Senator Pate: Thank you for that, Senator Gold.

Do you have any information or can you shed any light on when exactly we are likely to see Bill C-22 coming back to us so that people with disabilities can be pulled out of poverty?

Hon. Kim Pate: Senator Gold, my question is for you. Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act, arrived in the Senate. Even before the bill arrived, we were receiving calls, emails and messages urging us to pass the bill swiftly regardless of its shortcomings. The message was clear: The issue of poverty for people living with disabilities was urgent and pressing. Minister Qualtrough herself said that:

With Bill C-22, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a new benefit that will lift many working-age Canadians with disabilities out of poverty. I’m looking forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to keep the momentum up. In Canada, no person with a disability should live in poverty.

We gave the bill careful scrutiny and amended it to make it stronger.

Despite assertions that Bill C-22 is a priority for the government and given the opportunity to pass this stronger iteration of Bill C-22 with haste, why is it not yet on the projected order of business for the other place?

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as the critic — albeit a rather friendly one — of Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence. I first spoke to this bill on October 16, 2018, after its original introduction. We thank Senator Manning for all of his work on this — in collaboration with and inspired by the indomitable Georgina McGrath.

Bill S-249 focuses on the too-often irreparable harm caused by violence against women. It calls upon the federal government — in consultation with federal ministers and representatives of the provincial and territorial governments, as well as other relevant groups that provide services to survivors — to develop a national strategy to prevent and address intimate partner violence. Particularly in light of the horrific realities exposed by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, it is imperative that Indigenous women leaders and governance bodies be included.

The need for a comprehensive and holistic national action plan was highlighted by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, following her visit to Canada in 2018. Significantly, her findings have been underscored by too many inquests, investigations and inquiries — most recently, the Mass Casualty Commission.

Violence against women and intimate partner violence are pervasive, and we have consistently failed to offer adequate support to those in danger. The strategy proposed by Bill S-249 must interrogate the status quo, including economic, social, legal and health realities that facilitate continued victimization.

Honourable senators, if this initiative is to be more than well intentioned and informative, we will need to act with intention.

Thirty years ago, in 1993, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, or NAC — the largest national feminist organization of its time, with over 700 affiliated groups — formulated the 99 Federal Steps to End Violence Against Women. NAC recognized that violence against women is fundamentally and inextricably rooted in women’s substantive inequality. The strategy recognized that poor women, women with disabilities, women of colour, and Indigenous women:

. . . are more likely to be victim of assault, we seem to have difficulty seeing the advantage men have over these women and how those legal, social and economic advantages become part of the weaponry of violent attacks. Every kind of entrenched advantage (whether because he is of the dominant race or because he is a professional) is too often used to harm women. No program to end violence against women can be effective if it does not disrupt and transform those power relations toward equality.

These are true words 30 years later.

Today, we have the assessments of the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia and the inquest recommendations from the Renfrew County triple murder, or femicide — which is also the subject of the inquiry launched by Senator Boniface — as well as the May-Iles and countless other investigations and inquests.

Commissions and front-line, grassroots organizations agree that intimate partner violence and violence against women are, fundamentally, an issue of equality. The reissued call for a National Action Plan on Violence Against Women & Gender-Based Violence, coordinated by Women’s Shelters Canada and released in 2020, states that:

Violence against women (VAW) and gender-based violence (GBV) are not only stand-alone harms. They both express and re-enforce inequality; this is a crucial factor in how to anticipate, combat, and prevent violence against women and gender-based violence, namely, through holistic law and policy.

Senator Manning described violence against women as an urgent and widespread public health issue. Violence against women is also, fundamentally, a crisis of equality that manifests itself and is perpetuated in multiple spheres.

It follows that crime prevention or public health models alone are not sufficient. Upholding substantive equality requires reducing the costs and barriers associated with leaving abusive relationships.

Senator Manning also noted that violence against women is perhaps the most pervasive form of human rights abuse, knowing no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. This is true. We also know that violence against women disproportionately, and too often fatally, impacts Indigenous women, women with disabilities, women of colour, 2SLGBTQIA+ folks and, most particularly, women living in poverty and women who are marginalized and oppressed, primarily through men using and abusing power.

We must situate intimate partner violence and violence against women in the broader power structures and systems that enable ongoing violence against the most marginalized and vulnerable. We must move beyond temporary, targeted and restrictive solutions, and we must recognize the systemic inequalities that affect an individual’s ability to avoid or survive intimate partner violence.

