Status of Women Committee on May 6th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 18 of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, April 29, 2022, the committee will begin its study of Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either “floor”, “English” or “French”. For those in the room, you can use your earpiece and select the desired channel. All comments should be made through the chair.

Concerning the drafting of amendments, I would like to remind members to contact Alexandra Schorah, the legislative counsel, as soon as possible, should there be any amendments to the draft.

It is now my honour to welcome our first panel on this—I'll be honest—very important bill. Obviously, I have a little bias there. As the chair, I will be very honest on this one.

Today we will be speaking about Bill C-233 and welcoming a special guest, Anju Dhillon, who is the sponsor of this bill.

Thank you very much for this bill, Anju.

We also are proud to have Pam Damoff, the seconder of this bill, who has been supporting this bill through its entire time through the House.

Today it's my honour to have both Jennifer Kagan-Viater and Philip Viater here today as we're discussing this really important law.

I am going to be honest right from the beginning. We usually like to keep things right on time. I know that the first hour of this panel is very, very important to the committee, so I will be lenient with time. When you see my arms flapping, though, please try to have it done in the next few seconds, if you don't mind.

I am now going to pass the floor over to Anju Dhillon.

Anju, if you would you like to start with your presentation, we will provide you with five minutes.

Thank you very much.

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

First of all, I'd like to thank you, Madam Chair and the FEWO committee, for moving so quickly on this extremely important issue. It means a lot. From the bottom of my heart, you have my gratitude, all of you. Thank you so much.

I'm very excited today to present Bill C‑233, which I sponsored. I must admit that I'm extremely moved by the widespread support it has received. Even in my wildest dreams, I'd never have dared to imagine my legislative initiative would receive such extraordinary support, be it from victims of domestic violence, my colleagues, human rights groups or the media.

This bill was drafted with one idea in mind, to better protect and save the lives of vulnerable women and children who are victims of domestic violence

Bill C-233 aims at enacting two amendments, one in the Criminal Code and the other in the Judges Act. It seeks to introduce electronic monitoring to the Criminal Code in some circumstances at the judicial temporary release of an accused, as well as training of federal judges on the phenomenon of domestic violence and coercive control.

Since I began practising criminal and family law, I have seen how difficult it is for victims of domestic violence to break out of the cycle of violence and abuse. Many victims were reluctant to speak out about the hell they were experiencing for fear of not being believed in the system, or retaliation from an abusive partner, or financial insecurity.

Some of my colleagues who are lawyers lost clients at the hands of a violent and harassing ex-partner. Others represented violent clients who would not keep away from their intimate partners despite orders from the court, a behaviour leading to the loss of human lives.

The same findings came up in the status of women committee, where I was parliamentary secretary and a member subsequently. The testimony of victims, experts and allies painted over and over the same gruesome reality of so many victims being affected by domestic abuse, including their children. One emerging conclusion when it comes to violence between intimate partners is that the risk of violence and death for abused victims and their children does not end with the separation of the couple. On the contrary; in a lot of cases, within 18 months of the said separation, there is a higher risk for the partner, most of the time the woman, as well as the children to be attacked in a violent way.

In the very few jurisdictions in the world, such as Australia and Spain, where electronic monitoring was implemented as a means to better protect such victims of domestic abuse, there was a notable decrease in violent crimes, as well as femicides and filicides.

In other words, in some problem cases where the abuser refuses to stay away from the victim or does not agree with a separation imposed by the partner, an anti-approach bracelet can inform authorities and the former partner of non-compliance with the judge's conditions and therefore save lives or prevent violent crimes.

Given that a woman is murdered every two and a half days, which translates into 144 to 178 murders a year often committed by an intimate partner, clearly our country needs technology like this to prevent such tragedies.

It is therefore obvious that our nation needs this type of legislation.

It's imperative that this law make it possible for a judge to order that an anti-approach bracelet be worn when an individual poses a risk to the safety of their intimate partner and children, and only when deemed necessary.

Doing so will allow provincial judges as well as municipal judges to order such conditions when deemed necessary.

While I was preparing to present my private member's bill, my good friends and colleagues from Oakville North—Burlington and York Centre, respectively Pam Damoff and Ya'ara Saks, asked me to meet with Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater and her spouse, Philip Viater, who are strong advocates when it comes to requiring completing seminars on domestic violence and coercive control.

