Evidence of meeting #95 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was control.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you.
I want to end by giving my personal thanks to you, Laurel, for being such a great colleague in our work on this together and for taking this bill forward.
I also want to acknowledge that staff in both of our offices have spent a lot of time talking with people suffering from trauma as a result of controlling behaviour, so thanks to our staff.
Maybe you have something to say.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I want to echo what an honour it has been to work with you on this and offer my extreme gratitude for your dedication to this file. I also thank our staff. It's really hard work. It's speaking to survivors and listening to the traumatic experiences. My deep gratitude goes to them and to all frontline organizations.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.
Ms. Collins, thank you very much for appearing and giving us your testimony.
I was going to ask whether you wanted to end with anything and what you would tell this committee and the public, but I believe you answered that with Mr. Garrison's last question.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Quickly, I'll express my deep gratitude to survivors. I've had so many one-on-one conversations with survivors of intimate partner violence. Their courage and willingness to share their stories, even though that often comes with a lot of risk and danger, are inspiring, and we have a responsibility to do justice to the work they've done.
Thank you.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you very much.
We will suspend for a few minutes. We have two witnesses for our next panel. One has already been tested, and we'll test the second one. Both are appearing virtually.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
We're back.
Welcome to our second hour.
We welcome, by videoconference and as an individual, Carmen Gill, professor, Department of Sociology, University of New Brunswick.
We also have by video conference, from the Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society, Andrea Silverstone, chief executive officer.
Welcome.
You have five minutes to make your presentations, which will be followed by questions from committee members.
Professor Gill, please start with your five minutes.
9:15 a.m.
Professor Carmen Gill Professor, Department of Sociology, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to participate in this meeting on Bill C-332.
I recognize and respectfully acknowledge that I am speaking from the unceded traditional land of the Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick.
My research focuses on the police response to IPV, especially on coercive control. As such, I have conducted surveys with police officers on their perception of IPV and coercive control in New Brunswick but also across Canada. I have been able to hear a lot about how they view this particular issue and about the lack of response from different parts of the country.
We know that intimate partner violence is multi-dimensional in nature and encompasses numerous forms of violence. IPV is, unfortunately, seen as a one-time event, and we're failing to address the complexity of the issue involving repetitive tactics used by the abuser, which will include exploitation, manipulation, isolation and the micro-regulation of daily life, otherwise known as coercive control.
Violent behaviour does not necessarily involve physical violence or a single incident, but we really need to focus on the repeated and continuous patterns of behaviour that occur over a lengthy period of time. Regardless of when the violence starts and what it looks like, it is the abuser's way of maintaining control over his partner.
Since the Canadian criminal justice system primarily places emphasis on evidence of physical violence, first responders are to find evidence of such violence. Consequently, there is a neglect to question the context of the abuse and the harm caused within these situations, which results in coercive control being unaddressed or dismissed. It is almost impossible for a police officer to recognize the deprivation of rights to freedom, the obstruction of liberty and the dynamic of power and control when they are intervening.
The recognition of coercive control as an offence would finally be a recognition that power and control over an intimate partner is a crime against the person. This would allow those caught in abusive relationships to report when they are experiencing abuse, even if it's not physical violence. Increasing the ability of the criminal justice system to respond to the pattern of violence of non-physical forms will lead the police response to be less incident-focused and will reduce the misidentification of the victim-survivor as a primary aggressor.
Too often, victims of violence will not seek help because they believe that what they're experiencing is not serious enough. However, when they do, they are not taken seriously as it is difficult to determine how violence is occurring. It is important to reinforce women's safety, and it requires the state to assume responsibility for responding to coercive control, which we are currently failing to address. An offence of coercive control would clearly recognize the fact that IPV is a pattern of control and power over the victim and would legitimize victims' experiences. Such an offence may also prevent intimate partner homicide.
