Status of Women Committee on April 19th, 2016

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

To be a little clearer, hopefully, when victims come through the justice system, based on your experience and what you're hearing, are they happy with the level of participation they have in the process or are there gaps there? Would they like to be more involved, more engaged, in the sentencing process, the information process, the parole process, all of those things? Are victims wanting a voice to a greater extent, or are they content with the way things are?

[Gillian Blackell]

I think it varies enormously, depending on victims. I think victims don't all look the same and they don't all want the same thing from the system. It depends on the context within which the crime occurs and, of course, their individual experience with it.

If we ask victims generally about their satisfaction, there's a difference between their satisfaction with the way in which they were treated by players within the system and the results, because the results are based on a standard of proof, and in a lot of ways that's beyond the control of the players they have direct contact with.

The more information victims have, even if the information is that they can't be provided with this information for various privacy reasons, that is already better than nothing, and I think victims appreciate just being informed so that they can understand the situation. The more they have the sense of how to navigate, the more their levels of satisfaction go up.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Do I have a little bit more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

You have one minute.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm not exactly sure where I should be directing this question. It has a little more to do with what happens on the ground.

I recently met with the director of our YWCA in Lethbridge, Alberta, which is my constituency, and one of the things she talked about with me, which was of grave concern to her, was the accessibility that victims of sexual assault have to the justice system and the health care system. A victim might stay in the shelter that is available through the YWCA. They know to do that much, but when it comes to knowing how to go to the hospital, do a report, find a lawyer, pursue justice of some sort, they're finding it really difficult to navigate and do that on their own, and they're not necessarily provided with on-the-ground services from someone who could help them navigate that system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's your time. Hold that thought until we get back around.

Next we're going to hear from Ms. Malcolmson for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses. I appreciate your time and your work. I have a very limited questioning time, so I hope you can answer my questions really quickly.

I would appreciate hearing from both the Department of Justice and the Public Health Agency to help me reconcile the Public Health Agency saying that a prime directive is to ensure the justice system is appropriate to deter offenders and is sensitive to the needs of victims, with having the justice department saying the prosecution is in the hands of the provinces and the federal role is more in programming.

The corollary we've expressed around the table is our concern about under-reporting of domestic violence. If it's so in the headlines for grown-up women, young women, and girls, and if they experience sexual violence, how on earth are they ever going to feel confident about coming forward and reporting?

I'm hoping you'll tell me that your respective departments are internally talking about what you can do to further encourage victims to come forward, what kinds of reforms you might be contemplating through the criminal justice system to better accommodate victims of sexual crimes, and what a national action plan to fight violence against women might do to connect the provincial response and our national response.

Any insight there?

[Gillian Blackell]

Thank you for your question. I'm sorry if I was misleading.

PHAC is the coordinator of the family violence initiative, and the component that refers to the justice system relates to the Department of Justice's role within that initiative in the federal family violence initiative.

The justice role in the federal family violence initiative involves programming through the family violence fund in terms of criminal justice reforms and the criminal law policy in particular. We also work with the provinces and territories regularly, talking with them about prosecuting and investigating intimate partner violence. There is an ongoing dialogue. We are always interested in hearing from the victim services providers about what's missing and what we can do to assist in terms of providing more information and helping victims navigate and understand what their rights are and what their role is in going through the process. That is something that we're constantly doing.

We're always in touch with our partners at the federal level, through the federal family violence initiative and through other FPT and interdepartmental organizations.

[Kimberly Elmslie]

One gap we are trying to fill is from a public health perspective with regard to further supporting victims in coming forward. We're coming at this through the public health system. The work we're doing now, and the funding led by a team of qualified researchers and professionals at McMaster University, is to equip front-line health professionals with the skills they need to better relate to victims of violence and make them feel comfortable in the context of the health care experience so that they can help them come forward.

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

What I'm getting at is this: as part of this national dialogue and after some front-page headlines on some colossal failures of prosecutions, if we educate young women and girls to stand up for themselves, to know what is violence and what is wrong, to the point that they want to turn to the justice system to prosecute, what's going to be different for them, as a result of some of the very high-profile collapses of cases?

Is there work happening internally that might give us hope around a different approach to prosecuting sexual violence crimes?

[Nathalie Levman]

Thank you for that question. As my colleague has indicated, we are responsible for the criminal law and we know what the platform commitments have been in terms of this government wanting to ensure that the criminal law framework is robust when it comes to dealing with domestic violence and sexual assaults. That work is, of course, ongoing.