I did have the chance to have an exchange with them, and their personal story shook me to the core. In February 2020, Ms. Kagan-Viater lost her four-year-old daughter Keira at the hands of her father in an apparent murder-suicide. The telltale signs were present prior to this tragedy; however, the court that gave the father unsupervised access rights to Keira tossed this from evidence, considering that abusive and violent behaviour towards Keira's mother should not be considered a risk to the child.

The findings show quite the opposite.

Children's safety can be and is at risk when a parent is abusive towards the other parent and has joint custody or unsupervised rights to the couple's children.

With that in mind, with support from two valued allies and the colleagues I mentioned earlier, I drafted a provision in Bill C‑233 which, if the bill passes, will require that judges complete domestic violence training.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much for that.

I now would like to welcome both Jennifer and Philip. I know you'll be splitting your time.

Jennifer, I pass the floor over to you.

[Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

My name is Jennifer Kagan. I'm a mother and physician, and I will introduce my husband, Mr. Philip Viater, who is a father and family law lawyer.

I'm here to speak with you today about Bill C-233, the judicial education component of which is named informally in honour of my daughter, Keira Kagan.

Today I want to thank MPs Dhillon, Damoff and Saks, as well as all of you on the committee, for inviting us here to speak. It is really an honour.

It is obviously difficult for me to come today to speak about this, but it is very important, and this bill is going to save lives.

Essentially, I will tell you my story and why my story is not an anomaly but instead is emblematic of a broader problem in the way the family court system handles domestic violence cases and is reflective of a lack of judicial understanding of domestic violence and coercive control.

I was a victim of domestic violence in my previous marriage. It was a short marriage, and I was subject to multiple types of domestic violence, which included isolated episodes of physical violence as well as coercive control.

I had a young daughter and I was able to safely escape the abuser, but when I sought protection for Keira in the family court system, I found that the court system was not equipped to protect a small child. I was before, I believe, between 10 and 12 different judges, none of whom had an understanding of domestic violence and coercive control. During my trial, when I went to the stand to talk about the abuse I had experienced, I was cut off by the judge and told that abuse is not relevant to parenting and he was going to ignore it.

Keira was put unsupervised into the hands of a very dangerous individual. As was mentioned previously by MP Dhillon, Keira was killed in a murder-suicide in February 2020. She and her father were found dead at the base of a cliff in Milton, Ontario.

Out of this, we don't want any other child or family to have to go through what we have had to. Each year, 30 to 40 children in Canada are killed by a parent. One child is too many. When we look at family court failures, we see that Keira was failed by the family court system and that other children are being failed. Children who experience domestic violence in their lifetime will have a myriad of issues, including physical and psychological health problems. Domestic violence is a public health crisis that demands urgent action.

We are of the strong view that judges require education in domestic violence and coercive control; hence the judicial education component to Bill C-233.

A woman is killed somewhere in Canada every 1.5 days. This warrants urgent action, and we are grateful to the MPs for bringing this forward so that no other child has to experience a violent and premature end to life at the hands of a parent, which is preventable.

We are very hopeful that the education will be done in consultation with survivors of violence and the organizations that support them. We would certainly welcome a conversation with the judiciary to discuss domestic violence education and what that education should contain. In my view, it obviously needs to include coercive control but certainly also risk assessment, risk factors for lethality and data from Canadian domestic violence death review committees, which look at what those red flags and warning signs are.

I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Viater.

Thank you so much again. It's really an honour to be here.

[Philip Viater, As an Individual]

It's my turn to thank everyone for allowing us to testify here today, especially MP Dhillon, MP Damoff and MP Saks for really assisting and championing this bill. Thank you again for allowing us to speak here today.

We believe this is an incredibly important bill. Jennifer's case is actually the poster child for why this bill is so necessary. The thing that she didn't tell you is that there were 53 court orders made in her case, by over 12 judges. Many of those court orders were warning her ex about his poor conduct. This is where the disconnect came.

