THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 9, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:37 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.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Ratna Omidvar and I am a senator from Ontario.
[English]
I am the chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
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 all microphones 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 All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the old earpieces were grey. Please use only the approved black earpieces. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a 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 table 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 microphone console located directly in front of them. These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you very much 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, 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 those 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 and have senators introduce themselves to the public and to the witnesses, starting with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, chair. My name is Jane Cordy, and I’m a senator from Nova Scotia. Welcome to our committee.
Senator Osler: I’m Gigi Osler, a senator from Manitoba.
Senator Burey: Good morning. I’m Sharon Burey, a senator for Ontario.
Senator Kingston: Joan Kingston, a senator for New Brunswick.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, a senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, a senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Joining us today, for the first panel, we welcome Chief Francis Lanouette, Co-chair, Crime Prevention, Community Safety and Well-being Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; Dr. Kari Sampsel, Member, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians; Dr. Donna Stewart, member of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, who is joining us by video conference; and Doris Grinspun, Chief Executive Officer, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, who is also joining us by video conference. Thank you all for joining us today.
I will first invite the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to make their opening remarks, followed by the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, followed by the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Every panel member will have five minutes for their remarks, and these will be followed by questions from the senators. Chief Lanouette, please proceed.
[Translation]
Chief Francis Lanouette, Crime Prevention, Community Safety and Well-Being Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: Thank you.
Distinguished members of this committee, I am pleased to comment on Bill S-249 on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP), as co-chair of the Crime Prevention, Community Safety and Well-Being Committee.
For several years, the CACP has been committed to addressing intimate partner violence, or IPV, and is a strong supporter of all initiatives devoted to its prevention and to supporting victims and their families. We are committed to adopting a victim‑centred and trauma-informed approach through all our work and especially when responding to calls for service involving IPV and family violence.
Bill S-249 proposes to create a national strategy for the prevention of IPV, including provisions that would make it mandatory for health care facilities, medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to report to the police if they suspect that a patient is a victim of IPV, as well as provide patients with information on access to legal assistance.
As for mandatory reporting, the CACP encourages anyone who has experienced intimate partner violence to reach out to the police to report it and obtain the support services they need. However, victims and victim-supporting agencies have informed us that some individuals fear the consequences of the criminal justice system’s involvement.
As a result, 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. Further, victim‑centred approaches stress the importance of these individuals maintaining control over their own journey through this very difficult situation. Mandatory reporting takes that control away.
For these reasons, the CACP does not support mandatory reporting of suspected cases of IPV to the police by health care professionals. We believe in the effectiveness of voluntary reporting. However, if we were to proceed with mandatory reporting, it should be restricted to high-risk situations that are dangerous and threaten the life and safety of a patient, their family or their community. In addition, it would be necessary to provide health care professionals with training so that they are able to evaluate the risk and make that determination with no personal jeopardy.
As for constraints on information sharing due to privacy laws, as it stands now, the laws in Canada currently make it difficult to adopt a preventative approach to IPV. Several regions in Canada have provincial legislation that prohibits health care professionals from disclosing any personal information to the police regarding concerns they may have about a patient.
These laws generally provide for an exception to the duty of confidentiality in situations where there is a significant risk of serious bodily harm to a person or group of persons. Despite this exception, many health care professionals remain reluctant to do so, fearing legal consequences.
While police leaders respect the rights of Canadians to their privacy, we strongly believe that high-risk situations that threaten the life and safety of individuals should supersede the right to privacy.
Assessing risk is an inherent part of the health and law enforcement professions. That is why the CACP is currently focused on developing standards and tools to help assess the risk of persons involved in IPV situations.
Prevention and early intervention processes and practices are most effective when health and law enforcement can collaborate.
As a result, the CACP suggests that health information legislation be amended so that it is no longer an offence for health care professionals to share relevant information when it is done in the victim’s best interest, so that consequences and repercussions related to reporting high-risk IPV situations are eliminated.
Regarding the mandatory provision of information on access to legal assistance to patients, the CACP supports the proposed provision that would make it mandatory to provide patients with information on access to legal assistance. However, we feel that this statement is currently too restrictive and should be expanded to include information about all social, health, community, police and justice services available in the community where victims reside. It is important that the ultimate control remains with the victim.
The CACP also supports the goals associated with the creation of a National Strategy for the Prevention of Intimate Partner Violence, but wonders how such a strategy would differ from the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence advanced by the federal government in November 2022. This action plan is focused on addressing the issue of reliable and timely access to culturally appropriate protection and support services for anyone facing gender-based violence. Rather than create a new and separate national strategy to prevent intimate partner violence, the CACP proposes that Bill S-249 align with the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence.
In conclusion, the primary mandate of the police is to reduce harm and victimization and prevent crime. The CACP believes that responding to IPV is a shared responsibility across police, public health, social and community agencies, and that community health and safety can be promoted through inter‑agency collaboration.
Our association feels strongly that any legislative provisions related to disclosing and reporting suspected cases of IPV must be based on the recommendations of those we are striving to support and protect.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Lanouette.
Kari Sampsel, Member, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians: I’m honoured to address you today on behalf of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians regarding a critical issue that transcends socioeconomic classes, ethnicities, gender and sexual orientation — intimate partner violence.
The gravity of this issue cannot be overstated, as it affects one in three women worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. In Canada alone, IPV accounted for one in four police-reported crimes in 2011, according to a national survey, demonstrating its pervasive nature in our society. This number has only increased since then, according to individual provincial data. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the prevalence of IPV, with shelter-at-home orders creating the perfect storm for abuse, leading to increased calls for help and decreased recognition of presentations in emergency departments. It is alarming to note that 44% of women murdered by their intimate partners had visited an emergency department in the prior year, yet only 5% of IPV cases were identified by emergency physicians.
IPV is not confined to physical abuse. It encompasses a spectrum of behaviours, including stalking, threats, workplace sabotage, financial control and blackmail. Moreover, survivors often present with chronic pain syndromes, mental health concerns and substance use disorders, underscoring the need for a holistic approach to their care, both inside and outside of the ED. These truly can be like finding needles in a haystack in the busy emergency department.
