- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
- Dec/7/22 7:10:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is with great humility that I rise this evening to speak to this very delicate, very sensitive issue. My opening thought for this emergency debate on the serial killings in Winnipeg is as follows: Attacking women and girls is the most effective way to destabilize a population, because it compromises its survival.
Jeremy Skibicki, a 35-year-old man, was charged with the premeditated murder of three indigenous women last week. Skibicki had already been arrested in May for the murder of another indigenous woman in the Winnipeg area. At the time, the Winnipeg police believed that there might have been other victims. Now their fears have been realized.
The accused describes himself as an official member of the far-right movement Holy Europe, which is openly pro-life, pro-gun and anarchist. Earlier this year, when he was first arrested, CBC examined Skibicki's Facebook account and discovered that his posts were rife with violent sentiments and anti-Semitic and misogynistic material.
In a press release, the Native Women's Association of Canada issued a statement on the new murder charges laid against the accused. The association pointed out that the most recent crime statistics released in 2020 tell us that the homicide rate for indigenous people is still seven times higher than for non-indigenous people. The fact that it remains so high is a Canadian human rights failure.
The government must not see the completion of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls as the end point, but as the starting point. These murders are proof that everything remains to be done.
The police still refuse to say that this violence was specifically directed towards indigenous women. We do not want to interfere in a criminal investigation, but four murders, four indigenous women, is significant.
In Quebec, the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is one that the government has always tried to ignore and gloss over by choosing to treat each disappearance and death as an isolated case. However, in 2014, the issue finally broke into the headlines as a potential systemic problem after the RCMP unveiled its figures on the number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The numbers speak for themselves, and they are chilling. A total of 1,017 indigenous women and girls went missing or were murdered between 1980 and 2012. There are still 105 women unaccounted for, who disappeared under unexplained or suspicious circumstances.
Between 2004 and 2014, as the murder rate fell across Canada, six times more indigenous women and girls were murdered than non-indigenous. Taking advantage of the momentum generated by the TRC's work, many groups held demonstrations on October 4, 2014, demanding a national inquiry into the causes of the disappearance and murder of indigenous women and a national action plan.
During one of those demonstrations, Béatrice Vaugrante, executive director of Amnesty International for francophone Canada at the time, emphasized that many UN, U.S. and U.K. bodies had asked Canada to put an end to violence against indigenous women. She considered this Canada's worst human rights issue and said the government's failure to recognize the magnitude of the problem and take action was unacceptable.
In October 2004, in response to the tragically high number of indigenous women being victimized, Amnesty International released a report calling for meaningful action and concrete measures. Pressure was mounting on the federal government, which until that point had ignored all calls for action. Less than a year later, in 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called for a national inquiry into the disproportionate victimization of indigenous women and girls. The national inquiry's final report was released on June 3, 2019.
Then, in 2016, following the disappearance of Sindy Ruperthouse, an Algonquin woman from Pikogan in Abitibi, near Val‑d'Or, the Quebec government launched the Viens commission. There were reports of a number of indigenous women in Abitibi accusing the police of physical and sexual abuse. Released in 2019, the report's conclusion highlights years of systemic discrimination against indigenous groups. The inquiry also calls for a public apology from the government for the harm done over time.
In October 2019, François Legault rose in the National Assembly and apologized on behalf of the Quebec government. The Government of Quebec is still reviewing the document's 142 recommendations for addressing the situation.
Five years after its initial report, Amnesty International published a second report entitled “No More Stolen Sisters: The Need for a Comprehensive Response to Discrimination and Violence against Indigenous Women in Canada” and highlighted the five factors that contributed to the phenomenon of violence against indigenous women.
These factors are the role of racism and misogyny in perpetuating violence against indigenous women; the sharp disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous women when it comes to the fulfilment of their economic, social, political and cultural rights; the disruption of indigenous societies caused by the historic and ongoing mass removal of children from indigenous families and communities; the disproportionately high number of indigenous women in Canadian prisons, many of whom were themselves victims of violence; and the inadequate police response to violence against indigenous women, as illustrated by the handling of missing persons cases.
The calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, presented as legal imperatives rather than optional recommendations, set out transformative measures in the areas of health, safety, justice and culture, including the following: establishing a national indigenous and human rights ombudsperson and a national indigenous and human rights tribunal; developing and implementing a national action plan to ensure equitable access to employment, housing, education, safety and health care; providing long-term funding for education programs and awareness campaigns related to violence prevention and combatting lateral violence; and prohibiting the apprehension of children on the basis of poverty and cultural bias.
