:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome. This is meeting number 32 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today is Tuesday, October 21, 2014. We are here to study a private member's bill, Bill .
We have a three-part meeting today. For our first half-hour we are joined by the mover of Bill , Mr. David Van Kesteren, member of Parliament for Chatham-Kent—Essex.
Before we pass it over to you, Mr. Van Kesteren, I do have two brief announcements to make. It's with a little bit of sadness but also some joy that I announce that Caroline Bosc, our clerk, will be moving on to a new role in the future. We will have a new clerk. I was informed of this yesterday. Caroline's going to the journals branch, as I understand it. It's an exciting new role for her, but we certainly will miss her. Her service to this committee has been exemplary, in my opinion.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Jinny.
:
Thank you, Chair. I might add that it's great to be upstaged in this particular circumstance. As well, I wish you the best in your new endeavours.
But that's not the reason I'm here, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be here to speak to my member's bill, Bill C-591. It's truly an honour to have the opportunity to bring forward this bill. This bill is about restoring fairness in the pension system to ensure that murderers cannot benefit from their crimes. I believe all parties will support my proposal to amend the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Act to deny survivor benefits to people convicted of murdering their spouse, common-law partner or parent. It's a terrible thing to suffer the horror of family violence, especially murder, but to have the added pain of seeing that murderer profit from their crime by collecting survivor benefits left by the victim is grossly unfair to grieving family, and repugnant to all Canadians. It was for this reason that I tabled Bill C-591 to prohibit people who murder their spouses or parents from being able to collect survivor benefits. These benefits include the OAS program's survivor's allowance and CPP's death benefit, child benefit, and survivor pension. The bill will render convicted murderers ineligible for these benefits. It would clearly set out the terms under which this policy will be applied. I have been informed that this bill will need some changes made to it to ensure that it's in sync with the rest of CPP and OAS legislation. The government will be proposing some technical amendments in this regard and I am supportive of those amendments.
I was honoured by the support from all sides in the House in debate of this bill at second reading. It was clear that we are all in agreement with regard to the basic intent of Bill C-591. However, during the debate a number of members voiced some legitimate concerns that this bill would not apply to individuals who are convicted of manslaughter. Members raised the case of a man who stabbed his spouse to death, was convicted of manslaughter on a plea bargain and subsequently collected CPP survivor benefits for 28 years. Mr. Chairman, this is not right and not within the intent of my original proposal. I indicated at the time that these concerns would be considered in committee and I'm pleased that this is happening today. At first I was reluctant to include manslaughter in the bill due to the fact that manslaughter includes a wide range of cases. Unlike first and second degree murder, there is no clear intent to kill with manslaughter. I don't think it's right to dis-entitle all individuals convicted of manslaughter in the death of a spouse or parent without exception. I think there's another way, a compromise approach, that is both consistent with the legitimate concerns members opposite raised and my original intention with this bill. Here's what I propose.
Manslaughter convictions would result in ineligibility in all cases except in those very rare instances when the courts decide that the circumstances of the crime do not warrant a punitive sentence or, in other words, when someone is convicted of manslaughter but does not receive jail time. Judges are qualified and equipped to assess the circumstances of these cases. A suspended sentence for manslaughter would signal an exceptional case in which the accused would retain their eligibility for survivor benefits. An example of an extreme case where a suspended sentence would be handed out is the situation in which the individual convicted of manslaughter had suffered a history of violent abuse from the victim and was considered by the judge to pose no continuing danger to society. The government will propose amendments in keeping with this compromise to include manslaughter in the bill. I hope this approach will address the concerns expressed by a number of members.
Fortunately, what we are dealing with in Bill C-591 is very rare. Death at the hand of family members is not common and those convicted are not always eligible for survivor benefits to begin with. In total, from 2002 to 2011, there were close to 700 spousal homicides or 70 victims a year throughout the country. The victims tend to be young women. Eighty per cent of victims were female versus 20 per cent male.
I am proceeding carefully, as is the government, to ensure that this bill is fair. I won't go over the details of the bill. They were covered in the House debate and are well known. But I will say that this bill will apply only to people who have been convicted rather than those who are charged with a crime.
