Status of Women Committee on Oct. 30th, 2024

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you for raising online harassment. This is something I know we need to do a lot more on.

With the reported rise of sexual assault, particularly level 2 offences, what specific support system do you believe should be prioritized to assist survivors throughout the legal process when they are going through it? I want your views.

Ms. Lukasik-Foss, you can add your views in there too.

[Julie S. Lalonde]

I would love to see free legal advice for victims of stalking.

In Ontario, we had a pilot project whereby you could get a few hours of free legal advice if you were a sexual assault survivor. I would love to see the same thing for stalking, because there is some nuance. There are behaviours that are abhorrent but do not, unfortunately, cross the threshold into illegality. You could have a civil option and sue somebody for harassment, even if it doesn't meet.... However, most people don't know that.

I think a certificate program through which victims would be given a few hours of free legal advice would be an incredible first step. It's low-hanging fruit that would make a tremendous difference.

I will pass it to Lenore.

[Lenore Lukasik-Foss]

I agree with Ms. Lalonde's comments. That legal certificate program was so helpful. There was quite a lot of uptake.

In terms of supports, I think it's just recognizing that for most victims of sexual violence, or really any form of gender-based violence, the vast majority—anywhere from 90% to 95%—do not report to official channels in the criminal system or other authorities. We need to make sure that folks get the support in other ways and that there are counsellors, trauma counsellors, peer support and a variety of options available for survivors who are dealing with this.

For example, we know that young people in the university or college context are more likely to talk to each other. We need to really up our bystander intervention work and teach folks how to deal with a disclosure. What do you do? How are you supporting your friend in that situation?

I think there's so much work we can do around prevention and bystander intervention and around ensuring that we have those supports so that when survivors come forward, there is actually counselling and support. Right now, in our local sexual assault centre in Hamilton, there's a six-month wait-list. When I am a survivor and I am terrified and I make that first call, I'm told that I have to wait six months to speak to someone.

I know that they try their best in the meanwhile to give support, but folks need that access. That's a difficulty.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

At our last meeting, we had witnesses from Peel. I'm from Brampton. We heard from Shelina Jeshani, the director of Safe Centre of Peel, about the importance of integrating services so that the victim can easily get the help they need.

You talked about mental health. You talked about legal services. How can a woman get these services under one roof? The Safe Centre of Peel is doing amazing work. There are 16 offices there. Those are integrated services, especially for racialized women, with an intersectional lens.

What needs to be done on that side?

[Lenore Lukasik-Foss]

I think that is quite key. You need to ensure that your services are meeting the needs of all survivors. You need to have that intersectional lens for survivors—racialized, indigenous, gender diverse, non-binary, etc. You want to make sure that, looking around, you can see that there's a space for everyone in your services, and also see who's not walking through your doors and why.

I think the other key is that not all communities have that kind of one-stop space. I think there is still much that can be done. I know, for example, that in the service we offer at the university, it's our role to make those connections. When someone comes in, there's no wrong door. We link them up; hopefully, the case manager can then do all of the connecting, supporting and linking for that person. When an individual has experienced this kind of violence and trauma, having them make phone calls and go through the maze of systems is not okay.

I think it's important that we have well-funded services that are directly meeting the needs of all the victims so that they feel they can reach out and they won't have to do a lot of running around.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

That's excellent. Thank you.

Thank you, MP Sidhu.

Next is MP Larouche.

Ms. Larouche, go ahead for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us and contributing to the committee's current study. We are considering a situation that is happening more often and that is referred to as an epidemic. I'm talking about femicides. Therefore, this study is extremely important.

My first questions are for Ms. Gagnon and Ms. Huet.

In your opening remarks, you talked about the collaborative work you are doing.

How could the criminalization of coercive control help you? How could that facilitate the process of responding to women who may be victims of this type of control, this violence?

What would you recommend to the federal government?

[Jackie Huet]

I can start answering the question, and then Ms. Gagnon can add to my remarks, if she likes.

Amendments could be made to the Criminal Code. Far too much weight is still being placed on the victims' shoulders. For a few years now, in Quebec, we've been working a lot on supporting victims to try to protect them. We have made a lot of progress, but there is still far too much weight on their shoulders, especially when it comes to reporting. We have already seen some good things being done about coercive control, but what people seem to be saying is that judicial actors need to be better trained.

