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.

[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—

[Karine Barrette, Lawyer and Project Manager, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale]

The societal implications are that criminalization would demonstrate that this socially unacceptable behaviour needs to be taken seriously. Although physical violence and femicides are universally condemned, all too often, non-physical intimate partner violence continues to be normalized and trivialized. However, the vast majority of women availing themselves of services for victims of domestic violence have suffered from coercive control, including the use of multiple methods to scare, isolate and control them, in addition to abuse and threats.

Criminalizing coercive control would constitute a major step forward for human rights, namely a woman's right to safety, dignity, autonomy and freedom.

Adding coercive control to the Criminal Code has the potential to ensure not only that intervention is more consistent with the lived experience of victims, but also that it takes place earlier.

Although coercive control is at the core of domestic violence, the current lack of legislative tools to convict the perpetrators leaves the justice system with very few legal levers and tools to take effective action in such situations. During our training sessions, many police officers said that they were aware of or had witnessed situations of concern involving victims who'd been isolated, terrorized or humiliated by their partners. However, the officers were unable to take legal action, in the absence of an offence covering such behaviour. These situations fall into a legal loophole, as a result.

Criminalizing coercive control would allow the legal system to take into account the context in which domestic violence occurs and the history of those dynamics, at any stage in the process, from the moment the police get involved through to parole.

Finally, since coercive control is an important predictor of homicide, creating a new offence would provide another effective tool to help break the cycle of violence earlier and ensure an adequate assessment of how dangerous a domestic violence situation is, at any time in the process.

We support the introduction in the Criminal Code of a new offence for coercive control; however, we believe that this change is insufficient on its own. Additional measures, such as training for all stakeholders, be they police officers, prosecutors or judges, is essential. Public awareness is also essential, along with other measures, which we can speak to later.

We hope that Bill C-332 will be passed, but we would like it to be accompanied by a government bill setting out funding conditions for adjustment measures.

[Pamela Cross, Advocacy Director, Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children]

Good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak with you. We provided our brief, and I hope you've all had an opportunity to take a look at that because it elaborates on the points I'm going to make very briefly here this morning.

Luke’s Place works with women in Ontario who have been subjected to intimate partner abuse. We do this through both the delivery of direct services to those who are involved with the family law system and engagement in system-change work.

While we acknowledge that there are a number of reasons to think criminalizing coercive control could have positive outcomes, we believe that the problems with criminalization are greater than the potential benefits.

Over the past 40 years, we’ve seen the many ways in which the criminal law has failed survivors of intimate partner violence. Despite the many legal interventions and initiatives, IPV, including lethal violence, remains a serious social problem in this country. While we absolutely need to find ways to validate the experiences of those subjected to coercive control, we don't think creating a criminal offence is the best way to do this. As with any law reform, criminalizing coercive control will have an impact beyond the criminal law itself. In particular, the intersections between criminal and family law are so deep that it's not possible to make changes to one without impacting the other.

We are also concerned, based on the negative consequences that have flowed from Canada’s long-standing mandatory charging policies, that a new criminal offence of coercive control could likewise lead to women being inappropriately charged, which would have disastrous impacts, including on their family law cases.

With respect to Bill C-332 specifically, we have three concerns.

First, coercively controlling behaviours are insidious, subtle and often invisible to anyone outside the relationship. What constitutes coercive control is different from one relationship to another. It builds, with one incident leading to another and then another. Only when all of them are examined in totality can the pattern of abuse be recognized—by the survivor herself, as well as by outsiders. For this reason, the bill needs a clear and inclusive definition of the prohibited behaviours and what constitutes repeated or continuous engagement if it's to be effective.

Second, it also requires a clear and inclusive definition of who it is intended to protect. We encourage you to consider the language used by Ontario’s domestic violence death review committee, which I'm happy to share in the question period.

Third, given the reality that abuse often continues long after separation, especially for women with children, the two-year time limitation should be removed.

What do we recommend?

First, we recommend that Parliament not move ahead with Bill C-332 at this time.

Second, we recommend following the Mass Casualty Commission’s recommendation to establish an expert advisory group to examine whether and how criminal law could better address coercive control.

