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

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-364, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing).

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Peterborough—Kawartha for seconding this bill.

I want to thank all my colleagues who are a part of the rural crime caucus that we have in the Conservative Party. During the first term of the current government, we struck the rural crime task force. We consulted with Albertans and Canadians from coast to coast. We put together a report called “Toward a Safer Alberta”. That report had numerous recommendations in it, including legislative changes that could be made. Even though we have been through the pandemic, the rural crime statistics still apply today. The police have done what they can. They have reorganized themselves.

Governments that are not in charge of the Criminal Code have done everything they can to take this seriously, and there seems to be a new-found interest across the way in the plight of rural Canadians. We can just imagine someone setting up a chop shop or a meth lab in a rural area, far away from the various police stations and communities, which is done purposefully to avoid detection. They cause absolute hell for people in rural communities, because the crime from organized crime elements is absorbed by just a small number of residents. That is why this bill is so important.

I encourage my colleagues across the way to give consideration to it. It would change the Criminal Code at the time of sentencing and make it an aggravating factor if somebody is purposefully targeting somebody in a rural area, where proximity to emergency services and police services is a very difficult thing.

It does a number of other things, including strengthening provisions for sentencing, when it comes to using or carrying a weapon to a crime scene. It also changes the term “dwelling” to “place”, because lots of break and enters happen to barns and Quonset huts. Lots of other valuables are kept in storage in rural areas.

I really encourage all my colleagues in the House to take a look at the bill. Let us get this bill adopted post-haste.

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

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Victoria for her work on this very important legislation.

The member mentioned that other jurisdictions have already implemented similar legislation. What we have heard from those jurisdictions is that, while the legislation is good, the implementation has had some difficulty because members of the justice system did not always know how to implement the new law. I would ask whether she has any suggestions on how to mitigate those problems.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her support for this move and for recognizing the importance of this bill.

I really appreciate that question because we have heard from survivors and domestic abuse organizations in the U.K. and Scotland about some of the barriers that people face, even after the legislation has passed, which is why it is so important that we ensure that judges, prosecutors and people involved in the criminal justice system have training.

In Canada, we already know that coercive and controlling behaviour is integrated into family law. It does have a place in some of our criminal justice systems, so some people are aware of it, but many are not. We need to do the work to make sure that judges, prosecutors and people in the criminal justice system are educated.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the question my Liberal colleague asked my colleague from Victoria, I would like to say that several administrations around the world have indeed stated that this type of legislation can be complicated to enforce. That being said, at noon today, the members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women welcomed a delegation from Europe which included people from France. I had some exchanges with some French government members, who said that despite the complexity, countries are moving forward when it comes to coercive control. We have to find a way to address this issue while trying to avoid the traps of the complexity of evidence. That is one of the barriers that remain to be crossed to truly address issues of domestic violence seriously.

It is critical to get to this because otherwise we are left with a single type of violence, the worst kind. There are many other types of violence that we must seriously include in the debate to be able to respond to the needs of as many victims as possible.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her comments and for her ongoing advocacy for women and victims of intimate partner violence.

The member raises an important point. We are seeing other jurisdictions doing this work and doing it effectively. In the U.K., since 2015, when it passed the legislation, we have seen a 30% increase in calls for support. The fact that we are seeing increased convictions of instances of abuse because of this legislation really shows us a path forward that works.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her intervention in the House today. Through the work she has done on this file and how eloquently she speaks, I have learned a great deal from her on this issue.

We have heard criticisms that domestic abuse is already covered within the criminal justice system. However, this particular piece of legislation is so important because it does take it past what the criminal system deals with, and I would like the member to address that a little more in depth. I know she addressed that during her speech, but I want to give her an opportunity to share more on that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ongoing support for victims of intimate partner violence. She raises a really critical issue. Many people do not know what coercive control is. It is not a simple instance of violence. We have often heard from police that, when they show up, they are not able to take action or provide support because the tools that are needed are not in our criminal justice to support victims of coercive control.

When one partner breaks the other's cellphone or takes the car keys or their bank card, it does not fall under the current domestic abuse laws in Canada. It is so critical that we acknowledge the patterns of abuse and recognize that they are so prevalent in our society, so pervasive across the board. It is heartbreaking to see this happen. It is especially heartbreaking that, when victims have the courage to come forward, so far the support has not been there.

This is an important step that New Democrats want to take. I thank all colleagues across all parties for their support.

[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.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important bill, and it is always a true honour to stand in the House and represent the people from Peterborough—Kawartha who elected me.

I have been here for two years now, and the slowness of this place is frustrating. People are suffering, and a lot of people reach out to us, as members of Parliament, who are often in the depths or at their worst by the time they get to us. We have seen an increase in victims' rights' being eroded. Victims are really suffering, and we need change. The bill before us is a very positive movement on something that can be done, and I am very honoured to stand to speak to it.

The member for Victoria, who brought the bill forward, also shared a very personal experience as to why she created this private member's bill. It is very motivating to see that it comes from a place of humanity, to make the world a better place. Bill C-332 is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to controlling or coercive conduct. I am going to do a little bit of housekeeping stuff, and then I will get into some personal stories about this, because I think most people, especially women members of the House, have a lot of experience or know somebody who has experienced this.

The private member's bill would amend the Criminal Code, in particular section 264, by adding the following offence:

Everyone commits an offence who repeatedly or continuously engages in controlling or coercive conduct towards a person with whom they are connected that they know or ought to know could, in all the circumstances, reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on that person and that has such an impact on that person.

Basically, the bill would be giving language to coercive control, which is relatively new in the Criminal Code. We have seen it happen in a couple of other places. In 2015, we saw it happen in England. Scotland and Ireland, I believe, were in 2019. This is the first time this has happened.

What is coercive control? Some people may actually know what this is, but they might not know the name of it. Many people would probably know it from Hollywood movies actually. Alice, Darling is a fairly new movie that really delves into this. From my era, people may remember the movie Sleeping with the Enemy, and there was a great Netflix series called Maid.

I am going to tell a story about my friend, what happened to her and what she had to do to get out of her relationship. I remember being on the phone with her many times, and she said, “Well, he's not hitting me, so it's not that bad.” I said, “Okay, but you don't have any money in your bank account, you're not allowed to go where you want to go, you don't have your own phone and you're afraid to leave your house.” That is abuse. That is where coercive control comes into this, and that is ultimately what it is. For women and men watching this, anybody who slowly takes away a person's finances, does not let them share a credit card or does not allow them to buy things on their own, and it is like a slow and steady kind of thing, that is coercive control, and the bill before us would build that into the Criminal Code to make it a criminal offence.

I talked to a couple of people before I rose to speak today, in order to get their thoughts on this, and I will share their feedback. However, before I do, I want to share what happened to my friend whom I spoke of.

My friend knew that she needed to get out of that relationship, but she could not. She could not leave him. She and her children were hostages in their own home. She had no money and no way to get out, and he would take her car keys. She could not leave. She literally had to get a burner phone. She had to stash away money that she got somewhere else. She had to leave when he went to work. It was like a Hollywood movie in real life. However, I want to tell members that today, she is doing amazing. She got her master's in education and built herself up from nothing.

It is possible to escape for anybody who is living in this reality. Most victims often do not even know they are victims, because it happens so slowly and the abusers make them feel like they are nothing.

Some people wrote to me with their stories, and I will share them shortly.

I asked a former prosecutor what he thought of this bill. He said that any time we can improve access to justice for victims, that is a win. Coercive control is an element of other offences, and this bill would be really helpful in preventing the often, sadly, inevitable escalation that happens in domestic violence. What is so great about the bill is that it is a prevention end, because people often cannot go to the police or do not want to go to the police until there is a physical assault. That is the slow progression of coercive control. It can start with not being allowed to wear what one wants to wear, and it progresses. This bill would help victims feel empowered to come forward.

I will read what the chief of the Peterborough Police Service wrote to me when I asked for his thoughts on this bill. The message from Chief Stu Betts is, “It would mean that there would be recognition of the fact that many crimes are only reported after a long history of coercive control and victims of those crimes may feel a greater sense of vindication and that someone recognizes that the history has caused increased harm. It also recognizes that some of those engaged in this type of behaviour essentially operate with the knowledge that their victims are likely not to report, if ever. I believe it may also go a long way toward the work we do to assist victims of crime.”

There was a horrific story out of Pembroke. I do not even like to say the murderer's name because I feel it gives him the attention that he feeds off of, so I will only refer to the victims. There were three women killed, point-blank shotgun killings: 36-year-old Anastasia Kuzyk, 48-year-old Nathalie Warmerdam and Carol Culleton. They were all murdered within the space of less than an hour by a man who everybody, including the police, knew was dangerous, yet nobody could do anything.

This bill would be a very simple, tangible solution to put into the Criminal Code to help victims.

I asked folks at home if they wanted to write to me to share any experiences and contribute to my speech today. One woman wrote to me. I am not going to use her name to protect her, but she gave me permission to share her story with everyone. It is important that I read this into the record.

She said, “As a mom who's been separated four years now and someone who has gone through hell with an ex-spouse, I feel this bill will hopefully help people who go through these types of situations. I left a 13-year marriage because of emotional, verbal and psychological abuse four years ago, which took me a lot of strength and courage to do. My mental state was drastically going downhill and I knew I had to finally leave, which was the hardest decision I ever had to make. I was having unpleasant thoughts. With support and help, I managed. I thought I was breaking free and things would get better, but as you are probably aware, the post-separation abuse escalated and got worse.” That is just what I spoke of. She said, “After four years, I am still dealing with coercive control and emotional and verbal abuse.”

The next part is so profound. It is emotional. She said, “I would rather be punched in the face than have to go through years of emotional, verbal and psychological abuse. I have talked to the police in the past a couple of times about situations, but all they could do was talk to him and warn him. They told me there is nothing they can do until he actually physically hurts me. The effects and damage of emotional and psychological abuse is horrible and exhausting, mentally and physically. After four years of being separated, I am still trying to find peace and build myself back up. It is very hard to do when you are still being abused, but with time and a lot of help and support, it is possible. Putting this in place would help.”

Members can obviously see that Conservatives fully support this bill. It has been put forward before. The former justice minister agreed with it, but nothing was done. Victims have repeatedly taken a back seat in the last eight years under the Prime Minister. This bill solidly states that yes, we will do something; yes, we see victims; yes, we recognize the implications and dangers of coercive control.

I hope everyone in the House supports this bill.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑332, which amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of engaging in controlling or coercive conduct that has a significant impact on the person towards whom the conduct is directed, including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities.

The issue of controlling and coercive conduct has been an interest of mine for quite some time. This type of conduct includes physical, sexual and emotional abuse, financial control, and implicit or explicit threats to the partner or ex-partner and to their children, belongings or even pets.

First I will spend a little more time talking about the definition, before moving on to other measures we are currently looking at to address violence. I will conclude by explaining some of our concerns with the bill.

First, I have discussed the topic with my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord on a number of occasions. That is how I found out that Megan Stephens, one of the witnesses who participated in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' study, had mentioned a minor complication, namely, the fact that there is no universally accepted definition. However, the following are some of the definitions that were given over the course of the study: limiting transportation, denying access to household, controlling food consumption, disconnecting phone lines, breaking cell phones and preventing them from going to work or going to school. Combined together, all those forms of behaviour fall under coercive control.

Abusive partners uses 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 tactics of control.

In some cases, the violent partner uses state-sanctioned structures to continue to coerce and control their victim by creating problems related to custody of the children and visitation rights. The justice system is used as a weapon against the victim. According to a study published by Statistics Canada in April 2021, intimate partner violence is a serious problem, and controlling and coercive behaviours are an integral part of that. It is difficult to know the exact scope of this type of violence in Canada, because most cases are not reported to the police.

I want to point out that, in 2021, we were in the midst of the pandemic and victims were at home with their abusers 24-7. The fact that most cases of intimate partner violence are not reported to the police is the biggest impediment to determining how many people are affected, documenting the situation and implementing solutions for the victims of these types of behaviour. It is difficult for them to find a way to talk so someone.

During her testimony in committee, Lisa Smylie, the director general of communications and public affairs for the research, results and delivery branch at the Department for Women and Gender Equality, said that only about 36% of domestic violence incidents and 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police. Those numbers are very low.

According to the data reported by the country's police forces in 2018, women living in rural areas experience intimate partner violence the most. That is also important to note. What is more, even though coercive and controlling violence may be present in other cases, it is present in 95% of cases of domestic violence as we know it.

Today, it is facilitated by technological advances such as geolocation systems, miniature cameras, smart phones and social media platforms. This makes everything more complex. All these things make it easier for the abusers when they want to continue to inflict harm and reinforce the isolation and control, regardless of where their victim may be. There are also the traditional forms of blackmail on social media, such as identity theft, the repeated sending of threatening messages or the disclosure of personal information or content about the victim that is sexual in nature.

In light of the testimony offered during the study at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, a rather high number of offences under the Criminal Code can apply to domestic violence. The committee noted a few problems with the enforcement of the current legislation in the cases of victims of coercive or controlling violence.

Victims are wary of and have little confidence in existing mechanisms, police services and the justice system to adequately deal with their trauma. A number of stakeholders noted that victims believe that they will not be taken seriously and they worry about myths. They do not want to be judged by institutions on their credibility when they report their abusers.

Abusers often create financial and other forms of dependence, which limits the actions that victims caught in this vicious circle can take, because they could lose everything, end up on the street or lose custody of their children.

The divide between the criminal justice system, family courts and community organizations needs to be addressed.

