THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 8, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 5:27 p.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.
[Translation]
The Chair: Hello and welcome, everyone. My name is Ratna Omidvar. I’m a senator from Ontario and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
Before we begin, I would like to remind all senators and other meeting participants of the following important preventive 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 ear pieces 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:
All earpieces have been replaced by a model which greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use the approved black earpieces.
By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.
When you’re not using your earpiece, please put 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 table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones — a little hard today, but we should still try. Participants must only plug their earpiece into the microphone 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 all for your cooperation.
Before we welcome our witnesses, 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, or IPV, other sensitive topics, including gender-based violence, suicide and substance use and abuse, may be discussed. This may be triggering to both people in the room and those watching and listening to the broadcast.
Mental health support for all Canadians is available by phone and text at 9-8-8. 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.
To our witnesses, our deepest apologies for keeping you waiting for so long, but some things are outside the control of the members of this committee. We have six witnesses. Normally, our meetings run for two hours. Unfortunately, we only have 45 minutes for this meeting. Therefore, we’re collapsing the testimony of our six witnesses together.
Colleagues, each witness will make their five-minute statement and then we will go around the room and table your questions. The witnesses have kindly agreed to answer them in writing, which is very generous of you. We really appreciate that.
Let us start by going around the room and introducing senators to you and the public, starting with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia. Thank you very much for your patience. It’s great to have you here today.
Senator Dasko: I’m Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
Senator Kingston: Joan Kingston, senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
The Chair: Joining us today for this big panel, we welcome by video conference David Stevenson, Chief Executive Officer, Moose Hide Campaign; and Dodie Jordaan, Executive Director, Ka Ni Kanichihk Inc.; and in person, Bonnie Brayton, Chief Executive Officer, DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada; Dr. Brittany Jakubiec, Director of Research, Egale Canada is joining us by video conference; Dr. Rob Whitley, Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University; and Gurmat Randhawa, Staff Lawyer, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, or SALCO.
Thank you all for taking the time to provide us with your insights. We will begin with opening remarks from the Moose Hide Campaign. Mr. Stevenson, you have the floor. Five minutes each, please.
David Stevenson, Chief Executive Officer, Moose Hide Campaign: Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to appear before this committee.
The Moose Hide Campaign is an Indigenous-led grassroots movement of men and boys — and all Canadians — who are committed to working together to end gender-based violence against women, children and all those along the gender continuum, with a special focus on ending violence against Indigenous women and children.
The Moose Hide Campaign began in 2011, when its co‑founders — Paul Lacerte and his daughter Raven — were on their annual moose hunt in their traditional Carrier First Nation territory.
Their traditional hunting grounds, which have been in their family for generations, are now intersected by the infamous Highway of Tears, Highway 16 in northern British Columbia, where so many Indigenous and non-Indigenous women have gone missing or been murdered.
That morning, beside the Highway of Tears, Paul and Raven were blessed with a moose. They decided to tan the hide of that moose and cut it up into little squares. They got 20,000 squares, and they then handed them out with 20,000 handwritten index cards that stated: “If you wear this moose hide pin, you commit to not doing violence in your life and to work with other men and boys to end violence in our families and communities,” and indeed, in this nation.
We have now gifted over 6 million moosehide pins. Our research indicates that at least five conversations are sparked for every moosehide pin. That’s at least 30 million conversations happening across Canada in K to 12 schools, First Nations, government and corporate entities, faith-based sectors, the police forces and professional supports, to name a few of the areas where the moosehide pins are now.
The moosehide pins are not a badge of honour and do not signal any specific virtue. They are a land-based medicine for a social illness impacting all Canadians. Moosehide pins provide Canadians with a concrete, measurable and meaningful opportunity to connect and build awareness and knowledge to address intimate partner violence. As a traditional medicine, we have a forever promise to give them out for free.
Since 2011, we have also held annual Moose Hide Campaign Day ceremonies. This year’s is on May 16. This is a day of ceremony where we invite all Canadians to join us in a one-day fast and mobilize their communities and organizations to initiate and create concrete and meaningful action to address intimate partner violence. It is our vision that one day, 1 million Canadians will join us in this fast to end violence against women, children and those all along the gender continuum.
