THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 2, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference 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 intimate partner violence.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, before we begin, I would like to remind all senators and other meeting participants of the following important preventative measures.
To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents during our meeting that could cause injuries, we remind all in-person participants to keep their earpieces away from the microphone at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all senators on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents:
All earpieces have been replaced by a new model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black whereas the former earpieces were grey. I hope everyone is using the black earpiece.
By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the round sticker that you see in front of you on the table where indicated.
Please consult the card on the back for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones.
Participants must only plug in their earpieces to the console located directly in front of them.
These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
[Translation]
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 today, I would like to provide a content warning for this meeting. Today, our committee is continuing 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 topics, 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 who are watching and listening to the broadcast.
Mental health support for all Canadians is available by phone and text at 988. 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.
Before we begin, I would like to do a round table so that senators can introduce themselves to our witnesses and to the public, starting with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Good morning and welcome, I’m Jane Cordy, and I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Hello. I’m René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Oudar: Hello. Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Burey: Good morning and welcome, Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator McPhedran: Good morning and welcome, Marilou McPhedran, independent senator for Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Hello. Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec. Thank you for being here.
[English]
Senator Bernard: I’m Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Nova Scotia, home of Mi’kmaq territory.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Good morning, Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Joining us today for the first panel, we welcome: Justin Trottier, National Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Men and Families; Craig Thompson, who is seated at the back, Ottawa Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Men and Families; Nicole Taylor, Program Director of WomenatthecentrE; Gifty Asare, Director of Research and Community Impact, WomenatthecentrE; and Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime.
Thank you so much for joining us today in person. I will first invite the Canadian Centre for Men and Families to make their opening remarks, followed by WomenatthecentrE and then Mr. Roebuck. Each organization will have five minutes for its remarks because we want to have lots of time to ask you questions and you can enlighten us with your answers.
Let’s start with Mr. Trottier.
Justin Trottier, National Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Men and Families: Hello and good morning everyone. I’m Justin Trottier from the Canadian Centre for Men and Families. Our charity supports families in crisis. In 2021, we opened Ontario’s first shelter for fathers and children fleeing domestic violence, and we’ve welcomed over 200 families.
Supported by a majority female advisory board, we work with the City of Toronto, the Toronto Police and the Ontario Victim Quick Response Program. Our shelter is an essential community service with referrals from victim service, children’s aid and hospitals.
Comprehensive programs must expand to guarantee women live lives free of violence. At the same time, men also suffer severe abuse with serious consequences for them and their children. In averaging Statistics Canada data between 1999 and 2019, we found that 5.92% of women and 5.12% of men experienced intimate partner violence, or IPV. At the same time, almost no services exist for men.
As IPV severity levels increase, males continue to represent a significant percentage of victims, suffering consequences ranging from post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, to substance use disorders. Looking at homicide, we see an asymmetry, with female victims between 75% and 80%. That’s why resources must expand to protect all women.
However, we should also look at that other 20% to 25%. Women do kill men. Earlier this year, Deeanna Charrion murdered her fiancée Gerrard Martin in Toronto. Neighbours knew she was abusive, yet they told reporters that they didn’t fear for him because he was a man.
Women do kill children. In B.C., Kaela Janine Mehl murdered her toddler during a family breakup. There are also the cases of Lisa Batstone, Astrid Margaret Literski and Laurine Marie Aune. These tragedies are preventable, too, if we take a gender‑inclusive approach. Single-father families are the fastest growing family form, but in 2024, fathers still face an impossible decision: leave children behind or stay in an abusive relationship.
Addressing family violence from a gender-inclusive framework is in the best interests of women and girls. Many instances of domestic abuse involve mutually violent couples, and the intergenerational effects of family violence often result in the victimization of both men and women. Intervention programs that support victims regardless of gender have the best chance of breaking these cycles.
In 2020, the Prairieaction Foundation studied the experiences of male victims. It discovered that men are regularly choosing to stay in unsafe situations to protect their children or for fear of losing custody. The 2018 government report entitled Canadian residential facilities for victims of abuse concluded that there is a serious mismatch in resource allocation, with male victims needing but not having access to the kind of housing available to women. The landmark report entitled Male Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence in Canada, prepared for the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, looked at the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and concluded that male victims needed dedicated domestic violence, or DV, facilities.
A change is now finally under way. There are three women’s shelters in Alberta that have opened spaces for fathers and children. There may be others of which we’re not aware. Meanwhile, Shelter 2.0, which was authored by several Alberta women’s agencies, recommended shelters expand their focus to include men. The U.K. has earmarked £1 million for male DV victims, and in 2022, South Korea announced plans to open their country’s first shelter for abused men.
Here are some recommendations. First, we need dedicated DV shelters for fathers and children. Our Toronto facility offers a successful model, fully inclusive of gay, bi, and trans men, welcoming children of all genders, even grandmothers and grandfathers; a 24-7 crisis line for boys and men, equivalent to the Assaulted Women’s Helpline; cross-sector education, including health, legal and child protection, and in particular, the police. Hundreds of men report calling the police for help and being disbelieved, ridiculed and even arrested. This is a serious and, frankly, scandalous form of revictimization. We need evidence-based funding and policy making. Last year, the federal government put $150 million into a fund to address gender-based violence, or GBV, but all research into male victims was deemed “ineligible.” We need dedicated research into the experiences of this population.
Nobody is suggesting that anything like half the resources should be made available to men and boys, but I hope we can agree that something more than the current roughly zero is appropriate. We’re proposing a progressive approach to address the intractable problem of family violence that moves us beyond the current gender binary approach.
The refusal to take male victimization seriously leads to some incredible missed opportunities: the chance to break cycles of violence within mutually violent couples and across the generations; the chance to break the cycle of homelessness by addressing one of the core systemic causes of homelessness among men; and the chance to avoid separating a child from a loving parent, if a father and child must exit a violent home.
Please, I’m asking you, let’s not let biases or politics get in the way of what is in the best interests of all parties. Thank you for your time. I appreciate the opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Trottier.
Nicole Taylor, Program Director, WomenatthecentrE: Good morning and thank you for inviting us to appear before you to make this submission. We want to first acknowledge that we are on Indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Anishinaabeg Algonquin First Nation. Our work is done in solidarity with Indigenous peoples to end all forms of violence and ongoing colonialism, including racism, sexism and over-policing that disproportionately impacts Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.
Our names are Gifty Asare and Nicole Taylor, and we are directors at our organization, the Women’s Centre for Social Justice, better known as WomenatthecentrE, a unique survivor-led, pan-Canadian non-government organization that works to eradicate all forms of violence against women, two-spirit and gender-diverse people through personal and social advocacy.
The purpose of our submission is to offer evidence to support the passing of Bill S-249 along with our recommendations to ensure the development of a national strategy that is inclusive of diverse groups of survivors, including Black, Indigenous and survivors of colour, survivors living with disabilities, survivors in rural communities and survivors who are part of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community. We invite the committee to consider the following recommendations as Bill S-249 undergoes readings.
One, we propose that Bill S-249 be reformulated and redirected to “An Act respecting the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence.” Bill S-249 should use the existing federal government National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence to avoid replicating the important work survivors, GBV organizations and other stakeholders have already done to feed into Canada’s plan. Between 2019 and 2021, WomenatthecentrE was consulted by Women and Gender Equality Canada to conduct research that found that engaging men and boys was crucial to uproot toxic patriarchy. Additionally, an emphasis was placed on the education and training of health and service providers on GBV, intersectionality and survivor-centred and trauma-informed care.
The national action plan consists of five pillars, and we can see that the work under “Pillar two —Prevention” addresses many of the strategy plans and consultations described in Bill S-249. As such, Bill S-249 should be utilized as a mechanism to hold the federal, provincial and territorial governments accountable to the national action plan, as was endorsed in the plan’s Joint Declaration for a Canada free of Gender-based violence.
Additionally, Bill S-249 should use the term “gender-based violence” or “interpersonal violence” rather than “intimate partner violence” for inclusion purposes. This shift in language allows us to encompass various forms of violence that may not align with the restrictive ways in which intimate partner violence is currently conceptualized within policy and practice.
[Translation]
Gifty Asare, Director of Research and Community Impact, WomenatthecentrE: Second, we propose using an intersectional, anti-racist lens that accounts for unique experiences of violence, dependent on how other identities intersect with gender, reflecting the diversity of the Canadian population, to ensure we are not complicit in inadvertently reproducing white supremacy, colonialism and imperialism.