When elements of coercive control and other forms of control are present, the criminal and judicial systems too often say that simply telling one's story is not enough to file a complaint.

Lastly, one of the most serious obstacles is the under-enforcement of the law. Multiple charges against violent men are often reduced to a single charge, usually assault. This charge is then often withdrawn in exchange for a peace bond. This is the infamous section 810.

The many femicides and cases of harassment demonstrate the limitations and the weakness of section 810 in cases where violent men pose a high risk of reoffending. They must be treated differently and required to wear an electronic monitoring device.

Second, the bill proposed by the member for Victoria is part of a growing trend among legislators to focus on coercive violence. In recent years, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report on this issue, which was presented in the House on April 27, 2021. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women also touched on the issue during its study on intimate partner violence and made two motions a priority for the winter of 2024, one of which was my study proposal to look at international best practices in this area and try to learn from them.

I also examined this issue to a lesser degree at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, when I participated a few times in its study on safe practices in sport and the topic of coercive control came up.

More recently, the Liberal member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle's Bill C‑233, which was also examined by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, received royal assent on April 27.

The bill amended the Criminal Code to require judges, in cases of domestic violence, to consider whether it is appropriate for the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device before issuing a release order. In addition, the bill amended the Judges Act to include an obligation to hold continuing education seminars on issues of sexual assault, intimate partner violence and coercive control.

To a lesser extent, Bill C-21, which is currently before the Senate, focuses primarily on gun control and revoking possession when an individual is suspected of, or has engaged in, domestic violence, including coercive and controlling behaviour. This is part of a trend.

Third, Bill C-332 amends the Criminal Code, after section 264, by introducing the concept of controlling or coercive conduct as a criminal offence. The Bloc Québécois supports the objective of Bill C-332. However, we see several major shortcomings that will have to be studied in committee. The scope of the bill should be expanded to allow former spouses or other family members who are not part of the household to testify, in order to break the infamous “one person's word against another's” system. That is good.

What is more, consideration of testimony from neighbours, colleagues or others might also make it easier for victims to come forward. The severity of sentences and the consideration given to children in cases of coercive or controlling violent behaviour are other important factors. Reviewing the grounds on which prosecutors drop several charges and opt for the lowest common denominator shows that this can hinder the administration of justice and undermine public confidence and the victims' confidence in the courts that deal with these issues. We have to study all of that.

There are already 35 sections in the Criminal Code that can apply to domestic or family violence. They just need to be rigorously enforced, and we need to think of ways of ensuring that prosecutors rely on these sections more often in cases of coercive or controlling violence. We also need to address the difficulties associated with collecting evidence and ensuring solid and sound prosecution.

Megan Stephens, Executive Director and General Counsel at Women's Legal Education and Action Fund argued that Bill C‑247 and Bill C‑332 can make the legislation unnecessarily complex because new concepts are being introduced when the Criminal Code already contains very similar offences, particularly on criminal harassment and human trafficking. We will need to take a closer look at that.

The wording of the two NDP members' bills does not address the issue of victims having to relive their trauma. They will have to retell their stories over and over again, just as they do now, which has been roundly criticized. Furthermore, Bill C-332, as currently drafted, does not change how these matters are dealt with by the courts and the authorities.

In closing, if we want to ensure that this never happens again, if we want to put an end to this shadow epidemic, we must take action. We must take action because violence is not always physical, but it always hurts.

As a final point, the Quebec National Assembly has also made this call. I had a discussion with an MNA in Quebec City this summer. She told me that the Quebec National Assembly had done its part, that it had produced the report “Rebuilding Trust” and said that the ball was now in Ottawa's court. She said that the National Assembly does not have jurisdiction to study coercive control in the Criminal Code. I took it upon myself to heed the call from the Quebec National Assembly, a call made by female MNAs who did exceptional, non-partisan work.

Let us try to examine it intelligently in committee.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak in this House in support of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, referring to controlling or coercive conduct.

I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the member of Parliament for Victoria, for her hard work on this historic piece of legislation. I know that my colleague has been a long-time defender of women's rights; she has been outspoken about the need for federal leadership and action to end violence against women and gender-based violence. The presentation of this bill is part of her work as an MP and as an advocate.

We all know this bill is sorely needed and will make a difference. We could even say that it has the power to save lives across the country.

We know that this bill addresses a critical component of domestic violence by making controlling or coercive conduct in intimate relationships a criminal offence. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to create a new offence of “engag[ing] in controlling or coercive conduct”.

This involves patterns of behaviour that have significant impacts on the person toward 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. Coercive and controlling behaviour is also one of the most consistent early warning signs in femicides in intimate partnerships, even when no physical violence has occurred.

We know that Canada desperately needs this kind of legislation and that women in Canada desperately need the federal government to do much more to end the epidemic of violence against women. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, calls to the police about domestic violence have risen by 50%. We are also aware that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended addressing coercive and controlling behaviour in a report from the spring of 2021.

We, in the NDP, have heard calls from survivors of abuse to criminalize coercive and controlling behaviour. We are the only party to take the steps necessary to present legislation to address this issue.

There are warning signs of aggressive behaviour in toxic relationships, which include coercive and controlling behaviour. By amending the Criminal Code, the NDP is giving victims more tools to address domestic abuse and stepping up the fight against all forms of domestic violence.

I want to go back to that first point about the increase in calls to police by 50% when it comes to domestic violence. We are in 2023, and it has now been multiple decades where we have heard openly and been aware of many reports, made changes to our justice system and put systems and services in place to support women fleeing violence. To hear that number of a 50% increase in domestic violence is chilling. We all know of that reality, whether it is in our communities, in our households or among our friends. Depending on what experiences women are having, we know that there has been a sharp increase in violence against women.

We are coming up to December 6, when we think of the women who were shot dead by a misogynist at École Polytechnique. Every year we read the names of other women, as well, who have been the target of misogyny and have been killed because they are women. We read of women who have been killed by their partners or ex-partners.

We know that these numbers are not going down. To hear of an increase of 50% in calls to the police when it comes to domestic violence is not only chilling but also ought to be a call to action. We need this legislation passed, and we need to go much further to end domestic violence and gender-based violence in our country.

Just recently, in October, many of us were shaken by the femicide in northern Ontario, in Sault Ste. Marie. Angie Sweeney was killed, along with her three children, and another woman was shot by the ex-domestic partner. This femicide shook many of us across the country, particularly those of us from and connected to northern communities. We know that domestic violence is a very serious matter there; despite the awareness and the supports, women continue to be victims of domestic violence and gender-based violence.

In my own constituency, in February, Noreen Tait, who lived in O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation, which is also known as South Indian Lake, was killed by her former partner. The chief and leaders in the community came out right away and said that there need to be more supports for women fleeing violence, more supports for women who are trying to get on safe ground. I want to get into that a bit, because today's bill is an important step, and like I said, we need to go a lot further and see a lot more from the federal government.

The Liberals talked a good talk when they talked about investing in women after the years of cuts and lack of investment from the Harper Conservatives, but the reality is that the Liberals certainly have not stepped up in the way we need them to. I want to focus particularly on the fact that indigenous women continue to be disproportionately targeted by violence. We have yet to see a red dress alert, which my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has been pushing for. We have yet to see the kind of investment we need in housing, particularly in first nations communities for on-reserve housing. This was something that was brought up after the murder of Noreen Tait. In a community like South Indian Lake, which is desperate for housing, Noreen had nowhere to go. Knowing that the closest women's shelter is over an hour away, she needed her own home. This was known to everybody in the community, and because of the lack of funding by Liberal and Conservative governments, there is a housing crisis on first nations. It is a factor that renders indigenous women particularly vulnerable.

We also know there need to be investments in education. Again, thinking of indigenous communities, they need to be able to support women pursuing their education and better opportunities. We need to see investment in health care. I am very concerned about the lack of support when it comes to people seeking treatment for addictions and also seeking to break the cycles of violence they face. We need to see support in terms of the child welfare system, recognizing there are vicious cycles that often disproportionately impact mothers and other women.

Today is an important step in taking action when it comes to ending domestic violence by including the recognition in the Criminal Code of coercive control. I certainly hope that all parties will support this and that we can see the bill come to fruition as soon as possible to give that tool to women fleeing violence and to give that tool to women and their children and to communities that are seeking to support them. However, we have a long way to go to be able to end the gender-based violence we are seeing on the rise in our country and to address the crisis of femicide in our country. Finally, here we are talking about violence against women, and it is incumbent on us to push for an end to violence against women here at home and around the world.

Today, I also want to take a moment to reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire in Israel and Palestine, recognizing that over 4,000 children and over 10,000 civilians, many of them women, have been killed already. We need all hostages to be freed. We need to make sure there is a ceasefire to end this human catastrophe.

I hope the bill put forward by my colleague from Victoria becomes a reality as soon as possible.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, controlling or coercive conduct. The government certainly takes this matter extremely seriously. We recognize the fact that Bill C-332 proposes to create a new hybrid offence that would criminalize repeated controlling or coercive conduct toward a person to whom they are connected, including a spouse or other family member, which has a significant impact on the person at whom the conduct is directed.

Clearly, as I indicated, the government is interested in this. There are a few possible amendments that we would like to propose once this bill gets to committee. We are keen on seeing this through the process so that it can be deliberated at committee, studied and reported back to the House.

We acknowledge that gender-based violence and intimate partner violence have no place in Canada and our government has made a priority to end them in all their forms. The Minister of Justice called gender-based violence an epidemic because it is an appropriate characterization of a serious and pervasive social issue that has immediate and long-term impacts for victims, survivors and their families. In fact, 44% of Canadian women report having experienced some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. This is significant and a distressing figure.

The government is committed to ending gender-based violence in all its forms through preventative and responsive measures, including a responsive justice system. To that end, I do look forward to continuing this debate the next time it is before the House and getting it to committee so that we can bring legislation to this effect into law.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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.

Before we go into Adjournment Proceedings, I will take a moment.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them.

For those members who are going out to November 11 activities, please give our veterans and serving servicemen and women our best.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

moved that Bill C-62, an act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about Bill C-62. This is a sensitive and very personal subject for so many around the country.

We have debated many of the core issues, but today we are talking about the legislation that proposes to extend the temporary exclusion of eligibility for medical assistance in dying for persons suffering solely from a mental illness by three years, until March 17, 2027.

I want to be clear: The question we are debating today is not whether mental illness can cause irremediable and intolerable suffering on par with that of physical illnesses. We know that it can, and that is not up for debate. We must proceed cautiously and we must get this right. We must ensure that the appropriate measures are in place across this country to affirm and protect our most vulnerable.

We have heard significant concerns from partners, provinces and territories and the medical community, regarding health care system preparedness. In its latest report, tabled on January 29 of this year, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying found that while considerable progress has been made in preparing for the expansion of eligibility for persons suffering solely from a mental illness, an additional delay is needed to ensure that the health care system can safely provide MAID in these types of complex cases.

These concerns must be addressed before we can move forward with extending eligibility to persons whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. While that critical work is happening, we must also take action to ensure that vulnerable people are protected. Unless Bill C-62 is passed by March 17, 2024, the exclusion of eligibility for MAID will be automatically repealed. That means that individuals suffering solely from mental illness could be eligible to receive MAID as of that date, without the system being ready.

Although progress has been made to support the safe assessment and provision of MAID in complex cases, now is not the time to extend the exclusion, as highlighted by the letter we received from provinces and territories.

Over the past few years, the Government of Canada has been collaborating closely and carefully with partners to support the implementation of MAID. We have taken a compassionate and careful approach to this in our support of the safe assessment of MAID in complex cases, including where the sole and underlying medical condition is a mental illness.

I would like to take a few minutes to highlight some of the key areas of progress that have been made. As required under former Bill C-7, we appointed an independent expert panel with a mandate to provide recommendations on protocol, guidance and safeguards to apply to requests for MAID made by persons whose medical condition is a mental illness.

The final report, tabled by the expert panel in the spring of 2022, included 19 recommendations for governments and health system partners to support the safe expansion of MAID for persons suffering only from a mental illness. The panel noted that the recommendations would benefit all complex track 2 MAID assessments and provisions, even those where mental illness was not a factor. At the same time, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying was also studying the question, and concluded that, at that time, they believed additional work was needed before moving ahead.

Both the reports by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying and the expert panel highlighted the importance of education and training, consistent professional guidance, enhanced data and analysis, meaningful indigenous engagement and strong oversight. The government has taken these recommendations very seriously and has worked diligently to advance them.

In September 2022, Health Canada convened an independent task group made up of clinical, legal and regulatory experts to develop model MAID practice standards based on the expert panel's recommendations. Its mandate was to create resources that could be used by regulators to operationalize the expert panel's guidance with respect to complex MAID cases, including those based on a mental illness alone. The task group's efforts resulted in a model practice standard for MAID and a companion document, “Advice to the Profession,” which were both published in March 2023.

To date, the majority of provinces and territories have indicated that their practice standards for MAID have been updated or are in the process of being reviewed using these materials as a guide. The supporting “Advice to the Profession” document is being used to support and inform regulatory bodies, public authorities and health professional organizations, and is intended to support a consistent and safe approach to MAID practice across Canada.

In addition, Health Canada has been working closely with the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers, also known as CAMAP, on a number of key activities to support preparedness among practitioners. Among them include funding the development of a nationally accredited bilingual MAID curriculum to support access to high-quality MAID training and a standardized approach to care across the country, while recognizing that differences in the delivery of health care services among provinces and territories do exist. As of the end of January, more than 1,100 clinicians have already registered with CAMAP to take the training.