As you know, intimate partner violence is now considered an epidemic in Canada. However, unlike COVID-19, this epidemic does not require experts to find a vaccine for us. Our research indicates and our experience tells us we must work together to provide all Canadians with opportunities to develop the awareness, knowledge, skills and abilities needed to create safe and inclusive families, communities and organizations.
With that in mind, the Moose Hide Campaign supports Bill S-249 and its call to develop a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence.
Since victims of gender-based violence are usually women — and disproportionately Indigenous women — this strategy must reflect and act upon Canada’s commitments to work with Indigenous peoples to address this crisis.
Most notably, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, or MMWIG, Calls for Justice commit the Canadian government to work with Indigenous Peoples to develop and implement a national action plan to address violence against Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ communities.
As well, Article 22.2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada is now legally committed to, requires us to:
. . . take measures, in conjunction with Indigenous peoples, to ensure that Indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.
Finally, the national strategy should incorporate and support the ongoing efforts of Indigenous-led and grassroots initiatives that support Canadians to take concrete, measurable action to address intimate partner violence.
Many Indigenous-led, grassroots initiatives are doing this important work. The Moose Hide Campaign is proud to be one of them. A national strategy can help mobilize society away from intimate partner violence by amplifying and supporting these initiatives.
Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions and provide more detail.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Stevenson. We will now hear from Dodie Jordaan.
Dodie Jordaan, Executive Director, Ka Ni Kanichihk Inc.: Thank you.
“Ka Ni Kanichihk” is an Ininew, Cree, word meaning “those who lead.” Our organization provides culturally safe and identified programs and services that focus on wholeness and wellness and build on the strengths and resilience of Indigenous peoples. We do this to help our people help themselves, build healthy relationships and create a sustainable future for our community.
Ka Ni Kanichihk uses a decolonization approach to improve the health and well-being of Indigenous people and transform social relationships. Within a culturally safe environment, Ka Ni Kanichihk provides a range of short- and long-term programs and services, primarily to Indigenous peoples.
It is known that too many Indigenous women still continue to experience a spectrum of violence that takes various forms, including economic marginalization, cultural dispossession, patriarchal institutional laws and sexual and racialized violence. The most extreme consequence is the missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people that we know of today. This situation is further exacerbated by twin cultures of blame and indifference that continue to prevail.
Indigenous women in Canada are five times more likely than other women of the same age to die as a result of violence. Indigenous women and girls — children — are 12 times more likely to be murdered or missing than any other women in Canada, and 16 times more likely than White women specifically.
In Canada, the annual costs of direct expenditures related to violence against women have been estimated at $684 million for the criminal justice system, $187 million for police and $294 million for the cost of counselling and training, totalling more than $1 billion a year.
Indigenous people have always known what research is now confirming — that if we are going to reduce and eliminate violence, the status and role of Indigenous women must be restored. Cultural knowledge and cultural reclamation are fundamental to restoring them.
The release of reports in Manitoba, such as the Phoenix Sinclair report in 2014, the Tina Fontaine report in 2019, Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and many others — as well as their recommendations — underscore the urgency of accelerating the cultural reclamation process. One of the underlying reasons for this is profound cultural losses, including the diminished role of women and children. Had Indigenous cultural knowledge not been so negatively impacted, the outcome would have been very different, and there would not be almost 10,000 Indigenous children in state care today.
In Manitoba, the trial of admitted serial killer Jeremy Skibicki, which is currently underway, emphasizes that Indigenous women are targeted — and the reasons why. Violence against women is rooted in unequal power relationships between men and women in society. In a broader context, structural relationships of inequality in politics, religion, media and discriminatory cultural norms perpetuate violence against girls and women.
Violence against women is a global problem and not limited to a specific group of women in society. However, the forms of violence might be shaped differently based on factors such as sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, class, age and nationality. Significantly, immigrant and Indigenous women are further marginalized due to ongoing racism, which contributes to violence and is internalized by marginalized people, impeding their social and personal power. Poverty, isolation from family and friends, language difficulties and homelessness also contribute to the victimization of the most vulnerable women in society.
