THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 8, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:17 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).
Senator Brent Cotter (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to ask senators to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
[English]
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, from here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne. Good afternoon and welcome. Senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Good afternoon. Bernadette Clement, Ontario.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond, Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: I’m Brent Cotter, senator from Saskatchewan and the chair of the committee. I would like to welcome Senator Manning to our deliberations today.
Senators, today we begin our study of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner). Senators, we have recently completed our study of Senator Boisvenu’s Bill S-205, and this bill deals with a similar topic and deals with electronic monitoring.
For our first panel today, we are happy to welcome the sponsor of the bill, MP Anju Dhillon, who is accompanied by two other MPs who have worked hard on this topic and had sponsored previous bills on the topic: Pam Damoff, Member of Parliament for Oakville North—Burlington; and Ya’ara Saks, Member of Parliament for York Centre.
Welcome. I invite you to begin your remarks. We’ve asked you to share among you, in whatever strategy works for you, five minutes, followed by a series of questions from senators. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Anju Dhillon, Member of Parliament for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, sponsor of the bill: Honourable senators, I would like to start by wholeheartedly thanking the Honourable Senator Dalphond for agreeing to sponsor this bill, which is so important because of its concrete measures to help victims break the cycle of domestic violence.
When I was a law student, and then a lawyer, I devoured his decisions, which always showed his rigour and impeccable legal reasoning. Senator Dalphond was one of the judges I most admired, throughout the court system. The fact that Justice Dalphond is sponsoring this bill, esteemed colleagues, is stranger than fiction to me.
I would also like to highlight the outstanding work that my colleagues, MPs Pam Damoff and Ya’ara Saks, have done to ensure Bill C-233 came before you today. Their dedication to this bill has been immeasurable and I am deeply grateful to them.
Lastly, I’ll send my best wishes and tip my hat to Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater, the mother of Keira Kagan, the little girl for whom Bill C-233 is named.
In my practice as a lawyer, I have seen how difficult it is for victims of domestic violence and their children to escape this horror. Many of these victims are reluctant to report their abuser. Unfortunately, when it comes to criminal and family justice, as well as youth protection, our justice system is not always able to adequately help these vulnerable people.
There are several reasons for this, and one of the main ones is the lack of education about the reality of domestic violence. For example, there is still a poor understanding of what constitutes coercive control that is not criminalized in Canada. There are still social and legal stakeholders who believe that violence ends when a couple separates. This misconception is sometimes fatal, and it is one of the reasons why the femicide and filicide statistics are so grim in Canada. In Quebec, the coroner’s office has recently analyzed several cases of filicide. In some of these cases, it was noted that there had been violence against the other parent, but not against the children killed.
According to one study, 20% to 22% of intimate partner femicides occur within the first 18 months of separation. This is why it is imperative to out better protections in place for victims of domestic violence. I put it to you that “Keira’s Law,” Bill C-233, is one of those much-needed protections.
Thank you. I’m sharing my time with my colleagues.
[English]
Pam Damoff, Member of Parliament for Oakville North—Burlington: Four-year-old Keira was a shining star with her whole life in front of her. Tomorrow marks the three-year anniversary of her death at the hands of her biological father, a man who a judge acknowledged was an abusive husband, but did not put enough weight on the impact that abuse had on his daughter.
While Keira is no longer here, her light continues to shine with the bill before you today. Her mom, Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater, reached out to me in November 2020 asking how we could move forward on judicial education on domestic violence and coercive control. Thanks to MP Dhillon, you have before you today a bill that will ensure Keira’s legacy is one that will save lives. “Keira’s Law” had all parties’ support in the House and the support of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let’s work together to pass Bill C-233 and save lives. Let’s honour Keira and ensure that no other child is lost.
I will turn it over to my colleague Ya’ara Saks.
Ya’ara Saks, Member of Parliament for York Centre: Thank you, senators, for your time today. Much of the work that goes into a legislative process is the many conversations, witnesses and debates such as these to ask the hard questions. As I join my colleagues here today and the members of this committee, I can say this process has broken wide open a national conversation on coercive control, one that seeks education and actionable tools to protect victims. Through this process, we have aimed to shed light on the definition and understanding of coercive control. An important piece of this legislation is providing education to understand that while physical forms of intimate partner violence or domestic violence are well known and easy to detect, there are more covert forms of psychological abuse that were not always recognized as violence.
Amendments to the Divorce Act in March 2021 now recognize that family violence is a critical consideration and in the best interests of analysis, and its definition includes not only violent conduct but also psychological and financial abuse.
Bill C-233 received unanimous consent in the House of Commons. We know that what it proposes are first but important steps. There is undoubtedly more work to be done; there always will be. But we must start and we have.
With this bill, coercive control and its understanding will become part of the language within our legislative and judicial systems, and we will have the tools to be educated on this, to identify it and, for judges, when it is in their court, to know there are deterrent tools to prevent escalating violence and save lives.
We’ve gained clarity through this process, and Canadians have asked us not to look away. I encourage the committee to ask us questions regarding our work.
The Chair: Thank you to the three of you for your presentations.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I welcome our witnesses to the Senate.
[English]
Maybe it’s their first visit in the Senate building, so welcome to the Senate.
Thank you for having asked me to sponsor this bill in the Senate. I think the bill has two important aspects. One is about the training of judges, and the other is about protections in regard to the monitoring device, especially in the period following the separation when maybe a bail order could be made and would include such a device.
I don’t know which one of you would like to comment first on the importance of judicial training and why you consider it important to have the specific reference to domestic violence, coercive control and related issues in the Judges Act.
Ms. Damoff: I’ll start, Senator Dalphond. I want to sincerely thank you for your leadership in stewarding this bill through the Senate.
We can’t tell the judiciary what to do. We don’t want to nor should we, but we can send a signal. I have already heard from people who are working in the family courts that they’re talking about “Keira’s Law,” even though this bill hasn’t been passed. I know that the Province of Ontario recently passed a motion called “Keira’s Law,” which will ensure that there is more education around domestic violence and coercive control. I think, as legislators, we can send a message to the judiciary, but, in a broader sense, to the courts and Canadians themselves, about how important this is and raise awareness about an issue that is often overlooked. That’s why the three of us and everyone, all 338 members in the House of Commons, felt that it was important to pass legislation that suggests — it’s not mandatory — seminars for judges that include domestic violence and coercive control.
Ms. Saks: If I may add to the remarks of my colleague MP Damoff, the training on coercive control is specific in that often we look at domestic violence for physical markers, whether it is physicians’ reports or criminal reports that have been filed. What we do know is that the pathology of coercive control is really about control. And the more the abuser loses control, usually after separation, the violence escalates to a lethal level very quickly. Often, the markers are there, and we’ve seen time and again, both on the criminal side of the court system and on the family side of the court system, that those markers may have been missed.
This is an opportunity to encourage judges to learn what those markers are so that when families are before them, when children are before them and seeking protection, they know how to read the signs. We’ve been asked this by Canadian families from across this country, men and women alike, who have come up to me and my colleagues personally, with tears in their eyes, thanking us for raising the conversation on this form of abuse.
Senator Dalphond: I see some value in what you say, in that not only is this asking for judges to have more training about these issues, but it is also sending the signal to all those involved in the judicial system — the Crown attorneys, the police officers, the social workers, all those involved in family issues — to become aware, because the one who is making the decision, she knows about that, so she can expect people to know about it.
So is this what, as you say, Ontario and some of the other provinces are considering?
Ms. Dhillon: That’s exactly it. It’s important for the justice before whom the facts are presented to be able to properly ascertain whether there is a danger or not and what to impose during bail conditions. The training of judges in those aspects is crucial to help recognize those signs.
As we know, any continued education or training is always to better learn and apply what changes come into the law and what we see changing in our society as a whole as well. It is very important to encompass those things in this training to recognize the signs of potential violence, whether it’s psychological or physical. These are the facts the judge has to decide on; they are the decider of the case.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator Manning: You know I’m the critic for this bill, but I want to congratulate each of you for bringing it forward. So much for being the critic, anyway.
I have a bill before the Senate, Bill S-249, asking for the government to develop a national strategy in regard to intimate partner violence, so I look forward to working with some of you on that at a later date.
Regarding this particular bill, intimate partner violence is on the rise, as we all know, certainly according to the latest available data. Over the last seven years, especially, we’ve seen a major increase. I believe this bill is an important first step, as you have already noted.
