Domestic Violence
Protection Act, 2000, Bill 117, Mr Flaherty /
Loi de 2000 sur la protection contre la violence
familiale, projet de loi 117, M. Flaherty
Ontario Association of
Interval and Transition Houses
Ms Eileen Morrow
Office for Victims of
Crime
Mr Scott Newark
Woman Abuse
Council
Ms Vivien Green
Ms Dorothy Bakos
Ms Suzanne Young
Ms Sandra Booth-McKelvie
Cross-Sectoral Violence
Against Women Strategy Group
Ms Beryl Tsang
Canadian Children's
Rights Council
Mr Grant Wilson
Women's Place of St
Catharines
Ms Marion Wright
Durham Region Custody
and Access Project
Ms Deborah Sinclair
Ms Helen Brooks
Ms Kate Schillings
Ms Donna Babbs
Mothers for
Kids
Ms Maxine Brandon
STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL
POLICY
Chair /
Présidente
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill PC)
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at
1531 in room 151.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000
SUR LA PROTECTION CONTRE LA VIOLENCE FAMILIALE
Consideration of Bill 117, An
Act to better protect victims of domestic violence / Projet
de loi 117, Loi visant à mieux protéger les victimes de
violence familiale.
The Chair (Ms Marilyn
Mushinski): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This
is a meeting of the standing committee on justice and social
policy to consider Bill 117. Each deputation has up to 20 minutes
in which to address the committee and in which questions may be
asked by committee members if there is enough time.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF INTERVAL AND TRANSITION
HOUSES
The Chair:
The first delegation this afternoon is the Ontario Association of
Interval and Transition Houses, Eileen Morrow, coordinator. Good
afternoon, Ms Morrow.
Ms Eileen
Morrow: I would first of all like to thank you for
giving us this time to speak to the committee. I am here
representing the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition
Houses, or OAITH. We are a 65-member association primarily of
first-stage emergency shelters for abused women and their
children, and it's from that perspective that I'm commenting on
the proposed legislation.
I'd like to begin by speaking
specifically to the letter of the bill and to support some of the
positive points within that limited framework. We're happy to see
that the definition of "applicants" has been expanded to allow
women in a range of relationships, including same-sex
relationships and dating relationships, to access this order. We
are also pleased that this order, in its emergency form,
supersedes other civil orders.
We are pleased that those
women in relationships other than legal marriages can obtain
exclusive possession of the home, including rental residences,
and we support the conditions outlined in the sections on
contents of the order and we hope that these will be written
routinely into orders by JPs and judges.
However, we have a couple of
suggestions for amendments or recommendations for
implementation.
First, we'd like to see a
section in the legislation or a directive within the legislation
that makes it mandatory for police officers to inform women about
the availability of this order at every domestic call.
Second, we would like to see
an amendment to the consideration of civil orders, subsection
10(1), making intervention orders prevail over other civil
orders, not just for emergency intervention orders but for all
intervention safety orders.
Third, we would like to see
an amendment within the legislation making it clear that charges
are to be laid where there are reasonable and probable grounds
and that an intervention order is to be provided in addition to
charges laid, not as an alternative to them.
With regard to this last, we
would like to see the Ministry of the Attorney General or the
Ministry of the Solicitor General establish a tracking system to
ensure that the implementation of these orders will not have an
adverse effect on the laying of criminal charges.
I would now like to turn to
the effectiveness of Bill 117. Intervention orders are only as
effective as the person who receives the order. So this bill is
only effective for those abusers who decide to obey intervention
orders. Consequences for breaching this order, even when there is
a criminal conviction, are likely to be the writing of a further
no-contact criminal order, perhaps a fine or a conditional
discharge. We know that abusive men often do not obey bail
conditions, peace bonds, probation orders or other criminal court
conditions imposed upon them.
This bill then is implicitly
limited to providing only some measure of protection to some
women whose partners will obey court orders, and even to the
extent that the usefulness of this measure exists, the government
of Ontario must provide a number of supports to ensure that the
bill is of help to women and children. The government of Ontario
must (1) ensure that women know about it and how to access it;
(2) monitor its implementation; and (3) provide the access to
justice measures that ensure that women can exercise their rights
to equal justice by applying for the orders, having them enforced
and taking other actions women need to take to protect themselves
and their children.
To ensure women know about the orders, how to use
them and how to ensure that the initiative is monitored, the
government of Ontario must increase its support for
community-based women's services and groups: women's shelters,
second-stage housing programs, women's centres and community
neighbourhood groups. They provide first contact and access to
community resources for women and children and they provide women
with the information and options they need to address violence,
including these orders. They will hear first from women whether
the orders have helped them, whether they are a useful tool in
their safety plans and whether those charged with enforcing them
and prosecuting breaches follow through for women and children.
Make no mistake about it: this government will rely on women's
services to put this bill into practice and to make sure it works
and must provide resources for this additional work.
This bill will represent only
another empty promise to women experiencing violence unless the
government of Ontario initiates measures to ensure that women
have genuine access to justice in the family and civil law, and
adequate legal aid to enter that system.
Even today, when Legal Aid
Ontario has a priority for abuse in its eligibility criteria,
women often find themselves unrepresented in family court, but
unable to afford a lawyer. For women who need additional hours
for translation and language interpretation or assistance because
of literacy or other issues, access to justice becomes further
compromised. Women are unable to receive fair and appropriate
representation or equal treatment under the law, which is their
right. Additional specific resources must be allocated to address
these equity and access issues.
While the orders in Bill 117
may provide exclusive possession to women of their homes, they
will not guarantee that women and children will be able to stay
there. The reality is that abusers do not stay away and that,
unfair as it is, women and children often do have to leave their
homes to seek safety, either from a shelter or from family and
friends.
The government of Ontario
must ensure that women and children have the supports they need
to leave their homes, to move into safe, affordable or subsidized
housing and to take the actions they themselves deem necessary to
protect themselves and their children.
In September, Premier Harris
was quoted as saying that he would make domestic violence a
priority in the fall session of the Legislature. During the
debate on this bill in the Legislature at the beginning of
October, a number of government representatives admitted that the
government needed to do more. Other than a reannouncement of $10
million dollars in funding to community services first announced
in the spring budget and a summer promise of $50 million for a
victims action plan, which primarily included technology and
criminal system initiatives unlikely to make much of a dent in
the problem, this bill seems to be the only priority we have so
far seen from the government of Ontario in the fall session. It
is not enough. More can and must be done. If this is the
centrepiece of the government's table for violence against women,
we can't expect much of a meal.
We need more than the
law-and-order initiatives of this current government agenda. As
you may already know, only 25% of women who are abused call
police and not all of those will have charges laid; 75% will use
other options, especially core community social programs, such as
social assistance and subsidized housing, women's services and
shelters, community counselling or family and friends to help
them escape the abuse, if they are able to leave at all. Many
will remain trapped in violent relationships with their
children.
1540
The solution lies in a
cross-community, comprehensive infusion of supports and resources
to address all of the barriers women face in an abusive
situation.
OAITH is a member of the
Cross-Sectoral Violence Against Women Strategy Group which this
summer put together a list of 37 emergency measures to address
violence against women, measures that we felt could be done
within the fall session. If the government members really are
serious about doing more, this is the blueprint from which they
should build. It can be done and the money is there.
Legal aid reform, for
example, could be provided. Mr Justice Sidney Linden, chair of
Legal Aid Ontario, has revealed that Legal Aid Ontario now has a
surplus of $41 million. Increased supports for women's shelters
and other women's programs could be provided. Shelters and rape
crisis centres do not currently need the $30 million announced
this summer by the Attorney General to link shelters and rape
crisis centres to police computers at some point in the future;
they need that money to provide the direct services and options
to women and children fleeing now. Transfer that money to
community-based women's services who ensure that women know about
measures like Bill 117 and about all their other options, and who
monitor and work with community systems on a daily basis to
better protect women and children.
I understand there is
approximately $50 million or thereabouts in a victim assistance
fund at the Ministry of the Attorney General. Perhaps some of
that money could be used to provide supports to women in their
communities. The money is there.
During the debate on this
bill at the beginning of October, a number of government speakers
mentioned that their party had increased spending on domestic
violence by $37 million since 1995. This would not be difficult
for the government of Ontario to accomplish. In 1995, $9 million
in annualized funding was cut from direct violence-against-women
services. After five years at that rate, the government would
have accumulated a total of $45 million from these funding cuts.
The money is there.
Last week, Attorney General
James Flaherty was decrying the use of violent messages in the
lyrics of rapper Eminem and the fact that he couldn't do anything
about it. It will be more helpful for Mr Flaherty, and the
government of Ontario as a
whole, to reject the lure of the media moment and, instead, start
talking and taking action on things like emergency measures,
which this government in fact can do something about.
On behalf of OAITH, I call on
this committee to recommend not only improvements to this bill
but especially to legal aid reforms and to the community-based
women's services and groups on which it depends to be effective.
I ask that you address not only the justice issues but also the
social policy and social development measures necessary to truly
respond to violence against women. I ask that you endorse the
emergency measures presented to this government prior to the fall
session and that you work to implement them during the month of
November, Wife Assault Prevention Month. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Morrow. We have about six minutes, so perhaps two
minutes from each party.
Mr Michael Bryant (St
Paul's): Thank you very much for coming. You've given us
a lot to work with here, and I want you to know that this
information is going to continue to be repeated in the
Legislature and elsewhere so that we can get the message out that
you're advocating and that I support.
My question is this: I asked
Ministry of the Attorney General officials, not political staff
but officials, whether or not the 1999 Baldwin committee report
had been or was being implemented. They said it was being
implemented, and they also said that it was a five-year plan and
that we weren't five years down the road. Do you have any
response? Where are we at in terms of the implementation of that
important report?
Ms Morrow:
Of course I don't have the report with me today. I believe there
was a five-year plan, but to my knowledge the first-year plan has
not been put into place at this point and a year has gone by-I
believe well over a year-since that report was released. I don't
even think that the measures that were recommended in the first
year of the five-year plan have been implemented at this
point.
Mr Bryant:
OK. Thank you.
Mrs Marie
Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Ms Morrow, it has
been a couple of months now since the coalition came with those
emergency measures. Have you heard from the government since then
on that specifically?
Ms Morrow:
There was a call from the office of Minister Helen Johns to set
up a meeting, I think, but that meeting has not been set up.
Other than that, we haven't had a commitment at all from the
government of Ontario at this point. We have had a commitment, as
you know, from the Liberal Party of Ontario. We've had a
commitment from the New Democratic Party of Ontario. We're
calling on all parties to put aside partisan agendas and to work
with us, but we still haven't had the commitment from the
government.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Thank you.
Mr Peter Kormos
(Niagara Centre): I'm so pleased that you made the
submission, because from day one in the committee hearings-I
mean, the bill stands by itself, but at the end of the day the
whole business of access 24 hours a day, seven days a week: heck,
we don't have the JPs, we don't have the judges, never mind
available at 2 in the morning.
One of the problems my
constituency office deals with so frequently, and I'm sure
everybody else does, is family lawyers aren't representing women
even when those women are eligible for legal aid, because legal
aid has compressed their block fee to a point where I'm convinced
lawyers are ethically saying, "No, I simply cannot do your case
justice in the limited number of hours," so women aren't getting
legal support. Women aren't getting counsel out there. And
although it's a generalization, it's usually the woman who has
fewer resources in terms of being able to put cash on the
barrelhead in terms of getting lawyers, so I appreciate what
you're saying about accessibility to counsel.
Ms Morrow:
Obviously I shortened my brief to get it within the time limits
here at the table, but the brief actually does mention some of
the problems with legal aid, and that is definitely one of them.
We know that Legal Aid Ontario has said that younger lawyers, for
instance, are not signing on to a legal aid plan. There's a
concern about the decreasing number of lawyers who are signing on
because the tariff is low, because the hours are capped, and for
situations like violence against women and abusive situations the
number of hours can increase quite rapidly if abusers begin to
use the family court as a tactic of control, which they do on a
regular basis. It's very important for us to understand that we
need to provide women with access to legal aid for all of the
matters that they need to deal with in civil law until those
matters are resolved, and that's not happening.
Mr Kormos:
In light of some of your comments, the next presenter, I hope, is
still the Office of Victims of Crime. They may well have some
things to say about where they've been consulted by the
government and about advice they're prepared to give in terms of
making sure that women can access this law, never mind the
lawyers to begin with, making the law accessible to them.
Ms Morrow: I
hope that's the case.
Mr Kormos:
Stick around and let's see what they have to say. Thank you.
Mr David Tilson
(Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Thank you very much, Ms
Morrow, for coming this afternoon and giving us your views with
respect to the legislation and other matters.
The bill, as you know, is
generally speaking a preventive type of legislation, and some of
the comments that you raised with respect to enforcement are
certainly legitimate. I think the government shares with you
those views, specifically enforcement of breaches under the
Criminal Code, and that has to do with stronger terms and
conditions for detention.
My question is one that was
raised by a member of the Liberal caucus earlier. I hope this
bill will give a number of people, including women whom you
represent, more confidence in the system. My question is about
the problem which I think you raised: how do you encourage women
to call when there's been abuse? You listed off statistics of how they don't call.
How do you do that? I believe that this bill will encourage more
people to call, of all genders and all the different people who
have been listed off in section 2, but are there other ways?
