Status of Women Committee on Nov. 25th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 133 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I would like to remind all members of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name prior to speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Please raise your hand if you wish to speak. I will track the time accordingly and will provide a signal when there is one minute left, and again when there are 30 seconds left. Thank you all for your co-operation.

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

Before we welcome our witnesses, I'd like to provide a trigger warning. We will be discussing experiences related to violence and femicides. This may be triggering to viewers with similar experiences. If at any point any participants feel distressed or need help, please contact our clerk. For all witnesses and members of Parliament, it is extremely important to recognize that these are very difficult discussions. Let's try to be as compassionate as we can in all of our conversations today.

For the first panel, from the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, we have Professor Myrna Dawson, director; from the National Association of Women and the Law, Suzanne Zaccour, director of legal affairs; from PolySeSouvient, Heidi Rathjen, coordinator; from Rebâtir, Marie-Claude Richer, director, and Élise Joyal-Pilon, lawyer and director.

At this point, we will now begin with our opening statements.

Professor Dawson, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Professor Myrna Dawson, Director, Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability]

Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to join you today.

In 2018, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women visited Canada. In her report on Canada that was presented to the United Nations General Assembly, she described Canada's response to violence against women and girls and gender-based violence as mainly policy and “project oriented, focusing on specific areas and lacking a...holistic legal framework” and connection with specific human rights. She went on to say that it also lacks the coordination of prevention measures and “comparable data collection for all forms of gender-based violence against women”.

While her description is frequently argued to be the fault of our current government, I have been active in this field for three decades and am familiar with Canada's previous strategies. I and many others know that this lack of a comprehensive, cohesive response has been an ongoing issue for decades across successive leaders and governments, and across all parties.

For just one example, in 1994,the Organization of American States introduced the Belém do Pará Convention on Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women. Thirty years later, Canada remains one of only two countries that have not yet signed and ratified this convention. The situation is more dire today, given that the special rapporteur's visit was before COVID-19.

The impact of the pandemic on women and children experiencing male violence has been well documented. Progress is fragmented in its responses to the impacts across the country. The lack of a comprehensive, cohesive response exacerbates male violence against women, including femicide, which represents only a hint of the reality of this violence. However, femicide remains one of our best social barometers. It's indicative of all levels of all violence experienced by women and girls, regardless of whether it ends in death.

The Canadian Femicide Observatory has documented that every year since 2019 we have witnessed an increase in the number of women and girls murdered, primarily by men, with a total increase of 20% up to 2023. The numbers for 2024 are not looking better, with the current figure exceeding 2023 with one key difference: In 2023, 89% of the killings involved male accused; in 2024, this number has risen to 94%. The number of women and girls killed has not declined and it also looks like the proportion of males accused in their killings has increased.

What is also demonstrated is that some groups of women and girls in particular are at disproportionate risk. These are indigenous, Black and other racialized women; women and girls living in rural, northern and remote regions of our country; and women and girls in the territories and the prairie provinces.

There are other groups made vulnerable to femicide by the lack of a comprehensive response. However, without good data, it is difficult to document the situation of, for example, women and girls living with disabilities; newcomer, migrant and refugee populations; LGBTQ+ communities; and our older women. This is why we need a national data collection system whose primary goal is prevention rather than merely the administrative needs of the government. Data gaps are putting the lives of women and girls at risk.

Change has occurred on paper with little corresponding change for those groups at greatest risk. This means that changes on paper have not translated to changes in practice.

Briefly, there are five reasons why I think progress has been minimal.

First, we still have significant regional variation in what's available across the country. Federalism should not be a barrier to equitable human rights for women and girls, but it can be and has been used as an excuse.

Second, the primary focus has been on criminal justice, ignoring the role played by other vital sectors, especially in terms of funding services that are more focused on prevention or could play a more active role in intervention.

Third, despite repeated references to ongoing training, especially in the field of criminal justice, it is not clear what the quality of that training is, who is providing it, how often...and its impacts, if any.

Fourth, there have been few, if any, meaningful efforts at assessing implementation processes and outcomes. Thus, there is little knowledge about the efficacy of the any initiatives.

Finally, it is recognized that attitudinal change is one key requirement for moving forward. Our leaders, professionals and the general public continue to hold outdated and harmful stereotypes about why this violence occurs and who its primary victims are. Therefore, primary prevention initiatives are a priority.

Today, we launched a “remember me” campaign, which individually highlights each of the more than 160 women and girls murdered so far in 2024. One woman or girl is murdered every other day in this country.

