Evidence of meeting #58 for Status of Women in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was training.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9 a.m.
Executive Director, National Judicial Institute
You could probably, if you added that in...you'd certainly err in the range of 10 days.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Well, I actually had a chuckle, because in regard to seminar attendance on evidence-based things, it has the word “assume”, and we know that “assume” is something that the courts would not want to be doing, especially in sexual assault trials. I'm looking at this part because we're talking about fulfilling the 10 days. Let's say, for instance, that we have these great courses going on, and we already know that 168 judges are not attending out of them.... You may say that's a small percentage, but if they're not fulfilling the entire program, we don't know if it's just 168 judges or if it's 668 judges.
I think those are things where there needs to be clearer data showing the participation rates. I realize that there's judicial independence, but it's really hard for me to believe that everybody has taken the course and that we should be patting everybody on the back if they've not fulfilled the course. That's why I think something like this is extremely important, because we talk about these 10 days....
One of the other things that I want to know is about the programs. We keep on talking about the courses and what the courses are going to be. I'm asking, are you willing to share the programs with us? When we're looking at that 10-day period of time, can you tell me specifically how many hours or days relate specifically to actual sexual assault and domestic violence issues? We realize how large and broad this legal system is, but if we're looking at it and if there are only two hours put in because there are so many topics to address.... You're dealing with real estate. You're dealing with investments. You're dealing with everything else. How do we know how much time is being put towards sexual assaults? Can you advise me on this? How much time is actually given to sexual assault in that 10-day course or in those three and half or four days?
9 a.m.
Executive Director, National Judicial Institute
That is a very difficult question to answer because, as I've said before, when we put on a course dealing with mental illness, there may be elements of it that deal with gender-based violence and how those two intersect. It's a very difficult thing to do on a quantity basis as opposed to quality—
9 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
—but we're looking at the larger umbrella. We could sit there and say that under that this umbrella of sexual assault we can talk about whether it's dealing with first nations or a variety of different things, but there should be some sort of data, some sort of quantitative measurement we have that indicates that judges have taken at least 50% or more of their training specifically in sexual assault. I'm wondering why that data is not available. When we're looking at what needs to be done, we don't have that information.
9 a.m.
Executive Director, National Judicial Institute
Let me turn this over to Maître Sabourin, because I think that falls under his umbrella. The NJI does design and deliver the courses, but it is the chiefs and the judges who decide what courses to attend.
May 2nd, 2017 / 9 a.m.
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Canadian Judicial Council
I would just say, Madam Chair, that in the CJC position paper on Bill C-337 we do map out from a quantitative perspective that the CJC intends to publish the title, description, and overview of all education seminars approved by the CJC in the preceding year. We propose to publish the dates and duration of each seminar, and we propose to publish the number of judges who attend each seminar.
On a qualitative basis, I think that to start talking about 22% of sexual assault training would be a grave error, because we are taking a very comprehensive approach to social context education. As Justice Kent has pointed out, you might have a course on evidence that has integrated into it clear objectives of social context education, such as gender-based inequality and the intersectionality of the issues that surround gender-based issues.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I'm going to go on to another thing. I'm sorry, Justice Kent, but I'm back at you.
You mentioned that you're looking at hearing from people on the deficiencies in the current training. As you know—you've read all the information—one thing that's lacking is these organizations and groups. We're talking about high-level national organizations. They feel that there has not been any outreach and they have not been part of the training or decision-making. Can you answer that? We're hearing from one side that they are being spoken to, but we're hearing from them that they're not. Can you please clarify that?
9:05 a.m.
Executive Director, National Judicial Institute
Sure.
As I said, I read the transcript of the hearings you had. There were six wonderful groups, and in fact I really champion the work they do. It's important work.
Some of those groups are advocates, and we can't have advocates teaching our judges. We need the balance. So if we have a prosecutor—
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Okay, I'm going to ask why we cannot have advocates, because sometimes advocates specialize in that subject. It's important to have both sides of the issue.
9:05 a.m.
Executive Director, National Judicial Institute
Well, we have to be careful about balance for the judges. One example is that when we have a prosecutor come to talk about something involving criminal law, we will always have someone from the defence bar. There needs to be balance.
I understand that some of these advocates that you've heard from appear before the courts. We cannot have people who appear before judges in our training sessions, because the very next day a judge may walk in and have one of them in front of them.
I do know that of the people you had there, there was one group, I think it was Ms. Porteous who had been involved....
We do involve the community, but we do so carefully because the judges need a balanced approach to it.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Very good. That's your time.
We're going to Ms. Malcolmson for seven minutes.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for returning again.
I'd like to carry on from my colleague's questions. I just want to make sure that we don't overstate the testimony of Tracy Porteous from the Ending Violence Association of British Columbia. She said, “I've been working in this field for 35 years and just last year was invited to do a one-off workshop for a group of provincial court judges at a national judges' conference on domestic violence and homicide.”
I think we need to be careful. She said that she has been asked once. I would hope very much, based on the testimony from the six organizations, who all said that they'd never been consulted.... I don't think they were asking to train the judges. They thought, based on, in some cases their lifetime of experience in working with victims of domestic violence, that their ability to be consulted on the content, or even being able to see it, would create more transparency. It would mean that the on-the-ground impact of the judicial system, at every level, might be filtered in there.
