Status of Women Committee on May 10th, 2022

Evidence of meeting #19 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.

On the agenda

Bill C-233

MPs speaking

Emmanuella Lambropoulos

Mike Morrice

Also speaking

Francis Fortin Associate Professor, School of Criminology, Université de Montréal, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Guay Professor, School of Criminology, Université de Montréal, As an Individual

Corinne Paterson Obstetrician Gynecologist, As an Individual

Pamela Cross Legal Director, Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children

Peter Marshall Chief Executive Officer, Recovery Science Corporation

Strauss Staff Lawyer, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Thank you so much, Dr. Paterson.

Cee Strauss, it's so nice to see you again as well.

There were a couple of recommendations that you made to strengthen the bill. One is developing the education and consultation with survivors and organizations that support them. The second one is ensuring that the education covers systemic inequalities in Canadian society.

I agree with you, especially on the second point, especially looking at the inequality and the issues with the justice system that were identified even in the national inquiry, but also the aboriginal justice inquiry a million years ago.

Could you speak to these recommendations for strengthening the bill?

4:55 p.m.

Staff Lawyer, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund

Cee Strauss

Yes, absolutely.

In my remarks, we already recommended that social context be added in order to be accounting for these systemic inequalities. We also think it's important, when consulting with survivors and organizations, that this reflect the diversity of people in Canadian society, especially those who have lived through conditions of marginalization, such as systemic racism, and who directly understand how marginalization impacts their experiences of intimate partner violence.

Any added section about consultation should include meaningful consultation and input from individuals with lived experiences of oppression, particularly individuals or organizations that serve populations who are indigenous, Black, racialized, live with disabilities or live in poverty.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Thank you so much for your response.

Madam Cross, you said that the bill could be made stronger if there were the ability to provide input in terms of the outline of the training that would occur.

I was really happy to hear you say that. One concern I have with this bill is the fact that judges have too much control over whether they take the training or not, and the content of that training. From what we've heard, usually the judges who don't want the training are the ones who need it the most.

Can you please expand on that?

5 p.m.

Legal Director, Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children

Pamela Cross

Certainly. I'm happy to do that. Thank you for the question.

I'm going to build on what Cee Strauss already said rather than repeat her excellent comments.

It's critical that this education be developed outside of the judicial world, both for the reasons you mentioned, but also to ensure that real expertise is brought to the question of what the content should be. That was one thing that was so great about the legal aid training we talked about a few minutes ago.

That training has to look at all of the things that Cee talked about. It has to look at the gendered nature of intimate partner violence, especially coercive control and lethal intimate partner violence or it's not an accurate picture. We cannot have judges continuing to say, “Well, you know, it's a bit of this, a bit of that. Sometimes it's him; sometimes it's her. He said; she said. We don't know how to interpret this.”

There is clear, clear evidence that women are primarily the victims of coercive control and intimate partner homicide. That has to be part of the training, in addition to the many points that have already been made, in particular by Cee.

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio

Thank you so much.

We're going to begin our second round.

For our second round, it will be five minutes for the CPC and the Liberals, and two and a half minutes for the Bloc and the NDP.

I'm going to pass the floor over now to Shelby.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Thank you.

Ideally I'd be able to ask all of you questions, but I'm going to go through as many of them as I can.

I'm going to start quickly with Pamela Cross.

After Pamela Cross answers the question, the rest of you feel free to chime in as well, if you like.

The bill, as it stands, clearly does a lot to help keep victims of intimate violence physically safe, but I think that's only half of the equation. I cannot imagine the amount of trauma, emotional and mental trauma, that still exists, even though the partner and any children who witness the abuse may be physically removed from the situation.

Could you elaborate on the importance of mental and emotional supports in the immediate aftermath of these situations for the victims?

5 p.m.

Legal Director, Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children

Pamela Cross

Thank you for the question.

I can't say enough about that, especially in the small amount of time we have, but you're absolutely right. Removing the physical danger is step one. Tied with that has to be access to supports, including supports like shelters for women and children, so that work can begin to address the trauma, which often can last for years and years, leaving that woman vulnerable to ongoing abuse by the partner even long after she's left the relationship.

That speaks also to what needs to be involved in judicial education. Judges need to understand that just because she moves out, or he moves out, that doesn't mean the abuse has come to an end. It continues. It often escalates. It becomes increasingly lethal, and it becomes more psychological.

The impacts of all of that on the woman—and as you said, on the children as well—have to be matters that judges understand clearly and that they take into account when they're making decisions about parenting arrangements that can find themselves in place for years and years if the children are very young.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Thank you very much for that.

I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge all of you for your testimonies. I find many of them quite compelling.

My next question will be posed towards either Dr. Paterson or Mx. Strauss.

Have either of you experienced a situation where a judge was sitting on a case relating to a matter that wasn't their speciality?

5 p.m.

Staff Lawyer, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund

Cee Strauss

Judges often sit on a case relating to a matter that isn't their speciality because judges hear a wide variety of cases. Often somebody who had been a real estate lawyer before they became a judge is all of a sudden hearing a family law case. This is a very common thing. It's why judges require training. It's why important institutions like the Canadian Judicial Council exist to provide that training.

Because of the immense, significant gap between what judges understand and what the reality is of intimate partner violence, this is one of those things, as with sexual assault law, that requires specification to judges that they undertake this training if they are to become a superior court judge.