There are some simple first steps. Call it femicide. Recognize and make the governments and leaders accountable to responding to femicide. Establish special regional femicide forums to recognize the regional diversities of femicide across the country. Increase awareness and education through primary prevention initiatives to address negative attitudes. Finally, enhance data collection, so we can actually understand the real trends and patterns in killings of women and girls.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much.

Next, I would like to welcome Ms. Zaccour.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Suzanne Zaccour, Director of Legal Affairs, National Association of Women and the Law]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to speak today.

I'm here on behalf of the National Association of Women and the Law, or NAWL, a feminist organization committed to using the law as a tool to advance gender equality in Canada. In 2024, we celebrate 50 years of legal leadership as we continue to advocate for legal reform to end violence against women, defend reproductive justice, ensure that climate legislation is gender-inclusive and advance women's economic security and empowerment.

In choosing to study femicide, this committee is bringing its attention to the ultimate and irreversible manifestation of violence against women. Femicide cannot be undone or repaired, so prevention really has to be the key.

Prevention has many dimensions. It includes ensuring that women can leave violent relationships, which touches on critical issues like economic security, housing and family law reform. Prevention also means physical protection for women, including removing weapons from abusive homes, issuing protection orders and improving police interventions. On that front, I would like to draw the attention of this committee to one particular legislative intervention that is already in place but not yet in force. I'm referring to the domestic violence provisions in Bill C-21 that amended the Firearms Act.

Bill C-21 was adopted in December 2023, a year and a half after it was first introduced. It included a requirement for chief firearms officers to revoke an individual's firearms licence within 24 hours if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may have engaged in domestic violence or stalking. The bill also included the automatic revocation of a person's firearms licence if they become subject to a protection order such as an order by the court not to be within a certain distance of the person's ex-partner.

The National Association of Women and the Law played a critical role in the development of these provisions, not only advocating for them but also proposing concrete language to amend the bill at committee. Clearer language, strict timelines and a lower threshold to err on the side of caution were adopted as a result of NAWL's advocacy. The bill was then voted by both Houses, and most of the bill came into force last December.

Here's the problem. The domestic violence provisions are not in force, and it's been close to a year since their adoption. The measures have been described as life-changing and important to protect women and children. They were closely studied by the two committees, and they have a lengthy legislative history, so why is there so much delay with measures that could save lives?

NAWL and PolySeSouvient have developed a detailed brief outlining what is needed to bring into force and operationalize the domestic violence provisions of Bill C-21. Our recommendations are listed in our brief to this committee. We ask that the committee echo these recommendations with a sense of urgency, given the importance of protecting women from domestic violence inflicted through firearms.

As a final point, I want to emphasize how much family law also contributes to women's entrapment in violent relationships, leading to continued and increased domestic violence and risk of femicide. We live at a time when victims say things like “If I had known what was going to happen with family court, I would have never left”, or “I never would have reported”. It's also a time when lawyers tell women not to disclose domestic violence because they will lose their kids. This is, I think, simply unacceptable.

Instead of preventing gender-based violence, the law is actively promoting a culture of silence, abuse and impunity. This is why the UN, 250 women and feminist organizations across the country, countless survivors and many experts and academics are calling on Canada to legislate to stop courts from using sexist reasoning and pseudo-concepts such as parental alienation when deciding children's fate.

The law must stop being complicit in keeping women entrapped in relationships where their lives are at risk.

Thank you for your attention to these urgent issues.

I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much for your testimony.

Next I would like to welcome Ms. Rathjen.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Heidi Rathjen, Coordinator, PolySeSouvient]

Thank you.

I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak today as part of its study.

My name is Heidi Rathjen. I was a student at the École Polytechnique in 1989 when 14 young women were shot and killed because they were women. Gun control is a public safety issue, but it's also a women's issue. PolySeSouvient consists of students and graduates of the École Polytechnique as well as families of the victims who support stricter gun control. Our focus is two‑fold. We want to prevent mass shootings and prevent femicides, as these both apply to the tragedy that unfolded at our school. In fact, they're often intertwined.

In 68% of cases of mass shootings in the United States over a five‑year period, the perpetrator killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of domestic violence. In Canada, many mass shootings are committed by domestic abusers. We have only to think of the 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting.

While guns on their own don't kill, they make killing easier. Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. This is especially true in the context of domestic violence.

Intimate partner violence that involves a firearm is 12 times more likely to result in death than similar incidents that do not involve a firearm. Familicide in Canada consists of “a gendered crime involving primarily male accused who often target female victims, have a history of domestic violence, and commit the killings using firearms”.

