Front Burner - Sex assault reforms held up by senate "old boys," says former Tory leader

Episode Date: April 16, 2019

Today on Front Burner, former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose on why she thinks her bill on judges sexual assault training must pass, and soon.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. TED Talks Daily is a podcast that brings you new ideas and insights to expand your worldview. Like an app that's helping refugees know and pursue their rights to how science fiction ignited a real-life culture of space exploration. And a lot more. You can listen to TED Talks Daily wherever you get FrontBurner.

Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. There's this case playing out in Calgary involving three accused men and one underage victim. And two separate judges looking at videos of the assault came to a very different conclusion. One judge said the video showed one of the, quote, most appalling acts of human depravity he had ever seen, with not a, quote, scintilla of consent. The other judge, he believed the defendant's testimony that the girl had asked for rough sex. For some, this is yet another example of how our courts haven't come to terms with how to deal with sexual assault. And for Ronna Ambrose, it's all so frustrating.

You would be shocked to find out that today in Canada, there are judges that preside over sexual assault cases that have no training in sexual assault law. Because the former Conservative leader was hoping to change the laws to mandate sexual assault training for incoming federal judges. Mr. Speaker, we need to build confidence in our system so more sexual assault survivors feel comfortable coming forward. But her efforts, well, they've been stalled.

She says an old boys club sitting in the Senate is protecting another old boys club sitting on the federal bench. It's nuts. It's two years these guys have delayed it. Today, I'm joined by Ronna Ambrose, now retired from politics. We'll talk about a handful of recent sexual assault cases that she says proves her point. Just a warning that there are some very graphic descriptions in this conversation. That's today on FrontBurner. Ronna, thank you so much for coming on the podcast today.

No problem, Jamie. It's great to be with you. Thanks for your interest on this issue. I'm hoping we can start by going back to 2017. And what prompted you to introduce this private member's bill about sexual assault training for judges in the first place? Well, interestingly, when I was in university, I worked at a sexual assault center. I also participated in this, thinking back, we're talking 20 years ago, participated with the Status of Women's Action Group. They did this study that I was a part of

where we actually sat as volunteers in courtrooms in sexual assault and sexual abuse trials and listened to how victims were treated by defense counsel, how they were treated even by prosecutors, how they were treated by the judges. And we took copious notes and it became basically an agenda to push for training for judges in sexual assault law, because what we found was that judges were saying things that re-victimized the victim. And this was many decades ago. And so that's what the impetus was. And when I became leader, I was now an MP again. So I looked into it, and I was shocked to find out that we still, after all these years, don't have mandatory training.

So I thought, wow, this still hasn't changed. So I'm going to introduce a bill to do that. Today I introduced a bill to help fix this. Will the Prime Minister join me and support this bill that requires mandatory sexual assault training for lawyers who want to become judges? Right. And I remember at the time that you introduced this bill, there were a few things that were going on. First, you know, my colleague Robin Doolittle had released this big series on unfounded rates, which looked at police services across the country and how police were dealing with sexual assault. What we learned is that on average, one out of every five sexual assault claims reported to Canadian police was being dismissed as invalid. And when a case ends up

unfounded, it wasn't reported to Statistics Canada. It was essentially scrubbed from the public record. And then I also remember, you know, it's interesting to hear you say that the genesis for you goes back much further. But at the time, there was this very high profile case, which came to light, where a judge, you know know essentially told a sexual assault complainant you know she questioned why she didn't quote keep her knees together to resist an alleged sexual assault. Robin Camp called the complainant in the Calgary case unsavory and amoral. He also referred to her throughout the trial as the accused, even after he was corrected by the Crown. Yeah, that was a judge here in Calgary, and it's almost the perfect example of why this matters.

This particular lawyer was an energy sector lawyer who was appointed to the bench, and lo and behold is now overseeing criminal cases, many of which are sexual assault cases, and in this case said to the complainant, why didn't you keep your legs closed? Of course, someone happened to be in the courtroom to hear this because, frankly, Jamie, most of the time when these things happen, there isn't a reporter in the room and we would have never known. So thank goodness someone was there, reported it.

