Justice Committee on Feb. 15th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 95 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 7, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to begin its study of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 15, 2023. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I can confirm that all sound tests have been done.

For the first hour, we have with us Laurel Collins, the member of Parliament for Victoria and sponsor of Bill C-332.

Welcome to the committee. You are the only witness for the first hour. You have five minutes to present, if you have opening remarks, and then we'll go to questions from members.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, colleagues, for inviting me to speak to my bill, Bill C-332. It would criminalize coercive and controlling behaviour.

I want to express my deep gratitude to the members of this committee for the work you've done on this file, and to members from all parties for your support for this bill. We have a responsibility as members of Parliament to tackle gender-based violence, to tackle intimate partner violence and to work to end femicide.

I also want to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. It's important to note as we go into these discussions that indigenous people are over-represented in our criminal justice system and that indigenous women experience gender-based violence at unprecedented rates. They are disproportionately impacted by gender-based violence, and I think we all have a responsibility to keep working to address the ongoing genocide faced by indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

Research shows that indigenous women, Black women, women of colour and 2SLGBTQ+ folks, people living with disabilities, people of lower incomes, newcomers and other marginalized groups are at higher risk of experiencing coercive and controlling behaviour. Providing paths for them to seek help and report and leave these situations is crucial if we want to support victims and survivors of intimate partner violence.

Fundamentally, this bill is about ensuring that the criminal justice system can better address domestic violence. We know that our current approach is not working. It does not adequately support victims and it doesn't adequately reflect how intimate partner violence actually occurs. This bill proposes to deal with patterns of behaviour. These patterns are ones that have a significant impact on a person in their relationship.

I spoke to the House about my personal connection to this bill. I witnessed my sister experience coercive and controlling behaviour and then physical intimate partner violence. I remember being so scared for her life. It would keep me up at night worrying.

As we're discussing this, I am thinking of Angie Sweeney from Sault Ste. Marie and the other victims who were killed by her boyfriend. They were children. I'm thinking about this past week in Manitoba and the woman, her children and her niece. I'm thinking about last month and the woman who was killed outside an elementary school. They could have been my sister, and they could, in the future, be your constituents or the people we know and love.

It is so important that we move this bill through the House quickly. Every six days, a woman in Canada dies from intimate partner violence. It's too much.

I urge this committee—and I believe in you—to do this work. I'm looking forward to the discussion. So much more needs to be done to tackle gender-based violence and intimate partner violence, and this is one important piece of the puzzle.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much for your comments.

We will now begin with our questioning. For six minutes, we have Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Collins, thank you for your appearance here at the justice committee and congratulations on getting a private member's bill to this stage. That doesn't happen every day.

I want to ask a question on a couple of things. Your bill applies to partners who are together— married, living together, dating—but also to those who are former partners and have been separated for less than two years. When we studied this issue, we heard about the particular vulnerability when they're under the same roof and that maybe there should be a time afterwards for this to come into effect.

What is the origin of the two years? What informed that decision? Why not one year or three years? How did you land on the two years?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks for the question.

You'll notice that this is a change from previous iterations of the bill that my amazing colleague, Mr. Garrison, put forward. I heard from frontline organizations that often the most dangerous time for people leaving these situations is the period when they are attempting to leave and afterwards.

We did go back and forth on how much time to put in and how to put this forward. We heard back from the research that was done around the U.K. bill that leaving out that time is a huge error.

I'm also thinking about my personal experience. It was when my sister was leaving that I was most scared for her life. That was when the violence escalated. We know that, especially for people who share children, there is a longer period of time when you are still entangled with your partner, so we wanted to make sure there was adequate time to cover that most dangerous period.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

On the term “dating partners”, this committee has looked fairly extensively on a couple of occasions at the issue of human trafficking and how coercive control can be a precursor to trafficking. Obviously human trafficking is something we all want to combat.

How do you see your bill tying into that issue, particularly? Do you see an interplay between the two issues?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That's a great question.