1550
Ms Morrow: I
don't think the existence of the bill in itself will actually
make any difference in terms of motivating women to call the
police. There has been a long, historical record of the criminal
system not responding and that is a factor in women not calling
the police. There are other factors, like women not wanting
police involvement in their family, wanting to give the abuser a
chance, wanting to be private about family matters, and sometimes
fearing the police, knowing that their communities in particular
have not received fair treatment from the police historically.
Those are all factors that are very difficult to overcome. The
way you get women to call the police-and let's not forget that's
only one part of the issue. That's a criminal act that's being
responded to. You're not responding to the violent relationship,
you're responding to the criminal act and only the criminal act.
So let's be very clear that it's a limited response even when it
works.
If you do want women to
respond to that criminal act, you begin by giving them the
services, the supports and the context that they in fact are
comfortable with. Many women, in fact most women, as we know from
the stats, are not going to call the police. That's not the first
thing they're going to do. The first thing they're going to do
may be to tell a family member or a friend or a professional or a
shelter or someplace where they can be confidential and safe and
not make that kind of a blunt response right away. If you want
women to have confidence in that system you have to provide those
initial contacts, like women's centres, like neighbourhood
centres, like women's shelters, that give women the support and
comfort and the advocacy, quite frankly, that they need to engage
with those huge systems that often are quite distant and
sometimes treat women as though they were basically incidental to
the whole situation.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms Morrow.
Ms Morrow:
Thank you for letting me give it.
OFFICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME
The Chair:
The next presenter is the Office for Victims of Crime: Scott
Newark, special counsel; and Dawna Speers, consultant.
Mr Scott
Newark: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Like Ms
Morrow, I'd like to thank the committee for giving us the
opportunity to make a presentation here before you. Appreciating
as well that 20 minutes goes very quickly, I will try to focus on
some of the specific issues and yet leave time for questions at
the end.
Our office essentially was
announced in 1998. We had two primary functions that led us to
have some information that we hope to share with you today. In
fact, we've presented a brief that contains more of the detail
than I will get into here.
We started off with a review
of existing victims' services across the province and, as well,
in speaking to individual crime victims. We visited over 300
sites all across the province, including sexual assault centres
and domestic violence shelters as well as the public service
providers in those areas. Also we operate, in effect, a 1-800
line for individual crime victims to call in, and not
infrequently they are people who are victims of domestic
violence. It's from those two primary groups, essentially, that
we offer our analysis of this bill in the sense of what it
provides and also the perspective of what was identified to us as
outstanding issues and the context of how Bill 117 deals with
that.
As Ms Morrow and some other
witnesses have testified before, it's certainly true that a
number of people indicated that the bill is of value insofar as
it deals with after-the-fact situations, that is, where something
has already occurred. But whatever the number is, many people
don't access either the criminal justice system or a civil
enforcement system. Rather than deal specifically with that, what
I'd like to offer is some of our observations about why that is
and how this bill potentially deals with it.
It struck us during the
consultations we had that the one message conveyed loud and clear
was that a lot of women who were victims of domestic violence
were of the view that there really was no enforcement of the
orders that were in existence anyway, so there was not a heck of
a lot of point in going and invoking all of this when the
sentence that might ultimately come out was something less than
what was needed or that the justice system itself didn't seem to
do a very good job of enforcing its own orders. That is, in my
experience, not unique to this particular area but something that
is reasonably common throughout the entire criminal justice
system. This bill obviously is a significant improvement in that
sense in that it specifically directs the police on how these
orders are to be enforced, and in particular how the emergency
orders are to be enforced. That's no small accomplishment, in my
view. To give that kind of a direction is significant.
The second concern that was
expressed was that there were a multiplicity of orders that were,
in effect, given the necessary or usual ancillary matters
surrounding these kinds of situations and they were very
confusing, and it was often difficult for the police officer at
the door. There was a sense that the situation was such that they
didn't want to invoke that process. This bill attempts to address
that in the sense that it tries to streamline the orders and, I
think quite wisely, ensures that any application includes
previous applications and other existing orders. It appears as
though it's an attempt, really, I think quite wisely, to try to
package all the stuff together and to place a priority in
relation to these emergency intervention orders.
The third issue that was
raised in relation to this was that accessing the criminal
justice system may read well in the book but sometimes, especially if you're a
victim of crime and especially a victim of domestic crime, and
probably even more so a victim of domestic violence, you can have
the best laws in the world, but if you can't access them properly
they aren't necessarily worth that much. So I'm pleased to see
that the bill contains some direct efforts in that, including
directing in the legislation that there shall be, in effect, 24-7
availability of JPs and judges in relation to the orders. That is
a positive step forward.
I would also echo Ms Morrow's
comments, however, in relation to some of the other issues for
people who are victims of domestic violence that they've
identified to us quite apart from the criminal justice aspects.
If you have a general policy as a government-or as a society,
really, not so much government-that says it's a good idea for
people, you want to encourage people who are victims of domestic
violence to remove themselves from that situation, then it's
probably incumbent on society to make sure they have a place to
go to. That's not something that's directly contained in this
bill, nor logically would it be contained in this bill. In many
ways it's a policy issue but it's certainly, in our judgment, a
relevant and legitimate policy issue.
There are specific reasons, I
would suggest, why it's a good idea that this be contained in
legislation, and recognizing that what you are dealing with is
encouraging people to use the criminal justice system or at least
the administration of justice system. The first is that the
justice system is evolving in Canada and in Ontario. Although
sometimes it's hard to appreciate, in fact it's getting a lot
better. In my semi-biased opinion, that is particularly true in
Ontario. It seems to me that this bill is part of that overall
improvement. We are getting better at what we do. God knows, we
have a lot to do, but we are in part of that process of improving
it.
Secondly, it seems that to
simply reject the criminal justice system is to accept the status
quo, and with respect, I would suggest that is not a desirable
alternative.
Third, the consequence of not
invoking the public systems is that there is an absence,
obviously, of some direct accountability or even assistance for
the particular offender who is involved, which initiation of
civil proceedings or criminal proceedings does instill.
Fourth, it is a recognition
of the fact that issues of domestic violence are matters not just
between the person who is the victim and the person who is the
offender or the abuser, but they are public concerns. That's
something that I would suggest often gets overlooked, but there's
a reason why we call it Regina v So-and-So, and it is not because
all the offences occur in Saskatchewan. It's because, literally,
there is a public interest every single time a crime is committed
against somebody else, and we don't want to go down the road
where we convert that into a private contest between the victim
and the offender.
There are a couple of
suggestions I have, keeping in mind the time, in relation to
content on the bill itself. I noted in some of the definition
sections that they are quite precise. I'm not suggesting there's
something more, but generally sections like that contain a phrase
along the lines of "without restricting the generality of the
foregoing," and then include the specifics. I looked at one of
the specific examples defining domestic violence and I couldn't
think of something else, but I just mention that you may want to
look at that.
1600
A second point that I would
suggest you may wish to consider: my experience is that generally
anything which is essentially enhancing public safety, increasing
offender accountability or protecting victims of crime, it should
be expected that it will be challenged under the Charter of
Rights, and in this instance, given the way the bill is framed,
probably as potentially even outside provincial jurisdiction. I
don't agree with that, and our brief goes through all of
that.
I just want to offer one
suggestion, and it came from my past life in dealing with the
federal government on legislation: it's generally not a bad idea
to have preambles on bills. The reason for that is not just
because you want to express why you're doing this, but because a
court frequently will be in a position where it has to look at
the reason why the legislation was passed, and the alternative to
having a preamble is that the court will take it upon itself to
decide what the Legislature's purpose was. It is true that they
can look at the debates right here or even the debates within the
House, but you get to define in the bill itself the specific
rationale. This is generally what occurs under section 1 analysis
of any kind of a charter challenge. So I simply make that point
as something you may wish to consider.
There are a number of other
areas where I believe the minister or the ministry has suggested
to you that there are things that could be done in relation to
federal amendments. Those are included in our brief. I don't
propose to go through them now.
There is one final issue that
I'd like to touch on. It deals somewhat with a point that Mr
Kormos made, although in a broader sense, and I know that others
have raised it too. It's probably my bias, from having come as a
front-line prosecutor and then working as the executive director
of the rank-and-file police in Canada. I tend to look at things
from the perspective of the people who actually do the job on a
day-to-day basis, and this is somewhat the same as the point that
Ms Morrow was making. It's a great idea to pass this particular
bill, and it's a great idea to pass any of those kinds of
improvements, but you've got to devote the resources or it isn't
going to work.
As I read this bill, there is
going to be an increase in the responsibilities of JPs, judges
and police officers, and from our perspective, as you will see in
the brief, it may be that some of what should be done here in
relation to assisting the individual victims and getting these
orders is done through an enhanced victims' service, but there's
going to be additional work created. That, frankly, is some of
the purpose of this. You need to put some dollars behind that, in my respectful
submission, or you may end up with something more illusory than
real.
Like Ms Morrow, I am also of
the view that the money is there. I know that our Attorney
General actually tracked down the fact that there is a
significant amount of money in uncollected fines. We need to find
a way, it seems to me, to go and get some of that money, to be
able to apportion the dollars so we can support what is really
quite a good bill, although there is more to do.
I'll wrap it up there. The
brief contains a great deal more than that, but I wanted to leave
some time for questions.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Newark. There's probably about five minutes for
questions.
Mr Kormos:
Five minutes gross?
The Chair:
Not gross; total.
Mr Kormos:
Aggregate. Thank you very much.
On page 6, you make reference
to what you just spoke to, and that is the adequacy of support
for people-not always women, but in the vast majority of cases
women-seeking relief under this section. It was suggested last
week, and I don't want to put words in the parliamentary
assistant's mouth or the mouths of anybody else, that the police
were going to be the advocates. That was raising the concern
about the 2 am application. First you've got to rouse a justice
of the peace, but the suggestion was that the police are going to
be the advocates. My problem is, down where I come from, in
Welland, Thorold, Niagara Centre-there are nights in Welland
where for the whole city there are two cops out there on patrol.
That's it; that's the complement. The reality is that they simply
don't have the resources to walk an applicant through this
process. I suspect the police aren't going to be overly
enthusiastic about doing it, because it's not a charge per
se.
Expand on your recommendation
in the report of the joint committee, because that's interesting.
That's important, too, very important-critical.
Mr Newark:
Yes, it is. The joint committee we attached as an appendix to the
back of the report, too. I think they're getting at the same
point. You don't want to create a situation where literally, in
my judgment, you have a crime victim having to walk themselves
through this process. Not only is it not particularly a good idea
for that person to have to do that, given why they have to get
the order in the first place, but it's also like reinventing the
wheel every single time. This is only going to be so complicated
after you do a number of these, I would think. It's a much better
idea to have somebody who has the specific background in what
they're doing about it. You could have police officers doing it,
certainly. For example, on criminal charges that is the case,
where a police officer in effect conveys those specific issues-or
even on peace bond applications, which I didn't actually touch
on, the same thing applies there.
Our suggestion was, like the
joint committee's, that there should be in effect an expansion,
as the government has committed to, of victims' services across
the province. It seems to me that is a better deployment of
resources, so that police officers can go back to being police
officers and doing the other things they have to do.
Either way, though, Mr
Kormos, whether it's police officers, whether it's appropriate
victims' services or, frankly, whether it's ensuring that
shelters or the other groups that are going to be involved with
women have the resources necessary to do it, these are some very
good ideas in this bill, but you want to make sure it's got
something behind it to give effect to it.
Mr Kormos: I
was particularly concerned about subsection 3(3) and the
requirement that puts on the applicant without there being any
relief. You might want to take a look at that and speak to the
government in that regard.
The Chair:
Mr Kormos, your time is up. Government side.
Mr Tilson:
Comments were raised about the constitutionality of the bill. I'm
asking you to elaborate on that in a few brief seconds.
It is my understanding that
the principle of the bill is that specifically with emergency
intervention of a justice of the peace or a provincial court
judge, those orders must be confirmed by a Superior Court judge,
and that's the rationale. It has been used in other
provinces.
Mr Newark:
Correct, and in other cases or other examples of an
intervention-type power-and you've got to remember as well that
these emergency orders aren't simply being pulled out of the air.
There are in fact defined criteria that have to be met and there
are specific conditions only which can attach to those orders.
All I can tell you is, those are the kinds of things that courts
traditionally look at in assessing whether it is a violation of
the charter or not.
The other thing is that it
needs to be recalled that if someone is talking about there
ultimately being a penal consequence, that occurs where somebody
has violated the terms of the order and is presumably being
prosecuted under the Criminal Code. My guess is they're talking
about section 127 of the code. That being so, that's a criminal
charge. It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt with all the
protections that are there under the charter and pursuant to
criminal procedure.
I don't want to offer some
kind of an illusion here. My sense generally is in today's world,
if it's anything that's effective, it will be challenged under
the charter and you simply have to get used to that and prepare
your legislation that way.
Mr Bryant:
Recommendations 33 through 53, which are appended at the end of
your report-is it your submission that the money is there to
implement those recommendations?
