Bill C-332

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (coercive control of intimate partner)

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.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the many words the member for Victoria has put on the record this evening on a very important and substantive piece of legislation. It reminds me of Keira's law, which was introduced by the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. It was a significant piece of legislation.

On several occasions here this evening, the member has already referred to the importance of education for judges. Of course, it is important that we recognize judicial independence, there is no doubt about that, and yet there is a responsibility for us to take the necessary actions to improve our judicial system. That is what I looked at with Rona Ambrose's bill and the manner in which the government approached that legislation. It received unanimous support because it was a good, solid, sound idea.

It is interesting that we now have another piece of legislation that is not from the government, but a member of the opposition. The reason I brought up the importance of the legislation being passed at committee stage is that a series of amendments were brought forward and, because of the general goodwill from all political parties, many of them passed. My daughter, who is an MLA in the Manitoba legislature, has brought forward Keira's law. The premier of the province is very sympathetic. The other minister responsible is not as much. I would like to think that the NDP government in Manitoba would reflect positively on the law itself. It would be great to see Bill 209 pass because it deals with education. I like to think, whether it's Rona Ambrose's law or Keira's law being adopted in other jurisdictions, it rises above political interference of any form, that people get on side, accept it and try to get it through their appropriate legislature.

With regard to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls over the years, one of the first things that we did as a government was to commission a public inquiry into it, or a task force, that came up with a number of recommendations. There are over 200. I do not think it is fair to say that only two recommendations have been acted on. I suspect we would find that a number of things take place that show goodwill towards a number of the recommendations, as some of those recommendations might include other parties being involved.

One of the things I have recognized for many years is that in our judicial system, no one jurisdiction has complete control. The federal government, the provincial government and, I would even suggest, the municipal governments that have law enforcement agencies, all have a role to play. Then, on the other side, there is the whole idea of judicial independence. All of those things need to be factored in. On murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, we are moving forward. In the last budget, the red dress alert was getting off the ground. It is going to be a pilot project in my home province of Manitoba, and I see that as a very strong, positive thing.

With respect to the content of the legislation, one of the critical things to take note of is the issue of controlling behaviour. I like the explanation that was provided to me and I want to read it.

When we think of coercive control, it states that “coercive control” or “coercive and controlling behaviour” have been “used in both family and criminal law contexts to describe a pattern of controlling behaviour that takes place over time in the context of intimate relationships and serves to entrap victims, eliminating their sense of freedom in the relationship. A broad range of controlling conduct may be employed, some of which may constitute criminal offences in and of themselves, such as assault or uttering threats, but the focus is on how a pattern of such conduct serves to subjugate the individual's in incidents in which abusers exercise control. Coercive control is concerned with the cumulative impact of the abuser's conduct on the victim.”

Coercive control offences have been implemented in some countries. We have seen that over the last number of years, but it has only really had that impact within the last decade. Therefore, it is nice to see that we are moving forward, albeit in the form of a private member's bill. There is nothing wrong with using a private member's bill in a situation like this. We know the degree to which the government's legislative agenda is fairly full and is taking up time; it is becoming very difficult to get legislation passed. The thing about private members' bills is that there is a time allocation automatically. It is a program that ultimately will see legislation get through.

In this situation, and I made reference to it earlier, if we look at the number of amendments that were made, and the context in which those amendments were received, we see that there were substantive amendments made to the legislation that made it a whole lot easier for government members, in particular, to get on board. I like to think the real reason for doing that is because no one here inside the chamber would not recognize the negative impact that coercive and controlling behaviour has on society. There are far too many victims of that sort of behaviour, which takes place all the time, and we need to look at reforms that are going to improve life situations for families. Although we think of a victim being a spouse, quite often in that family unit the children are also victims.

It was highlighted in recent history through the pandemic, when there were more people staying at home and many relationships were being tested: I believe there was a lot more of that coercive behaviour taking place. It is one of the reasons why, as a government, we have been very supportive financially of women's organizations. I am thinking of the fine work that was being done in many communities across the country. For example, I think of Osborne House, which has been in Winnipeg for many decades. It has supported not only the women who go there as short-term occupants, but also those who see it as a resource that provides information to individuals who are being abused.

I am pleased to see that the legislation has gotten to the point it has today. I am expecting it to receive substantial support because of the general attitude in recognizing just how important the issue is. Fortunately, for all of us, we have the opportunity to see some tangible action on it.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful that this bill has been brought forward. This is a really important bill that we need to discuss. In my time here in the House of Commons, I have had the opportunity to do a lot of work when it comes to violence against women, domestic violence, intergenerational trauma and impact to families.

According to American forensic social worker Evan Stark, who is at the leading edge on this, coercive control is characterized by a pattern of negative behaviours that aim to intimidate, threaten and humiliate a person in front of friends and family; take control over aspects of everyday life such as where a person can go or who they can see; repeatedly put a person down; make credible threats of violence or economic oppression; and entrap them in an abusive cycle.

Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, recognizes the dynamic between this and intimate partner violence and how intimate partner violence is different from other forms of harassment or assault. When it comes to a trusting relationship between partners, we know it is a very different relationship when a person is a subordinate to someone in charge or when a person has any vulnerability. Although the Criminal Code does recognize sexual assault and violence, it does not dig deep enough when it comes to coercive control.

I would like to talk about this bill a little bit. The amendments the committee made are very well done. I specifically looked at these amendments because the bill had to get into the language regarding what coercive control was. Getting into the details, we have to understand the pattern of conduct; we need to understand that it is not just a single event. Many times, police are called to a single event of a physical nature, but coercive control is something that happens time and time again. Seeing that it is fully detailed in here, I would really like to thank the members of the committee who did great work on this. We need to make sure that when we are talking about it, if we are going to educate on it, if we want to ensure that the police know how to enforce it, we need to have a good understanding of it. The committee has done a great job on that.

The exact issue is when it comes to reporting. Education has to be paramount here. One of the greatest tragedies we have is that when abuse does happen, especially to women, they do not call. We know that, in over 90% of cases of violence against women, the victims are not calling the police to report. We have to look at the group of people who are not reporting. In that group we find more marginalized women who are becoming more vulnerable. Often, they are not reporting because of trust. If somebody has reported once or twice before, will they call back if it continues to happen? Without coercive control in the Criminal Code, this will not happen.

It is so hard to prove what coercive control is. By indicating specifically in the bill what it is, it gives much greater depth to the courts and to the police to make sure that we are actually laying the charges that are necessary. To survivors, though, this is a very difficult thing for them. Survivors of coercive control are fighting between trying to protect their children and protect themselves; they are making sure that they do not lose their children, making sure that they are protecting their children from their perpetrator. In many cases, we are looking at revictimization. We have heard time and time again of people going into the courts after accusing somebody and being revictimized. The NDP member who sponsored this bill saw what impact coercive control can have.