We recognize that presenting survivors’ narratives in front of Parliament can create a sense of urgency to respond to GBV. While we are aware of the power of putting a name behind a piece of legislation, we also know that it runs what Nigerian scholar Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie calls, “the danger of a single story,” excluding the many differing experiences of GBV due to intersecting identities. While the systems were designed to prevent the murders of Daniella Mallia, Latonya Anderson, Chantel Moore and other Black and Indigenous people, their murders illustrate that the systems not only perpetrate violence against Black, Indigenous and people of colour, or BIPOC, communities, but also render the violence itself legitimate and thereby invisible. It is, therefore, critical to embed Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectional framework into all aspects of the proposed bill to end GBV in Canada.
Third, despite GBV being recognized as an epidemic, only one in 10 survivors report violence. Existing research has demonstrated the severe impacts of reporting GBV to law enforcement and child protection agencies, especially for BIPOC survivors. For these reasons, mandatory reporting of GBV should not be discussed as part of a prevention strategy. Rather, accountability and care standards of service providers, including health care professionals, should be the focus to ensure survivors are supported safely, and with kindness and compassion.
Just recently, during the bill’s second reading, the Honourable Fabian Manning noted that Bill S-249 would bring all the players to the table. As proposed Bill S-249 stands now, survivors are excluded from all phases. As a survivor-led organization, we value lived experience as expertise and urge the committee to ensure that we, the survivors, are not just at the table, but also actively leading this work.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting me. My name is Ben, my pronouns are he/him. I’m grateful for how you have been holding space for this conversation on intimate partner violence. I was really pleased with the compassionate response to Ms. McGrath and Senator Manning. To Ms. McGrath and other survivors, you’re not alone, and we are listening.
We’re on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation. In a recent meeting with the Ontario Native Women’s Association, I learned that colonialism targeted the power of Indigenous women. I want to honour the leadership of organizations led by Indigenous women who are using their power for community transformation.
Every day, survivors contact our office to learn about their rights, the services available to them, to ask for help when a federal agency doesn’t treat them fairly or to share concerns about gaps in the Criminal Code that leave them unprotected. In 2023, our office was contacted over 100 times because of IPV. Survivors were concerned about how they were treated when they asked for help and about decisions made by police, Crown prosecutors or judges that caused secondary harm. Some survivors who requested updates were not kept informed about the status of the investigation in violation of their rights to information and protection under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. The Mass Casualty Commission and the Renfrew County inquest concluded that IPV is an epidemic in Canada. What Ms. McGrath described is happening every day.
The Desmond Fatality Inquiry and service providers across Canada are calling for better coordination and information sharing, including with health care data. In my former role as a researcher, we found that survivors of violence in Canada are more likely to access health care than they are victim services. Survivors experience intersectional barriers to justice based on race, geography, income, access to housing, gender identity, sexual orientation, age and abilities. Women experience the highest rates of injury from IPV, and misogynistic violence leads to femicide. That is happening far too often. Children experience collateral damage, and when men are abused, it can be difficult to find help or to be believed. I encourage this committee to also consider the needs of gender-based violence workers.
Two reports from the Ending Violence Association of Canada and Women’s Shelters Canada highlight the sustainable funding crisis in the GBV sector. It’s clear we need a national strategy. You’ve heard about government investments in the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence. I believe this bill is complementary to the national action plan, which is time-limited, and the bill could be amended to permanently require a national strategy.
We need to engage the health care sector. I support the active offer of information on legal assistance and victim assistance when a service provider believes someone is experiencing IPV. I would be cautious about a duty to report, as it may discourage survivors from accessing care and put them at greater risk.
We need innovative and disruptive interventions. WomenACT in Toronto has a project called Safe at Home, which is working to advance a survivor’s right to stay in their home or move into permanent housing when leaving an abusive relationship. They’ve identified best practices such as exclusion orders, which require the perpetrator to leave the home, or housing provisions that consider IPV a breach of the lease agreement, allowing a perpetrator to be evicted and the survivor to remain.
Finally, we need to strengthen accountability. The U.K. has a victim commissioner and a domestic abuse commissioner who is an independent voice for survivors of domestic abuse. As Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, I know the importance of independence for advancing survivors’ interests. In Canada, many of the levers to address IPV are within provincial and territorial jurisdiction, but there’s still a federal role for leadership.
Rather than creating an additional organization, we propose that a more cost-effective solution would be to strengthen the federal ombudsperson into a federal commissioner for victim and survivor rights while also creating a deputy commissioner role focused on IPV. This approach would be efficient, avoid duplication, improve data, strengthen advocacy for victims’ rights and reduce administrative costs. Alternatively, our office already has jurisdiction to provide advice to ministers and review complaints from victims of crime, and, in February 2024, we launched a national systemic investigation into how survivors of sexual assault are being treated in the criminal justice system across Canada. In a future year, we could conduct a similar independent review on IPV. Again, I’d like to thank Senator Manning and Ms. McGrath.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Roebuck. We will go to questions. I’m going to limit questions and answers to four minutes each.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for bringing your voices to the Senate of Canada because they are voices that haven’t necessarily been heard or listened to for a long time. Thank you very much for that. Three of you actually mentioned the national action plan. Ms. Asare, you said it will bring people to the table; Ms. Taylor, you spoke about it, as did you, Mr. Roebuck.
Could you tell us how this legislation might work in conjunction with the national action plan, which is the federal plan although all of the provinces have signed on? Could you give us a little bit more detail on how that would work, and if any changes had to be made to this piece of legislation to make that work more effectively?
Ms. Taylor: In our submission, we talked about reformulating the bill to include not just the implementation of the national action plan, but having a piece of legislation behind it that would make it a right to be able to implement the plan across the country. Right now, there’s nothing in place — there’s no bill in place — that would say that the national action plan must stay in place for the future. If we have a new government that comes into power, there’s nothing that secures or holds governments accountable to actually implement it.
We propose that this bill be reformulated so that it’s not just about the prevention of intimate partner violence, but it incorporates gender-based violence and the eradication of gender-based violence, and also incorporates prevention as a separate pillar.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Roebuck and then Ms. Asare.
Mr. Roebuck: I agree. I think this bill was introduced long before the national action plan was implemented. In that regard, it’s a fairly easy win for the government and survivors. The government has already committed the strategy, resources and money, which is out the door in the provinces and territories. The objective of the bill was to have a national strategy, so I think to strengthen that existing approach and to make sure it’s sustainable and that it is a requirement of government to have a strategy in place is positive.
Senator Cordy: Ms. Asare, is there anything else you would like to add?
[Translation]
Ms. Asare: I agree with my colleagues. In annex A of the plan, there was a joint declaration from the ministers indicating that they would support the action plan. That accountability is what we’re looking for, and we hope measures are taken to see what has been done in accordance with the plan and whether there are any constraints or shortcomings. What we are trying to do with Bill S-249 is arrive at a law that will support all that.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for being with us this morning. I guess I’ll start with you, Mr. Roebuck. You have written about victimology, having recently published in a textbook in 2022, and you’ve explained in there — and I’m quoting you — that, “. . . The decision to report or not to report a crime is dependent on a number of factors . . . .” I should also say that very recently we received a brief to our committee from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who wrote:
. . . mandatory reporting of suspected cases of IPV to the police by health care facilities and medical professionals may cause victims not to seek medical assistance.
Can you please help me to understand this? You are clearly familiar with this. I can start with you and perhaps move on to the rest of the panel.
Mr. Roebuck: Thank you. We have a strong system of supports in Canada, but it’s not perfect. When somebody chooses to report, they’re thinking of many factors, there’s often a safety plan in place, they have measures in place if there’s retaliation and it’s all supported. If somebody reports without some of those pieces in place or if there were a mandatory obligation to report, it would remove some of the agency from survivors to do it on their own terms and there are large complicated factors, like the risk of losing access to children. There are big consequences for survivors, and so it’s really important to respect their agency.
I think there’s room to explore what a supportive reporting framework might look like, but certainly there should not be a full duty to report.
Senator Seidman: Not mandatory.
Mr. Roebuck: Not mandatory.
Senator Seidman: Ms. Taylor, I can see you empathizing with this. So, if you could please continue. Thank you very much, Mr. Roebuck.
