Yes.
Evidence of meeting #120 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was violence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #120 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was violence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Yes...in light of what you just provided to the committee in terms of some of those statistics.
What would you say, however, to respond to Professor Bala, who submitted a brief to the committee, who asks, first of all, why have a presumption, inasmuch as it's really quite artificial? It doesn't really reflect the situation in most families, where parents don't have shared or equal parenting time. Sometimes there are vast differences in the amount of time that parents spend with the child.
Why not just take the interests of the child approach, as opposed to imposing at the outset this presumption? What's the benefit?
7:45 p.m.
Chair of The Board, Canadian Centre for Men and Families
I have a couple of comments to make about that. There are presumptions currently in place. The presumption, for example, of the best interests of the child, that's a presumption that we take. The presumption that the parents will work together is also a presumption we take, that you have whatever shared time together on a co-operative basis.
The distinction between parents who no longer get along or who aren't constantly co-operating with each other, as opposed to intact families, where they have to co-operate, is a significant one. The equal shared parenting presumption would impose, on both the parents and the child, access to the parents on as much of a basis as possible, which is what happens now in intact families, except it doesn't always get divided fifty-fifty. As much time as you want with any one of those parents, you get with those parents.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Professor Bala also noted that in jurisdictions that have had shared parenting legislation, or the presumption of shared parenting, one of the consequences is an increase in litigation, particularly among parents who don't get along.
7:50 p.m.
Chair of The Board, Canadian Centre for Men and Families
He may have been referring to Australia. I believe he might have been. Australia's shared parenting legislation was, as you said earlier, not fifty-fifty, but anywhere from 35% and up, and the vast majority of those shared parenting circumstances were at the lower end. There were very few, and I think the number was in the order of 10% to 15%, which were anywhere close to approximating 50% shared parenting.
One of the reasons that shared parenting is helpful is that it gives you the certainty that one of the other witnesses was talking about earlier. You know that you will get it when you go to court, unless there are certain extenuating circumstances, and you don't fight over who is the better parent and who is the worse parent.
When you have something that's less than fifty-fifty, there's the opportunity to continue to fight over that. We currently see fathers increasing their access to court in order to fight for more parenting time. In my opinion, that will stop or significantly slow down with the presumption of fifty-fifty parenting.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
What are your thoughts on the recommendation of the special joint committee of the House and the Senate back in 1997 or 1998, which was chaired, I think, by Senator Anne Cools? The recommendation was not to impose a presumption, but to enumerate factors respecting the best interests of the child, which this bill does, and include in that language such that the court would be directed to give that consideration when looking at the totality of what is, in fact, in the best interests of the child in each individual case.
Would that be a step in the right direction? Would that be helpful or not at all?
7:50 p.m.
Chair of The Board, Canadian Centre for Men and Families
I acknowledge that it would be helpful, but it doesn't go far enough.
We see constant denigration of relationships between parents with the current regime. There's nothing guaranteeing that will change just by enumerating the factors to consider in the child's best interests. In fact, it may just give a platform to acknowledge why 35% is a better outcome.
That's my opinion.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Do any of the other witnesses have any comments?
7:50 p.m.
President, National Shared Parenting Association
Yes, I'd like to chime in on this.
In all honesty, by starting with a presumption of shared parenting, you take the fight out of the process. I believe that children absolutely deserve to have both parents on a level playing field when it comes to what they benefit from by having both parents involved to the maximum of their ability.
Comparing what occurred in 1997 and the way we live today, it is dramatically different. There are so many more parents of both genders who work from home with flextime, or have the ability to attend a meeting over video conferencing, that the opportunity to be at home with a child has increased dramatically. There is even less of a reason to say no to this.
Whether you are an intact home with father and mother at home 50% or 100% of the time is of no relevance. The point is that the child can depend on one of those parents being there from one moment to the next. Having that security of knowing that both of those parents are there at any given time solidifies a foundation for a child. That doesn't exist in a separated home. When children know they only get to see—in most cases—their father on weekends, that's not enough time to be a parent. In fact, 35% is not enough time, either.
Being able to step up and do the lion's share that's down the middle gives a child an opportunity to see how each gender would address how to do laundry or how to take care of a meal. These are all important life lessons for a child, and I think both men and women address those issues differently.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to start with Mr. Samery. In the beginning of your remarks you said that violence is not a gendered issue. I found that interesting, because that's certainly not my observation or experience. I wonder if you could elaborate on what you meant by that.
7:55 p.m.
Chair of The Board, Canadian Centre for Men and Families
What I meant was simply that a victim is a victim and not a member of a particular group. Men are equally victimized in family violence. It's not my number. I didn't pull it out of a hat. It's a number that comes from a long line of Stats Canada surveys over many years. In fact, I can quote you the lines. It also comes from most western countries. The Atlanta Centers for Disease Control has similar numbers.