The economic impact of IPV is staggering, estimated at $7.4 billion in Canada alone, equivalent to the GDP of Bermuda. Yet, despite the high prevalence and profound societal costs, IPV remains under-recognized and under-reported, with only 22% of victims reporting incidents to the police or any other source of help.
To address this pressing issue, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, or CAEP, proposes the four following recommendations that were outlined in our recently published position statement:
One, universal screening in the emergency department. Screening for IPV should be standard practice in the emergency department, as it is a crucial point of entry to the health care system for many survivors. We are the port in the storm that is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Studies have shown that screening is beneficial, low risk, and can significantly increase the identification of IPV cases. Moreover, survivors of violence actually appreciate being asked. They are not fearful of it.
Two, appropriate medical care. Injuries should be assessed and treated in the usual manner, with a trauma-informed approach to examinations. This includes all members of the emergency department care team.
Three, referral to specialized care centres. Survivors should be referred to specialized IPV treatment centres where they can receive private, confidential and trauma-sensitive care tailored to their complex needs. These centres often provide a multidisciplinary approach, addressing social, forensic, psychological and safety aspects of care.
Finally, comprehensive documentation. Medical records should accurately document IPV-related incidents, using clear and factual language. This not only aids in patient care but also ensures that crucial information is available for legal proceedings, should they arise. As well, this is the sentinel where we find out how much the burden of IPV is in our health care system, because people often access it through the emergency department. If it’s not documented, it wasn’t done.
In conclusion, IPV is a pervasive public health issue that demands urgent attention through education and a sustainable care strategy. By implementing universal screening in emergency departments, providing appropriate medical care, referring survivors to specialized care centres and improving documentation practices, we can better support survivors and combat the epidemic of IPV in our communities.
I’d like to thank you for your attention to this important matter, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Sampsel.
Donna Stewart, Member, Canadian Psychiatric Association: Thank you for inviting the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the CPA, to provide feedback on Bill S-249.
To give my remarks more context, I would like to provide you some background on my work on intimate partner violence. In addition to being the lead author of the CPA position paper “Recognizing and Responding to Intimate Partner Violence,” I’m also the lead author of the World Psychiatric Association curriculum on intimate partner violence that has been translated into 10 languages and is in widespread use.
I am a university professor at the University of Toronto and the inaugural chair in Women’s Health. Today I’m speaking on behalf of the CPA, which is the national voice of Canada’s psychiatrists and psychiatrists-in -training.
The Canadian Psychiatric Association offers strong support for a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence. As you have just heard, IPV is an under-recognized problem that has enormous impact on the health and well-being of children, youth and adults. It is a major public health and social problem globally that results in significant personal, health, economic and social costs.
What are the elements that are key to a national strategy? It’s imperative that strategies that underpin the national strategy be evidence-informed. The CPA recommends that this concept be specifically referenced in clause 3(2)(a) of the bill, which requires the assessment of the adequacy of current treatments, services and strategies in preventing IPV and protecting and assisting the victims of IPV. Where evidence is lacking — and some of it is lacking — the national strategy should aim to identify IPV knowledge gaps to build a robust research agenda with short-, medium- and long-term priorities.
Of particular concern to us is the bill’s proposal to make reporting of IPV involving adults to police mandatory. The CPA strongly recommends against this approach. Research does not indicate that this is an effective preventive strategy, and there is a serious risk of potential harm. Research into the factors, however, that preserve the safety of a child and adult victim should be our priority.
Additional research is also needed into what interventions are effective for the prevention and treatment of victims and perpetrators. For example, while some advocate for universal screening, studies in Canada, New Zealand and the U.S.A. have found that this approach does not reduce IPV or improve the health outcomes. By “screening,” I mean a standardized questionnaire. I think asking about personal safety in the home and with your intimate partner is recommended, and that should happen, but standardized questionnaires are not helpful. Being alert to signs and symptoms and asking when it’s safe and appropriate to do so is highly recommended.
We need to know more about who experiences and perpetrates IPV. Who are the people most at risk? Indigenous women, gender and sexual minorities, people with disabilities, those with alcohol and substance abuse disorders, those who are low income, psychiatric patients and women in rural areas are among the populations at greater risk. National strategies need to have some targeted strategies to reach those at risk and other special populations. Consultation should be broadened to include public health and educational sectors. Ideally, a national strategy would include a coordinated, evidence-based, pan-Canadian public health campaign, where partnerships with public health will be key.
In terms of education, training for health and social service providers who support the victims of IPV is essential. The Violence, Evidence, Guidance, and Action Project, or VEGA Project, at McMaster University, funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada and launched in 2020, has created an evidence-based guidance and education resource to assist health care and social service providers in recognizing and safely responding to IPV and child maltreatment. VEGA resources are freely available online, bilingual and accredited. These resources can address the problem that there is currently very little content about IPV in the Canadian medical curriculum or that of allied health professionals such as nursing and social work.
While the bill proposes that representatives of health care facilities, medical practitioners and nurse practitioners be required to provide information on access to legal assistance to patients whom they suspect may be victims of IPV, the CPA recommends instead that clinicians receive mandatory education about how to refer to advocacy services that include housing, financial aid and legal services.
The CPA further recommends that consultation mandated by the bill include partnerships with schools, the legal profession and Indigenous organizations, including those that you have already listed — police services, health care facilities, advocacy groups and shelters — in the prevention of IPV and the protection of victims. Special attention to the adequacy of prevention strategies, treatments and services that target the populations that I just indicated are at higher risk is essential. As well, an assessment of the adequacy of training among those providing IPV services is very important.
Thank you so much, and I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Our final witness is Ms. Doris Grinspun from the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. You are welcome, but this week you are doubly welcome because it is National Nursing Week.
Doris Grinspun, Chief Executive Officer, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario: Thank you so much, chair, and thank you, senators. My name is Dr. Doris Grinspun, and I am the proud CEO of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, or RNAO.
RNAO represents 52,000 nurse practitioners, registered nurses and nursing students in Ontario. We are pleased to support your work on this issue and share with you RNAO’s views on Bill S-249 through the lens of our experience with and expertise on intimate partner violence, or IPV. You will have seen our written submission and our evidence-based guidelines — world renowned, using 20 countries and all over Canada, of course. The evidence that supports my remarks can be found in that submission and the one on best practices.