We need to ensure that our courts are informed by trauma, that those working with victims of violence and intergenerational trauma are trained, because these are very vulnerable people. It is not just about a person being hit and getting bruised, but it is also about what that does to a person inside. Many of these victims who have come forward are already ripped apart, so making sure that we can support these people is very important.

I would like to read a few quotes from women's organizations because, when it comes to their support of this bill or some of their concerns, they have been very active. I would really like to thank these women's organizations that are out there working day in and day out to make sure that women, when they are looking for shelters and financial support, receive support. Luke's Place is one of these organizations. The legal director at Luke's Place, a family law support centre for abused women in Oshawa, says the majority of women who are abused do not report it to police and therefore would not benefit by this new law.

That is one of the concerns that they brought forward, and that is why it is important that we have all of this information. She worries that with this law, women who defend themselves from abusive partners might themselves be accused of coercive control. That is why we have to talk about coercive control and parental alienation, and understand how all of these pieces come together to create a really complex issue.

We also have to wonder, will the police be able to enforce this? When victims are making these phone calls, it may be the first call or it may be their 11th call. We do not know. We know that it usually takes up to 11 times for a woman to make that first call after being violated. We do not know what call that is. However, if they have lost trust in the system, there is an issue.

As we are moving forward, we need to see what is positive and what is negative. How can we control this to ensure that when victims are coming forward, they do not, in turn, get forced into coercive control, that the tables do not get turned on them?

We have heard so much testimony from women across Canada, whether it is at the justice committee or at the status of women committee. We have heard from women who have come forward and shared their stories about the tables being turned on them. When they came forward, they were talking about not having money, being followed, being stalked, and a variety of different things that could happen, such as name-calling, all of these abuses, and the fact that at the end of the day they did not have that support. These are the things that we need to talk about.

One of the biggest things, and this is what I think this legislation does, is that it provides a tool. It provides something to go back on and to lean on. This would allow early intervention. If people are educated, they may be more aware of it. They may be more aware of what is going on in a person's life.

Only 30% of women, of people, have visible injuries as a result of domestic violence, and only a certain number of people experience, perhaps, emotional, sexual or financial parts of this abuse. When we know that 30% have bruises, what about the other 70%? What does that look like?

Why do we need to do this? Just moments ago, people were talking about the correlation between women and femicide. These things are happening. Between 2011 and 2021, police reported 1,125 gender-related homicides of women and girls in Canada. Of these homicides, two-thirds were perpetrated by an intimate partner, 28% by a family member, 5% by a friend or an acquaintance, and the remaining 1% by a stranger. We know that, in many cases, women are victims of their own partner, the people they trust the most in their lives.

Between 2011 and 2021, in all the gender-related homicides of women and girls, the largest proportion died by stabbing. Now we have to look at this. Is this a first-time incident? What happened prior to this? When we look at this, we will find that this would not have been the first time of violence. It is much greater than that. Although most homicide victims are men and boys, women and girls are disproportionately killed by someone they know. That is exactly what we need to talk about when we are looking at coercive control.

I want to end this with one last example. This is the case of Daniella Mallia. She went to the police three days before her death to report that her ex-boyfriend was harassing and threatening her via text. She repeatedly told police that her ex-boyfriend's behaviour caused her to fear for her safety. This was three days before this young woman was murdered.

We can do more. We can do better. I fully support this bill. I look forward to its passing in this House today.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start my speech with a sad statistic. As of May 28, 2024, in Quebec, there have been as many femicides as in all of 2023. My thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑332, which would amend “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 is a subject that is very important to me since I raised this issue at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we are currently conducting a study on the matter. I will talk about the definition of coercive control, some of the details of this bill and a few reservations I have about the bill.

First, coercive and controlling behaviour includes physical, sexual and emotional abuse, financial control, implicit or explicit threats to the partner or ex-partner, and against their children, belongings or pets.

Coercive and controlling behaviour does not relate to a single incident, but a pattern of behaviour that takes place repeatedly. It is important to understand that certain behaviours, taken in isolation might be considered normal, but it is the pattern and repetition of those behaviours that make them coercive or controlling violence.

Megan Stephens, one of the witnesses who took part in the study at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, indicated that there is no universal definition. However, a few definitions were discussed during the study, including restricting a person's movements, refusing them access to the home, controlling what they eat, disconnecting phone lines, breaking their cellphone and preventing them from going to work or to school. Taken together, these behaviours amount to coercive control.

Coercive control is low-level and repetitive. It often does not involve physical violence and takes away a person's sense of personal agency. Victims no longer make decisions based on what their own best interests are or what their driving motivators are, but they make decisions based on fear of what the other person will do to them if they don't make a decision in a certain way. It is generally understood as a course of intimidating, degrading and regulatory practices used by abusers to instill fear and threat into the everyday lives of their victims. Victims are deprived of their liberty and autonomy. The intent is to gain and maintain power and control and strip away a person's freedom and their sense of self.

Abusive behaviours are intended to cause fear and gain power and control over a woman’s thoughts, beliefs and actions. Controlling another person’s thoughts, beliefs and actions does not require specific overt acts of violence, although those acts certainly may be occurring as well.

Abusive partners use isolation, both physical and psychological, as a means to control their partner's contact with friends and family to emotionally bind the partner to them with the shackles of fear, dependency and coercive control tactics. In some cases, abusive partners use state-sanctioned structures to continue to coerce and control women through custody of and access to the children. The legal system is used as a weapon against the victim.

Second, I want to look more specifically at Bill C-332, introduced by the member for Victoria. It is part of a growing trend among legislators who work against coercive violence. In recent years, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights produced a report on this issue. I mentioned it earlier. It was tabled in the House on April 27, 2021.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying this issue. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women dealt with this issue during their study on safe practice in sport.

In the last Parliament, the NDP member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke introduced Bill C‑247 in October 2020. In November 2021, during this Parliament, he introduced Bill C‑202, which is essentially a new attempt to revive the legal framework, definitions and criminal consequences relating to coercive or controlling violence.

Bill C‑332 is the NDP's third attempt to put this issue on the agenda. The fact that it passed first reading and was added to the order of precedence of the House on September 20, 2003, makes Bill C-332 the most successful so far and the most likely to complete its legislative journey.

More recently, there was also Bill C‑233 from the Liberal member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle. It received royal assent on April 27, 2023, after study by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. This piece of legislation amended the Criminal Code to require judges, in cases of domestic violence and before issuing a release order, to consider whether it would be desirable for the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device. In addition, the bill amended the Judges Act to require continuing education seminars on matters related to sexual assault, intimate partner violence and coercive control.

According to a study published by Statistics Canada in April 2021, intimate partner violence, including controlling or coercive behaviour, is an integral part of this problem. It is a scourge. It is difficult to put an exact figure on the scale of violence in this country, as most cases are not reported to the police. This is the main obstacle when it comes to identifying and documenting this behaviour as well as implementing solutions for victims.

