Bill C-332

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of exercising coercive control of an intimate partner by engaging in a pattern of conduct that consists of any combination, or any repeated instances, of any of the following acts: using, attempting to use or threatening to use violence against certain persons, coercing or attempting to coerce the intimate partner to engage in sexual activity or engaging in other conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe that their safety, or the safety of a person known to them, is threatened.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Justice and Human Rights

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, controlling or coercive conduct.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

No, I won't.

I want to thank the minister for his very clear presentation on Bill C-63.

I want to add two things to this discussion. One is that the loudest voices on this bill often do not include those who are most likely to be subjected to hate crime campaigns. When it comes before this committee, I'm looking forward to a diversity of witnesses who can talk about the real-world impacts that online hate has. We've seen it again and again. It's often well organized.

I stood outside the House of Commons and defended the rights of trans kids. Within one day, I had 700 emails with the same defamatory and hateful two-word phrase used to describe me. I am a privileged person. I have a staff. I have all the resources and support I need. However, when you think about what happens to trans kids and their families when they are subjected to these online hate crimes, it has very real consequences.

I'm looking forward to us being able to hear from diverse voices and, in particular, those who are most impacted. I know this is not really a question to you at this point.

We have other important work we've been doing in this committee. I want to turn to Bill C-332, which just passed this committee and was sent back to the House. This is the bill on controlling and coercive behaviour. This committee has been dealing with this topic for more than three years. One of the things that we quite clearly said was that the passage of this bill is a tool for dealing with the epidemic of intimate partner violence, but it's not the only tool.

I guess I'm asking two things here.

What other plans does the Department of Justice have to provide the necessary and associated supports for survivors of intimate partner violence?

What plans are there to do the educational work that will be necessary?

The bill says it will be proclaimed at a time chosen by cabinet. I'm assuming there will be a plan to get ready for this. I'm interested in what's going to happen with that plan. It has unanimous support, so I don't think it's premature to be asking about this at this point.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you for that.

I guess the question we have to ask ourselves—and I'm glad Mr. Fortin raised this particular one—is this: Should we as a committee, based on just this meeting today—not based on Bill C-332 and not based any of the witnesses who appeared before us at committee—make the conscious decision that in Canada, from now on, if you threaten multiple times to kill yourself, that's a criminal offence? That's what we're doing here.

It could be that we'd hear enough testimony from different groups that would lead us to the conclusion that, yes, there is a way this could be incorporated. The problem is that we around this table have not heard that. I do think, by a plain reading of this legislation, that this part and some of the others are quite troubling. Again, this is not a reflection on our witnesses. It's more directed to the government. The whole approach of introducing a bill that we haven't had....

I heard what Mr. Garrison said. Yes, we heard general testimony about Bill C-332, but we have not had the chance to ask anyone about any of these specific provisions. For example, I would like to have witnesses here to ask them about each one of the itemized new non-criminal offences that through this bill would now become criminal.

I'm just raising that last point to reiterate that, at this point, unless there are people here who will enlighten us through more testimony on each one of these provisions, I will have to vote against G-2 and support the language we've already considered and already had witness testimony on, which is in proposed subsection 264.01(1) of Bill C-332. I did not hear witnesses say that we had that wrong and that this bill won't be helpful. We heard some testimony that said there are models that itemize some things, but threatening to die by suicide was never suggested at this committee. Words matter. By the testimony of our witnesses here today, this is criminalizing non-criminal behaviour in the context of coercive control. Obviously, we have to be very careful about what gets added to that list.

This is just one thing that's been flagged. I don't see how we could be ready to proceed with G-2 on that basis alone.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To expand on that a bit, here's the problem.

Madam Levman, you've mentioned that the government heard about this particular aspect. I can tell you that I don't remember hearing that in the witness testimony we heard. I'm not doubting that you heard it. Maybe someone did. Maybe someone at the table can correct me on whether this became a theme from the witness testimony we had on Bill C-332, but it's introducing an element to us.

I want to just clarify one point. You mentioned, Ms. Levman, that this would have to be a pattern. There's nothing in my reading of this legislation that suggests the pattern of behaviour has to include multiples of these elements.

Your testimony was that a pattern is at least twice, so my reading of this bill—and I'm going to call it a new bill, Bill G-2—is that “Everyone commits an offence who engages in a pattern”—which means two or more—“of conduct referred to in subsection (2)” and “being reckless as to whether that pattern could cause their intimate partner to believe that the intimate partner’s safety is threatened” and a bunch of terms in there that could be broadly interpreted.... If we then go to the items of conduct referred to in proposed subsection 264.01(2), they include, if we go all the way down, proposed subparagraph 264.01(2)(c)(vii), for example. I'll use this one because it's the one Mr. Fortin was talking about, but I could use others from this list. It reads, “threatening to die by suicide”.