In summary, Ka Ni Kanichihk supports the Senate’s efforts to develop a strategy to prevent intimate partner violence, including adults, youth and children living in homes, but stress that strategy must recognize Indigenous women as rights holders more than capable of defining and implementing a safe strategy.
Moreover, we do have concern with paragraph 3(2)(d):
the requirements for health professionals to make a report to the police if they suspect that a patient is a victim of intimate partner violence;
Research indicates that mandatory requirements such as these significantly reduce the likelihood of individuals seeking help and can make the situations worse for many. There are also significant differences in services and responses by gender identity, race and ethnicity — especially for Indigenous women.
This raises a number of concerns for many who experience violence and why they choose not to report this violence to police. Factors include increase in abuse, which can lead to death inflicted by the abuser; the involvement of child and family services; impact on their economic standing, including loss of job or homelessness; court and legal involvement; and many more factors.
We must stress the recommendation 4.5 of the 231 Calls for Justice:
We call upon all governments to establish a guaranteed annual livable income for all Canadians, including Indigenous Peoples, to meet all their social and economic needs. This income must take into account diverse needs, realities, and geographic locations.
This report on the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls must be used as a benchmark in the development of a strategy to prevent intimate partner violence.
Thank you.
The Chair: We go to Ms. Bonnie Brayton, Chief Executive Officer of DisAbled Women’s Network, or DAWN, Canada.
Bonnie Brayton, Chief Executive Officer, DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada: Thank you to the committee for inviting us to speak today. I am pleased to be here with you on unceded Anishinaabe Algonquin territory.
Since I last stood before this committee, new statistics from Statistics Canada confirm that 30% of all women in Canada live with a disability — so almost one third at this point. I’m sure you know, from previous appearances by DAWN and information you have viewed before, that means that fully one third of the population is being grossly underserved in many ways, especially around the topic of intimate partner violence. I remind you that intersecting oppression means that for Black and Indigenous women and LGBTQ folks, the rates of disability would be higher.
Women and girls and gender-diverse people are made vulnerable to violence, including coercive control, by a lack of care and livelihood options, barriers to financial independence and systemic ableism that often limits their decision-making power and autonomy.
In Canada, girls and women with disabilities experience higher rates of various forms of victimization compared to men and boys with disabilities and people without disabilities. Significantly, the most common form of violence they experience is coercive control; over half of women and girls with disabilities will have experienced some form of coercive control over their lifetimes. Of girls with disabilities, 40% have experienced physical or sexual violence before the age of 15.
This is particularly concerning given that experiences of childhood abuse are linked to further victimization later in life. The same data revealed that women with cognitive disabilities or mental health conditions were four times more likely than women without disabilities to have experienced violence.
The criminalization of coercive control — if established from the experiences of those most marginalized — can provide justice for diverse survivors with disabilities. There, we encourage this to be an important theme throughout your considerations.
Expanding notions of intimate partner violence is critical. The term “intimate partner violence” does not capture the dynamics of gender-based violence experienced by girls and women with disabilities.
The current definition of “connected persons” excludes a wide range of people who do commit coercive control against women and girls with disabilities and excludes locations where coercive control takes place.
We have five recommendations. The first one is expanding notions of intimate partner violence. We must broaden the current definition of “connected persons” to include those who have relationships of dependence, trust and power over women and girls with disabilities. These people can greatly restrict the independence and autonomy of women and girls with disabilities, resulting in tremendous harm to them. One example involves older women. This may include their sons, nephews and brothers who may, for example, control their finances or be responsible for driving them to medical appointments or social events.
Many women with disabilities also require assistance for daily tasks, which is provided by formal and informal caregivers. Given the current care crisis in Canada, where a lack of care workers means that people with disabilities have very few options regarding from whom they can receive care, they often have many unmet care needs.
Women who live in congregate settings, such as residential care and group homes, are specifically subject to coercive control.
We urge this committee and the Justice Committee to expand the definition of “connected persons” to include formal and informal caregivers or relatives that live outside of the same household, as well as locations such as care centres and other congregate settings. A good example of this type of language is found in section 153.1 of the Criminal Code, concerning the sexual exploitation of persons with disability, which stipulates that:
Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a person with a mental or physical disability or who is a person with whom a person with a mental or physical disability is in a relationship of dependency . . . .