Regarding tackling intimate partner violence and all the issues around that, from a government point of view, would you be able to elaborate on anything the government is looking at in regard to a broader approach now that intimate partner violence has been put forward as a global health care issue?
Ms. Saks: Thank you for the question, senator.
Bill C-233 is in lockstep with many countries around the world that are exploring avenues of how to further assess and study intimate partner violence, in particular with coercive control. That includes Australia, Spain and many countries. I believe that Senator Dalphond, in his comments previously in the Red Chamber, has alluded to where like-minded countries are going in looking at the legislative options and studying them carefully.
As a government, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality recently announced a comprehensive plan to address domestic violence across the country. The consultative process has begun. As a government, we are wholly committed to ensuring that we look at not just the legislative process in the courts but the social determinants that also associate themselves with intimate partner violence, whether it is in terms of ensuring there is safe shelter, transitional housing or ensuring there are mental health supports in place for families that are in crisis.
It really is an all-of-government approach that we are applying to this, alongside provincial and municipal partners, to ensure that families and children are safe.
Ms. Damoff: I could give you an example of the impact this bill has had. On Saturday night, my colleague from London, Peter Fragiskatos, told me that the London Lightning basketball team had a purple game, raising funds for the London Abused Women’s Centre. It was also “Keira’s Night,” and they recognized Keira Kagan and Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater. So a sports team was highlighting the issues of intimate partner violence and what had happened to Keira, raising funds for a terrific organization in London, Ontario, that does really good work.
When you hear that the leadership that we’re taking here in Ottawa can find its way down to a basketball team in London, Ontario, to help spread the word, that’s how we can start to make a difference in society. It happens when we have those messages getting across to Canadians, particularly to young men, to be part of the conversation and to change their attitudes toward women.
I was quite inspired by that, actually.
Senator Manning: Thank you very much.
Education is the key, and the younger we start, the better we are. In Newfoundland and Labrador a couple of weeks ago, we had a 14-year-old charged with violence against his girlfriend, so it starts young.
I had a round table not too long ago with a group of victims in some cases, and in others with community leaders. Part of the discussion was in relation to monitoring devices. The bill came up in the conversation. Some of the people around the table were a bit concerned about a false sense of security that could come with that. Some of these people have horrific stories to tell.
I didn’t know really how to respond when that question came up because I wasn’t totally familiar with everything they’re doing.
Can you provide an answer that I could pass on?
Ms. Dhillon: Thank you so much for that question, Senator Manning. It is a very important question. Those are things we do have to take into consideration.
In terms of the importance of having such devices, first, it already puts us a step further. It’s not perfect; it’s not going to be a perfect solution. There was someone in a women’s shelter in Quebec who actually spoke to this. Quebec passed the same type of law last May. She spoke about how it’s being used, and she said that, at that women’s shelter, there is a little more sense of security that the monitoring option is available. It allows for the victim to be able to see if the person is in the vicinity. Let’s say there is a certain distance they shouldn’t be breaching or they should stay away from the house or the daycare — it is something that will help ease the stress that a complainant will feel. It does give a sense of peace of mind.
It won’t be perfect, but it’s a very important start to allow victims to have that freedom, to be able to move around and to ascertain on their app the whereabouts this person is and if they’re too close to them. It’s not a false sense of security; it’s actually something that will give them peace of mind, help protect them further and cut that cycle of violence or the potential of violence.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much, Ms. Dhillon, Damoff and Saks, for this very important initiative. I salute you. It takes a lot of work. I’ve been involved in this issue — I won’t tell you how long, because you’ll know how old I am — but I want to say thank you very much.
About 25 or 30 years ago, I used to do this training for judges with the Canadian Judicial Council and the Western council around intimate partner violence. There are judicial training sections already in the Judges Act. I want to know from you the powers of the Council in the Judges Act. The proposed subsection 60(2) talks about “. . . intimate partner violence, coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships . . . .” Further on, it talks about seminars regarding intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate partner relationships.
We already have the judges’ training and we have already been doing the judges’ training, but from your research, you must have wanted to add something. It’s already there, so what more can we add? It is a very good initiative, and I thank you for it.
Ms. Damoff: Regardless of the fact that it’s there, it’s not working, or Keira Kagan would still be here with us today. Keira is not the only case. All three of us have had women reach out to us. It’s heartbreaking to hear their stories and to hear how they consistently go back to the courts. They know their children are in danger.
So the fact that it has existed indicates there is a flaw in what’s happening.
Having said that, we can’t tell the judges what to be training for. I sincerely hope that they will reach out to people like Dr. Kagan-Viater and other individuals who have been through the system to ask, “What should we be focusing on?” and speak to survivors of intimate partner violence and coercive control and work with them.
As you well know, senator, we can’t dictate what they should do, but I would reiterate that there are obviously gaps in the system. This is what we are trying to highlight. It’s similar to what we did with Bill C-3 on sexual assault training because we know there have been gaps within the judicial system.
I have said I hope even the stubborn judges who don’t want to go to training will hear their colleagues at a golf game start talking about Keira Kagan and say, “What’s that all about” and hope that it filters into the conversations that people are having.
Beyond just judicial education, the fact this bill has come before Parliament and is now before you in the Senate is changing conversations. I have no doubt that the National Judicial Institute is listening and probably watching today, and I do hope they will reach out to survivors and tailor their training to make sure that it is effective.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Damoff, I cannot disagree with anything you are saying — I absolutely agree — but the training the judges were getting at that time — they were also reaching out to survivors and listening to them. I absolutely agree with you on all of that, no doubt about it.
Where I think we do need the money — and you were talking about the government listening — are the resources provided to ensure the training is done. That’s where we really need to focus, and that’s something the government can control.
The other thing you were talking about is the monitoring. I really appreciated what Ms. Dhillon said about the monitoring and the security.
My challenge with the monitoring — and I’m with you; I’m just saying I want it to be even better, so don’t get me wrong — is the issue we just heard last week, a few weeks ago, in that there are just not enough monitoring devices, especially in rural areas, and the challenge is, again, resources.
My urge to you is let’s provide the resources. The Quebec government has taken leadership in buying all of those monitoring devices. That’s what we need. Otherwise, rural areas and other areas will not have those devices. Have you looked into that?
The Chair: Could you limit your response to about one minute?
Ms. Saks: Certainly. I’m going to divide this into two parts. Thank you for your question, senator. I will use a famous phrase first, “If you build it, they will come.”
By pairing the electronic monitoring in the bill with the understanding of coercive control, the idea is to raise awareness that this is a deterrent tool that is already in the judicial tool box but may not have been considered in a context such as coercive control.
In reference to your dedicated work on training on domestic and intimate partner violence, as I mentioned in my previous comments, traditionally it’s been used in terms of physical markers. What we’re encouraging judges and the legal system in general — whether it’s social workers, prosecutors or legal representatives — is to look at the invisible warning signs and understand that they often play out in family courts by way of financial control, isolation, stalking, withholding of food, or bringing children home late on principle to create anxiety so that the judicial system knows what to look for.
We can always do better and more, but if we don’t put this on the table and encourage the judiciary to consider these things in their own deliberations, then the request for financial resources won’t be there. But I agree with you, it does need to be resourced.
Senator Pate: Thank you to each of you for being here and also to Keira’s mom and family.
I certainly appreciate and support the intentions that are behind this. I have three major issues with the bill. One, the crux of this issue in my experience of some 40 years — I’m not quite as experienced as my colleague —
Senator Jaffer: She’s younger than I am.
Senator Pate: — the issue is women aren’t believed. They’re not believed when they report the violence, and they’re not believed when they report the risk to their children. That’s at the crux of what happened to Keira.
Nothing in this bill, if it existed now, would have prevented what happened to Keira, and that’s a horrific reality to face. But if we don’t face it, then we do create the false sense of security that sometimes these kinds of options create for women. We know that in rural and First Nations communities in particular, the ability to access this — and having worked on the case of Helen Naslund, who lived 40 minutes from the closest police station, it was not just coercive control but nobody believed what was happening.
When we know that reality, it’s not just about education; it’s challenging myths and stereotypes, as we know. We have had to deal with that in sexual assault law and still have to deal with it, quite frankly.
Secondly, the reality that we’re doing incremental law reform instead of fundamentally looking at how we address laws that were developed at a time when women and children were the property of men who married them or who fathered them is fundamental to why we keep doing these incremental changes, in my humble opinion. We need to be doing that.
