Debates of June 6th, 2014

Victims Bill of Rights

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for making that point.

It is not just about money. All the parties have deep wounds. Human nature is very fragile. When someone is a victim or witnesses a violent act, they need psychological help to cope with the ordeal. They also need more technical help in navigating all the steps in the process.

Furthermore, it is important to ensure that there is some possibility of redemption. That is part of our human nature and part of a long process and a long road.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by assessing the merit of what is new about Bill C-32, which creates the Canadian victims bill of rights.

As I have done in the past, I will assess this bill's merits, meaning that I will focus on specific components of the legislation we are looking at today. Given that Bill C-32 is quite broad and I do not want stray off topic, my comments will address specific elements.

Some provisions in this legislation introduce changes to administrative rules and rules about the admissibility of evidence. During my speech, I will try to define the potential impact that this will have on the practice of criminal law, for both the prosecution and the defence.

I often try to relate bills to my former profession. That is why I will try to take the principles of the bill and apply them to the practice and reality of someone who practises law. That is my goal for the next few minutes.

I will also talk about the possibility of a victim's spouse testifying if the victim is deceased or incapable of acting on their own behalf, as long as the couple has been in a conjugal relationship for more than a year. That is one of the components of Bill C-32; however, the Canada Evidence Act already addresses that issue.

It seems to me, based on my evaluation, that the government is simply trying to take credit for that measure, since most Canadians are not necessarily aware of the subtleties of the Canada Evidence Act and the rules governing the presentation of evidence. It is quite possible that the government is introducing concepts in its bill that already exist and are automatically applied by lawyers, legal practitioners and those involved in the justice system. This would give the government a certain amount of media coverage.

This aspect of Bill C-32 merely codifies a pre-existing override to the best evidence rule. This rule is set out in the Canada Evidence Act and applies to all criminal and civil proceedings and any other matters under federal jurisdiction.

The best evidence rule is one of the first notions students learn in criminal law courses. According to this rule, jurists and judges must always try to find the best evidence. If a witness has evidence to present or wants to be heard, then technically, he or she must be allowed to testify.

The same is true under the Canada Evidence Act. Under Bill C-32, if victims are physically or emotionally unable to appear in court and testify as a result of the incident that occurred, their spouse could testify on their behalf. There are terms, conditions and technicalities that go along with that, and the victim and his or her spouse also must have cohabited for a period of at least one year, but the fact remains that the spouse could come and testify on behalf of a victim who is unable to do so.

The Canada Evidence Act already provides for that eventuality. Subsection 6(1) of the Canada Evidence Act, entitled “Evidence of person with a physical disability”, reads as follows:

If a witness has difficulty communicating by reason of a physical disability, the court may order that the witness be permitted to give evidence by any means that enables the evidence to be intelligible.

This provision covers any physical disability that would technically prevent an individual from testifying in court.

I would also like to quote subsection 6(2), entitled “Evidence of a person with a mental disability”, which reads as follows:

If a witness with a mental disability is determined under section 16 to have the capacity to give evidence and has difficulty communicating by reason of a disability, the court may order that the witness be permitted to give evidence by any means that enables the evidence to be intelligible.

What the government is trying to codify today with this victims bill of rights is, to a certain extent, already covered. My colleagues opposite will likely object and say that minor details have been changed and updates have been made, including the length of time that the couple must have been cohabiting before the spouse can testify on the victim's behalf. However, this eventuality is already covered. I will come back to the idea of updates later.

By way of information, I am going to read subsection 6(3), which says the following:

The court may conduct an inquiry to determine if the means by which a witness may be permitted to give evidence under subsection (1) or (2) is necessary and reliable.

The rules are flexible and apply case by case. The court has to determine whether, under the Canada Evidence Act, the witness who should technically give evidence as an individual is in full possession of his faculties and competent to do so. There is significant latitude and discretion here.

That is more or less how criminal law works on the ground. Judges enjoy significant latitude, and legal interveners in general enjoy significant latitude in applying the rules of evidence. I have seen situations in which witnesses were called to testify even if they were in a separate room or a special booth set up for that purpose. There is equipment set up in the courts to handle any situation, such as when it is a child or a victim who does not want to face the attacker. All kinds of situations are taken into account, and the justice system being what it is, it has to adapt to the realities and vagaries that come up from time to time in a jurist's life.

The main objective of the NDP legal experts assigned to study this bill in committee is to ensure that the Canadian victims bill of rights is a good fit with the Canadian justice system and responds to the victims' expectations and recommendations. That is the problem because aside from all the window dressing and highly publicized media events, we must first and foremost focus on the essentials. I keep saying, like a broken record, that we must focus on the position expressed not by just a few individuals or groups whose message provides a good sound bite, but also by all Canadians. In this case here, we know that there are many victims all across the country. Rather than using victims for purely utilitarian purposes, we must truly listen, take note and adjust our own legislative tools accordingly.

