Status of Women Committee on March 25th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 10 of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I will call this meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Tuesday, February 4, the committee will resume its study on intimate partner and domestic violence in Canada.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from public health authorities, as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on October 19, 2021, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person must not have symptoms. Everyone must maintain two metres of physical distancing and must wear a non‑medical mask when moving around the room. It's strongly recommended that masks be worn at all times, including when seated. Everyone must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the hand sanitizer provided at the room entrance.

For those participating virtually, I would like to outline a few rules to follow. You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately. We will ensure that interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your mike will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. All comments should be addressed through the chair. When you're speaking, please speak slowly and clearly—not like your chair—and when you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

Before we welcome our witnesses, I would like to provide this trigger warning. We will be discussing experiences related to violence and assault. This may be triggering to viewers with similar experiences. If you find yourself distressed or you need help, please advise the clerk.

I now want to welcome our guests for our first panel. We have, from Interval House of Ottawa, Keri Lewis, the executive director—thanks for joining us, Keri—and from Luke’s Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children, Pamela Cross, the legal director.

Each of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks. When you start seeing me wave my hand, please start wrapping it up. That would be fantastic.

I'll now pass the floor over to Keri for five minutes.

Keri, please begin.

[Keri Lewis, Executive Director, Interval House of Ottawa]

Thank you.

Ending violence against women and gender-based violence requires communication and collaboration among governments, ministries, the justice system, businesses, social services, and survivors. It requires that every policy in government, and across sectors, is considered from an intersectional feminist lens. Every leader, every service provider, and every interaction where power exists must consider these questions: Who is being served? Who is being harmed? Who is being left behind by this policy?

When we begin to ask these questions, we see that the magnitude of the changes required to prevent and respond appropriately to violence against women is immense. While we strive to create the conditions to achieve systemic change that will prevent violence against women, it is important to narrow in on critical factors that can make an immediate and positive change to improve safety for survivors of violence. Basic quality-of-life barriers still exist to survivors, which prevent them from successfully exiting an abusive situation. Access to a living income and access to safe housing are the two barriers that we see on a day-to-day basis.

Today I will focus on housing. Interval House of Ottawa and all other violence against women shelters in Ottawa have been operating at maximum capacity for decades. Demand for safe shelter has increased, and people in our community have nowhere to go when they make the difficult decision to leave the abuse. The result is that when families are finally able to access space, we are seeing an intensity of abuse that is much greater than ever before.

On the surface, it may appear that more shelter beds are needed. I would argue that this is not the case, at least not if we choose to take a long-term approach. It is, instead, an issue of a lack of deeply affordable housing.

In January 2020, the City of Ottawa declared a housing and homelessness state of emergency. To date, the wait-list for subsidized housing has grown to 13,000 households, and it can take families up to 10 years to secure a home with the city. This crisis is having a devastating impact on women and families across Ottawa, especially those who are survivors of violence. Not only are shelter capacities being reached, but a lack of affordable housing is a significant barrier for survivors to leave abusive relationships.

What's more, a bottleneck effect is created in shelters, because women and their families struggle to leave the shelter while rent continues to rise to unaffordable margins. The impact is that families remain in shelter far beyond what is needed to support immediate safety concerns, and people experiencing violence in their homes cannot access safe shelter in a timely manner.

We also cannot ignore that COVID-19 has significantly exacerbated the issue of violence against women. Widespread lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, while necessary from a public health perspective, trap women and their families at home with their abusers. This creates difficult and debilitating conditions that can lead to dangerous situations with tragic outcomes.

Global data collected from the UN in 2021 shows that 45% of women reported that they or a woman they know has experienced a form of violence since the pandemic started. With the increasing intensity and frequency of violence against women during COVID-19, it has become its own pandemic, coined “the shadow pandemic”. Now, more than ever, women are feeling unsafe at home, with little to no option of escape due to barriers like a lack of shelter space and affordable housing.

It has been encouraging to see and experience support from all levels of government over the past couple of years to assist shelters like IHO to continue operating, and even expand services during the COVID pandemic. As life begins to return to a new normal, it is critical that we lay a foundation to support women who have faced the greatest impact from the pandemic and are experiencing violence at an accelerated rate. The first step to safety is having a safe place to move to. Without that, taking the next steps to rebuilding a life after violence is impossible.

