Status of Women Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 132 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I'd like to remind all members of the following points: Please wait until I recognize you by name prior to speaking and please address all comments through the chair.

Thank you all in advance for your co-operation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, September 25, 2024, the committee will continue with its study of gender-based violence and femicide against women, girls and gender-diverse people.

Before we welcome our witnesses, I would like to provide this trigger warning. We will be discussing experiences related to violence and femicide. This may be triggering to some viewers with similar experiences. If at any point any participants feel distressed or need help, please advise the clerk.

For all witnesses and members of Parliament, it's very important to recognize that these are very difficult discussions. Indeed, it is incumbent on all of us to be as compassionate as possible.

For today's panel, I would like to introduce, as an individual, Esther Uhlman.

From the Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues, we have the Hon. Pierre‑Hugues Boisvenu, administrator and former senator.

From the Ending Violence Association of Canada, we have Valérie Auger-Voyer, advocacy coordinator.

At this point, we will begin our opening statements.

Ms. Uhlman, you have the floor for up to five minutes.

[Esther Uhlman, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Esther Uhlman. Thank you for having me here and for taking the time to listen to my family's story.

I'm here to talk about my aunt and namesake, Esther Jones. Esther went by the name Esthie, so to me she was Aunt Esthie.

Aunt Esthie was number nine of 15 children. Growing up in a large family cultivated Aunt Esthie into a spirited and caring person. As a child, I remember following her around, trying to be just like my aunt, with whom I shared my name. She always had bags of candy on hand to give treats to her students and to her many nieces and nephews. She was passionate about family, faith, animal rights and music. She took her undergrad degree in music and hoped to pursue her master's, but this opportunity was robbed from her.

On August 31, all of Aunt Esthie's hopes, dreams and potential future were stolen from her. My aunt was the victim of a brutal homicide.

Aunt Esthie's final day was spent simply living her life. She hoped to continue doing what she loved: teaching piano lessons. She was keeping things as normal as possible as she coped with the loss of her mother, who had died just a few weeks prior. Aunt Esthie entered her piano studio in the afternoon. This was where she was last seen. Police have confirmed that she was killed on the night of August 31. Her remains have not been recovered. Aunt Esthie's earthly journey ended on the night of August 31, but my family's journey was only beginning.

On September 2, all my family connected, realizing that no one had spoken to Aunt Esthie since Saturday. Aunt Mary filed a missing persons report. On September 4, Aunt Esthie's vehicle was located near the scene of her last known location. The major crime unit took over the investigation, and on September 11, the Southwest Nova RCMP major crime unit charged Dale Allen Toole of Tremont, Annapolis County, with first-degree murder in relation to Aunt Esthie's disappearance.

The heartbreaking emotions experienced by my family and me during the weeks following Aunt Esthie's disappearance are unexplainable. There was a sense of urgency, stress and guilt, and there was also subconscious preparation for the worst-case scenario. From the beginning, many of us had that gut feeling that this would not end well, but we felt a sense of guilt for not maintaining hope. I subconsciously could not maintain hope because I had to prepare myself for what was become my family's reality. Our loved one was the victim of a homicide, and we will live with that forever.

When my family was first informed that Aunt Esthie had been murdered, I pledged to my mom and dad that I would do everything in my power to prevent this from happening to another innocent family. I will do what I can to protect innocent women like my Aunt Esthie.

My aunt's alleged killer was not a first-time offender. Just two years ago, the accused committed, and was convicted of, another unprovoked violent crime against another woman. That time, the victim was his little sister. He was convicted of choking an individual, committing an assault and assault causing bodily harm. He was not jailed as part of the sentence for that crime; he was given a brief conditional sentence with a curfew at night and a short period of probation.

I have seen no evidence that this inadequate sentence reformed or rehabilitated him. Instead, he was free, and has now been charged with killing my aunt.

Aunt Esthie's alleged killer was free because of crime legislation that prioritized Dale over his previous assault victim. Legislation like Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum sentencing on some violent crimes. As no mandatory minimum sentencing was in place, Dale was not sentenced to jail time nor properly monitored.

