Status of Women Committee on May 10th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Ya'ara, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses who are here today.

Thank you to PS Sudds for being so generous with her time.

I have a few questions, and I want to start with Cee Strauss and Ms. Cross.

We've discussed here that, in terms of defining coercive control, we have an understanding that it is persistent, whether the couple is still together or not. It can escalate and has psychological and potentially lethal harm that then leads to intimate partner violence. There are clear markers as the process goes on through the courts or as they're trying to separate the individuals.

Both of you raised concerns about stakeholder input on the judicial training process itself and creating the training. I'm wondering, with the sexual abuse training that was created, if there's a precedent for that in terms of what kinds of inputs were put into place and if you're aware of them.

[Cee Strauss]

I am not aware of the inputs into the sexual abuse training. I know, though, what that is in the Judges Act. It was put into the Judges Act that development of the training should be done in consultation. In particular, I believe the Judges Act mentions consultation with indigenous organizations. We are proposing to broaden that, as we did in our submissions on Bill C-5/C-3 at the time. There is a precedent for that in terms of what's in the act right now in the sexual assault context.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

To clarify, as legislated, it does include stakeholder participation in the development of the training, so there is a precedent.

[Cee Strauss]

Yes, there is for sexual assault law.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

There is for sexual assault law. Okay, that's an important point, as many of my colleagues have spoken to that point here, and precedents, as we all know, are everything in moving something like this forward.

I'm going to move on and ask a question with regard to a recommendation about a 30-day coming-into-force clause so provinces and territories can prepare. Could either of you comment on that in terms of putting the recommendation forward, or anyone else on the panel, for that matter?

No? Either Ms. Cross or Cee Strauss?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Ms. Cross, perhaps you want to answer that.

[Pamela Cross]

The only comment I'll make about that, and it's a fairly general one, is that in 2021, when Bill C-78 was passed, it introduced these massive amendments to the Divorce Act, which a number of us have mentioned this afternoon. It resulted in some inconsistencies between provincial and federal family law. In Ontario, where I am, the Children's Law Reform Act did not reflect the same approach as was being taken by the Divorce Act, which put families in complicated situations in terms of trying to select the appropriate legislation to use.

I think that as we move ahead with any kind of legislation at the federal level that has implications at the provincial level, for example, the division of power such that provinces are responsible for the administration of justice, we have to build in time to allow provinces to get on board so we don't have inconsistencies or gaps between what's passed at the federal level and what's actually playing out on the ground at the provincial or territorial level.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You have one minute, four seconds.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Okay, I will do my best to get my question in.

I'll move to electronic monitoring. We are one of the supporters of this bill. When we put electronic monitoring in alongside this training, it was the idea of creating education and then creating an optional tool. As we've heard from witnesses, there is context to this that needs to be considered. We've heard some comments, but if electronic braceleting is an option, what other training or guardrails to the legislation would you want to see for its potential use in a limited scope?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

You have 20 seconds.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

A written submission on this would be fine as well, if anyone has an answer.

[Cee Strauss]

I'll say that it already is an option for judges now, so the guardrails are already in place in a way, in not requiring judges to consider it, which might make it just a matter of routine recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Perfect. Thank you so much.

We're going to pass it over for two and a half minutes to Andréanne.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses, but I'm going to continue with Mr. Guay because our discussion ended quickly in my first round.

You had started to answer my question about the positive effects of the bracelet and its effectiveness. We can look at other experiences that have taken place elsewhere in the world, because other countries, such as Spain, the UK and Australia, have already implemented the monitoring device.

In light of what has happened abroad, can we expect a drop in assaults as a result of the monitoring device? I will give you more time to answer this question.

[Dr. Jean-Pierre Guay]

Thank you.

The benefits of using the electronic monitoring bracelet seem relatively notable and important in light of international work on the issue. These include a decrease in violence against victims. In addition, there is an increase in the sense of safety when studying the experience of victims and their loved ones.

In addition, the issue of recidivism is relatively complex. We have talked here about the relevance of the assessment of the risk that people pose. This is a central issue. We can see that, generally speaking, a bracelet like this does not technically reduce the risk of re‑offending. It allows people to be somewhat more involved in the programs and activities offered to reduce the risk of re‑offending. However, the most recalcitrant might try to do it anyway. In fact, the bracelet doesn't solve the person's problem, it just prevents them from reaching the victim.

In this respect, the bracelet has a number of positive effects. However, if one were to simply calculate the success of such a measure in light of recidivism rates, one would be hard pressed to be satisfied with its implementation. That said, generally speaking, the benefits are there. I don't know if that answers your question.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes, that answers my question, thank you.

I understand that the electronic monitoring bracelet is part of a comprehensive package of victim support services.

Is this what you mean?

[Dr. Jean-Pierre Guay]

Yes, precisely. The device alone will not solve all the problems, far from it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Rapidly, Mr. Fortin, could you say a few words about the balance between protecting victims...

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I'm sorry. We will do our best to get to you. We're going to pass it over to Leah Gazan.

Leah Gazan, you have two and a half minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My question is for Cee Strauss.

You spoke about the importance of having a gendered lens in the training for judges. You spoke about stereotypes that often impact victims of violence.

One thing I brought up in the last session was manipulative parenting. In the case of Keira Kagan, the mother came forward with all these concerns about the father. They were dismissed and then Keira ended up losing her life.

I'm wondering if you could speak to that.

I guess my concern is the fact that we know that 81% of victims who lose their life to violence are women and there's a high percentage of children who also lose their lives. Why is it particularly important to understand domestic violence from a gendered lens?

[Cee Strauss]

Thank you for the question.

It's really everything you just said. The problem is that there are these myths and stereotypes.

I'll just be speaking from a great piece written by Deanne Sowter and Jennifer Koshan. They would just say that the ideas that women make allegations of family violence to gain an upper hand in family law proceedings or that they're alienating their children from their former partner out of some sort of vengeance or spite rather than concern for their children's safety are based on myths and stereotypes. These are really similar to those that are recognized to improperly taint the credibility of sexual assault complainants.

For whatever reason, there is more of an understanding these days that there are these myths and stereotypes in the sexual assault context, even if they're still not properly applied, whereas in the intimate partner violence context, there's a real lack of acknowledgement in the public that these same myths and stereotypes exist and function. It's not that these things never happen, but judges readily accept accusations that allegations of family violence are false without doing impartial fact finding and paying attention to context.

This bill will help with those issues because women are more likely to be accused of falsely claiming family violence even though under-reporting of family violence is known to be widespread. There's a big disconnect here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much.

I'm now looking at the time and recognizing how tight we are for getting out on time. We do have a special guest with us from the Green Party. I know Mike would like to ask a question as well.

I'd like to reduce the time for each party and then I'll pass the floor over to Mike for the final question. Can I get the support of the committee? Is anyone not in favour? Please let me know.

Fantastic. I'll be messing around with the time, like I always do. We're going to start off with two and a half minutes, two and a half minutes, two and a half minutes, two and a half minutes, and then Mike will have the last question.

I'm going to pass it over to Dominique for two and a half minutes.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will direct my questions to Mr. Francis Fortin and Mr. Jean-Pierre Guay, and they will be brief.

We talk a lot about the bracelet and how it works. Could you explain to us concretely how it works so that we can fully grasp it?

Earlier you alluded to the fact that the victim might have a sense of security. There is the issue of privacy.

How does this work in practice? The judge orders the defendant to wear a device and the victim has a device with her. Is that it? Can you just enlighten us on how it works?