I think we have a gap there, which I think is something that this committee is going to have to make recommendations on.
We did ask at the April 11 meeting whether we could see the content of the training, because that hasn't been seen before.
Madam Kent, you said you could provide that. Is that something that we can see? I think you offered the table of contents, but we were actually looking for the meat of it.
9:05 a.m.
Executive Director, National Judicial Institute
Yes, that's right.
What I referred to you was the document that I handed out at the last hearing.
Again, on these sorts of questions, I have to take my lead from the CJC. They are the people who approve our funding, and it is their direction that we take in terms of the courses we put on, and the content.
9:05 a.m.
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Canadian Judicial Council
One thing I can say is that the CJC is keen to make more information available publicly. We've had immense resource constraints in the past, but with the recent federal budget, we're very pleased to look forward to additional funds for publication of these things.
Number one, we want to give an overview of each course that will be delivered to judges. Number two, as we set something up, we would like to be able to share even more information.
If I might, in terms of community involvement, I take your point fully. The more we consult, the better. We are looking right now at enhancing awareness for federally appointed judges on aboriginal issues, and one of the starting points is that we're going to the Assembly of First Nations. We're going to the indigenous bar associations.
But you know, there must be 63 groups out there who would like to have a hand in shaping the course content. I would just offer a word of caution about how far you can go in saying let's involve the groups. I welcome the involvement, and we want to do that at the CJC, working with NJI to involve community groups in the development. However, I think you have to be realistic about how to mandate this, or how to frame it, so that we can reach out to as many people as possible.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Would you agree with me that zero is the wrong number, though?
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Canadian Judicial Council
Absolutely. As far as I know—I'm not the expert—the course content is not....
The education committee of the CJC works very hard at overseeing the development of every course that is offered to judges. The committee always look at who is on the committee that creates the development course, and, contrary to what may have been perceived by some, it's not just a bunch of judges and lawyers. There are always community experts, people from community groups, and people from academia who participate, so it's definitely not zero. That would be a very bad idea.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
With respect, the reason this bill has been tabled and why we've interrupted our other study to study this, and the reason this is top-of-the-fold in headlines day after day is that we have a problem in our country. There is a gap that needs to be filled and, respectfully, I would suggest more community involvement, more transparency, and more engagement. The NGOs are very good at sorting things out amongst themselves. They won't be offended if all 63 are not included. There is certainly an appetite, and I would commend their experience to all of your organizations.
I did get some feedback this past week in my riding from one of the domestic assault support groups when they saw the headline that the new federal funding would go to video training of judges and videocasts on sexual assault trials—which, as Ms. Kent says, “will be put on our website, thereby making them available to all Canadian judges.” One of the executive directors said, “I wouldn't train my staff with a video.” She was very concerned that this was where the money would go.
Can you tell me more? Will you go beyond a videocast on a website? Is this something that the judges do on their own time, in their own offices? Is there some kind of review afterwards to identify whether the content has been absorbed? Is there some kind of mandatory education? Assure me that this isn't the end of the road.
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, National Judicial Institute
This is an additional tool. Judges get training at new judges school on sexual assault, as we discussed last time. There are other courses. They're court-based courses where gender-based violence is involved. I gave you an example this morning of the comings-and-goings exercise, so to suggest that the only thing will be some video learning.... I think if that were the case, we would not be doing a good job. Our pedagogy is the need for experiential learning: to have the judges in the situation that some of these women are in from time to time. It is an additional tool, just like their law books are additional tools.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
So this is additional to what we're doing right now? There have been problems identified with the training that's happening right now, and I'll just relay to you that the NGO feedback I got is that it isn't reassuring to them. On top of the existing group of judges we have right now, we've heard a lot of witness testimony here—not just for the most high-profile ones—that there is a fundamental problem.
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Canadian Judicial Council
If I may answer, I think this is absolutely a legitimate concern. I have to say that the genesis of the video capsules at the outset was to try to find a way to reach out to provincially appointed judges, for which we don't have the funding or the mandate. It was very much an additional tool.
I agree with you that there are gaps. I may not agree with you that the problem is as grave as might have been represented in the media as far as federally appointed judges go, but there are gaps, and we want to work on them. On the additional funding, if it has been construed as strictly for video capsules, that's not the case at all. It's really to be comprehensive.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Very good, and that's your time.
We're going now to Ms. Damoff for seven minutes.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you very much.
Thanks to all of you for coming back again, and thanks also for keeping up on the previous witnesses, because it's helpful when you're here again and you know what has been said.
I want to talk about the mandatory training. Both times when you've appeared, you've mentioned the requirement that everyone undertakes this education. As the bill is worded right now, anyone who applies to a federally appointed judgeship must complete “recent and comprehensive education in sexual assault law”. We've heard that there are problems with that, particularly with a delay in assessment of the candidates and inadequate training.
I want you to comment. As I said, I believe that when you were here the last time, Mr. Giroux, you talked about requiring an “undertaking” to complete this education. What are your thoughts on this? Do you still think the best way for us to go is to require that they complete an undertaking to complete this training once they're appointed?
9:15 a.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs
That was a suggestion made by Maître Sabourin—