Third, we recommend providing training, with real accountability measures, for police to ensure that they understand the prevalence of IPV, including coercive control.

Fourth, we recommend developing new and mandatory education for Crowns and judges, with accountability measures.

Fifth, we recommend funding access to free independent legal advice for survivors of gender-based violence who are considering accessing the criminal system.

Sixth, we recommend creating a criminal court support worker program to work in collaboration with existing criminal court victim assistance programs.

Seventh, we recommend funding national stakeholder consultations and discussions about the appropriate use of transformative and restorative justice models as a response to gender-based violence, in addition to the existing criminal system.

Then, and only then, consider how the criminal law might need adaptation to respond effectively to coercive control, using a collaborative and consultative process with all stakeholders.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 96 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 7, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to continue its study of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding controlling or coercive conduct. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application.

We have witnesses in the room and witnesses on Zoom, so for the benefit of everyone, let me take a minute to read some of the comments.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute it when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

This is a reminder that all comments must be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please used the “raise hand” function.

We have a substitute clerk today. I welcome you here today.

We have some substitute help as well. Welcome. We have others virtually.

The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I will now welcome our witnesses for our first panel.

Before we begin, I want to inform the committee that witnesses and members participating remotely in this meeting have completed sound tests.

We have three witnesses appearing in the first hour.

We will start with Pamela Cross, advocacy director at Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children.

Next, we have two representatives from the Regroupement des maisons des femmes victimes de violence conjugale. They are Karine Barrette, lawyer and project manager, and Louise Riendeau, who is jointly responsible for political affairs.

Finally, by video conference, we have Jennifer Koshan, a professor in the faculty of law at the University of Calgary, appearing as an individual.

Welcome to our witnesses.

Each of the three of you has up to five minutes for your opening remarks.

Because we have witnesses and we have lots of members who want to ask really important and good questions, I will say in the beginning that if we terminate the one hour and you have not had an opportunity to say everything you wanted to—this goes for the members as well in posing their questions—or an opportunity to respond, we urge you to please send us in writing whatever you believe would also help this committee. I have to keep track of the time because we also have three witnesses in the second panel.

Thank you very much.

We'll start with Ms. Pamela Cross.

Ms. Cross, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Ms. Silverstone.

My next question is for both of you, but I'm not sure who's best placed to answer it.

According to section 5 of Bill C‑332, someone who is accused of engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour could cite the defence that they acted in the best interests of the person towards whom the conduct was directed. For example, if you accuse your spouse of such conduct, they will say that they sincerely believed they were acting in your best interest by controlling this or that. You're going to tell me I'm exaggerating, and I agree.

The question that nags at me is this. Let's assume that the accused sincerely believed he was acting in the victim's best interest. In that case, doesn't section 5 open the door to the defence that the individual did not have criminal intent? Even if a person is accused of unacceptable behaviour, they may not have intended to commit a criminal act. Section 5 clearly states that it is a defence to claim that the person acted “in the best interests of the person towards whom the conduct was directed”.

Ms. Gill, what do you say to this possibility? Ms. Silverstone will be able to answer that question later.

[Andrea Silverstone, Chief Executive Officer, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society]

Thank you very much.

As the CEO of Sagesse, which is an Alberta-based domestic abuse prevention and intervention organization, I've seen first-hand in thousands of cases the severe impact of domestic violence. All too often we see it in the media, like in the murder of five people, including three children, in Manitoba this past weekend, or the murder of a mother in Calgary after she dropped off her children at preschool. I see this overwhelming reality summarized in devastating detail in my work with the Canadian Femicide Observatory, and in many of these cases—in most of these cases—I see the heavy toll of coercive control.

At its heart, coercive control is a pattern of behaviour that removes personal agency. The victim cannot make decisions in their own best interests because they fear the repercussions from the person who's controlling them. The control is often low level and cumulative so the person experiencing it doubts themselves or that they are even experiencing abuse. This lack of understanding carries over to the people around them, who don't recognize the abuse as domestic abuse but gradually see the relationship they have with their loved ones erode.

If the victim recognizes that it is coercive control, there is about a 20% chance they will call the police, but even if they do, they find out that the abuse they're experiencing is not illegal and the justice system cannot protect them. The police can listen but they can't act. This lack of support comes at a time when support is most critical. Relationships involving coercive control have more frequent and severe violence that's less likely to desist. It's one of the best indicators of lethality. This increased danger makes legal intervention imperative.

