Bill C-332

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of exercising coercive control of an intimate partner by engaging in a pattern of conduct that consists of any combination, or any repeated instances, of any of the following acts: using, attempting to use or threatening to use violence against certain persons, coercing or attempting to coerce the intimate partner to engage in sexual activity or engaging in other conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe that their safety, or the safety of a person known to them, is threatened.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Justice and Human Rights

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, controlling or coercive conduct.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

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

No, I won't.

I want to thank the minister for his very clear presentation on Bill C-63.

I want to add two things to this discussion. One is that the loudest voices on this bill often do not include those who are most likely to be subjected to hate crime campaigns. When it comes before this committee, I'm looking forward to a diversity of witnesses who can talk about the real-world impacts that online hate has. We've seen it again and again. It's often well organized.

I stood outside the House of Commons and defended the rights of trans kids. Within one day, I had 700 emails with the same defamatory and hateful two-word phrase used to describe me. I am a privileged person. I have a staff. I have all the resources and support I need. However, when you think about what happens to trans kids and their families when they are subjected to these online hate crimes, it has very real consequences.

I'm looking forward to us being able to hear from diverse voices and, in particular, those who are most impacted. I know this is not really a question to you at this point.

We have other important work we've been doing in this committee. I want to turn to Bill C-332, which just passed this committee and was sent back to the House. This is the bill on controlling and coercive behaviour. This committee has been dealing with this topic for more than three years. One of the things that we quite clearly said was that the passage of this bill is a tool for dealing with the epidemic of intimate partner violence, but it's not the only tool.

I guess I'm asking two things here.

What other plans does the Department of Justice have to provide the necessary and associated supports for survivors of intimate partner violence?

What plans are there to do the educational work that will be necessary?

The bill says it will be proclaimed at a time chosen by cabinet. I'm assuming there will be a plan to get ready for this. I'm interested in what's going to happen with that plan. It has unanimous support, so I don't think it's premature to be asking about this at this point.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you for that.

I guess the question we have to ask ourselves—and I'm glad Mr. Fortin raised this particular one—is this: Should we as a committee, based on just this meeting today—not based on Bill C-332 and not based any of the witnesses who appeared before us at committee—make the conscious decision that in Canada, from now on, if you threaten multiple times to kill yourself, that's a criminal offence? That's what we're doing here.

It could be that we'd hear enough testimony from different groups that would lead us to the conclusion that, yes, there is a way this could be incorporated. The problem is that we around this table have not heard that. I do think, by a plain reading of this legislation, that this part and some of the others are quite troubling. Again, this is not a reflection on our witnesses. It's more directed to the government. The whole approach of introducing a bill that we haven't had....

I heard what Mr. Garrison said. Yes, we heard general testimony about Bill C-332, but we have not had the chance to ask anyone about any of these specific provisions. For example, I would like to have witnesses here to ask them about each one of the itemized new non-criminal offences that through this bill would now become criminal.

I'm just raising that last point to reiterate that, at this point, unless there are people here who will enlighten us through more testimony on each one of these provisions, I will have to vote against G-2 and support the language we've already considered and already had witness testimony on, which is in proposed subsection 264.01(1) of Bill C-332. I did not hear witnesses say that we had that wrong and that this bill won't be helpful. We heard some testimony that said there are models that itemize some things, but threatening to die by suicide was never suggested at this committee. Words matter. By the testimony of our witnesses here today, this is criminalizing non-criminal behaviour in the context of coercive control. Obviously, we have to be very careful about what gets added to that list.

This is just one thing that's been flagged. I don't see how we could be ready to proceed with G-2 on that basis alone.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To expand on that a bit, here's the problem.

Madam Levman, you've mentioned that the government heard about this particular aspect. I can tell you that I don't remember hearing that in the witness testimony we heard. I'm not doubting that you heard it. Maybe someone did. Maybe someone at the table can correct me on whether this became a theme from the witness testimony we had on Bill C-332, but it's introducing an element to us.