In her testimony before the committee, Lisa Smylie, the director general of communications and public affairs at the research, results and delivery branch of the Department for Women and Gender Equality, reported that approximately 36% of domestic violence incidents and only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police.

Based on data reported by police services in 2018, women in rural areas experienced the highest overall rates of intimate partner violence in the country. The committee also noted that marginalized women, including indigenous women, racialized women, women with disabilities and migrant women, face the greatest risk of violence, not to mention children. Furthermore, although coercive and controlling violence can occur in other contexts, it is present in 95% of relationships where there is domestic violence as we know it.

Today, this coercive and controlling violence is facilitated by technological advancements. GPS systems make it possible to track women. Small cameras can be used to film them. Smart phones and social media platforms are used to spy on them. All these means and tools make it easier for abusers to continue to extend harm, isolation and control regardless of victims’ physical locations. As we saw, there are also the traditional forms of blackmail on social media, impersonating the victim, sending persistent threatening messages, or even distributing private information or sexual content about the victim.

Third, the committee noted a few problems in enforcing the current law in the cases of victims of coercive or controlling violence. I will go over them quickly. The victims distrust current mechanisms, police services and the justice system and have little confidence they will adequately address their trauma. Unfortunately, this attitude is particularly pervasive among groups that are most often targeted by these acts, in other words, indigenous or racialized women, marginalized populations and immigrants. Women who are immigrants or who do not have Canadian citizenship fear the repercussions that reporting the abuse will have on their immigration application.

Furthermore, several stakeholders report that victims believe that they will not be taken seriously. They know that there are myths out there and they want to avoid being judged by institutions on their credibility when they come forward. It is undeniable that the fear of being blamed in turn means that few victims come forward. Victims are limited in what they can do because they may be dependent on the abuser, financially for example. They are caught in a vicious cycle where they could lose everything, end up on the street or lose custody of their children.

This point was raised by several witnesses during a committee study on women's economic empowerment. While aspects of coercive control and controlling behaviour may be present, the police and the justice systems often say that the victim's word alone is not enough to file a complaint. The numerous cases of femicide and harassment show the limitations and major flaw of the infamous “810 order” in cases where violent men pose a high risk of reoffending. They must be treated differently and be forced to use a monitoring device.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois supports the objective of Bill C‑332. However, we believe there are significant shortcomings that will need to be studied in committee. For example, we will have to study the possibility of expanding the scope of the bill so that ex-partners and other family members can testify in order to address the problem of one person's word against another's. We will also have to address the severity of the sentences and the consideration given to children in cases of coercive or controlling violence, as well as the connection between the new offence and the impact on family law and protection issues. Many other aspects need to be studied.

In conclusion, I would say that we need to have a debate on the duty to protect the victims of controlling or coercive behaviour relative to the obvious right of the accused to a fair and equitable trial. Let us continue to reflect on this issue. That being said, this is done elsewhere in the world and there is not one country that would backtrack on this issue of coercive control.

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

Madam Speaker, for many reasons, I am really pleased to be standing to debate the current bill at third reading. I am happy, because I first tried to bring this issue to the attention of the House nearly four years ago. It has been a long struggle to get the bill to this state. I am also happy because the bill does something quite important: It recognizes that, in intimate partner relationships, there are other forms of violence than broken bones and bruises, and they are equally harmful. I am happy that all parties have now come to support the bill.

We owe a great debt of thanks to the survivors who came forward to committee and publicly told their stories of suffering coercive and controlling behaviour. We owe it to the women's shelter workers, who gave very eloquent testimony about the need not only for better legislation but also for better supports for women who suffer from domestic violence. We also owe a debt of thanks to the police who talked about their frustration. In particular, those in the Saanich Police Department told me that, many times, officers visited homes that they knew they would come back to. They knew that there would be bruises and broken bones next time, but they did not have the tool they needed to intervene.

Finally, I want to thank the member for Victoria. I took this, as my own private bill, as far as I could get it in the last Parliament. I have been very pleased to work with her in this Parliament to make sure that the bill gets across the finish line.

There is an urgency here. Quite frankly, I was worried that the bill might get lost in the rancour of the end of a sitting in a minority Parliament. I want to express my thanks to the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who did some important negotiations today that will help us get the bill back in front of the House next week so that we can pass it before we rise.

Why is it urgent? Of course, we all know the terrible statistic that, once every six days, a woman in this country is murdered by their intimate partner. Not as familiar is the statistic that nearly 25% of those are indigenous women. Given the promises that we have all made in this Parliament, especially the government, to act on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women, this becomes a part of that package.

It is also urgent because, often, the women who are subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour are among the more marginalized in our society, whether they are indigenous women; new Canadians, who may lack the connections and supports in the community to escape such relationships; or those within my own community, the queer community.

We recognize, and we heard very clearly, that there is a concern about ensuring that the bill not do further harm. There were some extensive amendments made in committee to prevent revictimization as much as we can for those who survive, as well as to prevent the use of the bill by the actual abusers to continue their coercive and controlling behaviour.

Two of those amendments are quite important. One would forbid those who self-represent from being allowed to cross-examine their partners. These are perpetrators who engage in coercive and controlling behaviour and who represent themselves in court. Instead, the judge would appoint an independent lawyer to do that. That is an important part of avoiding revictimization by the abusive partner. The second is equally important. It says that, in findings of guilt under this offence, the judge must consider the overall context of the relationship. In common language, this means that the judge would have to ensure that the actual abuser, not the victim of coercive and controlling behaviour, is the one being charged. It is my hope that, after seeing these important amendments, the other place will also act expeditiously to pass the bill.

In addition to the women who are subject to coercive and controlling behaviour and the harms they suffer, and in addition to those who eventually die by femicide, which, 95% of the time, is preceded by coercive and controlling behaviour, the other victims of coercive and controlling behaviour are children. Children who are in households where coercive and controlling behaviour is taking place quite often suffer enormous psychological damage as a result of this behaviour as it goes on.

That leads to a related question that the bill does not address, and that is parental alienation. As I like to say when we talk about family law, this is not a thing. There are people who try to use the concept of parental alienation against their partners, saying that it is not their behaviour that has caused their children to be afraid but their partner, who is alienating the children's affections.

The bill does not deal directly with parental alienation, but it does deal with one of the fundamental causes of those disputes, which is the coercive and controlling behaviour at its root. We have heard today that all parties are very interested in making sure that we also address the question of parental alienation.

Will the bill end domestic violence? Of course it will not. There are many other supports that the frontline women's shelter workers talked to us about. They include legal aid in family law at the provincial level and additional funding for shelters. During the pandemic, it became quite clear that many women do not have good options for leaving these relationships.

Even when women finally come to the conclusion that they have no other option but to leave, there is no place for them to go in the community. In particular, many women stay in relationships because they have children; they are not sure how they will provide shelter and food for those kids. Therefore, they suffer through that coercive and controlling behaviour in the interim.