Ms. Taylor: Thank you for the question. Yes, I have to agree. In our submission, we said that only 1 in 10 women will report violence. That’s a well-researched statistic. It’s even broader for survivors who are part of the Black, Indigenous and racialized communities. Our systems are not safe, and one of the top priorities that was identified by survivors that we consulted with for the national action plan was safety. If systems are currently unsafe, then upon reporting, women, two-Spirit and gender‑diverse folks will die. It’s actually a threat to someone’s life. It’s a threat of femicide and actually increases the risk of violence. We absolutely do not support mandatory reporting, especially if the systems that are currently in place are deemed unsafe. Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you. That’s helpful. Mr. Trottier?
Mr. Trottier: I will just briefly echo what my colleagues have said. In the case of male abuse victims, it’s even more the case that there are certain biases in the system that present barriers to men — especially fathers — wanting to report to law enforcement agencies for fear they’ll be seen as the perpetrator and be removed unfairly from that family, and possibly have a child be left alone with an abusive parent. We know that men underreport even relative to women, and we just heard that women underreport relative to the actual number of victims. So there’s a lot of underreporting, and that fear — I think — is true for all genders.
Men, we know, are more likely to seek help from the health care profession — if they’re going to get help at all — as opposed to law enforcement, and are even more likely to speak to friends about it — an informal support network for men — because of barriers across the institutions for male victims. So, yes, I would generally be in support of what you’ve heard from my colleagues, but I would underline the unique experiences of men and those barriers I have just described.
Senator Seidman: That’s very helpful. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for Mr. Trottier. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council pointed to the same things you did. It mentioned insufficient resources, a limited range of services, stigmatization, systemic social forces, homophobia, transphobia and community factors. These are all obstacles preventing 2SLGBTQI+ people who are victims of intimate partner violence from receiving proper support.
In our society, when we talk about cases of violence, we are often referring to heterosexual couples. I would like you to tell us how your organization addresses violence within same-sex couples and supports people in those couples. What services do you provide? Do you have enough data to get a clear picture of the violence experienced by people in same-sex couples?
Mr. Trottier: Thank you for the question.
[English]
My French comprehension is better than my French vocabulary, so I will have to answer in English, although I think I understood everything you said. I appreciate the question very much.
In terms of same sex, we are, as an organization — and this is true for all of our programs — we’re involved in things like suicide prevention, father support programs when families are facing break up or family separation, as well as some programs for male youth experiencing what we call “failure to launch issues.” It’s not just domestic violence. In particular, the shelter and the other services we provide in that space is fully inclusive of all male-identified individuals. Gay, bi and trans men have stayed at our facility with their families.
In terms of the research on this, this is not necessarily my area of specialty, but from what I have seen, the domestic violence or intimate partner violence is at least as high if not higher according to a lot of research looking at same-sex relationships across the gender identity spectrum. That needs more research, along with male victims in general. They are very under‑researched and under-explored areas for academic study.
In terms of contributions and charitable for what we’re doing, it’s pretty limited. I indicated in my remarks that often funding is not available because programs for men and boys are ineligible. We’re not invited to even put in an application let alone have it considered competitively against others. If we are going to start anywhere and we’re serious about evidence-based approaches to gender-based violence, we should start by being open to considering the experiences of male victims, studying them — maybe at the shelter we run because it’s one of a small number — and seeing if there is something to this. The data from Statistics Canada and sociological research suggests there may be something worth looking into here when it comes to men and boys. I think that whatever plan we put in place should be gender inclusive and gender equal, and not make any kind of assumptions about the outcome of any research before we have actually done it.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you. From what I understand, we need more research and disaggregated data to understand the reality of these communities. The bill does not include vulnerable groups. Do you feel that an amendment should be made to the bill to take into account the issue of violence in vulnerable 2SLGBTQ+ communities? Would you welcome an amendment?
[English]
Mr. Trottier: From what I have seen of the legislation as proposed, I don’t think it rules that out. It seems to be general in terms of how it’s written. My concern is that we have seen legislation that looks gender inclusive, but in terms of how it’s actually applied, it often is singling out particular groups for the majority or even all of the funding and policy support. I don’t know if that’s being done at a lower level in the chain of command. Perhaps language that explicitly specifies that all these groups are to be included in the national strategy might be way to go to make it explicit that what policy-makers want to happen.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you, sir.
Senator Mégie: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I saw that one of your recommendations was to change the title from An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence. Do the government policies in place in every province, or at least some of them, use the term “domestic?” Do they use other terms, “gender-based,” “intimate partner” or something else? What impact does terminology have on the implementation of these laws? Is saying “domestic” much different from saying “intimate partner?”
I don’t know who wants to answer. The question is for everyone.
Ms. Asare: I believe we’ve also made recommendations concerning the title. We suggested using the words “gender-based violence” instead of “intimate partner violence” to be more inclusive and take into account the fact that it goes beyond intimate partner violence. For example, there is also violence against human beings who are victims of trafficking. That is not necessarily intimate partner violence, but it still involves violence against women who identify as women.
When we talk about gender-based violence, we are being more inclusive. That points to the fact that language is important. People need to identify with the national prevention strategy and the action plan. These are our recommendations.
[English]
Mr. Roebuck: I think it’s a good question because the way something is defined affects what action is taken. I think that gender-based violence is the broadest frame. It includes a lot of things beyond partner violence, but it calls attention to the power dynamics connected to gender, which is a really important component. I think that, done well, it creates space to include the conversation around men’s experiences who have a gendered experience of what it’s like to try to get help talking to the police, not being believed and those types of things. Gender is an important frame, and I think it’s a helpful definition.
Mr. Trottier: I will weigh in and say I partly agree. My concern is sometimes when we use terms, we think we know what we’re saying but other people hear it differently. Gender‑based violence — I agree with Mr. Roebuck — should mean the experiences of all genders. It’s often used to mean the experiences of one gender. As long as we know what we’re talking about — and if there is ambiguity, maybe we need to think about language that is clearer. I like “family violence.” It includes violence where children are witnessing or experiencing it directly, which is a big part of the experiences of the fathers we are representing. I think it’s important, lively debate to have on that.
The Chair: If I may pick this up and probe a little further, Senator Mégie makes a good point. Language defines what we’re talking about. There is a difference between family violence, domestic violence and intimate partner violence. This bill focuses on intimate partner violence.
I wonder whether your recommendation, Ms. Taylor, to use the broader term of “gender-based violence,” or “family violence” as Mr. Trottier suggests, would remove the focus or reduce the focus on the specific intent of this bill, which is intimate partner violence. How do we address that?
Ms. Taylor: I agree in some way. I think intimate partner violence is very narrowly conceptualized. Maybe we need to redefine what that means. There are survivors who may experience sexual violence, for example, that may have been in a previous intimate partner relationship. Or by somebody that they knew and have very similar dynamics to intimate partner violence, but it wouldn’t be considered intimate partner violence because they may not have actually been in a relationship with them. Or if they experienced harassment or violence within the workplace by an employee, colleague or an employer, there is a relationship there and there are power dynamics, but it wouldn’t be considered intimate partner violence. There are very similar experiences within those different types of violence that gender‑based violence would be able to consider.
I’m thinking of my own personal experience. I’m thinking of the experiences of survivors that have been brought to the organization where it wouldn’t necessarily fit the way that intimate partner violence is currently being defined. Maybe we need to look at broadening that. We also use the term “interpersonal violence,” that may be even broader than gender‑based violence and also incorporate what Mr. Trottier has brought forward.
There are specific power dynamics that are at play in those types of relationships that are very important to look at to understand those specific experiences.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Taylor.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for your very thoughtful presentations. As I understand it, all of the witnesses today support this bill. I think perhaps most clearly, women at the centre have indicated some amendments that you feel are very important.
If the bill were to remain unchanged, what would you say about its usefulness in its current form for the work to which each of you is committed in different ways?
I guess I’m asking each witness, please.
Ms. Taylor: Thank you for the question.
The way that it’s currently in place, there are many consultations. There is a consultation phase. Survivors are not included in that phase whatsoever, so as it stands, I would be very cautious about moving it forward unless survivors were consulted. Given that survivors are experiencing the violence, they have the expertise in their own experiences. There are general themes that are identified by doing research with the community. Therefore, I would be very cautious about moving it forward the way it is.
You can do many consultations. It will take years to do consults to be inclusive and ensure that all voices are brought to the table. We have done that in the national action plan. I would be very nervous about doing that again. I think we have spent years and years and a tonne of energy for survivors to share stories, declarations and experiences, and to keep doing that is replicating the work we have already done. We have worked very hard as an organization and across the country to bring this forward. It’s very important.
