Good Sunday Morning.
Last night was our wonderful celebration of my election win on May 2, 2011. Thanks to everyone who came – to Bill Henderson and John Kidder for music and all the wonderful SGI volunteers who organized a fun night to celebrate! It brought back memories of our fabulous rally and celebration fifteen years ago! And the wonderful moment of phoning the party taking place at Moby’s Pub on Salt Spring! What a night that was.
Believe it or not, I was so depressed. I went home and cried myself to sleep. Obviously I was overjoyed that we won, but I had been certain it would be a minority parliament. I went to the Sidney airport hangar for our victory party with the Governor General’s phone number in my back pocket. My plan was to call him right away and ask him to give opposition party leaders time to negotiate a coalition that could retain the confidence of the House. Ah well, the Orange Wave crushed that and due to our bizarre voting system, with only 39.6% of the vote, Stephen Harper had his first majority government.
The last fifteen years of service in Canada’s parliament have been extraordinary. Some days I can barely stand it, but on balance, it is so gratifying to make a good thing happen. Small things for constituents or big wins, I know I am making a difference.
That was why one of the struggles of this week was so hard to accept. My small team (with big thanks to my legislative director, Steve Parkinson) had done a ton of work so I could present eleven amendments to a bill about which you likely have not read a word. C-16 is described as “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code” (in relation to criminal and correctional matters – child protection, gender-based violence, and other measures).
This is, as far as it goes, a good and long overdue bill. At long last it provides support and legal tools to protect women in abusive relationships, expanding that abuse from physical violence to “coercive control”. When the husband, or “intimate partner” controls so much of a partner’s or woman’s life that their choice to find a safe place is simply not possible, it is abuse.
I wanted to make changes to deal with another and growing threat to vulnerable people. This group is, again, often women, but not always. It again involves loving someone who wants to control you. I tried to extend the act to protect this vulnerable group. I wanted to amend C-16 to protect seniors from elder abuse.
The trends are quite shocking. According to Statistics Canada, since 2018, family violence against older persons in Canada has increased by 49 percent. And when a woman is killed by a family member, more than half the time the accused is her own son (based on research by the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability). Witnesses told the Justice committee that when it comes to coercion and abuse, older women are at dual risk, from partners and children, too often leading to their death. The 2021 Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime report, by Professor Myrna Dawson, made the point in a chillingly blunt assessment: “…when it comes to older people, and older women especially, coercive control can also often happen at the hands of adult children, relatives, caregivers, or others in positions of trust. Indeed, after their mail partners, with respect to femicide, women in Canada have most to fear from their sons.”
Other governments (England & Wales, Australia, Hawaii, and South Africa) have already expanded protection against coercive control from intimate partners to others in a position of trust, whether partners or family members.
I hoped I would have support for my amendments to do the same in Canada. But it was not to be, although we had partial success.
You may have heard in the news that this week the Liberals used their new majority (thanks to the five MPs who joined them from other parties) to change the standing orders to reconstruct parliamentary committees. This week, they used time allocation to rush through the debate and vote to change the committees until the next election. The Liberals have made committees larger and added more Liberal MPs to all of them to ensure they have a majority. In and of itself, that conforms to the usual situation. When a government wins the majority of seats naturally they control parliamentary committees. But this situation is unprecedented because the new majority occurred after the election. I also argued, as I did in a letter to the prime minister back in May, that the rules around so-called recognized parties are misused and that there are NO rules that prevent MPs in parties with fewer than 12 MPs from serving as full members of committees. My arguments continue to fall on deaf ears. Majority parliaments by whatever means are not illegitimate, but this first move was bad luck for me.
I attended the Justice committee for the clause-by-clause review of all C-16 amendments on the first day of the Liberal majority. My first amendment was voted down with no support from members allowed to vote. (Leah Gazan was there for the NDP, but like me with no vote). I know there was sympathy from many Liberal MPs and even some Conservatives on the committee, but the Liberals with control of the committee made it clear none of my amendments would carry. But they did offer to conduct a review five years from now and reconsider the matter. To say the atmosphere in the committee room was testy is a huge understatement. I knew staying to argue for eleven amendments over the course of a day and a half would only annoy the committee and that I would not get a single vote for any of my amendments. To solidify good will (from a number of Liberal backbenchers), and try to get the Minister of Justice to bring forward legislation to protect seniors sooner, I asked for my amendments to be withdrawn.
I still feel very queasy about giving up. For sure there was no hope, but I cannot help feeling I have let down the wonderful advocates at the Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse. This week I will talk to the Minister of Justice about a new bill – one focused on protecting seniors. I think we might be able to have such stand-alone legislation sooner than waiting for the two year review which is now part of C-16. Still, overall, I am crushed that this easy fix to C-16 was clobbered.
Of course, the big news this week was Tuesday’s Spring Economic Statement. For “big news” it was entirely underwhelming. This link includes what our small team in the lock up (Mike Morrice, John Kidder and I) wrote plus the video of our media scrum. Later that day, in debate in the House I offered more detailed analysis.. (although as you will note, still trying to figure out my “new” post-cataract surgery eyes and using only reading glasses). Here you go!
I did get a chance in the speech to raise the issue of the risk of tipping points in climate science. I also noted the increased risk of the collapse of the Atlantic Ocean conveyor belt of enormous ocean currents in my question in QP on Friday. The climate crisis is no longer receiving even lip service. The reversal in climate policy in the facing of increasingly loud warnings is the disconnect I find hardest to understand in the many disappointments of Mark Carney’s government.
In leaving you this Sunday morning, I ask you to support the campaign to stop the export of Canadian horses for slaughter in Japan. I presented this petition on Friday and ended by wishing I could quote Jann Arden, but could not because the language would be un-parliamentary. In case you do not know of her campaign it is called Horseshit!
Thanks again for your continued interest in my work. You keep me going!! MANY thanks,
Love,
Elizabeth