That tells me that if someone threatens twice to kill themselves, maybe because they're in a fight with their spouse or intimate partner and they're arguing back and forth over something—it could be anything.... Let's say the person says, “Well, I'm just going to kill myself and end this”, and then a couple of weeks later there's a fight over something different and they say it again. The testimony we've heard today is that by doing twice, it's a pattern. It's a pattern of non-criminal behaviour, because that's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about criminal behaviour. We're talking about non-criminal behaviour that, by virtue of it being a pattern and falling under this legislation, is now criminal behaviour because this is in the Criminal Code. Through their doing these non-criminal things in a pattern, we, with this bill, are criminalizing them, which means we have to be very careful.

In the Criminal Code, there are criminal thresholds around evidence and the things we choose to include, as Canadians, as criminal. There are then a bunch of items in here that, per your testimony, are not criminal. Threatening to kill yourself is not criminal. By including it in this list, we are criminalizing it in the context of coercive control. We're making that decision without hearing any testimony about it.

You mentioned that the scenario I described would not be criminal because it would have to involve some of the others, but to be clear, my reading of this is that nowhere in the legislation does it say you have to do any multiples of these things. It could be the same offence, for example, around finances, access to health services or threatening to die by suicide. The same offence—a pattern of that—could be captured under controlling behaviour. We don't have to have multiples.

Is that correct? Nowhere in the bill does it say it has to be more than one of these things.

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

Madam Chair, I have a problem with that. We all understand that we're creating new law. But this is not a civil matter. We're talking about convicting someone of an indictable offence and sending them to prison.

I was prepared to vote in favour of Bill C‑332. We've heard a lot of testimony about individuals who try to wrongly control their partner. I find these behaviours appalling, and I think they should be punished by the Criminal Code.

That said, the list being introduced here is different from what was in Bill C‑332. I feel like I'm repeating a bit of what our colleague, Mr. Moore, was saying earlier, and I don't want to speak for no reason. However, paragraph 264.01(2)(c) says “engaging in any other conduct — including conduct listed in any of the following subparagraphs”. Those provisions will be used to determine whether a situation exists that must be penalized. The list that follows this provision is so long that an individual who tells their partner that they'll commit suicide if the partner doesn't go on vacation with them, for example, could be charged with attempting to control that person and be sent to prison.

We've already heard from a number of expert witnesses, but if they came back to talk to us about this element, they might be able to convince me. I'm among those who are convinced that controlling and coercive behaviour is senseless and is a problem that needs to be addressed. Perhaps everyone here is convinced of that. However, I'm very concerned about the list in this new wording. We have a very important decision to make here. We're changing criminal law and creating new offences. Our role is to legislate. In that sense, we must be prudent, but I feel that we really aren't being prudent.

I believe in the good faith of today's witnesses and of the government, of course, but I'm very concerned when I see this kind of wording and I don't have the opportunity to find out more from the experts who work with victims of controlling and coercive behaviour and with perpetrators every day. We have to look at both sides. We have be prudent and diligent. Right now, I feel we're rushing things, and I cannot condone that.

Nobody has been able to give me a single example in which a person could be convicted of controlling and coercive behaviour because they threatened to commit suicide or self-harm.

If no such example comes to mind as we're creating this legislation, then what will the courts end up doing with it? It's not reasonable for us to proceed like this.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Chair, the more I listen, the more frustrating this whole process is, and I'll tell you why.

G-2 is not an amendment to this bill. G-2 is an entirely new bill.

Backing up a bit, in April 2021, this committee agreed that the government should act on controlling and coercive behaviour, including in the Criminal Code. MP Collins, an NDP member, and Mr. Garrison brought forward Bill C-332. We have had three days of witness testimony on Bill C-332. Members of this committee took hours of time to develop amendments to Bill C-332, including us. We have an amendment to increase from two years to five years the time period whereby someone could reflect upon a relationship and achieve a conviction under this legislation. That was based on testimony we heard on Bill C-332.

We have not heard one moment of testimony on G-2. We haven't had the ability to have a witness appear and say, “I agree with clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4; I don't agree with clause 5.” G-2 has never been put to them.

