Status of Women Committee on Nov. 6th, 2024

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

Madam Singh, do you agree with that?

[Sunder Singh]

I also agree with that.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Do any witnesses want to talk about that?

[Sunder Singh]

Are you addressing me, Ms. Sidhu?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Any witness can speak about that.

Do you have any comments, Dr. Buffalo?

[Dr. Amanda Buffalo]

I agree that it should be part of the Criminal Code and, as Madam Young stated, language is important, and we can't address things when we don't know what we're addressing. I would proffer for the committee that language is important in the way that we prosecute or seek justice as well.

In the court system now, violence gets mutualized in the language. We have a lot of work to do around training our justice, legal and punitive systems around clear and clean language that doesn't mutualize the violence or that doesn't put the responsibility of the actions of the perpetrator onto the victim. That, I think, is really an important piece of it.

That means talking about who did what to whom, and not letting “Jeff hit Jill”—I'm sorry, Jill—get changed in the court to, “Jill was hit,” and suddenly Jeff is gone, off in the night, and it's just Jill here having to deal with this.

I think that's a really important piece of it. As much as trauma-informed models brought us to where we are in this discussion, I think we need to move to violence-informed models that talk about who does what to whom, and we need to have dignity-driven practices that are committed to upholding the dignity of the victims and the survivors of violence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

We now go to Ms. Larouche for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today to think about how we can reduce, if not eliminate, femicides. In short, we are looking for solutions.

My first questions are for the representatives of Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, so Ms. St‑Pierre Gaudreault or Ms. Monastesse can answer.

In her opening remarks, Ms. Monastesse talked about what I see as crosscutting responsibilities. In other words, a number of sectors come into play in relation to femicides. That is why it is important to find ways to bring those sectors together, not just health and justice, but also the social system and safety net, taking into account things like the lack of housing. Basically, femicide is an issue that requires a broader response, and so, the discussion needs to focus on a number of sectors.

That was the approach taken by the panel of experts responsible for the Quebec report “Rebâtir la confiance”. The report focuses on supports for victims and their access to justice, and the recommendations address a number of sectors.

Would you like to comment on the need to address femicide at a broader level?

[Manon Monastesse]

You are right. A comprehensive approach is necessary, one that takes into account every aspect of these women's lives and quality of life. It has to address the health and social sectors as much as it does the justice system. An integrated response that brings together all sectors is needed to ensure women's safety.

The court system has been a frequent topic of discussion. The current court response is not good enough. It doesn't put victims at the centre of the judicial process. We have seen that violence against women and its impact on women and their children are poorly understood because justice system stakeholders do not have the necessary training.

It's the same for the health sector. Health professionals are not good at identifying the effects of violence against women. When women who have suffered injuries go to the hospital, in very few cases is violence identified as the cause. There again, it comes down to a lack of training.

Holes in the social safety net are also to blame. Women's shelters should not be the only organizations providing victims with the full range of supports they need. The response has to be coordinated and integrated. Many of the women who turn to us think twice about it. When they are thinking about leaving their violent partner, they wonder what will happen to them once they leave the shelter. It's also important not to overlook second-stage housing, where women can stay for three to five years as they rebuild their lives. Regardless, women wonder what they're going to do when they leave the shelter. Will they be able to afford a place to live? Will they find a good school for their kids? Will they find a new job? As we all know, women who leave abusive situations—whether it's domestic violence or another form of abuse—have to rebuild their lives from scratch. Unfortunately, some women choose to stay with their partner because society doesn't offer them the full range of supports they need.

How society responds to men with violent behaviours is equally important. Again, this is not limited to situations involving domestic violence. It includes exploitation rings, sexual assault, family violence, violence against parents at the hands of their children. It covers all the forms of violence that have been raised, ranging from financial abuse and verbal abuse to sexual violence.

That is why it is so important to make coercive control a crime. As we all know, violence offences in the Criminal Code are based solely on physical violence. Some women experience total coercive control, which has psychological and physical effects, but it does not necessarily constitute a crime. That is a major issue.

How are we dealing with violent men?

One of the problems we are seeing in Canada, at least in Quebec, is that the programs for these men are inadequate. Oftentimes, they don't focus on the need to hold these men accountable for their violent behaviours.