Quite clearly, we need better education in the justice system on the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour, as well as domestic violence in general. Too often, stereotypes of survivors and relationships interfere with the proper operation of the justice system.

Many police forces have done good work in establishing domestic violence units. Not all police forces have those units. We need to make sure that police forces have people who are trained and have the sensitivities to recognize when there are harmful relationships in front of them. When the bill is in place, they would be able to use it to help people get assistance in those times.

We also know that prosecutors, quite often, do not proceed with cases because of a victim's reluctance to testify. We need some education there, both for the survivors and for the prosecutors, to make sure that these situations actually proceed in court, as they should. This is a way of sending a very strong social message that this behaviour is unacceptable and that those who engage in it will be sanctioned by society.

Finally, there is a difficult topic and one that I am always concerned about: We need to encourage judges to better educate themselves in this area. I respect the independence of judges, and I am not arguing here today that we make judges do something. What I am arguing is that we should get the attention of judges and have education provided to them, within their own professional organizations, on the topic of domestic violence and, in particular, coercive and controlling behaviour.

No, the bill would not stop domestic violence, but because of the close connection between coercive or controlling behaviour and femicide, it may play an important role in reducing femicides in this country. The bill would provide an important tool to catch harmful and dangerous situations in interpersonal relationships earlier than we do now. This is what I heard very strongly from the frontline shelters and from the police. Right now, we lack a tool that recognizes and allows action before there are bruises and broken bones.

I am pleased to see virtually universal support for the bill. I am pleased that we have a good prospect of getting it passed next week and getting it sent to the other place. I am hopeful that the amendments we made address the concerns of some of the Senators and allow them to act expeditiously as well.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code on controlling or coercive conduct. The bill would create a coercive control offence that seeks to protect victims of intimate partner violence and hold their abusers accountable. These are laudable and pressing objectives that I know we all support. I want to thank the member for Victoria for bringing the bill forward; I also want to note that it is important to thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I thank him for his years of work on this issue and for the incredible speech he just delivered.

I am very pleased that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights adopted the government's amendments to Bill C-332, which seek to further the critical objectives of the bill. These amendments were informed by provincial and territorial input; the fall 2023 stakeholder engagement process led by Justice Canada, in collaboration with provincial and territorial partners; the testimony of witnesses who bravely appeared to speak to Bill C-332 as introduced; Scotland's domestic abuse offence model, which was recommended by stakeholders who support enactment of a coercive control offence; and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am going to have to interrupt the hon. member. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-332, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (coercive control of intimate partner), be read the third time and passed.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to debate this bill today, and I would like to focus my comments on a specific aspect of coercive control, for which there remains very few easy-to-access and easy-to-deploy de-escalation tools for victims. It is my hope that parliamentarians in the other place will consider the addition of these components to this bill, particularly as it pertains to specific tools to assist law enforcement officials in stopping coercive control from happening.

To set the context for this issue, I would like to refer to the Women's Legal Education & Access Fund, or LEAF. It developed a position paper on the criminalization of coercive control in response to this bill. In it, it defines “coercive control” as follows:

Coercive control is a concept used to describe a pattern of abusive behaviors in intimate partner relationships, based on tactics of intimidation, subordination, and control. This can include, among others, behaviors such as isolation, stalking, threats, surveillance, psychological abuse, online harassment, and sexual violence.

Other sources discussed threats of extortion, including so-called revenge porn, as one of the abusive behaviours also used to exert coercive control.

In its paper, LEAF raises the concern that the process of criminalizing coercive control may encounter significant challenges to legal success and that it may be “difficult to translate clearly into actionable criminal law.” One of the recommendations it makes to at least partially address this issue reads as follows: “Federal, provincial and territorial governments should take a proactive approach in focusing on the prevention of intimate partner violence.”

I would like to focus on two actionable, concrete ways to prevent two specific behaviours or components of coercive control: online harassment and revenge porn. In nearly nine years of power, the Liberal government has not taken material action to address the growing threat and breadth of online harassment, particularly as it relates to coercive control. The government's recently introduced and widely criticized Bill C-63, which many experts say would force Canadians to make trade-offs between their charter rights and their safety, does not adequately address the issue of women who are subject to a pattern of abusive behaviour online. Even if it did, today the minister admitted in the Toronto Star that the bill's provisions, which rely on the creation of an onerous new three-headed bureaucracy, would take years to functionally come into force.

Canadian women do not have time to wait for the minister's foot-dragging. Online harassment has been an issue for years, and the government has not ensured that our laws have kept pace with this issue. For evidence of this, I encourage colleagues to read the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime's guide to cyberstalking, which admits as much, saying that, when victims seek to report incidents of cyberstalking, “individual officers may be unfamiliar with the crimes or technology in question and may be uncertain about how to proceed.”

Indeed, last month, an article was released that was headlined, “RCMP boss calls for new politician anti-threats law”. It cited the need for more provision to protect politicians from online harassment. I asked myself, if the RCMP cannot protect me, how are they going to protect anyone in my community from the same threat? We should all reflect upon this issue because across Canada, at this very moment, women are receiving repeated, unwanted, harassing digital communications, and the best that many victim services groups can do to help, because of government inaction, is offer advice on how they can attempt to be less of a victim.

Women should not have to alter their behaviour. Potential harassers should be held to account, and their behaviour should be de-escalated before it escalates into physical violence. To do this, I encourage parliamentarians in the other place to consider the following in their review of this bill. They should ask the government to create a new criminal offence of online harassment that would update the existing crime of criminal harassment to address the ease and anonymity of online criminal harassment, which groups, in the deliberation of this bill, have noted as a component of coercive control.

Specifically, this new provision would apply to those who repeatedly send threatening or sexually explicit messages or content to people across the Internet and social media when they know, or should know, that it is not welcome. This could include aggravating factors for repeatedly sending such material anonymously and be accompanied by a so-called digital restraining order, which would allow victims of online criminal harassment to apply to a judge to identify the harasser and end the harassment. This would give police and victims clear and easy-to-understand tools to prevent online harassment and also prevent the escalation of this abuse to physical violence.

It would also allow for national awareness and education campaigns to be developed on what happens when someone criminally harasses somebody online. This would address a major issue of intimate partner violence and make it easier to materially and concretely stop coercive control. Members of the governing Liberal Party agreed to the need for these measures in a recent meeting of PROC related to the online harassment of elected officials.

In addition, the government must do more to address so-called revenge porn as a component of coercive control. An academic article entitled “Image-Based Sexual Abuse as a Means of Coercive Control: Victim-Survivor Experiences” states:

Victim-support advocates and domestic violence sector workers have increasingly acknowledged the role that image-based sexual abuse plays in the perpetuation of intimate partner abuse.... Image-based sexual abuse refers to the non-consensual taking or sharing of nude or sexual images (photos or videos), including making threats to share intimate images.... In the context of an intimate relationship, image-based sexual abuse can include any of the following acts: taking or sharing nude or sexual images without consent; threats to share intimate images to coerce a partner into sharing more intimate images or engage them in an unwanted act; and/or recording and or disseminating of sexual assault imagery.

