Status of Women Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Sunder Singh]

Madam Chair, is that me? Are you giving me 15 seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Yes.

[Sunder Singh]

Again, I will reiterate that the educational program in the schools is very important. It has to start systematically, all over Canada. We may not see the changes within one year or so. It may take an entire generation, but we have to start somewhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much.

Emmanuella, with the Liberal party, you have six minutes.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to start by thanking all of our witnesses for being here today to inform us on this really critical issue.

I'll start with Ms. Pantazopoulos. You spoke a lot about the fact that coercive control should be criminalized, and you've said that before.

In order for it to be criminalized, and in order for judges to be able to use this in criminal court, they need to have a specific definition. I'm wondering if you can tell us what you would include in a definition of coercive control?

[Dimitra Pantazopoulos]

Coercive control is not a one-time thing; neither is domestic violence. For anybody, I guess you could be having a bad day, where you can raise your voice or something happens. With domestic violence it's not a one-time thing. It's not something bad happening. You never know what sets them off.

It's really a pattern that is daily. We victims, both the mothers and the children, are forced to.... Everything has to stay hidden, because if anybody finds out, God help you. He'll make it clear that if you do or say anything, “Oh, it's going to cost me $5,000,” meaning he would hire somebody to kill you. That's on top of the attempts on my life and my children's lives.

We have to put on a face and go out in public. When people come over, when we go to school or when we go out with everybody, we have that face on. We become experts at that. At the same time, we do that to protect ourselves, but the abuser also has a face. That's what the courts need to recognize.

As I wrote in my testimony, what is going on behind doors and what the public sees are two different things. The judges and all the social actors need to recognize that they are master manipulators. I'm going to quote something that one of my children testified to. There is the George who's at home, the George who's on vacation and the George who's in court, meaning at home he's the abuser, while on vacation he acts all nice. Even now, he has a donut shop. He donates donuts, sponsors nurses and doctors—he's Mr. Wonderful. In actuality, it's that double face. Judges need to recognize that just because he looks prim and proper in court...they are able to do that.

Meanwhile, while we're in court and being accused of parental alienation, and we're forced to self-represent, we're trembling, anxious and nervous, because we're forced right now to question and act as a lawyer when we have—pardon the expression—no idea what the hell we're doing. Judges need to recognize this.

It's not only about training, because no amount of training.... When I'm self-representing and I pick up a picture of clear abuse towards my son and show it to the judge, the judge's first instinct is to tell me that I could have downloaded that from the Internet. The father's hand is in the picture. Then the next thing to do is to remove my parental authority for travel and allow him to go anywhere. No amount of training is going to change the misogynistic views that some judges have. That's not only male judges; it's female judges too.

It seems to be that it's contact at all costs. I don't know where this foundation and ideology came from. Sure, it would be great if both parents had a right to their children. The children should be able to benefit from both parents.

However, if one is a clear danger, what are we showing these children, and how are they themselves going to become parents in the future? We're telling them, “The more you lie, the more you manipulate, the more you beat up on people, well, the courts are going to grant you everything.”

Coercive control has to be clearly defined. The actions have to be clearly defined as a pattern. It has to do with discrediting the mother. When they shut down your bank accounts and your email accounts and they have your insurance sent elsewhere, those are clear patterns.

There's no age limit for coercive control. There should be no statute of limitations, because we're scared to come forward for anything.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

I'd like to also extend it to Ms. Mattoo, if you'd just like to add what you would include in a definition.

[Deepa Mattoo]

Recognizing coercive control as abuse is crucial. What coercive control definitely does is strip survivors of their fundamental rights and freedoms. It is definitely the pattern of violence that makes it so unique.

I'm not for criminalizing coercive behaviour, because in my recommendations I've given many other recommendations that need to happen before we could get to the criminalization.

However, if there had to be a definition of coercive control, it does definitely need to include that web of coercive behaviours and the pattern of violence. Looking at the incident-based approach is very difficult to capture for the decision-makers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Andréanne Larouche.

You have six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you for your testimony this morning. It really demonstrates the magnitude of this epidemic. There's a reason why many cities are declaring domestic violence and violence against women an epidemic.

The thinking behind this study was the “Rebâtir la confiance” report tabled in Quebec following the recognition of femicide as the real scourge that it is. Quebec has made progress in some areas, but there's still much work to be done. It has made proposals. For example, it currently uses specialized courts. For example, in terms of training, which several witnesses mentioned, Quebec is trying something through courts that are more adapted to victims to minimize the possibility that they will be revictimized. Quebec is also testing electronic bracelets. We'll see what the results are, but Quebec has made progress in some areas.

