Status of Women Committee on Nov. 4th, 2024

[Alison Irons]

I'm already concerned when you mention data because, as you know, we have implemented Bill C-71, which required adult lifetime background checks for gun licensing. I was in a meeting earlier in June with the RCMP and the national firearms program. I have made the point repeatedly that if in fact the police are now conducting those adult lifetime background checks and denying or revoking licences, their data should show an increase in the number of licence refusals and revocations. They can't even tell us that, three years after Bill C-71 was implemented.

As you know, the collection of the data is a serious problem. Police and media are still not reporting on when a legal gun is used in a femicide or a homicide, so data is a key concern of mine, for sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

Next, I would like to welcome Andréanne Larouche.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is incomprehensible that, in 2024, there could be one more.

Ms. Tremblay, we've met before at this committee. You talked about the electronic bracelet issue, if I remember correctly. You said how much it could have prevented certain cases of violence. You really believed in it.

We are looking for concrete solutions to literally save women's lives. We will soon be studying a bill at the federal level. Quebec already has electronic bracelets, even though the most serious crimes are committed at the federal level. It would have been ridiculous if the federal government had not followed the provincial lead. Now there is an opening.

Can you go back to the importance of these kinds of measures for monitoring?

[Diane Tremblay]

Yes, when I appeared before this committee last November, we were talking about Senator Pierre‑Hugues Boisvenu's Bill S‑205.

I think it is essential—and I will not back down from this, as it's important—that an electronic bracelet be required to be worn in all Canadian provinces. This measure must also be accessible to indigenous peoples in remote regions.

In my case, if my abuser had worn the electronic bracelet, that would have saved my life, so to speak. The second time he tried to kill me, he broke down my door and I was not able to escape as I would have liked. It was my neighbours who saved my life. When I walked outside, I was always looking around. I had taken self-defence courses. However, when you're dealing with a violent man, no matter how much you try to defend yourself, it's not always possible. I had a knife to my throat. I tried to defend myself at one point. I kicked him and jumped over the guardrail downstairs. Had my abuser worn the electronic bracelet, I would have been warned even before he broke down my door. Do you understand? I was lucky enough to survive thanks to my neighbours.

However, without the electronic bracelet, many women will die. It really has to be understood and the bracelet has to be imposed.

I also wanted to tell you quickly that I went to court to watch judges. They often use the first offence argument. In my opinion, a man being a first-time offender doesn't mean that he shouldn't be required to wear an electronic bracelet. Women don't get a first chance when domestic violence occurs. They have been beaten and threatened. It all starts with how a man takes action. As Ms. Irons described and as happened in my case, the man went for it. Some men go for it in the first offence.

I really want to emphasize that the wearing of an electronic bracelet must be mandatory. Judges should understand that. Could we, the women, meet with the judges? Could we have a chance to talk to them before they render their judgment? Could women be given a little chance? Do women get chances? No, they don't. If someone commits a violent act or makes threats of murder or anything else, that should be enough to require them to wear a bracelet. It would make violent men think even more. Do you think they'll like it? Of course not.

We don't like it either. We are in a prison and we want to get out.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Tremblay.

In any case, we'll have to follow up on the wearing of the electronic bracelet and see how the measure is deployed in the field, given the connection problems that exist in some regions.

Ms. Riendeau, this isn't your first appearance before this committee either. You've already spoken about the criminalization of coercive control and Bill C‑332. Have you had a chance to study it? I think the answer is yes, of course.

What's next? I don't think this bill is going to solve everything, so what would your recommendations be to complement it?

[Louise Riendeau]

For Bill C‑332 to be applied optimally, it is absolutely necessary to train all the stakeholders who will have to apply it—police officers and prosecutors, among others—before it comes into force, so that they fully understand what it's all about and can assess situations very well.

These are the lessons we learned on a recent mission to Great Britain. Upstream training really is the secret.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

Leah, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

I want to start out by thanking all the witnesses today. Your testimony is so critical, but I also know for many in the room, it's also very painful, and I want to acknowledge that. I hope I honour what you've gifted us with today with my questions.

I wanted to start out with Madam Anderson-Pyrz.

You spoke about how this needs to be a non-partisan issue. I agree with you. I think all levels of government—municipal, provincial, federal—have all failed since time immemorial to deal with gender-based violence. This is non-partisan, and every single political party is at fault for turning a blind eye to this violence, which is why this committee is so critical—women sitting together, and Marc, to address this ongoing issue.

You spoke about accountability, and I want to speak to that. Call for justice 1.7 says:

We call upon the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, in partnership with Indigenous Peoples, to establish a National Indigenous and Human Rights Ombudsperson, with authority in all jurisdictions, and to establish a National Indigenous and Human Rights Tribunal.

Then it goes on to talk about what the responsibility would be.

The federal government issued a report, I think it was last year, on how to put in place an ombudsperson position—call for justice 1.7. It's now November. We have another report—no action.

How critical is it to get in place that ombudsperson's office right now? I'd say it's right now. I'm saying it's that urgent, but I want to hear what you would say.

[Hilda Anderson-Pyrz]

I think it's very critical to have an accountability mechanism in place, because without that mechanism, indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse people are going to continue to die at alarming rates, and go missing and experience violence at alarming rates.

When we look at accountability mechanisms, I feel, regardless of what government is in power, as indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse people, we've been experiencing violence for decades—including my grandmother, my great-grandmother, my mother, and me as well.

I think, collectively, each and every one of you and all levels of government have to focus on establishing an accountability mechanism where we're going to see change in this country; where we're going to feel safe as indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse people; where we're not constantly looking over our shoulder, wondering if we're going to be next, if we're going to go missing, if we're going to be murdered, if we're going to experience violence; and to really focus on addressing the systemic and structural racism that's deeply embedded in state policies and state practices as well.