Mr Newark:
I'd have to go through them specifically. Frankly, I didn't
prepare for that question. I can say that there are, in my
opinion, unrealized revenues. That's a question that certainly
government should be analyzing if it decides that those
recommendations are things it needs or that should be pursued,
but there is no question that there are additional revenues
available to government to pursue those programs. One I didn't
mention is that we subsidize RCMP contract policing in other
jurisdictions to the tune of about 110 million bucks a year.
Mr Bryant:
The other question was with respect to JPs. We have fewer JPs now
than we did in 1995, yet we have increased responsibility through
this legislation and through other legislation, such as the Safe
Streets Act. As far as you can tell-and I'm not going to ask you
how many more JPs we need-do we need a significant increase in
the number of JPs?
Mr Newark:
I don't know specifically. I can tell you that has been
identified to me by police officers as a real problem. In my
experience a lot of that comes as a result of federal
legislation. I'm thinking of C-16 arising out of the Feeney case.
There was a not insignificant additional step placed on police
officers having to go to get those warrants. What should have
happened, and what we recommended at the time, was that given the
fact that the federal government was creating this new step, the
federal government should have kicked in some dough to providing
those kinds of additional JP resources-which they didn't do, by
the way.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Newark.
1610
WOMAN ABUSE COUNCIL
The Chair:
The next presenter is Woman Abuse Council: Vivien Green,
coordinator, and I believe others.
Ms Vivien
Green: My name is Vivien Green. I'm the coordinator of
the Woman Abuse Council. I've brought along some representatives
from our member agencies. I don't know if I need to introduce
them, or do you have their names?
The Chair:
I would appreciate if you'd introduce them, please.
Ms Dorothy
Bakos: I'm Dorothy Bakos, from Family Service
Association of Toronto.
Ms Suzanne
Young: I'm Suzanne Young, from Flemingdon Neighbourhood
Services.
Ms Sandra
Booth-McKelvie: I'm Sandy Booth-McKelvie, from Women's
Habitat of Etobicoke.
Ms Green:
We appreciate this opportunity. I'm going to say a few comments,
then Dorothy will address some, and then hopefully we'll have
some time for questions and everyone will, hopefully,
respond.
Firstly, I'm here today to
strongly support Bill 117 and in particular its ability to
provide abused women and their children with the instrumental
supports necessary to keep them safe and maintain stability in
their lives while attempting to deal with an abusive spouse or
partner.
I feel this bill is
extremely important in attempting to meet the needs of all abused
women and is a necessary addition to providing urgently needed
supports necessary to protect victims of abuse. We know very well
that many situations of domestic violence involve acts of abuse
and harassment that are not currently covered in the Criminal
Code. Women must be able to apply for and obtain civil orders to
protect themselves and their children. Even with the widespread
knowledge around the limitations and difficulties of current
restraining orders, which is family legislation, women have been
requesting these orders time and time again. We have also long
known that it is in the breaches of these orders that women, as
we've seen this past summer so horrifically, have lost their
lives.
Hopefully, this new bill
provides victims and their children safety through an accessible
system whereby they can successfully apply for protection orders
outside of the criminal system. Of greatest importance is that
these new protection orders are then clearly understood and
enforceable.
Among the aspects of Bill
117 that are the most important and useful in assisting women to
be safe are the following: providing for a protection order that
can be obtained through the civil system and offers a lower test,
albeit for an interim period of time. This is critically
important for victims of domestic violence where the abuse is
serious and ongoing. Victims are often at a high risk, but the
behaviour is not yet criminal, such as if this is emotional
abuse, harassment etc.
Secondly, providing a civil
order that is enforceable: although this is quite self-evident,
it has been sorely lacking in our current legislation, as we
know, around restraining orders. The fact that these new orders
will be enforceable through the criminal system has the
potential, I feel, to make them truly meaningful.
The third piece is
certainly providing for instrumental assistance to victims. Some
of the examples are the ordering of the respondent to pay the
costs of counselling for a child, to cover costs incurred by the
abused, granting temporary possession and exclusive use of
personal property, such as a car, so that she can continue to go
to work, and ordering the respondent to spouse abuse
counselling.
I would like to talk a
minute about accessibility, because clearly accessibility of
these orders-and by that I mean women being able to get them-as
we've heard already is a crucial element to this. One of the few
useful aspects of the current restraining order system is that
victims can apply for these in a fairly clear-cut, accessible
manner, and in many cases women did not obtain the services of a
lawyer. It is really important that this new legislation be as
accessible as the previous. Hopefully, women will be able to
apply for these orders without a lawyer.
If it is absolutely
necessary, we urge that women have to have access to legal aid
certificates to enable them to obtain legal representation.
One of the suggestions is
that given the aforementioned problems with legal aid that
obviously as a system need to be addressed, in terms of this
particular bill perhaps specific systems could be set up such
that victims could apply for these orders through community-based
legal clinics and centres. Again, these orders will only be
useful if women can access them and access them easily and
clearly.
The questions and concerns
that we have with this piece of legislation are primarily issues
with regard to the training and implementation of the bill. We feel
strongly that many women's and children's lives are resting on
this and urge the province to ensure a comprehensive training and
implementation process. As has been mentioned, this requires the
investment of resources.
The concerns that we do
have regarding implementation include the following.
Nowhere in the bill does it
clearly lay out the relationship between this bill and the
Criminal Code with regard to the emergency orders. We understand
that in some other provinces that have similar legislation there
have been specific references to clarifying that if grounds exist
for the laying of a criminal charge, police officers who might be
attending will automatically lay those charges. It is very
important that this bill not be used to relax the criminal
prosecution of woman abuse where there are grounds for that. In
fact, the effect of this bill must go hand in hand. It can't be
used as a way to go back to seeing this as just a family
issue.
Public education on this
bill and training to all the involved sectors is again absolutely
critical to the success. Training of all criminal justice
professionals, particularly in relation to ensuring that breaches
are enforced, is essential.
As we know from our current
system, without absolutely clear understanding by the police of
their role and responsibilities and the manner in which they must
enforce these orders, the new legislation will be virtually no
different.
Lastly, awareness and
information to the community will be essential in ensuring that
this new bill is useful and used. There has been some discussion
about community-based agencies that work with women providing
outreach, awareness and education to the community.
Using community agencies
such as are represented here to undertake this process makes
sense given their ability to reach women and the universal
interest that exists in providing women victims of abuse with
tools necessary to keep themselves safe and gain necessary
supports. However, this initiative will require a comprehensive
strategic plan and carrying out of a massive campaign. Materials,
resources and funding to agencies asked to participate will be
required in order to allow them to undertake this essential
work.
I think my colleague will
speak a little more to some of the broader issues but I also want
to add that obviously this is one piece, a very important piece,
but it has to go hand in hand with a commitment on the part of
the government and all parties to implement the many, many
recommendations that have already been put forth over the last
couple of years, starting from the Arlene May, looking at the
joint committee report and recently the emergency measures.
This is one important
piece. We need housing. We need counselling. I do think this is
an important piece but it has to be a community-wide and a
coordinated response.
Ms Bakos:
Again, my name is Dorothy Bakos. I'd like to say a few words
about our agency before getting into the some of the broader
issues that face abused women and their children.
Family Service Association
of Toronto is a member agency of Family Service of Ontario, one
of the community partners that is here today with our colleagues
to raise awareness on these issues.
Family Service is about 85
years of age and has a significant history in working with family
violence issues for over 25 years now.
We provide a variety of
essential services for abused women and programs for children who
are exposed to domestic abuse as well as services for
perpetrators of abuse.
1620
We are very excited and
enthusiastic with the work that we continue to do with diverse
communities as well as education and prevention initiatives.
However, it is increasingly
challenging to continue to provide these services and to meet the
demands, as well as work with committees such as the Woman Abuse
Council, due to a lack of funding, cutbacks that stem from 1995.
Many community agencies lost their provincially funded
purchase-of-service grants, resulting in substantial funding
reductions for many organizations. Many agencies have had their
funding reduced by 5% since 1995, forcing agencies to cut back on
counselling programs.
This is why we have come
together today as colleagues and community organizations, to
raise awareness of these limitations and challenges that we face
and to ask the government to continue to work with us on finally
preventing this epidemic of family violence. In terms of the
consequences that it has to families, if we do not act now, this
can seriously compromise the safety and quality of life for
abused women and their children of all walks of life across our
country, across our province, across our city and right across
our own neighbourhoods. This is why adequate resources are
essential.
With respect to Bill 117,
the issues that Vivien has raised, some of the assets around the
bill but also some of the challenges, we as an agency, with
adequate resources, can position in such a way where we can
assist in making sure that information is disseminated
appropriately throughout the various populations of diverse
communities, so that women have knowledge of what this bill is,
how it can affect their lives and how it can affect their safety.
Our agency, as other family services type of agencies and social
service agencies, have the ability to do outreach and participate
in education initiatives. With more resources we can also expand
in our counselling programs, because the restraining order is an
effective tool that we implement in our intervention strategies
when we're working with safety.
I just wanted to conclude
by saying that the complexities of domestic abuse are many. That
is without question. What further complicates this is when
victims of domestic abuse and their children are put in a
situation where they
need to also negotiate the system when they are attempting to
meet their safety needs. This is why we need to modify the
system, such as the criminal justice system. We're looking at the
restraining order issues in Bill 117, which Vivien spoke about,
and we need to work together across various sectors to ensure the
safety of women and their children.
As community partners, we
are here today so that we look at how we can resolve these gaps.
Again, although it is a challenging task and we realize that
there is no one solution, that we all need to work together, we
are hoping that we can have the government support to bring these
gaps closer together.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We have about six minutes; two minutes for
the government side.
Mr Tilson:
All three parties, with a few minor changes, seem to be
supporting the legislation. I don't know whether you've had an
opportunity to look at the bill-
Ms Green:
I have.
Mr Tilson:
-specifically the intervention order, which is section 3. The
bill lists off a number of conditions that could be suggested.
There are 13 of them. You kind of touched on this in your
presentation. Were you suggesting that there should be some
additions to that or that some of the conditions are or are not
strong enough?
Ms Green:
When I read it, I thought those were some of the excellent parts
of the bill. At least the stuff I read talked about things like
the respondent having to cover some of the costs incurred by the
abused and going to counselling, that kind of stuff. Is that the
list you're talking about?
Mr Tilson:
Yes.
Ms Green:
I'm just saying that those are, in particular, some of the things
that I think are most important about the bill, that are very,
very useful.
Mr Tilson:
It's quite an extensive list, and I couldn't determine whether
you thought there should be additions to that.
Ms Green:
No, no. I was just trying to pinpoint those as some of what I
think are the most useful. I do have to say again, however, that
we know that particularly in terms of woman abuse, and perhaps in
other situations, it's the breaching of orders of all kinds that
is so important. Because how we give a message to both the
offender and the victim that we are serious as a community about
this-the fact is, the more orders that are there is really
important. We do have to have the resources and the training to
enforce those. My great fear, as has been echoed, is that if the
police do not have the training and the resources and the will to
do that, we'll again have a sham, which makes it worse than
nothing.
Mr Tilson:
The government has stated that the Criminal Code isn't strong
enough with respect to the enforcement and making clear as to
detention and other conditions. Have you put your thoughts to
that at all, as to what changes should be made to the Criminal
Code, as to what the Solicitor General or Attorney General should
be saying in their meetings with their federal counterparts?
Ms Green:
From what I've seen, it's more a matter of that on paper I
believe we have, even now, some of the means to do it. It's a
matter of in fact enforcing. I had the opportunity to sit on the
joint committee, and it was very clear that policy people were
completely unclear about how to enforce restraining orders. One
of the things I think about this law is that it has to be very
clear how they are enforced. Police have to know that it is their
job to do this.
Mr Tilson:
I was thinking with respect, if I could interrupt-
The Chair:
We are running out of time; I'm sorry.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Thank you very much for your
presentation. I'm going to repeat a question that my colleague
asked earlier of another group, because it's very important. Have
the recommendations of the 1999 joint committee chaired by Judge
Baldwin been implemented satisfactorily? I know it's the end of
the first year of a five-year plan. What has been done
satisfactorily?
Ms Green:
As one who sat on the committee, I can say quite fully that I do
not believe they've been implemented. Certainly, there are some
elements of the joint committee that have been started. I think
it's been quite clear that this government has taken an interest
in criminal justice changes. I do have to say, again, as one
working at the front line here in Toronto, that even the
implementation of the specialized courts is being severely
challenged because of lack of resources. I know right now in
Scarborough the court people there are desperately anxious and
eager to set that up but are unable to do it because of lack of
resources. So we have that piece.
In terms of all the other
areas, the joint committee very much looked at this as a holistic
problem that has to be dealt with by our entire community, and
the joint committee report echoes the kinds of things the
emergency measures talk about, so I would have to say in most of
the other areas-now, we have seen some changes. There was some
money allotted for the child witness program. But we certainly
are not there at all. I think that is certainly a place to start.
We are all saying the same thing-the emergency measures, the
joint committee-and we need to do it. It's not one sort of way to
go; we have to deal with all of these.
Mr Bryant:
Do we have more time?
The Chair:
You have about 30 seconds.
Mr Bryant:
OK. I just want to make sure that we're clear. I'm always told
the same thing whenever I ask this of the government: "Oh well,
we're only a year into it." Are you saying that despite the fact
that we're just a year into it, we're not where we should be
after a year?