The bill before us has all the hallmarks of a utilitarian initiative geared toward gaining—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Unfortunately, it is now 1:30 p.m. The hon. member will have two minutes and 30 seconds to finish his speech the next time this bill is before the House.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women (violence against women)

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be instructed to undertake a study on the subject of best practices in education and social programs in Canada that prevent violence against women, and report its findings to the House within one year of the study's initiation.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise today to introduce Motion No. 504. I highlight that the key word in the motion is “prevention”. I am really pleased, Mr. Speaker, that you are here today to hear this speech because I know you share my value system. I am very pleased also that I have family members, friends, and staff here to hear this very important motion.

The motion was initiated in part because I became aware of the annual domestic violence statistics in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. The results were astounding, considering our population of 75,000. These types of statistics are consistent Canada wide.

In 2010, Sault Ste. Marie Police Services recorded 1,178 domestic incidents, of which 258 had criminal charges laid. The Ontario Provincial Police investigated an additional 402 domestic incidents in Algoma, which resulted in 119 criminal charges being laid. Combined, that results in over one criminal charge per day. These are reported cases. I can only imagine the number of incidents that go unreported.

The majority of domestic violence incidents are violence against women. On top of that, the victim witness assistance program opened 371 case files specific to partner assault, which represents 72% of its case load. Women in Crisis provided emergency shelter to 456 women and children. Let me reiterate that this is all in a one-year period. These trends repeat year after year.

Additional research presented more statistics that are unacceptable to me as a male. I have been fortunate to be married for 32 years and to raise two sons, both of whom are in healthy relationships with their girlfriends. When I read about these statistics I am deeply disturbed as I do not believe domestic violence by men against women and girls should be tolerated, nor do my sons. They have never experienced domestic violence in my household.

These statistics come from a report completed by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, released February 2013. They are based upon an internationally accepted definition of violence against women by the UN in 1993 as being:

...any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.

It should also be noted these statistics are based primarily on those acts that constitute crimes under the Criminal Code.

In 2011, the five most common violent offences committed against women were common assault, uttering threats, serious assault, sexual assault, and criminal harassment. Women were eleven times more likely than men to be a victim of sexual offences and three times more likely to be a victim of criminal harassment or stalking.

Overall, men were responsible for 83% of police reported violence committed against women. Most commonly, the accused was the woman's intimate partner, at 45%; followed by acquaintances or friends, at 27%; strangers, 16%; and non-spousal family members, at 12%. This contrasts with violent crimes against men, where intimate partners are among the least common perpetrators at 12%.

Intimate partner violence, which was nearly four times higher for women, was characterized by physical assault and the use of physical force, rather than weapons. About half of female victims of intimate partner violence suffered some type of injury.

As mentioned in the UN definition, there are many forms of violence including physical, sexual, emotional, and financial abuse and neglect.

Physical abuse is obvious and includes such things as pushing, hitting, slapping, pinching, or punching, to name but a few. Sexual abuse can include sexual touching, or sexual activity without consent, or forcing someone to commit unsafe or humiliating sex acts.

Emotional abuse happens when a person uses words or actions to control, frighten, or isolate someone, or to take away their self-respect. It can include such things as constant yelling or criticism or keeping someone from seeing family or friends.

Financial abuse happens when someone uses money or property to control or exploit someone else, and can include such things as withholding or limiting money in order to control someone.

Neglect occurs when a family member who has a duty to care for someone fails to provide them with basic needs.

Many men and women alike do not even recognize that some of these are even forms of violence. I believe that if best practices and prevention are implemented at appropriate stages in an individual's life, domestic violence can be dramatically reduced. I believe this because I am familiar with some of the rehabilitation programs delivered to incarcerated individuals, and they actually change these individuals' lives to the point that they do not reoffend once released.

Certainly, if we can rehabilitate those who have already offended, then we can also reduce the possibility of offending in the first place by providing preventative tools.

Treatment programs provided in prisons include such things as life without violence, criminal thinking distortions, and substance abuse. These programs are intensive in nature and generally involve 12 hours per week over a 20-week period in a classroom-type setting. Significant one-on-one counselling also occurs. The rate of recidivism is reduced significantly in comparison to those who have no rehabilitation services provided.

However, the issue is one of why individuals end up in the correctional system in the first place. A majority of the inmates feel that had this programming occurred much earlier in life, they would not have ended up in prison. Quotes such as “Where was this when I was 10 years old?” are common.

As a government and as a society, we are dealing retroactively with violence. We are told how to behave in society; however, we are not provided with the skills to do so. The skills I am referring to are such things as assertiveness training, conflict resolution, anger management, communication, healthy relations, and the ability to weigh and balance consequences, to name a few. Ultimately, this knowledge would assist in steering our children away from high-risk behaviour. Providing these programs would also help identify those individuals who need additional supports that are not currently in place.

There is so much more proactive intervention that can be done to minimize the chance of our children becoming violent offenders. We need to break the cycle.

I am not suggesting for one moment that we have done nothing as a government. We have made great strides to address this important issue, and this motion, if accepted, will build upon those initiatives. As a matter of fact, since 2007 more than $69 million has been invested in projects designed specifically to end violence against women and girls, and I expect my colleagues will expand on these initiatives later on.