I want to just clarify one point. You mentioned, Ms. Levman, that this would have to be a pattern. There's nothing in my reading of this legislation that suggests the pattern of behaviour has to include multiples of these elements.

Your testimony was that a pattern is at least twice, so my reading of this bill—and I'm going to call it a new bill, Bill G-2—is that “Everyone commits an offence who engages in a pattern”—which means two or more—“of conduct referred to in subsection (2)” and “being reckless as to whether that pattern could cause their intimate partner to believe that the intimate partner’s safety is threatened” and a bunch of terms in there that could be broadly interpreted.... If we then go to the items of conduct referred to in proposed subsection 264.01(2), they include, if we go all the way down, proposed subparagraph 264.01(2)(c)(vii), for example. I'll use this one because it's the one Mr. Fortin was talking about, but I could use others from this list. It reads, “threatening to die by suicide”.

That tells me that if someone threatens twice to kill themselves, maybe because they're in a fight with their spouse or intimate partner and they're arguing back and forth over something—it could be anything.... Let's say the person says, “Well, I'm just going to kill myself and end this”, and then a couple of weeks later there's a fight over something different and they say it again. The testimony we've heard today is that by doing twice, it's a pattern. It's a pattern of non-criminal behaviour, because that's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about criminal behaviour. We're talking about non-criminal behaviour that, by virtue of it being a pattern and falling under this legislation, is now criminal behaviour because this is in the Criminal Code. Through their doing these non-criminal things in a pattern, we, with this bill, are criminalizing them, which means we have to be very careful.

In the Criminal Code, there are criminal thresholds around evidence and the things we choose to include, as Canadians, as criminal. There are then a bunch of items in here that, per your testimony, are not criminal. Threatening to kill yourself is not criminal. By including it in this list, we are criminalizing it in the context of coercive control. We're making that decision without hearing any testimony about it.

You mentioned that the scenario I described would not be criminal because it would have to involve some of the others, but to be clear, my reading of this is that nowhere in the legislation does it say you have to do any multiples of these things. It could be the same offence, for example, around finances, access to health services or threatening to die by suicide. The same offence—a pattern of that—could be captured under controlling behaviour. We don't have to have multiples.

Is that correct? Nowhere in the bill does it say it has to be more than one of these things.

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

Madam Chair, I have a problem with that. We all understand that we're creating new law. But this is not a civil matter. We're talking about convicting someone of an indictable offence and sending them to prison.

I was prepared to vote in favour of Bill C‑332. We've heard a lot of testimony about individuals who try to wrongly control their partner. I find these behaviours appalling, and I think they should be punished by the Criminal Code.

That said, the list being introduced here is different from what was in Bill C‑332. I feel like I'm repeating a bit of what our colleague, Mr. Moore, was saying earlier, and I don't want to speak for no reason. However, paragraph 264.01(2)(c) says “engaging in any other conduct — including conduct listed in any of the following subparagraphs”. Those provisions will be used to determine whether a situation exists that must be penalized. The list that follows this provision is so long that an individual who tells their partner that they'll commit suicide if the partner doesn't go on vacation with them, for example, could be charged with attempting to control that person and be sent to prison.

We've already heard from a number of expert witnesses, but if they came back to talk to us about this element, they might be able to convince me. I'm among those who are convinced that controlling and coercive behaviour is senseless and is a problem that needs to be addressed. Perhaps everyone here is convinced of that. However, I'm very concerned about the list in this new wording. We have a very important decision to make here. We're changing criminal law and creating new offences. Our role is to legislate. In that sense, we must be prudent, but I feel that we really aren't being prudent.

I believe in the good faith of today's witnesses and of the government, of course, but I'm very concerned when I see this kind of wording and I don't have the opportunity to find out more from the experts who work with victims of controlling and coercive behaviour and with perpetrators every day. We have to look at both sides. We have be prudent and diligent. Right now, I feel we're rushing things, and I cannot condone that.