We supported a knowledge exchange workshop on MAID and mental disorders that took place in June 2023. The workshop brought together MAID assessors and providers, as well as psychiatrists, from across the country to discuss the assessment of MAID requests based on mental illness alone, to build a network for ongoing knowledge exchange and to inform future practice. Additional knowledge exchange sessions are being planned for May 2024 and 2025 to support ongoing interjurisdictional lesson sharing and clinical guidance for complex case assessment, including for mental illness as the sole underlying condition.

When it comes to the question of eligibility criteria for MAID, we must consider all situations and all outcomes. While important work has indeed been done, we have heard clearly from our partners that they need to have sufficient time to implement safeguards and address capacity concerns that are expected to result from the expansion. As my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice, has pointed out, we are trying to calibrate two fundamental ideas: the autonomy of the individual in terms of dignified decisions about the timing of their own passing, coupled with protecting vulnerable communities and individuals.

As the deadline to lift the exclusion of eligibility for mental illness approaches, calls to further extend the deadline have grown louder. We understand from our engagement and outreach with health stakeholders that there are varying levels of readiness to manage and assess requests for MAID where the sole medical condition is a mental illness. All provinces and territories have indicated that they are not yet ready to move forward. More work needs to be done.

On January 29, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying tabled its most recent report examining the degree of preparedness for the safe application of MAID for persons whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness. While recognizing the considerable progress that has been made in preparing for the expected expansion of eligibility, the committee recommended an additional delay to ensure that the health care system can safely provide MAID in these types of complex cases.

I want to be clear: I understand that suffering from mental illness is just as real and just as serious as suffering from a physical illness. That is why we provided a clear timeline of three years before the lifting of the exclusion, which the provinces and territories and our health care partners can continue to work toward, and a firm commitment for parliamentarians to evaluate the progress after two years. That work will continue in earnest, and we can be assured that all the necessary measures are in place to move forward safely.

I understand there will be people who have suffered over many years without finding relief, and for whom MAID may be a serious consideration based on deep and personal reflection. This new development may truly be distressing for them. I want to say to them that we are committed to moving forward. However, we must do so in the most compassionate, responsible and prudent way possible. The system needs to be ready, and we need to get this right. It is clear from the conversations we have had that the system, at this time, is not ready. As I have said, we have worked hard to make sure that the necessary supports are in place for practitioners and our provincial and territorial partners to permit the expansion of the MAID eligibility to people whose sole condition is a mental illness. However, they have also been clear that more time is needed to prepare; that is why we are proposing a three-year extension.

The availability of nationally accredited training modules for MAID assessors and providers would help ensure that providers were clear on the requirements of the legislation and good clinical practice. However, it is going to take some time for individual physicians and nurse practitioners to integrate and internalize these practice standards.

Provincial and territorial regulatory bodies need to complete the work associated with updating standards. They need to ensure that health care clinicians have the training to ensure a safe and consistent assessment before the MAID eligibility is expanded through the lifting of mental illness as an exclusion. Existing assessment and support mechanisms also need to be examined and revised to ensure that the robust measures needed for these types of complex requests are in place. On that point, we are committed to continuing to support the provinces and territories and help system partners to further strengthen and improve mental health care services and supports, as well as data collection, to better understand who is requesting MAID and why, and appropriate support and oversight for practitioners.

While the management and delivery of health services, including MAID, is an area of provincial and territorial responsibility, the provinces and territories have been regularly engaged through a working group to facilitate information sharing and collaboration on MAID implementation. Through this group, provinces and territories have been and continue to be engaged in the work on the federally led model practice standards and are working collaboratively with all of us on all aspects of MAID.

The government has also made significant investments to support the provinces and territories in the delivery of mental health services. Budget 2023 confirmed the government's commitment to invest close to $200 billion over 10 years, starting in 2023-24, to improve health care for all Canadians. This includes $25 billion to provinces and territories through tailored bilateral agreements, focused on four key priorities, including improving access to mental health and substance use services and the integration of these services in all other priorities. This is in addition to the $5 billion committed in 2017 to support mental health and substance use services.

Our government has also invested more than $175 million to support the implementation and operation of 988, which will provide people across the country with access to immediate and safe support for suicide prevention and emotional distress.

As MAID continues to evolve, we need to ensure that accurate information is available to the public by providing clear information. We also take the concerns raised by those who might face systematic disadvantages very seriously. That is why we have expanded data collection on MAID to provide a better understanding of who is accessing MAID and why, including the collection of data on race, indigenous identity and disability. We can only address potential risks if we can uncover them.

We are continuing to engage with indigenous peoples through both indigenous-led and government-led activities to better understand their perspectives on MAID. This will culminate in a “what we heard” report in 2025. This will support transparency, provide insight into how the legislation is working, and maintain public trust in how MAID is accessed and delivered in Canada.

Finally, both the expert panel on MAID and mental illness and the special joint parliamentary committee highlighted the importance of case review mechanisms and oversight to support the safe assessment and provision of MAID. Most provinces and territories already have systems in place to do this work, but we understand that more can be done. We are working with the provinces and territories to explore enhanced models of case review and oversight, and, in particular, for more complex MAID requests, to support consistency and quality assurance across the country.

I understand that medical assistance in dying is a complex issue about which there are deeply held beliefs and opinions. I understand the concerns that have been raised with regard to the expansion of eligibility for MAID to include circumstances where the person's sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. This would give medical practitioners more time to become familiar with available training and supports while providing time for the public to become more aware of the robust safeguards and processes in place.

The Government of Canada has also committed to a joint parliamentary committee to undertake a comprehensive review within two years after the act receives royal assent. This measure would further serve to examine progress made by provinces, territories and partners in achieving overall health care system readiness.

In the meantime, our government will continue to work with the provinces and territories to support ongoing improvements of the system to continue to ensure our laws protect those who may be vulnerable, reflect the needs of the people of Canada, and support autonomy and freedom of choice. That is why, after much deliberation, we have introduced Bill C-62 to extend the temporary exclusion of eligibility for MAID for persons suffering solely from a mental illness to March 17, 2027.

To put it simply, we need more time to get this right. I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-62.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the arrogance of the government knows no bounds.

In its brief, based on a “review of evidence, the Board of Directors of the Society of Canadian Psychiatry believes the process leading to the planned 2024 MAID for mental illness expansion was flawed, insufficiently responsive to evidence-based cautions and resulted in a lack of safeguards.” It is calling on this expansion not to be paused for three years but to “be paused indefinitely, without qualification and presupposition that [any] implementation can safely be introduced at any arbitrary pre-determined date”. It urges that it not be “driven...by ideological advocates”.

Why are the minister and the government continuing to press on when the experts have spoken? We should not be moving forward in this dangerous direction. It should be paused indefinitely.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will acknowledge that there are many different opinions that have been shared on this view by many different experts. As a matter of fact, some of the members of the special joint committee are going to be participating in the debate we are having tonight.

We have to clear that this is not a matter of “if”. We are debating “when”. It has been recognized, and it is not up for debate, that a person suffering from mental illness, when it is irremediable, continued and impacting the quality of life of the individual, has the right and the dignity to make choices with their health practitioners.

The expert panel noted that there were differing opinions on this and concerns, but when we are debating this tonight, it is not about arrogance. It is about having compassion and understanding the right to an individual's choice and dignity when they have deep, prolonged and ongoing suffering.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was pleasantly surprised to hear the minister say right off the bat that there was no reason to question whether there is such a thing as an irremediable mental disorder, but the Conservative members do not seem very clear on that. I do not know if she noticed the member for St. Albert—Edmonton's reaction when she said it. I would certainly be worried if I were her, because every time the House has held a debate on medical assistance in dying since 2015, we have been unable to reach a consensus. The Conservatives are always opposed to it.

On this bill, however, the Conservatives are in lockstep with the Liberals and in favour of indefinitely postponing access to MAID for people with mental disorders. Why is that? Is the minister not concerned about that? What evidence does she have to explain why, a year ago, the government said it was going to take a year to sort this out, but now it it is going to take three years? By then, the Conservative Party may have had the opportunity to take power.

I guess she knows very well that this is not going to happen. I am not talking about the Conservatives being elected; I am talking finally legislating on the issue of mental disorders.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is why we have put a set timeline on this. We took the expert panel recommendations. There were 19 recommendations in that report, which included system readiness and a comprehensive set of modules for MAID assessors across the country to be able to do this work safely and compassionately. That is the work that we have done on implementation. Eleven hundred practitioners, including physicians and nurse practitioners, have participated in these training modules, but we have also been working with regulatory bodies. We want to make sure that there is quality and a standard of care across the country that sees people in their suffering, especially when they are vulnerable, and especially when mental illness as a disorder has caused such suffering and such harm over the years and over a prolonged period of time. We are very sensitive to the concerns of the member, and we are setting clear guardrails on the timelines for this.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, we need to have a reminder of why we are in the situation we are in. I was here in the 43rd Parliament when Bill C-7 was being debated. I remember very clearly the government's original charter statement, which included its rationale for excluding mental disorder as a sole underlying medical condition. I thought the charter statement was quite reasonable. However, we are in this situation because, when Bill C-7 went to the Senate, for some inexplicable reason, at the eleventh hour, the government did a complete 180° and accepted the Senate amendment. It changed the law before the hard work had been done.

I have been a member of the special joint committee from the get-go, and on that committee, we feel like we have been playing a game of catch-up ever since, having to do the work racing against an arbitrary timeline. That is why we have see letters from seven out of the 10 provinces and all three territories asking for an indefinite pause. I hope the minister and the Liberal government can take responsibility for putting Parliament in this position.

I would also like the minister to comment on the fact that there are so many populations, whether they are in rural or remote communities or urban centres, that simply cannot get the mental health care they need. When is her government going to step up to the plate and start servicing communities such as those in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford along with with those from coast to cost to coast? That is a huge problem that really needs to be addressed before we entertain any kind of a change to the law.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are in lockstep in understanding how important a robust and integrated set of mental health services and substance-use services are. They must be available within health jurisdictions throughout the country. That is exactly why last year we committed to $200 billion to improve the health of Canadians. That is exactly why there are bilateral agreements that are tied to our four key principles, which include mental health. Provinces had to ensure that there were plans as part of their agreements and show a clear commitment to providing mental health services and substance-use services for those who are struggling with those disorders.

That being said, we also want to make sure that our health care systems, when it comes to MAID, have the level of system readiness, consistency and quality assurance across the country. We do not want a pick-and-choose system. We want to make sure that our most vulnerable are safe and that those who make this decision are doing it not only to acknowledge the dignity—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the opportunity for further questions.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, the minister stated that irremediability is not up for debate. Respectfully, it is the core of the debate about whether MAID can be expanded in cases where mental disorders are the sole underlying condition. The overwhelming evidence from leading experts, including psychiatrists, is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine irremediability. That was the conclusion of the government's own expert panel, at page 9 of the report. The special joint committee heard evidence that clinicians could get it wrong 50% of the time. In other words, it is like flipping a coin with people's lives. Is the minister comfortable with that risk?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will remind the member that we cannot speculate on treatment. Treatment is something that a patient decides with their health care provider. There is a lengthy process of assessments that are done for those who struggle with mental illness.

That being said, the criteria of eligibility are crystal clear. It has to be prolonged. It has to be determined irremediable, not only by the patient but also by a group of expert assessors. There needs to be a full assessment of what treatments have been engaged. I know there has been some debate in the House in the past asking about future treatments and all of that.

We are looking at an individual and their prolonged suffering. I would ask the member to really contemplate it. Does an individual's own lived experience with prolonged mental illness, and the suffering that goes with it, not weigh in, beyond that of the experts who have not walked in their shoes?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, here we are again, just as we were last February. We are faced with an arbitrary deadline set by the Liberals for their radical plan to expand MAID for mental illness. The Liberal government is completely unprepared and, therefore, needs to bring in eleventh hour legislation to extend the implementation deadline that it set in the first place.

I cannot think of another time or another issue in which a government has effectively had to bring in emergency legislation twice to extend a deadline for the implementation of its own law. It is truly shambolic. How did we get into this mess, thanks to the Liberals? Very simply, what we have across the way is a radical and reckless government that put blind ideology ahead of evidence-based decision-making. That has been the consistent pattern, in terms of decisions the government has made with respect to this planned expansion. This started with David Lametti, the former justice minister, who accepted a radical Senate amendment back in 2021 to implement MAID for mental illness and then set an arbitrary two-year timeline for implementation.

It should be noted that the charter statement for the bill in which Lametti accepted that radical Senate amendment provided a rationale for excluding MAID in cases of mental illness. The minister said at the time that he and the government were against MAID for mental illness because there were inherent risks and challenges. Indeed, he was right, but then he suddenly flip-flopped and rammed the amendment through with very little debate, one and a half days of debate. There was no parliamentary study, no consultation with experts and affected groups, and no evidence that MAID for mental illness can be implemented safely and appropriately.

The Liberals got it completely backwards. Instead of studying the issue first to determine whether this could be implemented safely, they decided to move full steam ahead and study the issue after the fact. Had they approached this matter responsibly, they would have learned very early on that there are significant clinical, legal and ethical problems with expanding MAID in cases of mental illness.

Among those problems are two fundamental clinical issues. The first is the difficulty of predicting irremediability. In other words, it is difficult to predict whether someone with an underlying mental health condition will get better. That is problematic in two major ways.

One is from the standpoint of the law. Under the Criminal Code, in order to qualify for MAID, a person must have an irremediable condition. More specifically, an irremediable condition is defined as one in which a person has an incurable disease or illness and is in an irreversible state of decline. If it is not possible to accurately determine that someone with a mental illness is in an irreversible state of decline and will not get better, then how can MAID for mental illness be carried out within the law? It cannot.