As you know, it spread across the country. There was outrage. I mean, these comments were clearly outside the bounds of acceptability. A judge to sort of step out of that objective role and to get really critical of a complainant like that is, it's inappropriate. A panel of three judges on the Court of Appeal said Camp's ruling gave a rise to doubts about his understanding of the law governing sexual assault in Canada. That particular judge went through a review and subsequently took training and interestingly that judge said after the fact I learned so much I had no idea. In addition to sensitivity training and education,

Camp enlisted a judicial mentor. Justice Deborah McCauley testified she was so appalled at Camp's comments she stereotyped him. But she says she found Camp to be empathetic, brutally honest with himself and well aware of the pain he had caused to all involved. And you think, there's a perfect example. I mean, he even himself said, I wish I would have had this training. I would have been a better person, but also a much better judge. better judge. I also remember you standing up in the House of Commons and giving a really impassioned speech about this at the time there was another case that came to light, this time in Halifax. Last week, a Halifax taxi driver was acquitted of sexual assault charges.

Last week, a Halifax taxi driver was acquitted of sexual assault charges. The circumstances are disturbing. And incredibly, the judge ruled that, quote, clearly a drunk can consent. And can you tell me about what happened in that case? Yeah, in that case, there was a young woman who was taking a cab home, trying to do the responsible thing from a party, taking the cab home. She was extremely inebriated in the back seat. And thank goodness, a police officer walked by and noticed something was going on in the cab home. She was extremely inebriated in the back seat. And thank goodness, a police officer walked by and noticed something was going on in the cab. Well, the cab driver had pulled her

forward in the seat, taken her pants down, and she was passed out, completely inebriated. And the judge ruled that she had consented. And of course, in law, how can you consent if you're not even present? I mean, she was completely inebriated and passed out. And I remember the quote that I think enraged a lot of people was clearly a drunk can consent. Right. Clearly. And you think clearly? It was so, again, a complete lack of understanding of what consent is. There's another recent case that I do want to talk to you about. There was recently a verdict in Calgary that centered around an allegation of gang rape.

One perpetrator, a minor, pleaded guilty before a judge in 2017, but the other two men involved went to trial, and they were found not guilty of sexual assault by a different judge. For those who haven't read about it, I know this is something you've been posting about on social media recently. Can you describe to me what happened in that case? This again is a perfect example of why training, traditional training, is so important. We had two different judges, there was a video and one judge said that this constituted, quote, a prolonged, brutal and vicious attack. And that in his opinion,

the video does not show one scintilla of consent, end quote. And this is the judge sentencing the youth that pleaded guilty. And then the other judge said he didn't believe that the girl didn't consent. And yet he found the one assailant guilty of sexual assault with a weapon because he didn't tell the victim that he was using a weapon to assault her. That's what he was guilty of. This is a very difficult detail to hear, but this was the introduction of a toothbrush, an electric toothbrush. So how could you have two judges that are quote-unquote trained in this area of law have two completely different understandings of what consent is? And so I say to myself, something is not right here.

So in the winter of 2017, when you introduced this bill, I know this goes back a long time for you, but I remember there were these two very high-profile cases, and there was a lot of bipartisan support in the House for this bill, and it passed the House. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Yes. Carry? Yes. Carried. And so what's happened since? Sure. And you're exactly right. It's,

you know, when you're in opposition, the government doesn't normally support what you do. In fact, they never do. So it was extremely positive that all of the leaders came on board. Thomas Mulcair was the leader of the NDP at the time. I sat down with him. He said, I'm there. I'm behind you 110 percent. I phoned Justin Trudeau. I said, this is a time to do this. And he said, I'm with you all the way. We need to make sure that we're doing a much better job than we are right now. And that's why I look forward for parliamentarians having an opportunity to discuss ways in which we're going to be able to improve it, including with the members' bill as it goes to committee. I mean, everyone was fantastic.