Again, this is a really important thing to consider.
Our second recommendation is around defining “violence.”
Bill S-249 must include a definition of “violence” that indicates gender-based violence is an evolving concept taking new shapes in emerging contexts. Again, when we think about how far we’ve come in understanding intersectional discrimination, obviously some of the traditional terms and concepts that we’ve used need to be rethought. More specifically, we strongly argue for the inclusion of specific examples of gender-based violence that are experienced by women and girls with disabilities, given that the specific forms of gender-based violence they experience are often not captured in mainstream definitions of gender-based violence.
If I’m given the time, I will elaborate further.
I’ll go on to recommendation three, which is about making an explicit commitment to engaging with diverse victims, service providers and advocacy organizations.
Consultations must begin by ensuring the meaningful participation of those groups of victims — survivors — that experience the highest rates of multiple forms of abuse, violence and discrimination, as well as significant barriers to care, services and justice.
Different groups of victims — survivors — have diverse experiences of gender-based violence and thus require specific needs in assessing adequate responses. It must also be made explicit that consultations will also concern notions of accessibility and inclusion for diverse women and girls.
Regarding recommendation four and five, the two-year review must include meaningful and ongoing consultations with diverse victims, service providers and advocacy organizations.
Finally, newer disaggregated data and reports are urgently needed to inform policy and Canada’s commitment to the full implementation of the National Action Plan to End Gender-based Violence in Canada.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Brayton. We will now hear from Dr. Brittany Jakubiec, Director of Research at Egale Canada.
Brittany Jakubiec, Director of Research, Egale Canada: Thank you and good evening.
Egale is a national organization for 2SLGBTQI+ people and issues. We improve the lives of 2SLGBTQI+ people through research, education, awareness and by advocating for human rights and equality in Canada and around the world.
Thank you for inviting Egale to present at this committee meeting discussing Bill S-249.
Intimate partner violence is an issue faced by 2SLGBTQI+ people in Canada and globally. There is a need for greater awareness of these issues, as experiences of IPV can impact work, health and the quality of life of queer, trans and non-binary people. There are also unique forms of IPV that impact 2SLGBTQI people, including identity abuse, transgender-specific IPV and elder abuse.
Our submitted brief outlines the rates of IPV among sexual minority women; trans people; gay and bisexual men who have sex with men; and older adults, as well as dating violence among 2SLGBTQI+ youth. However, generally, there is a lack of research data on these experiences and inadequate support and programs for 2SLGBTQI+ victim survivors of IPV and dating violence.
We also know that experiences of IPV are compounded and exacerbated for 2SLGBTQI+ people who are Indigenous, racialized and disabled and that there are unique risk factors and experiences of IPV among 2SLGBTQI+ youth and older adults. For example, financial abuse and coercive control are the most common types of abuse reported by older adults, and 2SLGBTQI+ youth might be less likely to disclose experiences of dating violence if they have not shared their gender identity or sexual orientation, as doing so would both reveal the youth’s identity and their experiences of dating violence.
Importantly, certain populations face higher rates of abuse by an intimate partner. For example, sexual minority women experience disproportionally higher rates of abuse by an intimate partner than heterosexual women. In one Canadian study, 67% of lesbian, gay or bisexual women had experienced at least one type of IPV, compared to 44% of heterosexual women. Further, bisexual women are at an even higher risk of IPV, with higher reported incidents when they are in a relationship with a man.
Another example is IPV among trans and non-binary people, who are more likely to experience IPV compared to their cisgender counterparts, with rates of IPV being especially high among trans women. Trans people are also vulnerable to transgender-specific IPV, a unique type of violence by which perpetrators harness and weaponize societal transphobia, thus making their words and actions more harmful.
As for the impacts of IPV on 2SLGBTQI+ people, broadly speaking, experiences of IPV can lead to poorer mental health and health outcomes, employment impacts such as job loss, experiences of poverty, as well as precarious housing and homelessness.