Of course, it is important to keep in mind that any changes in legislation have unintended consequences. However, they can be overcome with awareness, training and better knowledge of the issue. When considering the impact of the potential coercive control offence, it is imperative that its adoption and implementation be done in conjunction with the development of, for instance, risk assessment and training for frontline responders especially, such as police officers, who are responsible for making the determination of IPV as a crime. Of course, all judicial actors should be more aware of this particular issue.
Having said that, it is important to review Bill C-332 to ensure that it is as clear as possible. I may have some suggestions regarding the wording of the amendment, especially regarding the definition of “intimate partner” or the limitation of the two years post-separation, just to name a few.
Thank you.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you very much.
We will now move to our next witness, Madam Silverstone, for five minutes.
9:20 a.m.
Andrea Silverstone Chief Executive Officer, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society
Thank you very much.
As the CEO of Sagesse, which is an Alberta-based domestic abuse prevention and intervention organization, I've seen first-hand in thousands of cases the severe impact of domestic violence. All too often we see it in the media, like in the murder of five people, including three children, in Manitoba this past weekend, or the murder of a mother in Calgary after she dropped off her children at preschool. I see this overwhelming reality summarized in devastating detail in my work with the Canadian Femicide Observatory, and in many of these cases—in most of these cases—I see the heavy toll of coercive control.
At its heart, coercive control is a pattern of behaviour that removes personal agency. The victim cannot make decisions in their own best interests because they fear the repercussions from the person who's controlling them. The control is often low level and cumulative so the person experiencing it doubts themselves or that they are even experiencing abuse. This lack of understanding carries over to the people around them, who don't recognize the abuse as domestic abuse but gradually see the relationship they have with their loved ones erode.
If the victim recognizes that it is coercive control, there is about a 20% chance they will call the police, but even if they do, they find out that the abuse they're experiencing is not illegal and the justice system cannot protect them. The police can listen but they can't act. This lack of support comes at a time when support is most critical. Relationships involving coercive control have more frequent and severe violence that's less likely to desist. It's one of the best indicators of lethality. This increased danger makes legal intervention imperative.
Through pursuing my masters and now a doctorate in coercive control and in looking at promising practices from around the world, I know that criminalizing coercive control is a game-changer. When the justice system in the U.K. changed their working definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control, calls to the police went up by 31%. All of a sudden, victims believed they were going to be heard and that the abuse they were experiencing would be addressed by the police and, by extension, the courts.
We can similarly change that trajectory for victims of abuse in Canada. Ninety-five per cent of abusive relationships include coercive control. If the police and the justice system can address coercive control criminally, then they can intervene to interrupt the escalation and frequency of abuse.
This law would do more, though, than just change our justice system. It would change how society views domestic abuse. It would foster a discourse through which all Canadians would understand that violence is much more than a black eye or a broken bone and that people stay in violent relationships because of the loss of their personal agency. It would destigmatize domestic abuse and allow us as a society to do a better job of addressing it.
Last, it would decrease the long-term burden on our health and justice systems, as the reality is that violence is very expensive. Back in 2009, the Government of Canada estimated the annual cost of domestic abuse to be $7.4 billion a year, which is about $220 per Canadian. This cost has no doubt escalated with normal inflation and increasing costs of the basics, like housing for those who are fleeing abuse.
For these and many other reasons, we support Bill C-332 as an essential measure to safeguard the rights to life, liberty and security of the person, as outlined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, this bill is not a magic wand that would immediately end the epidemic of domestic abuse. This law, like all laws, has its limitations.
First, the two-year time limit post-relationship is detailed in proposed paragraph 264.01(3)(c). Coercive control may continue far after the relationship ends, particularly in the case of tactics that use the legal system to control.
Second, the experiences of children aren't explicitly recognized and are only considered through the lens of harm done to the parent. On the other hand, for example, the domestic abuse bill in Scotland includes measures of aggravation in relation to a child.