Through pursuing my masters and now a doctorate in coercive control and in looking at promising practices from around the world, I know that criminalizing coercive control is a game-changer. When the justice system in the U.K. changed their working definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control, calls to the police went up by 31%. All of a sudden, victims believed they were going to be heard and that the abuse they were experiencing would be addressed by the police and, by extension, the courts.

We can similarly change that trajectory for victims of abuse in Canada. Ninety-five per cent of abusive relationships include coercive control. If the police and the justice system can address coercive control criminally, then they can intervene to interrupt the escalation and frequency of abuse.

This law would do more, though, than just change our justice system. It would change how society views domestic abuse. It would foster a discourse through which all Canadians would understand that violence is much more than a black eye or a broken bone and that people stay in violent relationships because of the loss of their personal agency. It would destigmatize domestic abuse and allow us as a society to do a better job of addressing it.

Last, it would decrease the long-term burden on our health and justice systems, as the reality is that violence is very expensive. Back in 2009, the Government of Canada estimated the annual cost of domestic abuse to be $7.4 billion a year, which is about $220 per Canadian. This cost has no doubt escalated with normal inflation and increasing costs of the basics, like housing for those who are fleeing abuse.

For these and many other reasons, we support Bill C-332 as an essential measure to safeguard the rights to life, liberty and security of the person, as outlined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, this bill is not a magic wand that would immediately end the epidemic of domestic abuse. This law, like all laws, has its limitations.

First, the two-year time limit post-relationship is detailed in proposed paragraph 264.01(3)(c). Coercive control may continue far after the relationship ends, particularly in the case of tactics that use the legal system to control.

Second, the experiences of children aren't explicitly recognized and are only considered through the lens of harm done to the parent. On the other hand, for example, the domestic abuse bill in Scotland includes measures of aggravation in relation to a child.

Last, this law would not fix the structural issues that impact the provision of justice to equity-deserving groups. However, research on the application of coercive control laws in other jurisdictions can address many of these concerns. In a study of specific cases prosecuted under the coercive control legislation in the United Kingdom, Evan Stark noted that the law “was being correctly applied to historical patterns of abuse that included multiple elements of coercion and control”.

Research by Andy Myhill and others shows that if police are provided with screening tools that help ascertain the measures of control, the effect of the legislation in preventing domestic abuse across a plethora of groups is greatly enhanced. This means that to be effective, this law must be coupled with funding and a plan for training police, judges and Crown prosecutors to better understand coercive control. Organizations like mine, Sagesse, can help with that.

I want to close by thanking you for inviting me here today and for your careful consideration of this law. I think it's time to listen to the millions of Canadians who are impacted and to act immediately to protect them.

Thank you.

[Professor Carmen Gill, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to participate in this meeting on Bill C-332.

I recognize and respectfully acknowledge that I am speaking from the unceded traditional land of the Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick.

My research focuses on the police response to IPV, especially on coercive control. As such, I have conducted surveys with police officers on their perception of IPV and coercive control in New Brunswick but also across Canada. I have been able to hear a lot about how they view this particular issue and about the lack of response from different parts of the country.

We know that intimate partner violence is multi-dimensional in nature and encompasses numerous forms of violence. IPV is, unfortunately, seen as a one-time event, and we're failing to address the complexity of the issue involving repetitive tactics used by the abuser, which will include exploitation, manipulation, isolation and the micro-regulation of daily life, otherwise known as coercive control.

Violent behaviour does not necessarily involve physical violence or a single incident, but we really need to focus on the repeated and continuous patterns of behaviour that occur over a lengthy period of time. Regardless of when the violence starts and what it looks like, it is the abuser's way of maintaining control over his partner.

Since the Canadian criminal justice system primarily places emphasis on evidence of physical violence, first responders are to find evidence of such violence. Consequently, there is a neglect to question the context of the abuse and the harm caused within these situations, which results in coercive control being unaddressed or dismissed. It is almost impossible for a police officer to recognize the deprivation of rights to freedom, the obstruction of liberty and the dynamic of power and control when they are intervening.

