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

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to speak today to Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, introduced on May 18 by the member for Victoria. This bill seeks to achieve the critically important objective of greater protection from coercive and controlling conduct in intimate partner relationships.

Coercive control is a pervasive, long-term form of intimate partner violence that is intended to deprive victims of their autonomy. While some behaviours may constitute criminal offences in themselves, coercive control has to do with the cumulative impact of a series of behaviours, most of which do not constitute separate criminal offences.

Coercive control is a pervasive form of intimate partner violence. It takes place over time and serves to deprive victims of their autonomy. While some types of conduct, in and of themselves, may constitute separate criminal offences, coercive control concerns the cumulative impact of a range of behaviours, most of which do not.

Before I speak to this important piece of proposed legislation, I would like to express my deep condolences and sorrow to the families, friends and communities of the victims of intimate partner violence across Canada, including recently in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Truro, Nova Scotia; and Renfrew County, Ontario.

As someone who spent many years covering criminal court, I have graphic images and horrific details burned into my brain. They will never leave my head. I have come to know countless grieving families over the years, and they will never leave my heart.

These losses are immeasurable. Gender-based violence and intimate partner violence have no place in Canada, and each instance of these crimes is a tragedy. I echo the Minister of Justice in calling gender-based violence an epidemic in Canada that must be stopped.

We know that women are most often the victims of intimate partner violence, including coercive control, and that it is commonly perpetrated by men. In fact, 44% of Canadian women report having experienced some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. In 2021, women and girls represented 79% of police-reported victims of intimate partner violence. Between 2011 and 2021, two-thirds of all women and girls who were victims of gender-related murder were killed by an intimate partner. These are significant and distressing figures. Clearly, more needs to be done.

Our government is committed to ending the gender-based violence epidemic. I want to thank my colleague from Victoria and my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for their hard work on this issue.

Prior to Bill C-332, in 2020 and 2021, two private members' bills were tabled. They proposed almost identical reforms. Parliamentarians have also recently studied the issue of coercive control.

For example, the April 2021 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled “The Shadow Pandemic: Stopping Coercive and Controlling Behaviour in Intimate Relationships” recommended that the Minister of Justice engage with provincial and territorial counterparts to study the possibility of creating a new coercive control Criminal Code offence. I am pleased to note that this work is under way. Justice officials are collaborating with their provincial and territorial partners, and they are engaging stakeholders to inform that work.

Furthermore, the Ontario Renfrew County coroner's inquest recommended criminalizing coercive control, and the Minister of Justice's response to the inquest recommendations reiterated openness to criminalizing control and noted the ongoing work at the federal, provincial and territorial levels. I understand this work is also informed by the insights from the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission's final report, which included a number of recommendations related to coercive control.

We know from parliamentarians' study and Justice Canada's engagement that there are diverse views on creating a new coercive control offence. In particular, a number of concerns have been raised, including that an offence could disproportionately negatively impact indigenous people, racialized and marginalized communities. It could also exacerbate their overrepresentation in the criminal justice system. Perpetrators of intimate partner violence may also use a potential coercive control offence to further abuse their victims, for example, by accusing victims of committing coercive control, including to gain an advantage in family court. Victims may be charged with the offence, especially when they are defending themselves or their children.

The offence may be difficult for criminal justice actors to understand, enforce and prosecute because coercive control involves ongoing behaviour that serves to deprive the victim of their autonomy, which may be difficult to identify. Survivors may be revictimized by the criminal justice system when they testify.

Those who do support a coercive control offence spoke to the benefits of enacting such an offence, including that a new offence would better capture the actual experiences of victims, which concerns the impact of ongoing abusive conduct, rather than individual abusive incidents. A new offence could assist justice system actors in understanding and responding to intimate partner violence, including coercive control. A new offence could serve to prevent future violence, because coercive control often occurs prior to physical forms of violence and is a risk factor for its most serious forms, such as what is referred to as femicide. A new offence would be symbolically powerful and thus would empower victims of coercive control.