More significantly, from an ethical standpoint, if it is difficult to predict whether someone will get better, what that means with certainty is that persons who could get better will have their lives prematurely ended. Such persons could go on to lead a healthy and productive life. This was underscored by evidence heard by the special joint committee on MAID, during both its initial study two years ago and its more recent study this past fall. The special joint committee heard evidence that clinicians can get the prediction around irremediability wrong 50% of the time. In other words, it is like flipping a coin with people's lives. Is that a risk that members of the House are prepared to take?

When I posed that question to the minister responsible for mental health, she essentially answered in the affirmative. She doubled down on her support for an expansion of MAID for mental illness in three short years. Flipping a coin, gambling with people's lives, is what MAID for mental illness will result in.

A second fundamental problem is difficulty on the part of clinicians in distinguishing a rational request for MAID from one motivated by suicidal ideation. That is underscored by the fact that, in 90% of suicide deaths, persons suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder, not to mention that suicidal thoughts are often a symptom of mental disorders. This is why psychiatrists who appeared before the special joint committee said that it is not possible to distinguish MAID for mental illness from suicide. At the very least, MAID for mental illness significantly blurs the line between suicide prevention and suicide facilitation. It fundamentally changes the character of MAID and transforms it into something akin to state-facilitated suicide. This demonstrates just how far down the slippery slope we have gone under the Liberals.

To paraphrase the minister, she said that there are robust safeguards in place in that persons with a mental illness would only be able to qualify after years of receiving treatments and not getting better. However, that is simply not accurate; no such safeguards are found in any legislation put forward by the Liberals. In fact, the expert panel that the Liberals appointed, incredibly, recommended that there be no additional safeguards. Therefore, under the MAID expansion, it is simply not accurate that one must go through treatments or that one must be suffering over an extended period of time in order to qualify. In fact, the Liberals expressly rejected such additional safeguards.

In the face of those political challenges, Conservatives called on the Liberals to put an indefinite pause on this expansion. Likewise, in the lead up to the March 2023 deadline for implementation, the arbitrary deadline set by the Liberals, the chairs of psychiatry at all 17 medical schools called on the Liberals to pause this expansion.

What did the Liberals do? Essentially, they kicked the can down the road. They introduced Bill C-39, which merely extended the deadline for implementation from March 2023 to March 2024. In other words, once again, the Liberals put ideology ahead of evidence-based decision-making, making what amounted to a political decision with a new arbitrary deadline.

Nearly a year has passed, and with respect to resolving the fundamental issues and problems regarding safely implementing MAID for mental illness, where are we today? No progress has been made.

Indeed, when the special joint committee heard from psychiatrists, the message was loud and clear that we should not move ahead with this. It is not safe, and it cannot be implemented appropriately. The responsible course for the government to take is to acknowledge that it simply got it wrong and put an indefinite pause on the expansion.

It is no surprise that, in the face of these challenges, there is a professional consensus against the expansion. We saw that last week, when a survey from the Ontario Psychiatric Association was released. It indicated that a full 80% of Ontario's psychiatrists do not believe the health care system in Canada can safely implement MAID for mental illness. Last week, seven of the 10 provincial health ministers, plus the health ministers from all three territories, called on the Liberals to put an indefinite pause on this expansion.

What did the Liberals do in response? Once again, they kicked the can down the road with Bill C-62, which is before us. They defied experts, the provinces and territories, and common sense. This bill is basically the same bill we were debating a year ago. Instead of a one-year pause, it provides a three-year pause, with absolutely no evidence to indicate that fundamental clinical problems can be resolved. These problems include predicting irremediability and distinguishing between a suicidal request versus a rational request.

We have a government that is telling us to forget the evidence. The minister said it is not even up for debate, that the government does not want to talk about evidence as part of this issue. She basically said to forget about irremediability. The bottom line is that we have a Liberal government that is determined to implement this radical policy against a consensus among psychiatrists and other advocates.

Indeed, to get an insight into the mindset across the way, last week, in a press conference, the Minister of Health said that there is a moral imperative to get ready for MAID for mental illness. What is the moral imperative? Is it to give up on people who are struggling with mental illness? Is it to offer death through the provision of MAID to persons who are struggling with mental health issues?

That is what these Liberals characterize as a moral imperative? I say it speaks to the moral bankruptcy of these Liberals after eight years of the Prime Minister.

When the Liberals talk about MAID and mental illness, they are always very vague about what they mean. They know that if Canadians fully understood what MAID for mental for illness meant, most Canadians would be absolutely appalled. The model practice standard, which I believe the minister alluded to, that was prepared by the government's so-called task group of experts provides that a mental disorder would include anything in the DSM-5. Any condition listed in the DSM-5 is what these Liberals are contemplating as constituting a condition that would qualify someone for MAID in the case of mental illness.

What are the conditions listed in the DSM-5? They include personality disorders, depression, schizophrenia and issues when persons suffer from addictions challenges. That is what we are talking about when it comes to MAID and mental illness. It is truly repulsive, it is morally bankrupt to the core and it says everything Canadians need to know about the values of these Liberals.

There is only one piece of good news in all of this, which is that this legislation provides a three-year pause, and what will happen between now and the expiration of those three years is a federal election. Canadians will have a choice. They can choose between a Liberal government that wants to provide death to persons who are struggling with mental illness or they can choose a common-sense Conservative government that will not give up on anyone, will be committed to offering persons struggling with mental health issues hope and health, and will permanently scrap this radical Liberal experiment that gambles with the lives of vulnerable Canadians.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, there are two points I want to raise quickly and hear his response on. One, he talked about a consensus in the psychiatric community, and I do not know what consensus he is referring to. There are varied views on providing services and cures to people with mental illness. However, my question is in regard to rights of individuals. We have a decision by a Quebec court that required this Parliament to act on the ruling to ensure the rights of individuals guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are protected. I would like to hear his views as to how we will reconcile with those rights and what his plan would be to ensure the rights of Canadians, whether they have mental illness or not, are protected under our charter.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would submit that 80% of psychiatrists in Ontario saying MAID should not be expanded in the case of mental illness is approaching a professional consensus. The member I would hope would be concerned by a government policy to expand MAID in cases of mental illness significantly impacting vulnerable persons and that he would question the appropriateness of such a policy in the face of opposition from so many experts.

With respect to the Quebec court decision he alluded to, and I believe he is referring to the Truchon decision, there was no pronouncement of the Quebec Superior Court on the question of mental illness. That was not part of the fact pattern in the case. The plaintiffs were not suffering from an underlying mental health disorder. There is no binding precedent forcing the government to enact this legislation. This is a political decision made by these Liberals.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, I have been on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying from the get-go.

If he will recall, in the 43rd Parliament, when this House was dealing with Bill C-7, the government's original charter statement, which provided its rationale for excluding mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition, was fairly well reasoned, and explained that section 7 and section 15 of the charter can be involved here. However, we have to remember section 1. Sometimes we may need to limit rights.

For me, personally, I am big believer in the charter, but I struggled through this whole process in how to find that balance between an individual's charter-protected rights but also the need of society to sometimes step in and protect the most vulnerable.

Could the member tell us how he personally approached finding that balance, and to also put it in the context that so many people in Canada, whether they are in rural or remote communities or in our urban centres, are marginalized and do not have access to the proper mental health care supports they so desperately need?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, on the special joint committee.

The manner in which I approached this issue was by following the evidence to determine whether this expansion could be implemented safely and appropriately. The overwhelming evidence is that it cannot. It need not have been this way. We need not be here for a second time on the eve of an implementation date that was arbitrarily set by the Liberals.

We could have studied this issue. We could have heard from experts. We could have heard from other groups about this, without moving ahead with legislation before undertaking that important consultation.

Let me simply say that the Liberal government has gotten it backwards. It has gotten it wrong. What the government should be doing is coming back to this House and putting an indefinite pause on this expansion.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think the member is fully online on this. There is a Quebec court decision. That decision does put in a deadline that the government does need to respect and respond to.

At the beginning of his arguments, the member was trying to pass the blame. Let me remind the member that it was Stephen Harper's government, the same government which he worked for, back in 2015, that chose to do nothing, ignoring the issue. That was based on a Supreme Court decision.

Would the member not recognize that the issue cannot just be ignored? That is the track record of the Conservative Party.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the member is referring to the Truchon decision, that was not what the Truchon decision provided for.

That was outside the scope of the Truchon decision. Evidenced by that is the fact that when the Liberals responded to Truchon by introducing Bill C-7, mental illness as the sole underlying condition was expressly excluded from the legislation.

This is a political decision brought on by the Liberals.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is always very eloquent when it comes to defending the “no” camp and the pro-life camp. Does his position represent the position of the Conservative party? Is that the official position of the Conservative Party?

I just want us to be able to understand what is at stake in this debate today. Essentially, to him, irremediability is something that can never be proven. That means that, under a Conservative government, people who are suffering intolerably, who are dealing with intolerable suffering because they are victims of a mental disorder, could never be relieved of their suffering.

What I am also hearing is that he claims that he can solve the problem of suffering and irremediable mental disorders by injecting a lot of money into the health care system to make access to health care something that can help these people put all their suffering behind them.

Is that what he is telling us?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Montcalm is a thoughtful member on this issue.

With respect to irremediability, I am absolutely not comfortable with moving ahead with this expansion if it cannot be accurately determined. We have psychiatrists come before committee and say it is like flipping a coin, that clinicians get it wrong 50% of the time. That is not an appropriate risk. That is evidence of a policy that has not been well thought out, and that is dangerous and will negatively impact vulnerable persons on a matter of life and death.

With respect to the position of the Conservative Party, yes, the position is that a common-sense Conservative government would permanently scrap this radical and dangerous expansion.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the arrogance and incompetence of the members opposite on this issue is truly alarming and frightening. Are they not aware that 30 legal experts wrote a letter to the former justice minister and cabinet saying, “Parliament is not forced by the courts to legalize MAID”.

What does the hon. member make of this argument, from the minister who spoke earlier, that somehow, in her words, the debate is over?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is arrogance, it is recklessness and it is incredible. It is incredible in the sense that they hide behind a Quebec court decision. It is a decision, frankly, they should have appealed but did not. It did not pronounce on the question of MAID and mental illness, and they are now using that as the basis to say we need to move forward with this legislation, even though, when they initially responded, they said they were going to exclude mental illness from the legislation. They are trying to have it both ways.

They got into this mess because David Lametti accepted a radical Senate amendment and it has been a three-year mess ever since.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I made a technical error in my vote on PMB Motion No. 86 on the seventh vote today, and I would very much appreciate the House's unanimous consent to allow me to change my vote to no.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I never thought I would end up debating medical assistance in dying in the House again, or reliving what we went through when we passed Bill C‑14, a bad law. I never expected that the Liberals would again be in the same position, or show the same lack of courage they did with Bill C‑14, which was prescribed by the Carter-Taylor decision.

Quebec passed its legislation on end-of-life care before the Carter decision. In the Carter decision, the court ruled that Quebec had to revise its legislation to include more than end-of-life issues only. The Parliament of Canada, which had never considered this before, was also told that it had to address not only end-of-life issues, but also degenerative diseases like those afflicting Ms. Carter and Ms. Taylor. Ms. Carter had spinal stenosis and Ms. Taylor had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In its decision, the court ruled that Parliament had to legislate because both women's right to life was being infringed.

Why was their right to life being infringed? The right to life is not a minor right. This should be of interest to the Conservatives, who are pro-life. I am too, in that sense. The right to life was being infringed because these people had to shorten their lives when they would have liked to live until their suffering became intolerable.

As members of Parliament, as representatives of the state and the people, our duty is not to decide what the patient needs when it comes to an issue as personal as their death. The role of the state is to ensure the conditions needed for them to exercise free will, so that they can make a free and informed decision. That is the role of the state. Otherwise, we get into government paternalism.

I invite my Conservative colleague to do some reading in clinical ethics and not to limit himself to what psychiatrists in Ontario are saying. We know that psychiatrists are divided on the issue. In fact, if there is one discipline in which medical paternalism continues to reign, it is psychiatry. We would never have seen the progress that we have seen in clinical ethics if medical paternalism in general still ruled supreme.

What happened for patients to be given back control over their end of life? We find the answer to that question in the bioethics literature. In the past, some doctors who had cancer said they did not want treatment. Now, we have good medical practices, whereas in the past, aggressive treatment was the standard. The doctors said that they wanted to live the two years they had left without undergoing treatment that would leave them bedridden. They claimed that they wanted to spend quality time with their loved ones. It took doctors with cancer demanding that option for patients to be able to discuss these sorts of things with their own doctor. In the 1960s, there were patients who only found out that they were dying of an incurable disease and were in fact at the end of their life when the priest came to their room to administer the last rites. They were not even told that they were terminally ill. That was medical paternalism.

Over time, the right to die was granted. Patients were granted the right to die and the opportunity to refuse aggressive treatment. That is when we began providing the palliative care that is so important to my Conservative friends. Before that, palliative care was called passive euthanasia, and it was not allowed.

Medical paternalism has been gradually set aside. What has this led to?

It has led to the right to refuse life-saving treatment, to stop treatment. These are all rights we have today.

We have before us a bill that perpetuates suffering indefinitely for people with a severe mental disorder who have been unable to relieve their suffering through treatment. That is no mean feat. They have spent 10, 20, 30 years suffering, trying multiple treatments and being stigmatized by the society in which they live.