Simply integrating coercive control into the Criminal Code is not going to solve everything, as it would be very difficult for police and prosecutors to enforce. However, it may be appropriate to train judicial actors on this phenomenon so that they know that it is something concrete and that it can be criminalized, based on what we are seeing elsewhere, while adding nuances.

In Quebec, the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale produced a very worthwhile report on the subject.

[Karine Gagnon]

I would like to add some comments.

We were asked about it during the consultations on the criminalization of coercive control. We even sent a letter in support of the recommendations of the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale in Quebec.

Criminalizing coercive control doesn't solve everything, but it gives authorities an additional tool to take into account the lived context and not just isolated events, such as assault, aggravated assault and harassment. The underlying context of spousal violence is less visible, but I would venture to say that it is more harmful than what is visible.

To enforce that, as my colleague said, police officers and prosecutors need to be well trained. In Quebec, the issue of coercive control has already been added to the directives of prosecutors in criminal and penal prosecutions. So that is already something they have to take into account when they analyze a case before deciding whether or not to lay charges.

It's certainly an additional tool for charges to be laid, but beyond that, criminalizing coercive control also sends a message that helps people who are experiencing coercive control recognize it. Society, police and prosecutors must recognize this, of course, but the people who experience it must also be aware of it.

Criminalization brings these things out into the open. It can help victims realize that what they're experiencing is really domestic violence and that their partner isn't just exercising control. Including this element in the Criminal Code also has that effect.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That is something we should keep in mind and consider in our report on femicides.

If I recall correctly, the CAVAC Network was one of the contributors to the Quebec report that examines supports for victims of sexual and domestic violence, “Rebâtir la confiance”. The report was produced by the National Assembly, and the criminalization of coercive control is one of its recommendations. However, knowing that this is not the responsibility of the Quebec National Assembly, Quebec members are asking the federal government to take action.

We are currently studying Bill C‑332, which paves the way for making coercive control a crime. Why is it important to pass the bill?

[Karine Gagnon]

It's important for the reasons I mentioned. As you say, only the federal government has the power to include that offence in the Criminal Code.

In Quebec, as I mentioned, this is already part of the directives our prosecutors receive. Coercive control is taken into account in the analysis of case files, but it cannot be admitted into evidence or used as a charge. It is therefore important to criminalize it so that specific charges can be laid everywhere in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Very good.

Next I will welcome MP Kwan. You have the floor for six minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for their presentations.

I'd like to build on the issue of rural versus urban differences, which was touched on in the presentations.

By way of stats, if you look at 2021, you see that the rate of gender-related homicide in Canada was two and a half times greater in rural areas compared with urban areas. By way of provinces, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta are the leading provinces faced with the gender-related homicides of women and girls. The stats get even more stark as you get deeper into it.

I would like to get your advice and knowledge about recognizing the differences between rural versus urban communities, and what needs to be done. What does the federal government need to do to support, in particular, the women and girls in rural and remote communities who are facing horrific attacks?

[Julie S. Lalonde]

I'm based in Ottawa, but I'm from small-town northern Ontario. I not only research this but I've also lived this.

Yes, less than 16% of Canadians live in rural, remote or northern communities, and yet they represent about half, if not sometimes more than half, of femicides in this country.

Isolation is a problem for all victims of intimate partner violence. However, when you live on a back road and you are 40 minutes away from the local OPP detachment—as was the case for Nathalie Warmerdam, who was killed in Wilno—confidentiality is a problem. If everybody knows everybody else, can a victim trust accessing victim services if victim services also plays hockey with her abusive husband?

It's firearm access. In my family, growing up, we all had firearms. I'm the only person in my family who doesn't hunt. I'm a vegan. I grew up with firearms in my home. I was never afraid of them, because I grew up in that context. However, if I lived in a violent home and knew there was a .22 in my basement, it would give me pause if I decided to leave.

Additionally, it's transportation. All of the train tracks going to northern Ontario have been ripped up. Greyhound has left the country. There are very few flights, even. If you're living in a rural community, there's no public transit. You need to have a car and gas, and you need to have access to that car on your own in order to leave. Where will you go?