Our written submission outlines eight recommendations based on three fundamental points.
First, we support the bill — no question about that. We recognize the need and urgency for a national strategy on IPV with the concurrent funding necessary. We concur with the first recommendation of the jury in Ontario’s coroner’s inquest into the murders of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam: IPV must be declared an epidemic.
Second, the consultation process set out in the bill needs to be better informed by what we already know about IPV: that there are demographic and socioeconomic groups who are more vulnerable to IPV. These are women — mainly young women, economically disadvantaged women, women with disabilities and Indigenous women, in particular. There is also the 2SLGBTQ+ community. They need to be prioritized in the consultation process. The consultation process must be broadened to include all these groups, at least. As well, we know that health settings are where so much IPV can be detected and prevented. All nurses, including nurse practitioners, RNs and RPMs, can, with the right tools, play a critical role in detecting and preventing IPV.
My third point is this: We cannot wait for the results of a consultation process to take action on IPV. We must begin action on what we know now to prevent devastating harm. We must immediately develop and support the implementation of a national standard for universal screening.
In 2005 — updated in 2012 — RNAO developed a best practice guideline to facilitate routine universal screening by nurses in all practice settings. We are currently working on the next edition of RNAO’s best practice guideline on IPV and recommend it becomes a national standard.
Please immediately develop and support the implementation of a national standard for integration of primary care and social services, including the implementation of system navigators within the health system that would support IPV.
Effective universal screening in health settings implies service integration and navigation to a range of culturally safe social services, including housing and child care. Closer integration of health and social services is paramount to deal with all social determinants of health, ensuring persons receive timely access to the right services.
Next, provide a dedicated federal transfer to support public health programming that supports IPV prevention, disclosure and/or intervention — voluntarily disclosing. One good example in Public Health Ontario is the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program, which provides universal screening for health risks, including IPV, for families and children, from prenatal to school. This program has been effective in IPV detection and prevention through home visits and just recently received additional funding, which we support — and ask for more.
In closing, we note that you recognize that many people living in Canada experience or perceive health, justice and social services as systems of violence. That must change. This is understandable, given the historical and ongoing colonialism, systemic racism, gender and gender-identity discrimination and prejudice that continue to pose barriers for so many. Any national strategy must ensure culturally safe avenues for preventing and responding to IPV and trauma-informed approaches.
On behalf of RNAO and nurses in Ontario and Canada, I will be pleased to respond to any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Grinspun.
Thank you all for the opening remarks. We will now proceed to questions from committee members. Our time is constrained. Each senator will have three minutes for their questions and answers. That will take care of the list I have in front of me.
Senator Cordy: Thank you all so much for taking the time to be before this committee to speak on what is a horrendous issue, far too prevalent in our society.
Chief Lanouette, you suggested that only high-risk cases be reported. Dr. Stewart, you suggested better training and mandatory reporting. The rationale that the sponsor of the bill used was that no reporting is done for time after time, and when it finally is reported, it seems to be a first-time offence and the sentence is very light. How do we square it off? Part of me wants to say, “Let’s report it and get help for the victim,” but if it’s going to make things worse for the victims, then don’t report. But then you’re sort of left in limbo. I wonder if you could expand on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Lanouette: What we are actually saying is that reporting can happen. We disagree with the obligation to report for the reasons I outlined earlier. The victims — whom I met at one time, whom my colleagues meet and whom shelters deal with on a regular basis — have often said that if hospitals, doctors and nurses were required to report cases of domestic violence, they might choose not to opt for care. We believe that significant work must be done to raise awareness among doctors and nurses.
In several Canadian provinces, as soon as a case of IPV is reported to police, there’s a duty to act. However, in this context, a victim who decides to meet with police is aware that they are bringing in the justice system. She makes the choice, because she is ready to take that step. If she goes to the hospital, if she reports a domestic violence situation and is immediately referred to police without being ready, she won’t want to cooperate and testify. In the end, we won’t be able to help her. That is why we would rather take the route of awareness and education. If hospital treatment leads to adequate support, that’s even better.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you all very much for being with us.
Chief Lanouette, you mentioned assessing risks as a very important aspect, and Dr. Sampsel, you talked about universal screening. Universal screening and assessing risk both require data. They both require a screening tool, a protocol in order to evaluate. Assessing risk is part of the way to develop universal screening. That’s my understanding of how these things work. What I would like to know is how successful you are in developing a universal screening. How easy is it to collect data? Is there data? Maybe not. I’m sure it’s very challenging. I think I’ll start with you, Dr. Sampsel, and if I have any time, I’ll move to Chief Lanouette. Thank you.
Dr. Sampsel: Thank you, Senator Seidman.
With universal screening, there are a lot of tools, as Dr. Grinspun had said before, but they are three to four pages long. This is something that, if you have ever been to an emergency department, is not functional.
What I have taught and what a lot of people have developed in their own kind of ways of asking this — and I’ve been teaching this for 20 years to as many people as will listen to me — is two simple, quick questions: Do you feel safe at home? Has someone hurt you? Those are the questions we ask because it’s accessible language. People don’t always think of themselves as abused. If you use the “abuse” word, you may miss someone.
Now, how successful is it in implementation and how do we study these numbers? Is it darn near impossible? Once again, I’ve been doing this for 20 years, and it all depends on what is put into a medical record and what you can pull out of a medical record, which has significant limitations for a myriad of reasons, such as busyness, documentation or people’s fear of labelling someone. If you’re listed as intimate partner violence and that chart is accessible to the abuser, what happens then? The risk of fatality is eightfold at the time of disclosure.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Chief Lanouette, how are you assessing risks?
[Translation]
Mr. Lanouette: In Canada, police officers have several tools to assess risk in cases of domestic violence. Currently, the weak point of risk assessment is that it’s mainly based on the physical component. We’re working with the association to create a tool more closely linked to screening coercive control, which is therefore much broader than the physical component. Our partners in England developed these kinds of tools.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much.
Senator Mégie: My question is for Mr. Lanouette. Considering the epidemic of femicide in Quebec, beyond screening — I don’t know if this component is well structured — are there tools or regulations you’d like to see included in the bill to give police officers more effective means to intervene?
