Justice committee  I'm not sure that it would be successful, but it opens the door to that argument. Engaging in a pattern of conduct without reasonable cause where the pattern of conduct is defined to include sexually coercive conduct and violent conduct opens the door to arguments that engaging in that conduct could be done with reasonable cause.

Justice committee  As per my previous remarks, I think it would be highly unlikely to succeed, but it opens the door to that type of argument. That is why the reasonableness test is built in to the third category of conduct, which tries to identify and target more subtle forms of coercive conduct that aren't necessary criminal offences in and of themselves.

Justice committee  I think the concern you've raised is partially addressed by what I've already described in proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c), but it's also addressed in the clarified mental intent element. A person cannot be convicted of this offence unless they actually intended to cause a person to believe that their safety was threatened or were reckless as to that fact.

Justice committee  Thank you for the question. Government amendment G-2 is intended to address the concern that the accused should be able to avoid criminal liability if their conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. Specifically, it's because the proposed offence builds in a requirement that conduct that isn't criminal in and of itself must “reasonably be expected to cause”—

Justice committee  Yes. It's in proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c), which reads: engaging in any other conduct—including conduct listed in any of the following subparagraphs—if, in all the circumstances, the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe that the intimate partner’s safety, or the safety of a person known to them, is threatened It's built in.

Justice committee  I think you first need to go to the legal test that's in the third category of conduct, which is whether or not the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe their safety is threatened. The first analysis that a court would need to struggle with is the way in which that particular accused is seeking to control those forms of expression.

Justice committee  Some may say that you're also supposed to consider all of the circumstances of the offending, which does require an analysis of that particular context. The interpretive provision helps with that. It tells the criminal justice practitioner who's looking at that situation to look at the whole context of the offending to try to identify where a power imbalance is and where a position of vulnerability is.

Justice committee  Yes, you are correct.

Justice committee  It's important to remember that none of the conduct listed in that list can be considered prohibited conduct for the purposes of the offence unless it is considered, in all circumstances, to reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe their physical or psychological safety is threatened.

Justice committee  As I said in relation to the other question, none of that conduct can be prohibited conduct or considered coercive conduct for the purposes of this offence unless it meets the safety test. It has to be considered to be reasonably expected to cause the intimate partner to believe their physical or psychological safety is threatened.

Justice committee  Thank you, Chair. I'd be very pleased to give a technical overview of the various components of the proposed provisions in this amendment. This proposed coercive control offence would prohibit engaging in “a pattern of conduct”, which is the act element of the offence, with the intent to cause an accused's intimate partner to believe their physical or psychological safety is threatened, or being reckless as to whether their pattern of conduct could have this effect.

Justice committee  Yes, that is one of the appellate cases, but there are a number of them now not only in Ontario but also in Quebec and in B.C., and they all follow the Sinclair reasoning, so we know it is an objective test. The difference between what's in the code now and what is proposed by Bill S-224, including with the Bloc's proposed amendment, is the bill would change the legal test.

Justice committee  Well, that's true of the law right now. The appellate case law is quite clear that proof of actual fear isn't necessary. In fact, paragraph 15 of the Sinclair decision goes over a number of different factors that the courts ought to consider when determining whether the existing legal test is met.

Justice committee  Thank you, Chair. I do have a comment to make on both 2(a) and 2(b). But I thought I would just back up so that I can make sure that we're all on the same page. My reading of this amendment is that it would still replace the existing legal test, the existing definition for exploitation, with the one proposed by Bill S-224, which focuses on causing another person to provide labour or services through certain specific illicit means.

Status of Women committee  Justice Canada has a victims fund, and it has an ongoing annual allocation of $1 million available to victim-serving organizations delivering specialized supports and services for victims and survivors of human trafficking, so we do some of that funding. I would say, though, in relation to the substance of your concerns, that partnerships are incredibly important.