While there is still an ongoing debate about whether it is appropriate to use the word “genocide”, I believe there is a general consensus on the term “cultural genocide”. In fact, we can now say that the federal government of the day and the clergy responsible for the residential schools deliberately attempted to assimilate or erase a culture. The government of the day was clearly intent on committing cultural genocide. It was an official policy, even. Under the guise of equal educational opportunity, the primary goal of this policy was to assimilate the children and eradicate indigenous cultures.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada is of the opinion that this policy of assimilation has had a negative impact on all indigenous peoples and has undermined their ability to thrive in Canadian society. In their descriptions of encounters, families and survivors who spoke at the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls consistently linked their experiences to colonialism, both historic and modern forms, in one or more general ways: historical, multi-generational and inter-generational trauma; social and economic marginalization; maintaining the status quo; and institutional lack of will. The Canadian government and the clergy planned this collective trauma with the ultimate goal of driving all indigenous communities to extinction. Those communities have since been left to deal with the consequences alone.
According to Viviane Michel, president of Quebec Native Women, it is essential that communities and families have an opportunity to be heard as part of any inquiry. She also said that understanding the deep roots of the systemic discrimination faced by indigenous women is crucial to ensuring their dignity and safety.
As we listen to the testimony of indigenous women, four types of violence emerge. The first is structural violence. There is also social, legal, cultural, institutional and even family violence. That last term is frequently used in an indigenous context to make it clear that violence affects not only couples, but also the children and potentially other people connected to the family. There is also personal violence. This type of violence covers actions such as physical violence, psychological manipulation and financial control and involves individuals. There may be some overlap that emerges from the facts of the Skibicki investigation. There is a recognizable pattern, an all-too-familiar pattern that Quebeckers can unfortunately relate to because of their own numerous femicides and the tragic death of Marylène Levesque in early 2020.
In conclusion, it is essential to recognize and understand the sources of violence and support indigenous peoples' efforts to rebuild. It is also essential to promote gender equality, support women's empowerment and establish a nation-to-nation partnership with indigenous peoples. The Bloc Québécois has been advocating for all these measures for years.
We did so during the election campaign, and we will continue to do so, because one of the major obstacles we are facing is the failure of the comprehensive land claims policy. That is exactly why the Bloc Québécois wants it to be completely overhauled.
I could go on at length about this, but I believe my time is up.
1534 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 6:48:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would have liked to hear the parliamentary secretary admit in the answer he gave me this evening that the government will think about the request of parliamentarians, who are unanimous about the fact that these athletes must be given a voice.
It is the Minister of Sport's responsibility to look into the management of sexual assault and sexual misconduct in sports for the good of the public. It is high time to act as a watchdog and recognize the distress and frustration felt by these athletes in the amateur circuit and by those who are overseen by programs subsidized by the federal government. The government must absolutely shed light on the management problems in sports organizations because this problem has been going on for far too long. We are talking about a right, and athletes are well within their rights to require such action from their government.
In closing, I would like to say that I am sincere in offering the Minister of Sport our full co-operation in this necessary modernization of the sport policy. I also want to remind her that she would benefit from the recommendations of such a commission because it could enable the OSIC to really protect athletes. A real culture change—
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 6:39:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the time that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Sport and I have been given to discuss and revisit the need to launch a public judicial inquiry into the toxic culture in sport.
My colleague might not be indifferent to this idea of bringing together athletes and experts in the culture of sport around an issue that seems to me more topical than ever.
I would ask him to share the testimony heard by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with the minister. I hope she will pay particular attention to the evidence given by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, or SDRCC, which admitted that it lacks the powers needed to respond adequately to athletes' complaints.
As it stands, what the work of parliamentarians has highlighted is that there is no place where athletes can feel confident in reporting their abuser. An SDRCC representative appeared before the committee today and talked about the lack of investigative mandate and her inability to intervene effectively. The SDRCC does not have the authority to enforce penalties and compel testimony or the production of documents in athletes' complaint cases. I would like to think that the message will be heard, and that athletes will not have come all this way in vain.
Is he at ease with the knowledge that there are predators acting with impunity who are not held responsible for their disgraceful behaviour towards athletes?
It makes no sense that the government is stubbornly refusing to open a public judicial inquiry. Athletes need to have faith in an organization that is dedicated to defending their rights, which is not the case at this time.