That explains a lot of the comments we hear. “Well, yes, he was violent towards his partner, but he's still a good father.” However, all the research shows that that is completely false: violence against women and violence against children go and in hand. Regardless, the prevailing attitude is such that fathers are able to get custody of the children under the civil law system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

MP Gazan, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, and thank you to all the witnesses. It was excellent testimony today. I wish I had lots of time to ask questions.

My first question is for Amanda Buffalo.

You spoke about policing and the issues around resource extraction. We actually did a study in this committee on the connection between resource extraction and increased violence against indigenous women and girls, but I want to speak about the policing. You said that with regard to the RCMP, there are many reports of “misogyny, racism and sexualized violence”.

I'm asking this question because there's this kind of tough-on-crime approach to dealing with gender-based violence, but when it comes specifically to indigenous women, the very systems that are supposed to protect us perpetrate violence against us.

What would be an alternative to tough on crime and traditional forms of policing in order to police safety?

[Dr. Amanda Buffalo]

I'll begin answering that by saying that I'm alive and my sister and my mothers are alive because of other women in our community being really committed to helping women escape violent situations. There's so much that's tied to that in every community.

These systems weren't made to keep women safe. If you think about when we try a case in a public court, you get a public prosecutor who represents the general safety of the public, and that's how they determine what's going to be prosecuted and what is not. Remember that women were not part of the public until 1929. The Criminal Code goes back a lot farther than that. The law has never really been adjusted to include women insofar as prosecutions or the way in which we do that work.

One thing we've been talking a lot about up north is having lawyers for the victims in the same way that a perpetrator gets a free lawyer who is publicly funded. I mean, perpetrators get lawyers twice. They get the public interest lawyer and then they get their defence lawyer. What that tells us, even without saying it, is that women are actually guilty until proven innocent by that process. The burden of proof is on them.

When we think about all of the little ways that we absent women from these systems and absent them having voice, and then tell them to go to a particular service that was actually designed to keep their voice down or to corral them—particularly for indigenous women, to clear them from the land—and that's supposed to be where we go for safety, it doesn't make sense in my brain, my heart or any part of my being. The first place I'm going to go and the first place my mom always took me was auntie's house.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much. More support for women supporting other women is very clear.

I wanted to move to Madame Jeanson on the same question.

You were talking about helping violent men. I've done some work with jails. I've been trained to teach in jails, actually. One thing that I noticed when working in the jails is that they're very violent. Punishing violent men in anti-social, violent environments doesn't make sense to me, in terms of eradicating violence.

You talked about how we help violent men. You said that we need homes for violent men, centres where they can get long-term treatment and care.

I'm wondering if you could provide more details about that.

[Madam Martine Jeanson]

I sincerely believe that we need to open centres for violent men. I'm not talking about substance abuse treatment centres. I'm talking about real therapy centres. Our organization, La Maison des Guerrières, works with men who have violent and impulsive behaviours. As Ms. Monastesse said, programs or workshops provided by Paix and other such organizations do not constitute real therapy. It's a group of guys sitting down having a good time for an hour. What I do when I work with men is bring them face to face with their problems. They are intensive sessions.

I believe these men need the support of specialists. We have therapy programs in which specialists help men by giving them the tools they need to deal with substance abuse issues. Similarly, we need homes for violent men. As soon as police are called in to respond to a situation involving a violent man, he should be sent to a centre where experts could assess the level of danger he poses. If he's found to be very dangerous, for instance, the experts could decide that the case had to be referred back to the court and that the man had to be kept under surveillance.

The approach has to be intensive. These men don't have the right tools. The only tool they have is anger. They need to learn other tools, so they can cope with jealousy and other emotions properly, so they can understand why they react the way they do. I can speak to the results we've seen with the men we have worked with. I repeat, however, that they can't be men with narcissistic perversion. I am talking about men who are impulsive. Some of these men were sexually assaulted. Some experienced violence first-hand, having been abused by their parents or watched their mother be beaten. Violence is the only thing they know, so they behave violently in their own intimate relationships. It is society's job to educate them.

Violence prevention needs to happen in schools as well. There isn't—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm out of time.

We need to eradicate violence in non-violent ways on a case-by-case basis. Is that right?

[Madam Martine Jeanson]

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

The second round begins now.

Anna—MP Roberts—you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for your stories. You're strong women for being able to come here and talk to us. I commend all of you.

I'd like to also recognize Sunder Singh. I know the amazing work that you do with women. I also know that you've won the Mayor's Community Safety Award as well as the Ministry of the Attorney General's Victim Services Award of Distinction. That's a huge honour, but the honour I have is knowing that you are there fighting for women.