I’m curious as to what the government is doing about those two areas because I think they can do some training with judges. There’s been talk about how we do education and screen people coming up for judges.
Thirdly, the one thing that women’s groups and those escaping violence have always agreed on is that resources are needed to facilitate that. I’m curious what steps are being taken around social, economic and health equality issues that would provide the groundwork to allow people to depart at those times. I know there’s lots of work being done with shelters, but we also need to be looking at the economic inequality for women’s issues.
Ms. Dhillon: Thank you, Senator Pate, for your question. I wholeheartedly agree with what you’ve said. At the time these laws were created, women and children were considered property. There’s still a lot to be done, and it is being done incrementally, but with this bill and hopefully the passage of it, I think we will be moving way faster than we have in the past. Concrete steps are being taken to make sure that women have a sense of security.
I know you’ve also mentioned that there could be a false sense of security or that in rural areas, the internet is not very good. Even if it’s spotty — this is my own personal view — and it gives somebody a 1% chance of survival, I don’t think that is something we should pull back from or deny.
The other thing is that it also helps women or people who are accusing somebody of this kind of violence to not go through further psychological trauma. It prevents it. These are two things that we really need to help this scourge of domestic violence. I don’t know if my colleagues would like to add anything.
Ms. Damoff: I first would like to applaud the work that you do, Senator Pate, and your advocacy. I’ve told you this personally, but I want to publicly thank you for the work that you do and know that it’s appreciated. I agree with everything that you’ve said. I think we all do. Women are not believed. Jennifer was not believed when she went to the courts and said that her ex-husband was a threat.
When we were studying Rona Ambrose’s bill when it was still a private member’s bill, I was on the Status of Women Committee at the time, and we had a Crown prosecutor who came to committee. She said that probably the biggest change happening is the way that judges are being appointed now and who is being appointed to the bench.
That is going to take time before that filters its way through, but that struck me when she commented on that. She made the point that there’s no one piece of legislation or one change that will fix the system. There are a number of things that need to happen.
What I keep hearing around this room, in Parliament, in my community and across Canada is that we’re actually talking about these things now, and women are demanding change. Women are not standing still and being treated like property. Not all women have the same voices. Indigenous women still do not have the same voice that I do, and that’s wrong. We need to be listening to all women, but I think this is one step that will move the needle on ensuring that women are believed.
We absolutely need resources. There’s no question that we need more resources for women who are fleeing intimate partner violence, women who are facing violence at home in their community where they’re living. I don’t think anybody is going to disagree with you on that. We need to keep working to make that happen. I’m happy to work with you and others on that.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much for being here. I want to commend my colleague Senator Boisvenu, who is travelling with the committee this week, for being the first to try to enshrine intimate partner violence training for judges as an amendment to Bill C-3 in 2021. At that time, the government’s deputy leader, when speaking on behalf of the government, had said this amendment would “bring little added value.” I’m happy to see today the government has had a change of heart and sees the importance of these amendments as presented in this bill that we have before us.
From your perspective, I would like to know what the added value is that these new judicial training requirements provide. When I say “judicial training requirements,” this bill doesn’t really make this required; it only requires the training seminars for judges be established on these topics. There’s no requirement that the crucial courses for judges are actually taken.
As Senator Jaffer pointed out a little while ago here, these seminars have been offered to judges for years. So what is the added value that this part of your bill provides?
Ms. Saks: Thank you, Senator Batters, for your question. I’d like to acknowledge that in previous deliberations with regard to Senator Boisvenu’s bill there was another government’s position previously — the context by which that debate happened — because I think it’s critical to understanding why the government at that time in this chamber didn’t necessarily support the amendments that were there.
In reference to your questions today in terms of added value, I go back to our understanding of coercive control in the public discourse. Coercive control previously in the family court system, when financial abuse or psychological abuse were playing out, oftentimes the deliberations in the family court would be, “Well, it’s a difficult divorce. There’s antagonism between the partners.” The judge has to rule in the best interests of the child, without understanding that there were present markers of coercive control in that dynamic.
The added value is that these discussions did not happen previously. This type of abuse was thought to be part of the “ugliness of divorce.” It was thought to be part of the dysfunctionality of a family and not a form of abuse. What we have heard from Canadians across this country — men and women, I might add — is that this type of abuse was not recognized in their own process of moving through either the family courts or the criminal courts and the ability to protect themselves and their children.
We have moved the conversation, the discussion and the deep understanding along to a point where women and men who are protecting themselves and their children have the ability to put evidence before the court. Previously, you would have had to have been bruised or broken and filed a police report to justify a claim of domestic violence. With the definition of coercive control now in the public debate, there are other tools available to be able to protect oneself when standing before a judge. By adding that education and training, that is the added value.
Senator Batters: I practised family law in Saskatchewan for many years before I came to the Senate and I would say that some of those things were certainly known for quite some time. I’ve been in the Senate now for 10 years. I think many of those things have been known for a considerable period of time, but, yes, I absolutely want these important conversations to continue. I just want to make sure that it actually counts when we have terrible situations like the one that precipitated this private member’s bill to begin with and other situations that I’ve experienced, including my own legal assistant, who was murdered by her ex-husband.
Yes, we have to do a lot of work in this area. I just want to make sure these things actually count. That’s why I’m trying to make sure we have as good of a bill as we can here.
I want to move on to the issue of electronic monitoring technology. We heard recently at our committee from critics of this type of electronic monitoring technology, stating it can provide a false sense of security among victims of violence. How would you respond to that particular point?
Ms. Dhillon: Thank you for your question. As I’ve mentioned before, the sense of security that comes from this I think has more weight than maybe an expert saying that there’s a false sense of security. I mentioned before people who are victims of violence or potential victims of even further violence — to them it will give peace of mind. It will give them the ability to be in a certain place or not be in a certain place, to protect themselves if this person is coming too close to them. Oftentimes we see when a judge orders somebody to stay away from their spouse, they actually start doing the opposite. They start stalking them. They start following them everywhere, harassing them. With this kind of mechanism, they can see on an app how close this person is and do things to prevent further harm to themselves and their children.
There was a case in Quebec where a woman did everything she could to protect herself. She changed addresses, she changed jobs, and I believe he followed her from court and found out where she lived. He waited outside the house. It was around Christmastime. She left the house to go to the garage and get decorations. When she came inside, he was already hiding in the house. He had made his way in. He raped her in front of their two-year-old child. She ran and hid in the washroom with the child, and he was going to murder both of them, but she begged him in the name of the daughter. When she came out, he had committed suicide.
This kind of mechanism allows somebody to be able to see where that person they’re in danger from is and do something preventive. She could have called the police. Maybe she wouldn’t have gone out to the garage and left the front door unlocked. There are so many “maybes,” but at least we give the chance to a person to survive, even one person, like I said.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests and thank you for your briefing. I did have a line of questioning I was going to follow, but I want to pick up on what Senators Jaffer, Manning and Pate talked about. I’d like to think about these bracelets as a deterrent. I hope they would be fully a deterrent, but the other side of that one being prevention — there’s a question there.
In looking at some of the amendments, on prevention, is there consideration for awareness and training for police officers that when this goes off, it’s go time and not the-sky-is-falling-type thing. No, this is a real-life thing you need to monitor. Whether or not you feel it’s right, if it’s going off, you need to go. Maybe there are occasions where there’s not foot dragging but competing priorities of things. To me, that would be a top priority to respond to. I’m just wondering about that.
Also, in reference to rural areas, would there be some consideration given to a reasonably broader range of restriction to allow what might be a longer response time?
Ms. Damoff: I’ll maybe speak to the police training because I mentioned earlier about the Province of Ontario passing a motion by my counterpart, Effie Triantafilopoulos, on this type of education. It’s not just around electronic monitoring; it’s about response to incidents of intimate partner violence. We know that sometimes the police don’t take it seriously and don’t respond in the same way.
My hope is that with this bill being passed, with broader public awareness and with provinces like Ontario and Quebec — Quebec is doing terrific work around sexual violence and domestic violence — we will see a change in the way that police are trained and the way that child and family services are trained. We, as a federal government, are not specifically training local police services. The only police service that we are responsible for is the RCMP. There is no reason why we can’t have more training with the RCMP because in some communities they are the police service that is responding, but we need to have a broad conversation. You’re absolutely right with what you’re saying on the training.