The experience of other jurisdictions may also assist us in examining this important issue. Specifically, England was the first jurisdiction to enact a coercive control offence in 2015, followed by Scotland in 2018, Ireland in 2019 and New South Wales in 2022. England's 2021 evaluation of their offence outlined a number of policy concerns, including that only a small number of incidents have come to the attention of police, indicating difficulties for both victims and police in recognizing the offence, missed opportunities for recording the offence as coercive control, and the necessity for training and specialized resources. A very high proportion of charges were withdrawn due to evidentiary difficulties, including where victims withdrew from the process, which highlights that gathering evidence in such cases is a significant challenge for police and prosecutors. Most prosecutions involved charges for other offences, for example, violent offences, which may indicate that the offence is more likely to be reported or identified by the police when another offence is committed.

Last May, Scotland published an evaluation of its coercive control offence. The conclusion was that there are no intrinsic problems with how the legislation is drafted, but there are problems with how it is enforced. One such problem is the degree to which the police are equipped to interpret and enforce the legislation.

These evaluations no doubt explain, at least in part, why stakeholders expressed support for the Scottish approach rather than the English approach. The findings of the evaluations also support an approach that would delay the coming into force of a new offence of coercive control in order to allow time to address enforcement issues, such as training.

Bill C-332, which is modelled on England's offence, proposes to criminalize repeated or continuous controlling or coercive conduct towards a spouse or other family member where that conduct has a significant impact on the person subjected to the conduct.

I am proud to support Bill C-332. However, I encourage committee members to compare the English and Scottish approaches and draw lessons that can be used to optimize Canada's path forward.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved that Bill C-332, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to be here to debate my private member's bill on coercive and controlling behaviour. I first want to start by acknowledging all of the work that so many advocates and survivors have done to make this bill a possibility.

Coercive and controlling behaviour is a form of domestic violence, and it touches the lives of so many people, especially women. Without the advocacy of partners like Andrea Silverstone from Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society, Alliance MH2, Carmen Gill and so many others, this bill would not be possible today.

I also want to thank my colleague, the MP for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for his work on criminalizing coercive and controlling behaviour. In the previous Parliament, my colleague presented a similar bill to mine which was supported by domestic violence prevention groups across the country. I am grateful for his allyship on this topic, and I am also incredibly grateful for his mentorship over the years.

In the spring of 2020, Canadians stayed home to slow the spread of COVID-19 in their communities. People from all walks of life worked together to take care of each other. However, at the same time, there was another epidemic taking place. The rates of intimate partner violence were skyrocketing. Since the start of the pandemic, calls to the police regarding domestic violence have risen by 50%.

Coercive and controlling behaviour is a form of domestic violence. Rather than a single instance, coercive control is a repeated pattern of behaviour from the perpetrator. While certain individual behaviours may seem normal if considered individually, when taken all together, they can amount to coercive control.

This pattern sometimes includes sexual and physical violence, but in many instances it starts with other tactics, such as threats, humiliation and depriving the person of independence. Often that means preventing them from accessing their support network, limiting transportation and communication, taking their car keys, breaking their cellphones, and limiting access to bank accounts, passports and immigration documents.

However, it can also look like controlling what food they eat, or not allowing them to wear certain clothes, denying them access to social media, and a number of other examples of what a partner can do to control another. Coercive control is one of the most common precursors to physical violence. In fact, 95% of victims of physical abuse also report coercive control.

In April 2020, as people stayed home to stop the spread of COVID-19, we also woke to the shocking news of a mass shooting in Nova Scotia. The shooting left 22 people dead. It was a national tragedy.

The public inquiry that followed found that the shooter had a history of gender-based violence, including coercive and controlling behaviour. When his long-time girlfriend tried to leave the relationship, he locked her out of their house, removed the tires from her car and threw them in the ditch in an attempt to prevent her from leaving.

Years later, on the night of the shooting, he attacked and forcibly restrained her. Luckily, she was able to escape, surviving by hiding in the woods overnight. She was able to give critical information to police as they conducted the manhunt.

This example of coercive and controlling behaviour is one that is now very public and well known, but often these red flags are ignored. Even when the victim, their community or police want to intervene, there are no tools in our justice system to support victims of coercive control.

