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.

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

I'll attempt to do in one minute what my colleague struggled to do in two and a half.

I acknowledge that the suggested amendments contained in the brief submitted by Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children, which were supported by the representative for the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, are worthwhile.

I'm skeptical about training as a stand-alone measure, but I remain convinced of the necessity to provide training and run public awareness campaigns.

Your testimony has been precious. It confirms my thoughts on the importance of these steps. Once again, I will reread your brief closely in the hopes of finding great ideas for improving Bill C‑332.

Thank you.

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

Good. We'll do our best with two and a half minutes.

This question will be for you, Ms. Parsa. We heard from you and Ms. Mattoo and other witnesses earlier in this study that Bill C-332 is not the answer. We recognize that fully. It's just another tool, we're saying. We're being told, and we've heard from you as well, that education is more important. We heard from earlier witnesses about training for police, education for Crown prosecutors and enhanced court worker programs. Aren't we creating a false dichotomy, though, between law and education? Why can't they both be done? Why is one mutually exclusive to the other?

Ms. Parsa, there's a great quote in your submission: “The expressive power of law may also send a message of condemnation of this form of violence to society.” I fully agree with that. The law itself could be educational.

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

I'm sorry for interrupting, but I only have a few seconds left.

Can you briefly tell us how we can explain the fact that some victim protection groups are asking us to pass Bill C‑332?

How do you explain the differences between your respective opinions?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Mattoo, Ms. Parsa, thank you for being with us this morning.

The issue of controlling or coercive conduct is of great concern to us. One of our jobs, as legislators, is to ensure that people are safe and aren't victims of violence in any form. To that end, Bill C‑332 seems like a good move.

There are already offences in the Criminal Code for violence, assault, uttering threats, kidnapping, forcible confinement, rape and sexual assault. All of these offences are already covered under the Criminal Code. We could carry on under the current provisions and clamp down on this type of violence. Controlling and coercive conduct is about exerting control over someone else. Usually, it's a male partner exerting control on the female partner, or vice versa. There's not really any specific Criminal Code provision dealing with that.

I understand the position you're both defending. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're advocating for providing training to everyone who works in the justice system. Obviously, I agree with that, but is it going far enough? Shouldn't we be more proactive? Sure, training needs to happen, but we also need to ensure that we send a clear message to society. If a person treats their partner in that way, we won't be providing them training. Rather, that person will be tried and sentenced.

I realize that Bill C‑332 will probably need to be improved and fine-tuned, but don't we still need to include these provisions and create clear offences for this conduct?

Ms. Mattoo can answer first, followed by Ms. Parsa.

[Roxana Parsa, Staff Lawyer, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund]

Good morning.

My name is Roxana Parsa. I am a staff lawyer at the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, also known as LEAF. I am grateful to appear today from what is now known as Toronto, which is on the traditional lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Wendat, the Anishinabe and the Haudenosaunee nations.

LEAF is a national charitable organization that has worked for 39 years to advance the equality rights of women, girls, trans and non-binary people through litigation, law reform and public education.

In recent years, LEAF's engagement with the criminal legal system has led to a deeper understanding of the ways in which harms can be perpetuated through the justice system. This is why we are grateful for the opportunity to be here today to share our views against Bill C-332.

We know that coercive control is a pervasive form of violence. We have heard the stories from survivors and frontline workers about the insidious ways in which patterns of controlling behaviour develop over time, and we understand the desire to respond.

We agree that there is a need for greater recognition of this harm; however, we urge the government to resist reliance on the criminal law. We echo the calls of experts who have testified before you this past week in speaking against the implementation of this bill.

There are significant systemic barriers that exist within the criminal legal system that will render this bill ineffective.

Coercive control is a highly nuanced and case-specific concept that captures a wide range of behaviours. The lack of physical evidence often means that recognizing the existence of this form of violence involves a deep understanding of the dynamics and context of an interpersonal relationship. Given the subtleties of coercive control, there is a significant risk that, when granted judgment, law enforcement may misinterpret situations of abuse or see abuse even when it is not present. Abusers may also use this to their advantage and turn the law into a tool of coercive control, as we have seen with many other tools in the legal system.