We must also acknowledge the difficult truth that those who perpetrate violence are often themselves victims of abuse. A holistic strategy must ensure that survivors receive support as a means to disrupt intergenerational patterns of abuse.

As Senator Dalphond reminded us, in 2018, this bill was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, where it died because of the subsequent election. The reintroduction of Bill S-249 allows us to consider what has changed since 2018 and, tragically, what has remained the same or become worse.

Between 2018 and 2021 — unfortunately, these are the most recent statistics available — at least 251 people living in Canada were killed by an intimate partner. According to the 2019 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, “Approximately every 2.5 days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner.” This, colleagues, is femicide.

Those killed were predominantly women, and devastatingly, they were disproportionately Indigenous women. Indigenous women account for approximately 5% of women in Canada, but approximately 20% of women killed by an intimate partner. Worse yet, 12% of unsolved homicides involve non-Indigenous women victims, but 40% involve Indigenous women.

A strategy to address violence against women must reflect commitments by Canada to implement the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, including vital economic, social, health, legal and governance reforms. The National Inquiry was our country’s response to the “. . . staggering rates of violence against Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people,” and recognizes this violence as no less than genocide.

The COVID-19 pandemic also exacerbated inequality, and so, horrifically but not surprisingly, worsened violence against women. It became known as the “shadow pandemic,” a term that was adopted to capture this intensification of violence against women through a perfect storm of conditions perpetuating abuse, such as stay-at-home orders and closures increasing both the rate and severity of intimate partner violence, increased circumstances of isolation, intensified economic and other stressors and made services of support increasingly difficult to access.

A Toronto-based support group called Women at the Centre reported a 9,000% increase in calls for help by the end of 2021. A national strategy must account for the increased demand for support services in the years to come, the systemic gaps in support laid bare and exacerbated by the pandemic and the spectre of future public health and other emergencies.

Researchers at York University have also identified that the “pre-pandemic tendency of decision makers to focus on incident‑based physical violence instead of patterns of coercive control” heightens the risk posed to survivors by making it more difficult to prove the existence of violence in court:

Limited access to medical, counselling, mental health, and other services during COVID-19 negatively impacted women’s ability to prove domestic violence to the satisfaction of decision makers. . . .

A national strategy must re-evaluate what is needed to provide meaningful access to justice and safety for women and children.

A national strategy must also address social assistance, family law, child welfare, criminal law and civil protection orders — the domains of state action with which survivors of domestic violence most frequently engage — and must demonstrate sensitivity to the unique ways in which violence manifests in the aftermath of the shadow pandemic.

To seek help, survivors must be confident that social, financial and legal support is not only available, but also accessible. As the Mass Casualty Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and countless research works underscore, the shadow pandemic also exposed particularly insidious new tactics of monitoring and coercive control, which have been evolving with technology.

A national strategy must account for the duality of technology, simultaneously offering a lifeline to individuals in need of support and a new sphere for violence and abuse that constitutes an additional barrier to survivors’ ability to escape.

In 2021, police in Canada reported 114,132 victims of intimate partner violence — this exceeds the population of St. John’s, Newfoundland — and 2021 marked the seventh consecutive year that intimate partner violence increased in prevalence.

It is no accident that, at the same time, and as the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls underscored, the incarceration rate of Indigenous women continues to escalate. Indigenous women are too often jailed for incidents of personal violence, predominantly in response to or to prevent violence being perpetrated against them or others for whom they are responsible.

We know this, and we know that approximately 70% of incidents of domestic violence and 81% of incidents of spousal violence are never reported to the police. This is especially true for Indigenous women, who learn early on that the legal systems are unlikely to protect them. They are, consequently, essentially deputized to protect themselves. This reality also needs to be part of the development of a comprehensive plan to address violence against women.

We must also remember that statistics do not come close to painting the whole picture. The nature of intimate partner violence is such that it is too often hidden from view. It is covert. It is coercive. It is deplorable.

In exploring how intimate partner violence has continued to increase, both in prevalence and intensity, we must ask another difficult question: Why?

Senator Manning noted that those unfamiliar with power dynamics surrounding abuse may wonder why women do not simply leave these abusive partners. Those unfamiliar with racism or immigration insecurity may fail to understand the pressure on women in communities to not report for fear of the potential negative impact on victims and entire families. Those unfamiliar with poverty too often make similar assessments. Economic insecurity routinely and systematically restricts the choices of those who lack financial security and directly and negatively impacts equality.