We are able to establish the decision-making capacity of people living with a severe mental disorder. For those capable of making decisions, the court told us that it would be discriminatory and stigmatizing if, just because they have a severe mental disorder causing suffering that psychiatry is unable to properly change or relieve, they were told what was best for them and that they should continue to suffer forever, while psychiatry need only provide a palliative care option until the end. That is what we are discussing today.

I will calm down. It is just that I heard some nonsense earlier.

Then what happens? There was Bill C‑7, which was rather cautious. It set a two-year deadline for creating an expert panel. Who read the report of the expert panel in the House? Who read it before voting? This is the second vote we are having on this subject. We have to read the report of the expert panel. Indeed, the irremediable aspect is something that is hard to implement. Admittedly, there is an additional difficulty, but the expert report does set out guidelines. That is what this is about.

Then the Liberals show up today with a clause they added that says we are going to work with an expert panel for two years and create a joint committee. The problem is that the joint committees have always been set up at the last minute, too close to the deadline.

When we submitted our report the last time, we were forced to admit that, before moving forward with the issue of mental disorders, we needed to assess the situation in the field. Even though I think the group that was supposed to work on it had developed important guidelines and standards of practice, it was obvious to me that there was still not quite enough time. Everyone told us so, including the Collège des médecins du Québec—I will have more to say later about its criteria and guidelines for proceeding that I find useful.

How is it that, a year ago, the government gave itself a one-year deadline and thought that would be enough time? A lot of work has been done in that year, yet the government is saying we should put it off until 2027.

We heard what the Conservatives just said. We can forget about MAID if they form government; they will put it off indefinitely. That means that people will continue to suffer indefinitely, and that suffering will be intolerable because psychiatry is unable to provide relief other than by rendering them virtually incapacitated. Somehow, people find that morally acceptable. I honestly do not know where the morality lies in that. Some people have very flexible morals. In any case, it has nothing to do with suffering.

When people claim that someone living with depression could have access to medical assistance in dying, it is simply not true. Just because someone applies for MAID does not mean they will be able to access it. The assessors will do their job. Stefanie Green was saying that a person in a suicidal crisis is not eligible for medical assistance in dying. Someone who raises their hand and says that they want MAID simply because we allow mental disorders to be eligible grounds for MAID would not have access to it because they have not received proper care.

However, there would be an opportunity for prevention, because we could provide treatment at that time. It is wrong to say that 90% of people who have suicidal ideation and commit suicide received proper care. No, they did not receive proper care. Very often, when people commit suicide, no one saw it coming at all.

What are we going to do? What are the Conservatives going to to with people who are desperate and suffering and who currently still have hope that we are going to consider their suffering and find a solution so that things are done properly and by the law? What do they think those individuals are going to do in their despair? Is suicide morally acceptable? Suicide attests to the failure of our system and our society. I will never, ever accept suicide. That is why, when we talk about medical assistance in dying, we are not in the same page at all.

A person who is feeling suicidal is not eligible. Someone who has just been taken into care and diagnosed is not eligible. Applications take structural vulnerabilities into account. Just because someone is poor and does not have access to care does not mean that they will be eligible for medical assistance in dying. They would not be eligible, because they would have to have tried every possible treatment. Someone who unjustifiably refuses treatment that could improve their condition will not be eligible. If accessible and effective treatments are available and the person refuses them, they are ineligible. If the assessors cannot agree that the criteria have been met, the person is not eligible either.

The Collège des médecins du Québec told us that it remains at the discussion stage, that it has established its guidelines and it still needs time in order to eventually get there. Personally, I think one year would have been enough, otherwise we might give up. We could end up being hypocritical and leave it to chance. We might as well flip a coin.

The Liberals need to work hard if they want to win the election. If not, they are going to be leaving the fate of those who are suffering in the hands of people who just told us today that this will not happen on their watch, that they support suffering for life everlasting, and that they know what is moral and right for these people.

The Quebec college of physicians said, and I quote, “the decision to grant MAID to someone with a mental disorder should not be viewed solely as an episode of care. Rather, the decision should be made following a fair and comprehensive assessment of the patient's situation.” We are talking about taking the time to establish the chronicity of the condition.

The college of physicians also set out a second condition. It said, and I quote, “the patient must not exhibit suicidal ideation, as with major depressive disorders”. It might be a good idea for the members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to hear that, although they are on the same committee as I am and that was said in committee.

That is a far cry from the grandstanding Leader of the Opposition who stands up in the House and asks the Prime Minister, in prime time, whether medical assistance in dying is the only thing he has to offer those who are depressed and having a hard time making ends meet. That is a bit much.

The third criterion laid out by the college of physicians states that the patient must “experience intense and prolonged psychological suffering, as confirmed by severe symptoms and overall functional impairment, over a long period of time, leaving them with no hope that the weight of their situation will ease. This prevents them from being fulfilled and causes them to see their existence as devoid of meaning.”

The experts tell us that they cannot apply irremediability and suffering metrics to mental health, and that prevents them from creating a category as a grounds for MAID. It has to be done on a case-by-case basis. All questions of clinical ethics, in terms of clinical assessment, are examined on a case-by-case basis. Some seem to think that going on a case-by-case basis is hell and that it is not a rigorous process. It is very rigorous.

The fourth condition states, “the patient must have been receiving care and appropriate follow-up over an extensive period of time.” Access to care must have been available. Otherwise, no access to medical assistance in dying will be provided for mental disorders. It seems to me that we heard the same thing in committee. We heard the same criteria.

At some point, we have to have the courage of our convictions. I believe that we have to offer relief to people experiencing intolerable suffering, who have reached their limit. I also believe that we must not make decisions about their life or quality of life for them. They alone can decide what is tolerable or intolerable.

When people talk to me about a slippery slope, they seem to be working on the assumption that all health care workers are evil. However, people who work in health care need to be kind. As far as I know, gaining admission to medical school is not easy. I imagine that the selection criteria are quite strict and challenging. The same goes for nursing.

The fifth condition states, “requests [from social workers] must undergo a multidisciplinary assessment, including by the physician or specialized nurse practitioner in the field of mental health who has treated the individual”. This is in the case of a follow-up assessment, not in the midst an episode. A person cannot get medical assistance in dying simply by saying that their life no longer has any meaning. Making a request does not mean one is eligible.

The Collège des médecins du Québec concluded by saying, “Under these conditions, it would be possible, in the CMQ's view, to provide individuals suffering from a grievous and irreversible mental disorder with access to MAID. It is important to prevent situations where individuals opt for MAID out of desperation, because they do not have access to proper care or do not consider the care available to be acceptable, such as an extended stay in a facility without the prospect of gaining more autonomy.”

That is the exact opposite of the nonsense we heard earlier. We were told that this was like a house of horrors, that we were dealing with experts and doctors who simply wanted to harm people's physical integrity. We have to be careful.

To access MAID, the individual must first make a request, which is then followed by informed consent. When it comes to mental disorders, doctors currently perform a daily assessment of a person's decision-making capacity if they have a mental disorder and a comorbidity, an additional illness that is hastening their death. Everyone agrees that these people are capable of choosing and consenting to medical assistance in dying. MAID practitioners have long been determining the decision-making capacity of people with a mental disorder. Just because someone has a mental disorder does not mean that their right to self-determination and to make decisions should be violated. That is discrimination and stigmatization.

When people tell me they want to protect the vulnerable, I wonder who could be more vulnerable than someone who has suffered for decades with a mental disorder and has tried every treatment. Who could be more vulnerable than someone grappling with a paternalistic psychiatrist—I am choosing my words carefully—who thinks he knows better than his patient what treatment they need, then chains them to a palliative care pathway and throws away the key because he cannot bring himself to admit that he is unable to provide relief to his patient?

At committee, I put the question to some psychiatrists who told us we were on the wrong track. They admitted that, in 25 or 30 years of practice, they had seen some patients fall through the cracks. Indeed, it is for this small group of people who fall through the cracks in psychiatry that this expansion is necessary. We need to show a little humanity here in the House.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I extend my sincere thanks to the member across the way for the details and the compassion with which he made his comments about patient-centred decisions and things around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we protect in the House. Right now, I understand the Quebec legislature is debating the Superior Court decision. I was hoping we would have a more fulsome debate tonight, and I was surprised the Bloc did not support having that debate.

I spoke with a nurse practitioner in my area who comes from Ottawa to Guelph to provide service, and she can only do it as a volunteer because she is not paid by the province to work outside of Ottawa. On the ground, we really have problems building capacity. Something that this bill tries to address is building the capacity of our health care system within the provinces to be able to provide MAID effectively in our communities.

Could the member maybe reflect on the need for us to work with provinces and their health care systems to build our capacity and, at the same time, to work with legislatures, both provincially and federally, so that we can get this across the line together, and comment on the amount of time that could take?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question.

I would like to point out to my colleague that the committee had very little time to assess whether the system was ready. We had two or three meetings to determine that and the deadline was ridiculous. However, many people came and told us that the system was ready.

The Quebec National Assembly took a stand in 2021. Bill C‑7 was passed after that, after a lot of work had been done and brought to a halt in Quebec. The Quebec college of physicians said that it still needed a little more time. However, there is a big difference between needing a little more time to ensure that everything is done safely and properly and putting off indefinitely the need to deal with the suffering of people with serious mental disorders.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to work the member for Montcalm on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. We have both been on that committee from the get-go, and we have both been exposed to a wide range of witness testimony and the briefs.

Following up slightly on the earlier question, our responsibility here in the federal scene, of course, deals primarily with just the Criminal Code. Once we complete our task with the Criminal Code, the oversight and accountability of the system falls largely on the provinces.

It is not insignificant that seven out of 10 provinces and all three territories had their health ministers and ministers responsible for mental health and addictions sign a letter, in which they referenced the fact that back in November, they were already raising concerns, and they have clearly called for an indefinite pause. I understand Quebec was not a signatory to this, but the very fact that seven provinces and three territories are, and those ministers are responsible for the oversight of those medical systems, I do not think that is insignificant.

I am wondering if the member for Montcalm can reflect on that. When we have clear direction from ministers responsible for the system saying that they are not ready, how does he respond to those concerns?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. In the supplementary report that I tabled, I note that, if we had had more time, we could have engaged with these people. By engaging with these people, we could have understood exactly what their concerns were.

A certain number of associations did tell us that everything was ready for us to do this. The member knows that. For example, the Association of Medical Assistance in Dying Assessors and Providers came and told us after Bill C‑14 and Bill C‑7 were introduced that not all doctors were trained to be MAID providers. There was only a small number and they would be able to meet the demand. When it comes to mental disorders, we are talking about an even smaller number still. The people from this association felt that they were able to do this safely. There was also the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Association des médecins psychiatres du Québec, the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada, the Nova Scotia department of health, and so on.

It comes down to the way people followed the debate and the way they debated within the governments because they sometimes have other concerns. I would have liked to hear them. The government did not call on us as soon as Parliament returned so that we could do a review and ask all of the questions we had. We could have even gone out into the community to see what was missing, but we were unable to.

Here is what I think: We could do it right now, in the next year. We need to work together, get out there and explain it, see what is going on, and share the guidelines. Then, if we need another year, we can take it. Waiting until 2027 to do this is definitely not a progressive way of going about it.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, from what I understand there are inconsistencies between the processes in the different provinces. Quebec has done its part.

What I am hearing this evening is often what individuals may have experienced. We are talking about human suffering. I know what I am talking about because I have experienced it. Everything my colleague is talking about, everything he got out of all these experts, I experienced it.

Beyond a potential fear of getting to the bottom of things, of figuring out what else is needed to make an informed choice, there is urgency. I would like my colleague to tell me what our dear colleagues here might be lacking to make an informed decision on the fate of human life.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, briefly put, I would say they lack courage. In this place, courage and compassion are lacking, and action is based far too much on ideology.

As I said earlier, only the individual can compare their life in one condition to their life in another condition, and this does not mean comparing two different lives. In that sense, we cannot turn a deaf ear to suffering. We have to listen and we have to act to make sure that these people receive care, of course. That is our goal. However, no matter how difficult it may be to determine whether a condition is irremediable, it would be intellectually dishonest to claim today that psychiatric treatment can relieve the suffering of everyone with severe mental disorders. For those whose suffering cannot be relieved and who request MAID in a considered and coherent manner, with all the safeguards I mentioned earlier in place, we have a duty to listen to what they think and to legislate accordingly.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be standing in the House today to join debate on Bill C-62. Forgive me if I am feeling a bit of déjà vu right now, because it was precisely one year ago, in February 2023, that the House was in a similar position with the earlier bill, Bill C-39.

That bill, of course, extended the delay of the implementation of the acceptance of mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition to access MAID. That bill kicked the can down the road by one year. As a result, we find ourselves in a position where we are now approaching the deadline of March 17, 2024.

To go into a bit of detail on what Bill C-62 contains, it is not a very complex bill. It should be clear that the bill itself is not relitigating the issue that was first brought in by Bill C-7. I will get into Bill C-7 in a moment. This bill is seeking to further delay the implementation of MAID for mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition until March 17, 2027, essentially three years down the road from now.

I also think an important part of the bill is that it inserts a legislative requirement that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be reconvened in advance of that change, so that a committee of parliamentarians made up of members of Parliament and senators can review our country's readiness and make a determination in advance of that date.

I have been a member of the special joint committee from the beginning, all the way back in the 43rd Parliament, and, speaking for myself, I am very glad to see that we do have that legislative requirement in Bill C-62 and that, more importantly, the committee is actually being given the time it should have had to study this very complex and sensitive issue in advance of its implementation. That is something we could have been much better served by in previous iterations of this legislation.

