Status of Women Committee on April 13th, 2017

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I think these discussions are important in changing that conversation as well.

Bonnie.

[Bonnie Brayton]

I'm in fact going to the crown prosecutors' provincial conference next week and giving a workshop on the D.A.I. decision. I certainly uphold the idea that this is a really important way we're going to also see more convictions. There's no question that the crown prosecutor piece is extremely critical.

I support what Jeremy said. As you heard in my initial testimony, it's quite clear that there need to be adjustments even to the judge training that exists. I would say that for both judges and crown prosecutors you need to involve the civil society organizations that have the expertise to provide the training.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Did you have anything to say? I was going to move on to my next question.

[Jackie Stevens]

I would like to add two points, if it's possible.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Sure. Go ahead.

[Jackie Stevens]

Thank you.

These are two points in relation to the question around training for crown prosecutors.

Here in Nova Scotia, the public prosecution service of Nova Scotia is independent of the department of justice. I know that this is unique in the country. When it comes to mandating such things as training and policies, there's a slightly different context elsewhere, whereas our Minister of Justice doesn't have any authority over the crown.

The other thing worth noting is that recently the Liberal government here in Nova Scotia has appointed two sexual assault crowns, crowns who will specifically be trained and specializing in the prosecution of sexual assault cases. We hope, certainly, that this move will drastically change what the climate has been here recently in Nova Scotia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you. That's your time.

We're going to go to Ms. Vecchio for seven minutes.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you very much.

First I want to correct the record. Ms. Damoff indicated that there was mandatory training. The mandatory training is for new judges; it's not for judges who are currently there. I just want to make sure the record notes that.

We had some excellent expert witnesses here the other day and, looking at the panel here, it's a phenomenal panel, especially when we're looking at some of the issues.

One of the issues we're talking about is diversity. Dr. Elaine Craig stated:

Diversity on the bench is a huge issue that has the potential to improve a variety of aspects of the process.... Regardless of the pool, we're talking about a very narrow demographic of very privileged individuals.

I think we always have to keep that in mind. We're talking a lot about putting money into judges and a variety of different things like that, but we have to recognize—and it's great to see the panel here today—that we all walk different lives. Therefore, for someone to understand.... We're talking about a group up here trying to understand a group down there, which is not really going to happen. I think it's really important that when we're looking at this training that it has to be available.

I'm trying to find out where you're standing on this. We're talking about people from the LGBTQ community. We're talking about people who are disabled. I think it's really important that we recognize that the judges who are going to be sitting on the bench, who have either been selected now or have been sitting on the bench for a number of years, need to have this training.

What are some of your concerns with how we move forward with this? We talked about the mandatory training. We know that the mandatory training is talks about everything, not just sexual assault. We want to specifically look at sexual assault.

Can I get some comments on that, please?

Jeremy, if you don't mind, please start off.

[Jeremy Dias]

I'll just pass it to Bonnie to start. I went first last time.

[Bonnie Brayton]

Thanks, Jeremy.

I think you raise a very important point. Certainly one of the things we would like to see is more appointments of judges from diverse communities. That's a really critical way to start to shift the conversation.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That is critical, but the problem is that we have to recognize that the pool is not there. That's one thing I really wanted to comment on. That's why I think having the mandatory training is so important. We're talking about not the one-percenters perhaps but the people who have privilege or who have had the opportunity to get to where they are today.

Carry on. Thank you.

[Bonnie Brayton]

On that very basis, that's precisely why this mandatory training needs to be done. It's why we put such strong emphasis on making sure that the curriculum is properly developed so that it covers the full range of knowledge they require to make the kinds of decisions they are being charged with making and to oversee these cases.

I also think the point was raised earlier around the fact that one of the “pay it forward” sorts of things we need to think about is, again, that recommendation to ministries of education around adjustments in curriculum. One of the ways that DAWN has tried to address this is by developing something we call “learning briefs”. We've developed these learning briefs and we share them with law schools, gender studies programs, and a range of different post-secondary institutions around the idea that, because the curriculum doesn't exist, it's important to take examples, such as that of the R. v. D.A.I. case, and use them in the classroom.

I agree that doesn't address the problem you're talking about right now. I think the reason this bill is so important is precisely that, because we have to move from something that isn't mandatory to something that is mandatory, including for those who are already in that place of privilege.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thanks so much, Bonnie.

[Nneka MacGregor]

For us, it's really around who is delivering the training and the quality of the information that's coming forward. As women survivors, when we talk, we're talking from a place of lived experience. We're talking about issues, like what Mandi and Jeremy spoke about, like the way that their trial impacted them, and the lessons that you can learn as a result of going through that whole process.

For us, mandatory training is important, but who is delivering that training? You must include the voices of those individuals who have lived it, because it's our experience that is actually going to change the perception and the understanding.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Absolutely.

Mandi.

[Mandi Gray]

I will just agree.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Wonderful.

[Jeremy Dias]

I'll just add that there's such a desperate need to diversify the pool at the very beginning. I think the lack of access to education for LGBTQ, especially trans and non-binary gender folk, remains a critical problem. I think we need to look at, again, forcing provinces to subsidize or equalize access to education so that young people can climb up the ranks a little bit higher and reach into really cool opportunities. Having leaders come out and be supportive and lift up other folks who are in marginalized positions is also very critical.

