Status of Women Committee on April 13th, 2017

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

Thank you. I'll turn to our Quebec and British Columbia witnesses who are online.

Ms. Lopez and Ms. Porteous, can you add more about the imperative to have a comprehensive approach to gender-sensitive and trauma-informed training for every step of the justice system, and uniformity across the country so that women who move from place to place can have some assurance of equal access to justice?

[Marlihan Lopez]

We emphasize that the training must have an intersectional perspective because very often we forget the realities that certain marginalized groups face in the context of sexual assault and sexual violence, and these realities are not examined when pushing forward certain initiatives.

When we talk about access to the judicial system, we have to remember that some groups have even faced systemic barriers just to report the assault in terms of talking about their experience. It's even more difficult when you're dealing with groups that don't even have a migratory status that would enable them to access the system. For groups that face systemic racism or other types of discrimination, accessing the justice system is even more difficult.

I think that this initiative has to underline and address how all these systemic barriers work against these victims and make it so difficult for them to access the justice system.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Sean Fraser for seven minutes.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'll ask Mr. Dias to return to the table quickly. I know we're running up against our time limit.

You mentioned, Mr. Dias, during your testimony, the quality of the training that you've been to. I'm a lawyer by trade, and I've sat through those same sessions. They can be incredibly weak by times, when you show up just to prove that you've done what's mandatory.

One of the pieces of testimony we heard from the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs was that they're seeing a huge uptick in the number of judicial applications, to the tune of 500 in this year alone. He said, point-blank, we do not have the capacity to deliver quality training, and what will happen is that we will put in some session that satisfies the requirements. Essentially, in my mind it would be like a rubber-stamping process.

One of the things that came out of the testimony was that there might be another way to do this, by saying, let's disclose the training you have as part of the lengthy questionnaire that we've introduced in the appointments process. Let's have every judge say, “If I'm appointed, I will undertake to complete training”, and then, on the back end, fund community organizations who are experts to deliver the training. Would this be a better way to protect against the risk that we do a rubber-stamping process with people who don't have the lived experience that the experts do?

[Jeremy Dias]

Absolutely. Without a doubt, I think that would be a great option. I also think the training has to be recurring, because these issues change dramatically over time. I've been using “they/them” pronouns for six years now, but it's only in the last two years that we've seen community organizations, businesses, and government recognize non-binary pronouns.

The reality is that this education requires a sort of ongoing update and upkeep, so that we're staying au courant. It's really important that this continues.

The answer is yes, absolutely. Having it happen with us first and then moving forward is a brilliant idea.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

Unfortunately, in the interests of going to our committee business, that's the end of our panel discussion, so I want to thank all of our witnesses. If there is information you'd care to send to the clerk afterwards, that would be fine.

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

I have a point of order.

I'm just concerned as we're about to go in camera without knowing what the business is, and I would like to know why we're going in camera. I'm very fearful that the reason we're going in camera is that we have not seen the Prime Minister say that he—

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

We've already voted on it.

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

Actually, there's debate allowed, thank you. Sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

The clerk brought me information that says, because we didn't have unanimous consent on the motion to go in camera, that triggers a debate where each party will get three minutes, and then you'll have one minute of rebuttal to talk about why it ought to be in camera.

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

As I continue, my biggest concern is that we are looking at a substantial bill that's going to help women, the LGBTQ community, women who are disabled, first nations, a variety of different people, and we're very concerned that this government is not in support of this bill. Therefore, we are not having the opportunity to hear from witnesses—

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

Can we dismiss the witnesses?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

The clerk may be able to shed some light on this. I believe the correct procedure would have been to have the debate before the vote. There was an opportunity, and both sides actually commented on it. We moved to a vote and voted to go in camera, so would that not have satisfied the requirements for debate that it seems are now being relitigated?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

The clerk has asked us to suspend at this point because she needs to check into that, so we'll suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

All right, so we've had a clarification. Apparently, because the topic of discussion will be the agenda, which is something that it was previously agreed upon we would go in camera for, let's suspend—

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

Chair, can I just double-check? I thought the vote was on the point of order. The vote was not to go in camera. That was my understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

No, the vote was not on the point of order. The vote was on a motion to go in camera for 15 minutes, but actually we don't even need a motion to go in camera for things that we've already previously agreed would be. We just didn't know what the topic was, but now we know that the topic is the agenda and we know that there was a motion that was voted, so we can go in camera—

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

The room's not being cleared.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

We're going to go in camera, so let's clear the room. I'll suspend while we go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]