These risks are significantly heightened due to the existence of colonialism, institutional racism and discrimination embedded within the justice system. There are decades of evidence that show that criminal law harms survivors. We can look to the history of mandatory charging policies to see how the potential consequences of a new offence would emerge.

These policies, while well intentioned, led to a significant increase of arrests of female survivors, particularly amongst racialized populations. In Canada, this has been most strongly felt by indigenous and Black women, who are, at the same time, groups that continue to face the highest rates of intimate partner violence. We fear the same consequences arising with the establishment of yet another criminal offence.

We also know that, despite facing higher rates of violence, the history of harm from this system results in a reticence to seek help. Many survivors will not contact the police when they are experiencing abuse, and, when policing is seen as the primary solution to intimate partner violence, it inadvertently excludes survivors from marginalized communities and only deepens the existing inequities in seeking safety.

In discussing the potential harms of criminalization, the conversation often claims that the benefits outweigh any potential risks, so we urge you to examine the question. It outweighs the potential risks for whom? Who will be most impacted by a new criminal offence?

The law does not exist in a vacuum. When considering the development of a new offence, we need to centre the experiences of survivors facing intersecting barriers to justice. Criminalization is likely to either result in a lack of protection or, worse, cause further harm for survivors. Access to a legal mechanism is not necessarily access to justice.

That is why, instead of focusing on the enactment of this bill, we strongly recommend diverting resources to focus on prevention through the development of the infrastructure necessary for survivors to seek safety. This includes more funding for housing, social supports and community services and the development of alternative justice models for survivors seeking validation.

We also echo the recommendation of earlier witnesses in advocating for mandatory and ongoing training to actors in the justice system on coercive control and systemic bias, alongside the development of accountability measures to ensure evaluation of whether training is meaningfully applied. Finally, we echo the Mass Casualty Commission's recommendation to strike an expert advisory group and consult with both experts and affected communities.

Without systemic change, legislative reform only continues to hide the problem and gives the illusion of taking a stand. The criminal law has been turned to for decades as a response to intimate partner violence, yet the ongoing rates of violence show that it has proved to be an ineffective response. We think it's time to look beyond the criminal system and focus our resources on developing the social systems that are necessary for violence prevention.

Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to take any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 97 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).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

We have two witnesses in the first panel. Both are attending via video conference, and both witnesses have been tested for sound.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For the benefit of the witnesses, you'll be allowed a specific time frame for your opening remarks, as well as for answering questions for each of the members.

I will have to be a bit strict on the time use. If so, please bear with me. I ask for your patience. There's a rotation that we follow.

All comments are to be addressed through the chair. For members using Zoom, you can raise your hand using the Zoom “raise hand” function. For those in the room, obviously, you know how to seek my attention.

I want to welcome our witnesses for the first 45 minutes.

We have them both with us by video conference. We have, from the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, Deepa Mattoo, executive director; and from the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Roxana Parsa, staff lawyer.

You each have five minutes for your opening remarks. I will start with Madam Mattoo.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-320, which was introduced by the member for Oshawa.

This bill is very much in line with other private members' bills that have been introduced by various members from various parties. These bills demonstrate that there is complete unanimity on this issue, unlike in many other areas. All parties agree when it comes to the issue of protecting victims and integrating them better into the justice system.

For example, I can talk about two other bills that were debated very recently in the House, including Bill C-332, which was introduced by the NDP member for Victoria and seeks to criminalize coercive control. That bill focuses more on partners or spouses in a family context. I would like to read the bill summary:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of engaging in controlling or coercive conduct that has a significant impact on the person towards whom the conduct is directed, including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities.

This bill seeks to create a new offence for conduct that often occurs in a domestic context.

I was also pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-205, which was introduced by now former senator Pierre‑Hugues Boisvenu and has to do with intimate partners. Once again, by way of explanation, I want to read the bill summary as it appears in the bill. It states and I quote:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code in respect of interim release and other orders related to intimate partner violence offences. The enactment also provides for recognizance orders to be made when there is a reasonable fear of domestic violence.