I expect that victims organizations and family members will notify Employment and Social Development Canada of the need to disentitle a person to ensure that murderers are not able to benefit from their crimes. To help facilitate this, the government will engage directly with victims advocacy and stakeholder groups in regard to this issue.
The government has assured me that they can easily notify the department when someone has been convicted of first- or second-degree murder or manslaughter of someone whose death would otherwise entitle them to CPP or OAS benefit. The minister has assured me that he will write to provincial justice ministers to ask them to notify the department whenever these convictions occur, to ensure that no one is profiting from their crime.
Mr. Chairman, this bill underscores our government's commitment to maintaining strong judicial principles. This proposed legislation will assure Canadians that we are taking strong action against criminals while continuing strengthening our justice system.
This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank David, my colleague across the way, for his presentation. I also want to thank him for keeping it brief, because I think we have a lot of agreement on this legislation.
But I do want to note, and I think all of us are aware of this, that this legislation, or legislation very similar to this, was first introduced by the NDP's Chris Charlton, who did a lot of work on this and is very passionate about this legislation. As we also know, her iteration of the bill included manslaughter as well. I just wanted to put that on the record.
Let me tell you that ending the ability of those who are convicted of murdering their spouse or parent to collect survivor benefits is something that we as New Democrats feel very strongly about and will very, very strongly support. That is why we had legislation calling for this change over three years ago. To us it is completely unacceptable that someone who is convicted of the murder or manslaughter of their spouse can profit in any way from that crime.
It actually doesn't even pass the “nod” test that we have out in our communities. I've actually had an opportunity to talk to a few people in my riding, where we've had a few heinous—I would say that's the only way to describe it—murders of women. In one of them, not only was she murdered but her remains were burned. It took quite a while, and at the end of it all it was the husband. I do remember that being the big topic of conversation, that he was going to now get benefits as a result of that.
The integrity of the Canada Pension Plan is enormously important to Canadians. We all know that. The very thought that someone convicted of spousal homicide, manslaughter, could derive a monetary benefit from such a heinous crime speaks to an issue of fundamental justice. There should be no reward, monetary or otherwise, for committing such crimes, absolutely none.
You as a sitting government have had the opportunity to introduce legislative changes at any time, so it is concerning for me—I have to put this on the record, particularly for those who are directly affected—that the Conservatives did not prioritize this issue and make these changes sooner. You knew you had our support. This isn't one of those where there was going to be a lot of opposition from people. My only regret is that I wish we had dealt with this three years ago, two years ago, so that we weren't having this conversation today.
First, Mr. Van Kesteren, why didn't the Conservatives prioritize this legislation? Why wasn't it included on your legislative agenda?
By the way, I'm not encouraging this, but I know how fond your government has been of omnibus bills that have many, many things in them that you love. Why, after three years from when this bill was first introduced by Chris Charlton, has it taken this long?
:
Thank you to the honourable member for the questions.
Let me address, first of all, her remark that this bill was previously presented by the member for Hamilton Mountain, Chris Charlton. She's absolutely right. That was the case. It was tabled. However, no one has taken upon themselves to make this bill a reality. I chose to do that.
As to the reasoning for the government not taking up this bill, that's a very legitimate question and one she could legitimately bring up with the government. I'm not on record as speaking for the government, but I would suspect that, as is often the case, there is much legislation the government is occupied with.
Secondly, when I read the history of the CPP and OAS, it's a long, excellent history and a process that we're all very proud of as Canadians. However, for some reason we missed this very important point, and I'm glad that I'm able to bring it to the foreground and that we have consensus, that we all agree this is something that has to take place.
:
Thank you for the question. I want to thank the member also for his interest in the history of OAS and GIS and Canada Pension Plan. I too am very passionate about those institutions.
Our forefathers just after the war recognized that there was a huge need to look after those people who had moved out of the workforce. If we look at the history, and we think about what the circumstances were then, we had moved from an agricultural society heavily into manufacturing during the world war. After that time there was a change in culture, where on the farm it was expected and normal that parents were to be looked after by their children. However, that became increasingly difficult after that time.
So the government introduced OAS in 1952. There was a call for more, because originally it became very obvious that it was inadequate and that many people didn't have the opportunity to save for retirement.