However, colleagues, this has become even more of a concern given the advent of deepfake intimate images. I have been raising this issue in the House for over a year, and the government has still not moved to update the definition of “intimate images” in Canada's Criminal Code to specifically include deepfake intimate images. This component is not in Bill C-63.

This inaction is already harming women. A Winnipeg high school student had deepfaked intimate images circulated against her; no charges were filed, likely because of the gap in our law. As it relates to coercive control, can members imagine how easy it would be for an abuser to create so-called revenge porn to use against their victim using online technology? The government must act now, but if it will not, we parliamentarians must. Therefore, I ask members of the other place to consider the following in the review of their bill.

They should consider updating Canada's existing laws on the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to ensure that the distribution of intimate deepfakes is also criminalized via a simple definition update in the Criminal Code. This could be done easily and likely with all-party support in this place. It is shameful that the government has not moved to do that to date. In addition, the government admitted today in the Toronto Star that it is committed to dogmatically sticking with Bill C-63 as its only way to address online harms. This is despite widespread criticism and despite admitting that even the few supportable provisions in the bill would not come into force for years. Therefore, we in the opposition must look for ways to address these issues outside the government, particularly since online harm is a growing component of coercive control.

In addition to what I have already suggested, as parliamentarians, we should address the broader issue of online harms by doing things such as precisely specifying the duty of care required by online platforms. This should be done through legislation and not backroom regulation. The duty of care could include mechanisms to provide parents with the safeguards, controls and transparency to prevent harm to their kids when they are online; mechanisms to prevent and mitigate self-harm, mental health disorders, addictive behaviour, bullying and harassment, sexual violence and exploitation, and the promotion and marketing of products or services that are unlawful for minors; and mechanisms to implement privacy-preserving and trustworthy age verification methods, which many platforms have already built, to restrict access to any content that is inappropriate for minors while prohibiting the use of a digital ID in any of these mechanisms.

As well, we require mechanisms to give adults a clear and easy-to-use way to opt out of any default parental controls that a duty of care might provide for. Then, through legislation, we should ensure the appropriate enforcement of such measures through a system of administrative penalties and consequences by government agencies and bodies that already exist. In addition, the enforcement mechanisms could provide for the allowance of civil action when duties of care are violated in an injurious way.

To address coercive control, we need to address online harassment. I hope that colleagues in the other place will consider the suggestions I have made to do just that.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-332, which amends the Criminal Code to make controlling or coercive conduct an offence. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of this bill.

This bill, which was introduced by the member for Victoria, is part of a growing trend among legislators working to address coercive violence. In recent years, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights produced a report on this issue, which was tabled in the House on April 27, 2021. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women also examined this issue, as did the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as part of its study on safe sport. In sport, people in a position of authority can exercise coercive control over their athletes.

I am the Bloc Québécois critic for sport. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard testimony from many athletes who shared how they were abused and mistreated. I commend them for their courage and I want to assure them that we will do everything we can to strengthen this legislation. This bill is not perfect and many shortcomings have already been identified. However, there is nothing preventing the federal government from making amendments to the laws governing sport or to any provisions of other justice and human rights legislation.

I am going to talk about coercive control in sport. I will also address how this inappropriate practice can lead to abuse and mistreatment of athletes. This phenomenon is often hidden under the guise of discipline and performance requirements. It deserves special attention because it destroys not only careers, but lives.

With the Paris Olympic Games just around the corner, I invite my esteemed colleagues to reflect on the importance of recognizing that there is another reality facing Olympic and Paralympic athletes. There is another side to the medal. Behind every dazzling victory and every gold medal, there are often enormous sacrifices, endless hours of training and sometimes silent suffering. The pursuit of sporting excellence can push some athletes to their extreme limits, and the pressure to succeed can be overwhelming. Under this facade of glory and success, the realities of overtraining, ignored injuries and unrealistic expectations can lead to situations of abuse and coercion. Acknowledging these darker aspects is essential to striking a balance between the pursuit of performance and the preservation of athletes' well-being, ensuring that sport remains a source of personal development, not distress.

Coercion manifests itself in different ways in the world of sport. It can be physical, such as forcing someone to train beyond their pain threshold; psychological, through intimidation or threats; or emotional, through manipulation or constant put-downs. Unfortunately, these practices are often justified by the need to perform and reach goals. In addition, an imbalance of power can develop in coach-athlete relationships. Athletes are constantly in a situation of give and take and may not be capable of recognizing the intent behind each gesture in isolation. However, that vulnerability provides fertile ground for a predator to make the ultimate gesture by escalating to aggression. Respect may not always be present, it seems.

For example, young athletes are often exposed to intense pressure from an early age. In many cases, they are pushed by coaches or even by their own parents to reach new heights without taking into account their physical and mental limits. This excessive pressure can lead to permanent physical trauma, as well as serious psychological problems such as anxiety, depression and even suicidal behaviour. Coercion, however, refers to the disconcerting behaviours and meaningless gestures that are subtly made when athletes come into contact with someone who has bad intentions.

Right now, I am remembering the meeting where the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard poignant testimony from Justice Rosemarie Aquilina of the State of Michigan. Almost of us have heard about the gymnastics abuse scandals, the stories that made headlines and galvanized public opinion. Take the case of Larry Nassar, the former team doctor of the United States national gymnastics team, who sexually abused hundreds of young gymnasts under the guise of medical care. For years, these young girls were forced to remain silent, often out of fear of retaliation or shame, reinforced by a culture of coercion and blind obedience.

Here in Canada, I am not sure if my colleagues have watched Rick Westhead's documentary, Broken: Inside the Toxic Culture in Canadian Gymnastics, where he covers the case of the infamous Brubakers, who did the same thing to Canadian gymnasts, and the silence and role of Gymnastics Canada in all this. I want to thank the team at Gymnasts for Change for taking a courageous stand, including Kim, Abby, Melanie, Emily, Jessica, Ryan and all the other warriors.

I would also like to thank My Voice, My Choice; Can't Buy My Silence; Athletes Empowered and Global Athlete. They are heroes. Over the past few weeks, athletes have been sharing their stories on Jean-Luc Brassard's show, L'envers de la médaille. Athletes have also told their stories to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. In addition, numerous cases have made headlines in Quebec and Canadian newspapers. These are cases of abuse that could have been prevented if athletes' signals had been interpreted correctly or if better laws had been in place, of course.

I remember coming away from committee meetings shaken and stunned. These emblematic cases could have been prevented if proper safeguards had been in place and the victims had been taken seriously from the outset. How many investigations have been stonewalled by police investigators and by people within the sport federations themselves? Unfortunately, the culture of performance and the policy in sport of winning gold medals at all costs have often blinded those in charge. They have overlooked obvious warning signs. Each time, I ask myself why our society allows these things to happen.