Mr. Lanouette: We have to continue with awareness and prevention and, in this context, it’s necessary. I agree 150% with everyone who is here to say that domestic violence is a national problem and we have to do everything to end it. Above all, we have to facilitate communication between institutions. We specifically mention it in our brief when we talk about the Privacy Act. In certain cases, it becomes a barrier to sharing information between police, the health care system and the education system. Yes, there are channels, but they’re very limited. We need to be able to broaden those channels; that would be an interesting feature.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Colleagues, please remember that we have witnesses on video conference as well.
Senator Moodie: I wanted to pursue a little bit more one of the suggestions Dr. Sampsel brought forward about specialized IPV centres. The model exists in Ontario for children where, if they suspect a child of abuse and neglect, the Hospital for Sick Children provides that link. One, it provides care and assessment. Two, it connects you to the support community, the police, the scans and so on. The model exists. The data can sit there. It can be shared, if needed, in the future, if this happens again and again. It can be held privately, so it doesn’t have to be the first time turning up in the justice system. If we were to establish these, how do you see this unfolding? What is the founding model? Where would they be located? How would we get this established across jurisdictions at the provincial level?
Dr. Sampsel: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
There is actually an adult version of this as well in Ontario, in particular — this is where I practise. It’s through the Ontario Network of Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence Treatment Centres, of which there are 38 across the province and are located geographically to serve the rural and remote as well as the urban communities within Ontario. Across Canada, it’s a little more sparse. Ontario probably has the most organized network at this point, and they do all the same functions as child protective services.
In Ottawa here — this is where I practise — I ran that program for 16 years on the adult side, and we considered the CHEO program our sister program. It runs and functions exactly in the same way. It has the same holistic care and attachment to social services, housing, police, all those kinds of things. There is a database that keeps information that is safe and secure within, and it’s within a health care institution.
Senator Moodie: One of the problems with this model is it’s very limited. It’s an acute care hospital problem.
Dr. Sampsel: That’s true.
Senator Moodie: In your vision, is there a way to put this in communities in a way that a visit to a doctor in a centre doesn’t become a red flag for the hospital, nor the department?
Dr. Sampsel: That is extremely challenging, given that everybody operates in their own systems and their own electronic medical records. Even getting amalgamation of that is almost impossible.
We welcome community doctors because we have a lot of infrastructure within the hospital. It is a barrier for people to come to the hospital. As people have mentioned, that can be an area of trauma that is difficult for them. However, we have security services and other things that someone’s individual office may not have. It’s very difficult to get it out to the community. It would be ideal to have finger-touch access everywhere, but I think it would be challenging to implement.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thanks to everyone for being here today.
We are studying Bill S-249. I want to ask you specifically — we have to decide on this bill — what should we do with the bill? I’m going to be really specific. Should we pass it as is, should we not go ahead with the bill unless there are changes, or should we not go ahead with the bill at all? I say this in the context of the fact that the federal government has a huge action plan on gender-based violence with $800 million put into that plan, some of which has been spent, some others not.
Dr. Sampsel, with the three questions that I have asked, what do you think should be done with the bill?
Dr. Sampsel: I think one word needs to be changed, and that’s “mandatory” for the reporting.
Senator Dasko: Just one word.
Dr. Sampsel: In particular, the mandatory reporting is incredibly difficult. For all the reasons that all of the witnesses have said here, the danger is still with the survivor of violence. There are not systems in place right now to guarantee the safety both to their life and the safety of their — we call it morbidity — so housing, school, children and pets. That does not exist. If you make it mandatory to report, and we as physicians are used to mandatory reporting under certain circumstances, mandatory reporting makes it very high-risk for that survivor themselves. It doesn’t necessarily result in deterring the violence in the first place. It actually can make it worse. That’s the piece that I find difficult within the bill.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Chief Lanouette, you mentioned in your comments that you thought the bill should be aligned with the action plan. Can you just briefly say why and how that is?
[Translation]
Mr. Lanouette: We have to ensure that what we’re doing lines up with the national strategy. The bill and the strategy need to be connected. I agree with what was said earlier, that we should remove the obligation, but personally, I think it’s important to align the bill with the national plan.
[English]
Senator Dasko: So to put it within the national plan, is that what you mean?
[Translation]
Mr. Lanouette: There are many options. The minimum is to ensure that the strategy addresses the national plan’s components. Components are included in the national plan. I imagine that this strategy would address points A, B and C in the national plan, for example. At the very least, there should be a connection.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Dr. Stewart —
The Chair: I’m sorry, Senator Dasko, you’re out of time. It is an important question. I would love to get the people on video to also respond to it, but perhaps in another way.
Senator Osler: I would like to request that three of the four organizations provide a written response to my questions which I will read into the record. I have a live question for RNAO, with permission.
Let me start with the chief of police. Bill S-249 proposes mandatory reporting to police of suspected IPV. For some people, including racialized and Indigenous persons, police services may represent an element of trauma. How could you see this clause affect racialized and Indigenous victims of IPV?
For psychiatrists and emergency physicians, in your specialties, is there mandatory training and assessment on gender-based violence, including IPV and coercive control, trauma-informed care, and risk and safety assessments of patients suspected to be victims of IPV?
For RNAO, Bill S-249 proposes the requirements for health professionals to make a report to police if they suspect that a patient is a victim of IPV. What is the current training done in nursing schools to ensure nurses can identify signs of intimate partner violence, Ms. Grinspun?
Ms. Grinspun: Thank you so much for the question.
The training is minimal. However, most nurses do use it. This is why we’re asking that it become mandatory in training at the very least. In the evidence-based guideline of RNAO, there is universal screening as mandatory in a softer way than our colleagues already had discussed, but not mandatory reporting. I don’t think you will hear any expert talk about mandatory reporting.
We also believe it needs to expand to primary care, not only to hospital care. It must be the practice of every single nurse practitioner, RN and physician in primary care. They are well equipped to do that. That’s where you will deal with prevention and with amelioration in a much better way than in an emergency room when things are too late.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We appreciate your written responses to Senator Osler’s questions.
