THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 11, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with video conference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of domestic violence.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Ratna Omidvar, and I am a senator from Ontario.
[English]
I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Before we welcome our witnesses, I would like to provide a content warning for this meeting. Today, our committee is beginning its study of Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence. In addition to intimate partner violence, other sensitive subjects, including gender-based violence, suicide and substance use and abuse, may be discussed. This may be triggering to people in the room with us as well as to those watching and listening to the broadcast. Mental health support for all Canadians is available by phone and text at 9-8-8. This number will also be broadcast during the meeting. Senators and parliamentary employees are also reminded that the Senate’s employee and family assistance program is available to them and offers short-term counselling for both personal and work-related concerns as well as crisis counselling.
I would like to go around the table and ask senators to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Cordy: Good morning. Thank you for being here. My name is Jane Cordy. I am the deputy chair of the committee, and I’m from Nova Scotia.
Senator Osler: Good morning. I’m Gigi Osler, and I’m a senator from Manitoba.
Senator Burey: Good morning. Thank you for being here. I’m Sharon Burey, a senator for Ontario.
Senator Petten: Good morning. Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Pate: I’m Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. Thank you very much for being here. I think of myself as the seconder, but I’m actually the critic — friendly — of this bill.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, a senator from Nova Scotia, unceded, unsurrendered Mi’kmaq territory.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Good morning. I am Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec. Thank you for being here.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Good morning and welcome. I’m Mohamed Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Good morning. I am Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Good morning. Thank you for being with us. I’m Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Dasko: Good morning and welcome to our committee. I’m Donna Dasko from Ontario.
The Chair: Joining us today for our first panel, we welcome Senator Manning, who is the sponsor of this bill, and Georgina McGrath. Thank you both very much for joining us today.
Ms. McGrath, we recognize that sharing your story with us today may not be easy. We deeply appreciate and thank you for taking the time to be with us here in person today. We have an hour together this morning, and we can suspend the meeting and take a break at any time, if you so wish, if you would indicate that to me either yourself or through Senator Manning.
I now invite Senator Manning to make opening remarks, to be followed by Ms. McGrath.
Hon. Fabian Manning, sponsor of the bill: Madam Chair and Senate colleagues, I preface my remarks today by thanking each of you in advance for the work you are about to undertake pertaining to my private member’s bill, Bill S-249, an act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence.
The impetus for this bill began in January of 2017 when I received a telephone call from the lady sitting next to me here today. Within a few days of receiving that call, I sat down for the first time with Georgina McGrath, which would be the first of many meetings, telephone calls and other methods of correspondence we would share throughout the next number of years.
During that first meeting, Georgina told me in intricate detail her story of intimate partner violence. To say I was shocked would be a major understatement. Following that initial meeting, Georgina’s story has been constantly on my mind, and to this day, I still struggle to understand how one human being — in the vast majority of cases that human being would be a man — could inflict such abuse, suffering and maltreatment on another human being — in the vast majority of cases that human being would be a woman.
I was fortunate to grow up in a family with five brothers and two sisters. Prior to my mom’s passing in 2011, my parents were married for six months short of sixty years. My father worshipped the ground my mother walked on. Therefore, I have great difficulty in understanding the horrendous actions perpetrated by these cowards.
My sincere hope is that the passage of Bill S-249 will be another cog in the wheel to deal with the epidemic of intimate partner violence that is so prevalent throughout our Canadian society today. The time has come where we have to step up as legislators and do our part. Will Bill S-249 stop the abuse entirely? Will Bill S-249 eliminate the scourge of intimate partner violence? Will Bill S-249 abolish this epidemic? Sadly, my friends, I believe we can all agree that we may not reach those lofty goals, but we cannot allow that to deter us from making a step forward and trying our best to make a difference. A Chinese philosopher once said, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” I honestly believe that one of those important steps would be the passage into law of Bill S-249.
This bill would give the government a two-year window to develop a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence. Canadians from coast to coast to coast would then be given the opportunity to have input into developing that strategy. The many issues and concerns that Canadians have with how to deal with intimate partner violence would be given ample time and consideration through that process.
My bill is not asking for any singular response to this issue. The legal advice I received a long time ago from the Parliamentary Legislative Library is that bringing forward a piece of legislation asking for the development of a national strategy would be the most productive process to implement at this time. That is why Bill S-249 is before you today.
I first introduced a version of Bill S-249 in the Senate chamber on April 24, 2018, a few days short of six years ago. I am a patient man, but more importantly than that, I want to take this opportunity to thank Georgina and so many others for their unending patience throughout this lengthy and at times frustrating legislative process. Since the bill was first introduced, we have had to deal with two federal elections and the Covid pandemic and have witnessed the bill being put on the back burner several times. To finally be given the opportunity for Georgina to appear before you here in Ottawa today and to tell you in her own words her incredible story of abuse, survival and advocacy is a major step forward for victims and families across this country.
I am looking forward to following your deliberations over the next number of weeks. Since 2017, I have met with over 120 victims of the many different types of intimate partner violence, of which two were men and all the remainder were women. I have been educated in more ways than time will allow me to explain to you in detail here today. Intimate partner violence happens in many forms of relationships, including marriage, common law or dating relationships, regardless of the gender and sexual orientation of the partners, at any time during a relationship and even after it has ended, and intimate partner violence can occur in both public and private places as well as online and in many other ways, but it all has to deal with the issue of one person gaining control over another individual. Intimate partner violence is all about control. With that in mind, on behalf of all victims and their families, I respectfully ask for your support for Bill S-249.
In closing, let us once again recall the words of Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary General:
Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And, it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development and peace.
Senators, the time has come. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Manning. We will now hear from Ms. McGrath.
Georgina McGrath, as an individual: Good Morning. First of all, I would like to express my thanks to Madame Chair and the senators and guests who sit here today. I would like to give my utmost thanks and gratitude to Senator Fabian Manning for taking my story and creating Bill-S-249.
It is an honour for me to be here today to finally speak about this epidemic of intimate partner violence that is taking place in our country, an epidemic in our free country of Canada. As Canadians, we take part in war-torn countries by sending our soldiers to protect the vulnerable, and two of those soldiers are my sisters. Meanwhile, in our own country, we have a very secretive war taking place behind our very own closed doors.
I am Georgina McGrath and I am a survivor of intimate partner violence. My last beating was September 25, 2014. I should tell you that when I speak, I speak for thousands of women who stand behind me and cannot speak for themselves. When I speak, it is from my experiences.
I am 54 years old, and I grew up in Labrador City, Newfoundland and Labrador. I am the mother of two beautiful children: Nathan, who is 35, and Kelty, who is 33. I am a grandmother to our precious grandson Thomas, who is 5. I am a daughter, a sister, a mother-in-law, an aunt and a friend. Today, I am the proud wife of one of the most gentle, kindest, understanding men one could ever have the pleasure of knowing. His name is Kyran. We live in Branch, on St. Mary’s Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, in a house in front of the Atlantic Ocean, with a little hobby farm. Today, I am safe.
My life wasn’t always this blessed when it came to partners. I was a mother who taught her children to never allow anyone to bully you, never throw the first punch and never let people take advantage of you. Now, let me tell you, looking back, I didn’t follow those life lessons for myself. I was a business woman. I could deal with many issues and problems. I worked very hard, I made a good living for myself and I was determined to succeed, but during the eight years that I had my own company, I allowed my personal life outside the gates of my building to lose all control. I feel that just about every relationship I was ever in involved some sort of abuse. As my relationships evolved, so did the intensity of aggression.