All members of society are affected by family violence. There can be long-term impacts of violence on victims' physical and emotional health that can result in their inability to work, loss of wages, lack of participation in regular activities, and limited ability to care for themselves or their children. Children may suffer long-term emotional, behavioural, and developmental problems that can even lead them to be violent later in life.

The financial consequences and the effects stretch far beyond the victims' family, friends, and communities. There are social costs. A considerable amount of Canadian resources are directed to address this issue, including health care costs and the cost to the justice system, to employers, to businesses, and to social and community services.

A study by the Department of Justice, “An Estimation of the Economic Impact of Spousal Violence in Canada, 2009”, estimates the impact of spousal violence to be about $7.4 billion per year. This includes $6 billion in costs to victims. Those costs are associated with victims seeking medical attention, lost wages, damaged and destroyed property and the intangibles of pain and suffering. It also includes $890 million in costs to third parties, including social service operating costs and losses to employers. This also includes about $545 million in costs borne by the justice system.

It is so unfortunate that social programs have to exist for groups of children that have witnessed forms of abuse or violence against their mothers or female caregivers, or programs that teach safety planning for women who are abused, or programs that educate on how people can identify and help women at risk of abuse, or programs that are specialized for individuals who have been physically violent and/or emotionally abusive or controlling toward a spouse or intimate partner. These are all designed for violence that has already occurred.

Let us find the best programs that prevent violence in the first place.

I realize that if everyone had these programs, domestic violence would not be eliminated, as there are many root causes of domestic violence. Addressing causes is certainly one way of reducing domestic violence. Applying best preventative practices is absolutely another way.

Through this motion, I am simply asking the status of women committee to explore best practices that prevent violence against women. Decisions will then be required to determine what next steps might be to implement those programs. I look forward to the unanimous support of my motion and, more important, the recommendations that will come forward from the status of women committee.

I wish every person had this very rare opportunity to initiate legislation that could be profoundly meaningful to so many. I am deeply honoured to be standing here today and so grateful to my constituents for placing their faith in me. I would like to dedicate this motion to my wife, who inspired it and who works so hard on the rehabilitation side of corrections.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was insightful. I thank him for the initiative he has taken on an issue that means a lot to me and my colleagues. As a member of the status of women committee, I look forward to embarking on this work. We will also propose a friendly amendment a bit later.

I also particularly appreciate the focus that the member brought at the beginning of his speech about women living in the north. As a woman from the north and who represents the north, I have a very clear understanding of the particular challenges in terms of violence that women in northern Canada face and the needs that are not met, including by the federal government.

In terms of this motion, could my colleague speak, perhaps more specifically, to the kinds of recommendations he hopes to see in this study? I know he has mentioned a bit about the range of focus, but I would certainly appreciate hearing more about what he hopes to see in the study.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I do not want to do is tie the hands of the status of women committee. I really want the members of the committee to have a free reign to look at those best programs. Ultimately, when all is said and done, it could be something that says we need an advertising campaign to speak to this and that we need to be dealing with our young men and young boys. It could be a recommendation that we need to develop a framework that includes the provinces, that brings into place the education systems and perhaps a curriculum which the committee might consider adopting that speaks to these programs.

I do not want to tie the hands of the status of women committee. I really want the committee to have free reign. I am very confident that the members of the committee will do an unbelievable job in bringing forward really great recommendations that I know I will support.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, for his contribution in this debate. This motion is not only worthy of support, but also I want to give him kudos. I have found in working with him at the public accounts committee that the member is very inclusive, very thoughtful and powerfully clear when he speaks. I can see why his constituents have sent him here.

On motion, I would like to know the member's experiences. He did mention his riding, and I know he is an excellent listener. Does he have any experiences or feedback that he heard directly from his constituents so he could come to this place and share with this astute chamber the reasons why this best practices study needs to be done?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has been well promoted in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. I did not go outside of the riding. This is a Sault Ste. Marie-based initiative, simply because of the statistics I saw.

I took the liberty of issuing a press release when the motion was tabled, and then I visited all of the social service agencies in Sault Ste. Marie to get their feedback. I have overwhelming support from the agencies in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie for this initiative. I cannot wait for the committee to get started.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for bringing the motion forward to the status of women committee. We have listened to many witnesses at the status of women committee with the aim of preventing violence against women and girls.

Could my colleague tell me why best practices are so important to him and to the organizations in his riding?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in every facet of life, best practices are necessary. They speak to efficiencies in taxpayer-funded programs. Social service agencies are, in general, funded by the taxpayer. We want to make sure that the very best programs are in place. We do not want programs that do not work. I want the status of women committee to really have a close look at those programs that work efficiently, and hopefully we will adopt those Canada-wide.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, women have the right to full equality and women have the right to live their lives free of violence. These two principles are inseparable because with the threat of violence there can be no substantive equality. The government can and must do more to support women's equality, especially when it comes to addressing violence against women. It is everyone's responsibility to reduce violence, but it is the particular responsibility of parliamentarians to take substantive action in this direction.