When you look at domestic violence in terms of death rates, you're looking at an extreme end of the bell curve. When you look at domestic violence in terms of verbal abuse, you're looking at the other end of the bell curve. The centre of the bell curve is where most of the domestic violence occurs. Most of the domestic violence is bilateral, with each partner at times initiating and at times responding over long periods of time.
I'm happy to give you the large studies and the many studies that say that.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
If you would like to supply that to the committee, that would be great.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'm going to move on a little bit.
Ms. Haines, your testimony was about the value and the worth of having a father around. That's good to hear.
I don't see where that is in dispute in any way in this legislation. I think this legislation does tend to move towards a recognition that the roles are changing and that fathers are involving themselves more in parenting and in different roles. Why is that is your focus?
What do you see about this legislation that is putting that into question? How would you change it?
7:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Guelph, Canadian Centre for Men and Families
I wouldn't say that we're saying it calls it into question. We're just highlighting the importance of focusing on the thought of shared parenting, and then the argument for equal shared parenting as the presumption, which currently isn't in the bill.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Okay.
I'm going to move to the west coast now, the best coast—no preferences here.
Ms. Hawkins, you spoke about judges not getting relevant information about violence. Of course, I immediately thought to ask you about mandatory screening, and then you said it's a good idea. I guess I'll ask you more about mandatory screening. Who would do this? You said lawyers often don't ask about violence. Are you aware of any good tools or best practice approaches? Who would administer this kind of screening? Would that actually be available and useful for judges?
7:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Rise Women's Legal Centre, West Coast LEAF
In British Columbia we have a requirement for family law professionals to assess for family violence. We don't have a requirement to screen, but we have this order that we're supposed to assess and then make recommendations based on that. There is no mandatory process to do that, so that's pretty much left up to individual lawyers to assess in the manner they think is appropriate, including getting training if they think that is appropriate. Many people don't.
There's not a requirement to screen using an accredited tool, which is what was proposed by NAWL. There are a number of tools across the country in development. There are relatively few, I think, that are specific to law. A lot of them have been developed in other areas. I understand that there is one being developed with the CBA, and I believe Luke's Place is also working on trying to take some of the best practices and come up with a tool that can be used. Right now, in B.C., we don't have a standard tool.
I think that, in terms of being able to understand family violence, it is important that training of some description happen across the board, so that it happens with lawyers who are going to be meeting with clients and it happens with mediators. Mediators in B.C. are required to have family violence training. They are the group that is actually required to have some training. You then start to have questions about who is doing the screening, whether the mediator's going to do it or whether the mediator relies on the lawyer's assessment and just takes that as good enough, in cases where people are represented. There's not very much standardization in B.C. Some direction and clarity on that would actually be very helpful, as well as making sure it actually happens.
8 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
If there were mandatory screening—or if there's any screening at all done by one party or another—it seems to me it would have to be done by a neutral third party or some friend of the court, so that the information would be available to the court and not be privileged information. Would you say that?
8 p.m.
Executive Director, Rise Women's Legal Centre, West Coast LEAF
In B.C. we have a serious problem that a lot of family law litigants aren't represented, but in cases where people have lawyers representing them, it would make sense for lawyers to be able to do that screening and present that evidence to the court. In cases where people aren't represented, or in cases where that information just hasn't been brought to the attention of the judge, Donna Martinson has done a number of papers around specialist training for judges, or using judges who have access to specialized training and also talking about the role of judges and giving them the ability to ask those questions if they're not receiving the information from the parties or the lawyers.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
I'd like to ask everybody to please put on your headphones for translation, in the event that you are not fluent in French.
I'll now give the floor to Ms. Sansoucy.
8 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My first two questions are for Ms. Ajibolade.
In your conclusion, you said that the government must support the organizations that assist less fortunate families with the divorce process. You also talked about improving access to legal aid. In light of your experience, I want you to share your views on a recommendation made by a witness, Ms. Irvine, at a previous meeting. She said that children must be represented on a legal, medical or psychological level by a professional who would take only their needs and interests into account, separately from the needs and interests of each parent.
Have you ever heard of this type of support?
8 p.m.
Executive Director, The Redwood
Within the shelter where I work, we do have child advocates. It is really important for the child to have support in place, someone who can do a bit more assessment. We've seen a lot in terms of behavioural changes with children when they first come to the shelter. The impact of abuse is just a lot. It's way more than I can even describe in this room today. We've seen lots and lots of changes in children when they come. It has been a lot of work to get them to unlearn some behaviours they have learned as witnesses or as people who have experienced abuse.
Definitely it would be beneficial to the child if there was an advocate or some form of support for the child. Maybe it even makes it less adversarial between the two parents that this child has a voice through this advocate or this independent support.
8 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
You said in your presentation that, unlike many other groups, you're in favour of dispute resolution alternatives. This issue is addressed in Bill C-78. We're talking here about out-of-court settlements.
Many of the people who have spoken to us on behalf of their organizations consider that this poses a risk to the safety of victims of violence. Therefore, I want you to explain how you think it would be possible to avoid creating disparities, based on the socio-economic background of the families, in terms of safety or access to justice.