The feminization of poverty is a devastating and compounding risk factor for individuals who are already subject to violence at the highest rates. As Senator Manning mentioned, Statistics Canada found that:

Indigenous women experience violent victimization at a rate . . . 2.7 times higher than that reported by non-[Indigenous] females.

Indeed, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls revealed, Indigenous women and girls are more likely than other women to experience violence and poverty. Indigenous women were also more financially impacted by COVID-19 than other Canadians, with 46% of Indigenous women reporting a moderate or major financial impact, relative to 34% of the broader Canadian population.

As the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls identified, in order to achieve substantive equality, we must provide guaranteed livable incomes to allow women and gender-diverse individuals to move out of poverty. The inadequacy and uncertainty of social assistance schemes were brought into plain sight as we recently debated the Canada disability benefit act.

This inadequacy must be part of the issues examined at committee review of this bill.

A 2012 study reported that over 80% of the costs of intimate partner violence in Canada — an estimated $6 billion per year — are borne by victims themselves in the form of medical interventions, lost wages, lost education, stolen or damaged property and pain and suffering.

According to a 2021 study by the Canadian Centre for Women’s Empowerment, 80% of survivors of intimate partner violence surveyed in the National Capital Region reported that their partner displayed more controlling and coercive behaviours related to their finances and economic stability during the pandemic. Horrifically, a striking 10% returned to their partners because of financial constraints.

Thirty years ago, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women’s 99 Federal Steps to End Violence Against Women noted:

Federal government initiatives must reflect the current facts that it is the vulnerability of women and children, particularly [Indigenous] women, women of colour, women trapped in poverty and women with disabilities that are the definitive factor in preventing this type of crime. Therefore, monies should be allocated directly to ameliorating those conditions. Monies must not be directed to police, jails, deputising the community, social worker programs, research on these vulnerable groups, or new bureaucratic bodies. Those measures do not reduce violent crime . . . .

This was reiterated at a public hearing of the Mass Casualty Commission by Professor Isabel Grant, who noted that “economic self-sufficiency for every woman in this country” is a vital part “of facilitating women’s abilities to escape both physical and sexual violence.” This perspective was reiterated today by anti-violence workers at our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Liberation from abuse requires choice. Poverty is antithetical to choice.

In addition to incorporating the findings of far too many commissions, investigations, inquiries and inquests, the strategy proposed by Senator Manning must account for the need to provide women and victims with financial autonomy and stability. A national strategy must acknowledge the inadequacies of existing social supports and assistance that underscore the need for measures like guaranteed livable incomes, health care, housing options, universal child care — ameliorative approaches that provide increased options for women to leave abusers.

Along with financial concerns, we must recognize the role of the housing crisis, homelessness and shelters with respect to violence against women and intimate partner violence. As Senator Manning noted, on any given night, 4,600 women and their 3,600 children are forced to sleep in emergency shelters as a result of violence. On a single day, 379 women and 215 children are turned away from shelters in Canada, usually because the shelters are full to capacity.

Women’s Shelters Canada reports that:

The lack of adequate shelter and housing options is one of the most significant barriers preventing women, girls, and gender-diverse individuals being able to leave situations of violence and rebuild their lives.

. . . Across Canada, 13% of homelessness shelter beds are dedicated to women, while 68% are co-ed or dedicated to men.

The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls noted that within Canada, “the lack of adequate services to welcome women victims of violence with their children,” especially Indigenous women, leads to concerns about losing custody of their children when seeking protection.

Of the 215 shelters that responded to the 2018 “Shelter voices” survey, 47 per cent declared that they had no space available, which resulted in 75 per cent of requests for residential services not being accommodated.

Furthermore:

Of the 552 shelters for victims of abuse operating in Canada in 2017-2018, just 6 per cent served women and children in indigenous communities.

Women and gender-diverse individuals — everyone — attempting to leave abusive relationships should have the power to do so. But they need the means to do so, and they need somewhere to go. The lack of accessible and affordable housing units makes people more vulnerable to precarious living arrangements and more susceptible to abuse.

Women with disabilities are at particular risk in Canada. As articulated by the United Nations Special Rapporteur:

Because there is a lack of accessible and affordable housing, women with disabilities are forced into institutions and become even more vulnerable to abuse.