The first time I recognized coercive control was when my sister showed up at my doorstep in tears. Her partner had taken her cellphone and bank cards. He had taken her car keys too, but she luckily had another set. It was the first time but definitely not the last time. Over the next few years, like so many other stories of intimate partner violence, coercive and controlling behaviour eventually escalated to physical violence. I remember being scared for her life.

It takes an average of seven attempts for a woman to leave an abusive partner, and I am so thankful that my sister is now free from that relationship. She gave me permission to share her story, even though when women disclose these stories, it always comes with risk.

She took this courageous step because, if there had been more awareness about the examples we have raised of coercive control when she was experiencing it, it might not have taken so long to leave. She wants women and girls to know that these behaviours are not acceptable and to have the tools to get out.

These stories are all too common. I urge my colleagues, especially my male colleagues, to talk to the women in their lives. Statistically speaking, we all know someone who has been in an abusive relationship. There is a very strong chance that, in that relationship, they experienced coercive control at the hands of their abuser.

Because coercive control is not only serious on its own account, but also a precursor to physical violence, we have an opportunity to intervene before people become physically injured. It is also one of the most common risk factors for femicide. Even in cases where there were no instances of physical violence before the murder, coercive control is almost always present.

Passing this legislation would give victims and police the tools they need to prevent some of the most heinous examples of intimate-partner violence. In Canada, every six days, a woman is killed from intimate-partner violence. It is time we said that enough is enough.

Despite years of calls and recommendations to criminalize coercive control, the Liberals have not acted. For a government that claims to be a champion for women, a champion for protecting women, it continues to delay and disappoint. It is time to take action to support victims, as 25% of calls to 911 are connected to intimate-partner violence. Domestic abuse is pervasive. It not only has horrific impacts on individuals and families. It also costs the economy $7 billion each year.

The cost of domestic abuse is highest for women. Coercive control impacts women at a ratio of five to one. The trauma of domestic abuse and intimate partner violence is long-lasting. One study shows that children who witness violence in the home have twice the rate of mental health disorders.

Two years ago, the justice committee tabled recommendations to Parliament calling on the government to pass legislation. My NDP colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, spearheaded the report on coercive control. I also want to thank MPs from all parties for their work on the justice committee in listening to survivors and listening to frontline organizations.

I thank my Bloc colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, my Conservative colleagues, the member for South Surrey—White Rock and the member for Fundy Royal, my Liberal colleague, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills, and so many more on the justice committee for their work and for calling on the government to take action.

It has been two years and, two years later, we are still waiting. Other countries have moved forward, including the U.K. with its controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship offence in the Serious Crime Act. Since this bill was passed in 2015, the U.K. has experienced a 30% increase in people reaching out for support. For the first time, many victims of coercive control now know that they can call domestic violence shelters or police for help.

We have also seen conviction rates rise in the U.K. as judges and police become more aware of the reality of coercive control. I want to touch briefly on the additions I have made to the bill from that of my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. One small change was that we added people who are engaged to be married explicitly into the bill, to ensure that those who are engaged but not explicitly dating would be covered. The more critical addition was the inclusion of people who are in partnerships that have ended.

We know that the time period when a woman is leaving an abusive relationship is the time when she is at most risk for violence and femicide. It is critical that we include separated partners in the bill so that victims and police have the tools they need to protect the person as they leave.

Criminalizing coercive control means giving victims and survivors additional tools to leave abusive situations. We have a responsibility to give these victims more control, more autonomy and more power to escape dangerous situations, hopefully to prevent the all too common escalation to violence.

There is no way of knowing whether the April 2020 shooting could have been prevented by criminalizing coercive and controlling behaviour, but my hope is that we can support victims and prevent further violence. I am urging my colleagues from every political party to support this bill to protect women and to protect victims of intimate partner violence.

I want to thank everyone who has had a hand in crafting this bill, especially the survivors, the frontline organizations and my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for his tireless efforts. Again, I urge members in the House to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in support of Bill C-48 today.

I did not think we would get the bill to this stage as quickly as we have in this Parliament. One of the reasons we did so is that the justice committee recognized the public concern about repeat violent offenders and problems with bail. It conducted hearings last year and came up with a series of recommendations that helped inform this bill. Therefore, today, we have something before us that the justice committee has already considered, that the premiers have been calling for and support, and that has broad support in the law enforcement community.

