Status of Women Committee on May 6th, 2022

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, MP Vandenbeld.

Let me start by noting the difference in the tenor of this afternoon's conversation, the number of women in this room, and the impact that having more women in politics has on the quality of our political conversations.

My question is for you, MP Damoff.

You've been at this for a good number of years. Would you like to share more about what first drew you to this important legislation?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

In 2020, I received a message on Twitter from Jennifer saying, “A friend of mine said I should reach out to you and I would like to tell you the story of my daughter.” We talked on the phone, and we've been on a mission ever since to honour Keira's memory and to make sure that judges are educated.

I think there are good points about the changes to the Divorce Act. We had conversations with Minister Lametti about the good work that has been done in legislation, but in practical terms, we need to make sure of it on the ground.

I also think that Anju quite elegantly put electronic monitoring and judicial education in the same bill because without that education piece, judges will not know to even ask for electronic monitoring. We need judges to be aware. Our perception of what constitutes domestic violence today is different from what it was five or 20 years ago.

I know it's the same for Jennifer. I've been inundated—and I believe the chair has as well—with messages from people who have been through the court system today and are experiencing exactly the same thing. I was drawn to Jennifer right from the first conversation, as every single one of you has been. We just need to do it.

Thank you for your question.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Likewise, thank you, Dr. Kagan-Viater, for your advocacy and the conversation we had, and for engaging with organizations across the country, including Women's Crisis Services of Waterloo Region. I know how appreciative they are of this legislation being put forward.

Thank you, MP Dhillon, for your advocacy and leadership as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to Andréanne. Andréanne, you have two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Ms. Dhillon and Ms. Damoff, thank you very much, once again, for introducing Bill C‑233. I also thank Dr. Kagan-Viater and Mr. Viater for being here.

I would like to remind you that talking about this issue is not new. Dr. Kagan-Viater, you pointed out that violence is not always physical, but it always hurts. There was an ad campaign that ran at the time that made an impression on me as a young woman. It was my partner who was behind the campaign, who thought of it. I thought it summed up what coercive control is all about.

If I understand correctly, the electronic bracelet might not have saved your daughter. You recalled that it was more the training of the judges that was at issue in this case. That is my understanding.

For survivors and victims of intimate partner violence, the important thing is that there are no other victims, but also to give women back their confidence so that they want to report these situations, feel that they will be listened to and that their situation will be given all the importance it can have.

Dr. Kagan-Viater, I would like you to talk about the impact that better training of judges will have, and the fact that women will be encouraged to report these situations.

[Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater]

I will say that right now, women are afraid to report. They know they may well be punished for coming forward as a victim of violence. They know they may be accused of being unwilling to facilitate a relationship with the other parent, which is not at all the case when somebody is protective and fearful for their own safety or the safety of their child in an abuse case.

Hopefully, when that education is implemented and the culture has shifted, women or any victim of violence will feel comfortable in coming forward that there is a view to protecting them and ensuring they are safe, that they are not going to be the next statistic, and that their child is going to be safe and not the next statistic in the newspaper.

Right now, I can tell you that across the country, survivors are very fearful. They are turning to systems to protect them, but they are being shut down. They are being punished for disclosures of abuse. This bill is a good starting step toward changing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Wonderful. Thank you so much.

We're now going to turn it over to Leah. Leah, you have two and a half minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

I can't agree more, although I think provincial family law has regularly failed women, particularly in matters involving children.

My question is for you, Dr. Kagan-Viater. You were just talking about the fear of reprisal for coming forward. However, women who experience abuse are also abused by the systems that interrogate them. The abused have to prove they're being abused, and the onus is on the women. From my perspective, that is another vile and violent act against victims of violence.

When we're looking at training, how do you feel we can ensure the justice system doesn't become a secondary abuser to women fleeing violence, especially in cases of coercive control, when there aren't bruises on the face?

[Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater]

I agree that these systems often further the abuse and can often be more traumatizing than suffering the abuse itself. Education is a good step, and other measures can be implemented. I would welcome the government's input on measures, such as the roles the victim and perpetrator have, so that they don't see each other in court. Right now we have, for example, the perpetrators cross-examining the victim at times.

I would very much welcome some sort of overarching domestic violence legislation or measures or policies to protect victims so that they are not being continually retraumatized by these systems.

Thank you for your question. Those are some examples.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My next question is for Anju or Pam.

We're talking about training. Judges need training. We've had several examples in Manitoba that are just horrifying. Is there going to be any measurement of the effectiveness of the training?

In my last question, I talked about cultural competency. I've now spoken about retraumatizing victims through questioning. I'm wondering if you can comment on the research on the effectiveness of the training.

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

Thank you so much for your question, MP Gazan. We have 10 seconds left, so I want to say you've raised another level of problems in our judicial system. It's a huge problem. We need to really go at it and not stop the momentum.

Go ahead, MP Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Quickly, I agree. I'll take it back to Minister Lametti to see what we can do to measure the effectiveness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Awesome.

On behalf of the status of women committee in the first hour of the debate on Bill C-233, I would like to thank Anju Dhillon and Pam Damoff for coming forward and presenting today.

To Jennifer and to Phil, thank you so, so much. I can't agree more with Pam about the work you have done and the advocacy you're done in memory of Keira. We're all there. Thanks for letting us join your train and making sure that we change things for all Canadians. Thank you so much.

We are now going to suspend for a few seconds. We will be welcoming the justice department.

You can hang up. Once again, thank you so much for joining us.

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Good afternoon. We are starting our second hour of debate and discussion on Bill C-233.