It started with a violator from Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I will refer to him as R.M. For the first few months, he treated me like a queen and my children, who were young adults, with great kindness. Looking back, there were many red flags, but the most obvious was his control and extreme jealousy. My father stated, “Georgina, jealousy is one of the most dangerous diseases.” It became constant emotional, mental and physical abuse. This nightmare ended with a rifle. He looked at me and said, “This bullet is for you, and this one is for me.” The phone rang, and the machine picked up that it was his mother calling. He was charged with a firearms offence, but I wouldn’t give a statement on the abuse. He moved back to his home town but continued to threaten and stalk me.
The stress going on in my personal life caused me to become very ill. After many doctor appointments from Newfoundland and Labrador to Ontario, I was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and PTSD. I picked up the pieces of my life with the help of family and friends. My daughter was doing her post-secondary education, and my son was playing junior hockey. I had to move forward and was determined to be not just their mother but their provider.
In 2012, I wasn’t looking for a relationship, just someone to have a mature friendship. That’s when I met the biggest manipulator of my life. He was from Ireland and had come to live in Labrador City. I will refer to him as I.W. I actually gave him a job. We were friends initially. He treated me quite well. Although he was younger, I thought he was intriguing and a lot of fun to be around. He had befriended my children, especially my son. We all spent a lot of time together, and we became more than friends. That was against all my business morals, as I didn’t believe in dating an employee. Although I couldn’t see any red flags at the time, they were there. I allowed myself to become blind once again. I let go all my insecurities and was willing to spend the rest of my life with this person. The red flag I missed initially was money — not financial abuse on his part but him using me for every cent I had, and I allowed this.
About a year later, in September 2013, we went to Las Vegas. The very first night, I received my first punch, but this time I fought back. This was the start of the same cycle continuing within myself and allowing someone else to take control. The following morning, with a makeup cover, which I was professional at, we went to breakfast. He looked at me and said, “You know, the best thing about you, G Mac” — that was a nickname he had for me — “you can get up and just forget anything ever happened.” And at that time in my life, that is exactly what I did. After all, I was a pro at covering abuse. I had hoped things would get better, but that wasn’t going to happen.
I look at all abusers the same. The only difference is they wear a different face. They all start the same. I call it the honeymoon stage. When they have edged in and taken away your control, it becomes a matter of time before you are at the lowest point of your life between living and dying. I was quickly getting there. The mental and emotional abuse followed hand in hand with the physical abuse. Everything was my fault, of course, and I was crazy for questioning him on anything. His reign of terror continued over the next few months. I had black eyes, a broken‑off tooth, a concussion and a tiring amount of emotional and mental abuse. I went to see the doctor, I went to counselling, and I still had the frame of mind that I could change to make him happy.
On August 10, 2014, my forty-fifth birthday, I got a bouquet of flowers and a card expressing his love for me. He signed it, “I love you so much and will always be here for you. Yours truly.” The night before that, I got a beer bottle thrown at my head. He was a powerhouse when it came to manipulation, and he could show the rest of the world just how wonderful and charming he really was.
On September 25, 2014, I received the biggest beating of my life. The evening started with wine and a movie, but it quickly turned into a night of horror. There was a verbal argument in the garage, and I went in the house. He followed, and the beating began. He pushed me to the floor, got on top of me and started strangling me. He would let go and continue with punch after punch.
He put his hands around my neck and his face down into mine. While strangling me, I could reach him enough to bite the top of his nose. He released his grip. He was very vain when it came to his looks. He was so angry that he got up and went to the bathroom to inspect what I had done. I got up and locked the bedroom door. It was the angriest time I had ever seen him. He put his fist through the door, reached in and unlocked it. He pushed me to the floor and started punching me on the side of my head. I managed to get him off, but this time his anger was so intense he got back on top of me and continued with his assault. I just lay there waiting for the final punch. He would continue hitting me and telling me over and over again, “You are old, fat and wrinkly. Nobody will ever want you.”
He finally got off of me and went downstairs. I thought it was over. Then he came up with a knife. I thought I was finished, but instead he went into the bathroom. I thought, “No way,” and I put my body against the door and pushed and pushed, telling him everything was going to be okay, and eventually he passed me out the knife. I was so tired of everything. I was mentally exhausted, and it was the lowest point of my life. I went to the basement with him still yelling, “You are fat, ugly, useless, and nobody wants you, not even your children.”
I picked up the phone and called my sister in Trenton, Ontario. I told her some of what was happening, but the biggest reason I called her was to give her my will. I hid in the basement, and I knew he was going to end my life. That’s when I decided I would end it myself. I was broken, and there was no turning back. My sister called 911, something that I was unaware of. The house was silent. I went to the kitchen and took prescription medication. I went upstairs to the bedroom where he was passed out with a mask over his eyes, and I took three more bottles of medication. I changed into clean pajamas, cleaned up the broken glass and threw the empty pill bottles in the garbage. I went into the living room and lay on my couch to die. That was the night I wanted my life to end, and it would have ended at his hands or my own.
The next thing I remember is waking in the hospital and seeing my two children. That’s when I knew I was in for the fight of my life. I had ruptured ear drums, temporal and facial damages and bruises all over my body that took seven weeks to fade away. When I was moved out of intensive care and into a room, he came to visit. He told me that he didn’t know why he did what he did, and he just wanted me to come home.
After my daughter left home to return to work, my sister came. She begged me every day to go to the police. Three weeks after the beating, I went. They wouldn’t remove him from my house unless I gave a statement. I still had bruising quite visible on my face and neck. I left. I felt so alone, defeated and unprotected. He remained in my house for five weeks — five weeks of pure torture. In the fifth week, my son said, “Mom, if you don’t go give the statement, I’m going to end up in jail.” I went with my son and daughter-in-law to the police station. By the time the arrest warrant was issued, he was on a flight. The police sought a Canada-wide arrest warrant, but by the time that was obtained, he had gone through customs and was on his way back to Ireland. He was free.
Senators, that is just some of my story. I beg you to pass this bill expeditiously. There is a lot of work to be done. This is now on your shoulders. I want you to remember that you are the only people in our country who can give those thousands of voiceless women who stand behind me a chance at life and a chance at survival.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Manning and Ms. McGrath.
Ms. McGrath, the committee and everyone watching us, I know, commends you for your courage in coming forward with your story. We really appreciate and honour that.
Colleagues, we will move to questions.
Senator Petten: Thank you very much for your testimony and your courage. That was very powerful.
My question for you is, what support or resources did you receive, or maybe what do you wish you would have received?
Ms. McGrath: I want you all to know that I didn’t get here today just by the click of a finger. I went through a lot of counselling. I was blessed that my sister lived in Trenton, Ontario, and she encouraged me to come live with her, so I left my home. I claimed bankruptcy with my company. I left my community. I left with my son, who went on to Edmonton in my car, and I moved to stay with her. I stayed with her, and she is a soldier who has PTSD and was involved with a very good group of counsellors. They took me on. That’s basically where I got my counselling.
