Status of Women Committee on May 11th, 2017

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

Liberal-1 reads, in your proposed subparagraph 3(b)(i) “education in sexual assault law that includes”. If this amendment passes, then what would be inserted after your words “sexual assault law that” would be my wording, which is, “has been developed in consultation with sexual assault survivors, as well as with groups and organizations that support them and that”, and then we go back to your wording, which was, “includes”.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Perfect. Thank you very much for the clarity.

If I can add, I think this subamendment is clever and well thought out. It addresses both the concerns of the voices needing to be heard in the training process, but also should remedy the concern that we heard from the judicial council about not prejudicing the ability of a judge to make an independent, impartial decision by hearing expert testimony from someone they've learned from.

I personally will be supportive. I don't want to speak for the rest of the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Is there further discussion on the subamendment?

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

I just want to say as well that it's an excellent addition, combining it with the fact that we know that the impact on marginalized groups is.... The intersectionality of sexual assault and including that from the testimony we heard is an excellent addition.

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

There's no NDP-1.

Shall clause 2 carry as amended?

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

That went too fast.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Because Liberal-1 is adopted as amended, we don't have an NDP-1. That means everything in clause 2 that has been submitted has been addressed.

Are there additional amendments?

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

To replay our success on the first paragraph, it's the same situation. I have a subamendment to propose to Liberal-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

We're not at Liberal-2 yet. We're still finishing off clause 2, which included Liberal-1.

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

I'm ready for the next one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

This is excellent training. This is only our second bill, so we're getting better.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 3)

Now, we are talking about Liberal-2. I wanted to inform the committee that if Liberal-2 is adopted, NDP-2 cannot be moved, because of a line conflict, as before.

We will start with the reading of Liberal-2

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

In terms of our amendment, it would be taking the first part, which says “establish seminars for the continuing education of judges”, and changing it to “establish seminars for the continuing education of judges, including in respect of matters related to sexual assault and social context”. We're adding, “and social context”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Any discussion on the amendment?

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

I have a subamendment to propose. It brings in the rationale I was going to propose in NDP-2. My amendment is, following the words, “social context”, in the Liberal-2 proposal, I would insert the words “that have been developed in consultation with sexual assault survivors, as well as with groups and organizations that support them”. It's the same rationale as we just discussed in the previous motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Any discussion on the subamendment?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I have precisely the same wording written down on a page in front of me. I think you'll find support from this side.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I support that as well.

I want to read into the record a couple of pieces of testimony. For example, Rona Ambrose said on April 4 in response to the question about intersectionality:

I'm open to anything that will provide judges with better training about gender-based violence. At the end of the day—and I'm sure all of you know this—judges are just lawyers who are appointed to the bench; they don't come with all the training.

Reinforcing that, we're all on the same page on this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Any further discussion on the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Before we move to a vote, I have a quick piece of discussion on the amendment.

I know we heard a wealth of testimony about the need to educate specifically on issues of intersectionality. To anyone who might be watching the testimony, we also heard from academics, specifically professors Koshan and Craig, who suggested that references to social context would be specific enough to allow the training for the intersecting grounds of discrimination. I want to make sure that is on the record, and we're not ignoring that and have thought out why this wording is appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I think that's an excellent clarification.

Any further discussion on Liberal-2 as amended?

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

On NDP-3 the ruling for this one is that it's not admissible. Bill C-337 amends the Judges Act to restrict eligibility for judicial appointment to individuals who have completed comprehensive sexual assault education. The amendment seeks to establish an education program for persons who play a role in the administration of criminal justice beyond the one that the bill contemplates for judges. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I am ruling the amendment inadmissible.

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

I think it needs to be said on the record that the committee heard in multiple testimonies from a range of witnesses that the judge is the final person who hears the result of the extent to which sexual assault informs every other element of the judiciary and every other element of the justice system.

We heard again and again that sexual assault training, gender-informed training, and trauma-informed training should be available to the crown prosecutors, police forces, lawyers, and the judiciary, and that in order for victims to have confidence in the justice system, they need to know they're going to be treated with dignity and respect by all participants at every level of the justice system.

I think it's important for committee members to reflect that we've heard that. The NDP proposal to amend was in that spirit. I understand that we are trying, through a private member's bill, to fix a whole lot of problems throughout a whole lot of police forces, so it's not a criticism of the drafters of the original bill, but this is a significant piece of work for which federal leadership is sorely needed. If it can't be accommodated here, then I think we all need to take some leadership in pushing to find the place where it can be accommodated, where we can make this change. Otherwise, training judges will not have the effect that we desire.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I fully agree with your rationale and the need for this. It's just that it wasn't within the scope of the bill. That's why the ruling was as it was.

Is there any further discussion on that?

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

Thank you.

Sheila, I believe everybody at this committee would fully agree with you, but as indicated, with the scope of the bill, I believe this is a first step to democracy when it comes to those victims of unjust violence. I think this is a great first step, and something like what you have indicated could go into another bill, another motion, or something of that sort.

Unfortunately, I do not see it as within the scope of what we did study. Yes, we did hear a lot about it, but it could be a recommendation after the fact. Let's look at this as a very positive first step, working together to at least get judges started, and then we can grow from there.

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

I think everyone was moved by the crown prosecutor who testified, Ursula Hendel. I don't think I've heard more compelling testimony than hers.

That being said, so much of this training for police and crown prosecutors falls within the provincial jurisdiction. I completely agree that more needs to be done. I've already been talking to my counterparts in the province of Ontario, and also with our justice department, about how we can work with the provinces to ensure they are working towards training crown prosecutors.

As one witness said—actually, I think it was Ms. Ludwig—it's the police and the crown prosecutors that.... It's hard down here. Judges are at the tip, and by the time it gets there, a lot of mistakes could have been made.

I think we're all on the same page as you, Sheila.