With all due respect for the work of the House, I would be remiss if I did not bring forward the requests of the athletes who proudly represented us on the international stage. We even welcomed them in this place with joy and pride. We remember the medals around their necks. Everyone was eager to welcome and congratulate them. We could show them the respect that they fully deserve.
Athletes need a recognized body that is able to receive their complaint. They need to have access to a resource person independent from the sports organization that they have a dispute with. They need a point of contact that will guide them through the process and help them get through the obstacles one by one and the fear of reprisals by organizations or people who abused them. This assistance plan needs to include legal services, psychological help, skilled people who are capable of helping people who experienced trauma. It is hard enough to experience abuse and mistreatment; imagine the courage and nerve it takes to face one's abuser.
As long as the power imbalance established by national sports organizations and the inaction over the years by Sport Canada is seen or perceived by athletes, reconciliation will not be possible, the athletes will not file complaints and they will not break free from this culture of silence.
Would my colleague convey that message to the minister and make sure she is apprised of the situation immediately?
If the government really wants to make things better, it will have to come up with a mechanism by and for athletes and stop thinking in terms of sport and structure. That is the real problem. We need an independent public inquiry to do this work and bring the two sides together. We need transparency in order for people to learn about problematic situations and consider them with more empathy and understanding. We have to be able to identify what works well and what needs to be reconsidered in whole or in part.
The independent public inquiry we need is an opportunity for enrichment, a pivotal moment that will make a public statement to the effect that this is not acceptable and we will not let it happen again. Yes, sports organizations and federations will be put on the spot. Yes, we will have to name things, and that might make some people uncomfortable. However, there are things and stories that everyone must take the time to absorb, and this transition will not happen behind closed doors in government officials' offices.
709 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for her speech.
As the critic for seniors, I was touched that she mentioned them in her speech and that she addressed the issue of indigenous women and girls.
Bill C-29 deals with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. However, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. What is stopping the government from implementing them?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 3:01:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is not what they want. The truth is that the victims have lost confidence in this system and they are losing confidence in this government. They are the ones who are asking the government to go one step further and to set up an independent commission of inquiry. These victims want all sport organizations to clean house.
There is already an investigation into Hockey Canada. Now, gymnastics is in the hot seat in committee. We cannot go through all of the sports one by one as cases of abuse make the headlines. We need general recommendations to change the widespread toxic culture in sport federations.
When will an independent commission of inquiry be set up?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 3:00:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberals opposed establishing an independent commission of inquiry into the toxic culture in sport organizations. I am shocked.
Seriously, after the Hockey Canada scandals, after the gymnasts' testimony, including in committee, on the sexual abuse they suffered, after the group Global Athlete warned us about cases of abuse in football, skiing, swimming, figure skating—the list goes on and on—what more will it take for the government to launch an independent commission of inquiry into the abuse happening in all sports?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/22 3:18:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That this House call on the government to urgently establish an independent commission of inquiry into the toxic culture in Canadian sport organizations.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-20, an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.
I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill at second reading. This bill would give citizens recourse against the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, which can, on occasion, abuse its authority.
There is currently an independent oversight mechanism in place, but its mandate covers only matters of national security, so it needs to be expanded. Citizens who wish to file a complaint must do so directly to the CBSA, but the information is not public and, because the mechanism is internal, it is not totally neutral and objective.
As a result, there is no external review body to deal with public complaints against the CBSA, and that is what this bill seeks to correct. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑20 at second reading because we believe that an independent complaint process is both necessary and good for the public. As my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said, it was in 2004, 18 years ago, that Justice O'Connor recommended that an independent process be put in place to handle public complaints against the CBSA.
For example, in early January 2020, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found significant flaws concerning searches of travellers' electronic devices, which demonstrated the importance of having an independent body to review complaints. The bill must be referred to a committee quickly so that it can be studied and the concerns of different groups, including unions, can be heard. I will come back to this later to explain what this will change, and I will speak about the perspective of unions and victims.
First, this bill seeks to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act to change the complaints process for citizens and provide the opportunity for travellers to file complaints against CBSA officers.
This bill is similar to Bill C‑3, which was introduced in the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C‑98, which was introduced in the 42nd Parliament. Both died on the Order Paper for the sole reason that they were never a priority for the government. All parties supported Bill C-98, but we never voted on Bill C‑3. We are wondering if this bill will now be a priority.