Resources that I wish that I had received — I felt I was so let down by our local police detachment. I was always under the understanding that zero tolerance policy was right across our country. It certainly wasn’t there for me in Labrador City during that time. I actually filed a complaint against the police in March 2015. During that report, I had found out that when my sister called 911 from Ontario and was put through to 911 in Labrador, she was put through to the hospital. She told them that there was a domestic dispute and that there was a possibility that I may have taken an overdose. That was never relayed from the paramedics to the police. When the police came into my house, they only used flashlights. There were no lights turned on. How could anybody tell that I was beaten? When I arrived at the hospital — in this report, it states that I had swollen damages on the left side of my face, that there was blood coming out of my ear and I had a laceration in the back of my head.
My experience with the police at that time was not a very good experience, but I will reiterate that, without the counselling that I had, I would not be here today.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, Senator Manning, for bringing this bill forward. As painful as this story is, I think it’s very important for all Canadians to hear it.
Thank you so much, Ms. McGrath, for being with us to tell your story. As senators, we are pleased and honoured to hear your voice and to hear your story today. You are a courageous superstar to tell your story.
You and I spoke earlier this morning about the stereotype that Canadians have about who an abused partner is. I wonder if you could talk about what this stereotype is. Does this stereotype prevent some people who don’t fit under the stereotype from coming forward? How can we make it easier for people to come forward and tell their story so that people understand the prevalence? I know Senator Manning, in his speech, gave a number of statistics, and the numbers are far higher than anybody would like to believe.
Ms. McGrath: I guess we all grew up with a typical idea of a person who was abused in the home. It was somebody who lived on the low social spectrum of the scale. I’m not sure if those are the proper words.
I can only speak for myself. I was too proud. I was a businesswoman in a community. I ran a carpentry company, a landscaping company, and I had a retail store. I was too proud to say that somebody was beating me at home or that somebody had that kind of control over me. There were a few people, especially my dad, who could pick up on that, not from me but from the abuser.
I’m not really sure how we get people to come and tell their stories. The biggest thing I think that any victim needs to know, no matter what social level of life they are at, is that they are not alone. I’m not sure if that answers your question completely.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, Senator Manning.
Georgina, that was very moving. I had the pleasure of meeting you, your wonderful family and your partner.
The part of your experience that shook me the most was the experience of strangulation. Could you elaborate on the effects of that particular experience as it relates to intimate partner violence, what effects that has left you with and how you have been able to cope with that recurring nightmare?
Ms. McGrath: I think one of the hardest questions I have ever been asked by a reporter, actually, was she asked me what it was like to be strangled. How do you answer that? The only thing I can say in answer to that person and to anybody is that when you are in front of your abuser and he has a gun — I have been in both situations — he is away from you. There is still distance between you. When you’re being strangled, it’s a person you love who has their hands around your neck and has your life in their hands.
Some of the statistics and the information coming out on strangulation is that if strangulation and concussions become repetitive enough, injuries are very similar to those in professional hockey or football players with a history of hits to the head. Evidence also indicates that in intimate partner violent relationships where nonfatal and fatal strangulation is used, there is an over 600% more likely chance that the victim becomes a case of attempted murder and 750% chance that it will end in homicide. I look at strangulation as a warning. It’s your first warning for homicide.
Although I am almost a decade since my last beating and I live a most wonderful life with my husband, there are nights that he almost freezes to death because I have to keep the window open because I can still feel his hands around my neck.
Strangulation is not uncommon when it comes to intimate partner violence. Non-fatal strangulation may also be associated with increased controlling behaviour by abusers and greater victim fear, which may impact the ability for victims to successfully separate or become free of the abuser. Strangulation is something that our country needs to do much more work on.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Manning, for being here, and most of all, thank you, Ms. McGrath, for being here, for using your voice to give voice to those who aren’t here and for reclaiming your power.
My question is, what changes would you like to see in the current programs and strategies aimed at preventing intimate partner violence?
Ms. McGrath: I think one of the most important changes that has to happen in our country is education. Education has to start — we can’t say “start at home” as much as we would like to. It has to start at school. Children need to know about healthy and unhealthy relationships. Today’s bully is tomorrow’s abuser. We need to have programs so that young girls and boys know what a red flag looks like when it comes to relationships. We need training and education in every single department — health departments, the police force. We oh-so need training when it comes to our courtrooms. A victim should not be continuously revictimized. A judge, in my personal opinion, should be well trained to deal with victims of intimate partner violence, as we have judges trained to deal with family law.
One of the other changes that I would like to see is the onus of all of this is always on the victim. She is responsible to maintain the home, to protect herself, to protect her children, to protect her abuser, to protect her pets, to pack her children up and find somewhere for them to go, some shelter, which now many people are being turned away from. She is responsible to come up with that little bit of money — most times they don’t have it — to get that cab ride to wherever she is going. When she is released from the shelter, she is responsible for finding a new home for her and her children. There should be centres for men. A woman should not have to leave her home with her children. The abuser should be forced to leave the home.
Senator Bernard: I want to start by saying thank you, Ms. McGrath, for being here, for honouring us with your story and for the courage to speak.
I want to say a thank you to your sister in Trenton. I don’t know if that sister is here today.
Ms. McGrath: She is.
Senator Bernard: Thank you for your action.
I would like to ask a question, if I may, about first responders. Your sister clearly made that 911 call, and it was dispatched through to Labrador. You were taken to hospital with clear signs that you had been abused. Was there a conversation with those first responders you saw in the health care system? You have already mentioned the police and their inaction.
Ms. McGrath: I was unresponsive at that time. But in the report that I read, they also used flashlights and there were no lights turned on at all. Only the police that went upstairs to clear the house used the lights upstairs.
Senator Bernard: Did anyone talk to you about the violence once you regained consciousness?
Ms. McGrath: I was seeing a counsellor at the time. I had really wanted to die that night and had become very angry with my sister at times for calling that 911 number. Not today.
Senator Bernard: Right.
Ms. McGrath: I was seeing a counsellor at that time. She was a very young girl, and when she came in the room to see me initially, I was in such a state that she got quite upset and had to leave.
When it comes to first responders and the police force, I do believe that there should be much more communication. If there is not time when the situation is taking place — for example, in my house — and their priority, of course, was to get me out of there, then I do believe that there should be communication after the fact.
Senator Bernard: That’s what I was trying to get at. Was there communication after the fact?
Ms. McGrath: If I read you the report, it tells me that one of the first responders had told the police what my sister had said, but the police don’t say that.
Senator Bernard: You talked about more education and awareness, and that seems to me to be a key message and a key part of the framework if this bill was passed. Thank you for that.
Senator Manning, one of the things that we have heard is that incidents of intimate partner violence and family violence increased during COVID and post-COVID. My question to you, senator, would be, has any of that been factored into your bill or your thinking about this bill and how you see this moving forward?
Senator Manning: Thank you for the question, senator.
Since I first introduced the bill in 2018, if the stats that we read are correct, there have been close to 1,000 women killed in this country by their intimate partners. There is a woman killed by her intimate partner in this country every six days. Those stats are staggering.
As I mentioned earlier, I have been educated in so many ways on this particular topic, but I hope the strategy will give everyone across the country — all the individuals and interest groups — I met with women’s groups across the country and shelters, and they all will have the opportunity to come forward and be part of the development of the strategy.
There is no doubt that the numbers have climbed much more in the past number of years. COVID was a major problem, from the information that we received in regards to being people being home so much at this time.