Due to our flawed justice system, my aunt is dead. Actions have consequences. The legislators of Bill C-5 may have had the best of intentions, but that did not protect the innocent. My Aunt Esthie died because of this type of pro-offender, anti-victim legislation.

I am here to demand change for past and future victims. I do not need your sympathy. Do not tell me that you're sorry for my loss unless you're prepared to prioritize protecting victims in the future.

Thank you for listening to my family's story. I hope this helps you to improve policies to protect innocent women from the kind of unspeakable violence that my family has experienced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much for your testimony.

The Hon. Pierre‑Hugues Boisvenu now has the floor for five minutes.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Administrator, Former Senator, Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues]

Thank you for inviting me here today.

The Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues was established in 2004 and now represents 750 families that have each had a member who has been murdered or who has disappeared as a result of a criminal act. Four fathers of murdered daughters created the association so that violence against women would also become a male issue.

Today I am speaking for thousands of women who have been neglected by our justice system. I'm also speaking for thousands of police and correctional officers who no longer view themselves as part of a public safety system that has become lax and bases its decisions on the criminals not the people who work hard to combat violence.

As you know, the safety of all Canadians has been the central focus of my life's mission for more than 22 years, since my daughter Julie was murdered by a repeat offender who had been released from prison. My priority during all those years has been to make elected representatives across Canada aware of this scourge of violence against women and, all too often, against their children. The experience I have acquired in the Senate over the past 14 years has convinced me that this awareness approach is the only way to make legislative changes that will make life safer for women in our communities.

As I said in my parting speech in the Senate this past February, steps have been taken in that direction. They include the adoption of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which recognizes the fundamental rights of victims, particularly the right to protection. Despite that fact, the number of women murdered in Canada rose 60% from 118 in 2019 to 184 in 2022. That's equal to the number of women murdered in France, the population of which is twice that of Canada.

Why, in 2024, do women have to work so hard to be heard, understood and protected? Why was my bill, Bill S-205, under which violent men on release are required to wear an electronic bracelet and to undergo therapy to reduce the incidence of repeat violent acts, butchered here in the House of Commons? That bill was the minimum measure that thousands of women had been demanding from the Parliament of Canada for years. It was unconditionally supported by all provincial justice ministers, first nations groups, the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes and by therapists.

I can't understand why, in 2024, when we have effective, modern tools to ensure women's safety, it is still so hard to convince the country's legislators to take action in this matter. For example, I've been working for years with a business and some 100 women in Quebec to guarantee their safety because they have received death threats and threats of assault. This system works: Women feel safe, and some of them have used the alarm to avoid being assaulted. The Quebec government even reimburses them for the costs associated with this security system. What makes no sense is that it won't officially acknowledge the fact, something that would undoubtedly expand its use and guarantee the safety of many more women.

Here's a more recent example of how poorly women are protected in Canada. In Candiac 10 days ago, a 27-year-old woman, a distinguished engineering researcher, was murdered by her spouse. The latter had a history of abuse, was awaiting trial and was back in court because he had threatened to kill his spouse. He was released by the court and murdered his spouse an hour later. However, last year, you passed Bill C-233, which authorized courts to require defendants to wear an electronic bracelet in such cases, something that would have saved that woman's life. Why was the court so passive?

Although we now have these significant legislative changes, I see that they are hard to introduce. When it comes to the safety of female victims, we still act as we did 20 years ago by assuming that merely reporting incidents to the police is enough to ensure women's safety. The reality is quite different, and offenders know it. When the courts order 40% of offenders to serve their sentence at home, the most serious consequence is that police officers disengage.

That disengagement is the worst threat to women's safety because Bill C-5 has trivialized violence against women. Quite a win for them, isn't it?

Consequently, this Parliament, or the next one, must take tougher action if society wants to combat violence against women by amending Bill C-5, for example, which completely counteracts the efforts that most of the provinces have made to prevent every form of violence against women. The Criminal Code must provide for harsher action on femicides. Today, murderers in such cases can be released after four or five years in prison. In the Senate, I have introduced Bill S-255, which would be a step in that direction, and I hope it will be taken up soon.