In the sixties—I believe it was 1962—the next phase was introduced, and of course that was the CPP. CPP has evolved and has changed. GIS was introduced as the guaranteed income supplement in 1967. We've made a number of other changes—I believe we had some changes in 1987—and correctly noted at the end of the nineties that we had to make some more adjustments because of the demographics. There were more people retiring than entering the workforce—or that it would become the case at some point. We recognized that we had to make some more changes.
At that time the government of the day put into effect some provisions that would ensure that the system would continue. Then, of course, our government recognized that other changes needed to be made, and those changes were made, I believe, in 2009.
The point being is this: we have a system in place that is enviable, and within the world today it ranks among the top. I think we're number two. I don't suggest we need to stop; I think we need to continue to evolve. We need to continue to correct and make things better.
But as I said earlier in response to the last question, there was an omission made. It became evident through cases that there were benefits for those, when they were receiving those benefits, were passed on to their spouse or their children. Of course, the whole essence of this bill is to stop that ever happening in a case where there was a crime committed—murder, first-degree, second. We're hoping we can change that as well to manslaughter, so that would never be the case.
I hope that answers the honourable member's questions.
It's a legitimate question. I want to point out—and I did mention this to the honourable member from the NDP side—that I acknowledged the fact that it was brought up by the member for Hamilton Mountain, in my remarks and in the House and in my closing remarks. It's not something that is hidden. I think this bill is a consensus bill. That's why I was so intrigued and excited about taking it because I wanted to do something that we could collectively agree on. I'm somewhat reluctant to bring this up but I think it is important to say this as well. Although you're right that the government did miss this—and I think that, basically, in the fervour and the excitement of government, it was just a little point that was missed—I might add that it was on the docket so anybody could have grabbed this bill. I would say to that, the member could have taken this bill when her opportunity arose. For whatever reason, she didn't. It was there for anybody else to take and originally, when this bill was first introduced by me, there were some changes made. I'd made some changes, but we're very close to what we're saying.
The answer to the question is that yes, you're right, the government could have taken this but it's also true that anyone could have taken this. If anybody wanted a bill that would go through and have consensus and have the experience of having everybody working together, it was there for the taking.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the committee.
[Translation]
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss Bill , a private member's bill sponsored by Dave Van Kesteren, the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex.
I will also provide information on amendments that will be proposed during the clause-by-clause analysis.
Let me begin by speaking briefly about the two pension programs that would be affected by this bill.
The Canada pension plan, or CPP, is a social insurance plan that provides contributors and their families with modest income replacement upon the retirement, disability or death of a contributor. It is funded by the contributions of employers, employees and self-employed individuals, as well as by returns on CPP investments.
Old age security, or OAS, is the largest federal pension program and is funded from the general tax revenues of the Government of Canada. Together, these programs pay out approximately $85 billion per year to Canadians.
Bill C-591 applies to the survivor benefits of these two programs. This includes three different CPP survivor benefits: the monthly survivor's pension paid to the spouse or common-law partner of the deceased CPP contributor; the monthly children's benefit for dependent children of the deceased contributor; and the lump-sum death benefit, which is usually paid to a deceased contributor's estate.
The bill also affects the OAS program's allowance for the survivor, which is provided to low-income widows or widowers aged 60 to 64. To obtain the CPP and OAS benefits, an individual must apply for them and meet the eligibility requirements.
[English]
Bill has no significant cost implication, as it is generally consistent with existing administrative policy. It will affect a small number of individuals, as murder among family members is rare. In recent years, an average of 48 people were charged annually with spousal murder and an average of 21 individuals in all age categories were accused of killing their parent or step-parent. Not all those charged with murder are convicted of murder, and when there is a conviction there will frequently be no possibility of the murderer collecting the survivor benefit due to the eligibility criteria.
Let me outline the key reasons why these requirements may not be met.
Spousal homicides tend to occur among younger individuals. The number of victims is highest among those aged 15 to 34, with the number falling with age according to Statistics Canada. As a result, the deceased may not have contributed for enough years to the CPP to generate survivor benefits. It is also important to know that nearly 60% of those accused of killing their parents between 2003 and 2012 were over the age of 25 and therefore ineligible for the CPP orphan benefit. Finally, many people who murder their spouse will not meet the eligibility criteria for the OAS allowance for the survivor.