Last, this law would not fix the structural issues that impact the provision of justice to equity-deserving groups. However, research on the application of coercive control laws in other jurisdictions can address many of these concerns. In a study of specific cases prosecuted under the coercive control legislation in the United Kingdom, Evan Stark noted that the law “was being correctly applied to historical patterns of abuse that included multiple elements of coercion and control”.
Research by Andy Myhill and others shows that if police are provided with screening tools that help ascertain the measures of control, the effect of the legislation in preventing domestic abuse across a plethora of groups is greatly enhanced. This means that to be effective, this law must be coupled with funding and a plan for training police, judges and Crown prosecutors to better understand coercive control. Organizations like mine, Sagesse, can help with that.
I want to close by thanking you for inviting me here today and for your careful consideration of this law. I think it's time to listen to the millions of Canadians who are impacted and to act immediately to protect them.
Thank you.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you very much.
We will start with our first round of questioning with six minutes for Mr. Caputo.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Professor Gill and Madam Silverstone, for being here and sharing your expertise. Intimate partner violence is an area that we don't realize spans all socio-economic groups.
One thing I want to ask you about is quite germane to the bill. It's really two parts to the same question.
Could the two of you comment on how quickly relationships begin when there is coercive control? My experience is that often when relationships begin, they begin quite intensely and coercive control can occur literally within weeks. I want to make sure the legislation captures that. I'd like your opinion on that. Also, conversely, how quickly does the coercive control set in?
I imagine that's going to take up most of my time, but I'd like your comments on that, please.
9:25 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society
Carmen, would you like to answer that first?
9:25 a.m.
Prof. Carmen Gill
I can.
It's really insidious because with the way it starts, it's seen mostly as something very positive. The person is going to be really aware of the other. They'll want to do things with them. It quickly spirals into more controlling behaviour, but at first it can be seen as people being so in love. It's seen as completely normal, but it's not necessarily going to take long before you start seeing some controlling behaviour, which is going to be presented as, “I'm just aware. I really want to take care of you.”
There's not necessarily a time limit before we start seeing a pattern in place. We're not talking about tomorrow, but within the few weeks of the beginning of the relationship, there are warning signs, especially when the person starts to tell you that they love you within two weeks, that they are ready to marry you within a month and a half and that they are willing to move forward with certain ways of living or are starting to ask for certain things. You can be deeply in love and you start giving money, sharing your car or having your boyfriend or girlfriend decide to move in within two months. This is where you're going to start seeing some controlling behaviour.
If you look back at what Jane Monckton Smith has developed as a timeline for homicide in a relationship, it's going to start with something pretty normal—you think you've found someone who really cares about you. Then there will be an escalation and it's going to go to the next step. The next step is to show that you care so much, but this form of caring is in fact a way of trapping someone in a web and it just spirals.
9:30 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society
I want to add the experience of some of the clients we've worked with as examples.
As Carmen was talking, I was reflecting on a client we had who talked about the first time she went out for dinner with the person who ended up being her husband. He said to her, “Maybe you want to order this.” The next time they went out, he ordered for her. The time after that, he told her exactly what she should eat and what she should wear. The time after that, when she got into the car, he made her go back and change.
One of the analogies we use is a frog in boiling water: They don't realize until the water is boiling. All of a sudden she found herself in a situation of being married to him and he was controlling every single aspect of her life. He had isolated her from her friends, but it happened in small, incremental steps until she was fully in that situation.
The other thing I want to note is that coercive control—and I think Laurel Collins talked about this—is very much about the experience of the individual. For some individuals, if their partner is ordering food for them, it doesn't feel like control. It feels like a choice they're making because that's what they want. However, if they're afraid that if they order the food themselves there will be repercussions later because they're fearful that there's going to be force involved or something like that, that's when it becomes coercive control.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you.
I noted, Professor Gill, that you spoke about the fact that intimate partner violence isn't always taken seriously. One of my experiences is that this stretches to no-contact orders. I'm not sure, but is that so? I see you both nodding. Perhaps one of you can address that. To me, no-contact orders must be respected and must be enforced.