Given the prevalence and unique risk factors of IPV as well as teen dating violence among 2SLGBTQI+ people in Canada, Egale supports the development of a national strategy for the prevention of IPV and recommends an amendment to the bill to include reference to populations most impacted by IPV — including 2SLGBTQI+ people, Indigenous peoples and those with disabilities — so that any national strategy can meaningfully include, address and consider the experiences of those who face higher rates of IPV.
I also support the recommendations shared thus far by the expert panellists during today’s presentation regarding centring the recommendations from the MMWIG report, as well as the recommendation for meaningful consultation of victim survivors and service providers. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Jakubiec.
Next is Dr. Rob Whitley, Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University.
Rob Whitley, Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University: Madam Chair and honourable senators, good evening. Thank you for the invitation to speak today.
I come here with a simple and clear message: Intimate partner violence against men is a real, frequent and yet completely ignored issue in Canada. I implore the committee to take this phenomenon very seriously during its study of the bill.
According to a 2019 Statistics Canada survey, 2.7% of men had experienced intimate partner violence in the preceding five years, translating to around 280,000 men. This survey and other data indicate that men comprise around one third of all IPV victims.
Research indicates that the most common forms of violence experienced by men are kicking, biting and slapping, but can also include punching, sexual assault and assault with weapons.
Some of my colleagues in the research world have collected testimonies from male victims which make for harrowing reading. I would like to report some of these.
One male victim reported that intimate partner violence “. . . left me with vision loss in one eye, PTSD and traumatic brain injury.”
Another said:
I tried to kill myself . . . I took all the sleeping pills I could find, drank a bit, and was happy that it was over.
Such violence is a risk factor for mental health issues with a high prevalence among men, including alcohol abuse, PTSD and suicidality.
Worryingly, research indicates that male victims are often pathologized and sometimes regarded with suspicion by the very agencies that should be helping them. For example, Professor Don Dutton of the University of British Columbia has conducted research showing that over half of male victims who called the police reported being treated as the perpetrator rather than the victim. Other research indicates that male victims are often scorned, ridiculed or disbelieved by health professionals and law enforcement alike.
Again, I return to the testimonies of male victims. One male victim stated, “I called a domestic violence helpline, and I was told I was to blame!”
Another stated:
I reported her to the police and was asked what I had done to deserve the beating. I told them I had done nothing at all, to which they said that is unlikely.
Another simply said, “. . . the police, they laughed.”
As such, it is unsurprising that surveys indicate less than 20% of male victims will tell the police or a health professional about their victimization, meaning that untold men across Canada are suffering in silence.
Such stigmatizing behaviours and attitudes may contribute to a complete absence of services, programs and supports for male victims of IPV. A 2020 report from the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, who I believe testified to this committee last week, indicates that only 3% of shelters for abuse victims assist men, and there are no shelters in Canada, to my knowledge, that solely support men.
The report further states:
There are few resources available to male survivors and men have reported being further traumatized by their attempts to get help.
It continues, stating:
When men do seek help, they may be treated with suspicion and service providers may not be equipped with tools to address men’s trauma.
Honourable senators, I would like to emphasize that I am not expressing my subjective opinion today. I am simply a messenger giving you statistics from valid and reliable sources and experiences, including from Statistics Canada, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime and the results of peer‑reviewed research funded by the Canadian government. All the results converge in the same direction.
Given the above statistics, it is imperative that any new national strategy must be inclusive and focus on male victims as well as female victims. This must include specific objectives and measures related to male victims.
First, the situation demands more provision for male victims of IPV, without detracting from current provision for female victims. This could include increased funding for inclusive shelters that accept men and women, as well as better provision of trauma-informed care for men.
Second, there is a pressing need to educate and train key stakeholders — such as the police, health care providers and the judiciary — about the realities of IPV against men, as well as the common negative experiences of male victims at the hands of the police and judiciary. This could reduce harmful biases and unjust stereotypes.
Third, there is a need for more research and action on developing, evaluating and disseminating prevention programs aimed at female perpetrators, as existing offerings tend to focus solely on heterosexual men.