In terms of its relationship with the collapse of cases, I assume you're referring to cases in the context of sexual violence, perhaps the Wagar case. There are others as well, but I'm not sure which ones in particular. That goes back to my colleague's comment about the importance of working with provinces and territories as they administer justice in Canada.

For example, just taking the sexual assault framework, we have an extremely comprehensive legislative framework that addresses sexual assault. That doesn't mean that there can't be tweaks to improve it. I just want to direct your attention to the fact that there have been significant reforms since 1983, and quite comprehensive ones, that have addressed the stereotypes of sexual assault victims that have been so prevalent traditionally in our criminal justice system.

Throughout the 1990s, quite an important dialogue occurred between the courts and Parliament that resulted in strengthening the substantive offences, as well as the evidentiary and procedural provisions that protect complainants.

We can see an evolution of the law here that has resulted in abrogation of very unfortunate provisions that required corroboration of victims' testimony in a sexual assault case before they would be believed, that allowed husbands to sexually assault their wives with impunity, that said that somebody who didn't come forward right away or didn't make the complaint immediately wasn't to be believed, etc.

All of that has been dealt with and has been abrogated, and it's clear in the criminal law that it no longer applies.

That said, and despite the procedural provisions we have—the rape shield provisions, etc.—we still have judges who are coming out with quite unfortunate decisions. However, I would just like to draw your attention to the Alberta Court of Appeal case in Wagar that overturned Justice Camp's unfortunate decision. He said:

...we are satisfied that the trial judge’s comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge’s understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant’s sexual activity imposed by section 276—

—which is the rape shield provision—

—of the Criminal Code. We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge’s judgment.

They overturned that decision. Of course, the fact that the decision occurred, the fact that reasoning of that kind is there, discourages victims from coming forward, but then appeal courts do apply the law, and professors like Elizabeth Sheehy have said that they are not applying the law when these types of decisions are made.

I just wanted to emphasize that we do have a robust legislative framework.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we'll go over to my Liberal colleague, Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Ms. Dhillon.

My question goes back to some of the things we learned last week. We had Stats Canada in. It seemed to most of us on this committee that maybe there was under-reporting and that maybe we didn't have all the accurate numbers we could have in order to assist in this area federally.

After hearing all your great presentations, I am finding that the federal government's role from a lot of the departments is to fund, and it's channelled down to the provinces and different organizations.

How do we do a good job at targeting our funding and making sure that it provides the services that are needed if we don't have accurate numbers because we may have under-reporting in certain communities?

This question goes to you, Mr. Valentine. We were learning that in immigrant populations the numbers are quite low for abuse. That's what Stats Canada was telling me. I'm not sure if that's because of under-reporting or if that's truly accurate.

How can we do a better job at getting the numbers from these organizations on the numbers of people who are walking through their doors with different concerns, and having that come back to the federal government without actually initiating a case in court? Those numbers are a lot easier to obtain, but some people don't take it to that extent. They don't go to the court. They stop at counselling or a neighbour or wherever their door ends.

How do we get those numbers? How do we figure out which direction to head in, and if what we're doing is right or wrong?

[Fraser Valentine]

Thank you for the question. It's an excellent question. It's a a complex question and a complex answer.

From an immigration perspective, I think what we recognize as one of the most critical things to do is to ensure that women, particularly the young women, understand their rights under the law when they arrive in the country so that if they're subject to activities that are not appropriate when they're here and in their communities, they understand that they have the ability under the law to take some action.

We do that both overseas before the family and the individual arrive through pre-settlement work with the International Organization for Migration as well as, and I think more profoundly, with our settlement organizations located in communities across the country.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

If I may get back to that for a moment—

[Fraser Valentine]

Yes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

—is it all immigrants across the board, regardless of category, who get this education, or is it certain categories?

[Fraser Valentine]

Correct.

Canada is quite unique in the world. We provide settlement programming to all newcomers in the country. As long as you are a permanent resident in Canada, you can receive settlement services, which include things like language training and employment supports, but also quite specific programming that could be targeted through certain organizations in relation to violence and understanding your rights under the law.

The moment at which those services no longer become available is when you become a Canadian citizen, if you choose to do that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

If you choose to...?

[Fraser Valentine]

We have the highest naturalization rate in the world at over 80%, but not all permanent residents choose to become Canadian citizens. That is a choice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

You have three minutes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

That's okay. I'll pass my time over, then.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

I have a very brief question, and, if there's time, Ms. Sahota will continue.

You mentioned that the officers are trained to detect and deal with suspected cases of marriage fraud. In what context do you put that in your report concerning women?

[Fraser Valentine]

Sorry, in what context...?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

You mentioned that marriage fraud is still a concern and officers are trained to detect it.

How does this—