Bill C‑20 contains a number of things. It replaces the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with a new body called the public complaints and review commission, or PCRC. This new body will be mandated to review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, personnel. It will also conduct reviews of specified activities of the RCMP and the CBSA.
The bill authorizes the chairperson of the PCRC to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes or the imposition of disciplinary measures in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints. It amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the CBSA.
The most important point of this bill is that it enables this new body to review the CBSA's activities and to investigate public complaints involving both officers and employees. Under Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission can receive complaints from the public about the RCMP or the CBSA, but the complaints will generally be sent directly to the RCMP and the CBSA first for an initial investigation. If the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation of the RCMP or the CBSA, then they can ask the PCRC to look into it. Basically, here is what that means.
In such a case, the PCRC could present its findings and make recommendations. The RCMP or the CBSA would have to respond in writing to the PCRC reports by the deadlines set out in the acts and regulations. An external mechanism will therefore be put in place.
What is more, complaints related to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages or the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will not be dealt with by the PCRC. However, the PCRC will forward any such complaints to the appropriate organizations.
The PCRC will be made up of civilians who are not former members of the RCMP or the CBSA. This is an independent external process. Another thing about this bill is that the response timelines for the RCMP will be codified, because many felt that the RCMP responded too slowly to the reports of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or CRCC. The bill will therefore replace the CRCC with the PCRC and a deadline will be imposed.
The bill also requires the commissioner of the RCMP and the president of the CBSA to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety outlining what the organizations have done during the year to address the PCRC's recommendations. The minister will be required to share the report with the House of Commons and the Senate within 15 days.
There will also be a more targeted collection of information to determine whether racism against certain groups is an issue. It will be documented. The bill also calls for a public education and information campaign to inform travellers of their rights.
The PCRC will be responsible for tracking serious incidents—such as a death, serious injury or violation of laws—and making them public. It may send an observer to ensure that CBSA and RCMP investigations are conducted impartially. The PCRC may review, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister of Public Safety, any RCMP and CBSA activity that is not related to national security. The reports would include findings or recommendations on RCMP and CBSA compliance with legislation and directives, and the adequacy, appropriateness, sufficiency or clarity of RCMP and CBSA policies, procedures and guidelines.
One difference from Bill C-3, which was a similar bill introduced in the 43rd Parliament, is that the PCRC will be established by a specific piece of legislation, whereas in the previous version, it was established by amendments to existing laws.
The PCRC will not be able to compel the CBSA and the RCMP to take disciplinary action, but both agencies will be required to report to the minister to justify their response to the recommendations, and these reports will be made public 15 days after the minister receives them.
The bill aims to create an independent process for reviewing complaints and the work of the Canada Border Services Agency. This new entity, the public complaints and review commission, will also replace the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This new commission, the PCRC, will deal with both the RCMP and the CBSA.
The new entity created by Bill C-20 will make it possible to file complaints directly with the CBSA and directly with the PCRC, depending on the complainant's preference. The complainant decides. If an individual is not satisfied with the response they get from the CBSA or the RCMP, they can ask the PCRC to review a complaint that has already been filed.
The process is nevertheless long and complicated. There is a good chance that most individuals will give up before the end of the process. For example, if an officer makes a sexist or racist comment towards a traveller, filing a complaint with the CBSA, waiting for a response and then sending the complaint to the PCRC could be more complicated and demanding for most travellers than just ignoring the comment, which is quite sad. The committee will have to examine whether the process proposed by Bill C‑20 is adequate or if it should be revised.
Creating this new external body is necessary, according to Mary Foster, from Solidarity Across Borders. In 2019, she said that “making a complaint to the CBSA about the CBSA doesn't really lead anywhere”. Having the option of challenging the findings of an investigation is therefore essential to maintaining public trust.
All parties supported Bill C‑98 in the 42nd Parliament, but, as I said earlier, a vote was never held on Bill C‑3.
Now we are once again discussing a bill that is good for the public because the existing system does not include an adequate complaint mechanism for people. Civil liberties groups have long called for the creation of an independent complaint-handling body like the one for the police.
For example, under the Access to Information Act, the Canadian Press obtained a list of complaints that travellers submitted directly to the CBSA.
According to the documents, in 2017-18, nearly 900 complaints were filed, about 100 of which were deemed founded, including cases of travellers being on the receiving end of border officers' racist or rude comments. Complaints against the CBSA are currently handled internally, with little transparency. That is the problem Bill C‑20 may fix.