Human trafficking is a stain on our country and around the world. It is horrific. Honestly, this isn't something that I've looked into deeply, and I don't want to speculate on expanding the scope into an area where the bill wouldn't apply. I don't think I have adequate knowledge to answer your question.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Based on testimony we heard on trafficking, some of the issues your bill contemplates and the actions your bill would criminalize are oftentimes a precursor to an individual being trafficked when they're made completely dependent and isolated from family, friends, work and so on. It makes an individual vulnerable to that next step, but that next step hasn't perhaps taken place yet. I certainly do see a connection.

Sometimes in divorce proceedings, things obviously get very messy, unfortunately, with couples. Do you see any possibility that a threat of this charge will be weaponized in a divorce proceeding where the issue may or may not be there? Maybe it isn't there, but it's a threat. Does this introduce a new mechanism to make divorce proceedings even more adversarial? Do you see that at all?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

There's a lot of research into how the family court system has negatively impacted women, especially, as they're leaving abusive situations. Of course, abusive partners will try to use whatever tools they can.

One of the lessons learned that we've seen from the U.K. is that work needs to be done when it comes to educating prosecutors, judges, etc. One of the research studies looked at specific cases and saw some examples of this being used after the U.K. criminalized coercive control. What they found was that judges were able to tell the difference, at least in the cases they were looking at, but it was a small sample size.

In one example, there were back-and-forth accusations of coercive control from both partners, but one partner, the male partner, had been videotaping the woman for a year without her knowledge. He presented this as evidence to show her coercive and controlling behaviour, and the judge clearly saw that as an example of coercive control. He was able to identify it and rule in favour of the person who was the victim.

There were other examples in that case study showing people bringing forward accusations of coercive control and the rationale for denying them, with the ruling that it was being use as an attempt to continue to control the partner through family court proceedings.

It's really important that, as we implement this, people have the proper training and are aware of it, and not only judges, prosecutors and people in the criminal justice system, but also police officers. One of the other studies showed that after station-wide training, arrests around coercive control went up 41%. It is really critical at every level that we educate our criminal justice system about how this works.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Do I have time, or am I out of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

You are out of time.

We were enjoying the responses. Thank you very much for them.

I will now go to Mr. Mendicino.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Ms. Collins. Thank you very much for putting forward this private member's bill.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge your advocacy, especially in light of your own sister's lived experiences and in light of the many other racialized women and indigenous peoples who have been victims of the kinds of coercive control that I think your bill attempts to address. I want to express my gratitude to you for this work.

It does, indeed, build on a prior study of this committee, as I think you alluded to, which had a report called “The Shadow Pandemic: Stopping Coercive and Controlling Behaviour in Intimate Relationships”. I think the title speaks to the need for raising awareness, so if nothing else, you are doing exactly that.

I want to start by asking what the nature of your consultations were, particularly how your conversations went with women's groups and indigenous community organizations. How did those conversations inform the language and intent of this private member's bill?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much for the question.

I want to just quickly touch first on your opening remarks about awareness building and how important it is that, as we put this legislation through, the government also launch a campaign. I can't do that through a private member's bill. I can't spend money. It's really important for the government to do an awareness campaign around this. That is what the U.K. did once they passed the legislation. It's critical that victims, abusers and everyone in the criminal justice system know what this is and how it works.

To your question on the consultations, I want to again give a lot of credit to my colleague Mr. Garrison for his work. The first time I started engaging on this bill was alongside my colleague. We met with local organizations in the Victoria region. We met with folks who are in frontline organizations and transition houses, with organizations that work with newcomers, and with indigenous organizations. What we heard from every single one of them is that the criminal justice system isn't serving victims of intimate partner violence and that this is a much-needed change to our laws.

I remember a story from those initial consultations that I was involved in. It was about the prevalence of newcomers' experience of this kind of coercive control, especially when their partner has control of their immigration documents and passport and is the liaison and the person responsible for them being in Canada. I heard what kind of power that gives them over these newcomers, who are often women and racialized women, and how vital it is that we provide avenues for support.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I remember from my time as Minister of Immigration some of the conversations with settlement service organizations about the challenges of newcomers, especially women who found themselves under the thumb of an abusive partner or spouse, and the need to provide them with support and equip the law with the tools necessary to deter that kind of behaviour, which can have devastating impacts and long-lasting trauma as they settle.