Today, we have heard many people talk about things other than bail reform. However, when we talked about bail reform, we heard the minister say that the government is prepared to proceed expeditiously. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the official opposition supports the bill. I heard some more ambiguous things from the last speaker from the Bloc Québécois, but he still said that the Bloc supports the bill. Therefore, the question I have been asking in this session is this: Since we have this broad support for the bill, are we serious about moving expeditiously? Maybe the bill does not have everything that everyone wants, but certainly there is broad support, as well as an urgent need to make the public more confident in our bail-reform system.

Since the leader of the official opposition personally gave me credit for a crime wave on Vancouver Island, I have to take a moment to say that I have dedicated my entire life to working to help keep communities safe. I say that as someone whose professional career was in teaching criminal justice before I came here. Therefore, for him to say that I have somehow supported measures in a deliberate manner that provoke criminality or a crime wave is really quite personally offensive.

What we get from the Leader of the Opposition is talk about common sense. I want to point out a piece of common sense that contradicts most of what he was saying today. Over the last 30 years, we have tripled the number of people in pretrial detention in this country. If detaining more people caused a decrease in crime, we would have way less crime than we have today. Therefore, common sense would tell us that detaining three times as many people does not solve the problem.

Bill C-48 would not cast a broad brush, as the Conservatives are asking for. Rather, it has some narrow and targeted measures aimed at repeat violent offenders; New Democrats are in support of those measures. This means that it would insert a definition of “repeat violent offender” into the Criminal Code so that we would know whom judges should be looking at when it comes to denying bail. It would also create some additional reverse onus categories. “Reverse onus” is a technical term meaning that when it is proposed to put someone in pretrial detention, in certain cases, that person has to show why they should not be detained.

Therefore, the bill would add to the list of offences. It would not create a new category; there are already lots of reverse onus provisions in bail. However, it would add illegal weapons, including handguns. That is an important provision, which I definitely support. People have to go to a lot of trouble to possess an illegal weapon; they do not accidentally possess a handgun. Therefore, if someone has a charge that involves a handgun, they should have to show the judge why they should be released and why they are not a threat to the public.

In addition, the bill would increase the reverse onus in cases of intimate partner violence. Again, we know that when there has been intimate partner violence, it is usually not a one-time incident. When people are charged more than once, this bill would make it much tougher for the offender in an intimate partner relationship to get released, which is something that New Democrats definitely support. It goes along with our proposal, which is now a private member's bill, Bill C-332, sponsored by the member for Victoria.

Bill C-3s32 calls for making coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate partner relationships a criminal offence. That would move the goal posts in the Criminal Code; instead of having to wait for broken bones and bruises, a pattern of behaviour that leads to such violence would be a criminal offence. This would allow earlier intervention and prevent much of that violence from happening in the future.

Therefore, this bill goes together with our proposal on coercive and controlling behaviour to help provide better protections for those who suffer violence in intimate partner relationships. In this country, we continue to lose women to violence; every six days, one woman is killed by an intimate partner. This is part of the urgency of this bill and why I believe that we should deal with it expeditiously.

There is a third piece in this bill that I think no one else has talked about today. It is a piece that came up in the hearings we held at the justice committee. In addition to the real problem we have with repeat violent offenders getting bail, which this bill I believe will solve, we have the problem that we detain way too many people in Canada and at far higher rates than any comparable countries around the world. Why is this a problem? There are two reasons it is a problem.

One is the injustice. One-third of the people who are detained before their trial are never convicted but found innocent. What happens to people who are detained and held in jail before the trial? Most often they lose their job. Often they lose their housing. They lose custody of their kids. There are all kinds of negative impacts for people who are not found guilty of anything. Therefore, we need to improve our systems so we are detaining the people who need to be detained and not detaining other people. Who are the people who are over-detained? Disproportionately they are poor, women, indigenous or racialized Canadians.