Ms Green:
Definitely. We-
Mr Bryant:
Definitely not?
Ms Green:
We're not where we should be. There was an actual time frame that
we put together. Again, we're not suggesting that it would be
followed to the T. I think what is so problematic is that the resources
that are there have been put into only criminal justice, and, as
I say, not even adequately; and issues like housing, such a
critical aspect, and counselling, as you heard, so-
1630
Mr Kormos:
As Ms Lankin points out, we're what, two years beyond the
May-Iles jury recommendations? Not just a year-two years.
I appreciate your comments
because they're consistent with what other folks have said. Look,
Ms Hadley was murdered by a murderer who was released once on a
judicial interim release order by the police, subsequently by a
court. That person was subject to two orders. So at the end of
the day, all the orders in the world, whether they're under Bill
117 or under the Criminal Code by virtue of being judicial
interim release orders, ain't worth the paper they're printed on
unless there are the will and the resources to make sure these
darn things are enforced in such a way that it protects the
person who is intended to be protected.
It's not enough just to
call the cops after the guy shows up with a shotgun, because it's
too late then. So you're addressing, as I understand it, because
I think we agree, the fact that if we don't have resources for
cops, plus training, and for justices-they shut down whole
courtrooms of justices of the peace this summer past and tossed
out weeks of charges because there weren't enough JPs to sit. So
I'm worried. My concern is that when I see a JP's court-you know,
the bail courts-they've got three pages of dockets, they're under
pressure to process these. No bloody wonder people are getting
released without adequate consideration of whether or not they
should be held in custody and what the terms should be.
Ms Green:
In addition to the issue of more JPs, one of the perpetual issues
is training. I think in the Hadley case and many of these it's
many times JPs who are not enforcing the orders. So again, it's
the whole issue of training and commitment and resources.
Mr Kormos:
I appreciate you folks coming today. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Bakos, Ms Young and Ms Booth-McKelvie.
CROSS-SECTORAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN STRATEGY
GROUP
The Chair:
The next presenter is the Cross-Sectoral Violence Against Women
Strategy Group, Punan Khosla and Beryl Tsang.
Ms Beryl
Tsang: Hi. My name is Beryl Tsang and I'm with the
Cross-Sectoral Violence Against Women Strategy Group. I apologize
that Punan Khosla will be unable to join us today due to illness.
I think she's one of the many Ontarians who has been felled by
this flu that seems to be going around.
I wanted to begin by saying
that I've worked in this field for a long time and I've seen it
grow, I've seen it progress and I really think that Bill 117 is a
step in the right direction. But I think it needs to be part of
an interdependent strategy and it needs to be part of a series of
actions that promote women's equality in Ontario.
It is time for practical
government action. This summer, as many of my esteemed colleagues
have said, we've witnessed brutal, unrelenting violence against
women. Almost every day we've picked up newspapers and we've seen
that women have been either murdered or seriously injured. For
those of us who've worked in the field, names like Gillian
Hadley, Hemoutie Raghunauth and Bohumilla Luft aren't just names
of people in newspapers; these are women who are someone's
mother, they're someone's sister, they're someone's daughter,
they're a friend. Their murders aren't random and they're not
isolated acts of violence. These are deliberate acts of violence
committed by men against women.
On average, 40 women a year
in Ontario are murdered by a partner or a former partner. Men are
charged every day with assaulting, threatening and stalking their
wives, girlfriends, common-law partners and their children. While
thousands of women seek refuge in women's shelters and help in
violence against women programs across the province, many more
remain with an abusive partner because they lack the means to
leave.
I think it's really well
established that violence against women is rooted in social,
political and economic inequality. I don't think women are
willingly victims. I'm not a victim but I could become a victim
if I could not access-and "access" is a really important word.
We've just completed a study on women's access to justice. I
could become a victim if I could not access the judicial means,
the economic means to protect myself and my children.
I think what's really
important is strengthening women's economic and social position
and valuing children. Adequate social and economic supports may
well have saved the lives of the women who were murdered this
past summer. I think that we need to ask ourselves, why should we
adopt an equity approach? Aside from the fact that it's right and
just-it's just not economical. Inequalities between men and women
have led-and I quote the following 1995 statistics: in 1994 woman
abuse created the loss of over $10 million in tax revenues
nationally due to early death, premature death, missed days of
work and incarceration. In 1995 the national cost of woman abuse
to the health care system was almost $1.6 billion. That's just an
aside.
Basically, Ontario is
becoming dangerously polarized between the haves and have-nots,
and many women find ourselves at the short end of the stick. Over
the last two decades, the percentage of women living in poverty
in Canada has been climbing steadily. Almost 19% of adult women
are poor; that means we live below the LICO. This has
unquestionably weakened our ability to leave abusive
relationships.
While all women live with
the threat of male violence, I really want to call your attention
to women living on the margins of our society. Aboriginal women,
racialized women, recent
immigrants, women with disabilities, deaf women and poor women
are faced with compounded inequalities that weaken our position
even further.
In recent months, public
discussion of solutions has focused on the criminal justice
system and tightening up on offenders as well as pouring money
into programs for male batterers. While violence against women
needs to be understood as a serious crime, which is the
responsibility of the men who commit it, I think there's a
tendency for policymakers and for media to divert attention away
from the needs of women and children. I find this a really
dangerous position.
Women's advocates have long
called for criminal law reform to ensure the much-needed
protection for women and children, but we are disturbed by the
way in which safety issues are now used to justify law and order
initiatives in place of effective social programs, prevention,
health promotion programs. I really am concerned that the law and
order rhetoric is based on the exploitation of public fears of
"stranger danger." It favours the use of a heavy-handed law
enforcement strategy against socially disadvantaged groups, which
in no way addresses at the root the violence women face in our
society. It also serves to scare off women in low-income and
racialized communities from reporting violence, putting those
women at further risk of death or serious injury.
Male batterer programs are
as yet unproven-there's no research that shows their
effectiveness-and cannot in any case be seen as a priority over
much-needed programs and services for women.
Years of cuts to our social
programs, legal aid, direct anti-violence services and
neighbourhood supports have left women in a hardened state of
inequality. Women's safety really depends on a comprehensive,
consistent, long-term approach that addresses the root
problems.
But women and children
can't wait. The coming session of the Ontario Legislature must
enact immediate measures that bring down some of the obvious
barriers standing in the way of women's ability to protect
ourselves and our children.
I actually do have
handouts. Basically these are emergency measures. This is an
abbreviated list. There are hundreds of them, but these are our
immediate demands. What we are calling for is a commitment of $50
million to community-based services for women and children, in
particular emergency services such as crisis lines, shelter
funding. The coming year's budget should allocate a further $50
million in annualized budgets to independent community-based
women's shelters, including those not currently funded by MCSS.
In communities where there is a documented urgent need for
additional shelter beds, funding should be allocated to begin
this expansion, as promised in the government's Common Sense
Revolution document; immediately implement the shelter funding
review, as recommended in the Arlene May inquest; access to
second-stage housing, funding for second-stage housing
programs.
We'd like to see the
reinstatement of the 5% cut to rape crisis centres funding to
make provision for annualized increases and core support. We'd
like to see funding for one community outreach person in each
rape crisis centre. We'd like to fund counsellors within rape
crisis centres for support for women who are sexually harassed in
the workplace.
There is the importance of
granting funding for women's neighbourhood and advocacy groups to
provide ongoing province-wide funding to women's anti-violence
advocacy groups; funding trained violence against women cultural
interpreters in immigrant and settlement agencies; ensuring
sufficient and stable funding to French-language services in
community-based agencies throughout Ontario; and providing stable
funding support to women's centres.
This is the part that is
near and dear to my heart and this is the part I would really
like to speak to: legal reforms and services. Again, I said Bill
117 is a good starting point, but an additional infusion of funds
and resources is needed to be allocated to legal aid.
1640
The number of hours that
abused women and children are guaranteed by the legal aid plan is
not enough. There are not enough women-centred legal clinics for
abused women. So we would like to see an increase in the tariff
that's provided.
It's critical that women
are provided with funds for cultural, deaf and ASL interpretation
in Family Court as per the current provisions in criminal and
immigration court.
Our research in the area of
women's access to justice has really shown that women are not
provided with adequate access to justice when they're in court.
They are often subject to being interpreted by their former
partners who are abusive, or judges and so forth do not provide
appropriate interpretation for them.
Extend legal aid coverage
to abused women to include divorce and all property matters.
Provide legal aid to women
who are victim-witnesses in criminal cases.
Provide legal aid funding
for representation of women making human rights complaints about
harassment in the workplace.
The criminal law reforms
need to be increased to protect assaulted women who have been on
hold for many years. The province has yet to implement many of
the detailed recommendations from the Arlene May coroner's
inquest jury, and recommended changes must be put on the front
burner.
Risk assessments need to be
conducted and an offender's previous history of violence must be
completed and on file before all first bail hearings for abusers.
When release on bail is granted with a no-contact order to a man
charged with violence against women, one breach of that order
must mean that he is denied further bail.
We need iImmediate direction to crown attorneys to
argue women's charter rights to life, liberty and personal
security in all bail hearings.
Family law reform: fear for
the safety of their children is one of the most important
concerns for abused women. Manipulation of the Family Court
system is a common tactic of abusers to continue their control
over the family. Possible apprehension of children who are
witnesses to violence is a major deterrent to women reporting
abuse. This is really important. One of the things our research
has shown is that women are often streamed into mediation, even
in cases where there is abuse. They are streamed into parenting
programs. Implement a policy of no mediation where there is
evidence of past or present abuse. There can be no negative
judicial interference when a woman declines mediation because of
personal safety concerns or concerns for her children.
We insist on the increased
availability of supervised access exchanges and centres to ensure
they are available to all women who have safety concerns. I
cannot tell you, when we were doing our research, the number of
counsellor-advocates and lawyers who cited the deaths of women on
custody and access exchanges.
Improve and expand the
nature of supervised access centres so that fathers and children
can have safe, meaningful visits with proper, trained and
consistent supervision, in the appropriate language with
appropriate interpretation.
Implement the family law
recommendations of the Arlene May inquest and implement a
mechanism to track the impact of new child welfare legislation
and practices on abused women and child witnesses of
violence.
We call for the allocation
of core government resources to ensure the economic survival and
workplace safety of women and their children across the
province.
We ask that an
implementation of an annual cost-of-living adjustment to welfare
rates take effect. We ask that you provide referrals to community
legal aid via plain-language letters to all people denied a
benefit or cut off welfare. We ask that you provide anyone denied
benefits through the new call centres with a telephone link to a
community legal clinic for advice.
We want you to drop the
appeal on the spouse-in-the-house rule to ensure that women are
able to maintain financial independence, and drop the plan to
penalize for "benefits stacking" and maintain current policies
allowing women to access multiple provincial services as they
need them.
End the clawback of the
federal child tax credit for families on welfare.
We'd like to see
implementation of a policy to abandon the practice of requiring
and/or requesting that women disclosing violence seek child
support or spousal support in order to qualify for social
assistance.
Allow full deferment of or
voluntary participation in workfare.
We would like to see a 1%
increase to the pay equity fund as an adjustment to all proxy
agencies to ensure the survival of women's agencies and the
services that meet their legal pay equity obligations.
Lastly, we ask for
workplace protection for women.
We ask that you designate
the first week of June as a province-wide sexual harassment
awareness week.
Include in the Employment
Standards Act protection from termination for all women who are
facing harassment, abuse or stalking in the home or
workplace.
Extend the proposed family
leave provisions to provide protection for women who are being
assaulted, abused, harassed or stalked at home or in the
workplace.
Extend the proposed family
leave provisions to cover workplaces with fewer than 50
employees, as only about 5% of all businesses in Ontario have
more than 50 employees.
Extend the Employment
Standards Act parental leave provisions an additional 17 weeks to
cover the entire one-year period for which EI benefits are now
available.
Thank you. That was it.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Tsang. We probably have about three minutes for
questions, so if you could keep it brief, please.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I'll ask you a question, and if you quite
understandably don't know the answer, maybe the parliamentary
assistant can answer.
Recently the government
announced $5 million in funding to early intervention programs
for child witnesses of abuse. You mentioned earlier, and it was
mentioned before your presentation as well, that there's been a
5% cut over the last six years to shelters and programs, and
second-stage housing counselling has been-to your knowledge, does
this $5 million replace that money? How much money was cut for
counselling? Do you know?
Ms Tsang:
To the best of my knowledge, it actually hasn't replaced it. What
that $5 million has done is actually expanded the ability of
other organizations such as hospitals and children's mental
health agencies to access government funding in order to provide
specialized services in that area.
Mr Kormos:
Very quickly, you should have been pleased-I wish you were here
last week when Ms Elliott lectured us for a good three minutes on
all the increased funding that this government has invested in
women's services, women's shelters, programs for abused women
etc. Can you please tell us what's happened to the core funding,
and what has it meant for women's shelters like women's places,
women's centres, across Ontario?
Ms Tsang:
Since I'm actually not with OAITH, I would like to ask my
colleague Eileen Morrow to answer that.
Mr Kormos:
That's fine by me. Go ahead.
The Chair:
You've got about 30 seconds to answer that.
Ms Morrow:
With regard to the effect on the services, what we have is an
increase particularly in crisis calls and women calling shelters,
and we have a decrease in the amount of service that we can
actually provide to these women.