This bill, which I spoke to in the fall, is rather large in scope when it comes to measures to protect victims of domestic violence.

The two bills I just talked about deal with keeping women safe and protecting female victims. We know that the number of femicides increased by roughly 7.5% between 2009 and 2019. My colleague from Shefford also mentioned this. There is a great deal of work to be done to protect women. That is also the purpose of Senator Boisvenu's bill. It talks about the use of electronic bracelets, but also about the obligation to give the victim a copy of the order regarding the accused and to ensure that the victim has been consulted about her safety and security needs when a bail decision is being made.

There was already a strong interest in ensuring that victims of domestic violence offences or sexual offences are given more information about, and also have a say in, an accused's release, should a peace bond be issued. The idea is to ensure that the victim is aware of the situation and that she can even be involved in the release process, in a way, by helping monitor the actions of an accused who is subject to certain conditions, such as maintaining distance. Unfortunately, law enforcement agencies do not always have enough eyes to ensure that release conditions are met. Perhaps this is one way to ensure better monitoring and enforcement of orders.

Bill C-320 has some minor nuances. In this case, we are talking about victims in general. It is not just about victims of sexual offences or victims of domestic violence, but would include the families of murder victims, for example. The definition of victim as set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act includes the direct victim, but it also stipulates that someone else can act on the victim's behalf. This could include the victim's spouse or the person who was their spouse at the time of the victim's death, someone who was cohabiting with the victim, a relative or a dependant. This means that the bill can apply to a broader definition of victim. What this bill does is make it mandatory to give the victim more information on certain aspects.

We are not calling into question the very concept of parole, for example. That is something that the Bloc Québécois supports, because we believe in rehabilitation. The parole system may not be perfect, but we must still support it in the sense that, in some cases, rehabilitation takes precedence over a very strict desire to simply keep people incarcerated when it is not necessary or appropriate and when there is a real possibility of social reintegration.

Under the bill, the victim must be informed of the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences or parole, and they must be given an explanation of how those dates were determined. The victim must also be informed when the offender is released on escorted or unescorted temporary absence, on parole and on placement, meaning when the offender is sent to a halfway house. The victim must be informed of the date on which the offender will be released and how that date was determined. In short, explanations are given regarding the parole system, temporary absences and orders to place the offender in a halfway house.

Without completely reforming the issue of parole, this bill ensures that the person does not learn through the media that an individual convicted of a crime committed against her or a member of her family was released without her full knowledge of the process, the mechanics of that decision. This will ensure greater confidence. In fact, I dare to hope that the bill will help give victims more confidence in the federal prison system and further involve victims in the process. If this transparency can make victims more confident, that can have an untold impact on certain aspects of the judicial process.

I mentioned this during the study of Bill S-205. One of the common problems encountered in court when the time comes to lay criminal charges against someone, and particularly in the context of domestic violence, is that the victim is often not a party to the case, but simply a witness. This witness is important because, often, they are the only witness the Crown can use to put someone in jail and proceed with a hearing. If the victim does not have sufficient confidence in the justice system, she may decide not to testify, for fear of retribution. It is often for these reasons that domestic violence hearings go nowhere, for lack of a victim.

This is an opportunity to improve overall knowledge of the justice system, from one end of the legal process to the other, as was done with the other two bills, and this one. We can help people understand the system better, have more trust in it and participate more in the process to ensure that those who have committed wrongdoing end up serving the sentence handed down for their actions.

However, we also need to ensure that better psychological supports are available. As soon as the institution is required to properly inform victims about the parole process, for example, this can retraumatize many victims. We must therefore ensure that there are sufficient resources and supports in place for these victims if we want to get this right. We will have to make sure that there is a useful purpose, but also that we think more about the victims in the sense that this bill puts victims at the centre of the process. We must not do just one part of the job. We have to make sure that the work is done properly and that victims are fully supported. Ultimately, we have to be able to say that the victim has been put at the centre of our concerns and is part of the judicial process. She is not just an outside witness.