This bill adds a provision that would require judges to look at community-based bail supervision programs, which are very successful. The John Howard Society has been running them in Ontario. I am looking through my notes, but I am pretty sure I am right. The success rate of the John Howard Society programs, as limited as they are in Ontario, is about 90%. What does a 90% success rate mean? It means that those people who are on community-based bail supervision have a caseworker assigned to them, they will not commit another offence while they are on bail and they will show up in court when they are supposed to. In the meantime, they can maintain their jobs, housing and custody of their kids. Even if they are eventually found guilty, they may not serve prison time. Therefore, having a community-based bail supervision program would help maintain that coherence of families.

Here is the kicker in all of this. Those who serve even limited time in custody before trial are far more likely to reoffend. If we are actually worried about public safety, one of the best things we could do is get people into community-based bail supervision programs where they are put in touch with the services they need, whether mental health services, substance abuse programs or upgrades to their education. If people are in a community-based bail supervision program, they can get that assistance, which will help lead them out of whatever problems they were in to begin with. When they are in pretrial custody, they are in the provincial system and there are no programs available to them. There are no mental health programs, no addiction programs and no education programs while they wait, with the current delays in our trial system, up to six months for a trial. If we are really interested in public safety, we need to put more people into community-based bail supervision programs, which Bill C-48 would now mandate as an option to be considered by the judge. That would require the Liberal government to provide the upfront funding to get community-based bail supervision programs more widely available across the country.

Now all members will say that the New Democrats are demanding more spending, but guess what? It costs about one-third the amount to put people into community-based bail supervision compared to putting them into custody. Therefore, we need upfront start-up funds for community-based bail supervision, which ultimately would produce huge savings in addition to better public safety outcomes and avoid injustice to those who are eventually found not guilty of the offence for which they were charged.

These are the reasons that I think we need to proceed expeditiously on this bill. We need to get a commitment from the government to help fund community-based bail supervision programs.

I know this bill is going to pass. We had the hearings. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord who spoke before me said that he wants to examine the bill. The bill is the result of the hearings we already held at the justice committee, so I do not think there is a need for that detailed examination. Maybe the other opposition parties will decide we have to go to committee and do it all over again, and I am prepared to do that, but we could proceed expeditiously, get this bill passed and get a better start on making Canadians safer.

I am not saying that the concerns that Canadians have about repeat violent offenders are unjust. There are many tragic examples that all too often are exploited in this House for political reasons, and I have sympathy for those families, but we have to pass Bill C-48 to prevent the release of violent offenders.

Let me say the other part of this. New Democrats continue to call for on-demand mental health and substance abuse programs.

When the Conservatives like to talk about the 6,000 rolling, revolving-door incidents in Vancouver, those are not violent crimes. Those are people who are poor, who shoplift, who are drug-addicted or who have mental health issues. If we could get, first of all, better support in this time of increasing costs for all Canadians who are poor, if we could get better mental health programs and if we could get better substance abuse on-demand records, then we will have progress in making communities safer.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

Madam Speaker, as a New Democrat, I am pleased to rise in the House and say that we do support this bill as part of our commitment to the protection of victims' rights. Also, we encourage all members of the House to support the attempts to provide victims with the services they need in terms of rehabilitation or to compensate for losses they have suffered as a result of being victims of crime.

We conducted hearings in the justice committee, where we heard from victims, and we heard very clearly that one of the things they want is accurate and timely information about the parole process. For that reason, I am quite happy to see this bill come forward and to support it. One of the additional things we heard from victims was on the specific case of sexual assault victims, who asked to be consulted and to be informed about publication bans, and have the right to opt out of publication bans on their assaults. Many of them felt a publication ban without their consent denied their agency and their ability to speak about their own experience, and often it inadvertently protected the perpetrators when their names were suppressed. That is in a bill that is before the Senate, Bill S-12. It was in committee in the Senate today, and I think most of us look forward to that provision getting here to the House very soon.

There are other important measures, and I thank the member for Shefford for talking about the attempt to move coercive and controlling behaviour into criminal law. That was originally in a private member's bill I sponsored, but it is now being brought forward by the member for Victoria as Bill C-332. I hope we will be dealing with that this fall. Again, by making coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence, we can prevent victims of violence in the future, since coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate partner relationships is almost always a precursor to actual violence in that relationship.