I applaud Georgina. What we’re doing here today is talking about this and talking more about it, and that’s what we need to do. The bottom line is that even in our own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with a half million people, per capita, our province may be the worst. That, to me, is not a flag of pride. It’s everywhere. Everywhere. Therefore, we have to approach it in a global way as best we can.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Pate: I echo the words of all of my colleagues. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Senator Manning, for making this happen.
Thank you for raising the issues of what prevented you from coming forward. I suspect there is not a woman in this room that either doesn’t know someone or hasn’t experienced that themselves, and the stigma, the stereotype, the blaming of the victim for that abuse is still rife in this country. I grew up as a service brat, so I have been to Trenton many times, but I also know that those kinds of patriarchal ideas about men’s place in society are fundamentally one of the things we need to deal with. I don’t think there is a man in this room that hasn’t seen something but not necessarily intervened.
Much of the work that I have done for close to 50 years now has been working both with women who have experienced violence and also those who have been jailed for it. In addition to the number of women who are killed, those who fight back, first, don’t enjoy the protection of the police — “enjoy” is probably not the right word. They don’t get the protection of the police. They are told — essentially they are deputized to believe that they have to protect themselves in much the way you described your experience. Then, when they do act to protect themselves, they often are either re-victimized or sometimes criminalized for what they have had to do to protect themselves. I want to thank you for that.
I also want to ask if you have thought about how we encourage — you mentioned men being taken out of the house. There are a couple of First Nations communities where that kind of approach is taken with child abuse and with abuse against women. The men are removed into a place. Many of us have long subscribed that we should have men modelling the behaviour we want to see at every level of society. One of my colleagues once said to me — it wasn’t Senator Manning, although he said a very similar thing — where do we find those men? The fact that we have that issue in this country is also a concern.
I don’t know if you have had an opportunity to think about those things, how we ensure that men model the behaviour of not being sexist and not being abusive and how we encourage that as a positive — kindness, gentleness, respect, humanity — and not unmanly. Often, the type of feedback men receive is that they have to act in a way that’s powerful. Even the laws of self‑defence developed at a time when only men had rights. Women and children were the property of either their fathers or their husbands.
I don’t know if you have thought more about some of those issues. It feels like so many of the strategies come at the symptoms after the fact, and we’re not quite getting to the root to ensure that women have equal access to that dignity, respect and humanity at all levels.
Ms. McGrath: I will go back to one of the topics that I discussed before, and that is education. I think that’s mostly where we should begin with a lot of these problems. As I said, some children, unfortunately, do not get the education that they need at home. It has to go through our school systems; that’s where it has to begin. I haven’t put much more thought into what we actually do or what we can do to prevent and make what you are looking for. I haven’t, no. My only answer that I can give to you is education.
Senator Pate: Thank you. That is an important answer, and I appreciate it. Thank you again for all the work you are doing and all the work that Senator Manning is doing to further this issue.
Senator Moodie: Thank you, Ms. McGrath, for allowing us to share your experiences and for giving us the strength to speak out about our own experiences. When I was 25, I was beaten. I have been there. Your experience resonates with me, having been on the receiving end of abuse — not only the out-of-body experience but also the confusion and disorientation you feel at that moment.
Senator Manning, this is a bill that I really have to congratulate you on.
I want to focus on the children. That’s kind of my thing. Children who live in homes where they are exposed to family violence often need support and extra protection. These children are more likely than other children to exhibit higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and symptoms that have behavioural problems, to cite a few examples. How do you both see this, if at all? Would domestic violence involving children be addressed under this strategy? Should it be addressed?
Senator Manning: Thank you, Senator Moodie, and thank you for sharing your story with us. That’s what this is all about. It’s everywhere.
Senator Moodie: It is everywhere.
Senator Manning: I want to echo the comments we have discussed numerous times. The protection of children, again, gets back to education. We need to give those children an opportunity to discuss these things at a much earlier age, knowing that there is an opportunity for help too.
When I began this story, I could not understand how Georgina could end up at the hospital with her face beaten up and her jaw broken, yet some guy could be out there and not arrested. I could not understand that. Today, I understand it. I understand it because of all the people I have met with and the education I received about it.
Part of the problem is that there is no support system. For example, when a woman is in the hospital and is debating whether she can call the police and file a complaint or file a report, she also has to think about her children. She has to think about the fact that she is going back into that environment either the next day or maybe hours from that. She also has to think about the financial side of it. There are so many things for her to think about. Furthermore, she doesn’t know if anyone is out there to support her, her children and her family.
When I went back to the legal people here, the suggestion was to develop a strategy. At first, I was looking for mandatory reporting, but I now understand that it’s not as simple as Fabian had thought it was. I hope the strategy will include issues like that and the issues that you talked about here. I agreed to go to that strategy after Georgina and I talked about it several times because it will give everyone in the country who has an interest in this an opportunity to add their five cents’ worth to this discussion. Hopefully, then, what you and others have raised will become part of that national strategy.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
Ms. McGrath, again, thank you so much for sharing your story with us. Out of darkness may come some light, and you are shining that light very fulsomely.
I have a question for both our witnesses. My concern is for young girls today. We know the rising statistics on intimate partner violence with young girls. They have pressures that are generated from social media as well. What message would you like them to hear?
Ms. McGrath: I have spoken at a couple of schools. I really think that young girls need to be taught how to identify a red flag when it comes to a boyfriend or a partner. They need to know and understand that a boy doesn’t tell you what to wear, or who your friends are, or where you should go. In actual fact, a boy in his teens does exactly what an adult man does because it’s the same thing. Young girls and boys really need to be taught how to identify an unsafe relationship.
Senator Manning: That goes back, again, to the education component. When our children went to school, they participated in the D.A.R.E. program in elementary school. That program was all about drugs and learning how to deal with drugs in the world today. Why can’t we have a program that deals with teaching young boys and girls respect for their counterparts? If they learn about it in grade 3 or 4, they will bring that forward with them. If they learn the opposite at home or somewhere else in the community when they’re in either grade 3 or grade 4, they will bring that with them too. It’s all about creating that foundation.
Ms. McGrath: I think a problem we have with young girls — and this has probably gone a bit off the topic of your question — is that when they turn the age of 16, they are on their own. I have become friends with a family whose daughter was 16 and became involved with a man who was older than her. They went back and forth to the police dozens and dozens of times, but the police couldn’t do anything because she was 16. Sixteen is considered a grey area. Her daughter was shot several years later, and her daughter’s boyfriend was also shot.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Manning, I think you get the sentiment of our committee. We think this is a really important bill, and we want to thank you for bringing it forward to us. We will study it, and hopefully we will bring this matter to an expeditious end so at least our part in this is not delayed. I understand you tabled this bill only to have Parliament prorogue shortly thereafter.
Thank you very much for your generosity in sharing your experiences with us, Ms. McGrath, and with people listening in and watching you. We understand it was not easy, and it isn’t easy. We really appreciate your testimony in helping us understand this bill and move it forward.
For our next panel, we welcome Crystal Garrett-Baird, Director General, Gender-Based Violence at Women and Gender Equality Canada, who is joining us by video conference; Krista Apse, Director General, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Secretariat, Policy and Strategic Direction from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada; Marc Sanderson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships, Indigenous Services Canada; and from the Department of Justice Canada, Stéphanie Bouchard, Senior Counsel and Director, and Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel.