All Canadians, but particularly survivors of violence, need access to safe and deeply affordable housing. Housing is a right that many are being denied. This is not an issue that can wait. Families cannot thrive without safe housing.

I call on this government, and all governments, to prioritize increasing the housing stock at an accelerated pace. With adequate investments and partnering with new providers, such as shelters like Interval House, we can provide healthier, safer futures for survivors of violence and their dependants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much, Keri, for your opening statement.

I'm now going to pass the floor over to Pamela.

Pamela, you have five minutes.

[Pamela Cross, Legal Director, Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children]

Thank you. Good afternoon.

I'm very happy to be with you to speak on this important topic. I'm the legal director at Luke's Place in Durham Region, Ontario. We provide direct services to women who have left abusive relationships and are engaged with the family law process. We also work at the provincial and national levels conducting research, developing resources, providing training and engaging in systemic advocacy.

We welcome the work of the status of women committee to study intimate partner violence—or IPV as I'll call it—in Canada, which will, we hope, lead to ongoing government initiatives to both respond to that violence with appropriate services and develop strategies to reduce and, ultimately, end violence within families in this country.

I encourage you, if you haven't had time to do it already, to read the joint submission from Luke's Place and NAWL, the National Association of Women and the Law, to see all of our recommendations to the committee.

In my remarks this afternoon, I'll raise several key themes.

First, any measures to address and end the violence that happens within families must apply an intersectional and gendered analysis. While people of all genders can be victims or perpetrators of IPV, research clearly shows that those who identify as women are disproportionately affected, especially in situations of coercive control or homicide. When attempts to address IPV do not reflect this gendered reality, they're not helpful and, in some cases, they actually cause further harm.

Second, potential measures need to take into account the voices of survivors, as well as of advocates and community-based experts who have decades of subject matter experience and expertise.

Third, when new laws or policies are under consideration, time must be given for proper consultation with all those who will potentially be affected—victims, survivors, service providers, legal system actors and so on—so that as many perspectives as possible can be included. There also needs to be consideration of what we've come to call “unintended negative consequences”. Acting too quickly can result in a law or policy that leads to further harm for those it is intended to protect.

Fourth, when looking at ways to address and end IPV, there needs to be a commitment by all levels of government to work together. For example, increased cohesion and consistency in family laws and their enforcement across all jurisdictions would be of great assistance to survivors of IPV.

Fifth, as important as education for all those who respond to situations of IPV continues to be, it's now time to build accountability systems to ensure that what has been learned is being applied. Ways of ensuring that all members of the judiciary have education on IPV are critical if legal responses are to improve.

Sixth, increased access to justice for survivors is essential. This includes, but is not limited to, access to effective legal representation regardless of the survivor's ability to pay, expansion across the country of programs such as Ontario's family court support workers program, and a big rethink of criminal law responses, including present approaches to bail, mandatory charging and vigorous prosecution policies.

Finally, the introduction of Clare's Law, the use of electronic monitoring systems, and the criminalization of coercive control in cases of IPV, among many other ideas, are all interesting possible public policy directions, but they warrant a cautious approach. There are cons as well as pros to every one of these ideas. We need a cautious approach that is coupled with careful consideration and extensive consultation.

I encourage the committee to consider the recommendations contained in Women's Shelters Canada's “A Report to Guide the Implementation of a National Action Plan on Violence Against Women and Gender-Based Violence” for further and more detailed suggestions.

Thank you very much for your time this afternoon. I welcome any questions or comments you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much, Pamela, for your opening statement.

We'll now be doing our first round of questions. We provide each member with six minutes for questions and answers.

We'll be starting off with Dominique Vien. You have six minutes.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm always somewhat stunned when witnesses tell us how violence against women in particular is so pronounced and impactful. We have such a high level of awareness right now that it boggles my mind.

I want to thank both our witnesses for joining us once again to talk about what they're seeing and experiencing on the ground.

Ms. Lewis, you spoke about the barriers that keep women trapped and that prevent them from being able to stand on their own two feet and leave a toxic situation. In particular, you said how difficult it was for them to find decent and affordable housing.

Does your organization provide temporary housing or another solution right now to help these women?

When they're facing a crisis, they head to a shelter. However, are you able to take them in and house them in temporary housing, given the housing crisis in Ottawa?

