Evidence of meeting #110 for Status of Women in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was family.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Shelby Kramp-Neuman
Is there no interpretation? Okay. I'll continue to speak and see if Dominique—
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Shelby Kramp-Neuman
Thank you, Dominique.
Ms. Deschamps, please continue. I'm sorry to interrupt.
5 p.m.
Director, Housing and Gender Based Violence Support Services, YWCA Hamilton
That's not a problem. Thank you.
With the current system, which does not address appropriately even the most overt and physical forms of violence, I am doubtful that our system as it is has the ability to respond to the complexities of coercive control, which my colleague Lori Chambers spoke to so eloquently. In our current context, proving coercive control can be difficult, as it often relies on patterns of behaviour and psychological manipulation rather than physical evidence, and so the burden of proof sits on the survivor, which often leads to, perhaps, disappointment in the court system and further retraumatization for survivors.
Coercive control also often intersects with other forms of oppression, such as sexism, racism, classism and ableism, and legislation must consider how these intersecting factors affect individuals' experiences and must provide survivors with opportunities to have options for support outside of these systems should they choose not to want to take part in them, for example, looking at transformative restorative approaches. Adequate resources and funding to existing services, such as VAW shelters, to adequately address the safety, housing, cost of living and child care needs of survivors, are far likely better able to achieve the outcomes in providing upstream and preventative responses that we're looking for.
I know all of us here have a shared goal of increasing safety for survivors and holding those who use violence accountable while mitigating the unintended consequences of policy decisions. However, we need to begin by addressing the root inequities present within the existing legal and law enforcement landscape. Addressing these issues in traditional ways, as we have been attempting, but failing, to be quite honest—
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Shelby Kramp-Neuman
Thank you very much, Ms. Deschamps.
At this point we will move to questions. I want to get as many questions in as we can with respect to our witnesses, so we're going to reduce the first round to five minutes each.
We have Anna for five minutes.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses. This is a very important topic.
I'm going to start with Lori Chambers.
Ms. Chambers, give a yes or no answer. Do you agree that coercive control is a gateway to physical violence?
5 p.m.
Professor, Lakehead University, As an Individual
It's the wrong way to conceptualize it—as a gateway. It's—
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Professor, Lakehead University, As an Individual
Violence is just one of the tools in the tool box of a coercive abuser, and they won't necessarily use it. The gateway image is not appropriate.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
I have limited time. I'm so sorry, Ms. Chambers.
I want to bring up two cases. One case was in April 1997. A husband killed his four children, including sons who were 15 and 14 years old; daughters who were 12 and 11 years old; and his wife Helen, who was 36 years old. There is also your case from December 2017.
They are 20 years apart, and we have the same situation. These individuals are not being punished. They ignored the courts. They've ignored the restraining orders. The system failed them totally.
How can we protect our mothers, our children and our families? Education is great, but in some instances we have to listen to the children, and we have to listen to the parents, so that we can protect these individuals. Do you agree with that?
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Lakehead University, As an Individual
I agree we need to [Technical difficulty—Editor] particularly in the case you highlighted that I talked about in 2017. The judicial system failed. Judges need to understand that this is part of the system. No matter how much you might want to avoid it altogether, you can't necessarily. If you're leaving you have a custody dispute about where your kids are going to be.
People interpreting family law have to be taught about coercive control. Those two little girls would still be alive if the judge had understood coercive control and not missed what were some pretty serious red flags.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
Let me ask you something. Twenty years ago this particular individual received counselling, education, the whole nine yards. He had restraining orders. They worked with him, and they finally said that he was okay. They were going to let him see his kids. Guess what? It was all an act.
The reason I know about this case is—
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Lakehead University, As an Individual
There are some who should never see their kids again.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
Exactly.
My point is sometimes we have to take that line to ensure that we protect our kids. Coercive control, if we can't protect the victims—the young children, the parents, the mothers—how can we...?
This man received tons of education. I know the case personally, because I was involved with it. They said that he'd gone through it, the whole bit. Yet 20 years later, here we go again. Nothing has changed—nothing has changed. He should have gone to jail. Do you agree?
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Lakehead University, As an Individual
I agree, but my primary concern isn't whether the man goes to jail; it's keeping the children safe. Keeping the children safe would involve better understanding at the family court. That is more important. It's a better option for the mother so she can leave the jurisdiction and go with the kids somewhere else where they are safer.
Education is more important than criminalizing the man—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
I understand that. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I have limited time.
Ms. Chambers, I know this other case that happened in 1997. This man went through extensive education and extensive therapy. It did not work. Sometimes we have to accept the fact that individuals cannot change.
In those particular cases, we not only have to educate the law system, our social workers and the therapists; we also have to make sure that we're listening to the children. Do you agree?
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Lakehead University, As an Individual
For sure. Those kids were afraid of their dad.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
He let them down.
I think we need to put in place criminalizing coercive control. I believe that's the only way we can protect our children. I'm wondering if you agree with that.
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Lakehead University, As an Individual
I'm hesitant about criminalization without a whole bunch of backstop stuff.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Shelby Kramp-Neuman
At this point, we are going to have to leave it at that. I'm sorry.
We're going to move on to Lisa Hepfner for five minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I think it's Emmanuella next. We have two more speakers, right?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
May 23rd, 2024 / 5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you.
I want to begin by thanking all of our witnesses for being with us today. It has been very interesting testimony.
I'm going to start with Ms. Chambers.
I noticed that you did not mention parental alienation in your testimony. I was seeking it out, because I wanted to ask a specific question about it.
A few of our other witnesses in past meetings and even today have mentioned that they don't believe that parental alienation should be used against mothers when it comes to family law. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this. Also, I want to try to get as full a picture as possible. I know that we have witnesses who work with women who are here, and I definitely want to be able to help women and their children, and I have the safety of women and children at the forefront.
Have there ever been any cases that any witnesses on the panel today have seen where parental alienation is a concern?
Ms. Chambers, I'll let you start with your comments on parental alienation and then I'll hear from the rest of the witnesses.
5:10 p.m.
Professor, Lakehead University, As an Individual
Parental alienation is bad science. The evidence that was presented is not based on good research. It is not a real problem. It's a problem that is used by coercive men to gaslight and discredit their partners, and it is a big problem that it is taken seriously in the courts. It's a weapon used by abusive men.
I would absolutely not give it any credence whatsoever in the court system. It's bad science, junk science, and courts shouldn't recognize it at all.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