Second, from the union's perspective, the Customs and Immigration Union's national president, Mark Weber, is concerned that Bill C‑20 could put more pressure on the labour-management relationship, which the union says is already strained. We have to keep that in mind.
He says that officers are placed on leave without pay, sometimes for a year or more, pending the outcome of investigations. He also notes that customs officers frequently work overtime and can be exhausted, which does not help. We need to ensure that customs officers have adequate resources, which the Bloc Québécois often asks for, considering the government's lack of interest in our borders. We have been asking for this frequently and for a long time. The Bloc Québécois would like the union to be involved in the process that leads to passing Bill C‑20, particularly in committee.
The staffing shortage at the CBSA is a well-known problem. This is causing delays and tension between officers and travellers. The government will also have to address this problem.
The CBSA has a great deal of power, including the power to detain and search Canadians and to deport people. It is therefore incomprehensible that the CBSA still has no external investigation mechanism.
In its legislative summary, the Library of Parliament cites the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-Canadian citizen who was arrested during a layover in New York on his way home to Canada.
In 2004, a commission of inquiry into the Arar case led by Justice Dennis O'Connor suggested creating a new civilian agency to oversee the activities of both the RCMP and the CBSA, as I said earlier.
In other words, 18 years later, the CBSA still does not have one. Only the RCMP has this external oversight mechanism. However, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency is already responsible for overseeing national security activities, and only national security activities.
I want to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois is not putting the blame on CBSA or RCMP officers as a whole, nor is it putting the CBSA on trial. Rather, we feel the government is responsible for the lack of oversight over the CBSA and the lack of transparency, which is inappropriate for such an important agency. We think the Liberals and the Conservatives should be held to account for tolerating all this for so long.
As I said—
1978 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women and the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I rise today to speak to Bill C-233 yet again.
The bill is now at report stage. It amends the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device. The bill also amends the Judges Act to provide for continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control.
I can confirm that the clause-by-clause study was conducted in a truly collaborative spirit at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Its members were focused on one thing only, because the lives of women and children, as well as men, let us not forget, are at stake.
At the risk of repeating myself, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-233. I will begin my speech by talking about the important role of this bill, with its inclusion of electronic monitoring devices, in addressing intimate partner violence. I will then talk about coercive control and will close by making a few more proposals on how to complete the continuum of assistance for women and children who are affected by intimate partner violence.
First, let us look at the role this bill can play in cases of intimate partner violence. Recently, Quebec called upon Ottawa to act. A few days ago, the Quebec public security minister explained that electronic monitoring devices could be issued only by authorities under Quebec jurisdiction and for provincial sentences. That means that only provincial sentences of two years less a day will be covered and that offenders who are given longer sentences in federal penitentiaries will be exempt. As a result, last week, Minister Geneviève Guilbault openly invited the federal government to follow Quebec's lead, while reminding the government that Quebec has control over what falls under our jurisdiction. Ms. Guilbault said that she spoke about this with the federal public safety minister.
With Bill C‑233, electronic monitoring devices would be used in cases involving serious sex offenders who have received a sentence of more than two years, to be served in a federal institution, because sentences under two years are served in institutions run by Quebec. The federal government had little choice but to follow suit, especially since electronic monitoring devices are already used in other countries, like Spain and France. We should be able to build on their experiences. I have also spoken with the Australian consulate about making coercive control a criminal offence. We will will come back to this.
The other problem has to do with the Internet and the technological gaps, since, realistically, broadcasting and transmitting services are not going to be implemented across Canada in the short term. A number of witnesses expressed concerns in committee about how this would affect the implementation of this measure. They told us that a woman's postal code should not determine whether they can feel safe. Nevertheless, this device must in no way be used as an excuse to reduce funding for other measures to combat domestic violence. These support measures are managed by the Government of Quebec, and Quebec must continue to receive the money required to run them.
For the other part of the bill, it is important to note that it addresses coercive control only with respect to the education of judges. The Criminal Code amendment proposed in this bill does not criminalize coercive control even though numerous experts, some of them internationally recognized, made that recommendation to the status of women and justice committees a number of times. The experts emphasized that the notion of coercive control is inextricably linked to the definition of intimate partner violence and that acknowledging this notion in Canada's Criminal Code would trigger the awareness and training mechanisms needed by the professionals and people on the ground who work directly with victims along with the funding to pay for it.