Nobody has been able to give me a single example in which a person could be convicted of controlling and coercive behaviour because they threatened to commit suicide or self-harm.

If no such example comes to mind as we're creating this legislation, then what will the courts end up doing with it? It's not reasonable for us to proceed like this.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Chair, the more I listen, the more frustrating this whole process is, and I'll tell you why.

G-2 is not an amendment to this bill. G-2 is an entirely new bill.

Backing up a bit, in April 2021, this committee agreed that the government should act on controlling and coercive behaviour, including in the Criminal Code. MP Collins, an NDP member, and Mr. Garrison brought forward Bill C-332. We have had three days of witness testimony on Bill C-332. Members of this committee took hours of time to develop amendments to Bill C-332, including us. We have an amendment to increase from two years to five years the time period whereby someone could reflect upon a relationship and achieve a conviction under this legislation. That was based on testimony we heard on Bill C-332.

We have not heard one moment of testimony on G-2. We haven't had the ability to have a witness appear and say, “I agree with clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4; I don't agree with clause 5.” G-2 has never been put to them.

When you look at Bill C-332 and G-2, the amendment is longer than the bill itself. The bill is fewer than three pages and the amendment is three full pages. Mr. Fortin is, rightly, trying to reformulate amendments on the fly, as all of us are, based on what is before us. That's not the way we're supposed to proceed. We have one amendment that wipes out all of our other amendments and wipes out all the consideration we heard on this bill.

For my part, I will be voting against G-2. I'm going to vote in favour of Mr. Fortin's amendment once we figure out that it should only apply to non-criminal actions. It's taking us forever to get there because of how this whole process is unfolding. I think that if the government wanted to bring in their own bill, they should have brought it in. Then we could have heard expert witnesses on that bill instead of bringing in their bill through an amendment to a private member's bill that we've spent all this time considering.

For example, with amendment G-2, based on the testimony I'm hearing from our witnesses—and this is not a reflection at all on our witnesses; they're here to present what the government amendment is and are doing a fantastic job of it—a pattern of behaviour or conduct can be two times. Based on the testimony we've heard, a number of items in this are non-criminal in nature. My interpretation of this is that if someone in a relationship does something twice that is non-criminal, if proof of fear is not required and if that person is the vulnerable individual in a relationship, then we can have criminal action.

It's so easy to contemplate scenarios under here where the threat of criminal action or a criminal charge could be brought. I think Ms. Gladu mentioned one. I see this all the time in relationships. One person says, “I'm not taking my medicine,” and the other says, “The doctor prescribed you this heart medicine; we're not leaving the house until you take your medicine.” The first person says, “Well, I'm tired of this. I'm tired of the way this has been going. I'm not taking my heart medicine.” The other person says, “Well, we're not going anywhere until you take your pills.” If you think that doesn't happen a million times over in Canada, it does. The evidence we have here might be that this wouldn't be captured, but that's exactly what Mr. Fortin's amendment is trying to do: to say that's reasonable.

We understand what we're trying to get to. We're trying to get to the person who says, “I won't give you your medicine unless you do something.” That's coercive. That's threatening. We heard testimony today that proof of fear is not required.

That same person could then say, “You know what? If you keep pushing me to take my heart medicine, I'm going to end it all. I'm going to jump in front of a bus. I'm going to threaten suicide.” That's prescribed in here too. Is that a criminal act? Who's the vulnerable person? Is it the one who needs his heart medicine and is threatening suicide? Are they both vulnerable?

I raise that as just one real-life scenario that we were unable to hear any expert testimony on. There was a tremendous number of really great witnesses who came forward on Bill C-332, but they didn't come forward on G-2. Normally, at this committee, amendments are very direct and focused, but this is a complete rewrite.

I'll be opposing G-2 in favour of the language that was less prescriptive. We heard testimony about whether to be more prescriptive and use examples or to be less prescriptive. We have language in here and have a bill that are the result of a study that this committee did and unanimously passed in 2021.