The first step for that, of course, is creating that dialogue. Again, I just want to reiterate the point that Pam opened the door for. If lawmakers, the Canadian legal aid societies, law societies, and judges are training themselves, the challenge is that civil society is left out of the conversation. Step one is opening the doors so we can engage with them in having that conversation. Step two is then having them create that space so that we can then apply for those jobs and apply for those opportunities and see ourselves in those opportunities.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you so much.

Jackie, I'm going to turn it over to you so you can finish the last question and start the new one. We've heard about the high-profile cases. We know that you have numerous cases, and I know even within the London area that I've spoken to the people from Violence Against Women and there are so many women we are working with to whom the justice system has not been fair.

Can you share your views on the last question as well as on some other situations that are not high profile, things you have dealt with in which you have seen that the justice system is failing because of the lack of understanding?

[Jackie Stevens]

Thank you.

Some of my points, I think, will touch on both questions.

Nova Scotia has had, over the years, some of the lowest reporting, charging, conviction, and sentencing rates. Certainly as we try to understand and make sense of that, some of it we feel comes from the history of how hidden sexualized violence has been in the province and the lack of, until recently, comprehensive services across the province to address these issues with victims and survivors. There simply haven't been the resources or the specialized programs and services that can provide the supports that victims need throughout the spectrum, from the time that they disclose and then if they do choose to report right through the criminal justice process, but also beyond that.

Avalon Centre 20 years ago started the first specialized trauma-specific sexual assault therapeutic counselling program. It was the only one of its kind until very recently. The fact is that people have gone without access to services and supports or there haven't been the resources to provide the advocacy and the long-term activism and action that people need at all levels. Those are crucial here in Nova Scotia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's your time.

Now we're going to Ms. Malcolmson for seven minutes.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

This is extremely rich. All of the witness groups have given us lots of material that we can reflect in our final recommendations.

I also want to give you the assurance that on the NDP side, we're pushing for a true national action plan to end violence against women. This would bring that leadership, to train police, to train education, to get consent culture all the way through the system, as other countries, through the United Nations, have done. That push continues.

However, focusing in on this study, I'd love to hear from all four witness groups. Firstly, can you tell me if you agree that, in order to get the right training for judges, you should have access to the curriculum to help design it and inform it? Secondly, have you ever been invited to do so in the past?

Can I start with DAWN and work down and then finish with Avalon?

[Bonnie Brayton]

That's an excellent question and, yes, I absolutely think it's critical. One of the things that we know from 30 years of working at DAWN Canada is that we are still, in virtually every arena, finding that the basic understanding of accommodating and supporting women with disabilities has been a failure by the state at every level. To be clear, the level of trust we would have in anyone, except an organization like DAWN Canada being involved and developing that training.... It's just not credible.

In terms of the way that needs to be done, it's important to understand, too, that many of the organizations that have this expertise have been challenged and under-resourced for a long period of time. Also, the capacity to move forward with this kind of an initiative needs to be understood to be something that has to have a long view and a commitment to supporting the women's organizations and organizations for the people we represent. This is so we can continue to do the work and not find ourselves challenged to the point where capacity to deliver this critical training is not possible. That's an important point to know, though.

Thank you very much, Sheila.

[Nneka MacGregor]

I'm coming at this from a slightly different perspective, because people talk about specialized courts and specialization. In the court watch that we conducted in 2014-15, it was of the specialized domestic violence courts. We found, overwhelmingly, that even though it was called “specialized courts”, where you had specialized police, specialized crowns, and allegedly specialized judges, the reality was that even with all the specialization, they still lacked the fundamental analysis of gender-based issues. You'd have instances where somebody actually has the courage, goes forward, discloses, the police investigate, and it gets to trial. No matter the charge or the assault, what ends up happening is that it's the same outcome. Everybody ends up with a peace bond, and he walks away. There's nothing that happens.

For me, when we talk about specialization, I come back to the issue of who is delivering the training. Who is delivering the education to make you understand what actually happens in this context?

For us, to answer your question, have we ever been invited? No, we have not. It is critical to go back to Jeremy's point that you cannot educate anybody on a subject matter without the experts. You need experts to do the educating. You cannot have judges telling other judges about issues that they don't know anything about.

[Jeremy Dias]

I'll be brief, because I know Avalon has a lot to say on this.

This also speaks to the training that goes on for lawyers in our country. A number of lawyers in our country have to do a mandatory 30-something hours of training every year. Lawyers are constantly telling me that those training days are often slapped together, where they take turns jumping at the podium and talking to one another about their experiences.

I've been to these training days, and it's awful. It's terrible. The joke, of course, is that I'll sit in the back, and I'm not even invited to speak on LGBTQ issues.

We've never been consulted. No other LGBTQ organizations have been invited to the table to speak about these issues. We've had parliamentarians, lawyers, and judges look at us and say, “You know that button you're wearing, that “they/them” button? I don't even know how to navigate that let alone go into the effects of someone being victimized as a trans or non-binary gender person by a sexual assault.”

Absolutely, I think civil society needs to pay a critical role, and I think the federal government could play a critical role in setting out the curriculum. This sounds like you're stepping on the provinces and territories, but you actually wouldn't be because you're setting out this legislation. It wouldn't take a lot of work on your part to raise the bar and say that you're setting the curriculum as well.