Let us not forget that family violence needs to be part of the conversation. In addition to the women who were murdered, 14 children were killed last year in intimate partner violence incidents.
Regarding the importance of the device, Ms. Lemeltier from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale cautioned that we must not think that intimate partner violence ends once the woman leaves the family home, because that is not true. The violence can morph into what is referred to as postseparation spousal abuse. It can manifest in many ways, including harassment on social media, maintaining financial control, withholding a woman's immigration documents or denying supervised right of access, which impacts children's safety.
This controlling behaviour continues and gets worse over time. The period after a separation is the most dangerous time for women and children. The amendments proposed in the bill to the Judges Act are therefore in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's positions in that they help enhance the protection of complainants. The issue of victims' safety is crucial.
This amendment would expand judges' education on sexual assault so they have a more in-depth understanding of intimate partner violence, by adding a component on coercive control.
It is reasonable to believe that a better understanding on the judges' part will improve the protection and safety of victims of intimate partner violence. That is something that I insisted on adding in our committee study.
My party welcomes any measure designed to increase the safety of victims of domestic violence. It also condemns any violence between intimate partners, the victims of which are most often women. We stand in solidarity against intimate partner violence and femicide, both of which have sadly and unacceptably increased during this pandemic.
We also want an inquiry into how to prevent, eliminate and create a legislative framework for the form of family violence known as honour crimes. These are our other hopes for the future.
Furthermore, we demand that the federal government contribute financially to the Quebec government's efforts in the area of violence prevention. During the 2021 election campaign, the Bloc Québécois argued that funds for the fight against intimate partner violence should come from the Canada health transfers, which should immediately increase by $28 billion, without conditions. Long-term investments will also enable the generational change that is crucial to fighting this fight.
Furthermore, court cases involving crimes of a sexual nature are heavily influenced by the training and abilities of judges. It goes without saying that continuing education for judges on sexual assault law needs some updating. The Bloc Québécois has unequivocally supported this type of initiative since the subject was first raised in the House in 2020.
This bill complies with a recent recommendation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In its April 7, 2022, report entitled “The Shadow Pandemic: Stopping Coercive and Controlling Behaviour in Intimate Relationships”, the committee recommends that the federal government engage with provincial and territorial governments and other relevant stakeholders to promote and fund a public awareness campaign on coercive and controlling behaviour, as well as training of judicial system actors, such as police, lawyers, and judges, about the dynamics of such behaviour. Training must be trauma-informed, integrate intersectional perspectives and be accompanied by tools and policies to support action on this issue.
At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Pamela Cross, the legal director at Luke's Place, a support and resource centre for women and children, reminded us that until every actor in both the criminal and family legal systems has a fulsome understanding of the reality of violence in families, the prevalence of it, the fact that it does not end at separation, the fact that there are many fathers who use the child, weaponize the child, to get back at their partner, we are going to continue to see shelters that are turning away 500 women and children a year and we are going to continue to see women and children being killed.
Experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women all stressed the importance of training. This was emphasized by Simon Lapierre, a full professor at the University of Ottawa's School of Social Work, who also appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He said:
Having the judicial system better aligned with psychosocial services seems to me to be very important. Above all, we have to understand that even if a lot of measures are put in place, many of them will unfortunately not achieve their full potential if they are not accompanied by adequate training for all actors in the system, including social workers, police, lawyers and judges.
Training is extremely important and should be expanded across the country. Simon Lapierre also noted that it is important to reinforce the very concept of coercive control. This concept was already in place before the Divorce Act came into force, but he says that we should also include it in the Criminal Code. What is more, it needs to be accompanied by training programs for all stakeholders in the various sectors, including judges, and there needs to be a coherent approach to intimate partner violence, including youth protection services, across the country.
In closing, I want to acknowledge the incredible work of the entire team at an organization in my riding, the Maison Alice-Desmarais, which helps victims of intimate partner violence and their children. Last week, the organization opened a new duplex. The good news is that an entire community rallied behind the cause, but the bad news is that the needs are still immense. One more victim is one too many.
Everyone agreed that community organizations that help victims of intimate partner violence need more help. It is great to have the best training possible for judges and electronic monitoring devices for greater safety, but we need organizations to help the victims, and we need to support them as a society.
Let us, here in the House, support the work they do on the ground every day and help the victims and their children.
1772 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