Ms. Saks: We do have models that we can look at. As I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks, we are in lockstep with other countries that are looking at the various tools available in addressing this. When we look at the Spanish system, for example, it is really a much more holistic approach in which there is public awareness for women and families through child and family services, hospitals and police services that an option for monitoring is available to them if they feel unsafe. There is also the piece of the puzzle where there is a cooperative nature in the Spanish system of social services working with policing once electronic monitoring has been put into place. There are certainly models that we can look at to encourage our respective jurisdictions and counterparts to explore.
In the province of Quebec, where monitoring is being done, studies are being done on its implementation over the last 10 years to see its efficacy, that is who is being ordered to use bracelets and how well they work in those contexts. The data and analysis from that will also better inform jurisdictions on how best to work with the tools available to them.
Ms. Dhillon: Quebec is one of the only jurisdictions that started with this program. It will also help with uniformity across the country. As you mentioned, sometimes there is maybe not foot dragging, but prioritization of incidents. This empowers the person — the complainant, the victim — to be able to do something for themselves. Maybe they’ll get a family member over to help them; maybe they’ll leave that location and go somewhere else for the time being if they see the person driving around the house. We’ve heard stories where the victim or the complainant will look outside the window and see the accused sitting in his car, staring at the house, or they see the vehicle going around the house. This empowers them. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Hello, and welcome.
[English]
I want to tell you that it’s good to see women in politics. It’s personally and profoundly inspiring for me. I thank you for doing that and for being that.
Ms. Saks, you referenced the conversations with stakeholders and the partnerships that you have with different levels of government, including municipal government. I’m always listening for the municipal. As a former mayor, I always lean into that because intimate partner violence affects specific families and victims, but it affects entire communities too. The health of entire communities is impacted.
This bill obviously has a lot of consensus. We are aware of that. I would like you to push past that and lean into the conversations that you had with the stakeholders. I worry a lot about the trust that Canadians have in our legal system in general, in the judiciary and in all the facets of our criminal justice system. Women, in particular, don’t trust. What have you heard and what more should we be doing? We talked about resources, but broaden the conversation. Tell us what you heard.
Ms. Saks: The conversations that I’ve heard since bringing this bill forward have ranged from women literally coming up to me outside of West Block, saying, “Thank you. You’ve changed my life because my ex-husband has now been told that he needs to be aware that this bill is coming to the fore and if he doesn’t stop financially and psychologically abusing me through our separation process, he might wind up with an ankle bracelet.” That is not the intention of the bill, but the point is that lawyers are talking about it, families are talking about it and women are coming forward and saying to us, “Thank you.”
If I can be a bit bold and personal, as a divorced woman myself who had to navigate the family court system, it does need to be better resourced. The time delays are tremendous. It is disheartening for many single parents trying to navigate safety and security, whether it be financial, emotional or otherwise, in a system that doesn’t answer their call.
I am a privileged woman living in an urban centre, but I was in Nunavut this summer and spent time with your colleague Senator Patterson at the women’s shelter in Iqaluit. I understood the journey of a woman to be able to leave her community to safety at the one shelter in the entire territory and what it would take for her to get there with her children, barring snowstorms or plane delays or someone at the airport calling her partner while he’s out on the land hunting and telling him, “Hey, your partner is at the airport. Come and get her.”
We have a lot of work to do to build trust and resources here, but I also know that in Nunavut judges circulate in the 26 communities to hear cases. It gives me some knowledge that we’ve done something by better equipping a judge who will go to that remote community so that when the woman comes before him who hasn’t been able to make it to the shelter in Iqaluit, she can talk about coercive abuse. Hopefully, that judge, having taken the training or having heard our deliberations, will take that into consideration in providing safety for her and her children.
I’ve heard from male partners who have come to me and said “thank you” as well because they understand that the cycles of abuse that happen aren’t always to women. They happen in the context of a dysfunctional relationship, where the victims aren’t always the ones that we see. We heard the considerations in committee as well in terms of gender. Abuse is genderless. There are those who came forward and thanked us for that as well, for acknowledging that this can happen in any family context. We have heard a lot.
We also heard from the Province of Saskatchewan, lamenting that they wished they could follow in the footsteps of Ontario and my colleague’s counterpart in contemplating “Keira’s Law” because currently in Saskatchewan there isn’t a context for that in terms of family acts. Families are paying attention. Women are paying attention. Legal counsel are paying attention. If we’ve done anything by opening the door much wider on the dynamics of abuse that happen behind closed doors in families, then I know that we’ve pushed the needle forward.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Saks. There is a small amount of time for a second round.
Senator Jaffer: Once again, I want to thank you all for your work. We can have so much discussion, but it all boils down to resources for me. Ms. Damoff was saying that women are standing up now. I can tell you that we have been standing up. I’ve been working on violence against women for many years. We’ve been standing up and had a national panel on this. We’ve done a lot of work. I still salute you because where you are, you have power and, with that, you can bring change. I thank you for that.
I have two things to say. First, when we talk about intimate partner violence, please don’t forget our diverse Canada. When you were talking about resources, we have to look at very difficult issues for minority women.
The second is the Minnesota model — for all the years that I’ve been talking on this issue — where as soon as the man is charged with violence against his intimate partner, an advocate arrives for the wife and shepherds her through the system. It is a very successful model. They have been doing it for years. May I ask that when you speak to the Minister for Women and the Minister of Justice, that is what we need, the Minnesota model, to help with issues of violence against women? Thank you for all your work. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I invite your answer to be that you agree with Senator Jaffer in her observations, and then I’ll turn to Senator Pate.
Ms. Damoff: I didn’t want to imply, Senator Jaffer, that you hadn’t been — I want to grow up to be just like you, so —
Senator Jaffer: No, you don’t.
Ms. Damoff: — and many other women who have been leading this charge for a long time.
Senator Jaffer: I just did not want to leave the —
Ms. Damoff: No, no. Not at all.
Senator Jaffer: No, I know you didn’t.
The Chair: Thanks, Ms. Damoff.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Ms. Saks, for talking about Iqaluit. The last time I was there, not only was the shelter overflowing, but they were putting women in jail for their own protection because there was no more room. That sends shivers up my spine constantly. As well, most of the women I know who have been in this situation have ended up dead.
There has to be some discussion about how the monitoring is happening. The women I’m hearing from are saying yes to this because it’s all that’s being offered, not because it’s what they think will work. They’ve gone for years to get court orders and restraining orders. The same arguments being used now for electronic monitoring were the same arguments used for restraining orders, but the same women — poor women, Black women, otherwise racialized and Indigenous women — are the ones who are not believed. If I called, I have no doubt that I would probably get the monitoring device. I could afford to pay for it myself if I had to. Not everybody is in that situation.
The demographics are also important and, going back to the issue that you mentioned earlier in terms of the emancipatory mechanisms that need to be put in place writ large — and I am not suggesting you are not interested in that, because I know you all are — but in this one, I think some requests, some expectation that your counterparts, the cabinet will ensure that the data is captured and that the review of the criminal law that has been promised occurs, as well as the review of the process of appointing — all of those things need to be a part of this, in my opinion. I’m curious as to whether there are any of those moves afoot to really ensure the changes are happening. I know the Law Commission is on the books, but we don’t see it yet.
Ms. Saks: Thank you for your question. Just as MP Damoff said to Senator Jaffer, I would like to grow up and be just like you.
I appreciate the advocacy that you do in terms of racialized, marginalized and Indigenous communities, particularly women and children. I would say one of the things that we’re seeing the shifts in, in the process that we are in as a government in reconciliation, is Indigenous policing, which will be a big component in putting within the steering wheel of communities to be able to identify. We have an obligation to ensure that the tools and resources for the training and the conversations that we’re talking about for our judiciary are available within those new structures that we’re setting up.
I know in terms of my own work on the Indigenous early‑learning file, we’re looking at ways that we can support and enhance the family construct because sometimes it’s at a daycare where early childhood educators will see the first signs where something is just not right, but we also do understand that in this path that we’re on in reconciliation, we’re here to offer resources and supports, but the voice of the community comes first in understanding how they want to best manage the safety, security, resilience and growth of their communities. It’s a path that we do together.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Batters: I want to go back to an earlier comment that you made, Ms. Dhillon, where you talked about how even with spotty internet, we could have a 1% chance of survival, but let’s try to increase substantially that 1% chance of survival because of spotty internet. Your government has previously made major promises about improving rural broadband, and that could have a huge impact on this issue. Because of this bill, will you go back to your government to tell them that?
