Status of Women Committee on Oct. 28th, 2024

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

And I.... Oh, okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I've been a little bit generous.

At this point, I would like to welcome Andréanne for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I still have a lot of questions I'd like to ask. This is a heartbreaking topic, and I have only two and a half minutes to talk about it.

What Quebec is doing is not perfect, but one good thing it has done on the issue of violence against women was to set aside any trace of political partisanship and draft a non-partisan report entitled “Rebâtir la confience“. The objective was to rebuild trust. Members of all political parties considered the issue in a spirit of cross-sector co-operation, with people from the justice system, the health system and the community.

A report has now been released, and we will have to analyze it and look at the recommendations that were made and their consequences. I'm thinking in particular of the issue of specialized courts, which are currently testing the use of electronic bracelets. We also need to examine something else raiser in the “Rebâtier la confiance“ report, making coercive control a crime, because that is a federal responsibility.

Ms. Jeshani, I'd like you to answer me in 30 seconds, because then I'd like to ask Ms. Dugal one last question.

It won't solve all the problems, but in what way are criminalizing coercive control and recognizing the term “femicide” in the Criminal Code solutions that need to be explored?

[Shelina Jeshani]

Naming femicide is taking away the invisibility of the issue. Naming it makes us understand that women are at risk and especially at risk by their intimate partners. I think that is part of the solution. It's not the only solution. We need many prongs in order to be able to address this and name this and come together as a community.

I do think that education is key. I think training of those who are in power to make decisions is key, and I think legislation that names this and has clear accountabilities and consequences for those who choose to use violence to hurt their intimate partners is essential.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

As it happens, I was disturbed by a public awareness campaign in Quebec when I was a teenager. The slogan was something like “violence may not always leave a mark, but it always hurts”. I understood very early on that violence often begins insidiously and involves a certain amount of psychological control.

Ms. Dugal, this is my last question. You talked about recommendations from other reports.

Are there one or two recommendations you would like to see included in the committee's report at the end of this study?

[Anuradha Dugal]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I just want to also point out, on the previous question that I was not able to answer, that there is not enough money in the justice system to enable women who cannot afford to represent themselves to get adequate support. The income level testing that is required is extremely low. Many women cannot afford the kind of legal support that is needed for them to go through any kind of legal service, whether it's a divorce case, an IPV case or, indeed, their own attempted murder.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much, Ms. Dugal.

With regard to the last question that Andréanne posed, if you could submit those recommendations to the committee, that would be great. We've already exhausted an extra minute or two of her time.

[Anuradha Dugal]

My recommendations are funding for shelter spaces, danger assessments, wraparound holistic services that include all kinds of social services, greater coordination and a full implementation of the national action plan above the $5-million level that the current government has offered. We need billions, not millions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much.

MP Zarrillo, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

I'm just going to follow up on the national action plan and the fact that, in 2022, it was supposed to be 10 years. Right now, I think we have two bilaterals, one with Manitoba for $22 million and one with Saskatchewan for $20 million, but there has not been an annual report out of WAGE to track its progress.

Again, I hope this report reflects how slowly the government has been rolling out funds. I'm going to think about the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls calls for justice. Very little of that money has been spent. Money doesn't help when it's sitting in somebody else's bank account.

My question is for Ms. Dugal.

I'm the critic for seniors and women with disabilities, and I hear many stories of how there just isn't enough data on intimate partner violence and family violence for women with disabilities and seniors. I wonder if you could just share with this committee what you've seen over time in regard to seniors and women or persons of diverse genders with disabilities experiencing intimate partner violence at home.

[Anuradha Dugal]

Of course, the reason women, diverse people with disabilities and seniors are more vulnerable to violence is that they are more isolated. They often have fewer resources. It is much easier to use multiple forms of abuse. Often, financial abuse is used against women with disabilities and seniors, as is abuse with the assistive technology that they might use and need and abuse that is coercive in nature.

The threats of physical violence can also be much more difficult for somebody who is a senior or disabled, because they have, if you like, a more delicate health system when they are facing those threats, and fewer opportunities to find help. Because it is not recognized, we often infantilize older people, and we take away their agency. If we don't believe women to begin with, we believe older women and disabled women even less, because we take away their rights and they're not able to express what they are experiencing in many cases.

There are some programs that are specifically available to older women and women with disabilities. Having specific programs available to them is essential. You can't work with older women in a trauma-informed way in the same way. You need to have different, separate services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

Dominique, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before I ask what will probably be my last question, I want to make a couple of quick comments.

The first is for all of us as parliamentarians. If we really want to solve the problem, move forward and achieve actual results, we must first recognize what works and what doesn't.

Obviously, there's something wrong when women are assaulted and men are given a slap on the wrist because the laws have changed. Colleagues have already raised cases where criminals have received a discharge or been released on bail. They served their sentence at home when they should have been in prison instead. As parliamentarians, we should look at what happens in such cases, properly address the problem and recognize that necessary changes need to be made.

My second comment has to do with women being made invisible. A popular trend is removing, or trying to remove, the word “woman” from legislation and replacing it with a slightly more generic word, such as “individual” or “person”. There was one particular case in Quebec City, and other similar attempts have been made. I'm sorry, but I cannot get behind that trend, and I'm glad the record will show that.

My third comment is for you, Ms. Walker. You said that a lot of the femicides that occurred could have been prevented. It sends shivers up my spine to know that they could have been prevented but that, as a society, we failed to protect these women. In Quebec, there is a horror story right now that involves children. Something is not working. There's a disconnect.