Mr Kormos: What about the
funding?
Ms Morrow:
In fact, the funding cuts have not been restored. What we have is
an increase in women calling, an increased demand, and pressure
on the services. So we have less service to each individual woman
and child as a result.
Mrs Brenda Elliott
(Guelph-Wellington): I guess in response to my colleague
across the way, I was taking the time to point out a number of
the programs that our government does offer. In listening to the
very extensive series of demands that have been presented this
afternoon, it would make it appear as though the government
doesn't offer any programs. In fact, we offer a myriad of
programs. I was indicating in my comments the other day about the
$135 million in various programs that we do offer and additional
programs that we're undertaking.
I was curious to hear your
comments about the haves and have-nots and women not doing well
in the economy and so on. I thought you might be interested in
the following: in 1999, of the 198,000 new jobs created in
Ontario, 46.5% were gains by women. In fact, of all the 768,000
new jobs in Ontario, women gained about 51% of those. So I think
it's important to recognize that there are many opportunities for
women. Part of the challenge that we are all facing, whether in
government or out of government, is that women need opportunities
for economic independence, and that will give them some
opportunities for independence should there be issues of domestic
violence facing them.
Ms Tsang:
I actually don't dispute that.
The Chair:
You have about 15 seconds to answer that.
Ms Tsang:
However, most of those new jobs are not permanent positions;
those are part-time jobs. They're entry level. They don't pay for
the cost of child care in Ontario, and while they may be new
jobs, they certainly are not ones that some of our clients can
access.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Tsang.
1650
CANADIAN CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COUNCIL
The Chair:
The next speaker is Grant Wilson, president of the Canadian
Children's Rights Council.
An emergency alarm
sounded.
The Chair:
That's been happening all afternoon, by the way.
Ms Frances Lankin
(Beaches-East York): I thought it was because Mrs
Elliott said something that someone disagreed with up above.
The Chair:
I don't think you can hear that in the House, though, can you?
You can't hear that buzzing. We're working on it. It usually
takes about two days to warm up; that's the problem.
Good afternoon, Mr
Wilson.
Mr Grant
Wilson: Good afternoon. I'm Grant Wilson. I have a
rather unique background which perhaps I can explain a bit before
I get going. I've had sort of short notice here. I found out
about this at 11 o'clock this morning, that I would be here, and
I will be presenting a written presentation to you before the
deadline later on.
My background: I've been
interested in gender issues for most of my life. While taking
business administration, a three-year program at a community
college, I took women's studies; I received a B in that. Some
people suggested that since there were only two males in the
class, perhaps I was really an A student but there was some
gender discrimination there. I think I was worth a B.
I have been involved with
various groups in different capacities. I'm a computer
consultant. I've done computer consulting work and provided
networking services etc, consulting regarding that, to two
different women's shelters. I've been involved with a number of
support services for both men and women. I've gone out and done
surveys of a number of these issues with the police in
Halton-Peel, Hamilton-Wentworth and Toronto. I've talked to many
police officers. I've been involved with assisting victims of
domestic violence, particularly men, when they've gone to court.
I have found that with the police and the court system there's a
substantial bias against these men.
I can give you personal
information in these cases. For example, the 5'1", 100-pound wife
of my neighbour in Oakville was charged for a second time for
assaulting him with a weapon. The restraining order was such that
she could come back to the home at certain times. She would not
leave at the time designated, and when the police were called
twice, they came over and didn't do anything about this. She
belted him in front of the police officer and they didn't charge
her again, or anything else. When this went to trial, I
accompanied him to trial and the judge found her guilty. Her
explanation on the stand was, well, she got mad, but she was
getting counselling for this anger from a psychiatrist, and
therefore he sent her home again. The judge commented on how he
didn't want to affect the family law case. He was really
affecting the family law case by putting her back in the home
after she was found guilty for a second time of assaulting this
man with a weapon. The judge also stated that he believed the man
when he said he'd been assaulted on five other occasions that he
hadn't reported to the police, and those were unfortunate. He had
his lip split open while he was driving his van with his son in
the back etc.
So I've gotten involved
with quite a number of different things. I've been to court many
times with these people. I've helped a woman with a restraining
order she had to get her ex-husband out of the matrimonial home.
In that particular case there was no violence involved; it was
simply that he was prolonging this, you know, "marriage is
forever" and didn't quite get the message and was asked to leave
by the police, etc, and had the restraining order. So I've got a
background of involvement with a lot of these different issues
and support groups for men who are victims of domestic
violence.
I have seen quite a number by this government,
which wishes to promote that only women are victims of domestic
violence in their multi-million dollar campaign to support Crime
Stoppers. Approximately a year ago on the front page of the
Toronto Star we have a staff sergeant who's liaison with the
Metro police and Crime Stoppers stating that 25% of the calls
they get regarding domestic violence have men as the victims.
I have a report from Peel
Regional Police, which I would be happy to submit, that has my
landlord at the time, who was about 5'2" and 110 pounds,
attacking her husband. When the police came and she answered the
door at 3 in the morning, the police officer-and I knew the
officer from all my experience with them. This is a 20-year
officer who was in charge of training all the new recruits. She
had said the man wasn't home. When the police officers insisted
on entering the home to check it out, she assaulted the officer.
He didn't arrest her. He didn't do anything, as a matter of fact.
They said, "We have to come in and check the place out." Then she
immediately said, "He's sleeping." The police officers entered
and they checked. They didn't find any injuries on him. She had
been throwing all sorts of stuff, and I think they were both
drunk. However, it was amazing to me that the police officer did
not charge this woman when he was assaulted by her. He has that
in the report. It says there that he was assaulted by her in a
domestic violence situation.
In talking with many
officers of the Peel Regional Police and Halton police etc, they
state quite frankly to me that politically this is to be treated
as wife assault, not spousal assault, and there is to be a
substantial amount of emphasis put on arresting the man. There is
a big problem there with that discrimination, and you're
discriminating against children as well when you do that. There's
already a substantial problem here for children in all of this
circumstance.
I find it amazing that we
can sit here and claim this tremendous epidemic of domestic
violence when you look at the statistics and see that under 100
spouses, girlfriends, whatever, are victims of domestic violence
in Canada during a one-year period, and 25% to 41%, over
different years, have been men, yet we ignore that problem. When
you look at the 1993 report from Stats Canada, they talk about
wife assault: in 1993, 59% of the victims of domestic violence
who died, who were murdered, were women. They don't even talk
about men. Who were the other 41%?
This is the attitude that I
find in all these police forces. The officers have found
tremendous political pressure, and this is damaging the kids. I
think this legislation further damages them, because it gives
more weapons to angry people who want to hurt their spouses, and
since 90% of those with custody are women, which is a phenomenal
figure, this is the ideal weapon to go and destroy your spouse if
you're angry for whatever reason. If you want to get back at him
and you're vindictive because he was cheating on you or whatever,
then this is the case.
I have heard from a
long-time friend who works in a shelter east of here who has told
me that she has personally witnessed women who work there
counselling other women to phone the police and have this guy
charged with a fictitious crime, to bruise themselves someplace,
and therefore make false allegations, which are rampant. When you
have two people who are in a separation or a divorce situation,
that's a terrible thing to go and do, but hatred will do these
kinds of things.
The problem for the
children in all this is that when you eliminate parents from
their lives instantaneously, without due process, or you have a
limited process like you people have here where it's a negative
onus-you're guilty until proven innocent, according to your
suggestions, and you have a limited time to respond to this-in my
opinion it's insane. I can't believe we're going to convict
people first and ask questions later; that's what this attitude
amounts to. It's incredible that anybody can go and do this.
1700
The problems that we
already have for children are substantial. Boys in particular
have had all sorts of discrimination. We don't have enough male
teachers in primary grades. There's a substantial discrimination
against them. They're deathly afraid of someone accusing them of
touching someone or whatever. There are a number of issues here
regarding boys in the schools who are discriminated against. When
they get these ads coming across that men are perpetrators of all
this crime etc, whether the stats show that or not, they feel
very badly about this.
We have a situation now
where the number of boys leaving high school and not completing
versus girls leaving is much higher. I don't have the figures
with me, but I have the statistics in my office. Something like
10 times as many teenage boys commit suicide as teenage girls.
Amazingly, the largest group that commits suicide in our society
is white males over 40. These aren't my figures. I've got studies
from Harvard and there are a number of different studies on this.
When you run rather graphic ads and nail men, you're also nailing
boys.
When it comes to children's
welfare, we look at agencies which are social service agencies
that are there to help the family. The children's aid society is
there to appraise the situation, to take whatever steps are
necessary, but their first step is not to go in there and just
wipe out the relationship with that child. They take very
important steps in justifying what they're doing, interviewing
everybody and taking a look at the situation, documenting this,
before they ever say the child should be taken away from the
parent. Yet you're proposing legislation that just says, "One
parent wants it; just phone it in." That's a bit of a
problem.
In my own situation, where
I was a victim of domestic violence in 1991, I think this would
have been a terrible weapon for me to use if the police would
have done anything about it. I had problems with the police then.
When I phoned 911 after my ex-wife broke into my house and wanted
to take the children from my custody and started a very brutal fight with me-I was
bleeding in three different places and I was very black and
blue-they didn't believe me at first. Then they came out with all
the squad cars and took her out of my living room. As a man, I
have to turn around and say, "Oh yes, I'm very manly. I played
football in college on a varsity level first team and I boxed for
two years. Yes, I could have hit her in the face and driven her
nose through her skull or something." I didn't do that. I tried
to minimize the situation as best I could and tried to hold her.
She got away. I was the only one who had injuries.
The kind of discrimination
we're facing in the courts and with the police is phenomenal.
Right after that we had a family law assessment done, and the
assessor gave us a slight change in the times, but she never
consulted me. She goes on about this woman's anger. She didn't
talk about any anger that I had. Then she turns around and says
that this mother has denied access to my oldest daughter and then
proceeds to go on and say, "If the parents can't get along, the
mother should get custody."
The Chair:
Mr Wilson, you are getting into details of a specific case. I
should caution you that, while members enjoy parliamentary
privileges and certain protections pursuant to the Legislative
Assembly Act, it is unclear whether or not these privileges and
protections extend to witnesses who appear before committees. For
example, it may very well be that the testimony you have given or
are about to give could be used against you in a legal
proceeding. I caution you to take this into consideration while
making your comments.
Mr Wilson:
Thank you.
There are a number of
statistics which I would like to bring to your attention. I think
that when we look at the children involved in all these
situations, we should be looking at different ways of dealing
with this, giving a stronger weapon to try to-it's going to cause
conflicts.
I know of a case where I
was assisting one of the parents and he went out and murdered the
woman and killed himself. I know and I can prove, with my
conversations with the Peel Regional Police, that the reports in
the Toronto Star were false. In fact, if you read all the reports
from start to finish that appeared in all the articles you would
see there are major contradictions. You would find, if you had
the truth, that this was a decent man who had never been in
trouble with the law, who was the primary caregiver of his child
and who had amazing amounts of documentation to this effect from
family doctors, day care, after-school programs, teachers, sports
coaches, etc. This child doesn't have a mother or father any more
because there were false allegations against him that he had left
his son abandoned etc that this woman made to the Peel Regional
Police. Then, finally, to get him out of the house, to close down
his business that was in the house, she accused him of
threatening her life. This was a decent person, an usher at the
church around the corner, who went out petitioning for traffic
lights to go up at the end of their street, a very decent person
who lost it. This wasn't an anger problem he had, this was a
psychological one. I think there was a problem there, when you
feel so grossly violated by having the police pick you up and
take you to jail. It is inconceivable that this person could even
go to the police and make up these false allegations. He probably
lost it and went and killed her and killed himself because of it.
Yet, when we read about him in the paper killing his ex-wife and
himself, we see him as Mr Angry. Yet, when a female doctor can go
out and kill her child-
The Chair:
Mr Wilson, could you wrap up, please?
Mr Wilson:
When we see a female doctor go out and kill her child, we say she
must have had some psychological problems or there were things
going on and this was somebody who needed help.
In conclusion, I would say
it's very important to look at this not from a law standpoint,
that we can't get restraining orders that are just controlling
enough, we can't really hammer these people enough, but maybe we
ought to look at this and say this is more of a social problem.
We should have qualified counsellors and social workers who are
familiar with these issues, who are perhaps older and have had
kids and raised them etc, who can evaluate these situations
better, so that people can call at an earlier stage, so they're
not afraid of losing the relationship with their spouse because
somebody shoved somebody else or spoke some harsh words.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Wilson.
Mr Wilson:
There should be a time when they can phone and get social
assistance help, where somebody can evaluate this family, what
their needs are-
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Wilson. Your time is up.
The next speaker is Marion
Wright, legal advocate for Women's Place, St Catharines.
Mr Wilson:
Are there any questions?
The Chair:
No questions. Your time has expired.
Ms Lankin:
On a point of order, Madam Chair: It might help just to remind
folks how much time they have and that they can use it all for
their presentation, but if they want to have any questions from
the committee, they need to leave a little bit of time.
The Chair:
Yes, I did say that, actually, at the beginning, and I will
repeat that. You do have up to 20 minutes in which to make your
presentation, and if there is time there will be questions within
that 20 minutes from members of committee.