Lastly, how we fund services is a problem in this country. We fund on a per capita basis, not understanding that while there might be more people in Toronto than Renfrew County, it's more expensive to serve clients in Renfrew County. That might seem like a provincial issue, but we need a federal conversation about how we decide who gets funding. Just looking at population density ignores that it's more dangerous and expensive to live in small-town Canada.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to touch on this as well. I'm from British Columbia, and we have northern communities and the Highway of Tears, of course. You touched on transportation. A lot of indigenous women and girls cannot access transportation. As a result, we are seeing some of those devastating numbers showing up.

Central to the question of transportation, would you recommend that the government put in a national transportation strategy for rural and remote communities so that women and girls facing violence have an ability to access transportation to safety?

[Lenore Lukasik-Foss]

Maybe I'll jump in here.

I love that idea, but I think this is a difficult reality. When we talk about gender-based violence and risk, particularly in rural and remote communities, we have to think about things like a transportation network and infrastructure. I know that's not quick and easy funding, but these kinds of solutions are needed to meaningfully address and bring down the rates of gender-based violence. It's about things like housing, travel infrastructure and child care. All of these issues keep women, primarily, stuck in these situations, because they are facing a much more difficult road by leaving than in staying in a situation that's known to them.

I know that's always hard, because it doesn't feel like low-hanging fruit. However, it's essential that we think about the broad picture to really make change.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you for that.

I understand that sometimes solutions are hard and cost money. However, the lives of women and families are valuable. If we don't invest, take these steps and make a plan to realize them, they will never be done. Then, 30 years later, we'll be talking about this again. That cannot be acceptable.

I think a sign just went up. Is it one minute?

Okay. I'll ask this very quickly and maybe build on it in my next round. I want to talk a little about culturally sensitive services.

Back in the day, when I was a community legal advocate, I met with women who faced violence and had nowhere to go because the services they were trying to access were not culturally sensitive or did not have the language capacity to meet their needs.

I wonder if you could share your knowledge and expertise and speak about that aspect. I have 30 seconds, so we might have to come back.

[Lenore Lukasik-Foss]

Okay, I can jump in here and say that this is an extremely important point. You need to make sure that your services are accessible for everyone. For example, I know that in our community—I'm from Hamilton—our women's shelters and sexual assault centre have access to over 250 languages for interpretation. That's one piece. That's a very small but important piece, because we want to be able to communicate with the individual. We need to ensure that a cultural lens and competency exist in those spaces so that we are not making assumptions and are addressing the unique needs of those survivors walking through the door. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

Again, just to echo what Ms. Lalonde was saying, I'll say that these services can be more expensive. When we look at bean-counting and the price per person, these kinds of services to meet the unique and diverse needs of survivors across Canada are essential, but they may be more expensive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

That's excellent. Thank you.

Next we have MP Vien.

Mrs. Vien, over to you for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. We are very pleased to have them.

Ms. Lalonde, you said in your opening remarks that you've trained 50,000 Canadians.

[Julie S. Lalonde]

I would say it's even more than that.

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

That's a lot of people.

Ms. Lalonde, can you explain to us what kind of training you designed and provided to these people? What objectives were you pursuing, or are you pursuing if you still do it?

[Julie S. Lalonde]

Yes, I still do training on a daily basis.

I teach bystanders and people in the community that they can play a role in building supportive communities. Most of the time, I work with people aged 12 and over, but I also have a program where I work with children aged three to 10.

We talk about the role that bystanders can play among the people around them and what they can do when they witness violence, harassment or hate. We then provide them with ways to respond.

I'm a very optimistic person. However, what I see every day is that most people want to do the right thing without really knowing how to go about it.

For example, what can you do if you see that your neighbour is being abused by her boyfriend? You don't want to make it worse, you don't want to put your neighbour at risk and you don't want to put yourself at risk. We propose a continuum of actions that can be taken. They could be direct or indirect, depending on the circumstances.

We talk about different methods, such as the 5 Ds. The goal is to help people realize that they have power and that they can do something. They need to be provided with tools.

That's really my role. I train people.

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

That's good.

How does that work? Do you put up posters in specific places? Do you advertise? Do people come to you?

[Julie S. Lalonde]

Because I've been doing this work for a long time, I often act as a spokesperson, and people ask for my services.

The problem is that people don't know the training exists. That's really what's missing.