For our second panel, I would like to welcome members of the Department of Justice. We have Melissa Moor, counsel of the judicial affairs section, public law and legislative services sector, as well as Shannon Davis-Ermuth, senior counsel, criminal law and policy sector.

You have five minutes together. When you see me start rolling my pen, if you could start wrapping it up, that would be fantastic.

I'm going to pass the floor over to you. I'm not sure who would like to get started, but I'm passing over the floor to the Department of Justice. You have five minutes.

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law and Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today to the reforms proposed by Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am joining you from my home and place of work that is situated on the traditional territories of the Haudenosaunee and the Algonquin Anishinabe nations.

I propose to provide a brief overview of the bill's reforms with reference to the relevant existing legal frameworks, and then my colleague, Melissa Moor, and I will be happy to attempt to answer any questions you may have.

As you know, the bill proposes two sets of amendments, one to the Criminal Code's interim judicial release, commonly known as bail provisions, and one to the provisions in the Judges Act for continuing education seminars. I will address each in turn.

Amendments to the Criminal Code would require a justice of the peace to determine whether an accused charged with an offence against his or her intimate partner should be required to wear a remote monitoring device as a condition of bail, commonly referred to as a “bond”, when requested by the Attorney General.

Currently, the Criminal Code allows courts hearing bail applications to impose any conditions they deem necessary, as long as they are justified, in any of the following cases: to ensure the accused's presence in court, for the protection or safety of the public, including victims, and [Technical difficulty—Editor] so as not to undermine section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

In particular, they may impose any conditions they consider necessary to ensure the safety of victims or witnesses to the offence, which may include the requirement to wear a remote monitoring device as a condition of release for any offence, including offences against an intimate partner. The electronic monitoring of accused persons on bail is a matter of administration of justice, and therefore a provincial and territorial responsibility. The use of such a device varies across the country. Some provinces and territories provide electronic monitoring programs and pay for the device, while others require the accused to pay for it.

Now I will turn to Bill C-233's Judges Act amendments, which would add intimate partner violence and coercive control to the list of continuing education seminars for judges that the Canadian Judicial Council may establish. That list of continuing education seminars already references “matters related to sexual assault law and social context, which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination”, as enacted by Bill C-3, which came into force in 2021.

“Coercive control” is a term coined by sociologists to refer to a pattern of controlling behaviour that takes place over time in the context of intimate partner or familial relationships and serves to entrap victims, eliminating their sense of freedom in the relationship. A broad range of controlling conduct may be employed, but the focus is on how a pattern of such conduct serves to subjugate, not the individual incidents in which abusers exercise control.

The concept of coercive control has been used in both family law and criminal law contexts. In the family law context, the concept was recently added to the Divorce Act's definition of family violence. Although there are no specific offences of intimate partner violence or coercive control in the Criminal Code, numerous Criminal Code offences of general application can address this type of conduct, such as homicide, assault, threats of death or bodily harm, sexual assault and criminal harassment.

That concludes my remarks. I welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Fantastic. Thank you so much.

I'll let everybody know that there is a connectivity issue. I know that Ms. Davis-Ermuth is doing her very best, but we do have a little bit of a connectivity issue. We'll just have to be patient during that time.

I really thank you for your comments.

We will start our second panel with a six-minute round. Our first questioner will be Michelle Ferreri. Michelle, you have six minutes.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Davis-Ermuth. You were cutting out on me a wee bit, so hopefully....

I have just a couple of questions. You outlined what coercive control was. That actually was my first question. There is a solid definition that judges have to use. Are they currently educated on what coercive control is and on what the definition is?

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth]

Thank you for your question.

Melissa is from our judicial affairs group. I'm not sure if she would be able to speak to the issue of judicial education on this point.

[Melissa Moor, Counsel, Judicial Affairs Section, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice]

Yes, thank you. I'll take that question.

Thank you for the question about what judges are learning or how the definition of coercive control is used in judicial education. The constitutional principle of judicial independence requires that the judiciary control judicial education. This includes control over the content or subjects of judicial education, including coercive control.

The main provider of judicial education for federally appointed judges is the National Judicial Institute, or NJI. They are the ones who design and deliver most of the training to judges, so they would be better placed to answer your question.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Okay, but right now are they currently educated on what coercive control is?

[Melissa Moor]

As I mentioned, the NJI, which is the primary provider of judicial education, would be better placed to answer the question on what they offer currently to judges.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Okay. Thank you so much.

I have what I feel is a delicate question. Obviously, I think this whole committee is very passionate about this, and we've come together because we know how important this bill is. I think sometimes when we're super-emotional, we can forget about something that can happen, perhaps negatively, as a result of a bill.

Just to ensure.... I've had a lot of questions and feedback from male victims of intimate partner violence and male victims of domestic abuse as well. Do you see this Bill C-233 and the education being applied to judges protecting all people, regardless of gender?

[Melissa Moor]

Thank you for that question.

Again, as I mentioned, the content of judicial education and what it would cover is a responsibility of the judiciary, in this case the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute. They would be better placed to answer questions about what would be covered by such training.

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth]

I might be able to say, though, that based on the content of the bill itself and the way it's worded in what it covers, in any benefits that the bill provides in protecting victims, it doesn't specify the gender of the victim [Technical difficulty—Editor] I think regardless of an identified [Technical difficulty—Editor] phenomenon that the bill targets.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you. That's very helpful.

I guess I would ask one further question. I'm not sure which of you would want to answer it or would be best to answer it. Are there any amendments that you feel this bill should have, or is there something missing in it, to ensure that the tragedy of losing Keira never happens again?