You know, I had MPs say to me, I've never had such an incredible experience in parliament working on something, because at the end of the day, we rarely get to work on things that are collaborative. And frankly, most of us go to parliament to do exactly that. So it was an extremely positive experience. And so off it sailed to the Senate and has sat there for 699 days. I move that the debate be adjourned. Honourable Senator Fraser moves seconded by Honourable Senator De Day that the remainder of the debate be sent to the next sitting of the Senate. Is it

your pleasure, Senators, to adopt the motion carried? And why? Why is it sat in the Senate so long? First, I suppose I should ask you the question, is that normal for a bill like this? No, it's not normal. In fact, I think it's unprecedented for a bill that has unanimous consent in the elected House of Commons to then sit in the Senate for 700 days. And first of all, you know, every bill gets its day. And so if the Senate decided they didn't like this bill, I suppose they could kill it. But every bill goes through the process. It's debated. It's voted on. It goes to committee. It comes out of committee. It's voted again. And let's say everyone voted against it and it would die. But that's not what's happened here.

For 18 months, it was blocked just in debate. Senators wouldn't even allow it to go to committee. So they would say they didn't like the bill. They think that judges don't need to be told what to do, that training is available and judges take enough training. I mean, you name it, that it was an overreach in the Me Too movement. And ironically, my bill was introduced before the Me Too movement. That's how long it's been.

And so I got it all, all these excuses. And I would say to them, well, if you do care about this in some fashion, we could at least get it to committee, have a conversation about it. Perhaps we need to amend it to make it stronger or better or different. And that's when I realized that they just don't care because they wouldn't even send it to committee for a discussion. Just because a bill has commendable goals, it does not mean that it is necessarily a good bill.

In this instance, not only do I believe that the bill's provisions fail to meet its stated purpose they risk being detrimental to our justice system i agree with the goal of the bill but i have some challenges what is in the bill and i'm sure this will be studied at committee we'll be back in a second We'll be back on a jog. The first 30 days of the Audible membership are free, including a free book. Go to www.audible.ca slash cbc to learn more.

So I want to talk about some of the criticisms of the bill just to get your response to that. But first, let's go over quickly exactly what's in it. You know, you mentioned before it would be training for judges, but for people who are applying to be judges, correct? That's correct. And what else would it include? It does three things. One, it mandates sexual assault law training, and that includes comprehensive training of consent, evidentiary issues, and then also it goes into ensuring that judges are trained in stereotype and bias

and rape mythology and everything that goes with that. And it does two other things. It mandates that sexual assault rulings are done in writing, as opposed to oral reasoning, which just kind of go into a vault. And to get them, you have to, even victims that want to have access to an oral ruling, have to apply for them, almost like it's like an ATIP process. You have to pay for it. And it can take, I know there's one case that's being investigated right now by journalists that they've waited two years just to get the ruling transcribed and released to them. So it's very hard to have any sense of accountability and transparency around

the rulings of judges in sexual assault cases. So this says, because of the nature of these cases, that they would be written. And then the other thing the bill does is the third thing. It mandates that the judicial council that oversees the training for judges release a report to Parliament each year that very simply explains the type of training that's available, the scope of the training, and who's taking it. So I want to talk about some of the criticisms of this bill. Two main ones. First, that this is a bill that would affect federal judges and that the majority of sexual assault cases are actually dealt with at the provincial level.

And so this bill wouldn't really do very much. That's the first main criticism. This means that action needs to be taken first and foremost at the provincial level. While I can appreciate that this is frustrating for us as federal legislators, this does not justify passing legislation that goes after the wrong target. And the second being that this could compromise judicial independence. And this is something that the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association has raised. What do you say to those criticisms? Sure. There's some credibility to those criticisms. And I mean, I could just completely dismiss them on the judicial independence front.