To put it politely, we have done so much work already. It’s a lot of talk, but there is really no action following those plans. Therefore, I feel like if we’re going to move this forward the way it is, we’re just going to be continuously doing consultations and talking more. And then what? Women are dying.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Taylor. We want to get to all the table. Mr. Roebuck?
Mr. Roebuck: Practically, either the bill will change or the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence will shift course to rename certain aspects to comply with the bill. Again, I think that with the resources, they are committed. They are being done really thoughtfully, really well and with a lot of consultation. That’s the intent of the bill — that this consultation happens.
I think there has to be some amendment or acknowledgment of work that is already done or under way. I agree that survivors have been speaking clearly and using their voice, and many of the messages haven’t changed. They are waiting for government to act. That’s what we would like to see, too.
Mr. Trottier: There are just a few areas I might propose be considered. When I read it, I don’t notice any emphasis on public education or outreach. I think the general public needs to be a partner in this. There could perhaps be a means of doing public service announcements — or something along those lines — that would raise awareness about the facts of family intimate partner violence, to call it that. Also, if somebody is aware that a loved one is experiencing this, what do they do? How do they effectively intervene? I think a public program of some kind might make a lot of sense here. I would have to think further about what that might look like.
I think research should be more of an emphasis. I spoke a little bit about that earlier. Of course, I’m going to emphasize research in those under-explored areas that I think are largely related to men and boys as victims and individuals who are outside the gender binary in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity. That has to be a part of that research program as well.
I think I’ll leave it with those two ideas.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Asare: All the points that Mr. Trottier made are good points. Essentially, as it stands right now, there is a focus on prevention alone, and the national action plan is looking at this matter holistically. We are urging that the matter be looked at holistically and not just have that focus of prevention. As well, as my colleague Ms. Taylor just mentioned, let’s not replicate a lot of work that has already been done.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for your testimony and the discussion so far.
My first question is for Ms. Asare. You referenced the 2SLGBTQ people in your opening remarks. I’m wondering if there are any specific ways that you would suggest the committee could improve on how this framework could protect the community, especially those living at the intersection.
Ms. Asare: That’s a wonderful question. I’ll go ahead and answer in English now.
I believe that, as an organization, we have always prided ourselves on making sure survivors are centred in the work to have that kind of representation. In that same way, I think having 2SLGBTQQIA+ folks on the committees and as part of the plans, and to hear their perspectives and their voices, is the best way to actually gather that information. I’m definitely no expert myself, but I think the best way is to bring them to the table and include them in all the phases and aspects to hear exactly what their specific challenges are.
The other part is intersectionality. We know that having a unique lens or just focusing on one identity doesn’t factor in a lot of the socio-economic challenges that folks face when they are victims and/or survivors of gender-based violence or interpersonal violence. In that way, having those identities represented as well — and then noting the compounding factors of the socio-economic implications, health implications, safety and relations with systemic violence, for example — would hopefully aid in making sure the framework includes, encompasses and addresses their issues.
Senator Bernard: Thank you. You have touched on my second question.
Each of you spoke about intersectionality and the fact that it’s not specifically named in the bill. Ms. Asare, you just highlighted one of the things I wanted to raise, which is people living at the intersection of multiple realities.
If any of you would like to comment on how this bill might be improved to be more specific and intentional around the issue of intersectionality, I would like to hear your thoughts.
Mr. Roebuck: I think it could require consideration of intersectionality at different points of the justice continuum and with different systems. One of the nice things about this bill is the intersection of justice and health care, where we know that people experience intersectional barriers in both of those systems. There is a coming together of those issues where a trans survivor in health care may be poorly understood. Duty to report might trigger an investigation to out somebody to a family member. There are all kinds of safety implications and social implications. We have heard from Dr. Duhaney at the University of Calgary that sometimes Black survivors are concerned about reporting domestic violence for fear of lethal police responses. There is a lot that needs to be explored.
Mr. Trottier: I don’t have a lot of additions to that. I think in terms of different ethnic communities and some of the barriers there, there might be unique stigma to reporting anything related to mental health challenges or domestic violence. In some communities, that’s seen as more of a private matter, so we should be sensitive to those unique challenges.
As others have said, I would suggest following the flow of how a victim would seek support and go through the system with all those different junctures, asking what the barriers are. Why are they stopping there when they might continue on and how are they being treated in a positive or negative way at each of those interfaces?
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: This is for Ms. Asare, but other witnesses may be able to answer. You said in your opening remarks that, for the bill we are studying, all players are at the table except the survivors, and that it is important they be there. You spoke about that in your answer to Senator Bernard’s question. How important is it for survivors to be at the forefront of every phase in a process such as the creation of a framework? Is it as important as it should be? It’s not explicit in the bill. It refers to other stakeholders. Is it important that it be explicitly mentioned in the bill? What are your thoughts?
Ms. Asare: I would say so. First, I’d like to thank Ms. McGrath, who is a survivor herself and supported the bill. When people hear these stories, they’re appalled and they want to do something. They want to take action.
I think it’s tremendously important, because it shows that survivors have voices and lived experiences we can’t begin to imagine.
Making that change at every stage in the process is a must. Potentially, it could make the objective harder to reach, but generally speaking, it’s definitely a must. The bill should definitely make clear that consideration is being given to adding their voices at every stage in the process. We saw the impact of that on the measures in the national action plan, such that the ministers in all the provinces had to take action.
Senator Petitclerc: I’m not sure whether anyone else…
[English]
Mr. Trottier: If I may, I would just like to echo what Ms. Asare is commenting on. I think it’s essential we see and hear from victims themselves. I think one thing that does is to break us out of this stereotype we might have in our mind of what a victim looks or sounds like. I know it would be shocking perhaps for a lot of you around the table here if you were to meet some of our clients — these big burly men who you think are so powerful. Why can’t they deal with domestic violence situations and defend themselves or their children? It’s not that simple.
A lot of these men don’t fit the stereotype of what we think of as a victim of gender-based violence or IPV. But when you hear their stories, you understand why they ended up in the situation they are in, and what it was like when they tried to get the attention of the police. They are big and physically strong men, yet they were victims nonetheless of a female partner who was using a weapon, for example, to make up for physical stature differences. When you hear the specifics of those stories and you hear it in their own words, that makes all the difference in the world.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thanks to all of you for being here. I’m the friendly critic on this bill. Many of us have been involved in this work for more than 50 years. I’m old. I started at a time when marital rape was not considered marital rape, and mandatory charging was part of what women asked for because police didn’t come when they were called.
So we have seen this evolution. But at the crux of it — and I would be interested to hear your comments on this — part of the reason that I think we keep coming back to it is because this is really about patriarchy, privilege and power: Who has it? Who wields it? Who abuses it? We dance around it every time we come up with a new strategy. It’s part of the reason I think the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls didn’t just look at these kinds of strategies, but talked about economic health, housing, social security and all the things needed to create a substantively equal starting point for folks, including men and gender-diverse folks, but, in particular, women and girls.
I’m curious about whether you see anything in this that we could be strengthening that would push that forward because it strikes me that although we can keep talking about it and educate, if people don’t have the means to live outside of these situations then we just keep offering them criminal law instead of providing them what they need. You’re nodding, Mr. Roebuck?
Mr. Roebuck: I think you’re right. We can go right back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. People need their basic needs met to be able to show up as their best selves. That includes security. I completely agree with the harm and violence of patriarchy in people’s lives, the oppression of women and non‑hetero‑conforming men.
I think resources like access to housing — I appreciate your work on guaranteed basic income because that has a huge implication in gender equality. Also, I think one of the missing pieces that is often not considered in this conversation — perhaps because of patriarchy — is the trauma and victimization experiences of men and boys that are a major risk factor for women’s safety. I think that that’s why a gender-based violence lens is helpful, and it should guide us to think about the unique gender implications including patriarchy and oppression. But also, where are we not looking for pieces that might be relevant to the puzzle?
Ms. Taylor: I can expand on that. I also agree. I think housing and poverty — the root causes of gender-based violence — patriarchy and different systems of oppression are incredibly important. I think a lot of that needs to come from education. It has to engage men and boys in that conversation. It has to start young.
Personally, I didn’t learn about patriarchy and systems of oppression until I had started my post-secondary education. It needs to start at a younger age. The public education system has to change because we have to have these conversations earlier. Right now, we’re avoiding them because we think that avoiding it will help reduce gender-based violence in the community when it’s actually contributing to it. We have to bring in education and training for all ages in the public education systems and across systems. That’s a number one priority.