Senator Burey: Thank you very much for your testimony and for talking about this very important topic.
I was involved in creating our children’s response to sexual abuse in my community, out of which grew the adult response. They are co-located at the same place. Thank you again for your work. I know about the connection.
My question is really for all the witnesses, and it goes back to Senator Dasko’s question about the cohesiveness of already having a National Action Plan to end Gender-based Violence and this bill that is before us. In a brief to our committee, the women’s centre for social justice known as WomenatthecentrE recommended that the bill be reformulated into an act respecting the National Action Plan to End Gender-based Violence, explaining that Bill S-249 should use the existing federal government’s national action plan framework to feed into this plan. What is your opinion about amending the bill to enshrine the federal National Action Plan in legislation?
The Chair: To who is that question?
Senator Burey: I would ask Chief Lanouette first, because I think that’s one of his recommendations, and whomever else wants to comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Lanouette: In our case, it is indeed somewhat like what I was saying earlier. At the very least, this strategy must be part of the national plan and address some of the national plan’s recommendations. That’s the crime prevention committee’s recommendation regarding this bill.
[English]
Senator Burey: Should we be amending the bill to enshrine that National Action Plan?
[Translation]
Mr. Lanouette: Absolutely, yes.
[English]
Senator Burey: Are there any other comments?
Dr. Stewart: I think we have said that there are certain aspects of the current bill that need to be modified and, if it aligns better with the national strategy, that makes good sense.
Ms. Grinspun: We will add to that.
At the very least, they need complete alignment, if not also enshrined, as long as we do not delay action. We know a lot already about IPV. We need to act urgently. It is a massive epidemic, and we need to act across all health care sectors, not focus only on hospitals, and across a broader range of professionals — physicians, social workers, nurses, RNs, RPNs, nurse practitioners. We all need to be equipped to do universal screening and to support IPV persons.
We also need to broaden to the groups that we mentioned. The bill needs to broaden the spectrum in addition to Indigenous women to women from other vulnerable groups, including women who come from a variety of countries. Newcomers in particular from socio-economic disadvantaged groups need to be supported from the get-go.
The Chair: Thank you colleagues.
This brings us to the end of our first panel. I would like to most sincerely thank all our witnesses in person and on video conference. You have contributed a great deal to our understanding of this bill and the context.
For our next panel, we welcome, by video conference, representing the Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative, Katreena Scott, who is also a Collaborator and Academic Director, Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children; and Patrina Duhaney, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary. Thank you both for being with us today. We will begin with the opening remarks from Ms. Scott, followed by remarks from Ms. Duhaney.
Katreena Louise Scott, Collaborator, and Academic Director, Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children (CREVAWC), Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative: Thank you very much, honourable chairperson and members of the committee. As you said, I am Katreena Scott, the Academic Director for the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children, which is one of the alliances of five gender-based violence research centres across Canada set up originally as part of the response to the Montreal massacre. These centres work nationally and internationally to create and share knowledge on gender-based violence that connects research, policy and practice and centres those voices of survivors and their experiences.
I was asked today to testify about CREVAWC’s work on the multi-year SSHRC-funded partnership grant entitled, “The Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative with Vulnerable Populations.” This project ran from 2015 to 2021, led by Drs. Jaffe and Dr. Dawson and myself along with other co‑investigators from across Canada. It focused on four vulnerable populations that experience increased intimate partner violence and domestic homicide: Indigenous peoples; immigrant and refugee populations; those living in rural, remote and northern regions; and children exposed to domestic violence.
The work highlighted the unacceptably high rates of domestic violence and domestic homicide in Canada and outlined what needs to be done to create change. As other speakers have emphasized, rates of domestic violence and intimate partner violence are too high. Domestic homicide in particular is one of the most preventable and predictable forms of homicide, and yet over a 10-year period there were 718 cases of domestic homicide that involved 815 victims. Females made up 79% of the victims and children 11%. Just over a quarter of the cases were homicide-suicides, where perpetrators killed their partner and then themselves.
This data, like others, highlights that intimate partner violence is intricately linked with systems of oppression, and it often reinforces and perpetuates existing power imbalances based on factors such as gender, race, sexuality and status.
I have been interested in the conversations already about this bill. I will make a few comments that build on them.
First, those of us in the field were very happy to see the government invest in the National Action Plan to End Gender‑Based Violence. I think it’s very important that Bill S-249 complements and adds to this plan. It would be great for it to be able to amplify the work that’s already done as well as the findings from major reviews and inquests such as Turning the Tide report from the Mass Casualty Commission, the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report and other major reviews and inquests.
I hope that there is a possibility to make the NAP permanent and also to add accountability measures to it.
I think it’s also critical that the National Action Plan involve multiple parts of government. For far too often, the burden of protecting women and supporting victims of abuse and children has fallen on the shoulders of shelter workers, women’s advocates, women themselves and, in the case of Bill S-249, WAGE. This needs to be the responsibility of multiple ministries and parts of government, including WAGE, but also health, justice, labour and other ministries.
With reference to health in particular, it’s absolutely the case that health care providers need to recognize intimate partner violence and be a conduit for referral. Many victims of domestic homicide come into contact with health care providers in the weeks and months prior, so too do many perpetrators.
Interviews and work across Canada find that a consistent and empirically supported approach to IPV assessment and response is rare to find in the general health care sector. This means, in part, training, and we talked a lot about screening measures. In addition to the screening, there needs to be collaboration between agencies, path finding and multi-service agreements.
Finally, I agree that “mandatory” needs to be taken out of this bill. Survivors have said over and over again that there needs to be justice options aside from justice options. We need specialist services and providers who can engage with those who are using abusive behaviour and causing harm to promote change and accountability. We also need services that recognize and respond to infant, child and youth experiences of violence.
To conclude, there is every reason to expect Canadians to be able to find safety in their relationships. Health and social service providers should be expected to recognize IPV risk factors and warning signs, understand the dynamics of domestic violence and make referrals. We know what to do; it’s a question of having the resources and will to make it happen.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Scott.