[Keri Lewis]

Interval House of Ottawa is a crisis shelter. We provide crisis shelter for people experiencing violence. At the moment, we do not have alternative interim or second-stage housing available in our city. There is really nothing like that.

What is happening is that women are staying with us sometimes for up to a year. I've been in this field for about 20 years now, and when I first started, the average length of stay in a crisis shelter was eight to 10 weeks. That average has now increased to about four and a half months or five months. There are just no options beyond that. People must wait until they can obtain affordable housing in order to leave the shelter.

However, we as an organization are exploring the possibility of developing additional second-stage housing units in our city to provide that in-between phase when folks leave the emergency shelter and need somewhere to reside temporarily until permanent housing can become available.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you for that information, Ms. Lewis.

These women must sometimes live with you for up to a year. Do they often have children with them?

[Keri Lewis]

Yes.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

You said that the government must provide enough money to build social housing. We know that this can't be done overnight.

How much social housing should be built? How much money would you need quickly?

In this situation, what does the word “quickly” mean to you, Ms. Lewis?

[Keri Lewis]

Honestly speaking, “quickly” means five or 10 years ago. In terms of the number of women we turned away, between April 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021, we turned away 500 women and their families who were seeking emergency shelter with us.

The numbers are—

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

What happened to these women?

[Keri Lewis]

Many of them had to stay in their abusive situations until a space could be available. Some were placed in temporary places, like motels within the city of Ottawa. Some of them may have been lucky enough to find space in another shelter locally or outside of the city.

The options are very limited and none of them are ideal. The length of time that people are forced to stay in emergency shelters or temporary accommodations creates instability that is really difficult to recover from, especially for kids. If you can imagine, when children move from one area of the city to another to reside in a shelter, for example, they may have to change schools, and then if they are then transferred somewhere else after that, they might have to change schools again.

The lack of housing is creating instability for families on such a large scale that it makes it very difficult for families to move on from the trauma they've experienced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You have 10 seconds.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Lewis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much.

We'll now move over to Anita Vandenbeld.

Anita, you have six minutes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

It's good to see you again, Ms. Lewis. I know that in your previous role we worked together on making sure that we built a new women's shelter, Nelson House, in my riding.

That's actually the nature of my first question. We know that when women are fleeing intimate partner violence, they often do have children, as you mentioned, but some of them also have disabilities. With Nelson House, we were able to create modular housing that could be expanded to accommodate different numbers of members of the family, for different numbers of children, giving the mother a little bit of privacy but also accessibility for somebody in a wheelchair or with other physical accessibility needs.

Can you talk to me about the double challenge for people who might be fleeing a situation at home who have large families with multiple children, or for people who have disabilities?

[Keri Lewis]

Thank you for that question.

I'll start with accessibility. Shelters are grassroots movements. They started 30 to 40 years ago. Often it was groups of women who came together in communities and found houses that were older and affordable, and that often were not chosen with accessibility in mind. They were chosen with cost and sustainability in mind. Many shelters are still in those older homes or just in the process of trying to upgrade. Trying to build shelters or convert shelters to make them more accessible is tricky.

I think we've been in a process for a number of years where we've been trying to build purpose-built shelters that meet those accessibility needs. In terms of accessibility, I think we have a long way to go as a sector to be able to create full accessibility for everyone who needs our services. That does mean that it makes it harder for folks who have those accessibility needs.

In terms of larger families, it's a similar story. All the shelters are not necessarily purpose-built. It does make it harder for larger families with five or six kids to find a place that can accommodate them all. It's not easy for moms to be in a space, often one bedroom or sometimes two, with five, six, seven or eight children. It's certainly a challenge.

It makes it all the more important for us to find ways to make that pathway to safe, affordable and permanent housing easier and faster for the folks we serve.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'd like to go back to something you said that I personally found very shocking, especially given that you're talking about Ottawa, my city—that 500 women were turned away. That isn't acceptable. I think we all want to see very quick action to make sure this changes.

Obviously, you talked about housing, and you talked about things that might be a little bit longer-term in terms of being able to construct. What do you see that we could do in the short term? What are immediate things that could be done? You said something about second-stage housing. Could our rapid housing initiative, for instance, be able to help in this regard?