This bill has good intentions, and that is why I am convinced that the parties decided to unanimously support it at second reading and in committee, and that they will support it now at third reading.

[Shannon Ritchie, Founder and Clinical Director, Currents Counselling]

Thank you so much for having me. It's an honour to be here.

I first want to acknowledge with gratitude that I'm joining as an uninvited guest on the traditional unceded territory of the Secwepemc people.

I am providing evidence in support of Bill C-332 from my experience of working with perpetrators and victims of violence.

To provide a bit of information about myself, I am a registered clinical counsellor with a master's degree in counselling. I'm the owner and clinical director of Currents Counselling, which is a private counselling practice located in the Okanagan and B.C. interior. I support a team of clinical counsellors. My practice is focused on working with couples and families, including those in high conflict. I have more than 10 years' experience working with victims and perpetrators of violence, and I have specialized training in completing violence risk assessments for perpetrators of family-based violence and sexualized violence.

In my experience and training, coercive and controlling violence is often disguised or mutualized. You'll often hear language like domestic violence or relationship conflict, which doesn't identify what is going on and who is doing what to who, or ideas that justify the controlling behaviour. This is language like, “it's in her best interest,” or “she's not good with money,” which then justifies the controlling of the family finances.

Systems and professionals are often complicit in this mutualizing and disguising of the violence because it's sometimes hard to identify. The victim is often pathologized and blamed for the violence and control being perpetrated against them. It can be overt or subtle and covert. The violence is often concealed, and resistance to violence is often minimized and retaliated against by the perpetrator.

Often, the victim can believe they're responsible for the violence. However, when we properly assess for violence, we learn many things about it. We learn that the victim often has insider information about what happens when they resist the violence. When you start to ask the victim questions like, “What would happen if you left the relationship?”, they tend to be able to provide descriptions that reveal their real fears for their safety.

Victims of coercive and controlling violence often have a lot of fear of leaving the relationship. I have an example from a personal client I had the privilege of working with a number of years ago. I've changed her identifying information and I'm going to refer to her as “Tracy”.

Tracy initially attended counselling with her husband, who is nearly 30 years older than her. She's an indigenous woman who, at the time, was in her early twenties, and she was with a white man in his fifties. He was an incredibly wealthy man. When I met them, he wanted to control the narrative for the reason why they were in therapy. The reasons they were having relational issues were that she had trauma and she had a drinking problem.

When I met her individually, I learned that her life was very closely controlled. She had to attend the church he attended. He controlled all of the family's finances. Her movements were closely monitored. She was not able to establish credit or independence, and when she asked to further her education, he created many barriers to this. She had to hold his hand when they walked, and if she didn't, there would be conflict when they got home. She was isolated from her friends and family. There was strict monitoring of her weight and image. He coerced her into getting a breast enhancement, which he paid for and she truly did not want. She also had to dress conservatively and maintain a small physique.

As a response to the violence she was experiencing, her mental health declined rapidly. She was drinking a lot, and at times, while she was drinking, she would act aggressively towards him. When she started to leave the relationship, the retaliation was swift. She was out of town for a medical procedure when he hired a lawyer and was successfully able to position a case to a judge for a no-contact order against her—without her consent.

When she was released from the hospital, she realized that not only could she not go home; she could not see her children unsupervised. Her mental health continued to decline and she got a DUI. She now had even fewer options and had no choice but to return to their relationship.

This woman will navigate this for her entire life unless the perpetrator is held accountable for his actions. There are so many other victims who have to navigate the realities not only of having their lives controlled but of facing real consequences when they try to stand up or take a position.

In summary, Bill C-332 provides legislation to not only offer clear language for what is happening to the victim. It also provides a recourse to support victims' experiences in coercive and controlling behaviour, and it invites accountability for the perpetrator and for the behaviour.

[Emilie Coyle, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies]

It is a great honour and responsibility, as always, to appear in front of this important committee. Thank you very much for having us here.

We at the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, or CAEFS, have a statement of purpose that I want to bring to you today. It is to address the persistent ways that criminalized women and gender-diverse people are routinely denied their humanity and excluded from considerations of community.

