Thank you. Good afternoon.
I'm very happy to be with you to speak on this important topic. I'm the legal director at Luke's Place in Durham Region, Ontario. We provide direct services to women who have left abusive relationships and are engaged with the family law process. We also work at the provincial and national levels conducting research, developing resources, providing training and engaging in systemic advocacy.
We welcome the work of the status of women committee to study intimate partner violence—or IPV as I'll call it—in Canada, which will, we hope, lead to ongoing government initiatives to both respond to that violence with appropriate services and develop strategies to reduce and, ultimately, end violence within families in this country.
I encourage you, if you haven't had time to do it already, to read the joint submission from Luke's Place and NAWL, the National Association of Women and the Law, to see all of our recommendations to the committee.
In my remarks this afternoon, I'll raise several key themes.
First, any measures to address and end the violence that happens within families must apply an intersectional and gendered analysis. While people of all genders can be victims or perpetrators of IPV, research clearly shows that those who identify as women are disproportionately affected, especially in situations of coercive control or homicide. When attempts to address IPV do not reflect this gendered reality, they're not helpful and, in some cases, they actually cause further harm.
Second, potential measures need to take into account the voices of survivors, as well as of advocates and community-based experts who have decades of subject matter experience and expertise.
Third, when new laws or policies are under consideration, time must be given for proper consultation with all those who will potentially be affected—victims, survivors, service providers, legal system actors and so on—so that as many perspectives as possible can be included. There also needs to be consideration of what we've come to call “unintended negative consequences”. Acting too quickly can result in a law or policy that leads to further harm for those it is intended to protect.
Fourth, when looking at ways to address and end IPV, there needs to be a commitment by all levels of government to work together. For example, increased cohesion and consistency in family laws and their enforcement across all jurisdictions would be of great assistance to survivors of IPV.
Fifth, as important as education for all those who respond to situations of IPV continues to be, it's now time to build accountability systems to ensure that what has been learned is being applied. Ways of ensuring that all members of the judiciary have education on IPV are critical if legal responses are to improve.
Sixth, increased access to justice for survivors is essential. This includes, but is not limited to, access to effective legal representation regardless of the survivor's ability to pay, expansion across the country of programs such as Ontario's family court support workers program, and a big rethink of criminal law responses, including present approaches to bail, mandatory charging and vigorous prosecution policies.
Finally, the introduction of Clare's Law, the use of electronic monitoring systems, and the criminalization of coercive control in cases of IPV, among many other ideas, are all interesting possible public policy directions, but they warrant a cautious approach. There are cons as well as pros to every one of these ideas. We need a cautious approach that is coupled with careful consideration and extensive consultation.
I encourage the committee to consider the recommendations contained in Women's Shelters Canada's “A Report to Guide the Implementation of a National Action Plan on Violence Against Women and Gender-Based Violence” for further and more detailed suggestions.
Thank you very much for your time this afternoon. I welcome any questions or comments you may have.