Patrina Duhaney, Assistant Professor, University of Calgary, as an individual: Good afternoon, honourable chairperson and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Patrina Duhaney, and I am an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Calgary in Alberta. I was previously invited to provide expert knowledge in a recent session on the Alberta government’s 10-year strategy to end gender-based violence. I would like to thank Senator Manning for introducing this bill and those who have been actively engaged during this process. I’m pleased to have this opportunity to also share my knowledge on this important national initiative.
My research is interdisciplinary in nature, spanning the fields of critical social work, criminology, critical race studies, critical antiracism and Black feminist traditions. I conduct research that explores several key areas, including race, racism, racialization, domestic violence, policing and criminalization. I have conducted research pertaining to Black women’s unique experience of DV for over 15 years. Much of my research has examined the intersection between victimization and criminalization, thus the information I share with you is not only informed by own research but also extensive Canadian and U.S. data on Black women’s unique experience of domestic violence. Given my area of expertise, I will speak to those complexities that Black communities face to help inform this national initiative.
Oftentimes, government initiatives homogenize women’s experiences of DV without considering the role of intersecting identities in women’s lives, specifically the role of race and racism. It is only recently the Government of Canada has published disaggregated, race-based data that examines the experiences of racialized women. However, research conducted in Canada and the United States continues to focus most of their initiatives on White women’s experiences, which creates a significant gap in knowledge.
My research, along with that of others, such as Professor Crenshaw and Dr. Carolyn West, indicates that Black women have unique vulnerabilities. There are myriad forms of violence that complicate their experiences of domestic violence, including historical racial violence, cultural violence, institutional violence, structural violence and community violence.
Existing research shows that Black women are not awarded the same protection as their White women counterparts, and their stories are often trivialized, minimized and often not believed all together. Black women are often stigmatized as angry, and violence against them is considered to be provoked and warranted. Due to systemic anti-Black racism, they often navigate the violence they experience in isolation or rely on informal supports that might not be adequately equipped to support them.
The criminalization of domestic violence means that women are not only navigating their own well-being but choosing between their safety and providing for their children, and they’re often penalized for not leaving an abusive partner. For Black women, despite the abuse they experience, home might be viewed as a safe haven that protects them from the various forms of violence they are often subjected to outside the home.
There are several issues that must be considered. I commend the government for this important initiative. Mandatory reporting will continue to harm communities, however, that are already vulnerable. In particular, Black, Indigenous and racialized communities face significant systemic barriers when accessing services.
In the case of Black and Indigenous populations, they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and child welfare system. When they access services, the services are not always culturally appropriate or support these communities. Specifically, there are limited resources for Black women. Practitioners lack appropriate knowledge and training to effectively support communities. There is also limited funding provided to Black organizations to do DV work. Therefore, funding is required to equip these organizations with the resources to address DV in Black communities.
There is a need for more robust national disaggregated race‑based data that examines Black and racialized women’s unique experiences with IPV. Services and policies must extend beyond the criminal justice system and look at the intersection between women who are victims and also use violence to protect themselves against an abusive partner.
Also, government initiatives must find ways to actively engage men. There is also a need for more preventive strategies that look at young children and youth. Strategies must go beyond the criminal justice system, as I mentioned before, and really engage those communities that are most impacted. There must be a coordinated, multi-level and multi-sectoral national approach that includes all levels of government and key players from health, the criminal justice system, child welfare and education to be most effective.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Duhaney.
Colleagues, we only have two witnesses. We are back to a more leisurely pace for questions and answers. You will have five minutes each.
Senator Kingston: My original thoughts were for Dr. Grinspun, who is also a nurse, but I noticed that in Ms. Scott’s presentation, you talked about expanding what I consider to be access to care or first responder type of situations in terms of the victims themselves.
I would hope that in the deliberations of this committee, which I’m not a regular part of, that they will look at expanding from nurse practitioner out to nurses. One of the reasons that I say this is because we now have at the clinic where I used to work, the community health centre, a pilot going on that is actually funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The Fredericton Downtown Community Health Centre is one of the sites, along with two other sites across Canada, that have instituted what’s called the iHEAL program, which is nurse-led, but more than that, it is women led. The people who have accessed this program are referred by community partners. Often, the women are still living in their relationship, so it helps to provide them with information about the resources they could have to connect them with some resources that they want at that time. It provides a safety net, if you will, in the community.
I’m just asking maybe for Ms. Scott to elaborate on access in terms of how victims of intimate partner violence can receive the help they need when they seek it.
Ms. Scott: Yes. I think what I will be able to do is underline your first point. When we look at reviews of domestic homicide, if we look at inquests and past work, one of the most common and clear recommendations is that when victims access social service and health providers — whatever social service and health provider that is, in all contexts — those providers should be ready and aware of being able to understand the dynamics of domestic violence, recognizing key risk factors and warning signs for domestic violence and be able to make effective referrals to services.
If I could, I would add that some of the research we did on this work around generalist social service providers and health care providers was that in many cases, providers [Technical difficulties] and understand risk factors and warning signs. One question the committee was talking about is in terms of which particular screening measure and how do you do that initial question? That initial question, I would add, is linked to a whole other set of practices. Whatever initial question you ask, the next question is: What do you do about it? What is the process? Whom do you go to for supervision? How do you access the [Technical difficulties]? What kind of relationships are there between the hospital, the clinic, the doctor’s office and the nurses’ service to that next service? How well and how easy is it for survivors to access those services? Those other parts are just as critical to consider.
I would also mention that when we looked at the experience of generalist health and social service providers across Canada, that ability to have a conversation around risk factors and risk signs with a victim survivor of intimate partner or domestic violence was a lot greater than the ability to have that same conversation with somebody we’re concerned might be perpetrating abusive behaviour. Those conversations were not happening at all.
Senator Kingston: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question is for Ms. Duhaney.
You said that Black women were served less well. On what level is that the case? There are different steps: medical care, intervention by a social worker, then the involvement of police and the justice system. At what level is the barrier higher for Black women?
[English]
Ms. Duhaney: Thank you so much for your question.
When we think about the services that Black women often access, yes, they are accessing social services. They are accessing counsellors and so forth, calling the police force for support should they need support. However, when they are accessing these services, they often experience significant barriers. For example, because of systemic anti-Black racism, Black women are already at a disadvantage. Some — many — might not even call the police for help because there is a fear that, if they call the police, their partners will be treated poorly or they themselves might be arrested. That’s already an obstacle creating more vulnerabilities for them and making them more prone to further victimization.