There were two levels of disconnect. Disconnect number one was they were recognizing that there was something amiss with her ex, but not acting on it. Number two was that certain judges just weren't recognizing it at all. In either case, it ended exactly where we feared, which was the death of Keira.

I'm a family law lawyer and I've been doing this for 13 or 14 years now. I'm quite busy. I say this because on the ground level there are problems that I can even testify to. Many victims of violence don't have a lot of confidence in the system. Lawyers, quite frankly, don't have that much confidence either.

Lawyers regularly advise their clients not to mention abuse, because judges won't get it. It's going to be used to punish you. Victims are scared that judges don't hear and understand them or are dismissive of it. They feel revictimized in court. Judges oftentimes put them back in situations where they have to communicate with and be around the abuser. They don't quite recognize how dangerous a situation that can sometimes be.

When I speak of judges, I'm speaking generally. There are obviously some really good and well-informed judges, and there are ones who are a little less informed. Overall, the flavour is that people don't feel safe, and there is a lack of public confidence, especially as it relates to survivors.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You're getting feedback because we're quite a bit outside that time right now.

[Philip Viater]

Oh, my apologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Phil, I will make sure that I will get right back to you, if that's okay. All right?

[Philip Viater]

Okay, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I'll give you 15 more seconds if you want. Give me that 15-second plug, and then we'll get right to questions, okay?

[Philip Viater]

It's the biggest 15 seconds.

The only one amendment that we are really seeking is under section 3 of the Judges Act. It's section 3(b), about new judges having to undertake to participate in continuing education. Right now it's with sexual assault, social context, systemic racism, etc. We would like that to also include intimate partner violence and coercive control, to really give a little extra umph and teeth.

The last point I was going to make was that not every judge who hears a family law case even has a background or training in family law. That is also a big issue that we've experienced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

I'll let you know how it usually works here. For the first round, every party gets six minutes to ask questions. I've been granted the opportunity to ask questions, although the chair doesn't usually ask questions. I've been granted by all parties the opportunity to ask questions today. I'm going take the first six minutes on behalf of the CPC, if you don't mind. Don't worry, I've set my own clock here.

I'm going to start off with Anju.

Anju, we know how important this bill is. I believe you probably sat on the status of women committee with me when we were doing Rona Ambrose's bill. We were talking about judges needing to be trained.

What made you do this today? What were some of the things that you have seen? Was it specifically Keira, or was there something that you put forward that stimulated you to do this?

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

As I said, when I was practising law, I would see the gaps in the system, especially when it came to breaking this cycle of violence. Children are especially very negatively affected.

Yes, we did sit together.

Over the last two years during the pandemic, we saw that the amount of violence increased against women. They were isolated with their partners. Children were subject directly and vicariously to this violence. The testimonies were horrific. I was sitting there most of the time just thinking to myself, “We have to do something.” Over and over I would think this to myself.

I would like to add one thing, because I know you have a lot of questions for everybody and I see you moving. One phrase that came up during studies is that the pandemic was “an abuser's paradise”. This really struck me. An abuser's paradise means you isolate and she couldn't go anywhere. We had to do something.

This is what motivated me. Then MP Damoff came and spoke to me about the Kagans' tragedy. I said, “Okay, let's do something.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Perfect. Thank you so much.

At the beginning of 2020, when I was the shadow minister for women and gender equality, I remember people calling me at home, saying, “We need to find a safe place for this woman.” It was just absolutely tragic.

Jennifer, I want to pass it over to you.

First, as a mom, I don't even know how words can say it. “Sorry” is not enough, but I'm thinking of you each and every day. As we're going through this bill, Bill C-233, your beautiful little girl with those ringlets comes to mind each and every day.

I just want to ask you this. You had 53 court orders, and nothing was done. People were giving out these court orders that said the man can't come over, your ex-husband can't come over, it just can't happen. Every single time he defied these court orders. What happened? What was the next thing you were able to do? What sort of enforcement was done? What did the police do? What resources did you have?

[Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater]

We had resources so that when a court order was defied, I was able to address that, or when a frivolous motion was brought. Many of these motions were brought in a very litigious fashion by my ex-partner as a means to cause me distress in responding, but we were able to respond legally.