For such reasons, we estimate that as currently written, Bill C-591 would potentially affect a maximum of 30 individuals per year, and some of these people will never apply for the benefit. This is in the context of a public pension system in which the CPP and the OAS each pay benefits to more than 5 million people every year.
I will now provide you with a quick overview of how the bill would work.
A person who has been charged with the murder of a spouse, common-law partner or parent would still be eligible to receive survivor benefits under the principle of being innocent until proven guilty. When the department learns that such an individual has been convicted of murder, this person would be disqualified from receiving further survivor benefits and steps would be taken to recover the benefits already paid, which would become a debt to the Crown. If this individual were subsequently to be found innocent on appeal, the full value of their benefit would be reinstated.
The bill would not remove eligibility for the orphan benefits when minor children are convicted of murdering a parent, because children under the age of 18 don't receive the benefit directly; it is the parent or guardian who receives it on the child's behalf, and the benefit helps cover the costs of caring for the child. Bill avoids creating a situation in which the department would demand repayment from a grieving widow whose child has just been convicted of murdering her husband. This would amount to punishing the victim. Children over the age of 18, however, receive the orphan benefit directly and would be ineligible to do so if convicted of murdering a parent.
Technical amendments will be proposed to ensure that the bill applies consistently to the OAS allowance for the survivor; that the minister will be able to render individuals ineligible for the CPP death benefit; and that the eligibility for non-guilty individuals is protected. The objective of these proposed minor amendments is simply to prevent the bill from having unintended results that would undermine its effectiveness.
More substantively, amendments will be proposed to include in the bill conviction for manslaughter alongside first- and second-degree murder convictions. Manslaughter is considered unintended homicide, although there may be intent to cause harm.
Manslaughter covers a wide spectrum of cases, ranging from near accidents to near murders. The department's existing administrative policy does not apply to manslaughter convictions. The reason is that the courts have indicated that the principle of ex turpi causa—one should not benefit from his crime—should not be automatically applied to offences such as manslaughter without examining the specific circumstances of each case. ESDC officials—our department—are not qualified to make such determinations, so the administrative policy was limited to murder convictions, to which the principle of ex turpi causa always applies.
Although manslaughter indicates a lesser degree of moral culpability than murder, manslaughter convictions do require criminal intent and reasonable foreseeability of a serious risk of bodily harm. The wide range of manslaughter cases, however, raises the possibility that there will be exceptional cases in which the removal of survivor benefits would be inappropriate. For this reason, the amendment being proposed by the government would allow eligibility for survivor benefits to be retained in those rare instances in which the circumstances surrounding the offence cause the courts to give a suspended sentence to an individual convicted of manslaughter. Suspended sentences show limited intent or significant mitigating circumstances.
If Bill is amended to remove eligibility for survivor benefits in cases of manslaughter, there will be no significant cost implications for the plan. Approximately two more individuals per year would be affected, on average, for a total of fewer than 32 each year. There would be an initial surge above that number, as the proposed amendment would apply retroactively.
[Translation]
In summary, the government will propose some technical amendments to better reflect the intent of Bill . It will also propose amendments to remove eligibility for OAS and CPP survivor benefits for individuals convicted of manslaughter.
At the same time, the amendments would recognize that there are likely to be a small number of manslaughter cases in which eligibility for these benefits should be retained due to the extraordinary circumstances of the crime.
Let me conclude by thanking you once again for this opportunity to contribute to your study of the bill.
And thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
I have some questions about the CPP. We know the survivor benefits of the OAS, but OAS is taxpayer-supported whereas CPP is actually supported by employers and employees.
I was reading a couple of days ago about income splitting in the United States. The reason they have income splitting in the United States is that there was a court case that determined there was a mutual benefit in a marriage or a union, such that one of the two partners of that union would benefit by a common or mutual benefit of the two.
So I guess the question is this. With respect to CPP, could there be any challenge to the right of benefit because it's been paid for by the person? How would you say it? It doesn't really belong to the taxpayers or the government. It's actually a benefit that has been prepaid by an individual. So it would be more in a case where one spouse murdered the other, but could that spouse challenge the fact that she or he had a right of benefit? Could that be challenged under the charter?
