetings is how important it is to start this fight opposing violence against women at an early age; that it isn't just at age 18 that we should start bringing men and women together; that it must start at a much earlier age, reaching into the first decade in life, if at all possible.

In your opinion, what can we do to prevent violence against women at any time, and where do you think we should start this?

[Lana Wells]

Thank you for your question.

Right now, the federal government is investing in the nurse-family partnership, which is a home visitation program for women who are pregnant and all the way up to when their children are two years old. It's an evidence-based program that has been studied for decades. You're funding some of it in B.C. and Ontario. Home visitation is one of the most critical places for prevention. That program reduces child maltreatment, it reduces family violence, and it gets families jobs.

If I were to recommend something, it would be starting with a comprehensive, universal approach. What happens is that right now you fund each province, and they put it into various programs that they feel make the most sense. These are not all evidence-based. What I wanted to bring to the committee today is that there are myriad evidence-based programs.

Earlier, you had your staff present information about the portal, with about 80 best-practice programs and policies. We know a lot. You had somebody talk about early childhood development and the brain science around toxic stress at very young ages in children experiencing adversity and what happens later on when they move into relationships. We know a lot.

I think the federal government's role is to ensure that there are national standards, that there are appropriate investments that are actually hitting the ground where the money is supposed to go, and that there is high accountability to the federal government concerning outcomes and the delivery of those outcomes.

My colleagues in Nova Scotia and Ontario have talked about there not being long-term sustainable funding right now. That's the other issue. You put out ads through Status of Women Canada, requests for proposals. People apply; they get two years to prove.... It can take up to 10 to 15 years to develop an evidence-based practice, and you need heavy research and evaluation for it. I have colleagues whom I work with out of the University of Western Ontario's CAMH Centre for Prevention Science who have invested in the fourth R, as one example; the fourth R standing for “Relationship”. So reading, writing, arithmetic, and relationship are the four core elements.

What is your role in education? We know that education is a provincial jurisdiction, but you provide transfers. There should be social emotional learning. Teachers need to have skills around understanding trauma and should be able to transmit skills to kids. If they're not getting it in the family, the next best prevention site is the school. I don't think we're leveraging the schools or school systems enough.