From 2010 to 2018, 36% of domestic homicides where the weapon was identified involved firearms. A study in rural New Brunswick and P.E.I. found that two-thirds of the women whose homes had firearms said that knowing firearms were present made them more fearful for their safety.

At this point, I would like to take the opportunity to debunk a disingenuous talking point that is continuously used to oppose controls on legal gun ownership, including Bill C-21. The gun lobby constantly tries to minimize the involvement of firearms in domestic violence, because it contradicts their principal narrative, which is that the only problem is illegal guns in the hands of gangs or criminals. They often claim or use the slogan that “less than 1% of ALL domestic violence calls even have a firearm present at the address, let alone used or threatened”.

First, what they are doing is conflating gun-owning households with what police consider to be the “most serious weapon present” relevant to the incident. If one took the same logic and applied it to knives, then only 3% of households would have knives.

Secondly, it is completely normal to find that a small percentage of domestic violence calls involve a firearm. The threat or use of a firearm is arguably the most lethal or potentially lethal form of violence, and understandably represents a small fraction of all domestic incidents, including threats, mild physical force, physical injury, sexual assault, confinement and so on.

The gun lobby is essentially telling legislators and the public, including two people who are sitting right behind me—Tara Graham, daughter of recent femicide victim Brenda Tatlock-Burke, and Brian Sweeney, father of Angie Sweeney, who was killed a year ago in a familicide that also ended the life of three small children—that it's not necessary to systematically remove guns from domestic abusers like the perpetrators who killed their loved ones, because their murders fall within only a small percentage of all domestic violence calls to police.

In conclusion, I'd like to quote Tara, who in her brief to this committee writes that the tragic murder of her mother “highlights the urgent need to enact key new measures included in Bill C-21 aimed at protecting victims of domestic abuse....It is very disconcerting that these measures have not yet been enacted. Despite being engaged in years of abuse against my mother, Mike Burk[e] legally owned six or seven guns. If the police had been aware of the abuse, his firearms could have been removed.”

I hope this committee will heed her words and urge the government to immediately enact the relevant provisions in Bill C-21 and to direct provincial chief firearms officers to ensure their effective implementation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much for your testimony.

Finally, I would like to welcome Madame Richer and Madame Joyal-Pilon.

Ms. Richer and Ms. Joyal‑Pilon, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Marie-Claude Richer, Director, Rebâtir]

Thank you for inviting us to speak to you.

I'm joined today by Élyse Joyal‑Pilon, a lawyer at Rebâtir. She works in management and serves as a resource person in matters of safety for victims.

My name is Marie‑Claude Richer. I'm a lawyer and director of Rebâtir, which was established on September 21, 2021. Rebâtir's mandate is to provide four hours of free legal consultation to any victim of domestic and sexual violence, anywhere in Quebec, in any field of law. In three years, we've provided over 67,000 legal consultations to more than 16,000 victims.

For 47 years, I was a friend of Lisette Corbeil, the victim of a femicide in 2021. This fatal act was the first act of physical violence committed against her. However, she had been a victim of coercive control for a number of years.

Today, we want to emphasize the urgent need for Canada to recognize coercive control as a criminal act. In addition to acting as a deterrent, this recognition would enable police officers and prosecutors to show evidence in court of ongoing deprivation of liberty. Judges would then have a more accurate view of the situation and would have the chance to make informed decisions. They currently can't do so, since they have only a snapshot of a film that has often been running for a long time.

The justice system currently lacks all the tools needed to protect victims and their children.

We urge the committee to recommend the following amendments to the Criminal Code.

First, we recommend that all murders of intimate partners, including femicides, be deemed first degree murder, along the same lines as the murders of police officers in the line of duty. This would remove the onus on the prosecutor to prove premeditation. The minimum sentence for first degree murder is life imprisonment.

To better protect victims who have the courage to come forward, a paragraph should be added to section 495.1 of the Criminal Code, which covers the powers of police officers in the event of a breach of conditions. The addition would specify that, in cases of intimate partner violence, police officers would have the obligation—and not just the power—to proceed with the arrest of the accused without a warrant.

Section 515 of the Criminal Code should also be amended to require the court to give reasons for refusing to order the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device if the prosecutor makes the request.

Lastly, the prosecutor should be reminded of the need to request, at the release investigation stage, an assessment of the risk posed by the accused in cases involving homicidal risk factors such as strangulation, death threats, suicidal statements and non‑compliance with both civil and criminal court orders.