:
Thank you so much for inviting the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime to appear before you.
We have come here today to voice the support of our board of directors for the amendments proposed in Bill C-591. It is our understanding that this bill will amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act to deny CPP survivor benefits and the OAS allowance to people convicted of murdering their spouse, common-law partner, or parent. We support this legislation so that persons convicted of first and second-degree murder can no longer benefit from their crimes in Canada. We believe the majority of Canadians would agree and support this bill.
Where we would like to see an amendment to the legislation is to include manslaughter as a reason for revoking pension entitlements. We understand that in cases of manslaughter the principle of ex turpi causa does not always clearly apply as it does in the cases of first and second-degree murder convictions, since they do not necessarily involve the intent to kill and can involve abuse, provocation, or accident. In his speech last June the member from Chatham-Kent-Essex stated:
Courts have said that the principle of ex turpi causa should not be applied automatically to manslaughter and other offences involving responsibility for a death without examining the specific circumstances of each case.
We feel that not including manslaughter in the bill does create a huge policy gap, especially when we consider that the largest portion of family-related homicides are spousal murders and that a great number of those result in a plea bargain to reduce the conviction of manslaughter.
If we are amending the law to ensure that no one convicted of murder can collect pension benefits, we must also address the case where charges are plea bargained down to manslaughter. We feel it is not acceptable for a killer to collect pension benefits in either case, especially if there is a history of violence towards the victim. Plea bargains are often also a reflection of an overburdened court system, which is a loophole that we must close. Intimate partner abuse is a very serious issue in Canada, particularly for Canadian women. Women are overwhelmingly the victims. This is also true in the case of spousal homicide. We know from Stats Canada data that about half, or 49%, of all female murder victims in Canada were killed by a former or current intimate partner. In contrast, only 7% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate partner. No one wants to see killers benefit from their heinous act. It is an insult to the families of the victims, to taxpayers, as well as to the principles of justice. Certainly, no person who pays taxes and personally contributes to an insurance plan wants to see murderers receive a benefit for killing someone. Thankfully, this is a rare situation in Canada.
I understand from the debates in the House and the last witnesses who were just here that an average of 48 people a year have been charged with spousal murder. Most of these were young men charged with killing their wives or female partners. Then, again, between 2003 and 2012 an average of 21 individuals in all age categories were accused of killing a parent or step-parent.
We agree that no one wants to see those who suffer the murder of a loved one also suffer the added insult of seeing the one responsible for that death collecting the victim's benefits as well. We look forward to the passage of this legislation and ask that you consider an amendment to include manslaughter convictions where the circumstances of the case warrant pension benefits being denied.
Thank you.
:
Good afternoon, honourable members, staff and guests. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee on Bill C-591. Today I'm speaking on behalf of the Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area) and the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, also known as the OCRCC.
OCRCC is a network of 26 sexual assault centres from across Ontario. We offer counselling, information, and support services to survivors. The Sexual Assault Centre and OCRCC agree with most of the proposed components of Bill C-591 and recommend that it be accepted, with the addition of manslaughter as grounds for which to revoke benefit eligibility.
Our thoughts are as follows. It is critical to apply a gendered lens to Bill C-591. Lethal incidences of violence perpetrated by known offenders, particularly spouses, ex-partners, and family members, continue to impact women differently than men. Domestic violence is a social issue that affects a large number of Canadian women. Further, the link between domestic violence, lethality, and women's victimization is consistent. The most recent annual report by the domestic violence death review committee, issued in February of this year, notes that women are most commonly the victims of lethal domestic violence in Canada, similar to what my esteemed colleague has mentioned. In 2012, 20 reviewed cases included 14 homicides and six homicide-suicides resulting in 32 deaths. Of the 26 victims, 77% were female and 90% of the perpetrators were male. These findings are consistent with earlier domestic violence death review committee reports, which found overall that 73% of all lethal cases reviewed from 2003 to 2012 involved a couple where there was a history of domestic violence and that the majority of victims were female.