[Keri Lewis]

If we're looking for a solution this week or next week, I think the only viable solution, really, is more funding for temporary spaces—hotel rooms, motel rooms, and converting motels, not into long-term housing but at least in a way in which emergency services could be supported. If we're talking medium term, there is funding available through CMHC for organizations like Interval House and other shelters, but it takes a long time to build a new building.

In terms of what supports could be put in place, it would be to make those funding pots a little bit more accessible for smaller and medium-sized organizations like Interval House. We're small potatoes. We're not a huge housing developer. Sometimes the structure of funding programs is meant for larger developers. A small organization takes on a lot of risk to access those pots of money. For organizations like ours to be able to respond to the problem and be part of a solution and to take on these projects where we can build second-stage housing or additional shelter spaces, it would just be to create processes that are not as risky for us.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That is very helpful.

Ms. Cross, do you have any advice in terms of short-term, medium-term and long-term priorities?

[Pamela Cross]

We're looking at the legal side of things, and that's the perspective I bring to this conversation. We certainly have some short-term possible wins. The recent changes to the Divorce Act were followed in Ontario by changes to the Children's Law Reform Act. It would be great to see similar changes made across the country so that courts would have a standardized approach to how they are considering parenting arrangements when the family has had a history of violence.

We need to start a discussion soon about what we're going to do about coercively controlling behaviour. I see that as something for both the short and medium term. We can start the conversation right away, but I hope it is enough of a conversation that any outcome of it would be in the medium term rather than the long term.

In the longer term, on the law side, I would really like to see us look at a completely different way of addressing intimate partner abuse. The present criminal and family systems really perpetuate systems that keep that violence happening.

I have lots more to say about it, but the chair is telling me it's time to stop, so maybe I can get another question about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Absolutely. Thank you so much, Pam.

I'm now going to move it over to Andréanne.

Andréanne, you have six minutes .

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank our two witnesses from the first panel for joining us today.

Ms. Lewis and Ms. Cross, your presentations will help us reflect on the issue of intimate partner violence.

Ms. Cross, according to your organization's website, coercive control is a key issue to consider when it comes to domestic violence. Many women describe non‑physical violence in intimate relationships as worse than physical violence because people have trouble understanding how serious it is. The article also notes that Canada may follow the lead of some countries and criminalize coercive behaviour.

Do you think that Canada should criminalize coercive control?

Can you tell us about the experience of other countries that have enacted legislation on this issue?

[Pamela Cross]

Our position at Luke's Place is that we need to do a lot more work before we know whether criminalizing coercive control is the right way to go.

Your first comments are really important. Coercive control is a hidden kind of abuse within families. It often doesn't include any physical violence at all. Understandably, when the typical person who doesn't work in this area thinks about domestic violence or intimate partner violence, they think about the slap, the kick, the hit, the push down the stairs. Often coercive control disappears. People think of it as the back-and-forth, the natural arguments that people in a relationship have with one another, and coercive control is anything but that.

Keri will have seen lots of this at her shelter and I'm sure would have stories similar to the ones I'm going to share with you.

In a relationship of coercive control, the woman loses her sense of self, her sense of agency. She has very little autonomy, because the abuser has created an atmosphere of such fear that she knows she needs to do what he expects of her or there will be dire consequences. Often the children are brought into that coercive control as weapons, unwittingly, of course. They have no idea about the role they're playing, but the abuser may threaten the woman: “I'll take the kids if you leave me” or “I'll do this to the children if you don't do what I want.” There are threats to harm pets, financial control and social isolation. The list is long, and I'm sure many of you are familiar with it.

The issue of what we do about coercive control is very challenging. Women have said—and I've had clients who have said to me—“Why isn't there a law against that? I call the police and they say there is nothing they can do because he didn't hit me. He didn't kidnap me. He didn't confine me to the home.” They have a very strong point. On the other hand, to criminalize coercive control means that women potentially could find themselves in situations—women who are victims—of being improperly charged with that because of manipulation by the abusive spouse.

The mandatory charging policies in this country have led to just those kinds of outcomes. Policies that were intended to protect women have ended up being used against them, so when we think about coercive control, we say let's have a national discussion about this. Let's talk to survivors, victims, frontline workers, police officers, Crown attorneys, family law lawyers, judges, and Children's Aid Society representatives. Let's have a full conversation so that we can hear many perspectives before we jump to thinking that a particular outcome is the right one.