However, the topic of this study comes from a discussion I had with a Quebec MLA who worked on the “Rebâtir la confiance” report. They told me their hands were currently tied because there's something that is outside of their scope for action. They found that coercive control was used in many cases of violence and femicide, but that it wasn't yet recognized in the Criminal Code. There's no way to explain that violence isn't always physical, but that it always hurts, and that there's a whole pattern associated with it. Control and manipulation have been noted in most femicide cases, but nothing can be done because it isn't recognized in the Criminal Code.

Since I see Ms. Pantazopoulos nodding, I'd like to ask her a question.

Why is it important to understand that coercive control and manipulation are a form of violence that is often invisible, and that it's dangerous to ignore the fact that violence more often manifests in this way?

[Dimitra Pantazopoulos]

There are a lot of things that need to come together. Coercive control needs to be criminalized, because it's not....

Let me go back. When the perpetrator doesn't allow you to leave the house, get a job, see your friends or family or pick up the phone when they call.... Because coercive control is not criminalized, the police will say they don't see any bruises. Somehow, people believe that in order for there to be abuse and domestic violence, you need to be black and blue, 24-7.

That's not the reality. The abuse exists 24-7; you're just not physically black and blue. You're black and blue emotionally and psychologically. Your heart, your soul and your children feel it.

All the actors need to come together. Yes, Quebec has come forward with “Rebâtir la confiance”, and Dr. Simon Lapierre was on the committee. They came forward. Yes, they did the electronic bracelets.

However, when youth protection has somehow been given this immense power, we file criminal charges, but somehow the police are rendered helpless and powerless because youth protection is saying that it's parental alienation and there has to be contact. They're saying that if there's no contact....

We're caught. If you don't leave your abuser, then you're not protecting your children. Youth protection will tell you that if you don't leave him, they're going to take your children because you're not protecting the children. Then, the moment you leave, you need to give contact. If you're not giving contact to the father, now you're alienating the father. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

There was an article in Le Journal de Montréal. I'm sure Andréanne must have seen it, because I send a lot of things to various people. They're called

the “directorate of abusive men”.

In English, that means the director, not of youth protection but of abusive men. That clearly defines exactly what they are and what they do.

All of the actors need to come together. We need to criminalize coercive control, because without it, what makes a man dangerous and able to end up killing his children or his wife is how controlling he is and not how many bruises he's given her. When they feel that they're missing this control, that's when they become.... There's no word to describe them, but that's when the ultimate danger is there.

As long as they're able to control you, fine. With me, he was able to physically get his hands on me and my children. The moment we separated, though, he had to become more creative. He brought in youth protection. He shut down accounts. Because he couldn't get his hands physically on me to hit me anymore, he had to become more....

Coercive control increases at separation. It's there while you're living with him, and he controls your every move, but when you separate, the coercive control increases and he involves all of his enablers.

Right now, by going to the Supreme Court, youth protection lost jurisdiction. There's no judgment that said there's no contact between my children and me. If I'm at an event and my children are there, and I try to go near them, he's going to send everybody else, all of the enablers, to block me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much for that.

Thank you, Andréanne.

Leah with the NDP, you have six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

First, I want to congratulate you, Andréanne, for putting this study forward. I know you've been waiting very patiently.

I would also like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. I know these are difficult discussions, and I want to honour that.

We're talking about coercive control. We know that with coercive control.... When we talk about abuse, often it's physical, but even in physical violence, probably the most violent part of it is coercive, isn't it? It's psychological. It's that belief of harm, that constant living in fear.

They have a couple of programs in Manitoba. I'm not sure if they still run. One program they run is For the Sake of the Children. It requires parents to attend in relation to not being toxic with their kids during times of separation, but the other thing they often require, particularly when there is more invisible violence, is psychological assessments of parents. The problem with that, however, is that it costs a lot of money. A psychological assessment costs about $6,000, and the parents are obliged to pay for it.

Within those psychological assessments, however, they're usually able to tell some of the things you're talking about that you can't see through questions, because they're experts.

Do you think there should be more services provided to individuals fleeing coercive control, such as paying for supports, including providing free psychological assessments to parents going through these ordeals?

[Dimitra Pantazopoulos]

That would be great, but the people doing the psychological assessments need to be experts on domestic violence. In my situation, there were two psychological assessments done where the abuse was completely ignored and it was deemed parental alienation.

The assessments are done by these so-called “parental alienation experts”, which is why it goes back to parental alienation accusations being a form of continuation of coercion and abuse. In order for victims to be truly helped, it's not only about giving us free psychological assessments. Using the concept of parental alienation needs to be prohibited. Coercive control needs to be criminalized. They need to understand that unless the laws are strong enough, there's no way we can protect our children and ourselves. It's not a matter of whether it's free.