[Élyse Joyal-Pilon, Lawyer & Director, Rebâtir]

In addition to these recommendations concerning the criminal justice system, we would like the committee to recommend the following measures.

We propose that professional associations and educational institutions that train workers liable to respond in domestic or sexual violence situations make basic or ongoing training in coercive control and homicide risk factors mandatory.

We also recommend that the judicial appointment process include a requirement to meet with candidates. The process should also include a requirement to take into account the candidates' level of legal knowledge and experience in the areas of law in which they would perform their duties. This would help emphasize the need for Quebec Superior Court judges in the family division to have the relevant experience in and knowledge of family law.

The concepts of coercive control and risk factors, along with knowledge of criminal law—including the interpretation of conditions of release—play a vital role in decisions that may affect the safety of victims and their children.

We also propose that all organizations that work with victims set up a specialized team to handle these cases and to support the organization's staff.

Lastly, we propose that government authorities launch a national awareness campaign on healthy relationships and coercive control, including in schools.

We maintain that, to work properly, a safety net must include multiple components. However, these components must be intertwined. For this to work, it's crucial to allocate the necessary human and financial resources, in particular qualified staff who have the time to manage these complex and often urgent cases.

Safety is also a collective responsibility. We all have a role to play. Coercive control must be recognized as a systemic issue in Canada.

The Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale puts it this way: “We must collectively live up to the courage of these women.”

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you all for your opening remarks.

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

Dominique, you have the floor for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming to speak to the committee. Today is an important day. It's the 25th International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Yesterday or this morning, the United Nations, or UN, released figures showing that 85,000 women and girls were intentionally killed in 2023. A woman is killed every 10 minutes on this planet. It's staggering.

This morning, on the radio and in multiple media outlets, a number of analysts and journalists weighed in on this issue. That's a good thing. For example, Louise Riendeau, from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, basically said that women who lack housing have no way out. We can address this issue later.

Mr. Dagher, director of the City of Montreal's police department, was deeply moved this morning on the Radio‑Canada radio. He implored women to turn to the police. Yet we know that the police can hinder reporting, because women don't necessarily trust the system, unfortunately. They worry that they won't be believed and that the process will take too long. Moreover, they feel that, in any case, no one understands domestic violence and all that it entails. Ms. Zaccour and I talked about this in connection with the parental alienation issue. In short, they fear the potential negative impact.

Ms. Richer, what are your thoughts on Mr. Dagher's comments this morning?

I'll then turn to Ms. Zaccour.

[Marie-Claude Richer]

I would say that, yes, women are afraid.

Over the past three years, we've been lucky enough—or unlucky enough—to talk with 16,000 women in Quebec who are victims of domestic violence. Some women say that, had they known what would happen to them, they wouldn't have reported the violence. Why not? Because they don't feel safe. Yet safety is the cornerstone of a victim's successful journey through the justice system. Above all, the victim needs to be safe.

At Rebâtir, we often meet with women before the reporting stage. This approach is unique in Quebec. We're the only law firm that meets with victims before they turn to the police. First, we meet with them to reassure them. We then explain how things will work in the justice system so that they know what to say and how to make a good statement. We know that this statement will be analyzed by the courts.

We meet with the women and make them feel safe. It's important to weave a safety net around them. That's why, when the women file a complaint in connection with a breach of conditions, the accused must be brought before the courts as quickly as possible.

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

You're giving me some good food for thought.

Aren't we a bit lax in Canada these days? We no longer know what language or tone to use. People, mostly men, who should be in prison, aren't. Instead, they're at home after committing serious acts. Some probably deserved 10 years in prison, but they're serving their sentences at home. Others are released when they shouldn't be.

That's the current situation. This has been the information given to us so far in our study.

[Marie-Claude Richer]

There are a number of areas to address.

The victim faces the greatest danger when the separation is announced and in the ensuing months. The perpetrator of the act of violence then loses control over the victim. That's when the victim needs protection. A safety net must be established as soon as the victim files a complaint.

In cases where the accused fails to comply with the conditions, we propose that they be brought before the court so that the court can consider, for example, the possibility of requiring them to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.

Moreover, a judge can currently decide not to require them to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet without providing any justification. We ask that judges be required to provide reasons for not ordering a bracelet to be worn.

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

There are so many things to say about this.

Two weeks ago, on major networks, and again recently on Radio‑Canada and Télé‑Québec, we heard some chilling toxic masculinity rhetoric.

In some countries, women's voices can no longer be heard in public spaces.

What are your thoughts on this, Ms. Zaccour? How will we overcome this and resolve the issue of violence against women once and for all?