Motion No. 504 is well intentioned, however, when one realizes how widespread violence against women is in Canada, we feel it does not go far enough. Half of all women in Canada have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16 and this number has remained stagnant over the past 40 years.

In first nations, the statistics are worse. Women are much more vulnerable with homicide rates seven times higher than that of non-aboriginal Canadian women. In the recent reports by the RCMP, there are nearly 1,200 cases of missing or murdered indigenous women in Canada.

Both Amnesty International and the United Nations have called upon the Canadian government to take action on this issue without success. Women in countless organizations across Canada have called upon the government to take action.

The Conservative government has claimed to have taken real action to combat violence against women, yet it has refused to develop a national action plan. In fact, in 2006, the government changed the Status of Women Canada women's program, making it impossible for Status of Women Canada to fund the work of organizations when it relates to advocacy, lobbying, or general research on women's rights issues. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has expressed concern on the impact of changes to the Status of Women agency, in particular on access to services by aboriginal and rural women.

The minister who changed the women's program mandate at the time, Bev Oda, said, “"We don't need to separate the men from the women in this country. This government as a whole is responsible to develop policies and programs that address the needs of both men and women."

First and foremost, the government must recognize that gender inequality is the root cause of violence against women. We know that women are 11 times more likely than men to be a target of sexual offences and three times more likely to experience criminal harassment. With these facts in mind and with the prevalence of violence against women stagnant in Canada while all other violent crime rates drop, does the government still believe that we do not need to work toward meeting the needs of women in this country?

As parliamentarians, we have the ability to enact a national action plan that would address the severity of violence against women, yet the government has taken no action in this direction despite the recommendations numerous organizations have made. In the absence of a national action plan, responses to violence against women, including education and prevention programs, are fragmented and inconsistent.

In order to fully address the root causes of violence against women, I urge the government to immediately pick up Motion No. 444 and consult with civil society in order to create a multi-sector national action plan. With Canada in the international spotlight, we must respond. We call upon the government to immediately commit to funding legal aid, shelters, transitions houses, social housing, health services, advocacy, and research in order to prevent and treat violence against women for all women in Canada.

In regard to Motion No. 504, I urge the government to make the necessary provisions that would allow for the issues associated with violence against all women to be addressed. First, we ask the study to include the examination of programs as well as policy. Second, we ask that the study look at best practices in Canada and abroad. Other countries like Canada, such as Australia, have taken strident steps toward a national action plan and their methods are working. We should take this opportunity to learn from them.

There is near consensus among Canadian civil society and violence against women service providers that a national action plan is urgently needed. Indeed, the Canadian Network of Women's Shelters and Transition Houses is spearheading meetings to discuss the creation of such an action plan. However, civil society, women's advocates, and service providers cannot accomplish this task alone. The federal government must be a leader at the table. It is incumbent upon the House to listen to what experts and front-line workers are telling us. Right now they are saying the same thing: we need a national action plan.

The Canadian Network of Women’s Shelters and Transition Houses wrote in its report:

It is clear that in the absence of a National Action Plan, responses to VAW in Canada are largely fragmented, often inaccessible, and can work to impede rather than improve women’s safety....A strategic and sustainable step toward meaningfully addressing VAW in Canada is to establish a multi-sectoral NAP that adheres to the guidelines and principles set out by the UN Handbook for Legislation on Violence Against Women...and the UN Handbook for National Action Plans on Violence Against Women...

The fact is we can study component pieces of the solution to violence against women and it will only be a drop in the bucket of the work that must be done, right now, to end violence in women's lives. Education and prevention are critical, but we must move beyond that.

A national action plan would be coordinated with governments across the country. It would set out a framework to be followed over the course of many years. It would uphold Canada's commitments to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women as well as the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. It would be based in evidence, new research and extensive consultation with experts and communities. The plan would include evaluation and accountability measures for government and civil society alike.

With all of this working together, it will have a real effect on women’s lives and the lives of all of those who depend on the well-being of women in our society.

We have international examples of national action plans. Belize, Liberia, Peru, France, Australia, Spain and many more have comprehensive and coherent programs of activity.

I have spent the past year travelling to different parts of the country in order to hold consultation sessions with the people in Canada who are at the front lines of fighting violence against women. I sat down with the directors of emergency shelters, transition houses and drop-in centres. I listened to lawyers, advocates and social workers. I heard the concerns of sexual assault service providers and rape crisis line workers. I met with women who were survivors of violence themselves. Across the board we heard the same thing: the government does not provide enough funding or support to even come close to ending violence against women.

I cannot name or quote these individuals, for fear that the government may slash what little funding their organizations are receiving, but I will paraphrase some of the messages we heard.

Service providers are subsidizing the government with unpaid hours of labour. Two people work for one person's salary in order to provide desperate women with the bare minimum of what they need to exit violence. One of the organizations said, “We tell women that it is possible to leave a violent relationship and start her life again, but the reality is that without sufficient housing, legal aid and welfare that simply is not true”.

