Family violence intervention court policy supported by government

James
James McLeod
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Last year’s cuts came because of money, not policy, Shea says

Based on an exchange in the legislature Wednesday, it looks like Justice Minister Darin King didn’t consult with any women’s groups before he decided to shut down the family violence intervention court last spring.

King refused to speak about the family violence intervention court Wednesday, as he sat in the legislature and ignored questions from New Democrat MHA Gerry Rogers.

In the interim, Joan Shea, minister responsible for the status of women, said the government shut down the court even though they think it’s basically a good idea to have a family violence intervention court.

“This government looked at the family violence court from a policy perspective and agreed with that policy,” Shea said.

“The decision to eliminate it or not continue it was a budgetary decision, Mr. Speaker, not because this government disagrees with the concept of a family violence intervention court.”

Rogers has been leading the crusade to get the family violence intervention court restarted ever since it was cut in the 2013 budget.

The court involved special handling and rehabilitative programs for people in domestic violence situations.

It cost the government  $529,000.

Rogers led off her time in question period by asking if the government consulted the Women’s Policy Office before cutting the court.

“The women’s policy office is who government turns to for direction on policy and program decisions affecting women,” Rogers said.

“Their primary focus is violence prevention addressing the needs of women who are victims of violence.”

Shea agreed that the Women’s Policy Office does good work.

“Any time there’s a decision that may or may not even affect women, we ask their opinion on that particular policy or policy move of government to ensure that we don’t miss that piece of work,” she said.

But because the decision to close the court wasn’t a policy issue — it was just about saving money — they didn’t need to consult.

“This government has said that the family violence court was an initiative that was brought in by this government and discontinued for budgetary reasons,” Shea said. “At no point did this government say that we disagreed with that particular policy, Mr. Speaker.”

Rogers tried a different tack: “I ask the minister, did he consult with the provincial advisory council on the status of women?”

Again, King refused to respond, and Shea stood up on his behalf.

“Unless the member doesn’t understand what I’m saying, the family violence intervention court was a budgetary decision as opposed to a reversal of policy for this particular government,” she said.

Rogers tried a third time: “Did the minister consult with his justice minister’s committee on violence against women who helped plan the family violence intervention court?”

Again, King didn’t respond, and again, Shea said that it wasn’t a matter of policy, just money.

 

jmcleod@thetelegram.com

Twitter: TelegramJames

Organizations: Policy Office

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • hslaw
    April 10, 2014 - 07:00

    I see Mr. King is needing someone to answer for him. Its ok He won't be in that position much longer and I guess Mr. Marshall Is proud that he has people like Ms. Shea to pick up the pieces Just like Mr. Williams had Ms. Dunderdale

  • J
    April 10, 2014 - 06:57

    Who is the minister responsible for the status of men?

  • Darlene
    April 10, 2014 - 05:44

    WOW...SO WHY IS DARREN KING THERE...HE CANT ANSWER QUESTIONS..HE ALSO THINKS THE PROVINCES BILLS ARE B EING PAID BY HIM...A BABBOON COULD DO A BETTER JOB THEN THESE BUNCH OF MONKEYS...ABC..CHEERS