I think it is important that we explore a little of the history of how we got to this moment. As a member of this special joint committee, I personally have felt that we have been playing a game of catch-up to the change in law that was made in advance of any serious inquiry into this matter.

Bill C-7, in the 43rd Parliament, was, of course, the Government of Canada's response to the Truchon decision. It specifically created a separate track in the Criminal Code for people whose death was not naturally foreseeable. Previous to that, one had to have a medical condition in which one's natural death was foreseeable, so essentially it was for people who were suffering terminal stage cancer, who were going through a great deal of suffering and so on.

It is important to note, though, that when the government first brought Bill C-7 in, there were already questions at that time, in advance of the legislation, about what we do with people who are suffering from mental illness, who have suffered, in some cases, as my colleague pointed out, for decades, for whom treatments have not worked. What were we to do with that?

In the original version of the legislation, by law, the government was required to have the bill accompanied by a charter statement, but mental disorders were specifically excluded from the original version of Bill C-7. The government provided what I thought at the time was a fairly well-reasoned charter statement. It was understood that by excluding this, one could potentially engage two prominent sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely section 7, which is the security of the person, the fact that everyone essentially has the right to make a decision about what happens to their own body, and section 15, the equality clause, that the law has to treat everyone equally. With reference, those two sections may potentially be engaged by an exclusion.

The government identified the following in its charter statement:

First, evidence suggests that screening for decision-making capacity is particularly difficult, and subject to a high degree of error, in relation to persons who suffer from a mental illness serious enough to ground a request for MAID. Second, mental illness is generally less predictable than physical illness in terms of the course the illness will take over time. Finally, recent experience in the few countries that permit MAID for people whose sole medical condition is a mental illness (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) has raised concerns.

That is what the government's original position on Bill C-7 was.

The House passed Bill C-7 and it went off to the Senate. There, for reasons that remain shrouded in mystery to me to this day, the government decided to accept a Senate amendment, essentially at the eleventh hour, which had significant repercussions for the bill. Essentially, the Senate was reversing the government's original position on whether mental disorders qualified for MAID.

The government accepted that Senate amendment. Of course, Bill C-7, because it had been amended, had to come back to the House, and the government managed to cobble enough votes together to get it passed.

Therefore, we, as parliamentarians, were left with a law that had been changed in advance of the hard work being done to properly consult, research and discuss the issue with expert witnesses and with the health systems that have primary responsibility for the oversight of the change in law.

Yes, an expert panel was convened. The special joint committee was convened. Of course, its work was interrupted by the unnecessary calling of an election in the summer of 2021. Some very valuable time was lost there, because, of course, we then had to reconvene in the 44th Parliament, and a considerable amount of time was lost due to that.

However, it is important to realize that everything that has transpired since then has been as a result of that Senate amendment being accepted by the government. Again, I feel, and as a member of the special joint committee I think my feeling has some validity here, that we have been trying to play catch-up ever since that moment.

My time on the special joint committee has been difficult. It is not an easy subject for anyone to sit through, because the opinions of the people with lived experience and those who work in a professional capacity really are on all sides of the spectrum and everywhere in between. It can be quite difficult for a parliamentarian to work their way through that to try and understand the complex legal and medical arguments that exist behind this issue, but it is important.

I would say that, personally, my work on the committee has really been a struggle to find a balance between two concepts that sometimes seem to be in competition with each other. I am a firm believer in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it is a very important document in Canadian history, and I believe that we have to respect an individual's right to make decisions over their own body, but that belief system of mine was always struggling with another concept, which is that sometimes society finds itself in a position in which it is necessary for it to step in and protect its most vulnerable members. I think those two themes were echoed, not only for me but for many of the witnesses who appeared before our committee and in the many briefs we received.

I also want to note that our special joint committee has existed twice in this Parliament. We tabled our second report in February last year, in advance of Bill C-39. The committee's mandate at that time was guided by five themes that we had to look at, and mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition was one of those. Of course, we were reconvened after the passage of Bill C-39, but as my colleague from Montcalm pointed out, our runway was extremely short. It did not do justice to the amount of time that we actually needed and to the extreme complexity of this issue.

Just to give this clarity for people listening, I believe our first meeting as a committee was on October 31, and we had to conduct some committee business, and elect the chairs and vice chairs. We really had only three three-hour meetings with witnesses, so nine hours of testimony. We excluded, by necessity, a lot of people who I would dearly liked to have heard from, namely administrators of our public health system, elected officials of provincial governments and so on.

Because of the short timeline, we did not even have enough time to properly translate all the submissions that were sent to our committee because, of course, before they can be distributed to committee members, they have to be translated into French and English. That is a requirement that honours the fact that we are a bilingual country. We, as committee members, did not even have the opportunity to review important submissions, and those submissions came from people who had lived experience, who were dealing with the situation at home, but they also came from many professionals whose practice is involved in this specific area.

I have taken a position on this. The member for Abbotsford, in the fall, had introduced Bill C-314, and I did vote for that, so my vote on this matter is quite clear. I have been informed by the fact that at our committee, there has been a significant amount of professional discomfort expressed by people who practice medicine in this area, psychiatrists and psychologists. Sure, some of them may be acting in a paternalistic way, but I do not think that can be applied equally to everyone. I think for some of them, we have to review their opinions. We have to take them in the context in which they are given. I think we have to afford them a measure of respect, given the fact that these are their lifelong career choices and, in many cases, we can measure their experiences in decades.

I want to take a little time to read from some of the testimony we received from witnesses. We did hear from Dr. Jitender Sareen from the department of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba, who was there also on behalf of psychiatry departmental chairs at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, McMaster, McGill, Memorial University, the University of Ottawa and Queen's University. His testimony was that they strongly recommended “an extended pause on expanding MAID to include mental disorders...because we're simply not ready.” He was quite emphatic on the point that we are not going to be ready in another year.

Dr. Trudo Lemmens, who is a professor of health law and policy in the faculty of law at the University of Toronto, was there to clarify some constitutional arguments. He was really trying to underline the fact that we have to keep the section 7 and section 15 rights in balance with section 1 and that this issue has not actually been decided by the courts, contrary to what we heard from some witnesses. Previous speakers on tonight's debate have also pointed out that the Truchon decision did not include any reference to mental disorders. That is an important point we have to make.

Dr. Sonu Gaind, who is the chief of the department of psychiatry at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, pointed out that:

MAID is for irremediable medical conditions. These are ones we can predict won't improve. Worldwide evidence shows we cannot predict irremediability in cases of mental illness, meaning that the primary safeguard underpinning MAID is already being bypassed, with evidence showing such predictions are wrong over half the time.

Scientific evidence shows we cannot distinguish suicidality caused by mental illness from motivations leading to psychiatric MAID requests, with overlapping characteristics suggesting there may be no distinction to make.

He also commented on the fact that the curriculum used does not teach assessors to distinguish between suicidality and psychiatric MAID requests, and so on.

We also heard from Dr. Tarek Rajji; he is the chair of the medical advisory committee at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. He stated:

CAMH's concern is that the health care system is not ready for March 2024. The clinical guidelines, resources and processes are not in place to assess, determine eligibility for and support or deliver MAID when eligibility is confirmed to people whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness.

These provide a snapshot of the widespread professional discomfort that exists out there, and I do not think we can discount those voices.

I would agree that there were also a number of professionals on the other side who did feel we were ready, and that is what makes this such an incredibly complex and sensitive subject to try to navigate as a parliamentarian. Again, we as a committee should have been afforded the time and space to really delve into these issues and to greatly expand our witness list to make sure we were in fact ready.

Members will note that our recent committee report had only one recommendation in it. I recognize that the recommendation was a result of the majority of the committee members. There were some dissenting opinions, notably from the senators who were part of the committee. However, the committee did recognize that Canada is not prepared for medical assistance in dying where mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition, and we did not attach an arbitrary timeline to the recommendation. Our specific call was that MAID should not be made available in Canada until the minister of health and the minister of justice are satisfied, based on recommendations from their respective departments and in consultation with their provincial and territorial counterparts and with indigenous peoples, that it can be safely and adequately provided.

We keep getting ourselves into trouble by setting arbitrary deadlines for ourselves. Setting up an arbitrary timeline is not an adequate replacement for the qualitative work that needs to be done by these departments. I would much prefer that we satisfy the qualitative requirement in the recommendation, where departments, experts and our provincial and territorial colleagues are in fact saying that they are going to be okay with that.

The recommendation and my reference to the provinces and territories is a great segue to the fact that there was also a letter sent to the Minister of Health. It was signed by seven out of 10 provinces and all three territories. The signatures include those of all the ministers of health and ministers responsible for mental health and addictions in those provinces, including Adrian Dix and Jennifer Whiteside from my own province of British Columbia. They quite clearly say:

The current March 17, 2024, deadline does not provide sufficient time to fully and appropriately prepare all provinces and territories across Canada....

We encourage you and [the] federal Justice Minister...to indefinitely pause the implementation of the expanded MAID eligibility criteria to enable further collaboration between provinces, territories and the federal government.

I will wrap up by saying that this is a very sensitive issue. I do think we should pass Bill C-62 and honour the calls we are hearing from the professions intimately involved in this issue and the calls coming from the provinces and territories. We need to step up to the plate and make sure we have a fully ready system in advance of the changing of any laws.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I begin my question, I want to recognize the life of Rino Piva, from our community of Kamloops, who has passed away. He leaves behind his wife of 63 years, Dina, and his children, Laura, Dennis and Mario. I know them all well and wish them all the best in this difficult time of condolence.

I will move on to my question for my colleague. So many times, the Liberal government was told that we could not have MAID proceed in the manner that it did, yet the government pressed on. Why, does he believe, the government just did not listen?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, honestly, I do not know.

I was here for Bill C-7. I thought the government's original position with respect to that bill was quite clear. For some reason, the Liberals did a complete 180 when it came to the Senate's amending the bill. To this day, I do not think I—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give a chance for another question.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague, who always speaks very calmly and moderately. It is a pleasure to serve with him.

The NDP voted against Bill C‑14, which did not address the Carter decision's requirements at all. Bill C‑7 met the Carter decision's requirements with additional changes that required hard work, to clarify the issue.

Is the NDP saying no to the idea of one day moving forward on mental disorders, or would it rather put the subject off indefinitely?

We could start working on this tomorrow morning, and I am convinced that within a year, we could come up with something very promising.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would love to see the committee be given the time and space to adequately explore this issue. I think that was what was lacking from the get-go.

I am not saying a firm “no”; I just have a problem with the arbitrary deadlines. Ultimately I want my decision to be informed by a fulsome discussion that involves a much wider array of experts and representatives of the provincial and territorial governments. That is what was lacking. We have been playing a game of catch-up ever since, and we are seeing the consequences of that through the deliberations on the bill.

The House resumed from November 9, 2023, consideration of the motion 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying to the interpreters that I will try to talk slowly, but this is something that I am so passionate about, so when I do speed up I will look to the Speaker to say, “slow down”.

I wanted to start off this speech by stating the importance of making sure we add coercive control to the Criminal Code here in Canada. I want to read a story from the CBC on December 7, 2021. The title of it is “Coercive control, the silent partner of domestic violence, instils fear, helplessness in victims”. I will give a bit of background on it.

It is a story about a young woman who was in a relationship that she was trying to leave. Her friends and family knew she was trying to leave this relationship desperately, but unfortunately so did her partner, and with that the partner decided that he would take her life in order to deal with some of these issues.

I want to read from this story, because it is rather graphic:

In the last few weeks before a murder devastated people in her Halifax social circle, Ardath Whynacht began to worry.

“I had a sick feeling in my stomach,” she said.

Whynacht was concerned about two people she knew socially: a high school friend, Nicholas Butcher, and the woman he was dating, Kristin Johnston.

Butcher's friends knew that he was struggling to find work, in debt and depressed. People in their circle knew the two were having problems in their relationship.

Whynacht says she later learned in court that others among her friends knew Butcher was accessing Johnston's private messages. He also followed her movements ... [called] "stalking" behaviour.

Unfortunately these stories do not go away. I have had the honour of sitting on the status of women committee since 2015, with a small break when I went to PROC, but over and over we have talked about violence against women, and we know that violence against women is not just physical, that there is such an emotional piece to it. Coercive control is exactly what we are talking about today.

I want to read to members a second piece, and it is titled, “'A life sentence': No escape from abusive relationships when navigating family court system, say victims”. It states, “Victims, experts say courts often fail to recognize and protect people from non-physical forms of abuse”. This entire story talks about the torture, and I am going to use the pseudonym used here, of Sarah:

Sarah says her ex-husband's abusive behaviour slowly escalated after their family court decision in 2022. For instance, she says he began dropping off their kids with her later than the court order stated.

“What I've found is now that we no longer are living together as a family, I can't actually protect them,” she says.

Then, she says, the stalking and harassment began.

When she went to the police, she felt she wasn't taken seriously. Sarah says she was denied a peace bond because her ex-husband hasn't physically assaulted her or her kids recently.

This, to me, is the tragedy of what we are seeing in the justice system, and not just necessarily in the justice system, but in our society. What we are seeing is women being controlled, beaten and violated by men in the majority of these cases. I am not saying that coercive control cannot be reversed and cannot be applied to men as the victims, but we know the majority of these cases are women. What are we going to do about it?

In this House, Bill C-233 was passed unanimously, and I am so proud of the incredible work that we did as a Parliament to ensure that there are judges trained, when it comes to domestic violence issues, because we have to understand that domestic violence is not just physical violence. Of the cases, 30% may show physically, but the majority of these cases that we are seeing when it comes to domestic violence are coercive control.