We will begin with opening remarks from the officials, to be followed by questions from committee members.
Crystal Garrett-Baird, Director General, Gender-Based Violence, Women and Gender Equality Canada: Good day. I am very pleased to be appearing before you today about Bill S-249.
Before we start, I would like to acknowledge that I am joining you from the traditional and unceded territory of the Abegweit Mi’kmaq First Nations.
I want to commend Georgina McGrath’s courage in sharing her story and advocating for survivors of gender-based violence.
[Translation]
I am pleased to be before this committee to share what the Government of Canada has accomplished related to gender-based violence, or GBV, including the historic launch of Canada’s National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence in November 2022.
[English]
Today, I will be using the term “gender-based violence.” This term includes intimate partner violence, which is one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence.
Gender-based violence disproportionately affects women and girls. In Canada, populations that are at risk of this form of violence or underserved when they experience it include the Indigenous women and girls; Black and racialized women; immigrant and refugee women; two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and additional sexually and gender-diverse people; women with disabilities; and women living in northern, rural and remote communities.
[Translation]
The Government of Canada has taken a strong stance against gender-based violence and has made commitments to not only prevent and address gender-based violence, but also create a Canada free of gender-based violence.
[English]
In 2017, the Government of Canada launched the federal Gender-based Violence Strategy, which is a whole-of-government approach led by Women and Gender Equality Canada and supported by investments of over $800 million and $44 million ongoing. This includes It’s Not Just, a national campaign to increase youth awareness about gender-based violence, build knowledge and ultimately shift beliefs and actions.
Preventing and addressing gender-based violence in Canada requires a coordinated national approach, with federal, provincial and territorial governments working in close partnership with victims and survivors, Indigenous partners, direct service providers, experts, advocates, municipalities, the private sector and researchers.
[Translation]
Building on the foundation laid by the federal GBV strategy in November 2022, the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for the status of women launched the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence.
[English]
This 10-year plan was informed by over 1,000 recommendations and responds directly to years of calls from survivors, experts and advocates, as well as domestic and international organizations, for Canada to take stronger action to end gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence. This national approach builds on existing federal, provincial and territorial approaches and strategies to prevent and address gender-based violence.
The goal of the national action plan is a Canada free of gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence. The national action plan emphasizes primary prevention approaches that address the root causes of gender-based violence so we can stop it before it occurs while adapting to evolving needs and emerging issues in Canada and setting a framework to ensure anyone facing gender-based violence has reliable and timely access to protection and services, no matter where they live in Canada.
The national action plan is comprised of five pillars: support for victims, survivors and their families; prevention; a responsive justice system; implementing Indigenous-led approaches; and social infrastructure and enabling environment.
[Translation]
These pillars are underpinned by a foundation that focuses on leadership, coordination and engagement; data, research and knowledge mobilization; and reporting and monitoring.
[English]
The National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence is complementary to other action plans, including the Federal 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan, the National Strategy to Combat Human Trafficking, and the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People national action plan and federal pathway. In particular, Pillar 4 of the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence specifically speaks to the need to support Indigenous-led approaches to addressing and ending violence against Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people.
Federal Budget 2022 provided $539.3 million over five years to support the provinces and territories in their efforts to implement the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence.
[Translation]
This funding is critical, as provinces and territories control the key levers in preventing and addressing gender-based violence, such as delivering education, health care and social services, and the administration of justice.
[English]
Between the launch of the national action plan in November 2022 and December 2023, Women and Gender Equality Canada signed and announced 13 four-year bilateral funding agreements with provincial and territorial governments that support each jurisdictions’ work to end gender-based violence. All bilateral agreements require that at least 25% of funds must be directed towards prevention over the course of the four years. As part of the collective commitment to transparency and accountability, these agreements are publicly available on Women and Gender Equality Canada’s website.
In year one of the provincial and territorial implementation plans alone, there are over 190 actions across all five pillars and the foundation to support work against ending gender-based violence. This work will continue over the remaining three years of these agreements.
[Translation]
Through an agreement that respects its autonomy, the Government of Quebec receives federal funding to support the programs, initiatives and services to end gender-based violence that it puts in place based on the needs of its territory.
[English]
Federal, provincial and territorial governments are also working together —
The Chair: You have run out of time. Can you wrap up, kindly?
Ms. Garrett-Baird: Absolutely.
A national annual progress report to show progress made under the national action plan will be made publicly available starting in fall 2024.
We recognize that there is much work to do, but building on the concrete actions taken to prevent and address gender-based violence, we are committed to continuing our work with survivors, all jurisdictions, Indigenous partners and civil society organizations to achieve the ultimate goal of creating a Canada free of gender-based violence.
[Translation]
Thank you for your time.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Garrett-Baird. We now would like to request Ms. Krista Apse to provide us with her opening remarks.
Krista Apse, Director General, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Secretariat, Policy and Strategic Direction, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting the department to appear as a witness to discuss this bill.
[English]
I would also say thank you to Ms. McGrath for sharing her story.
I am the Director General of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Secretariat at Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. The secretariat coordinates the Government of Canada’s efforts to respond to the national inquiry’s Calls for Justice to end violence against Indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex people. The secretariat collaborates with Indigenous partners and provinces and territories to take action on MMIWG, manages the Wellbeing of Families and Survivors Program, the Indigenous-Led Data Program, and supports Indigenous partners to continue to participate in the work going forward.
On June 3, 2019, the national inquiry released its final report and the 231 Calls for Justice. This year June 3 will be the fifth anniversary of that report.
In response, the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People National Action Plan was released on June 3, 2021, by Indigenous partners and provincial and territorial governments, as well as the federal government. The national action plan is an overarching plan with a series of contributing partner chapters which identifies the priorities and immediate next steps that must be taken by all orders of government, organizations and communities across the country to address violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.
The Federal Pathway to Address Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People — the federal pathway, is how that’s known — is the federal government’s contribution to the national action plan. It contains approximately 85 initiatives under four themes: health and wellness, culture, human safety, and security and justice. It is a whole-of-government approach to programs, policies and legislation to end violence against Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. For instance, some of the outlined initiatives include funding to enhance support for Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ organizations and Budget 2022’s housing investments for Métis, Inuit and self-governing and modern treaty First Nations partners.
The federal pathway aligns with other national plans and strategies. My colleague from WAGE mentioned these already. I won’t repeat them here.
Madam Chair, I will spend a few minutes talking about recent examples of important actions that have been taken. In January 2023, Jennifer Moore Rattray was appointed as the Ministerial Special Representative to provide advice and recommendations through engagement with survivors, families and partners in support of Call for Justice 1.7 to create an Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson. After extensive engagement throughout 2023, she recently delivered her final report to the minister. This report will inform the government’s next steps.
An Indigenous firm engaged with partners on Call for Justice 1.10, which calls for oversight mechanisms to report on the implementation of the Calls for Justice. The department has shared the findings with partners and is considering next steps to advance this work.
Last year, the House of Commons backed a motion by MP Leah Gazan to declare the murders and disappearances of Indigenous women and girls in Canada a Canada‑wide emergency and called on the federal government to fund a red dress alert that would notify the public when an Indigenous woman, girl or 2SLGBTQQIA+ person goes missing.