Also, when they access certain social services, yes, those services might be available for all women; however, research shows — including my own research — that practitioners are not necessarily equipped to support these women when they access services. You cannot just use a universal approach to addressing domestic violence in Black communities. Some of my most recent research looks at the ways in which women talk about domestic violence. They don’t use these universal terms such as conjugal violence, domestic violence, intimate partner violence. They use other words. Unless a practitioner is trained to have that conversation with women, they might miss some really key nuances in terms of those unique experiences that a woman might have.
With respect to the criminal justice system, if a woman has had a negative experience with the police, she’s less likely to call the police in the future for support. Also, if they themselves have been charged, they are less likely to call the police in the future. That is just to give you a few areas that need to be improved.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you, Ms. Duhaney.
[English]
The Chair: I have a question for Ms. Duhaney. Thank you for bringing our attention to the role of social workers in this context. The bill, and it’s a short bill, requires the government to undertake consultations with a number of stakeholders, but it does not mention social workers per se. Would you recommend that the bill be amended to include language relating to consultations with social workers as well?
Ms. Duhaney: Absolutely. It’s really important to include those individuals who are on the ground, in the trenches, doing the work, and social workers often are providing therapeutic support to individuals who experience domestic violence, whether it is in a shelter setting or in a social service setting. That is definitely important.
The Chair: Thank you, and thank you for the research that you cited.
The bill also does not, as far as I can see, include any reference to data gathering. Would you recommend that we amend the bill to include a reference to data gathering so that we can proceed in the future with more information, data disaggregated and otherwise?
Ms. Duhaney: Absolutely. Even with my own research, I have had to rely on U.S. data to even inform my own research, which is quite difficult to look at — making those comparisons between women in the U.S. when we have the expertise in Canada that can conduct this research. There must be a requirement to collect data and to look at the unique experiences. Currently, there has been predominantly a focus on White women and Indigenous women, and then all racialized women have been grouped together, and these women have unique experiences. It’s really important to have disaggregated, race‑based data that examines these women’s unique experiences, how they experience domestic violence, their responses to domestic violence and how they might negotiate their own safety in their communities and outside their communities.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Cordy: My first question is to Ms. Scott. We’ve heard people say that there is an epidemic, and the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia spoke about domestic violence being an epidemic in Nova Scotia and, indeed, in Canada. How do we get the numbers or do we have the numbers to prove that, in fact, it is very prevalent in our society? Ms. Scott, you spoke about 79% of the victims are women and 11% are children. I wonder if you could start, and then Ms. Duhaney can follow.
Ms. Scott: Yes. When I talked about 79% are women and 11% are children, that is direct victims killed in domestic homicides. We understand that intimate partner violence is a gender-based issue.
I would say that work done by this government and by Statistics Canada on safety in public and private spaces, the General Social Survey on documenting rates of police-reported intimate partner violence over time, which has been on an increase now for seven years in a row, and documenting rates of domestic homicide in the femicide report and documenting the rates of femicide — there is ample data to support the statement that intimate partner violence is at epidemic levels. It should be considered a core and a very clear problem for Canadian society. We could add to that the percentage of justice time that is spent on intimate partner violence, the [Technical difficulties] time in health services that are either dealing directly with injuries or concerns, or indirectly with the impacts of intimate partner violence and gender-based violence, not to mention the rates at which mental health services are accessed as a result of the impacts of intimate partner and gender-based violence. The numbers are there to make that argument.
Senator Cordy: Dr. Duhaney, you spoke about looking beyond the justice system and how we need more options. I wonder if you could expand on that a little bit. We have heard references to that from others who appeared before our committee.
Ms. Duhaney: Absolutely. We have really great models with respect to Indigenous communities where we need to ensure that the initiatives are kept within these communities and for these communities to govern themselves. It’s really important that we consider more restorative justice processes. Even with my work, looking at the ways in which individuals are criminalized, there are folks in jail who could also benefit from restorative justice approaches. When I think of restorative justice approaches, communities are equipped with the tools to be able to do that; however, they lack resources to be effective in doing that job.
When we look at the ways in which domestic violence has been criminalized, yes, we’ve seen a significant reduction in the incidence of domestic violence over time. However, the issue is that people might not be reporting as much because of the ways in which it’s being criminalized.
Yes, I definitely think we need to have that piece of it, but we also need to look at alternatives to criminal justice approaches that continue to do significant harm to Black, racialized and Indigenous communities.
Senator Burey: Thank you again to the witnesses with so much expertise and research knowledge.
I wanted to home in on our bill and look at the section “Consultations,” which asks for consultations from representatives of groups who provide services to or advocate on behalf of victims of intimate partner violence. Now, part of the role of the Senate — as a new senator, I’m learning my role — we should represent populations who are at risk, vulnerable populations, minorities, racialized populations. Should we be more specific in spelling this out? Dr. Scott, you spoke about the populations who are at risk — people with disabilities, Indigenous, Black, LGBTQ. Do we need to be as prescriptive in the bill to ensure they are included in the consultations? This question is for both doctors.
Ms. Scott: Maybe I will start, Dr. Duhaney.
I think that part of the way I would answer that question is to think about how this bill is going to be aligned with the National Action Plan and the consultations that have already been done. It is absolutely important to be very strategic and to hear from specific populations that are most impacted to make sure that we centre and listen to the voices of survivors and of service providers for multiple different and diverse populations in Canada. Some of that work has already been done through the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, so we need to continue to build on what has already been recommended.
Ms. Duhaney: I share a similar sentiment, definitely. We need to look at ways to align with the national initiative. However, I find that if we don’t have things in writing, it could be business as usual, and people could gloss over really important pieces such as whose voices need to be at the table and whose voices need to be heard. When I look around the room in any space, I need to visually see people representing racial diversity. When we talk about the various communities that are most vulnerable, those individuals need to be represented. Those communities must be represented. If we need to be explicit, we should be explicit, because if we’re not, then we continue to have dominant groups represented.