The unfortunate thing is that many victims of violence are not in a position to be able to do that. I was fortunate that I had the resources to be able to pay the lawyer at that time. That's one reason why we're speaking out: It's because there are many survivors of violence who are voiceless and who may not have that ability to respond if a perpetrator has taken a child and run off with them for weeks at a time. That requires a response.

There are many systems in need of reform. I know that here today we're supposed to be talking about judicial education, so I will keep focused on that, but there are many systems in Canada that are failing survivors of violence and children and are in need of reform.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you.

Phil, we'll go over to you. We have a minute and 45 seconds.

I've had the opportunity to speak to you before, and I think you come to this with such experience being a family law lawyer. I'm sure you've been an amazing partner for Jennifer throughout this entire period of time.

I think there's one thing that we see. I even see it in the courtroom, where lawyers themselves are focused on this or that. There's family law and there's civil law. There are so many different things—criminal law, real estate. They want to do it. I find lots of times that these are the people who become judges. They may have been a criminal lawyer for 20 years or a real estate lawyer for 20 years, and then the next thing you know, they're deciding on a criminal case, just like we've seen time and time again.

I'm going to pass this over to you for the next minute, and I want you to tell me what we need to do and how we can get it better. You have one minute, Phil.

[Philip Viater]

Thank you.

Yes, that is one of the biggest complaints and problems that we're facing today. It's that you don't always get a judge who has a background in family law. Quite frankly, even when you do, it doesn't mean that their specific background was abuse-informed. They could have dealt with high-income net worth or property cases.

That's the biggest reason that this educational component is so important, and why the one amendment I asked for about the undertaking is so important. If you don't have the undertaking, then judges decide their own training. What will end up happening is that the real estate lawyer won't go for the domestic violence training, because they don't sit on family law cases often. They feel that they don't need to do that. If we get it at the outset, when they first become judges, we'll have eventually a fully abuse-informed bench.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much. My time is up.

We're now going to pass it over to Sonia Sidhu for the next six minutes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here with us.

No child deserves this. I know it's a difficult conversation, but Dr. Kagan and Mr. Viater, your advocacy is so important. It's making a difference.

I also want to thank MP Anju Dhillon for championing this bill, as well as MP Damoff for her tireless work.

My first question is to Dr. Kagan. Aside from judicial reform, where do you see gaps where action needs to be taken to eliminate gender-based violence and to protect children from the harm associated with it? You talked about domestic violence education. Can you explain that?

[Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater]

Absolutely. I think education is really key to giving the professionals in the system the tools they need to make decisions that put child safety at the forefront. There's an entire body of literature and domestic violence expertise. For example, the centre for family violence in London, Ontario, has people who have studied this.

I'm a physician, but I had palliative care training. People sometimes wonder if that's enough to meet what is needed, but actually I did a year-long, very comprehensive fellowship to become a palliative care physician in Canada. The same level of expertise is what we need to be giving to children and to the people who are making these decisions.

The education is of course urgently needed for judges, but also for child protection workers and really for any professional who's involved a family court case, such as custody assessors or any social worker or psychologist who works on one of these files, as well as police. We can hope that this can be a step and a start and that we will have provinces following suit to implement similar education initiatives. Even in health care, we need doctors to get up to speed to recognize those signs when they have patients presenting in emergency departments or family practice clinics or what have you.

Thank you very much for your question. It's a very important one.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

My next question is for Ms. Dhillon.

How can we make sure that we are addressing the diverse needs of all Canadians?

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

Sorry; I missed that part. Could you repeat it?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

How can we make sure that we are addressing the diverse needs of all Canadians, especially those who are most at risk of being victimized, particularly other communities. There are so many barriers for them. How can we help them?

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

First of all, I think passing my bill would be a great start. It's just the beginning of the conversation. As I've pointed out before, coercive control is not part of the Criminal Code. It's not acknowledged. This is the first time that there will be open acknowledgement at this level across Canada.

We've seen from advocacy groups and from our colleagues across the aisle that everybody supports this bill and the fact that we need to acknowledge coercive control. It needs to be addressed. This is a very good start to beginning this conversation.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

The next question is for Ms. Damoff.

I know you have been in touch with many stakeholders, victims and survivor groups. How can we make sure we are addressing the diverse needs of all Canadians?