What does that mean? I think that is what we have to get down to, and this is exactly what the member who has put forward the bill, whom I would like to thank for putting forward the bill, and I want to talk about: what coercive control is and why we as parliamentarians need to take it seriously for the safety of our women and girls.

The definition presented in Bill C-332 indicates:

(a) it causes the person to fear, on reasonable grounds, on more than one occasion, that violence will be used against them; (b) it causes the person's physical or mental health to decline; or (c) it causes the person alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities, including (i) limits on their ability to safeguard their well-being or that of their children, (ii) changes in or restrictions on their social activities or their communication with others, (iii) absences from work or from education or training programs or changes in their routines or status in relation to their employment or education, and [finally] (iv) changes of address.

This was all put forward by Evan Stark, an American forensic social worker, back in 2007. That is why I am really proud to see this definition in Bill C-332. It so important that we have this discussion.

In my role as the chair of the status of women committee, I can speak for every member of that committee on the strength and vulnerability of so many of the victims who have come to speak to our committee, knowing that when they go to the police, if they do not have a bruise, it is not going to be taken into consideration. Coercive control is not in the Criminal Code. Things like harassment are, but coercive control, that idea of controlling another individual, is not.

We have to take it into consideration. Let us look at the first case that I talked about. The young man was reading all of her emails and intercepting those types of messages. The prying into that relationship: That is control. It takes me back to a phone call that I had just last week from a teacher, who was very concerned. A young woman, an EA, had come to the school very fearful for her life. She had never had physical abuse. She had never been violated or anything like that. However, the fear of coercive control was there, because she was being controlled. What ended up happening to this young woman is that she did not go to work, flag number one.

This is important: Putting coercive control into our Criminal Code will give the opportunity for our police to understand what coercive control is. Thus, when they are investigating or going to a scene of a dispute, they can understand and know what they are looking for.

Right now, with its absence from the Criminal Code, how are police officers supposed to recognize it? Does it look like harassment? Are they being stalked? There are various different things.

The one thing we know about coercive control is that it does not just happen once. In physical abuse, someone can actually show and date the abuse, and all those things. They can go to the hospital, report it, show the bruises and provide evidence to the police or the doctors. With coercive control, that option is not there. How do they go and show somebody what another person said or that the person has read all their emails?

There is one thing that I found really disturbing from doing the research that we have done in the last number of years on this. That is the number of women who are not believed. This is really concerning to me. We have to understand that many women are isolated in their homes. We saw that through COVID-19. In March 2020, we saw an absolute increase. By May 2020, I believe, the government was saying that we need to help out shelters more. That is something we all agreed on. We know that, when women cannot leave a place where they are being victimized, they are not safe. That is exactly what happened with COVID.

Coercive control is one of those things that we must talk about. It is not just about the physical. It is about looking at the whole person.

I want to read a part that was received from the federal ombudsman for victims. It is very important that I read this, because when women are talking about coercive control, when we are talking about it, it is cumulative. It is not just one incident. It is something that could have happened yesterday and continues each and every day.

One of the stories I read was talking about a women who watched her husband driving up the laneway every day. She needed to see his facial reaction, because she needed to know how he was entering that house. Was he happy that day? Was he angry? Those are things that women who are victims of coercive control are thinking about all the time. They are always tiptoeing on glass. The fact is that they are worried about their safety. That is what we see with coercive control.

There is that threat down the road. Today they may not hit them, but they do not know what is going to happen later. We know from the Canadian Femicide Observatory that one woman is being killed here in Canada every other day. What is that telling us? We have to change our laws, and we have to take a better look at this.

The federal ombudsman for victims of crime has asked for this to be looked at thoroughly, recognizing that it is a pattern. It is not just a one-time incident.

Therefore, I ask the justice minister and his department, and everybody, to work together to ensure that we save women's lives.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-332, which amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to engage 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.

It is high time we had legislation on this issue, which is distressing to too many people and too often to women.

It is also important to note that this problem is being fuelled by technological advances, including geolocation trackers, miniature cameras, smart phones and social media platforms. All of these tools make it easier for abusers to continue to inflict harm or further isolate and control their victims, wherever they may be.

Although coercive and controlling violence may a factor in other cases, it is definitely present in 95% of cases of domestic violence as we understand it. Only about 36% of family violence incidents and 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police. We can therefore assume that there are many more cases of coercive and controlling violence than the justice system knows about.

Based on data reported by police services across Canada in 2018, women in rural areas experience the highest rates of intimate partner violence. The committee also notes that the risk is greatest for marginalized women, including indigenous women, racialized women, women with disabilities and migrant women. Let us not forget the children either.

First, it is important to define coercive control. Coercive and controlling behaviour does not relate to a single incident, but a pattern of behaviour that takes place repeatedly and continuously. It is currently hard to define this behaviour, in isolated cases, in the Criminal Code. We could talk about harassment, but, again, in isolated cases, it is hard to express. However, repeated and well-defined coercive behaviours could become a criminal offence if this bill is passed. Examples include financial control and implicit or explicit threats against a partner or ex-partner or against their children, belongings or even pets.

Abusive behaviours are intended to cause fear and gain power and control over the thoughts, beliefs and actions of the victim. Despite what one might think, this behaviour often does not involve physical violence and takes away the victim's sense of personal agency.

Generally, the abuser uses 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 and dependency.

The bill that the member for Victoria has introduced is in line with legislative efforts to bring about change on the issue of coercive violence. A few years ago, in 2019, we passed legislative changes to divorce law. However, they apply to married couples only. There are many individuals who were not covered by that legislation, but, more importantly, it did not make this behaviour a criminal offence. While the amendments defined coercive behaviour as part of what is known as “family violence”, there was still no criminal sanction associated with it. It is about time we made it a criminal offence.

Having passed first reading and been added to the order of precedence of the House on September 20, 2023, Bill C‑332 has come farther in the legislative process than any previous bill on this issue and has the best chance of coming to fruition.

While a number of Criminal Code offences can apply to acts of family violence, some issues have been brought to light regarding the way the current legislation applies to victims of controlling or coercive violence.

Victims have little or no confidence in existing mechanisms. Once again, distrust is even higher among the groups who are most often targeted, namely, marginalized women. Immigrant women, for example, fear that speaking out will result in their immigration application being denied. 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. Victims also fear that they will not be taken seriously if they contact police.

Finally, during the study of the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, it was stated that multiple charges against abusive men are regularly reduced to one single charge, usually assault. That charge is then often withdrawn in exchange for a peace bond, the infamous “810 order”.

To address this problem, which is close to the Bloc Québécois's heart, we support the objective of Bill C‑332, which amends the Criminal Code. However, we do have some reservations, along with a few proposals and suggestions that would address certain shortcomings that we feel are significant.

First, we should study the possibility of expanding the scope of the bill so that ex-partners and other family members who are not part of the household can testify, in order to address the problem of “one person's word against another's”. We could also extend this idea even further by including testimony from outside witnesses such as a neighbour, for example.

Second, we should look at the severity of sentences and the consideration given to children in cases of coercive or controlling violence. Third, the link between the new offence and the impact on family law and child welfare cases should be studied. This bill must link up with what already exists. That is part of the work that will be done in committee on this bill.

Finally, the wording in the NDP members' bills does not necessarily address the issue of victims being retraumatized and having to recount their experiences over again. Furthermore, Bill C-332, in its current form, does not change the way the courts and authorities deal with this issue.

I would like to emphasize one thing. If coercive control were to be added to the list of criminal offences, victims would finally be able to obtain financial assistance. As members know, victims of crime are entitled to financial assistance. A person could receive such assistance if, for example, they want to leave their home for fear of physical or emotional violence. If this bill is passed and coercive violence is added to the Criminal Code, victims of coercive violence will be able to apply for financial assistance to help them move or get counselling. All of the financial support offered to victims of other types of crime could then be offered to those who have experienced coercive control, which can be harmful to victims' mental, psychological and physical health.

When victims are financially or otherwise dependent on their abuser, it can hinder them from taking action and make it difficult to establish evidence. If this bill is implemented, victims of coercive violence will no longer have to be financially or otherwise dependent on the perpetrator of the violence.

Lastly, I would like to underscore another very important point. We see a lot in the news about femicide, and we often observe that physical violence only happens at the end of a relationship. It often involves an act of violence, a total loss of control where a man kills his partner. There are too many cases of femicide. However, we also observe a pattern of coercive control throughout the relationship. By making coercive behaviour a crime, we might help prevent femicide, and that is essential.

I was very moved by the Latin American campaign Ni Una Menos or “Not One Woman Less”. The campaign is designed to get people talking about cases of domestic violence where it is not limited to physical or sexual assaults, but also encompasses the use of violence to control victims, as I defined it earlier.

I am therefore asking my colleagues, parliamentarians, stakeholders and the community at large to support this legislative effort, which is crucial to the physical and mental well-being of victims of domestic and family violence.

The House needs to recognize problems related to coercive control as a priority to ensure that victims get support and protection. We also need to ensure that abusers are held accountable for their actions before it becomes too late for their victim.

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

Madam Speaker, in Parliament, unanimous support is a rare thing to see, but on the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour, we have an instance where all parties agree that there is a need to act.

This bill and the associated recommendations from the justice committee have now twice received the support of all parties at the justice committee, and we heard strong speeches in support of this bill from all parties in second reading debate just before the holiday break. Given this degree of support, it is my hope that Bill C-332 can move forward quickly from this point. As we are all too well aware, this is a minority Parliament, and one which is already well past the normal life of minority parliaments in Canada, so the clock is ticking, and we need to act in the House to make sure this bill still has time to get through the other place before the next election.

There is no doubt among any of us here that there is an urgent need to act to combat domestic violence in Canada, and we have shocking statistics that clearly demonstrate the fact that intimate partner violence is a growing problem across Canada. More than 40% of women, that is more than 6.2 million Canadian women, have reported experiencing some kind of psychological, physical or sexual abuse in the context of their intimate partner relationships in their lifetime. For indigenous women, that number is 61%. For women with disabilities, it is 55%, and for lesbian, bisexual, non-binary and trans women, it is over 67%. These are shocking numbers.

One woman is still killed by an intimate partner every six days in this country, and as femicide in intimate partner relationships is almost always preceded by coercive and controlling behaviour, this bill would save lives.

Some may wonder what caused me to take up this issue in 2020. At the start of the pandemic, I did a call around to police and social services agencies in my riding. I heard universally that one main thing was happening, and that was a spike in domestic violence calls for assistance as a result of the pandemic. In fact, those rates of calls for assistance have not decreased, even as the pandemic measures have eased.

What I heard from police and frontline social services agencies, and in particular from women's shelters and anti-domestic violence agencies, was that this is something we should think of a as shadow pandemic. It was something that was being hidden because women were being isolated at home during the pandemic, and it was even more difficult for them to reach out for assistance.

The second thing I heard, almost universally again, and in particular from both police and social services agencies, was their frustration at lacking the tools to offer help to those trapped in abusive relationships until there is physical violence. Local police recounted leaving many domestic violence calls without being able to help, yet they were certain they would be called back soon, and that the next call would involve physical violence. Shelters reported seeing the same women multiple times, but without the presence of physical violence, there was no ability to seek restraining orders or get removal of the abusive partner from the home.

Making coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence is not really about adding a new offence to the Criminal Code. Instead, it would recognize this behaviour is in itself a form of violence. It would move the point at which victims can get help to before physical violence occurs, instead of waiting until there are bruises and broken bones. Bill C-332 is not by itself a solution to the problem of intimate partner violence, but it is rather a tool for addressing abusive relationships before that violence turns physical.

In this debate, we heard a couple of concerns about the impacts of this bill. Certainly, when I began working on this topic, I did often hear that there is no accepted definition for what constitutes coercive and controlling behaviour. This bill would solve that problem by putting in law a very specific description of what this involves.

I have to say, most of those saying that they did not know what coercive and controlling behaviour looks like were men. From women, I almost universally heard about the kinds of coercive and controlling behaviour they, members of their family or their friends had been subjected to. They had no trouble recognizing this behaviour. In fact, I had to admit to myself that the lens of coercive and controlling behaviour helped explain a lot of the family dynamics from my own childhood.

A second concern we heard in this debate referred to the slow start in making effective use of the provisions in other jurisdictions where similar legislation has been adopted. It was adopted in the U.K. in 2015, in Ireland and Wales in 2019, and in New South Wales in Australia in 2022. Hawaii also has a similar provision. Measures to criminalize coercive and controlling behaviour are also moving forward in a number of other U.S. states.

Studies looking at the U.K. show that there was a period of time before there was broad knowledge of the existence of the bill and how to make use of it, and this was not just among those who were victims, but also among police, prosecutors and social services agencies. However, this in itself is no reason for further delay. Similar studies show that the rates of charging and convictions in those other jurisdictions have steadily increased as both the public and enforcement agencies become aware of the possibilities in such a bill. So, we will probably go through the same period of adjustment in this country once we pass the bill, but, for me, that is a strong argument to get started now and not an argument for delay. We should remember that this bill in one form or another has now been before the House for three years.

Members will also have heard some concern that the bill would potentially have a negative impact on marginalized women as it might provide another tool to be used against them by their abusive partners. It has been suggested that the abusive partner might be able to accuse the victim of coercive and controlling behaviour. I have no doubt that this will happen, but I have three, admittedly somewhat impatient, responses to this concern. One is that it is in fact marginalized women, so, racialized women, new Canadians and indigenous women, who are most often the victims of coercive and controlling behaviour and often have the fewest resources to escape those relationships. My second response is to agree that, of course, the whole legal system systematically disadvantages marginalized women, but this is a broader reform we need to tackle in the justice system and not a reason to not proceed with this particular bill. Finally, I would say that I have never heard this concern raised by frontline social service agencies and, in particular, I have never heard this concern from those who serve marginalized women or from marginalized women themselves.