Senator McBean: I’m listening to the two panels. Universally, we heard that mandatory reporting is super problematic, but I also hear this panel saying how data collection would be amazing for studying. I’m wondering if you can help me figure out the study. How do we know it’s an epidemic? How do we study it specifically versus in practice? We heard Dr. Sampsel say that questionnaires are super problematic. In the ER, basically they have time for two questions versus a multi‑page question.
Maybe I’ll start with you, Dr. Duhaney. How would you want the data collected? How would that satisfy both a duty to protect and privacy? How do we get all the information that helps without scaring people and getting them to acknowledge the problem that they are certainly facing?
Ms. Duhaney: That’s a really great question. I recently sat on a panel with the government where they were looking at ways in which we could collect disaggregated, race-based data on what that might look like. We were having a similar conversation in terms of we collect this information.
In the ER, I’m not sure to what extent people might be receptive to providing that type of information, especially in terms of their vulnerabilities already. I see that this data must be collected in various sectors and through various key individuals, whether it’s in the shelter system or in health care settings. I do not see this data being collected in one area.
In terms of looking at what the government has done and some of the recommendations I have made as well, there has to be transparency to bring those key individuals to the table and say, “How can we ensure what we’re doing in wanting to collect data is actually respectful and does not create more harm?” For me, it’s not just about just going ahead and collecting data. Even before that data is collected, we need to have individuals at the table to inform the collection of data and individuals who are going to invite key players in the community to inform what that data collection might look like, and the transparency as well. Oftentimes initiatives are done and there is a lack of transparency, and people are left in the dark and not knowing. I have provided information, so how will this information be used? How will this information help me? What impact will this information make? I think transparency is also key.
Senator McBean: Ms. Scott, do you have a thought about where you get your data and how it’s best collected?
Ms. Scott: I find it a bit of a challenging question because I think you really need to know what you’re trying to answer. Maybe the question here is, is there improvement in health care worker recognition and response to victims of survivors of intimate partner violence? Is that right? Is that the question for the data?
Senator McBean: I suppose. Does that health care worker have the right to identify this as IPV without the person who has been receiving it? I guess, yes.
Ms. Scott: I will come back to what Dr. Duhaney said around the value of openness and the value of community-based looking at data. I think about some of the effective community-based work that has been done around data from police, health care, schools and shelters so that the community itself comes together and says, “What is the situation with our child protection? What is the situation with our shelters? What is the situation with our police? Where is the lack of alignment? Why are there no referrals coming in?” If there are no referrals coming in from a health care site, we know that there needs to be more work done in that site to recognize and respond to the violence that is there, or if there are big disconnects in how the data is being collected, or if you can use an intersectional lens where certain populations are being recognized or served in some place not in others.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: My question is for Ms. Scott. We have been focusing so far largely on adults, but we know from studies on school-age children that about one in three youths surveyed have experienced psychological, cyber or physical violence in the past 12 months. Does this bill, in your view, adequately take into account the experiences of these youth? Are there any changes you believe might be needed to better support youth who have been victims of IPV?
The other question is, is there anything the bill should take into account when it comes to youth who faced this kind of violence, how we deal with them specifically and in an extraordinary way?
Ms. Scott: Can I thank you very much for bringing in the voices of infants, children and youth into this? We know from a broad survey that one of the most common adversities that is experienced by children in Canada is exposure to intimate partner violence in their homes. We know it is one of the main reasons children are referred to child protective services in Canada, and yet we have a massive lack of service provision that is specific to and understanding of the impact of exposure to intimate partner violence on children, let alone some of the other kinds of gender-based violence you just talked about in terms of exposure online, thinking about what might be happening within peer relationships or school relationships.
Does this bill adequately address the needs of infants, children and youth who are exposed to intimate partner violence? No, it doesn’t speak to their experience. They should be named. They should be part of the plan, and a National Action Plan to address gender-based violence has to always focus on what is needed to recognize and support infants, children and youth.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you to both witnesses for being here today.
My question is for Dr. Scott. Your written brief mentions that many abusers use the family court system as a way to continually harass and monitor their partner after separation. How could the proposed strategy in Bill S-249 affect these situations?
Ms. Scott: The proposed strategy, i.e., referral to legal support? You are right to point out that there are very important concerns around survivor access to family court. I applaud the changes that came into force in the Divorce Act that recognized the impact of exposure to violence and also recognized and named coercive control as something that needs to be considered. These are good legislative changes, and yet, right now, about half of women who are survivors or victims of intimate partner violence have to be self-represented in the family court process. There is a lack of assessments available for the impact of intimate partner violence on children, for example, and what needs to be considered as part of parenting plans and arrangements. Then, with the lack of resources, with the lack of legal representation, the capacity of an abuser to use the family court process against a survivor escalates.
Senator Osler: Dr. Scott, am I hearing that the strategy could, in fact, impact that harassment and monitoring adversely?
Ms. Scott: The strategy of referring survivors to legal support? I’m not sure that referral of survivors to legal support would impact them adversely. It’s just that there is not going to be legal support to refer them to.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Scott, I would like to follow up on that. It’s obvious that victims need access to legal support. It’s also obvious to us that it is not available and not accessible in many if not all parts of the country. If you look at that clause, how would you amend it? Or would you strike it simply because it’s not available and it’s a pipe dream? What would you advise us to do?
Ms. Scott: I’m going to come back to some of the things that previous witnesses also talked about, which is the need to connect survivors of intimate partner violence to specialist service providers in gender-based violence. That is not one service, and it is not one sector. It is those individuals who work and can help to navigate the complexity and the multiple systems that survivors may be involved with. That includes legal services, police, child protection, social work and services, and it includes health. Our shelters often play that kind of multiple service navigator role, but they need to be better resourced. There needs to be more resources put into community collaboration. We have heard over and over again how important it is to have coordinated and collaborative community-based work.
I don’t know what I would do if I were sitting in your place and looking at this provision. I agree, of course, people need legal support. There is great work being done by Luke’s Place to try to support advocates in being supports for survivors and to be that bridge. I think that’s a really good initiative, but there is not enough even there.
The Chair: Thank you very much to both our witnesses for joining us today. This has been fascinating and extremely useful.
Colleagues, this brings us to the end of this panel.
(The committee adjourned.)