It is important to note that a woman is most likely to be harmed, including lethally harmed, by an offender that is well-known and close to her. A recent Canadian report notes that when it comes to women's experiences of violence, overall men were responsible for 83% of police-reported violent crime committed against women. Most commonly it was her intimate partner. This contrasts with violent crimes against men where intimate partners were among the least common perpetrators, at only 12%. Certainly, these examples of gender-based crimes mean that particular types of violence continue to impact women and their extended families disproportionately than men. Women's vulnerability to domestic and sexual violence by spouses and partners in particular means that women's experiences of these crimes are different from those of other populations.
We imagine, for example, based on the above statistics, that it is very likely that women's extended families have been largely impacted by the current gap in the CPP and OAS acts. For this reason, we contend that any discussion on Bill C-591 must included a gendered analysis of lethal violence in Canada. We also ask that manslaughter be added as grounds to revoke eligibility for pension and benefits. There are cases where a spouse or a parent, through plea-bargaining process, is convicted of manslaughter as opposed to first or second degree murder. Although the overall number may be small, it is unconscionable to allow anyone to collect pensions or benefits after a conviction of this nature. We firmly believe that the spirit of Bill C-591 is fully realized when this loophole is closed.
The amendments to C-591 indicate our government's increasing awareness of the broad implications of gender-based violent crimes in Canada. This includes the financial implications of violence for women and their families.
In recent years Justice Canada studies have examined the economic cost of crime in Canada. Gun crimes in 2008, for example, were found to cost $3.1 billion. Spousal violence measured in 2009 cost $7.4 billion. Financial impacts can include healthcare costs, lost wages to victims and her support persons, public spending on justice systems and social services.
We do not wish to see more costs and dollars misdirected. The Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Act can better support the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law for women through the changes proposed by Bill C-591. Certainly, Canada's courts, systems and social policies, including CPP and OAS, have an important role in supporting victims of crime.
Bill is one example of the needs of women facing violence and those of their loved ones gaining recognition.
Lastly, the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres and the Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton and Area) recommend that the government consider taking further fiscal and legislative measures to address the serious issue of domestic violence before it results in the death of a spouse or parent. Bill , while important, impacts a small number of Canadians, while domestic and sexual violence impact numerous people across our country, particularly women. Repeated studies and reports have shown us what is truly needed to address the issues facing victims of domestic and sexual crimes. We know that much can be done to prevent all forms of gender-based violence. We urge you to undertake the necessary systemic and comprehensive work required to end all forms of violence against women in Canada.
ln closing, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today and for giving recognition to the expertise and work being done by sexual assault centres in Ontario. The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres has a 30-year history of working in Ontario and Canada to address and end sexual and other forms of gender-based violence in our communities. The Sexual Assault Centre in Hamilton has been serving our community since 1975.
Thank you very much.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their very insightful remarks today.
A general consensus exists around Bill . We, in the NDP, support the principle that no one should be able to benefit from their crime. But we have pointed out that the bill does not go far enough. And that speaks precisely to what you said about the bill including not just first-and second-degree murder, but also manslaughter.
We believe that manslaughter should be included because, in the course of the judicial process, the accused could receive a plea bargain deal of manslaughter, and as a result, perpetrators of violence against women could collect survivor benefits, as you pointed out.
Ms. Lukasik-Foss, I have a question regarding your statistics. Of the 77% of female victims, what percentage of the crimes involved manslaughter?
:
Thank you very much, ladies. Thank you very much for being with us today, and more importantly, thank you to your organizations and everybody who is involved in your organizations for the great work that you are doing.
Certainly this government recognizes the fact that it's unfortunate that we do have quite a number of instances of domestic assault and, of course, abuse of both women and children. Admittedly, it's something that we have to do a better job trying to fix and in supporting victims and families in these cases. I think we've done quite a bit.
I'm sure I speak on behalf of all members of Parliament when I say thank you to your agencies for the tremendous work you are doing and for taking time to come to share your views on this private member's bill the committee is dealing with.
I think in your testimony you're certainly clear, but just so that it's absolutely clear, your position is that this bill, with the proposed amendments including manslaughter, is the appropriate way to go forward, that this bill will ensure that individuals who are committing crimes will not financially benefit in any way, shape, or form from committing that crime. So you have no concerns about the income support, let's say, for the individual who has perpetrated this crime, because they would be ineligible to collect these benefits. That's not a concern to your organizations at all.