When you look at Bill C-332 and G-2, the amendment is longer than the bill itself. The bill is fewer than three pages and the amendment is three full pages. Mr. Fortin is, rightly, trying to reformulate amendments on the fly, as all of us are, based on what is before us. That's not the way we're supposed to proceed. We have one amendment that wipes out all of our other amendments and wipes out all the consideration we heard on this bill.

For my part, I will be voting against G-2. I'm going to vote in favour of Mr. Fortin's amendment once we figure out that it should only apply to non-criminal actions. It's taking us forever to get there because of how this whole process is unfolding. I think that if the government wanted to bring in their own bill, they should have brought it in. Then we could have heard expert witnesses on that bill instead of bringing in their bill through an amendment to a private member's bill that we've spent all this time considering.

For example, with amendment G-2, based on the testimony I'm hearing from our witnesses—and this is not a reflection at all on our witnesses; they're here to present what the government amendment is and are doing a fantastic job of it—a pattern of behaviour or conduct can be two times. Based on the testimony we've heard, a number of items in this are non-criminal in nature. My interpretation of this is that if someone in a relationship does something twice that is non-criminal, if proof of fear is not required and if that person is the vulnerable individual in a relationship, then we can have criminal action.

It's so easy to contemplate scenarios under here where the threat of criminal action or a criminal charge could be brought. I think Ms. Gladu mentioned one. I see this all the time in relationships. One person says, “I'm not taking my medicine,” and the other says, “The doctor prescribed you this heart medicine; we're not leaving the house until you take your medicine.” The first person says, “Well, I'm tired of this. I'm tired of the way this has been going. I'm not taking my heart medicine.” The other person says, “Well, we're not going anywhere until you take your pills.” If you think that doesn't happen a million times over in Canada, it does. The evidence we have here might be that this wouldn't be captured, but that's exactly what Mr. Fortin's amendment is trying to do: to say that's reasonable.

We understand what we're trying to get to. We're trying to get to the person who says, “I won't give you your medicine unless you do something.” That's coercive. That's threatening. We heard testimony today that proof of fear is not required.

That same person could then say, “You know what? If you keep pushing me to take my heart medicine, I'm going to end it all. I'm going to jump in front of a bus. I'm going to threaten suicide.” That's prescribed in here too. Is that a criminal act? Who's the vulnerable person? Is it the one who needs his heart medicine and is threatening suicide? Are they both vulnerable?

I raise that as just one real-life scenario that we were unable to hear any expert testimony on. There was a tremendous number of really great witnesses who came forward on Bill C-332, but they didn't come forward on G-2. Normally, at this committee, amendments are very direct and focused, but this is a complete rewrite.

I'll be opposing G-2 in favour of the language that was less prescriptive. We heard testimony about whether to be more prescriptive and use examples or to be less prescriptive. We have language in here and have a bill that are the result of a study that this committee did and unanimously passed in 2021.

I applaud any effort to improve the bill, but to ask us right now, on the fly, to come up with amendments to a totally rewritten bill that we've heard no testimony on...I reject it. Our committee should not proceed in this fashion.

It's for those reasons that I will be opposing G-2 in favour of the current reading of Bill C-332. That will further enable us to have some of the amendments that are focused on Bill C-332 considered. According to what you've said, Madam Chair, if G-2 passes, then most of our BQ, Liberal and Conservative amendments go out the window.

At this point in the meeting, I thought we'd be done. I really did. Based on this bill and the support for Bill C-332, I thought we'd be done, but in order to do our job, we need to keep going the way we're going and parse out each one of these elements.

I'm going to be voting against G-2. I would urge my colleagues around the table to do that so we can get on with our consideration of Bill C-332.

If the government wants to bring in a new bill on coercive and controlling behaviour later, it is welcome to do that. It's had three years to do that. At this moment in this committee, when we have less than an hour left, this isn't the time for us to draft a bill, which is what we're doing right now. We're drafting a bill out of thin air.

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

The problem is that I can't submit it to you in writing, because I just got it this morning.

However, it's identical to the wording in amendment BQ‑1. It amends line 7 of clause 1 on page 1. Proposed subsection 264.01(1) in amendment G‑2, which repeats the beginning of the wording proposed in Bill C‑332, says: “Everyone commits an offence who engages in a pattern of conduct”. In amendment BQ‑1, I'm proposing that the words “without reasonable cause” be inserted after “Everyone commits an offence who”.

After consulting our knowledgeable analysts, I would point out that it should actually be inserted after the words “commits an offence who”, as in amendment BQ‑1. The text would therefore read as follows: “Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable cause, engages in a pattern of conduct”.