Mr Kormos:
Also that there's coffee and tea there. It's not just for us.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Kormos, for your editorial comment. You're cutting
into the presenter's time.
1710
WOMEN'S PLACE OF ST CATHARINES
The Chair:
Good afternoon, Ms Wright. Please proceed.
Ms Marion
Wright: Good afternoon. As you said, I'm here
representing Women's Place of St Catharines, which is a shelter
for abused women. I'm a lawyer who works there as a legal
advocate. I assist both shelter residents and non-residents and ex-residents in
the community.
There are several aspects
that are positive regarding Bill 117. These include making
breaches of intervention orders a criminal offence, allowing the
applicant to apply for exclusive possession of the home
regardless of whether they are married and allowing those in
dating relationships to qualify for intervention orders. However,
there is of yet, that I'm aware of, no definition of what a
dating relationship will be. I would like to use my time today to
discuss just a few of the problems I foresee with the
implementation and administration of Bill 117. As I'm sure you
are aware, how the law is administered can completely change the
actual intentions of those who drafted it.
First, Bill 117 allows for
emergency intervention orders. While in many ways this sounds
very positive, there are already provisions for emergency motions
during the court hours that are not utilized. The family law
rules that apply to the Family Court of the Superior Court of
Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice allow for emergency
motions. Specifically, rule 14(4) allows motions before a case
conference in a situation of urgency or hardship or for some
other reason in the interests of justice. There are also
provisions in rule 14(11) for motions without notice when there
is an immediate danger to the health or safety of a child or of
the party making the motion and the delay involved in serving a
notice of motion would probably have serious consequences.
Even with these provisions
it is extremely difficult to get a motion for an emergency during
court hours because the interpretation of what constitutes an
emergency has been very narrow. Even if you are granted a motion
without notice, it may be days before a judge looks at your
matter and actually comes to a decision. My concern is that the
same interpretations are going to be applied to Bill 117. If a
woman is currently having difficulties getting a motion during
court hours, I suggest that there's a strong possibility that it
will be equally unlikely that the matter will be heard in the
middle of the night by a JP or by a judge. Furthermore, the order
will mean absolutely nothing until the respondent is notified of
its existence and there's no guarantee as to how quickly this
will happen.
In addition, what about the
cases that aren't deemed to be an emergency? In some
jurisdictions that have the Family Court of the Superior Court of
Justice, your first court date is more than three months away.
That date is often just to appear before a clerk to set a date
for a case conference, which could be another month or more in
the future.
Another example of
legislation or regulations not being used the way they are
intended has resulted in abused women being forced to attend
court appearances even where they have a lawyer representing
them. According to members of the Family Rules Committee,
provisions of the rules were to be used so that women did not
have to attend court or if they were forced to attend they could
be in a separate room or telephone or video conferencing could be
utilized. Unfortunately, in the jurisdiction where I work, women
are being told by their lawyer that they must come to court and
therefore be in the same room with their abuser and face the
intimidation and risks to their personal safety that come along
with this. Their lawyers don't ask the court for any of the
available alternatives even in the most extreme cases. We allow
men under probation, bail or restraining order conditions to
stand outside the courtroom and sometimes even display
intimidating behaviour in the courtroom. If this same behaviour
occurred on the street it would be a breach of the order. This is
not what was envisioned by the rules but apparently it is what
will be faced by women seeking intervention orders.
One of the ways to try to
prevent legislation or regulations from being misinterpreted is
to ensure that there is continuing education for justices of the
peace, the judiciary, lawyers and other administrative personnel
involved in implementing and applying the legislation on a
day-to-day basis. Examples of why this is needed include women
being advised by their lawyer to remain in the matrimonial home
with their abuser during the judicial process without any
assessment of the risk to their client. It is also not uncommon
to find lawyers or the judiciary who do not specialize in abuse
cases minimizing the abuse suffered or asking questions
indicating that they must have done something to deserve the
abuse. They also fail to recognize the signs of abuse or the
escalating behaviour of the abuser. Without continuing education
to rectify these problems, Bill 117 could easily be
misinterpreted and applied without an understanding of the
dynamics of domestic violence. This will result in another piece
of legislation that is of no use to those who it was supposed to
assist and therefore perpetuate the feeling of the majority of
abused women that it is better to avoid the judicial system all
together.
Another major problem will
be with the ability of women to access Bill 117, as has already
been mentioned in previous presentations. How are women going to
know what the provisions are and who is going to assist them in
accessing the provisions?
There are some services
available during court hours, although not nearly enough, but
there is nothing available after court hours. Women's shelters
are underfunded and short-staffed. There is no one available in
the middle of the night to assist with any paperwork that may be
required or accompanying a woman to a hearing or support her
while she is on the phone with a judge. If you qualify for legal
aid, it takes weeks in the jurisdiction I work in to even get an
appointment, let alone a certificate. If you already have a
lawyer, few are going to be reachable in the middle of the night.
While it is possible to access the law without a lawyer, it is
more difficult and definitely more intimidating.
When the Family Rules
Committee introduces rules governing the application for
intervention orders and emergency intervention orders, are they
going to account for women who do not qualify for legal aid but
cannot afford a
lawyer? Are they going to consider the specialized needs of
abused women? Will the rules be user-friendly and will they be
followed by all jurisdictions? I can tell you that currently the
rules in effect are not followed in all jurisdictions.
Furthermore, will the Attorney General use his power under
section 18 of Bill 117 to require the Family Rules Committee to
amend or revoke a rule that is not working, or once this bill is
passed will it be forgotten in favour of the next bill on the
agenda?
If women cannot access the
provisions in Bill 117 and have no support in doing so, then it
will not be useful legislation. We can only ensure that this does
not occur by putting supports in place such as more legal aid
funding and funding for advocates to assist women to access the
provisions in the legislation and to educate them as to its
existence.
I am also concerned about
the court that will have jurisdiction to hear these matters. In
areas where there is not a Unified Family Court, which is also
known as the Family Court of the Superior Court of Justice, women
are going to be forced to go to the Superior Court of Justice
even when there are no property issues. You must remember that in
some jurisdictions these courts have no duty counsel and no
advice counsel, whereas in the Ontario Court of Justice you do
have these things. Furthermore, is a woman who has already
started a proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice and then
decides she needs to apply for an intervention order going to be
forced to apply in the Superior Court of Justice if it's not an
emergency and therefore have proceedings in two courts? This
again would be an extremely intimidating process.
The last issue I'd like to
discuss is the enforcement of intervention orders in general and
also the enforcement of the financial and property provisions in
the legislation. If a woman is able to successfully get an
intervention order, it means nothing unless it is enforced.
Currently, the enforcement of restraining orders under the Family
Law Act is a problem. While making it a criminal act to breach an
order is definitely an improvement, there still are concerns
regarding the police actually laying a charge for a breach. If
the police do not lay the charge, the breach never makes it into
the criminal justice system and the abuser is never held
accountable in the criminal courts. Furthermore, the court must
attach a significant penalty to a breach of an intervention
order, not just another piece of paper that will not be followed
or enforced. Mandatory minimum sentences in these cases would
certainly be a step in the right direction and may also make
society realize that these orders actually mean something.
With respect to the
financial provisions in intervention orders, such as an order
requiring the respondent to pay the applicant compensation
including moving and accommodation expenses, I see two problems.
These provisions are not available in emergency intervention
orders, and non-emergency orders, as I have already indicated,
could take many months to get to court. Therefore, while there
are provisions restraining the respondent from converting,
damaging or otherwise dealing with property the applicant has an
interest in, the property could be destroyed long before the
matter ever gets to court. Also, if there are no expedient
provisions to get and enforce these orders regarding assistance
with rent, mortgages and other daily expenses, then women are at
risk of losing their homes. I do not know how the provisions in
Bill 117 regarding bonds and recognizances will work; however,
there should be specific guidelines for the judiciary to follow.
Otherwise, some judges will not even use the provisions. The
consequences of breaching an order should be immediate. I deal
with many women who have court orders in place regarding
financial assistance with the upkeep of the matrimonial home who
never receive a dollar.
1720
The consequences of failing
to pay child support is a perfect example of a system that
continues to fail. It is often years before any enforcement
proceedings are initiated, and many available provisions, such as
jail time which could be served on weekends so as not to affect
the payer's ability to work, are completely ignored. Abusers know
how to manipulate the system and they will do the same thing with
this bill. The financial provisions of the bill, if breached, are
not going to be considered breaches of a criminal nature. Perhaps
we should be asking ourselves, "Why not?" Abusive men will
continue to be abusive even if the applicant is granted an
intervention order by leaving the applicant destitute, unable to
take care of her children and with no one to effectively enforce
the terms of the order. The legal system, society and the
government stand by every day while this continues to happen.
Women know the failures of the system and often decide that they
cannot turn to the legal system for assistance because it has
nothing to offer them.
In conclusion, you must
understand that Bill 117 consists of several pieces of paper that
could be successfully implemented to make a difference for some
victims of domestic violence, or it could become another law that
is of no assistance. Being a lawyer, I often get asked by those I
work with at Women's Place in St Catharines what is wrong with
the judicial process and why it does not offer any useful
assistance to abused women. One of my first responses is that
there are provisions in several acts that could be used to assist
abused women but they are not administered in such a way and
therefore they become part of the problem instead of part of the
solution.
Without vigilance in
tracking how Bill 117 is being administered and enforced and
taking immediate steps to intervene where there are problems, it
will become just another act that does not make a difference. The
only way this can be done is with a commitment to follow up with
women's groups and advocates as to how the bill is working, what
needs to be amended and what additional supports need to be put
in place.
The Chair: That's your
presentation? Thank you very much, Ms Wright. Questions starting
with Mr Kormos. You have about a minute and a half.
Mr Kormos:
I appreciate your comments about the enforcement provisions,
because they are very confusing, Mr Tilson. The implication is
that you don't want to use the application of section 127 of the
code for breaches of conditions 9 through 13, yet it seems to me
that in fact you could. It's not clear in that regard. Maybe that
is your intention but the intention isn't articulated, and I
think that's what your observation of it is.
Ms Wright:
Yes, my reading of it is that's not the case.
Mr Kormos:
You say that police officers shall enforce provisions 1 through
8, but my suspicion is that the only way police officers without
more explicit instruction are going to enforce any of these
provisions is to simply lay a charge under 127 for breach; to
wit, "requiring the respondent to vacate the applicant's
residence." I suspect that police officers may charge a person
and use their arrest powers to remove that person from the
residence, but very few police officers are going to want to
involve themselves, for instance, in doing the job of the
proverbial sheriff in removing somebody from a building.
I appreciate those comments
and hope the PA-we've got to address that during clause-by-clause
and we'll certainly be speaking to it, because I think you're
dead on. You know what you're talking about.
The Chair:
You've got about 20 seconds if you want to comment on that.
Ms Wright:
I think that's exactly correct. My biggest fear is that we're
going to have this great piece of paper but a year from now there
are going to be no differences. I'm in a position to say that
from the fact that I work with this every single day and often
the people who are administrating the bills don't, and that can
be a huge problem.
Mr Tilson:
You made a comment about section 2 with respect to one of the
applicants under a dating relationship and you were critical of
that. Have you got a suggestion to the committee as to how that
could be amended to improve that definition?
Ms Wright:
My criticism is that there appears to be no definition. What are
we going to say a dating relationship is?
Mr Tilson:
That's what I'm asking. Do you have a suggestion as to how to
improve that section?
Ms Wright:
My suggestion would be to define it clearly. Is it going to
be-
Mr Tilson:
You don't have one.
Ms Wright:
Are you going to put in one date, if you've seen the person one
time? I'll tell you what's going to happen. A judge is going to
get hold of that and define it, and that's what we're all going
to be stuck following. Maybe it will be a good definition, but
maybe it will exclude many women.
Mr Tilson:
You talked about the slow process of the courts. One of the
several purposes of the bill is to deal with an emergency
intervention order, as you know, under section 4. You proceed
through that and you don't need to go to court. You can get a
designated justice of the peace, for example, who are the only
ones who can deal with these things 24 hours a day. So in all the
matters you're talking about, I quite appreciate the slowness of
the court in the other areas, but that's what I think is one of
the good things of this bill, that you can get good service to
people who have been violated by domestic violence.
Ms Wright:
That's true, but my question again is, what happens if the
justice of the peace, the judiciary, doesn't define emergency the
way I would define it? What if they continue to define it the way
they do now, which means good luck in getting an order?
The Chair:
You don't have the chance to comment on that, Mr Tilson,
unfortunately, because we're running close to our limit. Mr
Bryant.
Mr Bryant:
You'll get a chance in the Legislature, I know, to comment on
that. I have two questions. Firstly, any other amendments that
you would suggest? Secondly, you said that not only might Bill
117 in effect be useless if it's not implemented, but it might
actually be harmful. If you could just tell us why that's the
case.
Ms Wright:
With respect to other amendments, no, I would just like to see
more specific provisions because of the danger of not having
them. With respect to the bill being harmful, just the very
thought to women that there's another piece of legislation that
is supposed to be out there to help, and if it falls apart it's
another reason to stay away from the court system. I spend a lot
of my time trying to convince women, "Let's give this a try," and
I can't blame them when they say no. If this falls apart it will
be another reason why they will not consider using the judicial
process at all.