The recognition of coercive control as an offence would finally be a recognition that power and control over an intimate partner is a crime against the person. This would allow those caught in abusive relationships to report when they are experiencing abuse, even if it's not physical violence. Increasing the ability of the criminal justice system to respond to the pattern of violence of non-physical forms will lead the police response to be less incident-focused and will reduce the misidentification of the victim-survivor as a primary aggressor.

Too often, victims of violence will not seek help because they believe that what they're experiencing is not serious enough. However, when they do, they are not taken seriously as it is difficult to determine how violence is occurring. It is important to reinforce women's safety, and it requires the state to assume responsibility for responding to coercive control, which we are currently failing to address. An offence of coercive control would clearly recognize the fact that IPV is a pattern of control and power over the victim and would legitimize victims' experiences. Such an offence may also prevent intimate partner homicide.

Of course, it is important to keep in mind that any changes in legislation have unintended consequences. However, they can be overcome with awareness, training and better knowledge of the issue. When considering the impact of the potential coercive control offence, it is imperative that its adoption and implementation be done in conjunction with the development of, for instance, risk assessment and training for frontline responders especially, such as police officers, who are responsible for making the determination of IPV as a crime. Of course, all judicial actors should be more aware of this particular issue.

Having said that, it is important to review Bill C-332 to ensure that it is as clear as possible. I may have some suggestions regarding the wording of the amendment, especially regarding the definition of “intimate partner” or the limitation of the two years post-separation, just to name a few.

Thank you.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Collins, thank you so much for being here with us this morning.

I thank you both for the work you have done on Bill C‑332.

Of course, as women, we understand very well the importance of putting laws such as this one in place, so that violence against women is eradicated or, at the very least, diminished.

In Quebec, 2,700 women have had access to centres for abused women, shelter resources. That's not counting the 1,900 children who were also sheltered. In addition, more than 25,000 people requested related services, such as counselling or accompaniment. So we can see that this problem is very widespread.

You used the definition of “dating partners”. Why don't you refer to the definition of “common-law partner” already in the Criminal Code under section 2?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, colleagues, for inviting me to speak to my bill, Bill C-332. It would criminalize coercive and controlling behaviour.

I want to express my deep gratitude to the members of this committee for the work you've done on this file, and to members from all parties for your support for this bill. We have a responsibility as members of Parliament to tackle gender-based violence, to tackle intimate partner violence and to work to end femicide.

I also want to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. It's important to note as we go into these discussions that indigenous people are over-represented in our criminal justice system and that indigenous women experience gender-based violence at unprecedented rates. They are disproportionately impacted by gender-based violence, and I think we all have a responsibility to keep working to address the ongoing genocide faced by indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

Research shows that indigenous women, Black women, women of colour and 2SLGBTQ+ folks, people living with disabilities, people of lower incomes, newcomers and other marginalized groups are at higher risk of experiencing coercive and controlling behaviour. Providing paths for them to seek help and report and leave these situations is crucial if we want to support victims and survivors of intimate partner violence.

Fundamentally, this bill is about ensuring that the criminal justice system can better address domestic violence. We know that our current approach is not working. It does not adequately support victims and it doesn't adequately reflect how intimate partner violence actually occurs. This bill proposes to deal with patterns of behaviour. These patterns are ones that have a significant impact on a person in their relationship.

I spoke to the House about my personal connection to this bill. I witnessed my sister experience coercive and controlling behaviour and then physical intimate partner violence. I remember being so scared for her life. It would keep me up at night worrying.

As we're discussing this, I am thinking of Angie Sweeney from Sault Ste. Marie and the other victims who were killed by her boyfriend. They were children. I'm thinking about this past week in Manitoba and the woman, her children and her niece. I'm thinking about last month and the woman who was killed outside an elementary school. They could have been my sister, and they could, in the future, be your constituents or the people we know and love.

It is so important that we move this bill through the House quickly. Every six days, a woman in Canada dies from intimate partner violence. It's too much.

I urge this committee—and I believe in you—to do this work. I'm looking forward to the discussion. So much more needs to be done to tackle gender-based violence and intimate partner violence, and this is one important piece of the puzzle.

Thank you.