The department developed an engagement paper that was used to inform the basis for 16 regional and distinctions-based engagement sessions that took place in December 2023 and January 2024 with Indigenous partners. These sessions sought preliminary feedback from Indigenous grassroots partners to understand how a system, such as the red dress alert, could address existing gaps related to public alerts and awareness surrounding the MMIWG2S+ national crisis. Engagements on the alert will continue.
The alert was also discussed at the second national Indigenous-federal-provincial-territorial Roundtable on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQI+ People, which occurred in February of this year. It occurred in a hybrid format, with over 100 people attending in person and approximately 130 people attending online. The event brought together Indigenous national and regional leaders, representatives, technical experts, and federal, provincial and territorial ministers. In addition to the red dress alert, which I just talked about, discussions included the final report of the Ministerial Special Representative on the creation of an Indigenous and Human Rights Ombudsperson, as well as lessons learned and best practices on oversight and monitoring the Calls for Justice and key priorities. A summary report is being prepared.
The third federal pathway annual progress report will be published on June 3, 2024, and will report on the progress that Federal Pathway initiatives have made towards their corresponding Calls for Justice.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
The Chair: Thank you so much. We will next hear from Mr. Marc Sanderson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships, Indigenous Services Canada. Then we will hear from Ms. Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice Canada.
Officials, we thank you for being here. We have a lot of questions. If you can somehow truncate your remarks a little bit so that we can get to our questions, I would be enormously grateful.
Marc Sanderson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. We welcome the opportunity to provide the committee today with an update on Indigenous Services Canada’s progress in advancing work related to this bill, the comprehensive violence prevention strategy announced as part of the 2024 Fall Economic Statement in Budget 2021 and the federal pathway my colleagues mentioned earlier today.
Through the comprehensive violence prevention strategy, Indigenous Services Canada is able to address specific needs within Indigenous communities for emergency shelters and transitional housing through the Indigenous Shelter and Transitional Housing Initiative. This also includes expanding culturally relevant supports for Indigenous peoples facing gender-based violence.
Despite all the work that has been done to date, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a greater need for more safe spaces for Indigenous women, children and 2SLGBTQI+ people escaping violence. Isolation and increased incidences of gender-based violence throughout the pandemic have resulted in a lasting impact on Indigenous communities. What has been achieved to date through the comprehensive violence prevention strategy will serve as a strong foundation for the critical ongoing work in this area.
The goal of Indigenous Services Canada’s Family Violence Prevention Program, or FVPP, is to improve the safety and security of Indigenous women, children, families and 2SLGBTQI+ people. The FVPP provides funding to operate emergency shelters and transition homes — second-stage shelters — Indigenous-led violence prevention activities and to build the overall capacity of shelters. Through recent initiatives, the program is set to fund 105 shelters, of which 46 were in operation prior to 2020, 12 more as part of the initial 2020 shelter initiative; and 47 more facilities selected under the new initiative thus far.
Overall in 2023-24, 300 organizations were funded for violence prevention activities and projects through this program, but clearly, there is still more work that needs to be done to ensure Indigenous women, children and 2SLGBTQI+ people are safe and secure.
Very briefly, I would like to offer some additional details about the Indigenous Shelter and Transitional Housing Initiative, which is co-led by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Indigenous Services Canada together with First Nations, Métis and Inuit partners.
The Chair: I’m going to stop you there because I’m sure we will ask questions that will help you cover the rest of your presentation. I apologize.
Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Justice Canada’s role in addressing intimate partner violence.
I would like to begin by thanking Ms. McGrath for her strength and courage, and by acknowledging that I am speaking from the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
We propose to provide you with a very brief overview of the relevant legal framework, including some of Justice Canada’s ongoing work in this area.
As you likely all know, the Criminal Code does not contain a specific intimate partner offence. However, offences of general application apply to this type of offending, including assault, sexual assault, homicide, et cetera. There are also sentencing implications for abusing an intimate partner in the course of committing an offence, and the Criminal Code also imposes a reverse onus at bail for repeat intimate partner violence offenders. Some of these measures were the result of recent criminal law reform enacted in 2019 through former Bill C-75, and that bill also clarified that strangulation, choking and suffocation constitute a more serious form of assault, and that strangling, suffocating or choking a person while sexually assaulting them constitutes a more serious form of sexual assault. We thought you would be interested in that.
Also in 2021, former Bill C-3 amended the Judges Act to require new judges in provincial superior courts to participate in training on matters related to sexual assault, law and social context. This is aimed at ensuring that personal or societal biases, myths and stereotypes don’t influence judicial decision-making. Building on that, in 2023, Bill C-233 enacted amendments that also include amendments to the Judges Act. What that did was to require intimate partner violence and coercive control to be added to the list of continuing education seminars for judges, which the Canadian Judicial Council may establish.
The term “coercive control” has been used in both family and criminal law contexts to describe a pattern of controlling behaviour that takes place over time in the context of intimate relationships and that serves to entrap victims. Some of this behaviour may not be criminal offences in and of themselves. I would like to bring to the committee’s attention — although you probably already know — the fact that on March 18, 2024, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights adopted government amendments to Bill C-332, which proposes a new Criminal Code coercive control offence. I would like to note that these amendments were informed by ongoing work at the federal-provincial-territorial level, input from a fall 2023 engagement process with stakeholders that was led by Justice Canada and very close collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners. Coercive control criminal offences that were enacted in other countries also informed its development, in particular, the Scottish approach, and, of course, relevant Canadian law as well.
Finally, Justice Canada leads the Federal Victims Strategy, which seeks to improve the experience of victims and survivors of crime by giving them a more effective voice in the criminal justice system and increasing their access to justice. Through this strategy, the government has made significant policy, program and legislative contributions to efforts aimed at increasing awareness about the concerns and experiences of victims, including victims of intimate partner violence, addressing emerging victim issues, increasing access to meaningful services and, of course, criminal law reform as well.
As part of the 2021 funding announcement that you already heard about today, to address gender-based violence, Justice Canada was allocated $112 million over five years for initiatives that were to assist victims and survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence.
That concludes our remarks. We welcome any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Levman. Mr. Sanderson I apologize again. Hopefully, you’ll get enough questions.
Colleagues, we have exactly half an hour left. Questions should be brief, and answers should be brief as well. I will have to monitor the time a bit more rigorously than I would like.
Senator Seidman: I’m just going to cut to the chase because we have a lot of people who want to ask questions. There is a question that really begs to be asked here. We were just presented with a private member’s bill on the issue of interspousal violence. You have sat here and presented to us a huge, big picture across government, across many departments, on gender-based violence, and even specifically about interspousal violence. My question to you is, what do you think about this bill that has been presented to us? Does it complement, deviate or duplicate? What is the overlap we should be looking at? Perhaps this is for Ms. Garrett-Baird, because I think that was the first presentation. She spoke about the national action plan and, therefore, I would like for her to start, and we’ll see how much time we have. Thanks.
Ms. Garrett-Baird: Thank you for the question.
The bill certainly raises awareness about intimate partner violence. However, if we look at the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence that was launched in November 2022, it encompasses intimate partner violence and is very focused, over a ten-year period, on ending gender-based violence and getting at those root causes that were referenced earlier.
It is very important to focus on the prevention pillar of the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence because that recognizes that we will not be able to end gender-based violence in this country if we do not get at the root causes. That is specifically why at least 25% of the federal funding that has been given to the provinces and territories necessarily has to be used for prevention so that we can collectively work together and get at those root causes.