Previously, I talked about safety as a priority. Housing is a major issue for survivors of gendered violence, but accessible housing does not equate with safe housing. Yes, some work has been done. Housing is very hard to access. But when folks get do, it’s not safe. Thank you.
Senator Dasko: My question is a follow-up on Senator McPhedran’s question in terms of your view about leaving the bill as it is. Just to make sure I understand, Mr. Trottier, you don’t think the bill should go ahead if it remains as it is. Is that correct? Is that what you said?
Mr. Trottier: I had some recommendations. For example, I would recommend that it focus a little bit on public outreach and research those under-explored areas. But I’m not sure to what extent not including them would kill the bill. I just think it would strengthen it considerably.
Senator Dasko: Right, but what if no change were made?
Mr. Trottier: It would be weaker with no change.
Senator Dasko: Ms. Taylor and Ms. Asare, you don’t think the bill should go ahead unless there is change?
Ms. Taylor: I would be cautious. I think having something is better than nothing, but it’s not going to change the issue. It’s not going to fully prevent violence from occurring, but it will create some change. We need to include survivors in those consultations, though.
Senator Dasko: Mr. Roebuck, you said that you thought the bill was complementary to current activities. I’m interpreting this to mean that you think it should go ahead as it is?
Mr. Roebuck: I think there should be very mild changes.
Senator Dasko: What if there were no changes?
Mr. Roebuck: If there were no changes, I think that the government would retool some of what is happening because there is ongoing consultation already with the gender-based violence strategy, but I think very small changes could make it a more helpful, sustainable bill.
Senator Dasko: Earlier in the questioning, the topic of which approach to this might be more sustainable. The word didn’t come up, but I am putting it in those terms. Which approach would be more permanent? There is concern that if it’s a government program, it could be cut tomorrow or perhaps this approach could also be cut tomorrow as the world changes.
Is there an approach that you think would be more sustainable to deal with these issues? Is there any other way to approach it? Is this legislation going to help the sustainability of these efforts? There is a government action plan. How sustainable do you feel that is? I’m asking everyone, please. Thank you.
Ms. Asare: I think that currently, if nothing changed, we run the risk of replicating a lot of work that has already been done. I think the proposition of us to making this sustainable and engendering permanent change would be achieved by putting accountability measures in place. Right now, ministers have agreed to use this national action plan. But are they? How are they? What are the gaps that are missing? I think that would be a great national strategy — or in addition to the national strategy — to look into what we are doing when it comes to the national action plan. It’s not just about what we’re saying; it’s about what we’re doing. That’s my view on how it could be sustainable.
Mr. Trottier: In 30 seconds, I would say that in terms of evaluating the effectiveness of any legislation, I would propose putting in quantifiable measures. Are we actually getting the change we want? What are the changes we want? Are there measurable ways of seeing if that is actually working? Being open to course correction, not just continuing to go down one way because that’s always how it’s been done, but being willing to change and try different approaches if those evaluation measures show we’re not getting to where we want to be.
Does that make it more sustainable? I hope it would mean that we would keep ourselves on track, go back to the purpose of the legislation on a regular basis and, if necessary, involve different government ministries as needed to make sure we’re getting the outcomes that we desire.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I’m sorry, but this brings us to the end of this panel. We really thank you for your presence, your wisdom and your thoughts in helping us navigate this bill.
Colleagues, for our next panel, we welcome Sharon Mayne, Chief Executive Officer, Catholic Family Services Peel‑Dufferin, Safe Centre of Peel; Shelina Jeshani, Director of Strategic Partnerships and Collaboration, Safe Centre of Peel; Louise Riendeau, Co-Lead for Political Issues, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, who is joining us by video conference; and Hayley Kennedy, Executive Director, PARTNERS Family Services, who is also joining us by video conference.
Thank you so much for being with us today. We will begin with opening remarks from the Safe Centre of Peel, followed by remarks from Ms. Riendeau and then remarks from Ms. Kennedy. Five minutes each, please.
Sharon Mayne, Chief Executive Officer, Catholic Family Services Peel-Dufferin, Safe Centre of Peel: Good afternoon, senators and guests. We’d like to convey our gratitude for this invitation and to the survivors who have courageously shared their stories in hopes of creating a safer country for all girls and women. I’m humbled to represent our community partners who make up the Safe Centre of Peel as well as the other five established centres in Ontario and all those across the country in development.
We know that the data on the prevalence of intimate partner violence in our country is overwhelming, and we know that this is an experience that is underreported. The numbers of victims are far greater than we even know. Education, early intervention and service delivery that is accessible, responsive and easy to navigate is imperative if we’re going to truly address this issue.
The Safe Centre of Peel is an innovative, evidence-based, best practice model of how a diverse community can work together to respond and provide pathways to safety for victims. The centre has been in operation for over a decade because of the commitment of our 20 community partners, led by ourselves at Catholic Family Services, who together provide an integrated, cross-sectoral, culturally and linguistically responsive collaborative service delivery model, and we do this with limited, dedicated sustainable funding.
Shelina Jeshani, Director of Strategic Partnerships and Collaboration, Safe Centre of Peel: In 2008, our community partners began discussions that we needed to respond to IPV in our community differently. We couldn’t continue to work in silos, duplicate services and watch while vulnerable women with their children try to navigate systems that we had created.
Survivors told us that they did not want to have to repeat their stories over and over, they didn’t want to be told that they couldn’t bring their children with them to these different services and that they often just gave up trying to get the help that they needed — trying to go from place to place and navigate a complex system that they did not understand. It was particularly difficult for victims who didn’t speak the language or new Canadians who had low to no finances, young children and virtually no support system.
Our Safe Centre model drew inspiration from the Family Justice Center model that originated in San Diego, and is now recognized as a best practice by the U.S. Department of Justice. There are now 300 centres globally in 25 different countries. The Safe Centre of Peel, like the Family Justice Center models, recognizes that cross-sectorial collaboration among community services, such as shelters, family services, child welfare, justice, legal, health, settlement, et cetera, are vital in responding to the vast needs of victims of IPV.
In 2022, we had the privilege to appear in front of the federal Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We were named in their final report in recommendation 17 as a national best practice model. As a result, many cities across the country have reached out to us to learn about the model and what we are doing in our community.
Helping professionals across the country excited about the possibilities for their communities — this is hard work. Our staff want to make a real difference in the lives of survivors and their children. This approach provides the opportunity to do that.
Ms. Mayne: The development of a national strategy for the prevention of IPV will address the critical issues by allocating much-needed resources to strengthen support services, foster cross-sectoral collaboration, meaningfully engage survivors, prioritize prevention and early intervention and support robust data collection that can inform national, provincial and local priorities and strategies.
We want to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to share our work. On behalf of other integrated intimate partner violence models across the country and on behalf of survivors and all our staff, it’s a privilege to be here and talk about our work with you today.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Louise Riendeau, Co-Lead for Political Issues, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale: Good afternoon. I’d like to start by thanking the Senate for this invitation and the opportunity to share the view of the Regroupement and its member organizations on Bill S-249.
The Regroupement would also like to thank the Honourable Senator Manning for this bill and his commitment to addressing the issue of domestic violence.
This bill bears the stamp of the senator’s determination to strengthen cooperation among the various professionals who work with women affected by intimate partner violence and to better protect them.
However, after reading the bill, we have a number of questions and concerns regarding the proposed measures. That applies to both the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence and the requirement for health professionals to report intimate partner violence to police.
When it comes to the national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence, we are having trouble seeing how it will align with the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, which was launched in 2022.
Will the strategy support the national action plan or work in parallel? Will it be an additional tool the federal government can use to implement the national plan? What resources will be allocated to the strategy?
In light of those important questions, we think it makes more sense for the federal government to focus human and financial resources on the national plan.
The government already has a lot of work ahead to ensure that the plan is successful. That work includes coordinating and engaging all the stakeholders involved in the plan, collecting data, ensuring that the funding provided to the provinces and territories aligns with the plan’s five pillars, and monitoring the provinces’ and territories’ results through annual reporting.
We’d like to highlight the tremendous work in support of the plan done by Women’s Shelters Canada alongside 40 other organizations that specialize in gender-based violence. In 2021, they submitted a report to the federal government to guide the implementation of a national action plan on violence against women and gender-based violence. It contained more than a hundred recommendations.