As you can see, our laws alone won't protect women; our justice system has to enforce them.

Thank you, and I'll be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much for your opening remarks.

At this point I would like to welcome Ms. Auger-Voyer.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Valérie Auger-Voyer, Advocacy Coordinator, Ending Violence Association of Canada]

Thank you.

My name is Valérie Auger-Voyer. I'm the advocacy coordinator at the Ending Violence Association of Canada. We're a national organization that works collaboratively with our members on the ground to provide a unified pan-Canadian voice on the issue of sexual violence. Our members are provincial and territorial networks of sexual assault centres and other gender-based violence organizations.

I'm here to tell you about the significant role that sexual violence plays in femicide and how to begin addressing this.

Femicide discussions have traditionally centred around intimate partner violence, but sexual violence and femicide are deeply interconnected in both intimate partner and non-intimate partner femicides. In fact, sexual violence is recognized as both an indicator and a risk factor for femicide.

Women who experience sexual violence in intimate partner relationships report significantly more risk factors for femicide, as well as death threats. In cases involving non-intimate partner perpetrators and sexual violence, young women and sex workers are at higher risk.

Gaps in data collection limit our ability to fully capture the role of sexual violence and femicide. The Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability has highlighted the need for more data on the prevalence and patterns of sexual violence in femicides.

We know that gender-based violence and femicides stem from the same structural inequities that render certain groups disproportionately vulnerable to sexual violence. In particular, we can think of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, sex workers, young women, 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals and women with disabilities, who all face higher risks of violence.

Therefore, any policy discussions, data collection and solutions must start with a broad, inclusive definition of femicide, one that captures not only the lethal act but also the power dynamics that are involved, as well as the underlying disparities and conditions that enable it. A definition must also be inclusive and reflective of those most at risk, including gender-diverse individuals.

In terms of responses to sexual violence, we know that carceral responses are not working for most survivors. The fact that only 6% of sexual assaults are reported to the police means that most survivors do not turn to the criminal justice system, and those who do often feel revictimized. Further, the system over-criminalizes marginalized groups, which in turn reinforces the inequities that allow violence to thrive in the first place.

Instead, we echo the calls of the Mass Casualty Commission to shift the focus to community-based responses that centre on survivors' well-being and prevent violence. This includes strengthening social infrastructure to tackle root causes of violence and investing in community-based frontline organizations that provide essential services to survivors.

Although efforts have been made by the federal government in the last few years through the national action plan, significant service gaps remain. We have found that the national action plan funding is not sufficient to stabilize the sector, and it's also not reaching sexual assault centres consistently or adequately across Canada.

Making meaningful progress in addressing sexual violence and femicide will require large-scale, sustained and coordinated efforts across jurisdictions, so we urge the federal government to rely on the expertise of our sector and also to put in place an independent gender-based violence commissioner to help move things forward and provide accountability.

I have four recommendations.

Number one is to establish a comprehensive data collection mechanism for femicides that specifically identifies and tracks sexual violence as a key risk factor and also captures the societal conditions that lead to sexual violence and femicide.

Number two is to urgently implement the 231 calls for justice for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and to invest in initiatives that support communities that are structurally marginalized, such as indigenous and Black communities, racialized and trans individuals, and women with disabilities.

Third is to ensure the national action plan adequately funds community-based survivor-serving organizations, such as sexual assault centres.

Number four is to establish an independent gender-based violence commissioner.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thanks to all of you for your opening remarks.

At this point, we will begin our first round of questions.

Michelle, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much to our witnesses for being here today.

These are very tough conversations, as these are women's lives that we're talking about.

Esther, I want to tell you that your auntie would be so darn proud of you. What a testimony that was. You said everything that needed to be said, and it was very powerful. Thank you.

Senator, it's pretty special to have you sit beside Esther. Losing your daughter Julie and fighting through your entire career to restore justice so that killers aren't walking free.... It was actually one year ago to the day that you were at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and presenting Bill S-205.