Senator Seidman: I don’t want to take up time. There are a lot of people who want to ask questions. Maybe somebody else will pursue this, because I don’t think we have a fulsome answer. Thanks.
The Chair: We can get back to that question.
Senator Osler: Thank you, witnesses.
My question is for the counsel from the Department of Justice regarding the mandatory reporting requirement for health professionals. It is a two-parter. “Health professionals” is not defined in the bill. How could health professionals be interpreted by Justice and the legal system? The second part is, what are the possible consequences to health professionals for failure to report to police that they suspect someone is a victim of intimate partner violence?
Ms. Levman: The law as I know it today is that there is a duty to report where the victim is a child or where there is a child in need of protection, but my understanding is that there is not a duty to report where the victim is an adult. We are criminal lawyers, so we’re not experts in this area. I just wanted to caveat that, just in case.
You asked about the consequences?
Senator Osler: Correct. For failure to report.
Ms. Levman: That would be in provincial child protection statutes, and it might be different across the country. I would have to look them up.
Senator Osler: The first part was the lack of definition of who is a health professional.
Ms. Levman: Do you mean in the bill?
Senator Osler: In the bill, we have definitions for —
Ms. Levman: I believe nurse practitioners.
Senator Osler: Nurses, medical practitioner and nurse practitioner, but then the requirement is for “health professionals” to make a report. That is very non-specific. I was just wondering if you could provide me some more information. How could that be interpreted, a “health professional”?
Ms. Levman: It could potentially be interpreted very broadly or it could be interpreted very narrowly. Without a definition, there is no way of knowing.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: We have heard a lot about the myriad of paralleling services, action plans and initiatives. We have heard about different areas of focus, unique or overlapping efforts. We have heard testimony today, too, that suggests that a lot of this is not working. The numbers are rising. The complexity of oversight, responsibility, intersecting agencies, intersecting areas — health care, law, the judicial system — all of these things suggest that we have a really complex system to manage here. How are you measuring effectiveness in this very complex area? Are you winning? Are the preventive measures that are being put in place working?
We know from the pandemic that, in fact, this strain, the catalyst of that event unmasks a weak system, a system that has not got the supports when people are stressed like that, which support and prevent escalation. What happened was a complete escalation of events. I’m trying to understand. Yes, we’re spending a lot of money and we are investing a lot of time here, putting in action plans, but how are we measuring it? How effective is it? What is working and what is not working? Are we winning here?
The Chair: Those are many questions for someone to answer.
Senator Moodie: There is only one: Are we winning? Are you measuring it? Do we know how effective these efforts are? I know we’re throwing a lot of mud at the wall and hoping it will stick, but is it working?
The Chair: Perhaps Ms. Garrett-Baird has macro-level information. Is it working?
Ms. Garrett-Baird: I do. Thank you very much for the question. It is a very important one.
To your point, there is a lot of money going into these actions, and we need to be able to demonstrate progress. That was a significant consideration and issue for us as we worked with the provinces and territories to develop the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, which by the way was during the pandemic. That was because we could see the issues. Those issues have been there, but the pandemic unearthed them even further. This is why we moved forward so swiftly to launch the national action plan.
When we worked with the provinces and territories to negotiate bilateral funding agreements, part of that is not just funding on an annual basis. There is an expected results framework that is part of each one of their agreements. It is available online. That expected results framework includes short-, medium-, long-term and ultimate outcomes over the ten‑year period.
You are probably wondering how we measure it within that. There are data sources, including Statistics Canada, which the provinces, territories and federal government are using. On an annual basis, the provinces and territories must send us the progress they have made against that expected results framework. We review that and determine if that’s sufficient, following which we will be able to release their next year of funding.
We will take those annual reports from all of the provinces and territories and roll them up to create a national annual progress report, and the first national annual progress report against the national action plan will be published in fall 2024. That will continue for the duration of those bilateral agreements. This is something we are very committed to.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Garrett-Baird.
Senator Bernard: My question is for Ms. Garrett-Baird as well. I want to ask specifically about the language of intimate partner violence in this bill and what your thoughts are with regards to how that might impact or influence your work more globally on gender-based violence. I’m thinking in particular of the Desmond family murder-suicide in Nova Scotia, which clearly had elements of intimate partner violence but also family violence. We know the language has changed and evolved over the last 30 years, so I’m wondering about that. Also, since I have raised the Desmond family inquiry, I am wondering if the findings from that inquiry inform the work of the national action plan in any way and if you think that should inform this bill in any way.
Ms. Garrett-Baird: Thank you for the question.
With respect to recommendations in the Desmond inquiry, including those that spoke to gender-based violence, we also saw that in the Mass Casualty Commission recommendations.
To your point, the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence was developed to not be stagnant because gender-based violence evolves, and we certainly saw that during the pandemic. That national action plan was informed by over 1,000 recommendations, but since then, more have come in — for example, as you noted, the Desmond Fatality Inquiry and the Mass Casualty Commission, among others, the James Smith Cree First Nation. A host of things continue to come out. Those continue to inform the implementation of the national action plan. In working with the provinces and territories through their bilateral agreements, that’s why we are giving them the ability to update their implementation plans on an annual basis. We don’t want four-year implementation plans that don’t necessarily change because that would mean that GBV doesn’t change, and we know that is not necessarily the case. All of these recommendations continue to inform our work going forward and are a very live part of our discussions with provinces and territories as a collective.
To your point around the terminology, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I used the term “gender-based violence,” which includes intimate partner violence. It also includes a host of other things like technology-facilitated, gender-based violence; family violence, which is also gender-based violence; and financial abuse, which is part of gender-based violence. The term “gender-based violence” is broad, but we know that within that intimate partner violence is one of the most prevalent forms. In fact, if we look at the 2018 Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces — this is delivered by Statistics Canada — more than 11 million Canadians aged 15 and above have experienced some form of intimate partner violence, including 6.2 million women and 4.9 million men. This is a significant issue. That’s why the national action plan is focused not only on responsiveness but also on prevention. We cannot continue to have a country that has this level of violence.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much, first, to Ms. Georgina McGrath, for sharing your impactful story and experiences, and, second, to this panel. Thank you for coming here today and for sharing your wisdom and knowledge about what is happening.
I heard from Ms. McGrath that some of the barriers were reporting, housing and access to important social supports and benefits. As a pediatrician, seeing it with children, I’m wondering about the funds on housing. In mental health, we have cognitive behavioural therapy. We know that our actions actually go back and change our behaviour and our thinking. In terms of an action in providing housing — because I see that as a central thing with families — how can I get access to housing and how can I easily get access to social supports and finances? That action itself will allow people to get out of these situations quickly. Specifically from this housing funding that was announced, how much in those bilateral agreements is targeted not only to shelters but also to permanent housing for women needing access to these types of services? Stick to the housing and financing. Was there targeted funding?
The Chair: Who would like to answer that question? Mr. Sanderson or Ms. Apse?
Mr. Sanderson: I can speak to not permanent housing shelters and transition homes in an Indigenous context.
Senator Burey: Yes. How much of the housing funding was targeted to increasing shelters?
Mr. Sanderson: Of about $724 million altogether, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation provides capital funding and support for the construction of new shelters and transition homes. Those can be located in urban, rural or northern areas, on reserve, off reserve and in the North, of course. Indigenous Services Canada provides operating support for those shelters.