I felt it was important to read that statement of purpose in the context of the discussion around Bill C‑332.

Intimate partner violence, including coercive control, is—as we all agree—a social issue of epidemic concern. Many inquiries and reports on coercive control, including one from this very committee, have emphasized the necessity of a comprehensive, all-government effort to eradicate pervasive and fatal forms of intimate partner violence. The Mass Casualty Commission, which I'm sure you are all aware of, specifically highlights the vital need to prioritize women's safety by shifting funding away from carceral responses towards primary prevention.

Unfortunately, we see Bill C‑332 falling under the category of a carceral response, and we do not support it.

I'll ask this: Who are we protecting with this bill? CAEFS is particularly concerned about the continuing reliance on carceral approaches to social issues like intimate partner violence, because we see the failure of this type of response every day in our work. I ask that you query this: Why do we believe adding another law to our Criminal Code will guarantee people who have experienced coercive control safety? These are people like an 18-year-old who is now under a life sentence because she was coercively controlled by her violent boyfriend, who then forced her to participate in the killing of his rival. Would it protect her, or the young woman who was forcibly taken out of the limits of her probation order to be sexually exploited, only to be charged with and found guilty of breaching her conditions when she turned to the police for help?

In our work, we encounter these stories regularly. So many of the criminalized women and gender-diverse people we work with and alongside have endured ongoing and often appalling levels of control and violence throughout their lives, beginning at very young ages. When they defend themselves, when they push back or when they do something that puts them “in conflict with the law” because they are trying to survive, we punish them.

Criminalization has unequal and often destructive impacts on indigenous peoples, Black people, trans people, sex workers and others who struggle under the weight of poverty, addiction, mental health disabilities, precarious immigration status and more. Unfortunately, these are not the people who will benefit from the protection of this law or other criminal legal reforms enacted with the express purpose of keeping women and gender-diverse people safe. In short, those with whom we work are not the picture of the ideal victim.

I would be remiss if I did not narrow in specifically on two interconnected but important issues in this country.

Indigenous women in Canada are more likely than non-indigenous women to have experienced intimate partner violence in their lifetimes. We have a crisis of mass incarceration of indigenous women and gender-diverse people in our provincial and federal systems. This means we are not only under-protecting indigenous women and gender-diverse people but also regularly criminalizing them. In a country committed to reconciliation, this has to be part of the intimate partner violence conversation and cannot be ignored.

When it comes to children, when you see mandatory and dual-charging laws, women and gender-diverse people can themselves be and are charged with intimate partner violence. When we criminalize women and gender-diverse people, we are also punishing families.

Our legal system responds after harm has happened. It is not prevention. I think we all care here about victims of harm. On that we can all agree. If we take that to be true, we should centre people who have or will experience harm in everything we do. A response after the fact is never going to be as good as prevention.

I completely understand the instinct to use the criminal law as a tool to assist in responding to harm. However, when it is the only option presented time and again as a solution, of course women and others may feel compelled to support it. What we are essentially saying is, “Please pay attention to this issue. This is not the answer.” Unfortunately, the criminal law has been proven at best to be ineffective and inconsistently used, and at worst to cause irreparable harm to people who are already routinely denied their humanity and excluded from considerations of community.

I have several other solutions I'd like to propose. I'd like to bring them up during the question period, if I may.

Thank you so much.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, having practised in the family law field for many years before I became a member of Parliament, I want to say that I am very familiar with the mental and physical devastation of the pattern of coercive control in intimate relationships. With the utmost respect to our witnesses here, I am going to take a few minutes to interrupt their testimony to address another important matter of justice for women and families in British Columbia.

In a moment, I will move a motion that I expect will receive a short debate and hopefully unanimous support, so that we can return to this important witness testimony on Bill C-332.

Mr. Moore gave proper notice of this motion last week, and as his substitute, then, I move:

That the committee call on the Liberal government to ensure that Robert Pickton spends the rest of his life in prison and prevent any re-traumatization of the families of his victims through unnecessary parole hearings, and that this be reported to the House.