I heard from others that, “Repeated cuts to this sector have devastated our capacity to work together as a community to provide the best services”, and “We cannot advocate for women to the government when we are barely able to keep our doors open”.

We heard again and again about how frustrating and insufficient the Status of Women Agency was since the Prime Minister made those substantive changes to its granting system. Short term, two year grants ensure that best practices will necessarily end with no hope of renewal. It means that service providers are in constant grant-writing mode instead of working to help women. The fact that organizations are explicitly forbidden from applying for advocacy and research means that all their work is short-sighted and never allowed to address the major systemic barriers.

Perhaps most telling is that for a time, the government took the word “equality” out of the Status of Women's mandate. The absence of that one word speaks volumes about the regressive attitude the government has taken toward women.

I also want to point to the most recent bill, Bill C-36, which aims to save prostitutes. We in the NDP have expressed our high concern that this new legislation places sex workers in danger and we believe it does not uphold women's charter rights.

For a government that constantly claims to be standing up for victims, it refuses to give vulnerable people what they need to achieve equality. Therein lies the fundamental difference between the NDP and the Conservative approach to women. The government paints women as victims who are in need of protection, but we know women must be empowered to claim their full rights. Women in Canada deserve better. We deserve commitment and leadership from the government to end violence against women.

In conclusion, I move, seconded by the member for LaSalle—Émard:

That the motion be amended by replacing the words “education and social programs” with the words “education programs, social programs, and policies”.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to a motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I consent to that change.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a society, we have made appreciable progress over decades, and going back even centuries, in developing greater awareness, understanding, and acceptance of the inherent value and dignity of the individual human being, and of the individual's right to be free in mind and spirit, and to enjoy physical security and independence. However, despite this slow yet nonetheless remarkable progress, and notwithstanding our progress to an extent in addressing the age-old and stubborn imbalance of power and economic status between men and women, violence against women remains a scourge that we must work relentlessly to eliminate through an intelligent and effective combination of criminal sanction, law enforcement, and education.

In regards to this still yet to be fully addressed and resolved gender economic imbalance in Canadian society, I must lament the actions that the Conservative government has taken in the recent past to slow this progress within federal institutions, within its constitutional jurisdiction.

As we know, in 2009, the Conservatives tabled Bill C-10, an omnibus budget implementation bill. The bill contained an act entitled, “Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act”. The act altered the federal pay equity regime so that it would no longer exist under the Canadian Human Rights Act as well as removing the Canadian Human Rights Commission as the forum for adjudicating equal pay complaints.

The motion we are debating today, if adopted, would instruct the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women to undertake a study on a limited but nonetheless valuable number of aspects of the problem of violence against women. Specifically, the motion calls on the committee to study best practices in education and social programs, and we just added the word “policy”, in Canada aimed at preventing violence against women.

However, before I move into the substance of my speech, I would like to draw attention to the excellent work being done in my region, namely in the western part of the Island of Montreal, by the West Island Women's Shelter. The shelter is a beacon of hope, a veritable life raft for women who sometimes urgently need a place of protection to escape violence in the home or in another context. The shelter is well supported by the community, including financially through an umbrella charitable organization known as West Island Community Shares.

By way of information, each year in Canada violence and abuse drive over 100,000 women and children out of their homes and into shelters. Furthermore, according to a study by the Department of Justice, violence against women costs Canadian society $7.4 billion each year. The study further states that, based on 2009 figures, the cost to victims directly of violence against women is $6 billion annually, including $21 million in hospitalization, visits to doctors, and emergency rooms, as well as $180 million in related mental health costs.

While the economic costs of violence against women are great and unacceptable, the very real incalculable cost is to victims' health, physical and mental, and to their human dignity. I have not even mentioned the impacts on the outlook of the children who must witness abusive behaviour against their mother.

The inherent value and benefit of federalism is that it allows different parts of the system, namely different jurisdictions, in this case our provinces, to develop unique approaches to solving common problems, social, economic, or other, that reflect different and unique regional perspectives, historical experiences, and accumulated collective wisdom. We know that situations of physical violence, in this case against women, are addressed day-to-day on the ground by local police forces, courts, social workers, and shelters.

All of these in many ways are far removed from federal jurisdiction. However, criminal law, a federal responsibility, is directly relevant when it comes to combatting violence against women. Criminal law, in turn, needs to continually evolve to take account of and adapt to the new realities and challenges that develop over time in daily life in communities across this country. There is great relevance in having education, social programs and policies aimed at ending violence against women studied at the federal level by a committee of the House of Commons.

Also, violence against women is obviously a national concern. It offends the national sensibility and its incidence is national, sparing no region or locality.

It cuts across boundaries, culture, religious membership, and socio-economic status, and it impacts aboriginal communities, for which the federal government has a special constitutional responsibility, including for the women who live in these communities or who, living outside of these communities, are nonetheless profoundly tied to them.