I applaud any effort to improve the bill, but to ask us right now, on the fly, to come up with amendments to a totally rewritten bill that we've heard no testimony on...I reject it. Our committee should not proceed in this fashion.

It's for those reasons that I will be opposing G-2 in favour of the current reading of Bill C-332. That will further enable us to have some of the amendments that are focused on Bill C-332 considered. According to what you've said, Madam Chair, if G-2 passes, then most of our BQ, Liberal and Conservative amendments go out the window.

At this point in the meeting, I thought we'd be done. I really did. Based on this bill and the support for Bill C-332, I thought we'd be done, but in order to do our job, we need to keep going the way we're going and parse out each one of these elements.

I'm going to be voting against G-2. I would urge my colleagues around the table to do that so we can get on with our consideration of Bill C-332.

If the government wants to bring in a new bill on coercive and controlling behaviour later, it is welcome to do that. It's had three years to do that. At this moment in this committee, when we have less than an hour left, this isn't the time for us to draft a bill, which is what we're doing right now. We're drafting a bill out of thin air.

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

The problem is that I can't submit it to you in writing, because I just got it this morning.

However, it's identical to the wording in amendment BQ‑1. It amends line 7 of clause 1 on page 1. Proposed subsection 264.01(1) in amendment G‑2, which repeats the beginning of the wording proposed in Bill C‑332, says: “Everyone commits an offence who engages in a pattern of conduct”. In amendment BQ‑1, I'm proposing that the words “without reasonable cause” be inserted after “Everyone commits an offence who”.

After consulting our knowledgeable analysts, I would point out that it should actually be inserted after the words “commits an offence who”, as in amendment BQ‑1. The text would therefore read as follows: “Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable cause, engages in a pattern of conduct”.

The English version would say:

Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable cause,

Then it's “repeatedly” and the rest of the paragraph.

In French, after “quiconque se livre”, we would insert “sans motif raisonnable”, and the rest of the text would remain the same.

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

Yes, I can imagine. I'd be surprised if anyone told me that the people around the table had nothing planned for the weekend and that everyone was waiting for the government's amendment so they could work on it all weekend.

That said, we had prepared a number of amendments. I understand that my NDP colleague is going to work with the government on amendment G-2, so maybe I'm wasting my breath. Again, it's somewhat disappointing to think that we did all this work for nothing. I wish I'd known that in advance. Anyway, I don't know if we can incorporate the changes proposed in amendments BQ-1 and BQ-6, which go together, into amendment G-2.

In the current text of the bill, proposed subclause 264.01(1) begins: “Everyone commits an offence who…engages in”, after which amendment BQ-1 proposes to add “without reasonable cause”, to the acts that are listed in the rest of the wording. I'm talking here about the version without the changes proposed in amendment G-2. Can we incorporate this proposal into amendment G-2? It would be in the same place. I think that would be appropriate.

Amendment BQ-6 proposes to delete a passage from the current version of the bill. The provision begins at line 25 on page 2 and provides an exception in cases where “the accused was acting in the best interests of the person”. However, we've heard from witnesses that this can be a bit of an issue. What is considered to be a person's best interests can vary from one individual to another. This wording strikes me as problematic in terms of how the courts might interpret it, or at the very least, how the accused might interpret it. In fact, any defendant could say that he acted in what he considered to be the victim's best interests. In such a case, one could question the mens rea and end up acquitting the person on the basis that he believed he was acting in the victim's “best interests”.

That is why we believe this provision should be removed and instead the words “without reasonable cause” should be added to proposed subclause 264.01(1). In this way, the wording would indicate that anyone who engages without reasonable cause in all of the specified behaviours is committing an offence. In this case, if an accused says he had reasonable cause, the courts can assess this fact more generally and objectively. Let's take a situation where the accused individual acknowledges having acted in a controlling and coercive manner, for example by preventing their spouse from going to such and such a place or doing something, but says that they did so because it was really reasonable to do so in the circumstances. That's different from saying they thought it was reasonable. The court, objectively, will judge whether or not there was an element of reasonableness in the actions taken.