The English version would say:

Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable cause,

Then it's “repeatedly” and the rest of the paragraph.

In French, after “quiconque se livre”, we would insert “sans motif raisonnable”, and the rest of the text would remain the same.

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

Yes, I can imagine. I'd be surprised if anyone told me that the people around the table had nothing planned for the weekend and that everyone was waiting for the government's amendment so they could work on it all weekend.

That said, we had prepared a number of amendments. I understand that my NDP colleague is going to work with the government on amendment G-2, so maybe I'm wasting my breath. Again, it's somewhat disappointing to think that we did all this work for nothing. I wish I'd known that in advance. Anyway, I don't know if we can incorporate the changes proposed in amendments BQ-1 and BQ-6, which go together, into amendment G-2.

In the current text of the bill, proposed subclause 264.01(1) begins: “Everyone commits an offence who…engages in”, after which amendment BQ-1 proposes to add “without reasonable cause”, to the acts that are listed in the rest of the wording. I'm talking here about the version without the changes proposed in amendment G-2. Can we incorporate this proposal into amendment G-2? It would be in the same place. I think that would be appropriate.

Amendment BQ-6 proposes to delete a passage from the current version of the bill. The provision begins at line 25 on page 2 and provides an exception in cases where “the accused was acting in the best interests of the person”. However, we've heard from witnesses that this can be a bit of an issue. What is considered to be a person's best interests can vary from one individual to another. This wording strikes me as problematic in terms of how the courts might interpret it, or at the very least, how the accused might interpret it. In fact, any defendant could say that he acted in what he considered to be the victim's best interests. In such a case, one could question the mens rea and end up acquitting the person on the basis that he believed he was acting in the victim's “best interests”.

That is why we believe this provision should be removed and instead the words “without reasonable cause” should be added to proposed subclause 264.01(1). In this way, the wording would indicate that anyone who engages without reasonable cause in all of the specified behaviours is committing an offence. In this case, if an accused says he had reasonable cause, the courts can assess this fact more generally and objectively. Let's take a situation where the accused individual acknowledges having acted in a controlling and coercive manner, for example by preventing their spouse from going to such and such a place or doing something, but says that they did so because it was really reasonable to do so in the circumstances. That's different from saying they thought it was reasonable. The court, objectively, will judge whether or not there was an element of reasonableness in the actions taken.

It seems to me that this wording would be more respectful of all the situations we're trying to cover. This is new law. Everyone has probably behaved in a controlling and coercive way in their lives, particularly towards their children, and reasonably thought it was necessary to do so. In this case, I think the behaviours in question were often unreasonable. We're tackling the problem. For my part, I fully agree with Bill C‑332. I agree with all the arguments that our colleague Ms. Collins presented to us in committee and that our colleague Mr. Garrison also expressed many times in a previous Parliament. Parliament does indeed have to tackle this problem, but I still think we need to proceed cautiously. I think it would be more prudent to state that the actions must have been taken without reasonable cause. That way, if, for whatever reason, the court finds that, in a given situation, the accused acted reasonably, he could be acquitted and not sent to prison for 10 years.

This is the nature of amendment BQ-1. I understand that it is not yet under consideration, since it comes after amendment G-2, which we are discussing at the moment. I mention it, however, from the perspective that we're about to throw everything else in the trash.

First, I'd like to know if the witnesses agree with my interpretation or if I've been mistaken in some way. If the witnesses tell us that it would be wise to do what I propose, is it possible to present a subamendment? I don't know how it could be done. I'll leave the practical matters to you to decide, Mr. Clerk and Madam Chair.

I'd like Ms. Levman and Ms. Wiltsie‑Brown to comment on the element of reasonableness, that is, inserting “without reasonable cause” in proposed subclause 264.01(1). The new subclause would thus read, “Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable cause, repeatedly” engages in the acts that are mentioned.

That was a long question, and I apologize, but I think the explanations were necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Good morning, colleagues.

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 98 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 7, 2024, the committee is meeting in public to continue its study of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct). As you know, today's meeting is to go through clause-by-clause.

Members are attending in person or virtually. I believe we have no witnesses outside of members. Of course, I'll introduce the people in front of us in a moment.

I think members by now know what the rules are if they're attending virtually. I think we're okay with that. There are no witnesses attending virtually.

I want to welcome the officials who are assisting us today for our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-332.

We welcome senior counsel Nathalie Levman and counsel Ellen Wiltsie‑Brown, from the Criminal Law Policy Section of the Department of Justice.