Our other concern revolves around the requirement for health professionals to report intimate partner violence cases to police. While we see, yet again, that the proposed measure is well intentioned, we cannot support it.
We fear that the implementation of a systematic reporting requirement will deter or even prevent women affected by intimate partner violence from seeking care.
Some women will not be ready to come forward, while others may not want to file a complaint against their spouse or former spouse. Women suffering from intersecting forms of oppression may be mistrustful of police because of negative experiences with police officers in the past. We firmly believe that respecting women’s agency is paramount. That’s an important part of their journey when it comes to regaining power over their lives. They need time to move through the process at their own pace.
In cases where women are at risk of being seriously injured or killed, professionals with a duty of confidentiality in Quebec already have the ability to disclose information to police or other stakeholders to ensure the safety of the individual concerned. We imagine that option is available in other provinces and territories as well.
It’s important to keep in mind that automatic reporting without a risk assessment or wraparound safety net in place could instead escalate violence and place women and their children at further risk. What’s more, filing a police report is not sufficient. When a woman is then left on her own, without proper support and assistance, her safety could still be in jeopardy.
For these reasons, we do not support a reporting requirement for health professionals.
However, health professionals are front line workers in the care of women and children who are victims of violence. Appropriate intervention on their part could have definite benefits. However, this requires that they be trained in domestic violence, coercive control and post-separation violence and the impact on women and children by specialized groups who work on the ground every day and who have developed extensive expertise. It would also create direct links between these professionals and the specialized resources in their area, so that professionals would feel more comfortable speaking confidently about these issues with the women they see.
For this to happen, sufficient funds must be allocated. The federal government can certainly play a critical role in making that money available and in encouraging the provinces and territories to make that training available.
As you can see, we believe that giving priority to training professionals to better intervene with women and children would be more beneficial than a duty to report.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Finally, Hayley Kennedy.
Hayley Kennedy, Executive Director, PARTNERS Family Services: My name is Hayley Kennedy, and I’m joining you from Treaty 4 territory, the traditional lands of the Cree, Saulteaux, Dakota, Nakoda, Lakota and homeland of the Métis.
I have the privilege of serving as Executive Director for PARTNERS Family Services. Our main office is located in Humboldt, Saskatchewan, which is situated on Treaty 6 territory, the traditional lands of the Cree, Saulteaux, Stoney, Lakota, Dakota and homeland of the Métis. We’re proud to work alongside individuals, families and communities who call this area of rural central Saskatchewan home.
As an organization with a long-standing commitment to end gender-based violence and extensive experience on supporting individuals on their journey from victim to survivor, we’re pleased to extend our support to the national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence.
PARTNERS Family Services was born from an acknowledgment of local mental health providers that intimate partner violence was a growing issue within the community without sufficient supports. In 1999, a research project was undertaken along with St. Peter’s College to assess the landscape of IPV and the supports that were available to those who needed them. That study identified no dedicated violence supports, and from that, PARTNERS Family Services was incorporated under the name PARTNERS for Rural Family Support in 2000.
In 2023, with investment from the Government of Canada through the Shockproofing Communities fund, we undertook another project to assess the landscape of IPV and support services, similar to the original study completed in 1999.
Despite being conducted 24 years later, the findings were very similar. Intimate partner violence continues to be an issue within our communities, and supportive resources are limited. Prevention initiatives are often reduced or non-existent as existing services struggle to meet the needs of those impacted by IPV. Most often, prevention programs are funded on a project-based, time-limited model, leading to inconsistent programs that are underfunded and unsustainable.
As the committee considers Bill S-249, it’s vital to consider the model through which the Government of Canada funds IPV initiatives and move away from short-term, project-based funding to longer-term sustainable models. The inability to deliver effective preventative services, including public education, perpetuates the strain on services for victims and survivors.
Like prevention initiatives, funding models for support for victims and survivors of violence are often project based and time limited leading to inconsistent and unsustainable community-based supports. This patchwork approach to funding programs leaves organizations and those they serve wondering if they’ll be able to access the resources they need to effectively address the impacts of violence.
Individuals who have experienced IPV require tiered interventions that allow them to access the level of service they require that respects their unique needs and circumstances, and they need to be able to do so in the short- and long-term.
We also must ensure that the needs of individuals are considered first and foremost throughout their involvement with any system or model of care, whether that be the health or justice systems or community-based organizations. While reporting to police may be an important piece of recovery for one individual, it may not be to another. There are instances where mandatory reporting is vital to safety, such as instances of child abuse or maltreatment. However, there are other instances where mandatory reporting to police may cause significantly more harm to an individual. Any incorporation of mandatory reporting for IPV into the national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence must carefully consider the needs and rights of the individual first and foremost. This needs special consideration when considering mandatory reporting by a health professional.
The relationship between an individual and their health provider is deeply personal, and trust is foundational to quality care and positive health outcomes. Legislation must respect this dynamic and ensure any changes brought forth are done so in a way that doesn’t impart further systemic harm to individuals.
I extend my thank you to the committee for providing the opportunity to speak with you today and for your commitment to hearing from diverse stakeholders as a national strategy is developed and actioned across the country.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Kennedy. We’ll go to questions from senators. Colleagues, you will have four minutes each for your questions.
Senator Cordy: Ms. Kennedy, you spoke a lot about the mandatory reporting and that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be, that it can cause significant problems.
Ms. Mayne, Ms. Jeshani, and Ms. Riendeau, could you also speak about mandatory reporting, the positives or negatives, or both?
Ms. Jeshani: Mandatory reporting for health professionals can become very problematic. In many of the newcomer families that we work with, the two places that they go the most is to their place of worship or to their health professional. That is the place where they start to build a relationship where they can actually disclose what is happening.
Having health professionals embedded in a cross-sectorial collaboration, where strong referrals can happen and hand-offs can happen to other services to wraparound the victim or the survivor, is the best course of action. Putting health professionals in a position where they have a mandatory reporting will then start limiting women coming forward and talking to those people whom they trust the most.
I think that training is essential when you think about these various sectors that have many different expertise and are now also being able to hear disclosures of IPV. For example, at the Safe Centre of Peel, we have our police force that has a specialized intimate partner violence unit on site. They are specifically trained on trauma and intimate partner violence and wear plain clothes to bring down the intimidation factor, but they are embedded with us so that when women come to us, if they are ready to report, we do a hand-off to our police colleagues who are able then to walk them through the next steps.
[Translation]
Ms. Riendeau: We’re also concerned about the idea of mandatory reporting, because we think that some victims who need care might not seek it out for fear that the situation might be reported to the police. Currently, professionals who are familiar with the issue and can direct them to the right resources can help them decide whether or not to report it. I think we have to respect victims’ wishes, otherwise they’ll be even more isolated than they are. That’s why we’re opposed to mandatory reporting. We also think that the health care system needs to be more proactive and aware of the problem, so as to better help victims and direct them to specialized resources that can take over and provide them with all the support they need.
[English]
The Chair: I don’t want to intervene and take time, but I want to clarify that the bill as it is currently written does not call for mandatory reporting. It calls for a consultation with health professionals to make a report to the police. It’s in a consultation framework as opposed to putting down a requirement for mandatory reporting. So we’re having a consultation, so to say, on that point.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses for being with us and presenting their expertise on a challenging issue.
I’d like to address Ms. Riendeau to begin with, and I will address the reporting requirements because I think Quebec is in a unique position.
Ms. Riendeau, you mentioned that in regard to reporting requirements in Quebec, if a professional in Quebec believes that a person is at imminent risk of death or serious injury, they can reveal personal information that is normally protected by professional secrecy, and you noted that you fear implementation of a systematic reporting requirement will deter, even prevent, women affected by domestic violence from seeking care.
You can understand a desire to have mandatory reporting because it helps with data collection if you’re interested in knowing something about the prevalence of the problem.
Has the Quebec policy deterred or prevented women from seeking care? Quebec is in this unique position around data, and so if already there’s a situation, as you describe, where a professional can reveal personal information, has that deterred or prevented women from seeking care or do you even know? Do we have the data?
[Translation]
Ms. Riendeau: The difference is between being able to report and having to report. In Quebec, professionals cannot break confidentiality unless there is a risk of serious injury or death. Not all situations of domestic violence involve the same short‑term risks for victims. So it’s in these situations that professionals can do it, but the law doesn’t require them to. I think that’s another reason why victims also know that if they turn to a professional, unless they’re in a very dangerous situation — and in those cases, they’re usually happy for professionals to talk to each other — privacy and confidentiality will be respected.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Do we have any data in Quebec around these issues?