We have constitutional experts who have clearly said that this bill is constitutional. Having said that, it's more about in the case of naming judges or reporting on judges, there's a concern around judicial independence and how judges will be perceived, and that they're very sensitive about that. What my answer to that is, is if that's the case, then we could amend the bill. We could make it more general in that the Judicial Council doesn't necessarily name each judge, but it could potentially name the number of judges. It's not as transparent, but what that does continue to do is apply pressure because you could sense from looking at the numbers how many people, how many judges are taking the training. So there's a way through that. The issue of whether or not this

should be something the federal parliament does, I think is actually a red herring because a lot of provincial ministers have told me that they're watching this intently because they're thinking about doing the same thing and they're looking for a path forward that makes sense. The fact that the majority of the cases happen at the provincial level is true. Having said that, a signal from the federal parliament that this kind of training is important is extremely powerful. And in fact, I've had chief justices say that that is the signal that we need to send. So I say that.

I also say that if you're a judge and you never preside over a case like this, this will also make you a better human being, to be frank. A better human being and a better person that's a part of the judiciary. You know, I've seen you in other places say that the Senate is a group of old boys that want to protect another group of old boys. And this has got to stop. And so what do you mean by that? I mean, there's a group, a small group of people that I've identified that have been blocking this bill. And I can tell you the majority, if not all the women in the Senate, support this bill. But there's a group of powerful men who have blocked the bill, and they happen to be older.

That's just the Senate is an older cohort. But I say, I use that terminology because there are people that believe that the status quo is fine and that the way, old way of doing things all these years is fine and that it should continue to be that way. No one should question it. No one should demand different. And by doing that, they're protecting another group that is very much a group that's part of the establishment and it needs to show Canadians that they're willing to change and willing to move with the times.

And that's about creating confidence in our justice system. When we have one in three women in Canada that suffer sexual violence and yet only one in ten report it, that is a huge gap in terms of confidence in our system. And we know that two-thirds of victims say that they have no confidence in the courts. Well, we know why that is, because it's not just what happens when you go to the police and report, but the women that actually go through the entire process bravely and experience something in a courtroom where a judge is presiding over who should be handling these types of issues

appropriately. And then on top of that, in some of their rulings, some of the things that they say and do that affect victims so profoundly, these are the leaders in the judicial community. These are the people that should be the most trained and the most wise and setting a leadership example on these issues. And we're having examples of the opposite being true. Granted, there are incredible judges sitting on the bench that do a fantastic job in these cases. But we need all of them to be like that. What do you fear will happen should this bill not pass soon? Well, I fear it won't pass and we won't deal with this issue. And I got involved again. I mean, I retired from won't pass and we won't deal with this issue. And I got involved again.

I mean, I retired from politics two years ago. This isn't what I was hoping to do right now. But I just had good faith belief that the Senate would do its job. And then I started to ask a lot of deep questions. And I found out there's a small group of powerful men that are blocking this bill. And so I became active and we have a social media campaign. Please click on the link below and send a message to the Senate of Canada to pass Bill 337 and make sexual assault law training for judges a priority. If you go on my Facebook, you can see three senators to call,

and we can answer questions, potentially amend it if it needs to be amended, get it passed, and hopefully make a change in the way the system works so that we can create more confidence in our courts. And with that, hopefully, we'll have more victims feel comfortable coming forward. So that's what this is about. Ironically, it's about actually improving the system and creating more confidence in our justice system so that hopefully more women will feel comfortable disclosing. Rana, thank you so much. Thanks, Jamie. Great to talk to you. So we reached out to the chair of the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

for comment on why this bill just isn't moving. Senator Serge Joyal said the committee has been tied up with other business and gives priority to government legislation over private members' bills. He added that the committee would look at other bills, but that he's in no position to choose the bills that it studies. That's it for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks for listening to FrontBurner. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.

It's 2011 and the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy? Maybe. As her profile grows, so does the danger. The object of the email was, please read this while sitting down. It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Gay Girl Gone.

Available now.