In 20 seconds, Professor Gill, do you want to comment on that?
9:30 a.m.
Prof. Carmen Gill
Absolutely, and thank you for the question.
No-contact orders of course should be enforced, but we have to remember that a no-contact order is just a piece of paper. It does not necessarily prevent contact or make sure the victim is really safe, but at least there is a trace that there's something from the criminal justice system that tells us the person should not be in contact with that person. However, we need to respond very quickly when a person decides to breach the no-contact order, and it has to be taken very seriously.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you for that.
I will now go to Mr. Housefather for his questioning.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Ms. Gill and Ms. Silverstone, for being before us today.
I want to concentrate on amendments that you propose to the legislation.
I would like to start by the definition of who would be covered by the legislation under proposed subsection 264.01(3). Basically, in order to be covered by the legislation as I see it, you need to be “current spouses, common-law partners or dating partners”. Dating partners are confined to be people “who have agreed to marry each other”. Otherwise, you have to live in the same household.
If you've been dating for a period of five or seven years, you don't live in the same household and you haven't agreed to marry each other, you may very well have coercive control issues but you're not, as I see it, covered under this legislation. I'm wondering if each of you could comment on that and maybe suggest whether you think that's sufficient.
9:30 a.m.
Prof. Carmen Gill
I can answer. Thank you for the question.
This is something I was also looking at in the amendment. With the fact that we are already defining “intimate partner” in section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I think we could refer to this section in the definition of this particular amendment.
I had a problem with “dating partners” and “two persons who have agreed to marry each other”. I find that this is—I'm sorry—a bit backwards. People aren't necessarily going to get married. They are dating. They are in a relationship. More often, we are seeing people dating who are not living together. This is almost the new norm. People are not getting married. I will speak about Quebec, because a lot of people in Quebec are not getting married. The “dating” is a bit awkward to me.
Opening the door to dating partners could open the door to other forms of partnership, like people who are caught in human trafficking and are in a dating relationship. I've been talking about human trafficking to judges and saying that a lot of people who are trafficked are in dating relationships and are thinking the person is their boyfriend, but they're not. That could open the door for this. I would definitely want to see something a little broader for the definition or go back to section 2.
There was also the limitation of the two years post-separation. Research is telling us that the control and tracking of the victim goes well beyond the two years of separation. I think it's important to note that post-separation is very important, but let's maybe not limit this to two years or less, because I've seen cases where the victim has been controlled well beyond the two years.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much.
Could I get Ms. Silverstone to weigh in on that as well if she has any additional comments?
9:35 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society
I absolutely agree with everything that Carmen said.
In addition, I just want to note, in regard to sexual exploitation, that we wrote a paper for the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, and we heard—it was actually my master's thesis—very clearly from victims of sexual exploitation that what they were experiencing is coercive control and that the relationship they had was often with their pimp or the person who was grooming them for sexual purposes. Often, it's in some sort of relationship, although it's not defined by any of the things we're currently seeing in this piece of legislation.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
For the last two minutes, because we didn't get your written submissions—at least I haven't seen them yet—could you, starting with Ms. Gill, go over what your other proposed amendments would be? Perhaps you can give me the top two proposed amendments you would have to the bill, besides what we just discussed.
9:35 a.m.
Prof. Carmen Gill
I forgot about children. If we're talking about the definition and who this particular amendment encompasses, I think I would expand the definition of those who are in situations of coercive control. I would open this as well to include children and other family members, who also represent victims of coercive control. This is one element.
The other thing is that we could potentially be a bit more specific about “significant impact”. If we want to keep it there, I think there's a chance we could revictimize the victim if we are looking for a significant impact of a particular behaviour.
If we decide to keep the part about significant impact as it is, I would recommend including in the amendment a non-exhaustive list of examples. Honestly, I would add a non-exhaustive list of coercive control behaviours to this particular legislation. At least it would give judicial actors an understanding of some of the behaviours that are going to be encompassed in this particular offence.