[Translation]
Ms. Riendeau: No, there are no statistics on situations where confidentiality is waived. There are now concerted action units across Quebec where several professionals can draw up action plans and meet when faced with dangerous situations, but there is no data collection at the moment.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you, everyone, for your very insightful comments on a very complex issue. It’s great to hear service providers. Being a service provider myself, I completely understand that you know what it’s like and you know what it will take. So thank you for being here and for pointing out some of the unintended consequences that may happen, which is not what we want. The mandatory reporting is just one.
We also heard from the last panel about the importance of terminology and whether just using the term “intimate partner,” as is put out in the national strategy, would in some way dilute the work that’s already been done by the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence. I’d like your comments on that, whether the terminology that we’re using would in some way dilute the great work that has already been done, balancing that with the need — which we heard from the previous panel — that we want to enshrine something in legislation to ensure that we continue on this path.
Thank you.
Ms. Mayne: I’ve been doing this work now for 40 years, and in that time, we talked about “woman abuse,” “domestic violence” and we’ve moved on to “gender-based violence.” I think now what we’re faced with is how do we come up with terminology and language that is inclusive of individuals who may not identify, who are gender-fluid, for example? How do we capture that?
We also have to be mindful — in Peel region, for example, it’s a very diverse community — that if we want to be able to talk about this issue with newcomer communities, gender-based violence is something that people don’t relate to but an intimate partner relationship is.
I think it’s complicated to come up with language that is going to make sense to a diversity of Canadians right across the country. In our region, we have adopted intimate partner violence in a response to try to be inclusive of all peoples, but also to make it accessible to people for whom the words “gender‑based violence” wouldn’t make sense or would become an obstacle.
I don’t know if my colleagues also want to comment.
[Translation]
Ms. Riendeau: When we talk about the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, there has been a lot of discussion between the various organizations that combat domestic violence, intimate partner violence, but also sexual violence, the sexual exploitation of women and human trafficking. We wanted to take into account the fact that there were many similarities in the causes and consequences of this violence, which is often, even today, sustained by all the inequalities that exist between men and women and all the social inequalities that can be encountered.
Insofar as there’s already a wider plan, that’s why we’re saying that we should work from that plan.
The previous panel talked about the possibility of amending the bill to make the action plan more sustainable. This is an interesting way of ensuring that there is also accountability for the actions that will be achieved through this plan by the various governments. It would also be an interesting approach, rather than creating something else on the side that targets only some of the violence of which many women are victims.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. I have a fairly straightforward question to ask. If this bill were to remain exactly the same as it is today, what would you say to us about its usefulness in bringing action and more resources to the work that you’re doing?
Ms. Mayne: It’s a game changer, being able to make this a national priority, being able to allocate resources across the country in a way that enables cross-sectoral partnerships and coming together as communities. This is not just a women’s issue, it’s a community issue that cuts across all sectors. To have resources that enable communities to come together to respond to and be able to intervene much earlier, and to have a community communication plan and education — in 40 years of me doing this work, this is a high point. It’s a watershed moment in this country.
We know how to respond. We have the expertise. We have the willingness, we have the collaborative partnerships. Never before have we worked so closely with police, health care and settlement across sectors — employment. We’re ready. We know how to do this on the ground. We just need gas in the car to help us actually get moving and get to doing something. There is a lot of complexity here, and the language is important to pay attention to, but at the end of the day, please get us some resources to help us do what we know how to do in our communities.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Ms. Jeshani: I just want to say that this is what survivors have told us. Survivors told us over and over again that we don’t want to go from place to place and try to navigate a system that service professionals have created for us. We don’t know where to go, we don’t know how to get there, we are in the worst position we have ever been in our life and now you want us to figure it out. Survivors told us: You figure it out, you learn to talk to each other and you learn to wraparound and work together because it’s not our responsibility to bridge communication between all of you. This is what survivors need in our country for us to be responsive to those very difficult needs.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I have another quick question. Was your organization or were you individually involved in any of the consultations that have already occurred in relation to the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence?
Ms. Jeshani: We did have the opportunity to present at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in 2022, and that was a great opportunity to showcase the model and what we have been able to do, and bring survivors voices to the table. We are named as recommendation 17.
We have also had the opportunity to meet with many folks in our province who are looking at this strategy and trying to find the best course of action.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My questions are for Ms. Riendeau. At the centre you run, do the abused women who come to you come exclusively from heterosexual couples, or do you have women from same-sex couples? If so, are there any specific services or strategies available to them? How does this national strategy…. How does this bill ensure, through its wording, that the needs of women who are victims of violence in same-sex couples are taken into account?
Ms. Riendeau: In fact, all women who identify as women can receive services from the shelters that are members of our association. There are heterosexual women, lesbians and trans women who may require services. Each time, the services try to adapt to the reality of each woman who needs them in order to have the most comprehensive and intersectional approach possible.
I don’t remember the second part of your question.
Senator Cormier: I was asking about services and strategies, and if you have any data, but I think you’ve already answered this question about data to identify these categories of people.
Ms. Riendeau: When we worked with the group that drafted the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, these elements were taken into account, because we wanted to be as inclusive as possible in responding to women’s realities. The plan covers various sections. The recommendations talk about equal access to services, prevention, adapting the justice system and providing survivors with support tailored to their specific needs. All of this was in the recommendations presented to the government.
Senator Cormier: You mentioned the challenges of aligning this national action plan with the strategy proposed in Bill S-249.
Are there any gaps in the national action plan that you think can be addressed through the national strategy proposed here?
Ms. Riendeau: I would say, as others said a little earlier, that there’s the whole issue of responsibility, of accountability for what’s going to happen, for the measures set out in each of the pillars — there’s a fifth pillar on adapting to the needs of Indigenous women…. How will all of this be implemented by the territories, the provinces and the federal government itself?
That is something that could be strengthened, as well as the sustainability of such a plan, because indeed, a future government could decide not to renew this plan. Many countries have passed laws on violence against women or gender-based violence, and can therefore ensure the sustainability of the necessary actions, as long as the levels of violence are as they are now.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
Senator Mégie: I’d like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.
I wanted to talk about the experiences of other provinces and other countries. Do you have access to data on good practices from Canadian provinces or other OECD countries that have been successful in terms of either the type of intervention or the reporting rate, and that have already developed good practices? Do you know of any that you could draw on, or are there none?
Ms. Riendeau: Perhaps I could answer. I don’t want to seem biased, but Quebec has had action plans and policies for many years. The first policy dates back to 1995, and the latest one became an integrated strategy in which the fight against sexual and domestic violence has been integrated. This strategy will help to rebuild confidence in the justice system.
Over the years, the number of disclosures has also risen sharply.
In the late 1980s, there were 6,000 domestic violence complaints per year; now there are 24,000. This is good news because it shows us that victims know they have rights and resources to help them. If we look at the number of femicides that occur in Quebec, we see that it’s lower than in other parts of the country. We think that the fact that there are resources — there are about a hundred shelters for survivors in Quebec — the fact that the justice system has been proactive, the fact that there are various prevention measures and awareness campaigns, all these things together mean that we haven’t yet been able to completely stem the problem, but we’re making sure that victims ask for help, that they are better supported and, in some cases, that the number of deaths is reduced.
Senator Mégie: Are there any other comments, or can I move on to a second question?
[English]
Ms. Jeshani: In San Diego, when the Family Justice Center started in the early 2000s, it had a number of partners that came together to provide integrated care. They noticed that domestic homicides plummeted. There is data across the U.S. As I mentioned, there are 300 centres globally. There is a lot of evidence to show that when you provide integrated collaborative care across sectors, you can save lives.
Ms. Mayne: There have been so many inquests and reports. Most recently, in Renfrew County. Data has come out from the horrible tragedy out of Nova Scotia — that list, time and time again, of what is needed to prevent and to respond to victims.
What has been missing is the commitment by government to adequately and sustainably resource communities, health care sectors and policing to be able to respond. There is a lot of data. There is a lot of best practice. I can speak to that in lots of detail in 40 years.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to pivot to Ms. Kennedy. She brings a unique perspective from Saskatchewan and rural communities. Ms. Kennedy, how can you enlighten us further?
Ms. Kennedy: Thank you. There are many models of best practices across North America as well as across the globe. Many have shown that there are effective interventions to reduce the impacts of violence on women, girls, families and communities as a whole.
