Status of Women Committee on April 13th, 2017

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

Thank you. Avalon, go ahead.

[Jackie Stevens]

I want to echo what the other presenters have said. Absolutely, experts from the community working hands-on with these issues, and victims themselves, need to be involved in the process of developing and delivering training to all legal and law enforcement professionals, including judges.

Avalon has worked with the Halifax Regional Police to develop police investigation and response training, and we deliver that on a regular basis. We have worked with the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society to develop training for lawyers. It is something that lawyers can access if they want, but it is not mandatory. Again, one of the questions is whether it is getting to the right people.

Over the years, we have talked to judges and have advocated for training for judges here in Nova Scotia. We have also worked in collaboration with organizations across the country to advocate for training for judges. We haven't been invited to do that. Often, what we hear is that judges would not be seen as impartial if they had specialized training.

I think the point all of us are trying to make is that this doesn't mean you're no longer impartial. What it means is that you are informed and you actually have the specific knowledge and understanding of the issues of sexualized violence, as well as the intersectionalities of race and other oppressions and how that impacts victims and points of law.

Certainly, as we know from many of the people who are on this panel before you now, and from high-profile cases across this country, people are being deliberately targeted for specific reasons, whether it's race or other forms of marginalization because of alcohol or misogyny. Not only are they being targeted for victimization because of those issues, but those very issues of why they're victims are then held against them in a court of law and are used as a way to deny what has happened to them.

That's what we need to get at, in terms of the roots of how we are actually understanding sexualized violence, through training.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

Now we're going to go to Ms. Vandenbeld for seven minutes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of the panellists. This is very compelling testimony. Again, I apologize to Ms. Brayton for the difficulties in accessing the building.

We've heard a lot in this committee about the fact that women of intersecting identities experience more violence, and experience violence differently. What we are hearing here today is that they may very well be targeted because the judicial system doesn't recognize that. I find it very alarming.

I'm glad you referred to the Supreme Court decision, Ms. Brayton, about those losing their voice because of mental disabilities or not even being able to testify. I think this is quite alarming.

I think it was Ms. Gray who mentioned the stereotypes about what a victim looks like and what an aggressor looks like.

The legislation that is being proposed here talks about training “in evidentiary prohibitions, principles of consent and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings, as well as...myths and stereotypes”. Now, in the training that our government is providing for the new judicial advisory committees that are going to be selecting new judges, we go beyond that. We have training in unconscious bias, diversity, and intersectionality.

Do you think that this legislation goes far enough? Is it too narrow? Should it be more explicit in talking about intersectional identities, persons with disabilities or those without voice, LGBTQ, and non-binary? Do you think that we need to include more of that in this legislation?

I'll just go in the same order.

[Jeremy Dias]

I think it doesn't go far enough. I think the explicit needs to be there.

We've reached out to judges, lawyers, and law firms, saying, “Hey, we need to do this training”, and they've said, “Oh, we had our unconscious bias training” or “We've had our diversity training.” Then we'd get a copy of what they did, and LGBTQ is three minutes. It's just not comprehensive.

The funny thing is that there are people who want to learn and they have mandated time that they have to spend every year to learn, yet they're not connecting with civil society.

There is another piece that I really want to mention. I can't speak for the other witnesses, but I do encourage them to speak out if this is their reality as well. We don't have any funding from Victim Services Canada. If I am doing this reach-out to lawyers, law firms, or judges, it's on the side of my desk. We would love to tap into this funding that is going out to these law societies and law organizations, which already have tons of funding to do this work. We would love that funding so that we can do that work.

Avalon is, in my experience, an exception. I've seen their work in Nova Scotia—incredible work, working with the judicial system—and I'm constantly in awe of them. I think they're one of the coolest groups. Again, none of us are funded to do this work, so the progress that some of us have been able to make has been minimal and limited. I just wonder, if you're doing this.... If we're funded to do that, it would make it a lot easier.

[Mandi Gray]

Absolutely. It's important to note that I did a talk at a law school and I asked the students if they had ever had a non-lawyer present. I was the first one. They were third-year law students.

It's important to note too that as survivors we are often asked as individuals to provide our expertise, to divulge the most vulnerable moments of our lives, for no compensation. I didn't work until last week when I started working officially with the centre, but until then, there was a request to divulge all this information with no compensation or recognition of just how sensitive the issue is, especially when you are delivering training to people who don't have knowledge of the topics. I think a broader spectrum of training and education is needed. What exactly that will look like will be really difficult to decide, and what it looks like in practice will be interesting.

[Bonnie Brayton]

I'm really glad you asked the question. The fact that I brought up the Supreme Court decision speaks to a reality that we had to intervene at that level for this issue to even come forward before the judiciary because of what had happened at the provincial court level with this particular decision.