May I extend a welcome to both of you.

Thank you very much for being with us. We will count on you for any technical information we require on any of the amendments, or for anything that any member wants clarified or that I, as the chair, wish to have clarified.

I'm ready to start with clause-by-clause, but I want to give a few instructions first, as I'm mandated, I think, to do.

As you all know, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. The chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. Once an amendment is moved, unanimous consent is required in order to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will consider and vote on the title and then on the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill is required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report will contain only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I will move to clause-by-clause consideration.

Before the chair—that's me—calls clause 1, there's an amendment on page 1 of the package seeking to create a new clause 0.1.

Mr. Maloney, would you like to move G-1?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

We also heard from earlier witnesses that Bill C-332 might have the inadvertent effect of criminalizing communities that are already overcriminalized. I was somewhat concerned about that.

I was reading something written by your predecessor, Ms. Heidi Illingworth. She gave testimony on a similar study. She said that intimate partner violence is a “pan-Canadian issue, as this type of violence knows no boundaries”, and that “IPV affects people of all genders, ages [and] socioeconomic, racial, educational, ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.” She cited a study from Statistics Canada from 2019. I would think that would probably be a pretty good source of evidence.

I'd like your comments on that, please.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Roebuck, I have a question for you. Bill C-332 proposes that the relevant controlling and coercive conduct must be proven to have had a significant impact on the victim. Earlier witnesses on this study, last week or two weeks ago, expressed some concern that this could revictimize the victim, in that the victim would have to give evidence as to her state of mind—it's usually a woman—on the witness stand and be subject to cross-examination on that.

We were also pointed to Scotland's domestic abuse act, which puts the focus on the intentions and actions of the perpetrator: “a reasonable person would consider the course of behaviour to be likely to cause [the victim] to suffer physical or psychological harm”.

What do you say about that? Is that a better way to go, to prevent and avoid victims being revictimized, which of course is your profession?

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

In your opinion, should we simply amend Bill C‑332?

I'm thinking of the two amendments you suggested and I made note of them, but there are others, which is why I'd like a written copy of your notes.

Briefly, what would be your recommendations to improve this bill and better protect victims while at the same time better educating, and also punishing, those who tend to this type of conduct?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us today.

Mr. Roebuck, as federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, you must hear from victims every day telling you about the vagaries and the virtues of our criminal justice system.

This morning, we heard some people say that Bill C‑332 is a bit dangerous, first due to counter-complaints. Essentially, they worry about victims being treated as abusers for wanting to protect their children, for instance.

Is that indeed a problem? Could victims be penalized because of the definitions that appear in this bill or because of the way the bill is designed?

Furthermore, you made a number of interesting recommendations in your opening statement. Specifically, you suggest using the definition of intimate partner under section 2 of the Criminal Code and removing the two-year time limit after separation.

We've heard those suggestions before, but if at all possible, I'd love to get a copy of your statement or your brief. I'd really appreciate that. I don't know if you have a brief ready to go, if we just haven't gotten it yet or if it's only me who hasn't gotten it.

That said, I'd like to return to my previous question. Is it possible for victims attempting to defend themselves to be seen as having controlling or coercive behaviours?

[Melanie Omeniho, President, Women of the Métis Nation - Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak]

Thank you very much.

My name is Melanie Omeniho. I'm the president of Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak. I'd like to acknowledge that I'm joining you today from Treaty 6 territory and the motherland of the Métis nation.

Les Femmes Michif is known as a national indigenous women's organization that is mandated to represent women of the Métis nation across the Métis nation motherland. We advocate nationally and internationally for the equal treatment, health and well-being of all Métis people. We focus on the rights, needs and priorities of Métis women, youth, children and 2SLGBTQQIA+ Métis people.

I'd like to present that we proceed with caution around Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to controlling or coercive conduct. Although we're supportive of it in principle, this bill does not go far enough to fully define the act of coercive control. It limits it only in terms of intimate partner relationships.

To begin with, this puts the burden of proof of significant fear of violence on victims. Victims of coercive control often don't identify what they are experiencing as coercive control. It happens slowly and insidiously. Coercive control exists beyond a two-year limit in a domestic relationship and does occur between intimate partners who have not agreed to be married. In this light, we recommend that before passing this bill, we redefine the persons who are connected.

What this bill also fails to recognize is the unique presentation of violence in 2SLGBTQQIA+ relationships. Regarding sexual exploitation, this act does not include this controlling and coercive conduct within the existing definition. It also does not include children and other family members who may also fall victim.