I will echo my colleague’s thoughts that it is vitally important to resource those initiatives sufficiently and not simply in the short-term. Many of these inquiries or inquests that we have had across this country into gender-based violence have produced multiple recommendations — many that have been echoed over decades of time. Without sufficient resources, buy-in and a follow-up accountability framework from all levels of government, we continue to see the same issues.
With the national action plan, a lot of that work has been done. Those best practices and those emerging best practices have been well-established across the country. However, there has been a continual lack of follow through on a long-term sustainable model to allow us to explore those best practices and put them into practice so that they can start to have that systemic and ecological change in our communities. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Kennedy.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I’m going to ask a very simple question. You already answered it a little earlier. I’ll ask Ms. Riendeau for her opinion on this.
I’m listening to all four of you, and it’s very clear that you have expertise and competence. You know who and what you’re talking about.
My very simple question is, do you really need action plans, strategies, or do you need resources, funding, or labour? It could be both.
Ms. Riendeau, what would you say about this?
Ms. Riendeau: I’d say we need all of that, because we won’t be able to stem the tide of domestic violence on our own. We need more resources, but we also need the justice system to respond well to victims and for people in the health sector to be there when victims come forward.
Indeed, a model like the one in Peel is interesting because it makes it easier for victims to navigate through the services. We need prevention measures and housing so that victims can leave shelters when they’re ready. There needs to be coordination across a number of government sectors. It needs to be sustained over time with sufficient intensity and resources. That’s why action plans are important if we want to achieve results. We can’t go by project or say that we’ll do it for the next five years. The problem won’t be solved.
There needs to be intensity and coordination, and it needs to last over time.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. That helps me a lot. I’m going to continue with you, Ms. Riendeau.
Listening to all our witnesses, I understand that this possible obligation to report isn’t wanted. What we’ve also heard is that the number of cases reported is about one in ten. We hope that more victims will report.
How do we equip people? How can we ensure that health care professionals are well equipped to support victims? How do you see all this?
Ms. Riendeau: First of all, I think we need to help them identify situations. Many situations of domestic violence fly under the radar in the health care system. We need to help them intervene properly. They don’t necessarily have to become social workers themselves, but they do need to be able to refer victims to specialized resources that can help them, support them, help them move forward and eventually report the situation. I think that training for all professionals is key. Think of the people who work in emergency rooms or in perinatal care. These are people who see situations of domestic violence, or who could see them and make a difference in the lives of victims.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Thank you to all the witnesses who are here today. We appreciate your time and your expertise. I’m from Nova Scotia. I’m a social worker moonlighting as a senator. This is a field that I have worked in for decades.
People of African descent have been in Nova Scotia since the 1700s. Many of those who are victims/survivors of intimate partner violence, domestic violence or family violence don’t report because of their fear of how they and their families will be dealt with through the justice system.
Do you think this framework bill would help in the situation where people are afraid to report because of the fear of other problems that they will encounter through health systems but also through justice systems — and in this case it’s an issue of racism? Are you seeing some of that at your Safe Centre of Peel?
Ms. Jeshani: That’s a very good question.
Ms. Mayne: One of the strengths of our model in Peel is that part of the wraparound services is particular organizations have a singular focus. In our community, we have Roots Community Services that serves the Black community. That’s the person that woman can speak with in order to bridge into other kinds of services.
The one thing missing in the conversation is how do we engage men in conversations to invite them to change. That’s an important conversation, particularly as we speak with our Black colleagues, the importance of being able to engage men in the conversation as well about that.
The mandatory requirement to call police is very problematic. I appreciated the clarification earlier that it isn’t saying you have to call police. But I think it’s about being able to bridge and connect people to the right person. We have to have people who look like the people who come to us. We find that right across sectors. Peel is diverse, right? We serve the community in 16 languages. It’s critically important. A lot of those little ethno‑specific agencies don’t have the funding to be able to respond to the needs in their community. That’s where this bill again changes things, to get those funds to the communities and to the agencies to serve those communities as opposed to large systems.
Ms. Jeshani: What the strategy does is it gives us a common language to talk about the importance of addressing IPV in our communities. All of our communities get an opportunity to hear from our prevention strategies as to how difficult we understand and how challenging it is to be in a situation where you’re dealing with IPV, but what are the services and the supports that are there?
It’s also very important that we always come from a place where we’re working with our client, our individual, our person in front of us with who they are and what their experiences are. It isn’t, “Here are all resources so you can leave,” because there are many folks who want to stay but need the help and need the safety planning in order to figure out what is best for them and their families.
What this bill does is it gives us common language across the country where we can anchor our local strategies into and provide us, of course, the resources that we need to do this work.
The Chair: Thank you very much. The last question is fortunately mine. I’ll pose it to each one of you. It is about the conversation we have had about mandatory reporting by health care professionals.
Given what we have heard today about the problems associated with such a direction, do you think the government should consult at all on this issue? Or should that clause in the bill that says that the government shall consult on the requirements for health professionals to make a report to the police if they suspect that a patient is a victim of IPV — should that clause be struck?
Ms. Kennedy: I would suggest that the clause be struck. Through the previous panel as well as this one, it’s clearly problematic. You would find in further consultation an ongoing theme that particular one is problematic.
There have been very robust discussion and feedback provided through these panels that I think would be a better focus for the ongoing consultation. I don’t feel further consultation on that piece will change the conversation to date.
[Translation]
Ms. Riendeau: Perhaps what professionals could be consulted on are the obstacles they face in situations where they should waive confidentiality because there is a risk of death or serious injury.
I was saying that in Quebec, that safeguard no longer exists. It can be done. Do other jurisdictions do it? That might be worthwhile, but certainly not mandatory reporting.
[English]
Ms. Mayne: I would say strike it. We already have provisions, at least in Ontario, that if we have very serious concerns around a woman’s safety, we already have a provision to be able to call police in those exceptional circumstances. But to make it automatic removes the control from a woman who already lost so much control in her relationship already, so I would say it doesn’t need to be there.
Ms. Jeshani: I agree. Having health professionals have the opportunity to share the incidents that they are seeing, the prevalence of what they are seeing and also the amount of training that they need in order to be able to connect people, assess risk and provide people those safety plans that are so essential when that first appears in front of them.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have three minutes. Senator Moodie, did you have a question?
Senator Moodie: I do now. I was going to come in on the question of consultation for health care professionals. I am a paediatrician. For children, when we are mandated to report, I have a way to deal with it. There is immediate action that can be taken. The child can be taken into protection immediately, and there is an action that results in safety for that child.
What concerns me about having a role, potentially, for health care providers is that mandatory reporting might put that woman, as you have pointed out, in a situation where she goes back home that night to a situation that could explode without the right intervention.
Ms. Jeshani: Absolutely. One of the things we are learning more and more about is the serious cases of strangulation in our community. If women do not get medical care after they have disclosed that they have been strangled, they are more likely to die from a stroke or from other complications.
Women of colour don’t necessarily have marks on their neck when they are strangled. Many times other physical symptoms are not appearing and they say, “I’m fine.” We are doing a huge amount of training to all of our sectors around the seriousness of this issue, and Peel Regional Police have told us that they are seeing one strangulation a day in our community.
Our community serves 1.5 million people. We know that reporting to the police is underreported. If the police have that stat, we know it’s much greater than that. If a woman cannot go to her health professional because she is worried about the consequences, then we have got another health crisis on our hands.
Senator Moodie: Often health professionals are facing a requirement to act and there is a lot of uncertainty about just what do I do because in this town, it’s different from that town and there is no standardization across our country.
Is there something that you would recommend that we might want to include in this bill that could address that? Where do we meet it? What do health professionals do besides calling the police, which is an obvious choice, but you talk about providing advice, services and all other kinds of things.
Ms. Jeshani: I believe that health professionals need mandatory training on identifying IPV, understanding what their local resources are and getting into a partnership with their local resources. They need to have expertise in the area of assessing risk, asking the right questions. This is really important.
Senator Moodie: [Technical difficulties] but it is what do you do with it when you have the woman in front of you is the problem?
The Chair: We have to explore this line of questioning in future panels. We do have them planned. Thank you so much to all our witnesses. Ms. Mayne, Ms. Jeshani, Ms. Riendeau and Ms. Kennedy, you have helped us a great deal in our exploration of the complex issues that we are talking about.
(The committee adjourned.)