Even with shelters, who came up with the idea of the woman having to pack up her things and leave the home? Think about the realities of this. We're supposed to pick up a bag, throw a couple of our children's belongings in there, and leave, while he stays home, king of the castle.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, I appreciate that. Certainly, we've spoken about that in committee with a frequent witness, Mitch Bourbonniere, who talks about reversing that so that the family gets to stay home.

My question is for Sunder Singh. You spoke a lot about income. I'm putting forward a bill—actually, I'm starting debate on second reading tomorrow—for a guaranteed livable basic income. Much of what you spoke about was financial, even in terms of sex trafficking. I'm putting forward a bill in support of a guaranteed livable basic income, with the national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in mind in particular, but also providing women who are being economically abused—as we've heard about in the committee—with the financial ability to have a choice.

I'm wondering if you support putting in a guaranteed livable basic income to support keeping families and victims of violence safe or keeping people safer from being sex-trafficked. That includes a number of migrant workers, as we've heard of in former studies, because they're financially beholden to employers.

[Sunder Singh]

Absolutely, I support financial support for families and young people who are fighting for financial stability. I absolutely support that, for sure, but what I want to bring to the attention of the federal government is that we all realize that there's a lack of skilled trades in this country, so when there are opportunities for young people to get into developing certain skills, the federal government needs to intervene and provide support, so that, once they become skilled trade workers, they become financially very stable as well.

I certainly will support you, Leah, for—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's income supports and opportunities for training—a combination of the two.

[Sunder Singh]

Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you for that.

I begin the second round. Anna, with the Conservatives, you have five minutes.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses.

This is a very important study, and I appreciate all your input because it helps us understand the recommendations we need to put forward to make sure that addressing coercive control is something that is top priority for all women.

I'm going to start with Sunder Singh.

I congratulate you on EHCW. I know that the foundation was started in September 1992. You and I have had many conversations. In the statement of the client's rights on your website, there are eight points, and point number one really resonates with me. It is, “Be treated with dignity, courtesy, respect and fairness”.

I know we've had these conversations before about Canada as a hub for human trafficking. I recently got an update from Timea Nagy, whom we both know, that human trafficking is a business of $362 billion U.S. per year. Some of the things you mentioned were mental health resources, foster home, education.... I agree with that, but in order for us to protect our children and make sure that this situation is put to an immediate stop, we have to change the law. I believe we have to include in that law “torture”, because it is torture. What these perpetrators and pimps, or whatever you want to call them, are doing is torture. Do you agree with that?

[Sunder Singh]

I certainly do. It's torture. It's the emotional murder of the children. How can they become future leaders? We send our children to schools to learn to become leaders, but these perpetrators pull these innocent children out of the system and society and kill them emotionally. It has to stop.

These perpetrators, when they're caught, are sent to prison, but in a few years' time they're back again in the mainstream of society, starting the same criminal activity all over again. This has to stop. Once the perpetrators are caught, they should be imprisoned for a lifetime. Unless the laws are stricter, the problem will not go away.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

One thing that really resonated with me was this. How can we change that law? Can we include a law that keeps these perpetrators behind bars and protects victims?

A lot of times we've heard in this committee that victims are afraid to come forward, because their families are basically being terrorized with, “If you go to court and testify, we will kill your family.”

Would you agree that if we could get the law changed from a 14-year maximum sentence to 25 years...?

Let's be honest. A lot of these perpetrators, as you've just stated and have spoken to me about as well, have come out and started all over again. That's because they know the sentence doesn't match the crime. Would you agree with that?

[Sunder Singh]

I certainly would, MP Roberts. Yes. The laws have to become stricter. The punishments have to become harder for the perpetrators.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

You mentioned foster care, in that we have to be more diligent when we place young children in foster care.

As you know, because you and I have had this conversation, I was a child of foster care. I would agree with you that we have to make sure these children are safe.

One thing I learned during my time in foster care was that they don't really do their research before they place children in foster care.

How can we make that change? What recommendation do you have?

[Sunder Singh]

Listening to the witnesses today who are facing domestic violence and the problem that is in society, we need to understand that the mothers who report abuse have to be protected and should still be given the authority to look after their children. The children should not be going into the care of another system, where files are created and then the children are put into foster homes as quickly as possible for care.

What we are actually doing is throwing the children from the frying pan into the fire. We all know in Canada that foster homes are the breeding ground for human trafficking.

It has to stop.