To close, I am not for one moment calling for money to be redirected from provision for women to provision for men. I am focusing on men because I am aware that many other testimonies and briefs will focus on women and am trying to fill a gap. I am not calling for a 50-50 split in resources. I am simply calling for expanded services, enhanced education and program innovation to help these forgotten victims.
In sum, I am in favour of this bill but reiterate that any effective and inclusive strategy must have a focus on male victims as well as female victims. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Whitley. Last but not least, Ms. Randhawa, from SALCO.
Gurmat Randhawa, Staff Lawyer, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario: Good evening, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. My name is Gurmat Randhawa, and I am here representing the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, or SALCO.
SALCO is a legal aid clinic that works with low-income South Asian people in Ontario. In the last 10 years alone, we have worked directly with a little more than 3,700 clients facing intimate partner violence in areas of law such as income maintenance, family law, immigration and housing. In the last four years, since 2020, we have seen a steady increase in intimate partner violence, or IPV, cases, with a year-over-year increase between 15% to 25%.
What we know from our work is that people with no immigration status or precarious immigration status are extremely vulnerable to intimate partner violence and, on the contrary, have limited access to supports in housing, income and health. This lack of social infrastructure resources forces those clients to actually stay in situations where they face IPV.
SALCO supports Bill S-249. However, we recommend some amendments, the first being that the bill be amended to create a legislated action plan to prevent IPV. Consultations are key and very important to creating change. However, without accountability mechanisms to enforce any strategy so arrived at, there is limited impact.
We recommend that the proposed consultations under this bill should also include victims and survivors of IPV if they so choose to participate. Consultations with people who have faced IPV should be at the heart of this process.
In addition to consultation, we recommend that the bill mandate a literature review of the hundreds of recommendations that have already come out of government, police and civil society engagements — for example, with the National Action Plan to End Gender-based Violence. We hope they can guide the consultations that are proposed under this bill.
We recommend that paragraph 3(2)(a) should be amended to list some of the most critical systems that we believe are inadequate, such as health care, housing, income supports and legal supports. These are the issues that we see come up the most for our clients, especially those with precarious or no immigration status.
We also recommend that paragraph 3(2)(d) be removed from the bill. This paragraph that talks about consulting around reporting requirements. We have found in multiple cases that reporting to the police without the consent of the victim survivor has actually led to an escalation of violence. In some cases, it has led to immigration detention and removal of the victim. It has led to double charging, where the victim has also been charged based on statements by their abuser. It has also reinforced the overrepresentation of racialized and Indigenous people within the Canadian criminal justice system.
We have actually seen much better outcomes where, for example, health care professionals have privately provided information and resources to victims and let the victims decide how to proceed. If consultation on this subsection goes ahead, it is critical to consider the intended and unintended consequences of police reporting, for Black, racialized and Indigenous communities in particular.
In our work, we continue to see that victims do not have an adequate safety net waiting for them when they are considering leaving their abusers. Approximately 55% of our clients who face IPV choose to stay in those situations because existing systems simply do not meet their needs. This inadequacy is compounded several times over where intersectional vulnerabilities exist, such as immigration status, poverty, health issues, language or cultural barriers, to name a few. We see this come up over and over again.
In summary, this bill is a step in the right direction, but any meaningful consultations must take an in-depth look at the true barriers that victims face. The proposed consultations should cast a wide net to include the perspectives of diverse communities, as well as build on the incredible work already put in over the years around the National Action Plan to End Gender-based Violence and other civic engagements so that we can develop resources and supports that provide safety and promote prevention. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Now we are going to do something unusual. We have roughly 10 minutes left. I’m going to ask my colleagues to ask questions. Colleagues, if the question is to all members of the panel, please say so. If the question is to a specific member of the panel, please say so.
Witnesses, again, thank you so much for going the extra mile and providing us with your answers in writing. To assure you, these answers will be part of the record of the committee and in the “annals of history,” so to say, so your voice will be heard. It would have been better to do it otherwise but I am left with no other choice.
Colleagues, please ask your questions.
Senator Moodie: My question is focused on youth. Adults are not the only ones affected by IPV. Teenagers can be affected by violence from their dating partners. Studies have shown that youth surveyed have experienced psychological, cyber and physical dating violence. Does this bill adequately take into account the experiences of these young people, and are there any changes you believe might be needed to make it more suitable to covering their needs?