Ms. Damoff: First, Senator Batters, I know you’ve been an advocate for “Keira’s Law” for a very long time, and I want to personally thank you for that. I’ve been working with Jennifer Kagan-Viater since November of 2020, and we tried, as you indicated, to change Bill C-3 in the Senate and were unsuccessful. We do have a private member’s bill here, and some of the comments that all of you have made — I know that MP Dhillon would have included a lot more in that bill, like resources, but we’re not allowed to. We’re very limited.
Senator Batters: I’m not asking you to include it in the bill. I am just asking you to go to your government and tell them that they need to follow up on that promise.
Ms. Damoff: Absolutely. But I did want to thank you. We will take that back and we will push. It’s not just on monitoring that we need internet in Indigenous and rural communities. It is a commitment we have made, and we are pushing for that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
That brings us to the end of this session. I wanted to thank the three of you for coming, your presentation and your frank answers to questions. We don’t usually get so much applause for senators around this table as we’ve received this afternoon, and I am sure individual senators who got pats on the back for their very fine work very much appreciate it. This work and your leadership, particularly with respect to a private member’s bill, are to be applauded, and we will give it careful and thoughtful conversation in the days ahead. I wanted to thank you for the time that you spent with us this afternoon.
For our second panel today, I would like to welcome, by video conference, Jennifer Kagan-Viater and Philip Viater as well as Jo-Anne Dusel, the Executive Director of the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan.
I’m going to invite Ms. Kagan-Viater to speak first for roughly five minutes, if you would. I will try to give you a signal if it feels like you’re going a bit too long. Once each of you has presented, that will be followed by questions from senators. Ms. Kagan-Viater, it is all yours.
Jennifer Kagan-Viater, as an individual: Good evening, honourable senators. Thank you for inviting me to the committee to speak to you about Bill C-233. I will speak to you predominantly about the “Keira’s Law” portion of the bill, namely, judicial education and training on domestic violence and coercive control, as this has been the focus of our advocacy. However, both my husband, Mr. Viater, and I support Bill C-233 in its entirety. I am also here with Mr. Viater, my spouse, a practising family law lawyer for over 14 years, whom you may have questions for as well.
As many of you may know, our advocacy on this bill stems from our personal tragedy. On February 9, 2020, three years to the day from tomorrow, we lost our daughter — my biological daughter, Philip’s stepdaughter — Keira to murder at the hands of her biological father, a perpetrator with a known history of domestic violence.
In my previous short marriage, I experienced several types of domestic violence, including coercive control. When I left this short marriage in 2016, I sought protection for our daughter, Keira, via the family court system. I begged and pleaded with many professionals in the system to help protect our daughter.
In addition to his history of violence towards me, my ex‑husband abducted Keira multiple times, regularly breached court orders and was caught trying to deceive the court many times. We were before 10 different judges and had 53 court orders in our case. The judge on our 11-day custody and access trial had a background in labour and employment law. When I tried to testify in court to the abuse, the judge cut me off, stated that abuse is not relevant to parenting and he’s going to ignore it. Keira was given unsupervised parenting time with her father.
By the time of Keira’s murder, there were at least 22 risk factors for intimate partner homicide identified in our file, according to the final report of the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee. This same committee stated in the report that having seven or more risk factors is consistent with cases that are deemed predictable and preventable. And yet, these 22 risk factors were not looked at or appropriately taken into consideration by the court or others in the family law system despite being well established to help prevent lethality in the large body of domestic violence literature.
Canada’s femicide and filicide rates are haunting. A woman is killed somewhere in Canada approximately every two days, and 30 to 40 children a year are killed by a violent parent. Many of these children are killed after being put into unsafe contact by the family court system. While murder is the most extreme example of harm, there are many children across Canada who are suffering abuse at the hands of a parent — abuse and adverse childhood experiences that will have lifelong mental and physical health consequences.
Keira is not the only victim of a system that, on its face, is supposed to protect children. There are many victims. I would like to remember the case of Chloe and Aubrey Berry here in the Senate today. These beautiful girls, ages four and six, were killed by their father on Christmas Day in 2017 after a judge ordered them into the care of their father, who had a history of violence. I am thinking of their mother, Sarah Cotton, and their nanny, Suzanne Merrifield, who know the pain of child loss all too well, after their concerns about the children’s father were not acted upon by the family court judge in the B.C. Supreme Court.
There is a significant lack of confidence in the public as to whether the current family court system is equipped to handle domestic violence cases and protect children. We believe an important first step is to educate the decision makers — namely the judges — about patterns of behaviour that result in harm for children.
The Divorce Act was changed in March 2021 to pay close attention to domestic violence and coercive control as part of the court’s analysis of the best interests of the children. However, a missing component is the education for judges on what domestic violence and coercive control actually look like. All too often, old myths and debunked stereotypes continue to be used in court to respond to claims of abuse.
While reviewing available courses for judges for preliminary and ongoing education, courses related to domestic violence seem to be lacking and not offered in a comprehensive fashion, if at all. If the judge on Keira’s case had received education on domestic violence and coercive control, it would have made a considerable difference for Keira.
We were pleased to see that in June of 2022, just four short months after Bill C-233 was introduced in the House of Commons, 326 MPs across party lines unanimously voted in favour of it. Canadians are counting on our honourable senators to also pass this bill in a timely fashion and take an important step towards saving lives. This cannot wait.
My husband and I are not alone in our concerns. There has been overwhelming public support for Keira’s law from many stakeholder organizations that work with women and children, including Women’s Shelters Canada, Battered Women’s Support Services, Luke’s Place, the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan, the Canadian Medical Association, the London Abused Women’s Centre, the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic and the London centre for research on family violence among many others.
We support Bill C-233 in its entirety. Bilateral electronic monitoring devices are also an important tool to help protect victims. This is a pragmatic option that judges already have at their disposal, but which they are not routinely considering. Bill C-233 will flag this tool for judges and justices of the peace who decide bail conditions, and will help to save lives. The use of bilateral electronic monitoring increases the victims’ sense of safety and their sense of renewed control over their own lives. There are studies from various jurisdictions that show a reduction in violent offending with their use.
While many interventions are needed to combat domestic violence, Bill C-233 provides a reasonable beginning and sends a good message to help establish a culture shift toward a better understanding of domestic violence, properly taking into account victims and their children.
We thank you for inviting us here today and we welcome questions from committee members.
The Chair: Ms. Kagan-Viater, thank you for a very powerful and focused presentation. It’s much appreciated by the committee.
Ms. Kagan-Viater: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I will now invite Ms. Dusel to speak. You have roughly five minutes.
Jo-Anne Dusel, Executive Director, Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan, as an individual: Thank you for this opportunity to address the members of the Senate committee.
I was a domestic violence shelter worker for 20 years before taking on a position at the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan, PATHS for short, eight years ago. In my time as a front-line shelter worker, I worked with thousands of victims and survivors. Many survivors tell us they don’t want to involve the police or testify due to fear of reprisals from the perpetrator. Many see a no-contact order as just a piece of paper that can’t protect them. The victim is left in a constant state of fear, afraid to leave their home or to let their children play in the yard. They don’t feel the same basic level of safety that most of us take for granted in this country.
That fear is not unfounded. In Canada, a woman is killed by a current or former intimate partner about every six days.
Research indicates that GPS monitoring significantly reduces perpetrators’ attempts to contact their partners. The U.S. states that have implemented electronic monitoring have seen drastic reductions in domestic-violence-related homicides. Electronic monitoring can ensure compliance with protective orders, record evidence of breaches, enhance supervision and improve safety, freedom and choice for survivors.
The bilateral monitoring tool that is currently being used in Quebec, in particular, is useful in terms of providing that early warning system for individuals who may be at risk from an intimate partner. We consider that to be a very important tool for increasing safety for survivors and their children. In fact, when the electronic monitoring program was announced in Quebec, survivor Christine Giroux spoke to the media. This is what she said:
Today, it’s the 11th time going outside in four years. So, the electronic bracelet would frankly change my life. I’ll be able to go outside. I’ll be able to live my life like everyone else has a right to live their lives.
However, it’s important to note that electronic monitoring should not be considered a substitute for incarceration in high-risk cases. Decisions related to the use of electronic monitoring should be based on a risk assessment for both the offender and the victim and with a thorough understanding of the dynamics of intimate partner violence, including coercive control.