Again, thank you, and thank you to Mr. Garrison, obviously, for the work.

I want to come to a more technical aspect, and that is the term itself: coercive and controlling behaviour. I understand that perhaps the genesis of that expression finds itself in other areas of the law, including in family law. I wonder if you could speak a bit to that.

I was a prosecutor before I got into politics. You alluded to this in answer to Mr. Moore's question on the need for training. This also aligns with the need for awareness, but can you speak to how you came to land on this term?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes. This appears in family law, as you mentioned, but really, this bill is modelled after the U.K. bill. Part of it is defining both how a person is connected and then the impact that coercive control has on the victim. Coercive control has now been criminalized in a number of areas—Scotland, the U.K. and France, and Australia is looking at it—so this is something we've seen around the world.

I think what's important in this definition is how we're defining what is a “significant impact”: causing a reasonable fear of violence more than once, causing a decline in “physical or mental health” or causing “alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse effect” on their daily activities. There is a list of potential ways that could include, but it's not limited to those.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

How am I doing on time, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

You have 15 seconds.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Okay. I'm going to yield the 15 seconds to my next colleague. I'll come back if I have other questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank my colleague Mr. Mendicino who was generous enough to give me his 15 seconds.

Good morning, Ms. Collins.

We're delighted to have you on the committee. You're right to mention that your colleague Mr. Garrison has worked hard on this issue, but please note that he's made us work very hard too, and it was with great pleasure.

I'll get straight to the heart of the matter. You listed a number of groups of individuals who could potentially be victims of controlling and coercive behaviour. You mentioned groups such as LGBTQ people, racialized and indigenous people, people with disabilities, and I am forgetting some. You listed a number of them.

Are you able to tell me how it is that these groups in particular are victims of controlling and coercive behaviour?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you for the question, and thank you for all the work that you and the committee have done on this file.

I think as we look at changing our Criminal Code, it's important that we look at how our intersecting identities are impacted by those changes and how they're impacted by our current criminal justice system. So many people face barriers within our society, and when it comes to coercive control, those barriers mean they have additional barriers to leaving those situations. You mentioned a few of them. We talked a bit about newcomers and about how passports, immigration documents and the process of gaining citizenship are additional barriers to leaving. They are also ways for a partner to exert coercive control.

When it comes to some of the other groups, such as people with disabilities, you can imagine the barriers those folks face in our society and how those barriers then create barriers to leaving. I think when we're talking about all of these marginal groups, whether it's 2SLGBTQI+ folks or racialized people of colour, oftentimes they also have barriers to income equality. Because financial dependence has such a huge role in keeping partners in situations that are often violent, we need to make sure we're looking at how all these identities intersect.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I don't doubt your word at all, I'm convinced that it's all rigorously accurate, but are there any statistics that indicate which groups of individuals are more likely to be victims of controlling and coercive behaviour?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I don't have the numbers on hand with me, but I'm happy to get back to the committee. There has been research done on how coercive control disproportionately impacts these groups in particular. I'm happy to follow up with some of that.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Collins.

The bill states: “Everyone commits an offence who repeatedly or continuously engages in controlling or coercive conduct towards a person with whom they are connected [...]” The connection is defined further on, but when it says "repeatedly or continuously engages", it's not really defined, and I wonder how far this definition should go.

Would someone who acted in such a way towards their partner for a few weeks and then corrected the situation be exempt from liability?

How many times must the behaviour be repeated, or how long must it be continuous? Are you able to clarify this a little?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks so much for the question.

You'll see in the definition that when it comes to causing a “reasonable” fear of violence, it specifies more than once—so two or more times. The idea of “repeatedly or continuously” was taken from the U.K. bill. The idea is that these are patterns of behaviour. The lived experience of people experiencing them is that they are repeated instances.

It's important that we look at the cumulative effect of intimate partner violence and coercive control, because that is how it's experienced and is often how it's reported as well. They may look small in their individual instances, but the repeated and continual nature of them is part of what makes them so severe in impact for the individual.