Nowhere is the intersection of local policing, federal jurisdiction over criminal law, and the national nature of the issue of violence against women cast into higher relief than through the troubling question of our aboriginal missing and murdered women, an issue I will discuss in more detail in a moment.

However, allow me to say that while this motion is welcome, it falls short by the mere fact of limiting the scope of the study the committee would undertake should the motion pass in this House. I understand that the motion has been amended. I am not certain what the actual implications will be of adding the word “policy”, but I hope to learn more about that as time goes on.

Liberals have consistently asked for a more comprehensive approach to studying this urgent problem of violence against women and acting to eliminate it. We have consistently demanded a national action plan to combat violence against women, not to mention a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.

In the fall of 2013, the Liberal status of women critic and member for Etobicoke North tabled a motion at the status of women committee calling on the committee to study violence against women. The committee has yet to accept this motion, and I am left to wonder if the motion we are debating today, which is more limited in scope but nonetheless desirable, will be used as an attempt to pre-empt a larger study, as requested by my Liberal colleague. I hope not, and I know that the sponsor's intentions are sincere in this regard and that he is approaching this not as a way of pre-empting the Liberal motion but because of his obvious interest and concern about this issue.

In addition, our Liberal critic tabled Motion No. M-470 in the house itself, asking that the government create and implement a national action plan to end violence against women.

For her part, the Liberal member for St. Paul's, the Liberal aboriginal affairs critic, has been working diligently and tirelessly in an attempt to have the government establish a national public inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.

As we know, and I believe it has been mentioned, aboriginal women are three-and-a-half times more likely than non-aboriginal women to be victims of violence.

In 2010, the Native Women's Association of Canada estimated the number of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls over the last 30 years at 582. The report acknowledges the limitations of record-keeping, as there is no national missing persons database, and police records do not always indicate aboriginal status.

The initiative led by the group Sisters in Spirit, which was de-funded by the government in 2010, found that many victims are targeted simply because they are aboriginal and their attackers assume they will not fight back.

A 2014 report from the RCMP put the number of missing and murdered aboriginal women at 1,181.

Finally, half of all murder cases involving first nations, Métis, or Inuit women and girls remain unsolved, and more than half of the murdered and missing women and girls were under the age of 31.

Despite the motion we are debating today, which is welcome, the government must act more broadly and more effectively to eliminate violence against women in Canada.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this important debate on Motion No. 504 that is before the House today. My colleague's motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be instructed to undertake a study on the subject of best practices in education and social programs in Canada that prevent violence against women, and report its findings to the House within one year of the study's initiation.

I intend to support this motion because it would provide the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with a valuable opportunity to review and share with all Canadians some of the best practices in education and social programming to help prevent gender-based violence in Canada.

Ending violence against women and girls continues to be a priority for our government as part of our ongoing efforts to make communities safer for all Canadians. For example, we have invested more than $69 million through the Status of Women Canada, since 2007, in projects specifically designed to end violence against women and girls. These projects are helping to address violence in rural and remote communities, in post-secondary campus communities, and in high-risk neighbourhoods. They are responding to violence against women and girls in the name of so-called honour, engaging men and boys to help reduce violence, and working to prevent the trafficking of women and girls through community planning.

Last fall, we had a call for proposals, through Status of Women Canada, for projects that are helping communities engage youth in preventing or eliminating cyberviolence and sexual violence against young women and girls. One of the projects supported by this call is in my riding of London North Centre. This two-year project is helping the London Abused Women's Centre to engage partners in identifying effective strategies for responding to cyberbullying, Internet luring, and cyberstalking against young women and girls. All of these projects, supported by Status of Women Canada, recognize the benefits of working with skilled partners, organizations with the capacity to identify needs at the community level, and develop the tools and resources to meet those needs.

In addition to supporting the women's program at Status of Women Canada with record levels of funding, our government has also taken a number of further important actions to help end gender-based violence. In terms of legislative actions, we passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act to improve the safety of all Canadians. We launched the national action plan to combat human trafficking, and we increased penalties for violent crimes. Just a few weeks ago, our government announced the victims bill of rights, a significant piece of legislation that will create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canadian history. I was proud that members of the London community were at these announcements.

Through economic action plan 2014, the Government of Canada will invest an additional $25 million over five years to reduce violence against aboriginal women and girls, putting money into concrete resources. This plan builds on the results, best practices, and lessons learned from the earlier $25-million investment announced in budget 2010, which will improve the law enforcement and justice responses.

Earlier this year, our government launched the national anti-cyberbullying campaign known as “Stop Hating Online”. It is focused on both parents and youth and is designed to raise awareness of the harmful impact that cyberbullying has, especially when behaviour amounts to criminal activity. We also introduced legislation to give police and prosecutors new tools to address cyberbullying.

All of these actions demonstrate that our government is maintaining a clear focus on eliminating violence against women and girls. We do so, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it will help remove another obstacle to equality in Canada. We also believe in addressing the issue of violence against women and girls globally. For example, Canada is working very hard with our international partners to end child, early, and forced marriage, wherever it occurs. I am also proud of our government's decision to bestow honorary citizenship upon Malala, who courageously risked her life to promote education for girls and young women everywhere.