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie. Just to let you know, we will send you a transcript of the whole meeting so you don’t have to write down or remember everything.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. This is for panel one, Moose Hide Campaign and Ka Ni Kanichihk. Bill S-249 outlines consultations that the minister must undertake to enact legislation on mandatory reporting by health professionals to the police if they suspect that a patient is a victim of intimate partner violence.
However, the legislation does not include a definition of “health professional.” Call to Action 22 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls on:
. . . the Canadian health-care system to recognize the value of Aboriginal healing practices and use them in the treatment of Aboriginal patients . . .
If Indigenous healers are recognized as health professionals, do you see any unintended consequences of enacting legislation on mandatory reporting by health professionals if they suspect a patient is the victim of intimate partner violence?
Senator Petitclerc: My question is for Ms. Brayton. Thank you all for being flexible and providing answers in writing. We know that women with disabilities have more incidences with IPV. We also know that reporting is a challenge in all IPV cases. I suspect that is especially true for women living with a disability. My question is — and maybe it is not in the bill, but in a possible strategy — how should we identify and find solutions for the possible obstacles that are directly linked with a disability? I’m thinking about accessible shelters, personal care dependence and so on. How important is it for the strategy to remove obstacles for women with disabilities?
The Chair: I know the respondents in this case are wanting to answer immediately but we will have to hold on that.
Senator Cordy: I’m going to try for a two-for-one. My first question is for Dr. Whitley. You spoke about the shelters for men — the lack of men-only shelters and what challenges that causes. What are the reactions and challenges men reporting intimate partner violence face from authority figures?
The next question is regarding the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia, where I’m from. In their report, they noted that domestic violence is an epidemic in Nova Scotia and in Canada. Is it — from your perspective — becoming an epidemic in Canada? You have all presented some first steps in terms of dealing with this, if it is an epidemic. Certainly, the numbers that you have given this evening have shown that it is nearly an epidemic, even if it isn’t there yet.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question is also for Mr. Whitley, and concerns violence against men. Have you ever thought of a strategy, even outside the bill, to train health care professionals, and especially the police force, so that when they receive calls from men, they know that this problem exists? Have you thought of a strategy to inform them of this?
[English]
Senator Dasko: My question is to all the witnesses. We heard testimony from Women and Gender Equality Canada, or WAGE, who spoke to us about the resources that they have devoted to gender violence. So, I would like to ask you specifically about Bill S-249 and whether you think it adds to the resources that are already being devoted to either this specific topic or a more general topic. Does it add or take away anything from current efforts being made? I am looking for your assessment of this, given the programs and spending the federal government is already involved with. You can keep your answers short. They don’t have to be too long and should really focus on Bill S-249.
The Chair: My question is brief. It refers to paragraph 3(2)(c) of the bill, which requires a number of stakeholders — health care facilities, medical practitioners and nurse practitioners — to provide information on access to legal assistance to patients. We all know that legal assistance is hard to come by and the legal aid system is stretched. Could you let us know whether that is a reasonable recommendation? Is what it is proposing out of reach?
Thank you.
Senator Kingston: I am here on behalf of another senator. I have two written questions. I’m wondering, Madam Chair, if I could submit them to the committee. One is for Dr. Whitley. The other is for Brittany Jakubiec. I have them written out. Should I submit them to you or read one or both of them?
The Chair: Please read them quickly into the record because we are over time.
Senator Kingston: For Dr. Whitley: Given the Statistics Canada findings you talked about, do you think that Bill S-249 should be amended to incorporate explicit language that expressly includes men as victims of IPV to ensure their unique needs and realities get addressed and integrated into the national strategy?
Dr. Jakubiec, in your opinion, how could Bill S-249 be amended to include the reference to 2SLGBTQI+ individuals, including gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men? Should such populations, who are among the most impacted by intimate partner violence, be explicitly mentioned in the language of the bill?
The Chair: Again, my deepest appreciation to our witnesses — first, for your patience; second, for your expertise in providing insights to us; and third, for going the extra mile today. I really appreciate it. On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)