Mr Bryant:
Access to justice is obviously a huge issue that you've been
speaking about. You've got the parliamentary secretary here. What
recommendations, specific to domestic violence, would you suggest
in order to be able to implement it?
Ms Wright:
More legal aid funding, more training for and more duty counsel,
advice counsel, more hours obviously on legal aid
certificates-
Mr Garry J. Guzzo
(Ottawa West-Nepean): Especially training lawyers.
Ms Wright:
Absolutely.
Mr Guzzo:
Starting with Kormos.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Ms Wright.
DURHAM REGION CUSTODY AND ACCESS PROJECT
The Chair:
The next presenters, the Durham Region Custody and Access
Project: Deborah Sinclair, consultant; Helen Brooks, lawyer;
Donna Babbs, lawyer; and Kate Schillings, focus group member.
Good afternoon, ladies. I'm just going to vacate the chair for
one minute. Mrs Elliott will take over.
The Acting Chair (Mrs Brenda
Elliott): Good afternoon and welcome. As you know, you
have 20 minutes for presentation time and it is your decision as
to whether or not you will allow time for questioning within that
20 minutes. Please begin.
Ms Deborah
Sinclair: My name is Deborah Sinclair. I would like to
briefly introduce my colleagues: Helen Brooks is a family law
lawyer in our lawyers' working group in Durham region; Kate
Schillings is Luke's mother and also a focus group survivor who's
participated in our original research; Donna Babbs is chair of
the lawyers' working group as well. I am a social worker who has
been a long time in this work on the front line, since the early
1970s, and have had the privilege of working with Durham region
over the last few years on this particular project.
We have given you some
materials. I'd just like to go over them and make sure you've got
them. The first piece, I believe, is the binder, In the Centre of
the Storm. This is called "Durham Speaks Out: A Community
Response to Custody and Access Issues Affecting Woman Abuse
Survivors and Their Children."
1730
In this particular project,
we had a number of focus groups with woman abuse survivors about
their experience when they faced the family law system. Many of
the women in our project had not had experience before with
court-criminal or civil. The disclosure about their abuse came
forward as a result of speaking out on behalf of their children
in regard to custody and access issues. They would not have been
picked up by a criminal system. They would not have disclosed.
Many of them were experiencing emotional abuse for many years,
and in some cases physical abuse that would have been useful for
them to have prosecuted. However, they kept it private, like the
majority of abuse survivors do.
One of the learnings in
this project that has been very important to us is that emotional
and psychological abuse can be just as life-threatening and
injurious to a woman and her children as physical abuse. That has
been a very tragic and very important learning for us in this
project.
The other piece I would
like to just briefly outline for you is that we do have some
specific amendments that my colleague, Helen Brooks, will speak
to regarding this particular piece of legislation before you.
In addition to that, we
have an action plan that we have presented directly, face to
face, to the Attorney General, which I believe has been happily
received. It's included in this package. We'll be happy to speak
to any questions, today or later.
We're very happy to be a
part of this process. We've been a part of the whole process
around this particular bill since the beginning. We have had
representatives sit on the task force from Durham region, the
original task force on restraining orders. We were one of the
four communities that were chosen in the province to have all-day
consultations on the bill. We, and different members of our
community, have met twice face to face with the minister and his
staff, as well as participating today. Also, we've participated
in giving feedback on the draft recommendations. We represent
more than 225 people in the community. Professionals, judges,
lawyers and police officers participate in all of our committees,
as well as women abuse survivors and their children.
We believe this is a step
in the right direction. We also are very cognizant of the fact
that there are a number of recommendations that have been put
forward in other reports that we fully support and endorse,
although we'll speak more specifically to this draft.
We support our colleagues
who spoke previously: Vivien Green, Eileen Morrow, Beryl Tsang.
We would reiterate much of what they've said, and you'll find
that in our report.
I'm very aware of the time.
I think perhaps, Helen, you would like to speak to the amendments
specifically.
Ms Helen
Brooks: Yes, I can.
Ms
Sinclair: And then we'll have Kate speak afterwards.
Ms Brooks:
This is the first time in this province that there is a
legislative definition of domestic violence. This statute is an
immensely progressive step for victims of violence, but if this
province truly intends to protect all-and not selective-victims,
the definition of domestic violence must be fluid and capable of
expansion, and there must be legislative direction for the courts
to recognize emotional abuse. Otherwise, this province will only
serve to protect part of its victims, those who are threatened by
some physical gesture or act. If there is no definition of "act,"
then the ordinary dictionary meaning will apply. In my handout,
there is a copy of the Webster's Dictionary definition of
"act."
None of us in this room
know the offender as well as the victim, and even then some
victims have misjudged the danger or risk to themselves and have
been hurt or killed. For those victims who truly know they or
their children are at risk, having experienced what the offender
can do or is capable of doing, they need the government's
protection as much as, if not more than, the victims who can
point to a black eye or broken arm. Those victims are easy to
identify. Emotionally abused victims should not need to wait
until an "act" occurs before getting protection. The
responsibility of this government is to ensure that all victims
can be protected.
In the handout, there is a
summary of the amendments we propose in order to expand
protection to the victims of domestic violence. I intend only to
briefly highlight three of those.
We suggest that it would be
helpful in the statute to include a preamble. It's been done in
other legislation. We've put in a suggestion as to what the
wording might sound like. Our reason for making this suggestion
is that those who are in authority to issue intervention orders
ought to have the benefit of understanding the general framework
within which to interpret various passages of the legislation in
a manner that's consistent with the stated intent and purpose,
and a primary objective.
As I indicated in my
opening remarks, there needs to be a definition of "act," and we
would suggest that "act" includes any verbal utterances or
verbalizations. I've enclosed in the handout an article by Mr
Phillip Enright, a crown attorney with the Ministry of the
Attorney General, suggesting that in certain cases emotional
abuse can be the subject of a criminal charge. So in this statute
it should be clearly identified.
If I could ask the members
to look at the bill, subsection 1(2) under "domestic violence,"
where it states, "For the purposes of this act, domestic violence
means," we're suggesting that the word "means" be changed to the
word "includes." This permits the court wider latitude when
interpreting circumstances and it is not as restrictive as using
the word "means."
If I could ask the members
to look at subsection 3(1), we're suggesting that clause 3(1)(b)
be deleted in its entirety. The conjunctive use of the word "and"
does not fit with the definition of "domestic violence" set out
in subsection (2) even without our amendments. We believe clause
(b) is an added burden for an applicant to not only prove on a
balance of probabilities that domestic violence occurred, which
in the definition suggests that the applicant fears for her
safety, but then there must be a juridical finding, a secondary
finding whether that person may be at risk of harm. The words
"and a person or property may be at risk of harm" are redundant
language when it's clear that all domestic violence in one manner
or another places a person at risk of harm. There can never be
acts of assault or abusive verbalizations that do not in some way
place a person at risk of harm. Adding these words to the section
of the statute suggests that there can be domestic violence
without risk of harm, and this is sending a false message.
The handout also encloses
an article I ask the members to eventually look at from the Globe
of Mail, 1987. It was in the report entitled Intimate Femicide:
Woman Killing in Ontario, 1974. A trained police officer was
found guilty of negligence. He was an experienced, 18-year
veteran who knew the offender was violent, knew that he was on
charges of assault against the wife, but due to the wife's mild
manner, he assessed the risk of harm as being low or no risk. She
was subsequently fatally shot by her husband, and their daughter
wounded.
The assessment of risk of
harm, in our respectful submission, is best left to the experts,
not to the courts on a summary application.
1740
Ms
Sinclair: Kate, I believe you would like to share a few
words. Kate has participated in our research project.
Ms Kate
Schillings: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak
before you today on this bill. My story is a difficult one to
tell, but I continue to tell it in the singular hope that lasting
and meaningful changes will come out of it, which is why I am
here today.
In August 1997, I fled a
severely emotionally and psychologically abusive marriage with my
three-and-a-half-year-old son, Luke, in my arms and my purse over
my shoulder. I escaped to a women's shelter, with my husband in
close pursuit. Although I managed to get myself and my son to
safety inside the shelter that night, it was necessary for me to
leave the next morning and go into hiding elsewhere so as not to
compromise the safety concerns of the shelter.
One week later I was in
court to establish interim custody and access. I had met with my
lawyer several times before this court date to discuss the legal
actions required to initiate a divorce, spelling out examples of
the types of emotional and psychological abuse present during the
years of my marriage and trying to articulate the deep-seated
fear I had for my safety and the safety of my son.
Emotional and psychological
abuse in my marriage was insidious by nature, creeping into the
relationship very slowly and almost imperceptibly. It is
difficult to explain how this entrapped me and how the deepening
fear wore me down over the years. The most difficult thing is
that there was no visible evidence of abuse: no broken bones, no
bruises, no black eyes. Constantly present, though, was a very
real fear while in the presence of my husband, a fear of not
being safe any more. Because my husband's threats were very
veiled and non-specific and always centred on our son, I was
really very vulnerable. How could I get anyone to understand
this?
I went into court that day
hoping that here I would find the protection my son and I so
desperately needed. In my affidavit I had asked for sole custody
of my son and for supervised access for my husband's visits with
his son. I made it very clear that in addition to the abusive
behaviours, I strongly believed that my husband was severely
depressed. He had exhibited many of the hallmark signs of severe
depression and I was very concerned about his stability. For this
reason, I had also asked that he be made to seek help as all my
attempts to get him to a doctor had been fruitless. I was told
this was not likely to happen.
I was granted sole custody
but liberal and unsupervised access was ordered for my husband
starting the very next day. Despite strenuous and repeated
efforts on my behalf, my husband was still given unsupervised
access. This was just the opportunity he was waiting for. He
brutally murdered my son, first strangling him and then setting a
fire in which my son's body was burned beyond recognition. He
destroyed much of the marital home and also took his own life in
the process. He came through on his threat not to let me leave
with my son.
My assertions of abuse were
absolutely secondary to the following three factors: the process
of mediation at all costs between the two lawyers. I was told
that it would be better for me if the judge did not have to
decide the custody and access outcome. I was warned that I needed
to be more co-operative, that my protestations would be
considered in determining final custody and access months down
the road. I never even saw the judge during any of my
proceedings. The second thing that became more important than my
assertions of abuse was the right of my husband to see his son.
He came to court and presented himself as a very affable and
likeable fellow. The third thing was the fact that my husband had
no priors before the
court. With no visible evidence of the abuse and no paper trail,
it came down to my word against his.
If the protection housed in
this draft Domestic Violence Protection Act had been in place
three years ago, the outcome of my case might have been very
different. It might have looked like this: my assertions of
emotional and psychological abuse would have been heard. A risk
assessment would have been ordered. Mediation would not have been
an option. My husband would have been ordered to seek help. My
husband's sister, who had only seen us as a family about three
times in five years, would not have been asked to vouch for his
ability to care for our son. I would not have had to sit in the
same room as my abuser for six long hours, further contributing
to my already weary and terrified state. Supervised
access-possibly no access-would have been ordered pending my
husband entering into treatment for abusive behaviours and for
depression. The safety of myself and my son would have been
paramount. My voice would have been heard and my son would be
alive today, almost seven years old and in grade 2.
I cannot begin to tell you
of the enormity of the pain, how I miss my son every hour of
every day. My voice was stifled in that courtroom and my son paid
the price with his life. Please do not let it be stifled here.
Please continue to listen to all those whose experiences you
cannot begin to imagine. The past three years have been spent
moving through the pain of losing my son, especially by the hands
of his father. It is only recently that I have recognized that
now I also need to start dealing with the abuse that was a
constant in my life for so many years. Only then can I rebuild my
life.
I leave you with this
today: On the day of the memorial service for my son, my
husband's lawyer came to me, clearly burdened, and whispered,
"That is not the man I spent six hours with," and I replied,
"You're right; it's the man I spent eight years with and nobody
listened to me."
Thank you for hearing us
today.
Ms
Sinclair: Thank you very much, Kate.
Ms Donna
Babbs: Kate's story, we want to reiterate, has extreme
importance to the definition of domestic violence.
Mr Kormos:
Madam Chair, on a point of order, excuse me: We've got a vote.
We're coming back here at 6 o'clock. We want to carry on. I
wonder if the Chair would consider putting to these folks if they
could stick around for 10 minutes while we go and vote.
The Chair:
Mr Kormos, with respect, the difficulty is that some of us are
not able to come back for more than 10 or 15 minutes after the
vote. So may I suggest, if you could please wrap up. I know this
has been a very emotional submission, but we do have another
delegate. We have to go and vote in about eight minutes. So if
you could please wrap up.
Ms Babbs:
Two minutes of our time has just been taken up, so if you don't
mind, may I have the additional two minutes?
Mr Kormos:
Of course.
Ms Babbs:
The definition of domestic violence is based on the criminal law
definition primarily. It does not deal with emotional abuse.
That's why we ask that you review the submission prepared by
Helen Brooks which deals with the definition of domestic
violence; why it needs to be expansive and not restricted to
mainly physical assault; why the definition of "act" has to
include verbal acts. We ask that you review the report and Kate's
story, which is spelled out there in further detail, where you'll
see examples of emotional and psychological harm. We ask that you
listen to Kate's story and realize that Kate knew the risk of
harm that she was in. A judge may not see the risk of harm.