Canada has used as an example the bill passed in the U.K. around controlling or coercive behaviour. What the U.K. bill does not consider is the specific implications around Métis women and the strained historical relationship with police and other colonial processes. Indigenous women living at the intersection of multiple sites of oppression face the highest rates of violence of all. That's especially for indigenous women with current or past child welfare involvement who are living in poverty, are often homeless or unhoused, are disabled, are navigating trauma or have different substance abuses. About two-thirds of Métis women self-report experiencing physical or sexual violence in their lifetimes. Nearly half are survivors of intimate partner violence.

This law relies heavily on the myth that the police are the only ones who can keep us safe. It would be part of a police officer's role to determine whether a situation should be considered as controlling or coercive conduct. Police attitudes usually focus on the presence of physical violence and on specific incidents, rather than a pattern of coercive control. This focus also minimizes other forms of violence. Too often in these cases, police do not see survivors as credible victims or witnesses. Rather than assessing protection, survivors are approached with dismissals and suspicion.

We also note that indigenous women are being criminalized for fighting back. This is reflected in the stats showing that indigenous women are 13 and 15 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-indigenous women and indigenous men. Indigenous women's incarceration rates in provincial jails are also alarming. In Saskatchewan, indigenous women are 29 times more likely to be jailed than non-indigenous women.

What is also integral in the enactment of this bill is a robust plan for information sharing, training and education. This is not limited to the police and all players around the justice system. It's most importantly for women and gender-diverse folks to understand what controlling conduct and coercive control are. The emphasis of risk assessment tools on physical violence and injuries leads to the minimization of non-physical violence.

We ask if police officers will be able to assess intimate partner violence situations that do not present physical violence when they arrive on the scene. Will they have enough understanding of the dynamic to see if they are in the presence of potentially harmful situations in which coercive control is an issue?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime]

Thank you.

Honourable chairperson and members of the committee, we gather today on the traditional unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. In honouring the leadership, strength and wisdom of indigenous peoples, we are reminded of the profound importance of respect, autonomy and protection of the rights and dignity of all people. These principles guide our discussion on coercive control.

Intimate partner violence, or IPV, is an epidemic. It transcends geographic, economic and cultural boundaries, affecting millions of people. The 2018 Canadian “Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces” found that since the age of 15, 6.2 million women and 4.9 million men in Canada had experienced IPV at some point in their life.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof. Coercive control violates these fundamental rights, permeating experiences of IPV, sexual exploitation, human trafficking and criminal harassment. It does require intervention.

Bill C-332 would criminalize repeat or continuous patterns of coercive control, providing more tools for police to intervene in patterns of abuse. The current incident-based approach to IPV focuses on physical incidents. This can leave police feeling powerless to intervene in some cases in which they believe a person is being harmed, or worse, hoping for a future incident of physical violence so that they can protect the victim.

There are many things we can learn from the criminalization of coercive control in Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. The evidentiary burden on survivors can be heavy. Access to electronic devices and communication records is often required to build a case. Training for police, prosecutors and judges is critical. Risk assessment tools for coercive control can help to identify patterns of behaviour.

In Canada, recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize the harmful impacts of coercive and controlling behaviour, but proceedings in family court can be messy. Early in 2024, the National Association of Women and the Law sent a letter asking the Government of Canada to amend the Divorce Act to ban claims of parental alienation in family disputes because of the harmful impact on women. The letter was endorsed by more than 250 feminist organizations. I am concerned that the criminalization of coercive control could become equally problematic in family court.

Even so, domestic homicide reviews in Canada have identified coercive control as a risk factor in several cases of intimate partner homicide with no previous physical violence. When a survivor leaves an abusive and controlling partner, the criminalization of coercive control may allow them to access provincial compensation programs to help meet their immediate needs.

I know that the committee has previously studied this topic and heard from our office in addition to experts in the field. I support the criminalization of coercive control, but it must be accompanied by systemic change. I urge the government to respond to the calls of the Mass Casualty Commission by declaring gender-based, intimate partner and family violence an epidemic, and to commit to primary prevention.

These are some final thoughts. Justice Canada helped develop the “HELP” tool kit for lawyers after the Divorce Act was amended to include coercive control. It could be updated to reflect changes to the Criminal Code. We recommend using the definition of intimate partner violence under section 2 of the Criminal Code, removing the two-year time limit after separation and strengthening victim rights to improve gender equality in the criminal justice system.

Thank you for the invitation.