This bill makes perfect sense today because it represents a major step forward in sport as well. It is a first in a series of changes needed to better protect victims of coercion. In sport, these victims are unfortunately all too often underage children. I still believe that a public inquiry is needed, pursuant to part 1 of the Inquiries Act, to get to the bottom of the issue of maltreatment and abuse in sport. Public inquiries have always revealed systemic problems and proposed possible solutions.

I have called upon the federal government, as well as the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity and her predecessor, to launch a public inquiry. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage just completed its report on safe sport, which will be tabled in the House very soon. I look forward to discussing it. Until then, I want to remind the House that the consequences of coercion and abuse in sport are deep and lasting. Physically, athletes can suffer irreversible injuries. Psychologically, they can develop post-traumatic stress disorder, eating disorders and addictions. The emotional impact can include loss of self-esteem, feelings of shame and relationship issues. The impact on an athlete's career in sport can be catastrophic. Many promising young talents are forced to leave their sport early after being abused. This not only deprives individuals of their passion and potential, it deprives sport more generally of its future champions.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois strongly supports Bill C‑332's objective of better protecting victims of coercive or controlling violence. However, certain significant flaws require further consideration to guarantee that the bill is effective and fair. It is vital to expand the scope of the bill to allow former partners, family members, neighbours and colleagues to testify. This could help put an end to the system of “their word against mine”.

What is more, the severity of the sentences needs to be assessed and the presence of children in situations of coercive violence should be considered an aggravating factor. It is also crucial to examine the impact of this new offence on family law and child protection, as well as the reasons prosecutors frequently drop certain charges to opt for lesser charges, undermining the administration of justice and public trust. The Criminal Code already has 35 sections that can be applied in domestic or spousal violence cases. It is imperative that they be strictly enforced and that we find ways to ensure that prosecutors use them more in cases of coercive or controlling violence.

Finally, it is critical to overcome the difficulties related to the collection of evidence and the strength of the prosecution's case, while protecting the presumption of innocence. A debate needs to be held to balance out the duty to protect victims of controlling or coercive conduct and the right of the accused to a fair trial. By addressing these issues, we could enhance victim protection and make justice more effective and more fair for everyone, as well as ending the culture of silence, of course.

We can take action now. This toxic culture has deep roots, which is why we need to act on several fronts. We can start by raising awareness and educating athletes on their rights from a very early age. Coaches and leaders must be trained to recognize and prevent coercive and abusive conduct. Sports organizations must implement strict policies against maltreatment and provide safe, confidential mechanisms for reporting abuse. Athletes must be encouraged to speak out without fear of retaliation and must be given the support they need when they do so. We need to end the culture of silence. That is important. It is essential. It is also vital that we get parents and families involved in this process, because they play a key role in protecting and supporting young athletes. Parents must be informed about the signs of coercion and abuse and know how to respond effectively to protect the children.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak on the issue of coercive control, something that I know jeopardizes the safety and well-being of countless women and gender-diverse people across Canada, an invisible violence that has been ignored for far too long. I really want to thank my colleague, the member for Victoria for tabling this important piece of legislation that seeks to alleviate the struggles of people who experience coercive control, the majority of whom are women and gender-diverse people.

Coercive control includes different kinds of abusive behaviour like isolating individuals from family or friends, depriving them of basic needs, threatening to harm them or their children, and closely monitoring and and controlling their behaviour. It takes a significant toll on those who are victimized and deprives them of their charter right to be free from harassment and discrimination, and to live in dignity, which also includes violence against one's thoughts and spirit that impact their daily life and everything they do.

I have often heard that when somebody is physically punched, we can see that abuse. With coercive control, it is difficult to see that abuse. The experience of people who have been victimized by coercive control has lasting impacts that are lifelong for many.

It is critical that we address the issue of coercive control in light of the general rise of violence against women and gender-diverse folks across Canada, particularly targeted within rates of violence. We know that the highest rates reported are for indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals. Rates of domestic violence have increased by approximately 30% since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, while more than 50% of Canadian women over the age of 16 have experienced physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. Again, statistics are significantly higher for indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals.

It is particularly alarming that we see intimate partner violence leading to a rise in femicide. According to Stats Canada, between 2009 and 2022, 18% of solved homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner, with women most often being the victims. Because of rising violence, over 70 municipalities have declared gender-based violence an epidemic, something that the Minister of Justice affirmed in a letter to the Ontario coroner's office. I urge the current government to stop talking about a crisis of violence and actually take action to finally address it.

Although this bill is a positive step, there have been some concerns raised about the bill, which I know that the member for Victoria has committed to trying to rectify, particularly from the National Association of Women and the Law, which comprises over 250 women's organizations. Particularly because we must do whatever is needed to end the epidemic of violence, we must also take evidence-based approaches to ensure that policies we put forward work best for empowering those who are victimized. Sometimes we do things for positive reasons, but they can indirectly cause harm. It is for this reason that I would like to express some of the concerns surrounding the coercive control legislation voiced by women's organizations and experts at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, including the National Association of Women and the Law, which, as I said, represents over 250 feminist organizations across Canada. While we all are deeply concerned by the rise in gender-based violence and intimate partner violence, organizations like NAWL have expressed concerns with the legal consequences that can arise for victims and survivors when we criminalize abusive behaviour without addressing the broader context of sexism in the legal system, primarily impacting Black people, indigenous people and people of colour.

According to experts, less than a quarter of women and gender-diverse people who experience violence and abuse have enough faith that their accusation will be taken seriously to report it to the police. Instead, their encounters with the legal system mostly occur in the realm of family law, where issues of parenting are adjudicated. In this context, abusers use judicial violence to perpetuate abuse post-separation.

Central to this violence is the pseudo-scientific concept of parental alienation: Women who report family violence are systematically suspected of being alienating, that is, trying to manipulate their children and destroy the father-child relationship. This occurs even when there are criminal charges, investigations or convictions based on a father's violence or abuse. On the so-called “parental alienation” theory, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls stated the following: “the discredited and unscientific pseudo-concept of parental alienation is used in family law proceedings by abusers as a tool to continue their abuse and coercion and to undermine and discredit allegations of domestic violence made by mothers who are trying to keep their children safe.”

The concept of “parental alienation” serves as a tool to revictimize, discredit and silence victims of family violence, particularly mothers. When a mother makes an allegation of family violence or coercive control, she is suspected of trying to “alienate” her children. Accusations of parental alienation are primarily directed at women, especially victims of intimate partner violence. Legal experts tell us that a theory of parental alienation is used almost systematically when women report intimate partner violence, including coercive control, by abusers and their legal teams, yet judges and court officials across Canada usually believe these false accusations, or it is not uncommon for them to believe these false accusations, due to an inherent bias against believing women who report abuse.