In recent years, there have been significant advances in research on intimate partner violence, including the identification of risk factors for domestic homicide, some of which are related to previous criminal history, but many that are not. In family or criminal court, the factors unrelated to an offender’s past interaction with the legal system may not be given due weight unless the judge has the knowledge and the understanding of the relevant warning signs and risk factors.
Domestic violence death reviews have flagged the time of separation, when victims are most likely to engage with the legal and family courts, as a time of heightened risk, providing those institutions an opportunity to intervene to increase safety. To effectively do that, justice system actors must have the knowledge provided by research and to have heard the voices of front-line service providers and survivors.
In the absence of access to the primary victim after separation, the focus of the offender may shift to the children. As a shelter worker, I received many calls from women in distress who had been experiencing all different types of violence and abuse, yet none made me feel as unable to assist as the many calls I received from survivors of intimate partner violence who had been court-ordered to send their child to a parent with a history of family violence.
To this day, it appears that too many judges do not recognize the harms to children when one parent has abused the other. Yet, when victims of intimate partner violence raise this issue in family court, it can result in less parenting time for the protective parent. Even when judges accept the occurrence of abuse, they often see it as incident-based, as in a one-off that won’t happen again, as having been in the past, or they mutualize it as a high‑conflict relationship.
Recent Canadian research by Sheehy and Boyd found that allegations of parental alienation are increasingly being used successfully to deflect the presence of intimate partner violence in determinations of parenting time. This pattern of judgments in family court underlines the need for ongoing educational seminars to increase safety for survivors and their children.
As part of PATHS’ work, we have developed and do deliver a 15-hour training program on the dynamics of intimate partner violence for family law professionals. In the time that we’ve been doing this — over three years — with over 200 participants, the most frequent comment we receive from family law lawyers is that judges require similar training.
My sincere thanks for your attention to this issue. It is not an understatement to say that if this legislation is passed, it will save lives. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dusel.
We will begin senators’ questions.
Senator Manning: Let me begin by expressing my deepest sympathy for your tragic loss. There are no words for the loss of a child. I want to admire your courage and bravery in fighting so diligently to fix a broken system.
A Justice Canada report from 2021 identified risk factors for children in situations of family violence in the context of separation and divorce. That report found that there is indeed an overlap in risk, meaning that those who abuse an intimate partner pose an increased risk to their children. The risks are amplified when there is a divorce or separation, as the non-abusive parent is unable to monitor or intervene.
In your estimation, is this correlation overlooked? If so, why do you think that is?
Ms. Dusel: I’ll jump in here if that is okay.
I certainly think that this correlation is overlooked. We’re finding in the work we’ve been doing with family law lawyers in Saskatchewan that there is very little education in the college of law specifically about intimate partner violence. At the same time, we have a lot of research such as that you have just mentioned. New information is always coming out.
Judges currently don’t have an ongoing mechanism to receive information on new research or risk factors as they’re being identified, so it’s perhaps not so much that those risk factors are being ignored as that judges may not be aware of them.
Philip Viater, as an individual: I could add to that, if I may, because I’m a family law lawyer myself who is regularly engaged in the court.
Judges don’t seem to be aware of the risk factors, and risk assessments are virtually non-existent. When I raise risk factors in court, I can tell you that I’m often met with pushback, saying, “Well, who is to say that we agree with these risk factors?” There seems to be a lack of training there.
The Chair: Thank you. You have a bit more time, Senator Manning, if you wish.
Senator Manning: As a father and a grandfather, I’m concerned about all these issues, but I want to once again thank you for your courage and bravery.
Maybe for Ms. Kagan-Viater, I want to give you the opportunity to tell us more about Keira.
Ms. Kagan-Viater: That’s very kind and almost brings a tear to my eye.
Keira was a lovely child. In many ways, she was a normal four-year-old. She loved to play, loved to be with her friends and was very spunky and fierce. She had an opinion, and people were going to know it. She often said she wanted to change the world; she wanted to make an impact. We raised her with the values of helping those more vulnerable and really trying to make a difference in the world, as crazy as this world is right now.
She was a brilliant little girl, and I have no doubt that had she been given the opportunity, she would have reached her potential and done great things.
Senator Manning: I have a daughter. I know what spunky is all about. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you both for that.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: First, I would like to join Senator Manning in thanking Jennifer Kagan-Viater and the witnesses before us today. They have been through a terrible ordeal, from which they will never fully recover. Nevertheless, they decided to recommend ways to prevent others from going through this kind of ordeal. If we can help protect even a few people from this, we will have accomplished a great deal, thanks to you.
[English]
I have two questions. The first one is about the need for judicial training. I have absolutely no hesitation to say this is a critical part of the bill.
Do you see any kind of evolution in the thinking? For example, I noticed that in May of last year, 2022, in Barendregt v. Grebliunas, the Supreme Court of Canada, not necessarily dealing with domestic violence, went on to make a comment about domestic violence. The court said:
The suggestion that domestic abuse or family violence has no impact on the children and has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s parenting ability is untenable.
That was the message from the Supreme Court to the system. I’ve also read Court of Appeal judgments in Quebec and in other provinces where the cases were returned to trial judges because they did not consider domestic violence or intimate partner violence in their family assessment.
Do you see things coming down to the trial judge on the first line and them adapting to it and understanding the importance of looking at it, especially since we have a new chapter in the Divorce Act that was added a few years ago that forces them to consider and focus on domestic violence?
Mr. Viater: Thank you, senator, for that question. I would also be remiss if I didn’t add that in that same Supreme Court of Canada decision, the court also indicated at paragraph 144:
Domestic violence allegations are notoriously difficult to prove . . . . Thus, proof of even one incident may raise safety concerns for the victim or may overlap with and enhance the significance of other factors, such as the need for limited contact or support.
Now to answer your question more directly, it’s a little bit of a hit-or-miss situation. I think the whole point of this bill is to start a culture shift in understanding domestic violence and coercive control and how they impact families, victims and, most importantly, children.
There are some judges whom I get to show cases such as this Supreme Court case and they take it into account. There are others who still don’t really have the necessary training to quite understand what it is they’re looking for. There is some movement and some improvement with some judges, and with others there is not, and I continue to see and hear about horror stories in my own practice.
I would still support definitely having some education for judges, especially as it assists in the culture.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you. My next question is for Ms. Dusel. You are the executive director of an important organization looking after transition houses in Saskatchewan.
Based on your experience, are these electronic monitoring devices effective? We hear that, of course, they’re more effective in cities than they are in rural areas because there’s a lack of access to the internet, for example. But do you see that — we’ll call them the victims — feel reassured when they are available?
Ms. Dusel: I have to say that in my experience in Saskatchewan — and this is 28 years in this sector — I’m not aware of any survivors of intimate partner violence who have been offered to have the bilateral electronic monitoring that would actually warn them if the person that they are afraid of is anywhere in their vicinity, so I can’t speak to that.
What I can say is that if it was me in that situation, and I’m jumping every time I hear a bump outside my house or I’m trying to sleep at night and I hear creaking and I’m jolted awake because I wonder if my house is being broken into by a former partner, all of these things that have been mentioned, just the freedom of being able to step outside without being in fear, I think, would be very beneficial.
Now, to speak to the issue of the different availability or access in urban and rural areas, this is indeed an issue. There was conversation previously around availability of decent Wi-Fi coverage across Canada, particularly in rural and remote areas, of which Saskatchewan has many. That is an infrastructure factor that would need to be addressed in order to make this fully accessible to others all across the country.
However, when you look at a similar system, like the health care system, it’s equally true that someone who has a heart attack or stroke in an urban area has access to more immediate and effective interventions that can be life-saving, whereas someone in a rural area does not have that same timely access to those services. But I don’t think anyone would suggest that we shouldn’t provide that access to timely services to those in a region where it is available.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests. I share Senator Manning’s condolences. I hope you can accept them. Thank you.
My first question is for Ms. Kagan-Viater and her husband, Mr. Viater. I assume you’re familiar with this proposed legislation. Do you feel this legislation, with the proposed amendments, would result in reducing violence against intimate partners at an acceptable level, or is there more we can do to make this a better bill?
Ms. Kagan-Viater: You mentioned proposed amendments. We were not aware of amendments to the bill. But taking the bill itself, we do feel this is an important step towards better protecting women and children in situations of family violence.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. This is an important bill that is going to save lives, and we echo the remarks that have been previously made in terms of looking at data from other jurisdictions around prevention of femicide and the sense of renewed control that women will have if they are in a situation of intimate partner violence and this is ordered, being afforded more freedom to go about their daily business and to have that added barrier that if their alarm goes off, they have time to escape. It’s an important tool.
