Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to join you today.

In 2018, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women visited Canada. In her report on Canada that was presented to the United Nations General Assembly, she described Canada's response to violence against women and girls and gender-based violence as mainly policy and “project oriented, focusing on specific areas and lacking a...holistic legal framework” and connection with specific human rights. She went on to say that it also lacks the coordination of prevention measures and “comparable data collection for all forms of gender-based violence against women”.

While her description is frequently argued to be the fault of our current government, I have been active in this field for three decades and am familiar with Canada's previous strategies. I and many others know that this lack of a comprehensive, cohesive response has been an ongoing issue for decades across successive leaders and governments, and across all parties.

For just one example, in 1994,the Organization of American States introduced the Belém do Pará Convention on Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women. Thirty years later, Canada remains one of only two countries that have not yet signed and ratified this convention. The situation is more dire today, given that the special rapporteur's visit was before COVID-19.

The impact of the pandemic on women and children experiencing male violence has been well documented. Progress is fragmented in its responses to the impacts across the country. The lack of a comprehensive, cohesive response exacerbates male violence against women, including femicide, which represents only a hint of the reality of this violence. However, femicide remains one of our best social barometers. It's indicative of all levels of all violence experienced by women and girls, regardless of whether it ends in death.

The Canadian Femicide Observatory has documented that every year since 2019 we have witnessed an increase in the number of women and girls murdered, primarily by men, with a total increase of 20% up to 2023. The numbers for 2024 are not looking better, with the current figure exceeding 2023 with one key difference: In 2023, 89% of the killings involved male accused; in 2024, this number has risen to 94%. The number of women and girls killed has not declined and it also looks like the proportion of males accused in their killings has increased.

What is also demonstrated is that some groups of women and girls in particular are at disproportionate risk. These are indigenous, Black and other racialized women; women and girls living in rural, northern and remote regions of our country; and women and girls in the territories and the prairie provinces.

There are other groups made vulnerable to femicide by the lack of a comprehensive response. However, without good data, it is difficult to document the situation of, for example, women and girls living with disabilities; newcomer, migrant and refugee populations; LGBTQ+ communities; and our older women. This is why we need a national data collection system whose primary goal is prevention rather than merely the administrative needs of the government. Data gaps are putting the lives of women and girls at risk.

Change has occurred on paper with little corresponding change for those groups at greatest risk. This means that changes on paper have not translated to changes in practice.

Briefly, there are five reasons why I think progress has been minimal.

First, we still have significant regional variation in what's available across the country. Federalism should not be a barrier to equitable human rights for women and girls, but it can be and has been used as an excuse.

Second, the primary focus has been on criminal justice, ignoring the role played by other vital sectors, especially in terms of funding services that are more focused on prevention or could play a more active role in intervention.

Third, despite repeated references to ongoing training, especially in the field of criminal justice, it is not clear what the quality of that training is, who is providing it, how often...and its impacts, if any.

Fourth, there have been few, if any, meaningful efforts at assessing implementation processes and outcomes. Thus, there is little knowledge about the efficacy of the any initiatives.

Finally, it is recognized that attitudinal change is one key requirement for moving forward. Our leaders, professionals and the general public continue to hold outdated and harmful stereotypes about why this violence occurs and who its primary victims are. Therefore, primary prevention initiatives are a priority.

Today, we launched a “remember me” campaign, which individually highlights each of the more than 160 women and girls murdered so far in 2024. One woman or girl is murdered every other day in this country.

There are some simple first steps. Call it femicide. Recognize and make the governments and leaders accountable to responding to femicide. Establish special regional femicide forums to recognize the regional diversities of femicide across the country. Increase awareness and education through primary prevention initiatives to address negative attitudes. Finally, enhance data collection, so we can actually understand the real trends and patterns in killings of women and girls.

Thank you.

Transcript

Discussions (0)