All of these measures are very important. They demonstrate that by working together, we can reduce and prevent violence against women and girls. However, at the end of the day, it is not up to any one government or person or community organization alone to achieve this goal. It is up to all of us, those of us in public life, and all Canadians. We all must be a part of the solution because we know the terrible toll that gender-based violence has on individuals, families, and communities.

As we debate this motion here today, let us keep in mind how often women and girls are tragically denied the peace, safety, and comfort of a day without violence or just the threat of violence, which can be just as damaging.

They are the reason we are here to participate in this debate today, and they are the reason I will be supporting this motion.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 504, concerning violence against women.

The motion asks:

That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be instructed to undertake a study on the subject of best practices in education and social programs in Canada that prevent violence against women, and report its findings to the House within one year of the study's initiation.

I appreciate the work of my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie in bringing this important matter before the House. I would also like to take a moment to commend my brilliant colleague from Churchill, who has also been the official opposition critic on the status of women, for her passionate speech today and for her tireless and excellent work on promoting women's equality and rights and putting an end to violence against women.

Although the rates of violent crime in general have been dropping for 40 years, the rates of sexual assault and domestic violence have not changed. Canada can and must do more to address the serious crime of violence against women and the need for the security that women deserve in our communities.

We continue to see high prevalence rates of violence against women, along with low police reporting rates. We believe that to obtain real results for victims, we should instead be addressing the underlying reasons that prevent victims from reporting assault and abuse in the first place.

Motion No. 504 is well-intentioned, but, in our view, it does not go far enough. Violence against women, as I will discuss in a moment, is a huge problem in Canada. That was acknowledged very powerfully by the member for Sault Ste. Marie from the perspective of his constituents, and I would like to do the same for mine.

We need a comprehensive and co-operative solution, so while this motion is well-intentioned, we believe it is too narrow. Gender inequality is the root cause of violence against women, so I was concerned to learn that Conservatives have taken the word out of the very mandate of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Here are some sobering statistics. Half of all women in Canada have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. Women are 11 times more likely than men to be the target of sexual offences, and three times more likely to be experiencing criminal harassment.

A full two-thirds of all Canadians, 67%, say that they personally know at least one woman who has been sexually or physically assaulted. That is the statistic that I found to be the most shocking.

Indigenous women are seven times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women. As of 2010, there are 1,200 known cases of missing or murdered indigenous women in Canada. That is absolutely staggering.

Both Amnesty International and the United Nations itself have called upon the Canadian government to take action on this issue, without success. According to the Native Women's Association of Canada:

...if this figure were applied proportionately to the rest of the female population there would be over 18,000 missing Canadian women and girls.

On any given day in our country, more than 3,300 women, along with about 3,000 of their children, are forced to sleep in an emergency shelter to escape domestic violence. Every night, about 200 of those women are turned away because the shelters are full. Each year, over 40,000 arrests result from domestic violence. That is about 12% of all violent crime in Canada, but since only about 22% of all incidents are reported to the police, that figure is obviously much higher.

Canada has clear domestic and international obligations to address violence against women, including the UN call for a national action plan to end violence against women to be in place in all countries by 2015. I was shocked to learn from the speech given by my colleague from Churchill that Canada does not have such a plan, in contrast to many of our partners around the world that do. That is really disturbing.

We must look at best practices from around the world, not just within Canada. Not doing so prevents us from learning the best practices employed elsewhere. Other countries have had success addressing violence against women. Why should we not take advantage of that expertise? In the absence of a national action plan responsive to violence against women, our education and programs are fragmented and inconsistent. We must do better.

It has to be noted that multi-sectoral cuts by the Conservative government have been devastating to the Status of Women agency. Not only that, the whole violence against women sector has been left crippled by financial insecurity and lack of capacity to effectively respond to women's needs.

The Conservative minister who changed the women's program mandate said, rather unbelievably:

We don't need to separate the men from the women in this country. This government as a whole is responsible to develop policies and programs that address the needs of both men and women.

It is unbelievable.

The cuts that the Conservatives have made affect organizations advocating for women's issues, such as antidote, the non-profit organization in my community of Victoria that works for the social and psychological well-being of racialized girls and women. The organization's executive director called the changes shocking and asked, “How do you create change when you can't advocate for change?”

Other women's groups, such as the Victoria Status of Women Action Group, SWAG, were forced to close completely, thanks to the government's cuts.

Obviously a national action plan to address violence against women is being called for by the vast majority of service providers and advocacy groups across the country.

Recently, I had the opportunity to hold consultations with great organizations doing excellent work in my community of Victoria. They also called upon us to get a national action plan in place.

In April, I had the great honour of hosting a public forum in Victoria on equality and ending violence against women. I was joined by the official opposition critic for the Status of Women, the member for Churchill. We also had representatives from the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre, the Bridges for Women Society, the BC Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, and many others. An engaged crowd of more than 150 people also enjoyed incredibly powerful performances by two local poets, Jeremy Loveday and Morgan Purvis. The evening was emotional, inspiring, but more than anything else, it was a siren call for action.