We don't want to limit anyone's right to speak. However, some comments are currently scaring us.

[Suzanne Zaccour]

Thank you for the question.

I think that everyone agrees on the need to raise awareness and implement policies to prevent masculinism. Our way of identifying these issues also matters.

Since I'm speaking to people who hold legislative authority, let me say that we shouldn't assume that these masculinist attitudes are conveyed only by the people heard on the radio. They're all over our society, including in our courts and police forces.

As a result, it's necessary to listen to the demands of the women's rights movement, which identify the priority actions needed to protect us in this environment.

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

In any case, I give radio interviews and I'm not shy about telling women to stay alert.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you, Mrs. Vien.

Next I would like to welcome MP Hepfner.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll turn to the lawyers representing Rebâtir.

In France, lawyers represent not only the Crown and the accused, but also the victim.

In my previous life, I was a journalist and I saw many criminal trials. I always felt that the victims had no voice. People were available to help them understand the process. However, they didn't have access to a person with the necessary skills to advocate on their behalf and convey what they needed to remain safe.

What do you think of this idea? How could a similar mechanism be implemented to enable victims to express their needs here in Canada?

[Élyse Joyal-Pilon]

One thing that we've learned since the founding of Rebâtir is that victims need a voice. We're part of that voice. Criminal law is one of the legal fields involving the most consultations. In Quebec, victims needed better guidance, support, advice and information. Specialized people are needed to help them. Our lawyers have been trained in this area.

As Ms. Richer said, our service is one of the first of its kind. Victims have access to an independent lawyer who focuses exclusively on advocating for their interests.

A lawyer represents the accused, while the prosecutor represents the Crown. However, when victims come to us, we counsel them directly. We explain the process and the steps involved to them. It may seem trivial, but it isn't. As a result, at the next stage, the victim feels more confident. The victim will better understand what will happen and what the court or the players involved will decide and why.

Indeed, we're constantly talking with victims about safety. It's a key element in all our work. It's omnipresent. It's the first thing that comes to mind. Even before providing legal advice to a person, we look at their safety, because the legal process depends on safety. Superior and criminal courts alike should proceed according to the level of risk involved in each case.

When it comes to breaches of conditions, there aren't any minor cases. There's a culture of downplaying certain actions. We must all recognize that a breach of conditions constitutes a risk factor. That's how it should be viewed.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I would also say that there aren't enough lawyers like you, who give a lot of advice to people who need it. Despite all that work, you don't have the standing needed to speak directly to judges. I imagine that judges wouldn't need as much training if there was a lawyer whose role was to plead on behalf of victims.

Do you agree with that?

[Marie-Claude Richer]

Yes, we agree. That's why, in our recommendations, we ask that judges be better selected when they have to render judgments. I've been a lawyer for 35 years, but I practised family law for 32 years and, just three years ago, I didn't know what coercive control was. I don't mind saying so.

Unfortunately, not all judges currently sitting on the criminal division of the Superior Court and the Court of Quebec know what coercive control is. They need to be educated, and it is not enough to make training available to them. That training needs to be mandatory so that they can assess the risks to victims' safety. That's what's going to change things. Strangulation is one risk factor among others. A number of risk factors have been mentioned today.

Indeed, it would be a major step forward if victims could be represented by a lawyer in the criminal and penal division of the Court of Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. As you said, that lawyer could come and explain concepts that may be less well known.

Domestic violence is an extremely complex issue. There are a number of factors to consider, and each case is unique. If that could become a reality in Canada, it would be really beneficial.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

I think that's very important.

I would like to turn now to Professor Dawson. I know a big part of your work is research. We're lacking a lot of data on gender-based violence in this country, I think in part because so few women come forward with complaints. Would you talk to us about your work collecting data, where the gaps are and how we can better support better disaggregated data collection in this country?

[Prof. Myrna Dawson]

We talk about data as a defence against femicide and against gender-based violence. Just to give one example of how we have significant data gaps in Canada, recently the United Nations statistical framework came out with 10 variables that were indicative of femicide. The homicide survey in Canada—our official recognition of it—could gather information on only four of those 10 variables. If you consider Canada as a relatively good environment for data, that's a big issue. The variables don't capture the nuances surrounding what are prevention aspects of gender-based violence and violence against women, so for things like what direction or protection orders are in place, we don't know what direction, who was it who had the protection order; or for prior violence, we don't know who perpetrated the violence against who, but just that there was prior violence. These are the nuances that are required for prevention, and we don't have it at the very basic level.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you.

MP Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.