We ask that you seriously
consider our proposal that the second part of clause 3(1)(b) be
deleted, because when there's domestic violence there is a risk
of harm. We can't have that restricted by allowing judges and
justices of the peace who don't have experience in domestic
violence to make that assessment.
We ask, in all the
submissions you hear, that you consider the importance of life,
liberty and security of the person, which is in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that you err on the side of
caution, let these orders be made and worry less about trampling
on the rights of potentially very dangerous individuals not being
removed from their homes.
The Chair:
Thank you for your submission.
Members of the committee,
are you saying that you want to go and vote now and then come
back for the full 20 minutes? I believe some of you can't come
back for the full 20 minutes. Is that correct?
Mr Tilson:
I have to leave.
The Chair:
We have about 90 seconds to get up to vote. Can we at least hear
for five minutes from the last delegate, please?
Mr Bryant:
You want to have three minutes?
The Chair:
Five minutes.
Mr Tilson:
We have to go and vote.
The Chair:
All right, that's fine. I was going to say you have five
minutes.
The committee recessed
from 1750 to 1805.
MOTHERS FOR KIDS
The Chair:
Sorry to keep you waiting. I hope Ms Bountrogianni will be
back.
The next delegation is
Maxine Brandon from Mothers for Kids. Sorry to keep you waiting,
Ms Brandon. You heard me earlier. You have 20 minutes in which to
make your presentation and for questions to be asked.
Ms Maxine
Brandon: Good afternoon. My name is Maxine Brandon. I
have a background in psychiatric nursing, teaching, social work
and, recently, mediation. I am here today to represent Mothers
for Kids and to discuss the concerns regarding Bill 117.
Mothers for Kids is a group
of about 50 non-custodial mothers who have lost custody of their
children through the process of the legal system. Mothers for
Kids advocates for the
interests of children and are concerned about children's issues
in our current legal system whereby the children do not have any
individual rights, nor do they have a voice. This group is also
focused on women as mothers and the distinct role that mothers
provide their children in their development through childhood to
adulthood.
Mothers for Kids is
committed to finding better solutions for children other than the
current court system, lobbying for changes to the Divorce Act,
advocating for automatic shared parenting where there is no kind
of abuse in existence, advocating for mediation and
rehabilitative solutions rather than children being the innocent
victims of the divorce industry. The belief that children need
both parents is that mothers and fathers provide their children
with different and distinct role models necessary to equip them
for the challenges of adulthood.
Domestic violence: we know
that domestic violence causes great trauma to all concerned-to
men, women and children and within our communities-yet we allow
this in society. We are all to blame. The constant visual
assaults of the daily ingestion of rape, drug use, murders,
violence and pornography to adults' and children's intellects
alike are experienced through the television, newspaper, radio
and movie industries.
We will put a ban on
cigarette smoking due to health reasons and public outcry, yet we
will not put a ban on violence in our society to protect the
mental health of our individuals and our children. Is it any
wonder we have so much domestic violence, young offenders and
increases in incarcerations in our courts and prisons? Children
live what they learn. Violence must not be learned as an option
for problem-solving and conflict resolution.
Although Mothers for Kids
agrees that there should be an act to better protect victims of
domestic violence, we ask that Bill 117 not be passed. We ask for
the re-examination of the bill to be completed and that the act
be rewritten following submissions.
We are concerned that the
act as such will cause an increase in domestic violence, an
increase in psychological abuse to its victims and also an
increase in legal abuse generated in the court system, all of
which could revictimize and increase the victimization of the
victim or result in more physical assaults or murders and
suicides.
Specifically, Bill 117 has
flaws which need to be addressed. Under "domestic violence,"
subsection 1(2), the bill does not define what an "omission" is,
leaving this to wide interpretation or punishment.
Bill 117 is strictly
punitive and punishment-oriented, failing to provide funding or
looking to provide for preventive, educational and rehabilitative
models in our communities. The bill is reactionary to the recent
number of domestic homicides and suicides and is not completely
thought out as to whether it would de-escalate domestic violence
or whether it is likely to increase domestic violence, homicides
and suicides.
1810
The bill provides a
financial incentive for abuse and also that of psychological
abuse by the individual who seeks power and control or revenge
against the other and then can manipulate the bill and the legal
system to their advantage by use of their lawyers. What can be
used against one can easily be manipulated to be turned around to
attack the victim. Once drawn into the adversarial court system,
one cannot get out of it. Cases have been known to go on for four
to seven years or any length of time before bankruptcy, ill
health or poverty stops the battling-in this case maybe death or
suicide as well, or homicide.
There's no such thing as
truth in the judicial system. This is a shock for many of us to
learn. There is only evidence and the weighing of such. A skilled
lawyer is much like an artist painting a picture on a canvas
before the judge. The scene can be altered by the application of,
in an artist's case, paint, but in a legal case, stacking
affidavits, where one enters into a paper war of either true or
false allegations, the use of highly charged adjectives to enrage
the other side, and the legal manoeuvring and strategies to
overpower one of the individuals. One cannot believe what happens
in the judicial system.
All 50 women in our group
have experienced legal strategies and manoeuvring and also, in
most cases, psychological abuse through their ex-spouses or
through the use of lawyers. Men and women who have left marriages
due to reasons of psychological abuse find that now they are
being re-abused in trying to obtain a divorce and the custody of
their children. They now find themselves experiencing three
avenues of abuse and trying to naively fight against it: abuse,
both current and prior, by a spouse; abuse by legal manoeuvres
from one lawyer to another within the case; and system abuse.
The same applies to men as
it does to women. The victim can be re-victimized by the system
and by the aggressor or abusive individual. The laws can be
manipulated in an adversarial system. When your finances and your
children are used as bait to win or lose, with lawyers acting as
your broker, psychological abuse occurs.
Bill 117 does not address
the different types of abuse or their severity or the different
applications for recommendations or rehabilitation. It only
addresses physical abuse. There are many different causations,
factors, precautions and remedies in different types of abuse.
There is abuse from mental illness problems, either treated or
untreated with medication, diagnosed or undiagnosed; there is
financial abuse; there is social and cultural abuse-for instance,
the threat to destroy an immigration status by someone entering
the country; there is psychological abuse, which is very
difficult and hard to prove but more damaging to the individual,
their soul and spirit; and abuse from the person who is
drug-addicted or alcohol-addicted. The bill does not address
these issues and has only one remedy: a punitive, punishment
model.
Punitive measures do not
always work. They can create more disturbance, more deaths, more
homicide or suicide.
Because Bill 117 is so punitive in its nature, it will only
create more reason for those who are abusive in nature to abuse
and give them more reason or impetus to rage, act out or go
ballistic. When one has a real or imagined threat against them,
for whatever reason-a paranoid cocaine user, an alcoholic or
those with mental health disturbances-the thought of increased
threat or threats or more losses such as your home, your family,
your children, your money, and penal sanctions against you,
combined with the adversarial legal system, is like putting a
match to the July 1st fireworks.
Models of intervention must
be carefully examined, not in haste and not in reactionary speed
but with careful planning to look at the effects and side effects
of any law to be implemented as well as the effects legally.
Finances must be in place to provide necessary preventive,
educational, emergency settings and rehabilitative resources to
accompany acts of law such as emergency small furnished apartment
programs for men and women to chill out, with 24-hour councillors
in place to start counselling while providing immediate shelter
and safety to those who need it.
Educational models within
the schools to deal with domestic violence and the effects on
children, and for the children to receive specialized
counselling, should be in place, as well as medical training for
physicians to ask about abuse automatically as part of the
physical yearly examination and at every medical appointment, and
to request their patients to have a yearly spousal, marital or
common-law checkup.
These things could be
implemented easily. There should be telephone hotlines so the
community can also report domestic violence before the worst
happens, so that potential problems can be monitored. Conflict
resolution community intervention programs are needed. As a
society, we need to lobby the media and the entertainment
industry to lessen the violence and to restore spiritual, moral
and ethical ways of dealing with conflict and strife and within
the family unit. Violence should not be an option in dealing with
conflict.
Within the legal system,
ensure the use of mediation resolution services before entering
court. Amend the Divorce Act to provide for automatic shared
parenting unless there have been real, abusive situations
occurring. You can't dangle a child before a parent and expect
the parent to act properly. These are their heritage, their
rights, their family. You can't use children as pawns in the
divorce industry to gain money for lawyers' pockets. You can't do
that to people. People are good parents, generally, unless found
otherwise. To take a child from one parent and give it to another
is child abuse itself.
We are just now
understanding 25 years of documented studies where children have
been taken from one parent or another through divorce or
separation or death and the long-term rejection effects, loss of
self-confidence, loss of relationships that they have in their
own life and in their own marriages, and all sorts of problems
that they're having.
The threat and thought of
anyone losing their child as a parent should not be dangled in
front of them by the divorce courts. To capitalize on
self-employment through the use of children used as pawns between
parents is wrong. The rumours of horror stories of divorce and
custody battles and inequities and bankruptcies have already
reached us before we've ever been to divorce court.
Unfortunately, most of the stories about lawyers, divorce and the
legal system are true. Read the divorce from hell: $250,000 later
and bankruptcy, he hands his children back to a taxicab driver
and says, "I can't take it any more." Why should any of us, or
you, go through that?
There must be changes
within our legal system itself and in federal and provincial
legislation to reduce domestic violence and not perpetuate it.
Children should not be used as weapons against their parents in
court. People rage at the thought of losing their child and
everything they've worked for in life. How are we perpetuating
that domestic violence? There must be preventive measures in
place to help couples separate and divorce without going into the
court arena and losing everything. Shared parenting would be a
start in reducing the conflict, animosity and the violence that
results from this. There must be some sort of accountability for
violence in this system.
Bill 117 will influence
family law, civil law and criminal law, but with what effect? I
believe that this law is discriminatory to landlords and also to
the individual in the total effect of this bill on their lives.
How many civil action suits will there be by the abuser against
the landlord for discrimination and against his individual rights
under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? It is interesting that
the onus comes down to the landlord and not the Ministry of the
Attorney General, with the landlord being sued, perhaps, by the
abuser and perhaps ending up losing his own shirt in the
matter.
Punish the individual for
the crime, but do not punish his or her whole life.
1820
How does Bill 117
differentiate between the Criminal Code on assault and battery
and assault charges? Which shall be applied? How do they
interact? Will there be both family law and criminal law in
effect and then a civil lawsuit in civil court? How is Bill 117
to be tried and tested? What effect will this bill have on the
judicial system and their staffing resources? Courts are already
backlogged. How will this affect police staffing and the
enforcement of this act? What measures are in place to monitor
and evaluate the domestic and community effects of such a bill
and whether the effect of an increase in violence occurs or
whether it decreases the violence? Are we sure this bill won't
escalate the violence and give licence to reverse abuse?
The bill outlines the same
protocol regardless of the severity of the domestic attack.
Should the same protocol be used and applied to a pinch as to a
homicidal threat? The bill does not take into account the degree
or severity of the assault.
The bill does not take into account the factors
involved in certain types of domestic violence: who started it,
who's right, who's wrong, or if the act or acts were witnessed by
the police or not. If they were unwitnessed, was there any police
bias in the police report? Was there any involvement of both
parties? If so, were they both charged? In less obvious cases of
domestic violence, does the best storyteller get the story to the
police and to the judge? In court, we have often seen "the sky is
falling" syndrome. You can create a scenario whatever way you
want in court. If it's on paper, it's deemed as true, yet there's
no truth seeker in court.
The intervention order
under subsection 3(1) gives the court powers to enact a final
order based on the balance of probabilities and not on a burden
of proof or reality or actualities. This may be discriminatory,
prejudicial and lead to false accusations or reverse abuse in the
legal system.
The Chair:
Ms Brandon, you have a few more minutes to wrap up, please.
Ms
Brandon: There is no doubt, however, that domestic
violence does exist on many levels, for many reasons and to many
differing effects. The need for community resources is great for
both male and female genders. The bill is simplistic in nature to
only involve the police and courts when this is a systematic
societal problem, much larger than this bill.
The problems must be dealt
with by a holistic approach involving all of the community and
familiar aspects of intervention, such as churches, schools,
medical practitioners, psychiatrists, specialized counselling for
domestic issues and specialized courts for domestic violence.
If the proper financial
assistance from the government were in place for community
resources to meet the demand of domestic violence cases, both and
female, we would not need such state intervention to base
decisions on probabilities.
The bill is discriminatory
in presuming that it perceives the abusive person as a bad parent
when that may not be the case. It denies the assaulter access to
their children when there may be no evidence of poor parenting
and it may be the result of two adults in conflict for unassessed
reasons or dynamics.
It places the blame on one
party where the person still has not been properly assessed-
The Chair:
Ms Brandon, if you want a 30-second conclusion, please.
Ms
Brandon: The conclusion that Mothers for Kids have is
that the bill should not be passed into an act as written. We
would like a re-examination of the bill to determine whether the
bill is prejudiced in any way and conflicts with the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
We ask that the committee
look at a new bill or revisions to the bill that would protect
the innocent and also de-escalate violence and not look at
increasing it, and involving the community and funding in working
toward a better solution for domestic violence. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Brandon.
This meeting will reconvene
tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 in this room, Tuesday, October 31,
Halloween.