Of course, there are many things that we need to be doing nationally to address the intimate partner violence crisis, such as increased economic stability for women when they are leaving a situation of family violence, looking at addressing the root cause of domestic violence, looking at programs for perpetrators and all of these other aspects to the domestic violence crisis that we need to look at. But this is an important bill in its own right, and we do think that on its own, it’s an important step forward.
Looking at the issues I faced in the courts, our issues were predominantly in terms of the system not having that education and training on domestic violence. I’ve heard from survivors of violence from coast to coast who are gravely concerned about their ability to protect themselves and, in particular, young children.
Senator Klyne: I just wanted to offer that the amendments are of an existing legislation. There haven’t yet been amendments proposed by this committee. Thank you.
I have a question for Ms. Dusel. You have direct experience working with victims of intimate partner violence, with a specific focus on women. Do this bill and the bill brought forward by Senator Boisvenu do enough to protect women from this type of violence? Maybe we’ll just focus on this bill instead of Senator Boisvenu’s. So I’ll ask you the same question: Is there enough here? What else could be considered to improve this bill?
Ms. Dusel: I’m going to give you a similar answer to that which was given by Ms. Kagan-Viater, which is that sometimes incremental changes are what we need in order to make progress. We understand that intimate partner violence is incredibly complex. The causes are complex, and the solutions are equally complex. I can’t think off the top of my head of any other thing that could potentially be added that would be within the scope of the government.
The one thing I’m actually thinking about is requiring additional training on intimate partner violence in colleges of law, knowing that law students become lawyers, and lawyers become judges. Again, it’s going back upstream and encouraging people who are entering this field to have a thorough understanding of intimate partner violence before they start doing the work.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much to all three of you for being here. To Ms. Kagan-Viater, I want to personally thank you for your leadership, and I want to give you my condolences. Listening to you, I feel that we have let you down, so I’m sorry. I want to thank you for your courage and your leadership in trying to save the lives of other children.
When I was listening to you, one of the things that kept occurring to me comes from what you were saying about the judges. Is the solution to have domestic violence courses for judges that specialize in these issues? Have you thought of that?
Ms. Kagan-Viater: I have and I am familiar with some specialized domestic violence courses in Quebec and here. I’m in touch with a lot of victims on the ground. The worry is that the level of education and training even currently within those courts is not, in my humble opinion, where it would need to be, that women going into the courts are still facing the same sorts of issues and barriers in terms of having their concerns addressed and in terms of the outcomes.
I do believe — and perhaps Mr. Viater might be better able to explain in terms of the logistics of the courts and where they’re located essentially — it’s a problem across the country. I don’t know that a specialized court is necessarily going to address what is such a common problem across the country.
Mr. Viater: I could just add to what Jennifer said, which is that right now, we already have unified family courts, which is a very similar thing to what you’re describing. When we become judges, we all have different backgrounds. As it stands right now, even with family law lawyers, there’s no mandatory training on domestic violence. There is a big disparity between lawyers who are abuse-informed versus non-abuse-informed.
It may very well be a helpful tool, but in practicalities, we still get judges who didn’t get the training per se and are still using the outdated stereotypes. So there are still some issues where we definitely still need the ongoing training.
The other point is that many judges don’t understand what domestic violence looks like in today’s society. They’re still basing it on bruises and black eyes, and not on coercive and controlling behaviour, which in many cases is even more dangerous.
I hope that may assist.
Senator Jaffer: It does. Ms. Dusel, would you like to comment on that?
Ms. Dusel: I absolutely agree. I think domestic violence courts are very helpful where they are available. There are three in Saskatchewan in three different urban areas.
The idea of the unified court is a very promising one, in my view. One of the things we often see with families going through difficult separation where intimate partner violence is present is that there can be concurrent matters in criminal court and family court. If the family court judge is not aware of the things that are pending in criminal court, that can be very detrimental to a survivor who is trying to prove that abuse is taking place. Again, when we talk about abuse or even intimate partner violence, that understanding is needed that the word “violence” doesn’t necessarily mean strictly physical.
In terms of education for judges as it has happened throughout the years, what we’re seeing now is that the ways in which survivors are being abused are evolving as well. For example, the use of technology to stalk and harass and the filming and sharing, without permission, of intimate videos are all things that are relatively new in terms of aspects of that pattern of power and control that can be used against survivors to prevent them from leaving or attempt to prevent them from leaving.
I might have strayed off my point, but thank you for that question.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thank you so much, first of all, to Ms. Kagan-Viater. Thank you for telling us about that date coming up tomorrow. It’s been so recent for you, so I will think of you tomorrow, I will think of Keira, and I will send you strength. I have a small idea of how tough those anniversary days can be.
I wanted to give you the opportunity to tell us in more detail about the concept of coercive control and why, in your view, adding intimate partner violence itself to these required judicial training courses to be established in this bill would not be sufficient.
Ms. Kagan-Viater: Thank you very much for that question and for your kind remarks about Keira.
In terms of coercive control, this was actually the predominant form of abuse I was subject to in my marriage. It’s a pattern of harm most commonly done to women and children, involving threats, intimidation and humiliation. The perpetrator sets out to control and harm, and then the victim is almost the possession. When you leave, you’re entrapped. It’s like they’re saying, “How dare you leave. You’re my tool to control.” There’s that rage that comes with that, and that’s where you start to see a lot of stalking and harassment. In the case of where there’s a child, there’s that post-separation abuse.
It’s a very distinct pattern of behaviour that’s clinically recognizable. It’s something that individuals in the system can be educated to recognize. It’s not the same as — we think of abuse as yelling and screaming. This is a highly dangerous pattern of behaviour that when we see it, and when I hear from survivors and hear the number of risk factors for lethality — because I know that stuff off the top of my head at this point — I can tell which the high-risk cases are and which the less high-risk cases are. I’m sure that Ms. Dusel, working in this sector for many years, has that same sense when somebody comes in. You can tell.
This is the type of education we need to get into the hands of judges. I do believe it’s education they can learn. I would hope there’s that willingness to learn. In terms of that coercive control piece, I think it really does need to be specified.
I hope that is answering your question. It may have cut out at the end there, but it needs to be specific to the coercive control because without it, as we can see, this particular area is not getting into the right hands of the professionals in the system. I don’t quite know why this is something that is so easily dismissed, yet it’s life-saving for women and children. Therefore, it’s crucial that it’s in the text of the bill.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. I so appreciate that you’re appearing at this very Senate Legal Committee today. I think it’s quite a way to honour Keira.
Ms. Kagan-Viater: Thank you.
Senator Batters: You’re welcome.
My next question is for Ms. Dusel. It’s very nice to see you. I wanted, first of all, to thank you for all the work you have done over so many years to help victims of domestic violence in Saskatchewan and in Moose Jaw.
I wanted to ask you, Ms. Dusel, what would need to be done to ensure that police officers across Canada are properly trained on how to respond to the electronic monitoring signals sent by those particular devices and to ensure that the safety of survivors is guaranteed.
Ms. Dusel: Thanks for that, Senator Batters. I think the overall education on all the dynamics of intimate partner violence, including coercive control, would be very important for police officers to know and understand. Currently, PATHS does provide some training to every RCMP cadet that passes through Depot in Regina. It’s just a little bit under two hours, though, and we know that they receive other training on this issue.
In terms of the benefit of a true, thorough understanding of the dynamics of abuse, much of what has already been discussed is important. There are a lot of myths out there, and I certainly have heard from police officers that their view is that survivors of violence and victims of violence lie — that they make up the abuse and are claiming abuse as a way to punish their partner.
I would like to be able to talk to them about all the different ways you can actually observe when violence is taking place without even considering the he-said-she-said elements. They can take that right out of the equation and look at some of the dynamics within the relationship. Who has the economic power? Who has the social power? In other words, who has the support of the community? What are their relative — maybe it’s social status or economic status. Is there something going on with one of the individuals that makes them less able to speak for themselves? Is one of the partners, for example, a member of a marginalized community, racialized, Indigenous or perhaps a newcomer to Canada who doesn’t have established permanent residency? All of those things could be used against a partner. Look at the bank accounts: Who has access to them? Look at the homes and properties: Whose name is that in?
There are definitely ways that the presence of coercive control can be established without just going by the testimony of the two parties. That needs to be established for law enforcement.