Senator Burey: Would it be 10% of that or 30% of the funding that stipulated it’s to go for women’s shelters or in other contexts for permanent housing? I guess we don’t have the answers.
The Chair: But we can get the answers. Perhaps, Ms. Garrett‑Baird, you will get Senator Burey the answer to her question around targeted funding for permanent housing.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much to our witnesses.
We know that countries with the lowest incidence of violence against women — intimate partner violence, whatever language we use — are the most equal and ensure access to robust social, economic and health systems that include the sort of housing supports that have been described.
We also know, as you have identified from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, the Mass Casualty Commission, the Sanderson inquiry and countless others that there have long been recommendations that violence against women be taken seriously. It’s often at the root of the attacks that happen and are often described as unusual but then you can see patterns. Almost every serial killer in the States, mass shooter, has first been identified as abusive individuals.
Just before this hearing, I was reading the April 9 decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in the case of Ronald John Candaele. His conviction was reduced to manslaughter from second-degree murder after he ran over his common-law wife and killed her. This is the same court that did not overturn a manslaughter conviction of a woman who killed her abusive husband. At the root of much of these is the fact that women are expected to both protect themselves and be the primary witness in their cases. Misogynist violence is the only area of criminal law where the victim is expected to help make the case. We don’t see that in theft. We don’t see it usually in murder, unless the woman is the person charged after having defended herself and/or others in her care.
What concrete steps are being taken to ensure that police come when they are called, that Crowns run the appropriate charges and that we don’t see these kinds of injustices as recently as we did two days ago — that is, those kinds of misogynist attitudes appearing in decisions? Basically, a good court said they couldn’t determine —
The Chair: I think it’s probably appropriate to get to the answer to your question from someone in 40 seconds. Sorry, senator.
Senator Pate: Probably Justice.
Ms. Levman: Thank you for that question.
I know you are well aware of the division of powers within Canada and that policing is a local issue. However, because the federal government is responsible for the criminal law and provinces are responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code within their jurisdictions, we obviously have to work together to address these complex issues that you have pointed out, senator.
In that context, we have a coordinating committee of senior officials, criminal justice. We work together to address many of the issues that you have raised. The coercive control ongoing work is a case in point. You’ll know that most jurisdictions, including the DPP, have prosecutorial policies that address these types of issues, and they do training. However, it will be different across the country. That will be the same for policing.
Senator Pate: I have a quick supplementary, and you can respond in writing. There are ample examples, including in the conviction review area, where women who have responded to violence, including Jamie Gladue, and the misogynist, racist attitudes did not get taken into account in terms of their response. What, precisely, is the Department of Justice and other departments doing to inform those decision makers about that? We see that perpetuated in decisions and not challenged by government policy.
The Chair: Ms. Levman, we look forward to getting the answer to that question in writing.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
My question is a follow-up to Senator Seidman’s question. We are here to speak about Bill S-249. In your opening comments, not one of you mentioned the bill. Senator Seidman started out along this line of questioning, and I feel absolutely compelled to ask you this: Is there anything in the bill that you are not doing already? Does the bill add anything to what you are doing? Ms. Levman, perhaps you could answer. Ms. Garrett-Baird started the answer. Please just focus on the bill and the question. Does it add anything to your work?
Ms. Levman: It’s an excellent question.
I have to underscore that we are criminal lawyers. We do criminal law, and, necessarily, that takes a particular role in the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is responsive, and my understanding of this bill is that it’s more prevention focused. My colleague who is sitting next to me is responsible, as I have said, for the Victims Strategy, but, again, that is to support victims of crime.
Senator Dasko: Could Ms. Garrett-Baird answer that question, please? Just focus on the bill.
The Chair: Ms. Garrett-Baird said that it adds awareness. Let’s go further than that, because we heard that earlier.
Ms. Garrett-Baird: Thank you for the follow-up.
As noted, it adds awareness. I want to note this bill started in 2017. It has been an incredible journey to get here, during which we launched the federal GBV strategy in 2017, followed by the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence because we knew that the federal GBV strategy was a good foundation but wasn’t enough. The National Action Plan is created to be evergreen but has also brought opportunities for action.
I referenced the five pillars and the foundation, but within each of those, there are a number of opportunities for action that cover areas that are in the bill in addition to a number of other things, and the reason for that is each province and territory in this country has different priorities and realities around gender‑based violence as well as emerging issues that may need to be addressed. That’s why the National Action Plan has those broader headings such as prevention and a responsive justice system. We need it to be broad enough to cover the very complex issue of GBV and all of the subparts that are within.
The Chair: Ms. Garrett-Baird, I hear you saying that we have a national strategy and we have an action plan, which you have described. This bill is about a national strategy. I ask you the same question again, just for our own edification. Does this parallel, does this compete with, does this complement, or does it contradict?
Ms. Garrett-Baird: I appreciate the bill that has been put forward and the efforts behind it, and certainly the incredible strength of Ms. McGrath bringing it here. The bill covers intimate partner violence and a strategy to prevent it, which is part of the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, colleagues, for the last few questions. It’s really helpful to put into perspective the bill and what already exists.
My question will also be for Madam Garrett-Baird. You spoke in your remarks about the importance of targeting root causes and, obviously, also prevention. One of the things that stuck with me from the previous testimony of Ms. McGrath is how difficult it is just to actually do something and just voice yourself and get out, and we read it in all the different statistics and the numbers and the data. My question is, does the National Action Plan really intentionally identify the causes of why it is so difficult to make that move? What is it that we can do? I want to hear something that is not awareness. Senator Burey talked about permanent housing. What is it that we do that will make it feel safe for a person to actually come into action? That’s not awareness. I’m not sure if you can answer that, and maybe this is something that this bill could eventually do.
Ms. Garrett-Baird: Thank you very much for the question. There are a couple of things that I want to note quickly, in the interest of time.
Gender-based violence is rooted in gender inequality, and it’s further intensified by systemic inequalities like sexism, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, colonialism, racism, ableism, classism, poverty and a collective history of trauma. I share that because that’s what we’re against. That’s what we are working to unroot.
When we look at specific actions, for example, I want to reference Pillar 3 of the National Action Plan, which is called “a responsive justice system.” That pillar could have been called “a responsive legal system,” but that only gets at the individual being charged. They had a process in the court system. They received a sentence. A responsive legal system would not speak to the broader issues around justice that would be served to the victim. Pillar 3 is about giving support to that survivor and having a sense of justice when going through this horrific process.
If we look at Pillar 5 of the National Action Plan, it is focused on social infrastructure and enabling environment. We can put all the supports in place that we want — shelters, services that are there when an individual experiences gender-based violence — but if we don’t have things like adequate housing in place, health services in place, those broader wraparound services, we will not be successful. That’s why we have put in place tangible actions and opportunities for action under the National Action Plan.
I referenced in my remarks that in year one alone, the provinces and territories are collectively working on about 190 opportunities for action. Over 13% of those are under Pillar 5, which is the social infrastructure and enabling environment, and over 27% are about prevention. You can see the collective efforts and the multipronged approach that is being taken to address this very, very complex issue.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Garrett-Baird.
Colleagues, with that, we have come to the end of our meeting. I wish to thank all the officials for sharing your knowledge and information with us. It helps us greatly as we move forward with our study of the bill.
Colleagues, there being no further action, this meeting is now adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)