If we criminalize coercive control and tell victims to go and report violence without addressing the family law crisis, we might unknowingly be putting victims at risk. If mothers do report coercive control, they will be suspected of parental alienation and may risk losing their children. Some mothers are even advised by their own lawyers not to disclose domestic violence in family court due to the risk of being accused of parental alienation. Some women have said that if they had known in advance the consequences of parental alienation accusations, they never would have reported abuse or violence by an intimate partner.

With this context in mind, we need a holistic approach to addressing coercive control, expanding beyond the realm of criminal law to encompass the nuances of family law. This includes, for example, prohibiting the pseudo-scientific concept of parental alienation in courts and ensuring that judges take seriously women's accusations of violence. Failure to do so risks leaving a large percentage of victims vulnerable to continued exploitation and manipulation.

These factors are what we must consider when creating policies to address coercive control. It is absolutely imperative that solutions we propose to an issue as serious as this one do not contribute to the struggles of victims and further empower abusers.

The bill proposed by the member for Victoria is a wonderful first step in the process of finally addressing coercive control. I look forward to working with her and other members in this House to also look at outside issues within family law, including parental alienation, to ensure that those fleeing violence are safe to do so without consequences.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code on coercive control of an intimate partner. The bill would strengthen Canada's legislative framework addressing intimate partner violence, creating a new offence aimed at better protecting victims of coercive control in intimate relationships.

Coercive control involves ongoing conduct that deprives victims of their autonomy. It is a pernicious form of intimate partner violence and a significant risk factor for extreme violence. I have spoken with respect to this many times, not just in the House but also in committee. When I was part of the justice committee, we studied this very egregious behaviour, which is a predeterminer of intimate partner violence within communities and within homes.

Before speaking specifically to Bill C-332, I want to thank the member for Victoria and the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for their dedication to this cause. It is really important, and I appreciate their dedication. I am also grateful to all the individuals and organizations that provided evidence to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during its study of this piece of legislation and its 2021 study on coercive control in intimate relationships more generally. That includes my own Chief Nishan of our Peel Regional Police. I appreciate all of their hard work on this.

Gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence, is unacceptable and has no place in our country. Intimate partner violence is one of the most pervasive forms of violence against women. Our government is committed to ending the gender-based violence epidemic. Criminalizing coercive control is an important step to achieving this end; it is preventative, and it is very important in terms of how we work together in our communities.

I am very pleased to see that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has passed the government's amendments to Bill C‑332, which were largely developed with the input of the provinces and territories, stakeholders and the experiences of other countries that have criminalized coercive control. The amended offence is now modelled on Scotland's domestic violence offence, which was strongly recommended by stakeholders who supported introducing such an offence.

Specifically, the amended offence would criminalize engaging in a pattern of conduct with intent to cause the accused person's intimate partner to believe their physical or psychological safety is threatened. It would also criminalize being reckless as to whether the pattern of conduct could have this effect. “Pattern of conduct” is defined broadly to include subtle forms of abuse that are not criminal in and of themselves; that is, it is conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe that their physical or psychological safety is being threatened.

The committee's amendments not only are responsive to stakeholder input but also further the bill's pressing objective of protecting victims in coercive control cases. For example, the bill would amend the Criminal Code to do the following.

It would require courts to impose a weapons prohibition bail condition where an offender is charged with a coercive control offence, unless the justice considers that such a condition is not required in the interest of the safety of the accused or the safety and security of a victim of the offence or of any person, and to consider imposing additional conditions to ensure the safety and security of the victim where the offender is released on bail.

It would also make the appointment of counsel for cross-examination mandatory on request by victims in coercive control cases where the accused person is unrepresented and seeks to cross-examine the victim themselves, unless the judge or justice is of the opinion that the proper administration of justice requires otherwise.

It would also authorize the taking of DNA from those convicted or discharged of the bill's proposed coercive control offence, which would assist with the investigation and prosecution of intimate partner violence cases.

It would also require courts to issue a weapons prohibition order where an offender is convicted or discharged of the coercive control offence.

The amended bill also responds directly to several concerns raised by stakeholders, including by removing the requirement for proof that the victim was afraid. We have heard that requiring such evidence places a burden on the victim to testify, which is going to be a revictimization. It also requires them to show the effect of the accused's behaviour on them. We know in other areas of law, and now here, that another approach is possible, one that requires evidence showing that a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances would believe that their physical or psychological safety was threatened. This approach does not necessarily require a victim to testify and is familiar to Canadian courts.

The bill would also remove the best interests defence, which was included in the bill as introduced. Significant concern was expressed that this defence could have resulted in excusing abusive conduct, in particular toward cognitively impaired and disabled individuals, based on the claim that the coercive conduct at issue was actually in their best interest.

The bill would also delay the coming into force of the offence so that criminal justice practitioners could be trained on how to enforce it. Many stressed the importance of training prior to implementation, in particular because coercive control is an ongoing conduct offence, which is unusual in criminal law as the vast majority of criminal offences are incident-based.

The bill underscores the message that all forms of intimate partner violence are serious, including the more subtler forms, which have so often gone unrecognized. Supporting Bill C-332 is one of many concerted efforts that the government has taken to end gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence and to support victims of both.

For example, in 2021, the Government of Canada announced over $600 million in funding over five years to address gender-based violence in Canada. Of this, Justice Canada was allocated $48.75 million to ensure access to free legal advice and legal representation for survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

In 2022, the government allocated funding of $539.3 million over five years to enable provinces and territories to enhance services and supports within their jurisdictions to prevent gender-based violence and support survivors through the national action plan to end gender-based violence. I am pleased to have learned that bilateral agreements between the Government of Canada and all 13 provinces have been finalized.

I realize I am coming to the end of my time, but I am looking forward to working with all parties in this House to ensure that we are eradicating and actively preventing gender-based violence from occurring in all communities, including mine in Mississauga—Erin Mills.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be standing in the House today to talk about Bill C-332. It is such an important bill because it talks about amending the Criminal Code around controlling and coercive conduct. I want to thank the member for Victoria for bringing this forward into the House. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who brought forward a bill in the 43rd Parliament that is very much the same.

This is an important bill because, when we look at any kind of intimate partner violence or gender-based violence, we need to make the world safer by saying that this is real and that it happens. One of the most concerning issues of our time has been an increase in domestic violence. Especially, during the pandemic, it rose in Canada by 50%. When people were in their homes trying to stay safe, all too often, they became far less safe. One challenge, of course, in addressing these issues is that there is nothing in place at this time about criminalizing coercive and controlling behaviour.

This matters a lot. So often, it happens in little ways. There are these kinds of behaviours where a person is having a relationship or has a connection with someone and see little things that are done all the time. These things minimize a person's reality and control them so that they cannot have the freedom that they should have. It takes away a little part of the self.

I remember working with people who had gone through some sort of gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. One thing they were clear about with me was that it was all these little things that kept happening.

In the beginning, it just seemed as though, if a person just gave up a little piece of themselves, it would bring peace into the relationship. They thought everything would then be okay. Even if they felt uncomfortable with it, there was nowhere to go to say that the person they were with was now taking away all of their credit cards, would not let them have access to their own bank account or was telling them that they had to leave and come back at certain times.