Madam Chair, with your indulgence I would like the committee to hear these names: Sereena Abotsway, Mona Wilson, Andrea Joesbury, Brenda Wolfe, Georgina Papin, Marnie Frey, Jacqueline McDonell, Dianne Rock, Heather Bottomley, Jennifer Furminger, Helen Hallmark, Patricia Johnson, Heather Chinnock, Tanya Holyk, Sherry Irving, Inga Hall, Tiffany Drew, Sarah de Vries, Cynthia Feliks, Angela Jardine, Diana Melnick, Debra Jones, Wendy Crawford, Kerry Lynn Koski, Andrea Borhaven, Cara Ellis.

Chair, these women are the known victims of vile serial killer and rapist Robert Pickton. This monster has bragged of murdering 49 women, with a stated objective of murdering 50. Most of these women and their families will never receive the justice they deserve.

He was known to prey on vulnerable women suffering from addiction. Pickton would take his victims to his pig farm in Coquitlam, where he would torture them and commit brutal murders, stabbing some while they were handcuffed, injecting others with antifreeze. After killing his victims, he would feed their bodies to the pigs, leaving behind very little evidence. Needless to say, monsters like him should only leave prison in a body bag.

Last week we learned that Robert Pickton has become eligible to apply for day parole. Should his case be reviewed by the Parole Board, the families of his victims will be forced to relive the trauma they experienced all over again. This is an outrageous insult to the families, who continue to suffer. They should not be subjected to further retraumatization.

I want to share their words with this committee. The mother of Stephanie Lane said, “Pickton should not walk on this earth. He doesn't deserve to take one step out of where he is. He needs to stay where he is until he dies.” She added, “I've been living in hell. It's been horrible. I always say that I am living in a Stephen King novel. I think of my daughter every single day, but I don't want to think of Robert Pickton every day.”

Tanya Holyk's cousin said, “The fact that he can actually apply is horrific.... That threw me right off. I didn't know and the other families that I'm close to didn't know...Our justice system is horrific.” She also said, “I already don't trust the justice system, and this just makes me not trust it even more because the fact that a person like this could be let out of jail...it's disgusting.”

The community recently held a vigil at the Pickton farm as they braced for the possibility of a parole hearing for the man who has caused them so much pain.

At the very least, Canadians should expect our justice system to protect victims of the most heinous crimes. Under Justin Trudeau's watch, the rights of criminals have been consistently prioritized over the rights of victims. I won't relitigate every case, but we have seen a flagrant disregard for victims in the cases of Paul Bernardo's transfer to medium security and Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer to a healing lodge.

Just last week, Jeremy Vojkovic, a man who raped a woman and burned her alive, was granted temporary leave on Vancouver Island despite a psychiatric assessment that expressed “grave concern” over the risk he poses to the public and over the objections of the victim's family.

Eight years of Trudeau's radical left agenda have created a system of injustice. Canadians have lost faith in our systems. That's why this committee should take the first step toward restoring this trust.

My motion calls on Trudeau's government to ensure that Robert Picton spends the rest of his life in prison and prevent any retraumatization of the families of his victims through unnecessary parole hearings. The Minister of Justice has a department full of lawyers who can prepare options that are charter-compliant and that protect the families of his victims. I call on my colleagues at this table to support this motion and stand up for these victims. They've been traumatized enough.

Thank you, Chair.

[Karine Barrette]

In our opinion, it is important that the sentence reflect not only the consequences of these actions on the victims and on the women's lives, but also their objective seriousness.

Stalking is one of the tactics, one of the manifestations of coercive control. So, we simply find it logical that the maximum sentence should be at least ten years, and not five years as currently provided for in Bill C‑332.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Bill C‑332 terminology is not the same as the definition of “intimate partner” found in section 2 of the Criminal Code.

Do you think this could cause confusion?

[Karine Barrette]

Thank you very much for the question.

Indeed, that's one of the amendments we'd like to see in Bill C-332. In particular, we want the two-year time limit set out in the bill to be removed. We're not even proposing that the period be increased, because in reality, there's no time limit on domestic violence following a separation. We've heard of many cases where victims are subjected to violence over many years, even decades, after a separation.