I want to talk about that, but the big thing that I think people need to know that you've done, Senator—among all the things that you've done—is the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. In 2015, you were able to get two chambers to unanimously support this bill. This was to restore the rights of victims so that victims have more rights in this country than criminals.

It was to be revised in 2020 by the Liberals, but it was never done. I'm curious as to why you believe it was never done and whether you believe that the justice system has failed in its obligation to all of the women who have died since 2020, when it hasn't been revised.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

Thank you for your question.

Can you be more precise about the change? I don't understand very well.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights that you created and had passed was to be revised in 2020, but it has never been revised. What impact does this have on victims?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

There's the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was passed in 1982. Then you have the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. A charter is a vehicle with four wheels and an engine. It's up to legislators to put gas in the tank and drive it.

For example, the people who felt their rights weren't being acknowledged went to court, and the court made decisions based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Jordan decision, which limits trial delays so they're fair and equitable, is based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, or CVBR, was passed in 2015. The Liberal government, which came to power in 2015, was responsible for developing the CVBR based on complaints that victims had filed with the ombud, for example, that they had not been informed, had not participated in review board hearings or had not been protected. However, no one in the government, including the Minister of Justice, who was nevertheless responsible for shaping the CVBR, made any effort to improve it. I've had to introduce bills in the Senate in order to lend substance to the CVBR.

Consider this example. The parents of a girl who had been murdered contacted me at one point because they had just learned that, although their daughter's murderer was in prison, he had access to Facebook and was posting pictures of their daughter. The family contacted Facebook, and it took six months, an article in the newspapers and action from my office for Facebook to shut down that criminal's page. I therefore tabled a bill to define the word “protection” in the CVBR. It doesn't just mean protecting life. It also means protecting the victim's identity and private life.

The CVBR definitions should have been improved since 2015. One way to improve the CVBR would be for it to provide for a complete review process. No provision is made in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights for a complaint review process, whereas there is in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you very much.

You've said it and articulated it perfectly. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is there, but it is not enforceable, at this point, to actually protect the victims.

The timing of having you here today is ironic, when we have Debbie Mahaffy and Donna French, who are the mothers of Leslie and Kristen—who were murdered by Paul Bernardo—and who have been denied appearing at his parole board.

You and I talked about this. This is going to have implications. It could implicate you in your situation with your daughter.

Can you explain what it means when they're not allowed to testify on behalf of their daughter and say their piece to the man who murdered and raped their children?

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

You're setting a very good example.

Under the regulations governing the hearings of the Parole Board of Canada, inmates are entitled to reschedule hearings as they wish, and victims and their families are required to abide by and comply with their decisions.

Consider the example of Clifford Olson, a well-known criminal from British Columbia. He was invited to approximately 30 board hearings but never attended one. The victims and their families, on the other hand, prepared to attend, but Olson decided at the last minute not to appear.

In the case of Paul Bernardo, the families stated that they were unable to attend on the date set for the hearing and requested that it be moved to a date on which they could attend, but the board denied their request.

The same was true in the case of my daughter's murderer. The inmate requested a hearing for release next February following 23 years of detention. The board contacted me to say that the hearing would be held in February. I said I would be out of the country at the time and asked them to postpone the hearing until March. The board's answer was no and that, if I was in France at that time, I would have to find an Internet connection and follow the hearing by video conference.

That just goes to show you how victims and criminals don't have the same rights. And yet the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights provides for the right to participate. Participation means that, if the criminal is physically present at the hearing, the victim or relative of the victim should be there as well.

The minister claims in the House that the Parole Board is independent, but I don't agree. The act is the responsibility of Parliament, and the minister has a duty to apply it to the organizations under his authority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

Next is MP Damoff. You have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here.

I understand that I'm supposed to call you “Mr. Boisvenu” now, not “Senator Boisvenu”. Whatever it is, I want to thank you so much for your service to this country and for all the work you've done as a senator.

I want to start by clarifying something.

