Status of Women Committee on Nov. 25th, 2024

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Everyone who has spoken today has talked about November 25, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. In Quebec, we also mark this occasion with activities, which begin on that date and will culminate on December 6, when women were killed because they were women.

I'm wearing a white ribbon, handmade by members of the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, which is in my riding. That association has also launched Opération Tendre la main—a campaign to raise awareness.

I listened to all the witnesses' opening remarks, and I get the impression that awareness really needs to be raised.

Dominique and I heard the same interviews this morning. On Monday mornings, we leave our respective ridings to come to Ottawa, and we take the opportunity to catch up on the news. Today, there was obviously a lot of talk about this day with a number of stakeholders. There was also talk about housing. Toward the end of my commute, I listened to a webinar, which covered the issue of online violence. Finally, the situation of Afghan women and the issue of education were discussed.

The committee is obviously looking for solutions to this problem.

Ms. Rathjen, this is one of the first topics I spoke on after being elected in December 2019. I still remember that. When I was a young woman in Quebec, I realized at that young age that my situation, as a woman, was threatened. I didn't understand it in elementary school, but in 2019, when I had to talk about the incident at École Polytechnique, I thought back to that moment in my life.

Gun control was discussed, and I also talked about it in 2019. Since then, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has conducted studies on the subject. As you know, we are often in contact with Member of Parliament Kristina Michaud. In her remarks, Ms. Zaccour also talked about gun control.

It's 2024, but I get the impression that we're moving forward and moving backward on this issue.

Last week, during a debate in the House, the issue of firearms was discussed. Over a year and a half ago, one of the main recommendations in a report by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security was to appoint a panel of independent experts with a mandate to advise the government. The goal was to avoid poor quality analyses concerning firearms, which would then force us to go backward. It is now November 2024, and that committee's recommendation has still not been implemented.

What are the main recommendations that our committee should retain and that should be implemented as quickly as possible with respect to gun control?

[Heidi Rathjen]

I admit that I have not done my homework and have not read the report. However, when it comes to domestic violence, the government has listened to victims' groups and women's groups. It has actually included measures in Bill C‑21 that will make a difference. I'm thinking in particular of the measures concerning men's control over their victims, although that is only a small part of the problem.

So the government has done a very good job in this area. In committees, all the parties supported these provisions. That may be contradicted by the leaders of certain parties, but the work was done well in committees.

The problem is that these measures are not yet in effect a year later. As to why it takes so long, that would be a question for the government, not for us. However, the situation is urgent. Every week, another murder is committed with a firearm in a domestic violence context.

In the sequence of events leading to a death, the use of a firearm is actually the weakest link. That is where very concrete intervention—the seizure of a firearm—is possible. The situation immediately becomes less dangerous. There are certainly many things that need to be done, but a firearm can be seized quickly and simply. Unfortunately, that is not done, or it is done in ways that vary greatly across the country.

That said, the measures in the bill will make it mandatory, and non-discretionary, to intervene and seize firearms in such contexts.

Unfortunately, we are still waiting, and we are worried. We want these measures to be implemented before an election is held, and we don't know when it will be called.

So it's a race against the clock. These measures should be implemented quickly. I note that they were adopted by both houses, including the House of Commons, and parliamentarians were democratically elected.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

My time is up.

I hope to have the opportunity to come back to this, Ms. Richer and Ms. Joyal-Pilon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

MP Gazan, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

Unfortunately, we've had a stalemate in the House and nothing's going through right now, which is deeply concerning.

The other thing I find concerning—I'm just going to share this—is that I find a lot of the laws and positions are being based on ideology and not research and fact. I see that more and more, and I think, particularly when we're talking about gender-based violence and rehabilitation so that we can have safer communities, we are moving further away from that because of things like the gun lobby, as one example.

I want to ask a question of you, Madam Dawson. In some of your research, one of the statistics I found really troubling is that in 2020, women aged 54 to 64 comprised the largest portion of victims, followed closely by those aged 25 to 34 and then those aged 35 to 44.

I found that striking. Is the perpetrator an intimate partner in those cases or are they another family member?

[Prof. Myrna Dawson]

I think you're asking about the older women. The older or senior women are an emerging group at risk. The 35-to-44 group is the highest risk group for a femicide, but 55-plus is emerging as one. Those are intimate partners. The second group that's quite disturbing is that it's a lot of sons killing their mothers. We have a high proportion of sons killing their mothers. First are intimate partners, and they are followed by sons.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I asked that question because we often talk about tough on crime approaches. We don't talk enough about things like prevention or rehabilitation.

Would you say the lack of rehabilitation and prevention is what's resulting in sons also becoming perpetrators of violence in the family?

[Prof. Myrna Dawson]

I don't think we can be specific about whether that's targeted towards sons. We have a lack of prevention across the board in our responses, and we have a lack of evidence-based responses. We need a whole host of prevention strategies, including gun control, but also, if you think about taking a public health approach to a public health crisis, we need to focus on the negative attitudes that are actually the driving force behind male violence against women and girls regardless of their relationship with the victim.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm going to ask this question, and then I'll move on.

Do you feel that, if we're going to deal with gender-based violence, we need a public health approach, rather than a tough on crime approach?