One of the things that you said about the sentencing of men really hit a chord with me. We had a situation in Vaughan—and I know that you're aware of it—of a heart surgeon who was presented with divorce papers by his wife, who was also a physician. He decided to kill her. She had been speaking to her friends about the abuse that she had experienced with this man.

At the end of the day, we can take that individual, hopefully.... I like the idea of maybe removing the man and putting them in a home and getting them help and not always blaming the woman.

Would you say, Sunder—Ms. Singh—that sometimes men cannot be rehabilitated?

[Sunder Singh]

There is a possibility. In many cases, they cannot be.

I have witnessed a PAR program where we had approximately 15 men in a room who were transformed by the program, and it worked extremely well.

You absolutely cannot do anything about some mental cases and you have to put them in jail for the rest of their lives. If we don't, these partners—females—will move away from them, but these men will find other partners to abuse. The cycle will go on and on, so it's just not one woman who is victimized; there are other women who are also victimized because of this person and because of his mental state.

In many—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt, Ms. Singh. Would you say that the practice of catch and release has to be revisited because it doesn't protect women?

[Sunder Singh]

Catch and release is not something that I will recommend. It's not my recommendation. A person who is violently hurting his partner should be put in jail for a very long time so that it affects his life and he learns what he has done wrong.

One thing that did work, MP Roberts, in India is a system in the jails called vipassana. It's a very strong therapy that strong criminals are given, and it brings about amazing changes in these criminals. It's a great therapy. A partnership, the PAR program, is also very, very good.

What I'm trying to say is that these criminals should not be given bail. Once they are put in jail, they have to go through lifetime or full-time mental counselling, and they require some sort of serious therapies to impact their mental state.

There are many, many criminals who have done horrible things. They are in jail. You can't change them. A majority of them can't be, but we have to use proper therapy. They still have to be in jail to be transformed. We cannot let them out, because if the law is soft, then these criminals will continue doing what they're doing, but if the law is changed and becomes stricter, you will see a reduction in domestic violence. You will see reduction in assault.

Sexual assault is so very common in this country that we can't even imagine. If you scratch somebody's life story, you will definitely find that there was some sort of sexual assault going on. Why is it going on—why, in this country? Why are the women not safe in this country?

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

At this point, we have MP Lambropoulos.

You have the floor for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to begin by thanking all of our witnesses for being here today. It is not easy, and we really appreciate your input on this study. Again, thank you very much.

I'd like to take a closer look at the therapy or programs currently available to violent men, to see how we could change them. This is something many witnesses have brought up, including the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes representatives.

You said that the programs currently available do not focus on holding men accountable for their violent behaviour. What do they focus on? How do we change the programs so that they are suitable?

I'd like to hear what the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes representatives have to say, followed by Ms. Jeanson.

[Julie St-Pierre Gaudreault, Policy Issues Advisor, Fédération des maisons d’hébergement pour femmes]

One of the most common problems, in our view, is that the programs don't have to adhere to a particular set of standards, as Ms. Monastesse was describing. What's more, there is no real research showing that the way these programs are being delivered is producing the desired effect among the violent men going through the programs.

As was mentioned, the programs should focus on holding the abuser accountable. In some cases, though, they take the form of discussion groups or therapy without specific parameters. The programs do not have to have a minimum duration or meet specific criteria. They may not necessarily work on violence prevention with participants. That is one solution, but prevention efforts also need to target young people. With the rise of misogyny and cyber-violence on social media, it's important to promote positive masculinity. We need to prevent violence instead of trying to do something once it's too late.

I'm not sure whether Ms. Monastesse has anything to add.

[Manon Monastesse]

Yes.

It's important to have a clear framework and objectives for the violent men who have to take the programs. Ontario currently has a legislative framework, a set of standards. If the service providers that work with these violent men do not adhere to the framework, they lose their funding.

In Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, the programs are all over the map. It could be behaviour therapy or a program with some sort of psychological component, but that's not the real problem. The real problem is that men with violent behaviours need to take accountability for their actions. They need to understand that violence is a choice. It's not being hot-tempered, it's not about their past. It is worth noting that countless men make the choice not to use violence in their own lives, despite experiencing tremendous violence growing up. Many studies prove that violence isn't necessarily passed on from one generation to the next.

The only program that works is one that focuses on holding abusers accountable for their behaviour, one that gets abusers to understand that violent behaviour is based on—