It's urgently needed.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I would also include in policing as well.

[Hilda Anderson-Pyrz]

Absolutely.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, absolutely. I have universal agreement in the room around policing.

We often talk about the end of the game. I've heard a lot of stuff about tough on crime and bail reform, and that's a critical piece to make sure.

However, Madame Tremblay, Mr. Broadfoot and Mr. Carolo, you spoke about the importance of education and resocializing men into pro-social, anti-violent behaviour, because by the time the police get involved, it's often too late.

You spoke of your daughter, Ms. Irons. By the time the police got involved, it was too late. And I have a question for you after.

From the three of you—and I have very limited time—why is education so important? It seems silly, but why is it critical to end gender-based violence? They say, “Oh, it's education. We need to get tough.” However, why is the education piece so critical?

I'll start with you, Madame Tremblay, then I'll move to Mr. Broadfoot and then to Mr. Carolo.

[Diane Tremblay]

Education is the foundation, in my opinion. Everything happens when you're young. In many cases, children who have witnessed violence will repeat it. If we don't put preventive measures in place, the violence will repeat itself. Unfortunately, we live in an extremely violent world at the moment. There's a lot of violence in schools. Women have to defend themselves in schools.

I think we need to set up an information and communication system. As I explained earlier, we also need to set up resources so that people can intervene, go and educate our children and instill respect for women in them, respect for their mothers, their grandmothers—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm so sorry. I'm out of time. Maybe in the next round the other two can answer.

Then I have a question for you around gun control.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

The five- and six-minute rounds go very quickly.

I'd like to welcome Anna.

You have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here.

I was at an event yesterday with Yellow Brick House, which organized a walk for survivors of violence against women and children. One of the things that was continually spoken about was a brave young lady who shared her story with us. I will keep her anonymous, because that's what she wanted us to do. Her story was one of abuse by a repeat abuser who continually abused her. Eight weeks before she was scheduled to be married, she decided that she could no longer stay in this relationship. Thank God for her strength. However, the abuser is still out there after being reported and arrested. She is running scared. She's fearing for her life.

I'm going to start with Lucas.

Lucas, do you think that if we are going to protect women like your sister, we need to ensure that the laws are strengthened so that criminals can be kept behind bars and women can feel free to walk the streets?

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Unfortunately, it appears as though we have lost Lucas online.

Anna, perhaps you could go on to another question.

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

Thank you. I'll go to Madam Tremblay.

Do you agree that we need to strengthen the laws so that women aren't fearing for their lives?

[Diane Tremblay]

Sincerely, yes. As I was saying earlier, women are the ones who are imprisoned right now. I'm not denigrating shelters. I've been there several times, including for a three-month period, and it's a good thing they exist. What I'm saying is that, even when we go to a shelter, our abuser stalks us. My abuser knew which shelter I was in. He even brought in a woman, who had claimed to have suffered domestic violence, to come and threaten me.

In short, it's important that these men stay behind bars and start therapy as soon as they arrive to become aware of their actions, even if some don't have a conscience and never will. If they're released, they'll do it again. You saw what happened in my case. Once my attacker had finished with me, he went after another woman, then another. There were three of us. If he'd stayed in prison, though, none of this would have happened.

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

I have limited time and I want to ask you one more question.

You spoke about this earlier; we spoke about e-bracelets. I want to talk about a situation that has occurred in my riding.

A retired firefighter was shot by someone from MS-13 who crossed the border illegally. He was arrested and a bracelet was put on him. We just found out this weekend that the bracelet has been removed. Now, the individual—who, God pray for him every day, has survived after being shot seven times—is fearing for his life because he was able to identify the person.

I know the bracelet is a mechanism to ensure that they have control of where this individual is placed, but I don't think it's the only mechanism. I think we do need to keep them in jail until we can prove that they're not a risk to anyone else.

Madam Tremblay, do you agree with that?

[Diane Tremblay]

I completely agree with that. There's no other way than electronic bracelets. If they can be removed, we have to ask those who produce them to correct the flaws. That said, we absolutely must keep these men behind bars. Otherwise, I don't see how women victims can be free. For the moment, there is no other protection. These men also need training. If there are any who still don't understand, I don't know what to tell you.

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

I've only got 20 seconds left, so I want to quickly ask a question of any of the witnesses who can respond.

Why is it that we're always having to find shelters for women? Why is it that we can't incarcerate the criminals and leave the women and children in the homes they're accustomed to?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Unfortunately, we don't have any time for a response, but perhaps you could find some room to respond after a different question.

Emmanuella, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

Several of you spoke about education being a key to finally putting an end to gender-based violence and femicides. Some mentioned campaigns. Others spoke about integrating it into our school programs and teaching kids at a young age what safe relationships are, how to treat each other and how to control their anger.

Education, as you know, falls under provincial jurisdiction, but there are several things that the federal government can do in order to help implement these kinds of programs, or at least to ensure that the supports are there.

I'm not allowed to give any recommendations for this report, so can you give us some recommendations as to how the federal government could support this initiative?

That's for everybody who spoke to education being a key here.

[Humberto Carolo]

I can offer a couple of comments on this, if I may.

At a national level, it's really important that we work together with organizations like the Canadian Teachers' Federation to better train, equip and support their members, educators across the country, to provide this type of foundational education, and to start early and educate early.

So much of this is fuelled by the kinds of norms and socialization we teach boys and young men from a very early age about always being in control, always fighting back, standing their ground and not accepting any emotions other than anger. Rather, they need to accept a full range of emotions, to seek help when needed rather than keeping it in and to ask for help.

Without those kinds of early skills, boys and young men end up growing up not knowing how to deal with their feelings of loss, rejection and anger, and they end up using violence instead.