Women with disabilities are twice as likely as women without disabilities to be victims of violent crime and to be sexually assaulted.

A national strategy must recognize affordable and accessible housing as an economic priority for the government to ensure that women and gender-diverse persons, particularly those with disabilities and particularly those who are racialized, are not subject to further abuse.

Another element that demands our attention is the role of the criminal legal system in worsening circumstances for survivors and rendering victims more susceptible to further violence. Far too often, the risk factors for victimizing go hand in hand with the risk factors for criminalization, as 91% of Indigenous women and 87% of women overall in federal prisons have histories of physical or sexual abuse. For most, this underlying and unresolved trauma had a significant role to play in their criminalization, whether due to the lack of support from health and social services prior to being in crisis or as a result of being charged with a crime while defending themselves or their children from an abuser.

According to the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, within Canada:

Indigenous women and girls . . . are three times more likely to be victimized by violence, including intimate partner violence . . . .

They are also approximately six times more likely to be a victim of homicide — also known as femicide, as I’ve already discussed — relative to the Canadian population. Of the incarcerated women in federal custody, 50% — and growing — are Indigenous.

The UN Special Rapporteur documented several additional patterns following her visit to Canada, namely, the victimization of women who request state protection against violence; the tendency of the best interests of the child when determining issues, including custody and access to be considered in isolation from abusive circumstances; and the lack of accessibility and inadequacy of legal aid services.

Furthermore, UN Special Rapporteur emphasized provisions in the Criminal Code requiring that judges consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment. She also noted that sections from the Corrections and Conditional Release Act designed to allow people to serve sentences in the community exist, but, unfortunately, this legislation is both underutilized and underfunded and often not communicated to the very women it is aimed at assisting.

As emphasized by the Special Rapporteur, there is an urgent need to provide alternatives to imprisonment and incarceration as a response to women with mental health conditions, especially those related to past trauma, and that incarcerating them actually violates international human rights standards. A national strategy must acknowledge the ongoing role of the criminal legal and prison systems in inadequate interventions to address the perpetration of violence, inadequate intervention to prevent violence and the worsening effects of abuse and violence for those who are victimized.

Furthermore, while abortion is not criminalized within Canada, there are both a lack of access to safe abortion services and ongoing instances of forced sterilization of Indigenous women, as we know well from our colleague Senator Boyer. Reproductive and sexual health should be part of a holistic strategy to address violence against women. The UN Special Rapporteur recognized these as part of the ongoing violence occasioned against women and girls within Canada, especially in the context of systemic discrimination, most particularly, against Indigenous women.

While international attention has been drawn to Canada’s ongoing epidemic of violence and abuse against women and girls, we have long had local voices, incidents and inquests alerting us to such danger. We need to listen to them. Following the coroner’s inquest into the triple murders of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk in 2015, Renfrew County named femicide as an epidemic and highlighted the urgent and irrefutable need for an all-of-government and all‑of‑system approach to end the violence against women.

Neighbouring Renfrew County, Lanark’s campaign is “See it. Name it. Change it.” It recognizes that when violence is seen, it must be named in order to create change.

We see it all the time. In the 52 weeks preceding Lanark’s declaration of an epidemic, 52 women within Ontario alone were killed — 52 femicides.

Honourable colleagues, let’s all insist on naming and changing these realities if we truly wish to develop a national strategy to prevent and address intimate partner violence and violence against women.

The Mass Casualty Commission reiterated the need for all levels of government to “declare gender-based, intimate partner, and family violence to be an epidemic” and the corresponding need for a “society-wide response” supported by “epidemic-level funding for gender-based violence prevention and interventions.” The report illustrates the central purpose underlying multiple proposals: the elimination of gender-based violence based in a commitment to equality, commencing with recognition of the underlying structural and systemic forces that enabled domestic and intimate partner violence to persist.

Let us take this opportunity to lay the foundation for a national strategy that is inclusive in its recognition of victims and survivors of gendered violence and specific in its identification of forces that must be dismantled to allow for substantive equality. Thirty years ago, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women recognized that ending violence against women required disrupting power relations towards equality.

Today, the message remains the same. The National Action Plan on Violence Against Women & Gender-Based Violence: Reissued Call and, this year, the Mass Casualty Commission renewed this call for substantive equality. Thirty years from now I hope we, or those who are here following us, can reflect back on this national strategy as the start of a monumental shift in our approach to gendered violence. Meegwetch, thank you.