My fourth comment is for Ms. Jeshani. I tried, as did my colleague Ms. Larouche, to get some answers. I would ask you to clarify. When you and others say that femicide must be criminalized, I agree with you. However, that position needs to be backed up by an argument and a narrative that shows how things will change as a result. Some people will say that femicide is the same thing as murder. They will add that it is not necessary to add bells and whistles, so to speak, to the Criminal Code.

We have to do something worthwhile as a committee. I would appreciate it if you could send us the reasons why you and the other witnesses think that adding the word “femicide” to the Criminal Code will improve the situation and prevent women being murdered. On that issue and many others, I didn't get the answers I was hoping for today.

Mrs. Roberts, I know I was going to share my time with you. I don't know if I've left you any time. I'm sorry if I haven't.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

I just want to read into the record that Bill C-75 also added a reverse onus—I think it was mentioned for bail—when an individual is charged with an offence related to intimate partner violence and has previously been convicted of an offence relating to the intimate partner violence.

How is that protecting women?

[Cait Alexander]

You can't leave it up to the abusers. Saying, “Oh, well, I'm a first-time offender”.... They used that with my ex. It's utter nonsense, because even with me, he wasn't a first-time offender by the time he was arrested. Stop leaving it up to the abusers. Stop leaving it up to the defence counsels.

I would just add a comment. Every single woman I know who is no longer with us, their ex-partner was out on bail—every single one—Caitlin, Breanna, Angie, Tiffany, Holly and Kelsey. In the last year, those are the ones I'm aware of personally. It's because we're not prosecuting these offenders and keeping them where they need to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

MP Serré, you have the last five minutes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My heartfelt thanks to the witnesses for being here.

The subject we are studying is extremely difficult. I agree with the witnesses about how hard it is to know which level of government to talk to. Solutions have to be found. As Mrs. Vien said earlier, we absolutely have to identify specific solutions if we want to solve this crisis.

Before I ask my question, I want to clarify some comments that were made earlier. Last year, as part of the national action plan, the government allocated $500 billion to help all 10 provinces and three territories combat violence against women. A report will be submitted in December on the progress made in the 10 provinces and three territories. That said, we know that $500 billion is not enough. Solutions have to be found.

Ms. Alexander, you talked about your organization. Thank you for all that you do. It must be extremely difficult for a non-profit to navigate the system from a victim's perspective. I can't even imagine.

How could the federal government help you? How could we fund the type of system that could remedy the situation? It is clear that Crown prosecutors are not there to help victims. Obviously, the provinces have to be taken into account as well.

The federal government has budgeted $30 million to support crisis hotlines. Could a crisis hotline be added to the program to help women who are victims of violence? That would be one way to bring people together.

[Cait Alexander]

This is actually something that's going on in Mexico right now. We're going to be expanding down there too, because this issue is obviously a global problem. There is actually a separate number, 555, that you can call if you have SA or IPV or femicide against you. That actually is a program that's being rolled out there. I'm happy to share further details.

An advocacy program is so needed. This is something we can talk about. We understand the step by step, because we've lived it.

I am giving survivors a thing that I wish I had had after my attempted murder—that exact person, a friend. We're calling it a “friend”. We're calling it a re-entry into rebuilding life. Remove all this clinical intake, client jargon and have it be a trauma-informed program.

It's working. I've contacted Peel Regional Police actually and have had more reports made. I've contacted school boards. We're helping. I talked to a 13-year-old girl about her sexual assault and helped get her perpetrator prosecuted properly.

We need the resources to do it. I have relied on private funding exclusively because I have access to America. That is not the majority of non-profits in the U.S., but I have brought business people onto our board to facilitate these things.

I would very happily have a discussion about how we can fund a proper advocacy program in this country, so that survivors and their families feel like they are supported through the justice system.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you for that.

Ms. Dugal, from the Women's Shelters Canada, you mentioned the lack of data. Can you be specific? The data is there, so I want you to clarify what you mean by the lack of data.

What else do we need to collect?

[Anuradha Dugal]

Actually, the data isn't there. This is one of the reasons we need to name it femicide.

In many cases, when we are looking at the homicide numbers, it is sometimes very hard to identify when it is the case that a woman is a victim of a femicide linked to IPV. In some cases, the police do not ask that question. In very many cases, it takes advocates to bring it forward and say that they see this as IPV, that it is related to violence and that they want them to go back and look at it again.

There's no consistency in how the data is collected. We need information on the background of victims, on their social location, their race, their geographic location and how many times they reported to the police before this happened. If they never reported to the police, why didn't they report? What is the family saying about what happened? What did the neighbours see?

This is the sort of information we were able to gather through a multi-year, government-funded research grant run by Dr. Myrna Dawson, which led to the foundation of the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability. That is why we need data. It's because we need accountability.

We also need to know how many times a charge is laid. What happens afterward?

Of course, that data is somewhere in StatsCan or somewhere in a police database, but we need it collected and collated for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you, Ms. Dugal and MP Serré.

At this point, that concludes our panel for today. The meeting commenced at 11:03, so we will finish at approximately 1:04, because we had one minute of suspension as well.

In addition to that, I would like to encourage or implore any witnesses who did not have an opportunity to respond to questions.... If they would like to submit additional information in response to questions that were posed to them, they are welcome to do that.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all of you for being here, for joining online and for your very sensitive testimony.

To committee members, we have just about two minutes of committee business that I would like to address. There are a couple of housekeeping things before the next meeting.

On mental health supports for witnesses, we have done this in the past with regard to the study of coercive behaviour. Is everyone in agreement to offer those supports to witnesses for this study?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

There was a proposed budget circulated, and a revised budget was circulated this morning. Is it the will of the committee to adopt the budget as proposed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

At this point, is it the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?