I find in my community that we have more police than ever and the rates of violence have gone up. We've had a record amount of women being murdered in my community because we don't deal with public health; we're doing tough on crime.

[Prof. Myrna Dawson]

I absolutely agree with the public health approach. If you look at our work, that's the approach that we actually take.

I will emphasize that a part of the public health approach is effective criminal justice responses, as well.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a couple of questions. I wish I had 40 minutes just for me.

Rural and northern areas are often neglected. We see high rates of violence, and no resources or shelters. You've researched that. What kinds of findings have you reached?

[Prof. Myrna Dawson]

Femicide is disproportionately experienced in rural communities compared with the population size. About half of femicides occur in rural communities, whereas about 16% of the population of Canada is living in rural communities. Often this does involve guns and prior histories of violence, and often there are children and other family killed as a result.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I want to move over to you, Madam Rathjen. Is that okay?

You spoke about the gun lobby. I get a gazillion emails in my email box from the gun lobby. They're certainly good at writing emails. A lot of misinformation that I hear in the House of Commons from members of Parliament is regurgitated messaging from the gun lobby.

Do you feel that the politicization of gun control is indirectly related to increased femicides?

[Heidi Rathjen]

Indirectly, yes, because the disinformation that's circulated by the gun lobby and, I have to say, by Conservative MPs and, in some cases, the NDP with respect to the assault weapons ban, was largely responsible for the failure to get an assault weapons ban.

I think the rhetoric of Pierre Poilievre—who is constantly going around now saying that we have to go after the criminals and the gangs, and leave legal gun owners alone—undermines everything that we're trying to say here. We're not against gun ownership. We're not against hunting and so on. We're not against first nations and their rights to hunt. These are weapons that, in the context of domestic violence, put women and children at risk and need to be addressed.

Unfortunately, the gun lobby tries to minimize firearms involved in domestic violence, and the leader of the Conservative Party never mentions domestic murders committed with guns, as far as I've heard.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

At this point, we'd like to have Michelle Ferreri.

You have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much to everyone here and to the victims' families. You have my deepest condolences.

We hear a lot about intimate partner violence and death. The data is shocking. There's a lot to unpack here from some really great witnesses.

One of the questions I did have is for Ms. Richer.

You do something that we think is wonderful, which is offering free services to victims, counselling to support victims of intimate partner or sexual violence. Do you have the data to see if the number of the people you're helping has increased?

[Marie-Claude Richer]

Our organization has been in existence for only three years. Our problem right now is that we have only 14 lawyers to serve all of Quebec.

We are unable to meet the demand and, as a result, it is difficult to know whether the data is increasing from year to year. I would say that it is, as our phone lines are getting busier. In other words, the demand is real.

That said, our organization is increasingly well known, as our services are recommended a lot by organizations such as the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale and the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, as well as by police services. That's why we have a high number of requests.

So I would be inclined to tell you that there is an increase in demand, but, statistically, I couldn't be more precise. However, we have already provided 67,000 consultations in three years, which is huge. It's important to mention it, but we sometimes forget that coercive control is really an important piece of information. For most, if not all, of the victims we've met with, a form of coercive control was involved.

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

Thank you so much.

Ms. Rathjen, you pointed out the Conservatives, so as a Conservative I feel compelled to answer you. I want to say that we 100% want criminals not to have access to guns. Men who are killing women, who have a history of domestic violence, of coercive control, who have been convicted of these crimes are criminals. These are the people we don't want to have access to guns.

To your point, I know that Ms. Larouche asked you this question in French, and I'm going to ask it of you in English. You said in committee that individuals who are subject to a protection order or are convicted of domestic violence become ineligible for a firearms licence—automatic revocation of an individual's firearms licence—if they are subject to a protection order, and that an individual's firearms licence must be revoked if a CFO reasonably suspects him of domestic violence or stalking.

This is a Liberal bill that has been passed, and it has not been implemented. Why not? Have you been given any answers? We, as Conservatives, 1,000% support this, and I want you to know that.

[Heidi Rathjen]

Thank you for the question.

I really appreciate what you said. Like I mentioned, these provisions, in committees.... I don't have a perfect memory, but my memory is that the Conservative members did support them. At the same time, Pierre Poilievre promised to repeal all gun control measures that affect legal gun owners, so licence revocation is a measure that affects legal gun owners—

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

However, if these are criminals, I think that's where we're.... I'm open to that discussion with you, but I just want to put on the record, criminals—and these are criminals we are talking about—should not have access to firearms, 100%. These judges, to your point, need better.... It is insane, and we've heard it, and we've seen it.

[Heidi Rathjen]

Can I just specify that—

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

Yes, for sure.

[Heidi Rathjen]

—in many cases, they're not convicted, so this is a preventative measure, because in Canada, there's no right to own guns, and if there's a risk, police have the ability to remove guns and revoke the licence before anybody is technically a criminal. It is like a protection order. The person hasn't been convicted yet, but the judge recognizes that there are enough risk factors to intervene and reduce the liberty of the individual.

To answer your question of why this has not been implemented yet, I tell you, I do not know. This is an internal thing. The machine probably needs to do some things, enact some regulations or some order in council, to make it enforceable, and that seems to be taking an extremely long time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle.

MP Sidhu, you have the floor for five minutes.