The reality is that women with disabilities are not believed. Many women are not believed. The whole issue of women's credibility in testifying is critical. The struggle for any woman to come forward and report is huge. You can imagine the kinds of challenges a woman with a disability faces just to get to that court if she's not supported. The idea that she gets to the court and then her credibility is questioned is huge. In terms of the reality that we must include civil society and focus on the training piece is absolutely critical, but that it be intersectional and that this isn't going far enough is absolutely clear.

The idea that Supreme Court decisions like these were attained by DAWN in 2012, and that most of the judiciary and crown prosecutors are not aware of this is so critical. It makes the point really strongly. That was in 2012; it's 2017. In December 2016, I heard from a woman whose daughter had been sexually assaulted. She had a learning disability, was in high school, and was being told by the crown prosecutor that she shouldn't go forward. She didn't really want to go through this, having been discouraged from going forward when she had reported—a 13-year-old girl sexually assaulted at her break in school. So yes, I think it's extremely critical.

Women with disabilities are being sexually assaulted at at least twice the rate of other women and we are not being supported to come forward and testify. Again, I'm coming to the point that all the other folks have made and we've reiterated here: it's critical to understand that, to support that.

Nobody supported DAWN going to the Supreme Court except LEAF. There was no funding. There was just enough funding to get us to the table. To understand that for DAWN Canada to even exist 30 years in, and we're the only organization for women with disabilities, speaks to the huge gap in understanding of who needs to be supported at the civil society level and all the way up.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Stevens.

[Jackie Stevens]

These are very important points that are being made, and I urge the committee to consider them in all seriousness in terms of, across the board, how this impacts this decision around this bill and other areas that address this issue.

Picking up on some of the other presenters, I think that training is crucial. It does need to be intersectional, it needs to be done at all levels, and it needs to be done more than once a year or as continuing education. It needs to be done throughout so that a full spectrum of issues are being addressed, as well as the ways in which training is delivered. Again, it's crucial that experts from the community, from the areas of focus of that training, are involved.

I agree with others that there does need to be compensation, because most of us are doing this work as part of our mandate so there's funding in that sense, but when you're talking about this kind of specialized training that is ongoing, that is multi-faceted, and that is looking not only at first response and direct service delivery, but is also looking at best practices, legislative change. All of that does take time, energy, resources, and specialized knowledge. That needs to be recognized. This training definitely needs to be done in collaboration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's very good. Thanks so much.

We've had a request to have our committee take 15 minutes at the end of the meeting to go in camera. I'm going to switch up to our second panel, and I want to thank all the witnesses who have testified today. We appreciate your experience and your courage in continuing to bring awareness to this issue.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I have a point of order, I guess, or maybe it's just a question.

Some of the witnesses gave incredible testimony. If they're available and are able to stick around for the second half to take questions so we can get further testimony on the record, if possible, is that acceptable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I believe that's allowable, if the witnesses can stay.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Subject to the availability of the witnesses, of course.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good. Thank you. We'll change up the panel, and we'll suspend briefly while we do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

We're happy to be back with our second panel today.

There is a point of order from Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a couple things here.

Pam Damoff has requested that we have 15 minutes at the end that are spent in camera. We've brought witnesses in to speak to this topic. It is incredibly rude to take from their time in order to go in camera without prior warning. That said, we also must have a vote with regard to whether we do in fact go in camera at the end of this meeting because we are changing the agenda.

Again, I do think it's really disrespectful to our witnesses. It really devalues their time. We were hearing excellent testimony before. I'm sure these individuals also have excellent testimony, and we won't get to the topic at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good. I would call a vote then on the request to have 15 minutes of in camera at the end of the committee.

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

Can I just say something to it, because someone has just called me rude?

I wouldn't be asking to go in camera if I didn't think it was important. I think we decided to jam-pack these meetings with an awful lot of witnesses, which is challenging to begin with.

I am very respectful of the witnesses and the witnesses' time. I'm going to leave it at that because certainly the opposition has done things that have required us to actually leave meetings. I'm always respectful of our witnesses, and I appreciate having the opportunity to say that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Vecchio.

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

I respect where we're coming from, but 15 minutes is a lengthy time as well. Is it something that is going to be a two- to three-minute discussion, or is it something that is so critical? We are doing so well on the testimony today.

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

I don't know, so I think 15 minutes would be appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Is there further discussion on the motion?

Ms. Malcolmson.

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

I'll say again, without having any notice or any idea what the content is about, and often we do talk about things one-on-one, I'm also opposed. We've invited witnesses here, and then we have to go to question period at 11:00. It's an unusual day. I'm planning to vote no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Is there any further discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

With that, I would like to welcome, from the Native Women's Association of Canada, Chad Kicknosway and Francyne Joe. From Ending Violence Association of British Columbia, by video conference, we have Tracy Porteous. From Women's Shelters Canada, we have Lise Martin. From Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, we have Marlihan Lopez, who is the liaison officer.