I spent 20 years, before I came here, as a criminal justice instructor, and one of the things I know from working with and talking to victims is they are concerned about public safety, and in the very specific sense that almost every victim wants to make sure we take measures to make sure the same experience they had does not happen to others. That concern for public safety is always front and centre with every victim I have met with.

It is unfortunate when rhetoric around crime, punishment, parole and bail veers off into what I would call an ideological position that tougher, longer sentences actually keep people safe. It really misunderstands the purpose and function of our parole system. We know that, in Canada, people are eventually going to be released from jail, except for a very small number of them. The parole system does not provide a “get out of jail free” card or earlier release; it provides incentives for good behaviour in the corrections system and it provides incentives for people to participate in rehabilitation, to take drug and alcohol counselling and to take anger management courses. It is hard to get parole if one does not engage in good behaviour in the system and does not engage in those rehabilitation activities. A person will not actually get parole and will not get the privileges of a phased release, being in a halfway house or any of those other things that are seen somehow as privileges. Those things are actually the phased reintegration of people into the community.

We know that people who successfully complete a parole process have a much smaller chance of reoffending. If we make parole almost impossible to get and if we insist on very long sentences, we actually have a negative impact on public safety, in that those who have committed crimes will serve their sentence in the institution, will not participate in rehabilitation activities and will be released at the end of their sentence with no supervision, no access to public services and no monitoring of what they are doing in the community. Parole is a way of keeping people safe; it is a way of promoting public safety. It is a way of encouraging rehabilitation. It is important we not lose sight of that. Having said that, victims obviously need to have accurate information about how this works and what is happening at each stage of the process. In that sense, of course, I am still supportive of this bill.

At this point, it is important to mention what I will call the unsung heroes of public safety, who are not as high profile as the police or as corrections workers. Those are the parole officers in this country. Parole officers work very hard with those who are being phased back into the community, to make sure they are successful. In doing so, they help promote public safety. I salute the more than 1,600, I think it is now, parole officers who work for Corrections Canada and belong to the Union of Safety and Justice Employees.

They have recently released a report, within the last year, that points out the challenges they face. Parole officers have very high levels of operational stress injuries in their occupation. That has to do with the stress of dealing with the offenders and the lack of resources in our system.

One of the things they have called for is the hiring of additional parole officers. This would help each of them do their job in a healthier manner, but also reducing caseloads would mean there is more time for those parole officers to spend on the people who are being released, so they can provide better supervision, more monitoring of things like curfews, or more monitoring of whether they are actually where they are supposed to be while they are on parole.

In addition, they called for increased mental health services for parole officers. One of the things they pointed out was that this, in actual fact, saves money. If we provide better mental health services, we avoid the burnout that leads to long-term operational injuries and long-term sick leave.

The other thing they asked for, and I think this is interesting because it shows their professionalism, is increased funding for more mental health professionals working inside our correctional institutions and as part of the parole system. Quite often what we see now, unfortunately, is offenders who have very complex psychological and substance abuse problems to deal with. We need those highly skilled professionals to help design the programs that would help rehabilitate them into the community with the least risk possible to the public.

Again, it is important, whenever we are talking about probation, parole or bail, to remember that things like parole and bail are designed to help keep the public safe—

Criminal Code

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-332, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, which, if passed, would make coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home, and this bill would provide more legal protections for individuals in harmful and dangerous situations.

I want to thank my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for his leadership on this issue and his hard work in the justice committee, which led to the publication of two reports recommending that we make coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate partner relationships a criminal offence.

I also want to thank Sagesse, an organization that seeks to support those in abusive relationships. It has provided invaluable advice in developing a framework that will help protect individuals faced with domestic abuse.

Coercive control is one of the common early signs before domestic homicide, even when no physical violence has occurred. Countless stories of femicide show aggressors with histories of coercive, controlling behaviour that have gone unnoticed as warning signs or red flags. Criminalizing coercive and controlling behaviour will save lives and send a clear message that abusive behaviour is unacceptable and will not be ignored.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)