Evidence of meeting #18 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 judges.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you so much. I appreciate working with both of you so much.
My next question is for Dr. Kagan-Viater, and also for you, Mr. Viater.
How do you see the government's role? What is the role we can play to prevent a similar abuse that your late daughter, Keira, received? I know that we're now looking at electronic devices. Certainly we will be supporting this measure, but what else can we do? How can we do more?
As an Individual
This is definitely a very good step, and a start. Looking at the failures for Keira and looking at the failures for Canadian children, we see that when there's a situation of domestic violence, the woman most generally flees the situation. We want to ensure that judges are equipped to manage those cases and to understand the effects of domestic violence on children, which should be part of their training. That is really what is needed in terms of abuse cases.
Is there an issue with my sound? I thought I was getting a signal, so I apologize.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
You won't be getting a signal, but I'm going to give you about 10 more seconds, because we have to get on to the next round.
As an Individual
Judges need to recognize when a child is being harmed and in danger, and that's the bottom line here. It's at least a first step. I could absolutely speak to other initiatives at great length.
It's nice to see you again, MP Gazan.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Thank you very much. Philip, I know we'll get back to you sometime.
I'm going to start the second round. Dominique, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, colleagues. I also want to greet our guests.
We are very grateful to you for being here today.
As a member of Parliament and as a minister in the government of Quebec 15 years ago, I took action, and we are still taking action here today. I'm glad we're still having very relevant conversations. Sometimes we succeed in improving people's lives. Most of the time, that is what we are working on here in Parliament. Every action we take and every word we say can change people's lives and women's lives in particular.
I have a few questions, but you will have gathered that there will not be much opposition here this afternoon.
With regard to the requirement for judges to train on these subjects, Mr. Viater, how do you think that will be received by judges?
As an Individual
That's an interesting question. I don't fully know what the answer would be. I could only suspect that some judges are going to welcome it with open arms and some judges are going to be offended.
The truth of the matter is that the judges who are offended are actually the ones who need it more than the judges who aren't, because the judges who aren't are usually the ones who actually go out and seek that training themselves. The judges who are offended are the ones who usually stick with the former old stereotypes and myths and continue to unintentionally cause harm to some families.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Viater, if I read the bill correctly, I understand that the bracelet can be required following an application made to the judge by the Crown prosecutor.
Do I have it right?
As an Individual
No. The e-bracelet wasn't necessarily part of Keira's law.
I used to do criminal law. Under judicial interim release, when somebody is charged with a crime of intimate partner violence, the justice of the peace or the judge needs to consider certain conditions to impose. What this bill does is specifically direct their mind to whether it is in the interests of justice to order an electronic monitoring device. It gives them another tool in their tool box for them to specifically put their mind to. That's what this largely does.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I see.
I was under the impression that it was the prosecutor who had to make the application and then the judge who received it had to make a decision. So that's not the proposed process.
Dr. Kagan-Viater, if the bracelet had existed, might the situation have been different?
As an Individual
I think that I would have been a candidate for a bracelet, and I'm in full support of that initiative. Unfortunately, it would not have changed the outcome for Keira, because the judge ordered Keira to be put into the hands of the perpetrator, my ex-husband. That was a court order. The education piece would have made a considerable difference for Keira, but not the other component.
That's not to diminish its importance. This component is going to save the lives of women across Canada, and I am in full support of it.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Of course.
In closing, Madam Chair, I would like to ask a question of our colleague Ms. Dhillon.
Instead of a sunset provision, would it have been appropriate for Bill C‑233 to include a provision that would provide for an analysis of its implementation? So we could have looked at what it would have achieved in three or five years, perhaps?
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
I will let my colleague Ms. Damoff answer this question.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I can't speak to the electronic monitoring part, but if I remember correctly, the Judges Act did have reporting to the minister on the uptake on the training that the judges did and the number of seminars. I'm speaking from memory, but I'm pretty sure the original bill did have reporting on the seminars the judges took, so there is monitoring. I could be wrong on that, but I'm 99% sure that was in the original bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Thank you so much.
We're now going to move for our next five minutes to Anita Vandenbeld. Anita, you have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you very much. I'd like to split my time with Mr. Morrice.
I would like to first say to Dr. Kagan and Mr. Viater how incredibly courageous you are. There are many people who would have gotten lost in their grief after something like what you experienced, but you have turned it into something that is going to save many children in the future. I think we all applaud the incredible courage that takes.
I have one question. I would appreciate it if each of you could answer in maybe 30 seconds, because I do want to save some of my time for Mr. Morrice.
There are many gaps in the law. There are many potential remedies. Why is it that the training for judges is the piece that is the first priority we need to work on?
I guess I'll start with Ms. Anju and then go to Ms. Damoff. Then I'd like to turn to our other two witnesses.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question, please? There was some interference.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Why is it that this particular thing—the training of judges and the monitoring bracelets—is the priority? With many remedies out there, why is this the particular thing that you chose to focus on?
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
It's incredibly important right from the get-go that judges be able to render decisions that will keep in mind the safety and security of the complainant victim and of their children and make sure that the amount of damage and the cycle of violence is mitigated. This is one of the biggest reasons that I decided on that point right from the start, because if it starts on the right foot, then we are able to prevent much harm later on. This is going to make a huge step.
I think MP Damoff would like to add something as well.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
You asked why this is so important to do right now. It's Keira Kagan. We don't want another Keira. I don't think I need any more than that. We need to do it for Keira.
As an Individual
In terms of the changes to the federal Divorce Act, obviously Philip can speak to this more eloquently than I can. Per my understanding, the Divorce Act was changed in March of last year, and now includes family violence as a factor that judges have to take into account when deciding the best interests of a child.
Judges don't understand what family violence and coercive controlling behaviour look like. We need to provide them with that education, so they are able to properly implement those changes as intended.
As an Individual
Jen hit the nail on the head. We have these amazing changes to the Divorce Act, but what was the missing piece? It was the educational component. Very little has actually changed, and that wasn't the intention of those changes.
Liberal