The Criminal Code already sets out time limitations, and we'll leave it up to the prosecutors. However, there's no need to impose a two-year period, because it wouldn't reflect victims' experiences.

[Prof. Jennifer Koshan]

Thanks very much. I appreciate it.

Yes, another concern is with respect to the wording of Bill C-332 and its focus on the “significant impact” on the complainant, which means its interpretation in the bill will very much rely on the complainant's testimony, which is potentially retraumatizing.

We also have concerns with the “best interests” defence in proposed subsection 264.01(5). This defence is also subject to manipulation by abusers and can reinforce myths and stereotypes about supposedly benevolent domestic violence, which may adversely impact disabled survivors especially.

Thank you.

[Professor Jennifer Koshan, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you very much for the invitation to provide input on Bill C-332.

I'm joining you this morning from Treaty 7 territory here in Mohkinstsis, which is the traditional territory of the Blackfoot peoples.

I am speaking on my own behalf this morning, but some colleagues and I did file a submission with the Department of Justice for its study of coercive control in October of 2023. My co-authors are Janet Mosher, Wanda Wiegers and Shushanna Harris. I'm relying on that submission for my remarks this morning.

We argue that it is crucial for all actors in the legal system to gain a nuanced, contextual and intersectional understanding of coercive control to be able to, for example, support risk assessments and safety planning. However, we do not support the criminalization of coercive control in Bill C-332 because of problems with the current legal treatment of intimate partner violence.

We identify several concerns. I'll focus on three sets of those concerns today.

First are concerns about the current criminal legal system's handling of intimate partner violence. The current focus of the criminal law is on incidents of abuse—for example, assault—in which the seriousness of the incident is often tied to physical injury. Embedding an understanding of coercive control, which focuses on patterns rather than on incidents of abuse, poses significant challenges for police, prosecutors and judges.

Legal actors may also fail to recognize the range of coercive and controlling tactics that are influenced by systemic racism, colonialism and other systems of oppression. For example, immigration status can be used as a tool of abuse.

However, the current treatment of intimate partner violence by the criminal legal system and its actors raises concerns about their ability to gain this sort of nuanced understanding. For example, police continue to lay dual charges in intimate partner violence cases, with Black, racialized and indigenous women being disproportionately criminalized.

These problems and broader issues with systemic racism and colonialism have led many women to turn away from the criminal legal system. As I argued before this committee in 2021, we can no longer call these “unintended consequences” because we know the likelihood that they will occur.

Our second set of concerns is with respect to how coercive control is being addressed in the family law system. We're currently reviewing cases under the Divorce Act amendments from 2021, and our early review suggests several concerns.

Family law courts are struggling to understand coercive control and continue to approach allegations on an incident-focused basis. Like the criminal legal system, family courts also characterize intimate partner violence as mutual in many cases, which may minimize the harms of the violence to women and children.

Family courts have also characterized women's attempts to protect their children from violence as amounting to coercive control itself. Given the willingness of family courts to accept allegations of so-called parental alienation, this feeds into potential findings of coercive control against mothers, who risk being criminalized or facing adverse parenting outcomes.

These are examples of perpetrators manipulating the legal system against the real victims of coercive control. Unfortunately, courts are sometimes persuaded by these types of arguments because of the ongoing influence of myths and stereotypes about intimate partner violence and its victims, which is again of heightened concern for women experiencing intersecting inequalities. For example, women are often wrongly accused of making false allegations of intimate partner violence to gain a so-called upper hand in family law proceedings.

If coercive control were criminalized, yet difficult to prove, that would likely feed into these assumptions and work against women and children in parenting disputes as well as undermine their safety.

It's also important to note that coercive control is defined differently in the proposed criminal amendments from the way it is defined in the Divorce Act, which could lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Then our third set of concerns is with respect to Bill C-332 specifically.

The provision has no explicit connection to intimate partner violence. The prohibited conduct is not defined, and it's unclear how many repetitions of behaviour are required. This vagueness is susceptible—