Then they need to recognize, as was mentioned, sometimes coercive control is a bigger concern as a risk factor than one or two isolated incidents of physical violence. That’s why risk‑assessment tools exist. Domestic violence death reviews like the one in Ontario have been taking place for over 10 years, documenting all the risk factors and warning signs that were present in a multitude of domestic homicides. That information is invaluable in determining the factors that need to be taken seriously.
Beyond that, whenever an individual calls police for help, there needs to be the capacity within the police — and I’m not speaking to individuals who choose to respond or not now — I’m talking about enough police in all of our regions of Canada so there can be a timely response to help save people’s lives.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dusel.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Dr. Kagan-Viater and Mr. Viater — Jennifer and Philip — I want to say it’s good to see you again, but it’s not because this is a reminder of the very horrific situation you’ve had to live through and the death of your daughter. I applaud your efforts to do everything possible to try and address this and prevent it from happening to others. Thank you very much for that and thank you for your ongoing issue.
It’s also nice to see you, Ms. Dusel. Susan — or Jo-Anne, sorry, I’m thinking of somebody else who used to be with PATHS. Thank you for the work that you’ve done.
I want to pick up on what you just ended with. One of the concerns that I’m hearing, particularly from women’s groups and those who have been victimized themselves, is that the issue is not just education but the fact that women aren’t believed. You’ve picked up on that and you’ve talked about that issue. It’s unlike any other area of the law. When we’re talking about misogynist violence and violence against women and children, intimate partner violence — whatever name we want to put on it — when women are telling the story of the risk posed to them and their children, it’s often disbelieved.
That’s the situation with very clear physical violence, sexual assault. Now we add on coercive control. I’m extremely concerned — as are many of the folks I’m hearing from — that this is being offered up. When I say “false sense of security,” I’m not suggesting that saving one life is not worth it, but the idea that this will somehow address the issues that need to be addressed — particularly some of the Indigenous women I was just meeting with in Saskatchewan were extremely concerned not only that these kinds of measures will be used against them disproportionately but, in fact, that there still won’t be the efforts to address the very real social, economic, racial and health inequalities they face.
I don’t know if you’re comfortable speaking to that, Ms. Dusel, to the fact that this draws attention away from the bigger issues that we need to be working on as well. I’m extremely concerned that we keep doing these little steps. I don’t even think they’re incremental, quite frankly. The public education that people like you are doing, the education that Jennifer and Philip are doing is far more effective when people hear the stories of individuals who want to make a change. But this kind of legislative change — we’ve seen so much of it. As I think you both know, I’ve been involved in developing training courses for judges, lawyers, law students. I’m curious as to how you see the next steps.
Ms. Dusel: Thanks for that, Senator Pate. It is good to see you as well. Susan was actually my sister, so likely you worked with her in the past.
Again, I will liken this issue that you raised, which is very significant, of unequal treatment for minority communities, particularly Indigenous women, in our courts and the legal system. We see that. We see over-incarceration of Indigenous women in particular. I will also reiterate the example around the disparity between services for health care in urban centres versus elsewhere. You don’t want to eliminate a service that might be helpful. Let’s bring it back. Increasing knowledge around coercive control and implementing the use of electronic monitoring bracelets are two things that have the potential to support survivors, regardless of their identity.
Now, the issue that you’re raising, which is indeed a significant one, is that we also have very serious issues with our culture in Canada. We have a serious issue of culture within policing that sometimes reflects those misogynist and racist ideas. As much as we would like to think that is not the case in Canada, I’m afraid that it is, and the facts demonstrate that. But let’s not conflate the two things. Let us, on one hand, address those issues of racism and misogyny within all of our country, particularly within institutions that are supposed to be supporting Canadian citizens and survivors of violence, like police and the RCMP. I mean, you just have to watch the news to know that there are problems in those institutions.
I don’t think that those problems — the problems that people from different intersecting identities experience differential and less beneficial outcomes when they interact with every government system in Canada — should lead us to not move forward, however incrementally, with steps that can make a difference.
I really have to say that having spent many hours in the last two years working on providing input to the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, I’m surprised to not hear that coming up here because many of the recommendations for change that we’re talking about right now, including recognizing that we need to take an intersectional approach when addressing the impacts of gender-based violence on Canadians, are key to being successful. It is very much a broad approach that addresses the justice system, support for survivors, enabling infrastructure, the importance of specific measures to support Indigenous women, men and communities. I had to get my plug-in for the national action plan there.
Again, separating the two issues and not limiting the steps we can take because those other issues have not been solved.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dusel.
Senator Clement: Thank you, Ms. Dusel, for your entire career and body of work.
To Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater, thank you for telling us about Keira. When you described her, we could picture the spunkiness and the potential of that little girl. Thank you for your tremendous eloquence.
I want to continue along the lines of what Senator Pate just raised and some of the comments that Ms. Dusel just made about culture. I think, Mr. Viater, you spoke of a culture shift. Other than legislation, what should we be doing or what are you doing in terms of having that culture shift around violence against women and children? What more do we need to do outside of legislation?
Mr. Viater: I can try to start. Culture shift isn’t going to happen tomorrow, next week, next year — maybe in a few years from now. It is going to take time to get a full culture shift. The things that Jennifer and I continue to advocate for include further education amongst some other members within the family court system and criminal justice system.
But as you may be aware, there are divisions of powers. A lot of it is provincially based, such as social workers and Children’s Aid Society workers. Police officers are generally provincially based. A lot will need to be done, but if we envision this whole process as still having to get there at some point, even if it’s 5, 10 or 20 years from now, and I know that’s not what anyone wants to hear, including ourselves, but it doesn’t matter. Right now, we have a bench of judges and they may have their own views, and we’re trying to assist them in understanding it, but if it takes five years for the next round of judges that come in, they’ll say, “We understand the new culture. It’s not just two parents who don’t get along. There is domestic violence and issues.”
Ms. Kagan-Viater: I know we’re not saying anything that people in the room don’t know. In terms of education of students and having the curriculum change, I understand there are some components in the primary and the secondary curricula around intimate partner violence. I don’t know how substantive or successful it is. I grew up in a suburb of the Greater Toronto Area, and I certainly did not know or learn about domestic violence, aside from bumps and bruises, and I certainly did not know about coercive control. I think funding a massive public health campaign would help, in terms of advertisements on television and educating women.
As we continue with our advocacy, I have so many ideas from survivors from coast to coast, but the conversation has to keep moving forward. Of course, we’re just two people with one story and one little girl, but I can see how much movement there is and grassroots efforts to want to drive things forward.
It’s a little bit disheartening when I hear from advocates that they’ve been working toward these changes for 20+ years, and nothing has changed. These recommendations have been made year after year, and my child is not here.
We’ve put a lot into this, and we’ll continue, but it’s just good to see the conversations move forward. I think we all need to continue to raise the profile of these issues, which are hard to talk about. In societies and communities, it’s not easy to talk about domestic violence and domestic homicide. We need to be making this more of a mainstream conversation. That’s why I was so grateful that honourable senators are taking so much time to discuss these issues.
The Chair: I want to bring the conversation to an end and thank all of the senators for their questions, but particularly thank each of the three of you for coming and speaking with us on an important topic. One of the things you’ve reminded us about is that there are many decision points in the system, and the decision makers are often highly insensitive to the critical points that you’ve raised.
Ms. Dusel, I used to be the dean of law at the University of Saskatchewan law school, and I wish you and I had talked 20 years ago. We have done some things but not nearly enough in educating the lawyer decision makers, police decision makers and judge decision makers. Your point, Mr. Viater, is that this is a long and sometimes sad and torturous road, but one we have to work on, I think, on all kinds of points here.
Ms. Kagan-Viater, tomorrow we will be doing clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. We will not be with you, but given our attention to it, our thoughts will be with you. I want to say for myself and my colleagues, that most of us are parents. It is almost impossible to comprehend the tragedy and the loss that you’ve experienced. Speaking for myself, I would not have the strength that you have shown to turn that tragedy into the constructive initiative that you have, and I think that all of us thank you for that and that commitment. We are beneficiaries of it and will try to remember that.
As a reminder, senators, we will be doing clause-by-clause consideration tomorrow. If you have proposed amendments or observations, if you could get them as quickly as possible to Mr. Palmer so we can deal with those in a timely way. Beyond that, I’m going to bring this session to a close. Thank you to each of the three of you for being with us today.
(The committee adjourned.)