I'm certainly not here to defend Parole Board decisions, because the Parole Board is independent from the government. However, I have seen that the Parole Board is reconsidering having the families appear in person, which, in my opinion, is a good decision.

That's enough about that.

Ms. Auger-Voyer, I have a few questions for you.

You mentioned the need to make sure that any definitions are inclusive. I remember listening to a podcast by Julie Lalonde during the pandemic. It was about how senior women are always left out of programming. There was a silent pandemic, at the time, of gender-based violence against senior women. They are often more at risk because of finances and being financially dependent on their husbands.

I wonder if you have any comments on that. Is there any research you might be able to share that speaks about seniors? They seem to be left out of a lot of the work we do when it comes to gender-based violence.

[Valérie Auger-Voyer]

Thank you for your question.

I think you're absolutely right. Senior women are often left out of conversations on gender-based violence.

In fact, there are fewer services when it comes to that. I mean, services are generally available for women of all ages. It's usually 16-plus, and they don't necessarily specialize in things that are relevant for senior women.

As you mentioned, there is financial dependence. There might be disabilities. There might be isolation. There might be abuse by care attendants, especially sexual abuse in long-term care homes. These are the things we don't talk about enough. I think there is a lack of data on that.

For example, we know there's already a lack of data on sexual femicides. We know sexual femicides target younger women, but there's very little on whether it happens to older women. We tend to pretend that doesn't exist.

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

Yes. There's also a greater stigma among seniors, given the way they were brought up in their age, in terms of even reaching out for assistance.

I want to talk about the courts for a bit.

I was very proud to work on Keira’s law. I was also part of Bill C-3. I think that was it. It was Rona Ambrose's bill on education for judges.

We know we can't mandate judges to get into education. Could you comment on the need for judges to be better educated on issues of coercive control and gender-based violence? Should educating bodies be doing a better job of ensuring judges are up to date on current research on the issue?

[Valérie Auger-Voyer]

Is that question for me?

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

Yes, it is.

[Valérie Auger-Voyer]

Yes, judges should be up to date for sure. It's so important for judges to be better educated on gender-based violence and sexual violence in particular.

I would say that we need to go further upstream, as upstream as possible. Start with everyone who's studying to be a lawyer. They should have courses on gender-based violence, domestic violence and sexual violence to really understand these dynamics.

What we're seeing is that in courts—family courts, for example—when there's domestic violence happening, these matters are being called “high conflict”, as if the power dynamics did not exist. We keep hearing decisions from judges that show that they don't understand those dynamics or the issues involved in sexual violence. We hear rhetoric that is victim blaming, stigmatizing and revictimizing.

Yes, education for judges, lawyers, police officers and every actor involved in the justice system would be really helpful.

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

Yes, and I'm really proud of Jennifer Kagan, who has really pushed this issue provincially, because the education for police, children's aid societies and a lot of Crown prosecutors rests with provincial governments. We now have it in Ontario and Nova Scotia, and hopefully Manitoba comes on board, but all provinces and territories need to really push this issue.

One of the other things that came up in a previous meeting—and I only have about 30 seconds left—is that survivors of a sexual assault don't have representation in court. The Crown represents the Crown, and defence represents the assailant. Do you think they should have representation in court?

[Valérie Auger-Voyer]

Yes, they should, for sure. One of our main recommendations is free legal advice and representation for survivors of sexual assaults.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you, MP Damoff.

Next is MP LaRouche. You have the floor for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Boisvenu, Ms. Uhlman and Ms. Auger‑Voyer, thank you for being here today to testify in honour of all those we've lost.

Mr. Boisvenu, you mentioned the Jordan decision when you answered Ms. Ferreri's question. I want to take this opportunity to say that we have tabled a bill, which we would like to see debated in the House of Commons, to prevent any future cases in which, as a result of the Jordan decision, criminals are released without trial and can victimize others.

In the course of this study, witnesses have discussed the importance of this bill, which touches on the Jordan decision. What's your opinion of a bill that would prevent guilty perpetrators of violent crimes against women from not being released simply as a result of a legal delay that, based on the Jordan decision, is too long? That's an unacceptable reason.