:
Yes, there's no question about that. I know that in my area—I represent a riding just outside of Toronto, Mississauga, Ontario—we have two excellent organizations that I'm familiar with. One is called Interim Place and the other Armagh House. Both are doing tremendous work with families. You're probably aware of both of them, as well as the Peel Committee Against Woman Abuse, which is also is doing excellent advocacy work.
I know one of the challenges that we do have in all of these cases is resources, even though this government, under the Department of Justice and the ministry responsible for the status of women, has been increasing funding and so on.
I admire your expertise on this and just because you're here, can you give us a general sense—I know it's difficult to generalize—of the public perception now about violence against women and children? It seems to me that there is more awareness but that the caseload is not falling.
I'm certainly no expert on this, but I'd be interested to know from your perspective if there's more that we can be doing in awareness and understanding. I realize this bill is about benefits and legal issues and all of that, but there's a wider community perspective to all of this when we sit here as parliamentarians on these bills. Would you take a minute to do that?
I'll start, and then maybe I'll turn it over to my colleague.
I started working in this field about 26 years ago, so it's been a long time. Interestingly, though, when I first started working and I would tell people what I was doing, people shook their head. They'd never heard of it; they didn't really understand; or they'd make a joke. I'm pleased to report that's changed and that most people I talk to now have an awareness of sexual assault domestic violence. I get a lot fewer jokes, although I still get them, sadly.
What I've seen is that there's greater awareness of the issue. People are talking about it more, though about sexual violence a little bit less so. It's still something that isn't discussed. When I go to parties, sometimes people politely walk away when I say where I work. It is something that's still uncomfortable for people to talk about.
I know when I worked in the shelters, we were often full, but I know in my community—I certainly can't speak for all communities—it is nearly impossible to get a bed in a shelter right now, and I hear this consistently. So when I have people calling me up saying, “Do you know how to get a bed there?”, I'm, like, “No, I have no magic wand to get a bed either”. I know our shelters are full. I know when I've looked at the national trends, the studies of all the shelters, this is not unusual. Most shelters are full of children, and that's another really shocking fact people aren't aware of.
For me, yes, there is more awareness, but in terms of the underlying foundational issues that are causing violence.... We certainly know there are things that make violence spike, but we haven't really gotten at the root causes yet, unfortunately. The good news is that for women in these generations, compared to 50 or 60 years ago, there is an option. There are places to go, and there are supports, but it's still a really desperate, sad picture in our country, which is shocking.
Mine is just a brief comment. First of all, thank you so much for the work you do. As you said, when people run away from you at events it points to the value of the work you do and how people are not comfortable talking about this subject. But we know that domestic violence crosses all socio-economic and ethno-cultural communities.
I think the point I'm going to take away from here, which I already know, is how we are failing in our communities to provide safety and security to the women who do want to leave, because of the the cuts to legal aid and to advocacy...and even helping with transition, the lack of beds, especially the lack of beds for women with families.... If you have two or three kids, you are in a completely different situation than if you are on your own. So I appreciate all of that. I would like to have a much deeper conversation about what we should be doing there. But I do really want to say we appreciate your support for this legislation, which is there to correct that.
Once again passing this legislation is not going to fix domestic violence, nor do I think that financial gain is the driving force for the domestic violence. There are many other things that drive domestic violence.
So I just wanted to say a big thank you.
Mr. Brahmi has gone for a coffee, so I will ask a brief question.
If there were three things that you would like governments to do that would address domestic violence in a physical way to support the victims of domestic violence, what would those three things be?
I agree, and I think if I had to pick the top three, it would be very similar to the ones you chose. What always amazes me that when we do a profile of the person who is suffering from domestic violence we usually think it's somebody who doesn't have a good job, doesn't have a good education, and totally dependent. But you and I know that's often not the case. I've known very strong women who, when you looked at them from the outside, you would never think anybody would take that lady on, because she is sure, confident, makes great money. Yet once you take away the layers, we have domestic violence right across.
So one of the key areas that you've mentioned is prevention, and it starts very, very early. I think it starts in the home from the time our kids are little, with parenting, and goes throughout our system.
Do I have more time?