Welcome to all of you.

Each of the speakers will have five minutes to present their comments, and we'll begin with Francyne.

[Francyne Joe, President, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Good morning Madam Chairperson, committee members, guests, and distinguished witnesses.

My name is Francyne Joe, and I am the interim president of the Native Women’s Association of Canada. I would like to first acknowledge that we are on Algonquin territory and we are meeting here on this beautiful spring day.

I am honoured to have worked alongside Ms. Martin of Women’s Shelters Canada on the 16 days of activism to end violence against women campaign. I thank all of today’s witnesses for their commitment to supporting the empowerment of women and advocating for policies that address the roots of violence against women.

I am here today with Mr. Chad Kicknosway, NWAC’s senior adviser on justice and human rights.

We thank you for the opportunity to present to you today on such an important subject. As a woman of first nations descent and a national representative of first nations and Métis women, it is my primary goal to advocate for policies that improve our well-being. This includes social, economic, cultural, and political spheres. The issue of violence against women extends into each of these areas.

I believe that the reported rate of one in three women living in Canada experiencing sexual assault in their lifetimes is a low estimate, when low reporting rates are taken into account. For indigenous women, the rate is at least three times higher. The launch of the national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls marks the official recognition that violence against our women has reached pandemic proportions.

Indigenous women face multiple barriers to receiving justice after being assaulted. The first is the fear of coming forward. This may be a fear of retaliation, but it is commonly a fear of not being heard or believed. There is no question that the general practice of victim-blaming stops many women from coming forward. Indigenous women face not only the sexist aspects of the system but the practice of racism as well. It is well documented that indigenous women have been questioned aggressively, unfairly judged, humiliated, and even assaulted while reporting their assaults and even while in custody.

It may no longer be the practice of the media to criticize a woman for her lifestyle when reporting on cases of sexual assault. However, the decisions and comments made by judiciary officials have continued to perpetuate the racism and sexism that contribute to the propagation of violence against indigenous women. In the case of Cindy Gladue, a judge allowed graphic genital photos of the victim and a physical sample from the body to be shown in court. The fact that she was a sex worker was given undue bearing in the proceedings. The court’s prejudice had an impact on the jury’s judgments on consent and led to the ultimate acquittal of the man who killed her. Such errors in judgment, coloured by ignorance, bias, and outright racism, send indigenous women and perpetrators of violence against indigenous women a message that indigenous women’s lives are not valued.

Indigenous women need to be shown that they are loved and that they are valued.

Our justice system needs to address this by passing bills that will strongly discourage light sentencing against perpetrators of violence against indigenous women, consider being an indigenous woman as an aggravating factor when sentencing an offender, and address the systemic racism and sexism that keeps indigenous women silent, which encourages a perception that they are vulnerable.

This bill comes at a pivotal time in Canada’s history as we move toward reconciling with the first inhabitants of this country, the indigenous population. The passing of Bill C-337 would send a clear message that the justice system refuses to play a role in further violence against indigenous women and that indigenous women are respected, loved, and valued.

We thank you for this invitation to offer our input on the specifics of this bill and its implementations.

Therefore, on behalf of the Native Women's Association, I’m pleased to state our support for this bill and elaborate on our recommendations and concerns.

The proposed addition to the Judges Act to make it mandatory for newly appointed judges to complete comprehensive education in sexual assault law is a positive move forward. It must be expected that NWAC would bring forth the recommendation that this comprehensive education include a distinct section, or course, or chapter that discusses indigenous women exclusively. NWAC has done extensive work in this area already, and we are ready to offer our continued expertise on this matter. This could take the form of developing a comprehensive educational tool kit that brings awareness to the unique issues that indigenous women experience.

My first recommendation for the committee to consider is incorporating into subclause 2(2) of the bill, a reference that specifically addresses violence against indigenous women. Therefore, tail end of the proposed amendment of subsection 3(b) of the Judges Act would read, “as well as education regarding myths and stereotypes associated with sexual assault complainants, and education regarding the unique experiences of sexual violence against Indigenous women.”

I believe this inclusion will add value to the reconciliation process between Canada and the first inhabitants of this country.

A shortcoming of the bill that may have been brought to your attention appears to be that the bill's requirements of the comprehensive education in sexual assault law would only apply to newly appointed judges.

Subclause 2(2) of the bill is clear, that candidates in consideration of judicial appointment need to undertake education and “instruction in evidentiary prohibitions, principles of consent and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings, as well as education regarding myths and stereotypes associated with sexual assault complainants.”

There's nothing the bill—