We should seize the opportunity to study the possibility of creating a comprehensive national action plan that would make a tangible difference in women's lives.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel. The Canadian Network of Women's Shelters and Transition Houses recently reported that a high-level review of policies, legislation, research, reports, action plans, and statistical data from across Canada, relevant to the development of national violence against women legislation, is available.

The network is currently working with 30 partners to create a template for a comprehensive national action plan. We should listen to civil society on this issue and build upon the work they have done. They are two steps ahead of us. Let us get on with it. Canada is doing poorly compared with other OECD countries in preventing and treating sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

In conclusion, New Democrats will support the motion, but if the member is serious about addressing violence against women, we would hope that he would accept going further.

We are calling for stronger and immediate action to deal with the serious issue of violence against women, and particularly violence against aboriginal women in our country.

We are calling upon the government to immediately pick up the motion tabled by the member for Churchill, that is, Motion No. 444, and consult with civil society in order to create a multi-sectoral, comprehensive national action plan to address violence against women, which would include prevention and education strategies. I am pleased to see today that policies would be included.

We want the government to immediately commit to funding legal aid, shelters, transition houses, social housing, health services, and advocacy and research, in order to prevent and treat violence against all women in Canada, including, in particular, indigenous women, recent immigrants, and refugees.

The important work of violence against women service providers and advocacy organizations in Canada must be fully supported, so the incredible organizations like the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre, antidote, Bridges for Women Society, and the aboriginal friendship centres can continue their important work.

In order to obtain real results, we must address the underlying systemic reasons women face violence in the first place. We must address women's equality from a holistic perspective to end this violence and take action now.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this important debate on Motion No. 504, which is before this House today. I intend to support this motion, because it presents a valuable opportunity to explore ways we all can help reduce and prevent violence against women and girls by engaging Canadians, listening to stakeholders, and finding out what works in practice at the national level or at the community level.

In 2011, in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, a 22-year-old mother and her infant son were abducted while out shopping. Over a 12-hour period, this young mother was brutally assaulted, both physically and sexually, before ultimately escaping. Words cannot even begin to do justice to such a shocking act. In the weeks following this event, I was able to attend a community vigil in response to this horrible act of brutal and senseless violence. At the vigil, the outpouring of emotion was as intense as it was heartfelt: outrage, shock, sympathy, compassion for the victim, and anger. Yet this wide range of emotion also served as a bond to bring the community together in support of the victim and as a call to action.

The reality is that violence against women and girls affects us all. Although in this case it occurred on Ellis Street in Penticton, we know that violence against women takes place in private and public spaces, in homes and in workplaces.

We often see the cruel hand of violence against women, but there are also those disturbing acts that occur that remain hidden from all but the victim and her abuser. What a horrible secret to share. Wherever and whenever it occurs, let us recognize that these actions take a terrible toll on the individuals, families, and communities.

How do we stop this brutal and senseless violence? One way we know we can make a real difference is by engaging men and boys. We know from experience that the more men and boys understand the serious impact of male violence on women and girls, the more involved they become. That is why our government issued a call for proposals through Status of Women Canada that included the specific theme of engaging men and boys on this important issue. It is also why we are supporting projects such as the huddle up and make the call program by the White Ribbon Campaign and the Toronto Argonauts.

On the west coast, another worthy initiative in my home province of British Columbia is the be more than a bystander campaign, a partnership between the B.C. Lions and the Ending Violence Association of B.C.

Projects like these engage men and boys in reducing violence against women and girls through activities such as in-school engagements and youth leadership development. I should also note that a former member of the other chamber, the Hon. David Braley, is the owner of these two athletic organizations. It is no coincidence to see these kinds of programs being advocated by these two teams.

These projects are a good example of how we can all work together to help end violence against women and girls in Canada. However, there are other things to note. We have also increased funding to the women's program at Status of Women Canada to give more communities the tools they need to reduce and prevent gender-based violence. Since 2007, more than $69 million has been invested specifically in projects to help end violence against women and girls. These projects are helping communities address violence in rural and remote communities, in post-secondary campus communities, and in high-risk neighbourhoods.

Recently there was a call for proposals for projects that helped communities engage youth in preventing or eliminating cyberviolence and sexual violence against young women and girls. We must not forget that abuse of a sexual nature increasingly occurs online against younger and more vulnerable girls, sadly with very devastating results.

Each of these projects recognizes the need to work with skilled partners, organizations that have the capacity at the community level to develop programs and the resources to meet those needs.

In addition to supporting the women's program at Status of Women Canada, our government has also taken a number of additional actions to address gender-based violence.

I mention these actions as I believe it is important for Canadians to know what initiatives the government has taken, focusing on eliminating violence against women and girls. That is why I am proud to be here supporting the member and the motion. I know our government members share these values and see this is as a motion that this august chamber can agree on and move forward in empowering the committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. The hon. member will have four minutes left in debate when this item is next taken up in the House.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)