We should also recognize the broad community impacts that this bill will have, the positive impacts. Yes, women are the primary victims of coercive and controlling behaviour, but it is equally damaging in whatever context and whatever the gender of those being abused. Studies have shown that coercive and controlling behaviour is an equally large problem in the queer community. As well, we should also recognize that coercive and controlling behaviour does not just impact the victims but also their children in terms of physical safety and mental health. This is a particularly serious concern when relationships between mothers and their children are weaponized by abusive partners, and it is a particular concern when it comes to questions of child custody when someone is trying to leave such a situation.

At this point, I want to stop and thank all of those who have shared their personal experiences with me and my office. This is not an easy thing to do. We have heard from literally hundreds of women over the past four years, some expressing their thanks for recognizing coercive and controlling behaviour as a form of violence, some just for putting a name to what they were going through and recognizing they were not alone, but all of those women expressing their hope that we would press forward with this bill.

One conversation in particular still stands out for me. It was with a women in my local constituency who holds a highly skilled job and a prominent position in our community. She said she would like to tell her story publicly to show other women that this could happen to anyone, even to those who we would imagine have all the skills, abilities and resources to avoid or escape a coercive and controlling relationship. She wanted to tell that story, because she wants others to understand that it is never the victim's fault no matter how many times the abusive partner tries to make them believe that it is their fault. However, she cannot tell her story publicly yet as her ex-husband is still using child custody as a weapon in trying to reassert control over her.

To conclude, I did not introduce this bill in the beginning thinking it would pass immediately. I introduced it to try and get attention to the crisis that came about in parallel to the pandemic. However, when this report was adopted by the justice committee, I became hopeful that we could get this bill through, and here is where my thanks go to my NDP colleague for Victoria. She and I have been working closely on this and other important issues involving women and the law and, thankfully, the member for Victoria had a much luckier draw in the precedence for PMBs than me. My number would have been virtually last in this Parliament, but she was able to get it before us now, and here we are today.

Let me just say that I hope we advance this bill quickly. It would be a good way of showing Canadians that we, as parliamentarians, can work together effectively to tackle important problems. It would show that we understand that intimate partner violence is indeed an epidemic in our society. It would show that we are going to devote everything we can to fight it, not just with a new law, but also with a necessary—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to add my voice to the second reading debate on Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code on controlling or coercive conduct. This bill seeks to strengthen Canada's legislative framework and address intimate partner violence by proposing reforms that would protect victims of coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate relationships.

A lot of people may ask what coercive control is. Coercive control is a form of intimate partner violence. It involves ongoing conduct that serves to subjugate victims and deprive them of their autonomy. We talk about life, liberty and freedom of the person; we have to put this in the context of what gender-based violence is.

I hear from constituents, who often call me in confidence to ask if something is coercive, controlling behaviour. Is it right for an intimate partner to control the finances, down to the last penny, of another person? Is it right for them to control access to their intimate partner, the person they are living with or are close to, and whom they engage with, hang out with, or go and get a coffee with?

We are tackling the broader issue and epidemic, as many of my colleagues have outlined, of gender-based violence, of women being killed, and of femicide occurring across the country, from coast to coast to coast in all communities. As we do this, how do we make sure that we are being more proactive? How do we proactively try to put an end to that violence and that murder? We need to make sure that Canadians, in their homes and across our communities, are able to thrive and really get to their full potential as they go about their lives with that freedom and autonomy.

I was the chair of the justice committee when we did this study on coercive, controlling behaviour. We heard stories, from coast to coast to coast, of people who have suffered the escalation of that violence, the escalation of that coercive control and the inability to control, leading to violence.

I think this bill has really good intentions. We listened to experts and their testimony within the justice committee and came to those recommendations. Those were very important pieces of evidence that informed the spirit of this bill. It is about saving lives. It is about preventing, in a proactive way, intimate partner violence as it occurs across our country.

We have seen so many tragic incidents, and we have lots of resources across the country to try to protect and save women from intimate partner violence. For example, in my community, we have the Safe Centre of Peel, which is a phenomenal project that brings community leaders and community organizations together to provide a wraparound service for those who are fleeing violence within my community. It is at its brink.

We cannot continue to fund these programs without also looking to see how we can proactively prevent these incidents from happening in the first place. We want to make sure that, when a woman tries to flee violence, she has the support system she needs in order to do so. We find that fleeing violence is often the most dangerous part for a woman who is trying to seek refuge, who is trying to find safety and autonomy.

I want to give a shout-out to our local chief of police, Chief Nish, who has been a phenomenal advocate for women within the region of Peel, ensuring that we provide safety and security for them.

We are talking about how to prevent it from happening in the first place. Yes, this legislation is very important. Yes, coercive and controlling behaviour precedes what often becomes violent behaviour and often puts women's and children's lives in danger. As we talk about awareness and making sure we bring our male allies into this conversation, I believe that the spirit of this bill is a step in the right direction. It would help in educating people and ensuring there is legal and criminal recourse for those who are seeking protection. Our legal system should be able to protect them.

There are a number of concerns that I, along with a number of my constituents and people across the country, have raised. One is what coercive or controlling behaviour is. Are people going to say that someone looked at them in a bad way and now they feel they need to modify their behaviour? Is that coercive or controlling behaviour? That is something we need to explore a little more to define those terms. How do we, in a court of law, prove that coercive or controlling behaviour has occurred? Those are things that need to be explored further in this bill.

When we try to ensure the safety of people in our constituencies, we try to do it through a gendered lens that makes sure we take into account the totality of the context of a person's lived experience. As members in the House have said before, we have to ensure that new immigrants coming to Canada have the awareness and ability to be able to protect themselves. Members can imagine a new family coming to Canada, the woman having previously been bound to her home to take care of young kids, not having financial freedom and now having to deal with the frustrations and tensions of moving to a new country and what could be coercive or controlling behaviour.

With bills like this, it is also important for us to provide the supports for the victims alongside the legislation. When we talk about making sure that coercive or controlling behaviour is included in the Criminal Code, we have to make sure we are providing supports to those seeking refuge from that as well. We have to make sure that institutions such as the Safe Centre of Peel are scaled up and located across the country for all who need the support so they can seek refuge and support, not just for themselves but also for their children.

We also want to make sure that this bill is balanced. I am sure there are tensions in every relationship. I am sure everyone has outbursts and exchanges of words, and that is why it is so important to define what coercive and controlling behaviour is in that context and with the evidentiary burden to prove it in court will be. I do not want people to think that raising one's voice or having a heated, open and honest discussion with one's partner is criminal. Those are normal things. However, at what point do we have to push that before it becomes abusive, violent or life-threatening. The issue of gender-based violence is significant in our country. It is a hidden pandemic.

We need to make sure that we prevent this from happening. This bill is an excellent first step toward getting there. I am looking forward to it going to committee to explore it and make sure we are doing the right thing and finding the right balance of separating it out and making sure that, while we live healthy lives together, we are also preventing violence from occurring. I am looking forward to following this very closely, as I did in the justice committee with this report and it recommendations, and to this bill passing in the House, with the concerns I have raised.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, everyone in the House should feel the urgency and the necessity of tackling intimate partner violence and gender-based violence. As has been said, every six days in Canada, a woman is killed from intimate partner violence. This fact is not new, yet the Liberals, and the Conservatives before them, have not addressed it adequately. New Democrats refuse to stand idly by while countless individuals, primarily women and girls, face physical and psychological trauma and fear for their lives on a daily basis.

Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence are not just private matters; they are systemic issues rooted deeply in ingrained inequalities and power imbalances in Canada. It is women, especially those from marginalized communities, who experience the worst of this violence.

We also know that individuals with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by this kind of violence. People with disabilities experience higher levels of intimate partner violence, and they face unique barriers to accessing support and escaping abusive situations. As the NDP critic for disability and inclusion, too many times I hear from residents who say that there is not enough research done on this, that there is not enough data on this and that there is not enough investment from the government in understanding the impact of domestic violence on persons with disabilities. Therefore, I encourage the government to invest in more research on violence against persons with disabilities, all genders.

I also want to note that indigenous women face higher levels of violence and that the current government has failed to meaningfully tackle the horrific levels of violence experienced by indigenous women, girls and 2 people. The Liberal government could immediately address some of that violence by investing in housing.

In 2019, the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre presented a report called “Red Women Rising” at the Metro Vancouver indigenous relations committee. The presenter said that no woman should be homeless on her own land. That really stuck with me, and I hope the Liberals will make the investments needed to ensure that every single indigenous woman and every single indigenous person has a home to call their own.

We cannot achieve an equitable and just society until we address the underlying structures that enable and perpetuate this kind of violence. As a New Democrat, I am committed to dismantling these systems of oppression and creating a society where everyone lives free from violence. All New Democrats are committed to that. A society where everyone has a home and has access to full and universal health care and pharmacare is also something the current Liberal government needs to move on immediately.

I want to acknowledge the work of survivors, frontline organizations and advocates who helped to make Bill C-332 a possibility. I also want to thank my colleagues: the MP for Victoria, for bringing this important piece of legislation forward; and the MP for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for his work on criminalizing coercive and controlling behaviour. We would not be here without the commitment of those people.

Coercive and controlling behaviour is a form of abuse that so many people, especially women, have experienced and that many are experiencing today, living in fear in their own homes. It is a form of domestic violence that, rather than a single instance, is a repeated pattern of behaviour by the perpetrator. This pattern often includes physical violence and sexual violence, but in many instances, it starts with other types of abuse, like humiliation, threats and attempts to take away the person's support systems and independence. Often, that means limiting transportation options, like taking car keys or intentionally damaging vehicles, and also controlling their access to communication, like taking or breaking cellphones. It also often involves limiting access to bank accounts, passports and immigration documents.

We know that 95% of people who report physical abuse also report coercive control; they correlate. We need women and girls to know what these abusive red flags are and to know what this kind of abusive behaviour is and that it is unacceptable. It has terrible impacts on the person's mental health. It often means they live in fear of violence all the time. Too frequently, it ends in tragedy.

These stories are all too common. Coercive control is not only a serious issue on its own but also so often it is precursor to physical violence. This is an opportunity to stop physical harm before it happens.

I want to take a moment here to recognize an organization called BOLT Safety Society, a youth-funded, not-for-profit, building safer and equitable communities. I have known the women in this organization for many years. I am happy to say that my office in Port Moody—Coquitlam is called a safe hub. It is a place where women and gender-diverse residents can come and get information about support groups in our community and also to get a wellness kit, if they need it.

I want to thank BOLT Safety for their work, and I want to thank them for raising the issue with young women and diverse genders of what coercive and controlling behaviour looks like. Coercive control is one of the most common risk factors for femicide, even in cases where there were no instances of physical violence before the murder.

Passing this legislation gives victims and police the tools they need to prevent some of the most tragic examples of intimate partner violence. It is time we said, “enough is enough”. Years ago, the justice committee recommended criminalizing coercive and controlling behaviour in Canada, but the Liberal government, despite its claims to be feminist, has not acted. It continues to delay and disappoint.

All parties should listen to survivors, listen to frontline organizations, make sure we support those who experience this kind of abuse and give victims the tools they need to leave the situation.

I am urging every member in the House to take immediate action to protect women and victims of intimate partner violence, and to support this important bill. This is one important step in tackling gender-based violence and working to eradicate intimate partner violence from our communities forever.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Victoria for her right of reply.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, we must tackle gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. I want to thank all of my colleagues who have spoken today and in the past on this bill. Many of us have shared stories of friends and family members who have experienced abuse, as well as constituents we have heard from. This is so common and so pervasive, and so many of us, too many people, have witnessed our loved ones in these situations or experienced it first-hand.

Almost always, this physical violence takes place after repeated patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour, as 95% of victims of intimate partner violence report coercive control. It is one of the most common precursors to physical violence. It is also one of the biggest risk factors for femicide, even when there has been no physical violence.

If we give women ways to speak out and get support early, we can take a meaningful step in ending femicide with this bill.

I had the recent opportunity to meet with Angie's Angels. This is a group including the family members of Angie Sweeney, who is a victim of a murder-suicide that took place in the fall in Sault Ste. Marie. She was a victim of coercive and controlling behaviour, and her death is a failure of this government to tackle intimate partner violence and to protect women.

Angie's story is not unique. I recently spoke to a father who lost his daughter to intimate partner violence, and he said to me that his daughter would still be alive if a bill like this had passed.

Survivors have shared their stories with me, saying that this bill would have been life-changing if it had been in place when they were in the situation of coercive control. One of those survivors is my sister, and I want to express my heartfelt gratitude for her courage in allowing me to share her story. I have been blown away by the courage of survivors. Passing this bill would change lives and save lives.

It has been over two years since the justice committee studied this topic and recommended that the government make these changes, but we have seen no action. This is urgently needed. Every six days, a woman is killed by an intimate partner. We cannot wait, so I ask my colleagues to move this bill swiftly through the House to ensure it passes. We have heard from every party that they support this important change, so I am asking that we not have a recorded vote and that it be sent to the justice committee without delay.

Let us come together today and not falter in our duty to protect victims from the insidious grip of coercive control. Let us ensure that we pass this bill and affirm our commitment to ending gender-based violence and preventing femicide, and to justice, dignity and the sanctity of every individual.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

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.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I ask that this bill be adopted on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)