Even when they reported it, nothing could be done. There was no recognition of that behaviour, something that was actually leading to a very dangerous place. That is why I am so supportive of the bill: It is important that we start telling people that this is inappropriate behaviour.

Before I took on my role as a politician, in my job as the executive director of the Immigrant Welcome Centre of North Vancouver Island, I remember working with a lot of newcomer women who had come to Canada through different avenues. They had been sponsored by a spouse or had come over as a caregiver. It was shocking how often that was taken advantage of.

I remember one woman, in particular, who came into our office quite agitated and angry with Canadians. When we sat her down to talk about it, she told us the story of meeting a Canadian man in her home country. They fell in love, she married him, and she was then sponsored to come back to Canada to live with him. When she arrived in Canada, things slowly started to change with her husband; he was very clear that, in Canada, women did not have the same rights as men. Of course, we know that is not the case, but if one is a newcomer woman, one may not know this.

She was very angry because, after she came to Canada, he had done things such as change the locks on the doors. He actually made it so that, when the doors closed in the house, they locked automatically. He did not give her a key. If she got caught outside, he would be very angry with her.

We had to work really hard to get this woman into a safe place. When I look at this here, I can see very clearly that, if it had been criminalized in this place, we would have been able to move a lot faster with her. I hope that, as we do this, we remember the important part of teaching women and people who are in vulnerable groups that this is not okay behaviour. It is those small things.

I have talked to so many people who have survived this behaviour. It teaches them not to trust themselves because their reality is rejected by the person they have this relationship with. When a person cannot trust themselves, it really leads to paths where they do not take care of themselves in the way that they should because they feel like they have done something wrong, and that is the most despicable part of this behaviour, as far as I am concerned. When we take away a human being's ability to trust themselves and to know what does and does not feel good for themselves, it is a terrible form of abuse that is often minimized. It often leads to violence, as those people do not have the ability to defend themselves because they have been picked at for so long that they no longer understand their own human rights.

I am glad to have this bill put forward. We have to remember that this kind of behaviour is consistent with early warning signs of femicides, and we need to stop that. It is not only about the physical violence, although that is so important, but also about these small behaviours and these warning signs of aggressive behaviour and toxic relationships, which include coercive and controlling behaviour.

In my riding, there are many spaces to help people flee violence, and I want to acknowledge all of them; they do incredible work. One that has always stayed close to my heart is the work done in Campbell River at the transition home. It has the beautiful history of Ann Elmore Haig-Brown. She was a woman who worked very hard in that area of Campbell River to make sure that women, largely, were protected. Even though she did not have an official safe house, she created one in her own home. She made sure that women and children fleeing abusive relationships were protected. She often kept them in her own home or in the cottages around her home. She was very quiet and discreet, and she never shared anyone's reality, but she kept them safe. I think that kind of work is so important. She started a pathway towards Campbell River being able to move forward to have its own transition home and to move on to the other services provided by the Ann Elmore transition house in Campbell River.

When we look at the history of domestic abuse and of intimate-partner violence, we can see this path that has always been there. Women and children were fleeing violence and were not able to come forward to talk about inappropriate behaviour that is controlling. Because there was nothing there, the gaps just became wider. The other important thing is that it creates less trust in people who provide the supports, such as police or RCMP, for example. If a person cannot come in and get the help they need right away, it means they do not have trust in those systems, which makes it harder to ask for help later. Adding this is really going to allow police and RCMP to be able to take action much sooner than they are able to today. A big part of this should also include making sure that they get the training to understand what this behaviour looks like and how to call it into reality.

I want to mention that this bill also includes a provision that would allow victims of coercive and controlling behaviour to be recognized by the legislation, even after the relationship has ended. This is really important because for so many people who go through this experience and who are able to get away, for one reason or another, when they look back at it, they can see the pattern that started so much earlier. It is important that this is there because it would allow people to really call on that. In our society, we have to make sure that people are held to account for the actions that they take, so this is important. It means that people are not silenced and that when they are ready to come forward and speak, this would be there for them.

I want to thank everybody who works so hard to keep people safe. I think it is about time that we take that step forward to make sure that we are even safer and that the legislation is there to take action sooner.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Victoria has five minutes for right of reply.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking all of my colleagues who have been advocates on the issue, who have listened to survivors and their families and who are committed to ending gender-based violence and intimate partner violence.

Over the past year, working on the bill, I have heard hundreds of stories from Canadians across the country about how coercive control has impacted their lives. Coercive control is a pattern of behaviour intended to isolate, manipulate, control and often terrorize one's partner, stripping away their autonomy and their self-worth. It is an insidious form of violence that often goes unnoticed and not talked about, until it escalates. Then it becomes something much more visible and much more tragic. It is one of the most common precursors to physical violence. Coercive control is so widespread, and there are so many stories.

Today I want to talk a little bit about a few people who have travelled from Sault Ste. Marie. They are here in Ottawa tonight for the debate and for tomorrow's vote. Angie's Angels is a group that was formed a week after the murder of Angie Sweeney. Angie was a vibrant, loving person whose life was brutally cut short by femicide at the hands of her ex-boyfriend. Angie's ex-boyfriend used controlling tactics throughout their relationship, and when she left, the situation escalated violently. Her tragic story is all too common, and it is a stark reminder of the danger posed by intimate partner violence and coercive control.

Angie's Angels is working to share Angie's story to raise awareness about intimate partner violence. It is are calling for stronger protections for victims and for survivors. Angie's parents, Brian and Suzanne, and her best friends, Amanda and Renee, have channelled their grief and pain into this amazing action. They want to make sure that no family and no community has to go through the pain that they have. Their bravery and their dedication in the face of such an unimaginable loss is nothing short of heroic. They have turned their horrific personal tragedy into a powerful force for change, and for that they deserve our utmost support and respect.

Caitlin Jennings was someone who was a bright light to the people who knew her. Her father, Dan, connected with Angie's Angels after Caitlin was killed in London. Her life was also cut short when she became the victim of a coercive, controlling intimate partner. Dan has told me that if coercive control had been criminalized, Caitlin would still be here with us today. His words stuck with me, and I think they should stick with everyone in the chamber. We should all feel the urgency of tackling gender-based violence.

A woman is killed every six days in Canada. Caitlin's story and Angie's story are not isolated incidents. They are part of a larger, systemic problem that we as legislators have the power to address. Passing the bill is one important step, but we must do so much more.

When we vote on the bill, I want members to think about Angie and Caitlin, and to think of Angie's and Caitlin's loved ones who have dedicated their time and so much of their lives to preventing situations like theirs from happening. As legislators, we have a responsibility to stop this kind of abuse. I urge my colleagues to work with me to ensure that the bill makes its way rapidly through the red chamber and becomes law as quickly as possible. Let us pass the bill and take a crucial step towards a safer, more just society.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.