It seems to me that this wording would be more respectful of all the situations we're trying to cover. This is new law. Everyone has probably behaved in a controlling and coercive way in their lives, particularly towards their children, and reasonably thought it was necessary to do so. In this case, I think the behaviours in question were often unreasonable. We're tackling the problem. For my part, I fully agree with Bill C‑332. I agree with all the arguments that our colleague Ms. Collins presented to us in committee and that our colleague Mr. Garrison also expressed many times in a previous Parliament. Parliament does indeed have to tackle this problem, but I still think we need to proceed cautiously. I think it would be more prudent to state that the actions must have been taken without reasonable cause. That way, if, for whatever reason, the court finds that, in a given situation, the accused acted reasonably, he could be acquitted and not sent to prison for 10 years.

This is the nature of amendment BQ-1. I understand that it is not yet under consideration, since it comes after amendment G-2, which we are discussing at the moment. I mention it, however, from the perspective that we're about to throw everything else in the trash.

First, I'd like to know if the witnesses agree with my interpretation or if I've been mistaken in some way. If the witnesses tell us that it would be wise to do what I propose, is it possible to present a subamendment? I don't know how it could be done. I'll leave the practical matters to you to decide, Mr. Clerk and Madam Chair.

I'd like Ms. Levman and Ms. Wiltsie‑Brown to comment on the element of reasonableness, that is, inserting “without reasonable cause” in proposed subclause 264.01(1). The new subclause would thus read, “Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable cause, repeatedly” engages in the acts that are mentioned.

That was a long question, and I apologize, but I think the explanations were necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Good morning, colleagues.

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 98 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 7, 2024, the committee is meeting in public to continue its study of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct). As you know, today's meeting is to go through clause-by-clause.

Members are attending in person or virtually. I believe we have no witnesses outside of members. Of course, I'll introduce the people in front of us in a moment.

I think members by now know what the rules are if they're attending virtually. I think we're okay with that. There are no witnesses attending virtually.

I want to welcome the officials who are assisting us today for our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-332.

We welcome senior counsel Nathalie Levman and counsel Ellen Wiltsie‑Brown, from the Criminal Law Policy Section of the Department of Justice.

May I extend a welcome to both of you.

Thank you very much for being with us. We will count on you for any technical information we require on any of the amendments, or for anything that any member wants clarified or that I, as the chair, wish to have clarified.

I'm ready to start with clause-by-clause, but I want to give a few instructions first, as I'm mandated, I think, to do.

As you all know, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. The chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. Once an amendment is moved, unanimous consent is required in order to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will consider and vote on the title and then on the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill is required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report will contain only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I will move to clause-by-clause consideration.

Before the chair—that's me—calls clause 1, there's an amendment on page 1 of the package seeking to create a new clause 0.1.

Mr. Maloney, would you like to move G-1?

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

We also heard from earlier witnesses that Bill C-332 might have the inadvertent effect of criminalizing communities that are already overcriminalized. I was somewhat concerned about that.

I was reading something written by your predecessor, Ms. Heidi Illingworth. She gave testimony on a similar study. She said that intimate partner violence is a “pan-Canadian issue, as this type of violence knows no boundaries”, and that “IPV affects people of all genders, ages [and] socioeconomic, racial, educational, ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.” She cited a study from Statistics Canada from 2019. I would think that would probably be a pretty good source of evidence.

I'd like your comments on that, please.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Roebuck, I have a question for you. Bill C-332 proposes that the relevant controlling and coercive conduct must be proven to have had a significant impact on the victim. Earlier witnesses on this study, last week or two weeks ago, expressed some concern that this could revictimize the victim, in that the victim would have to give evidence as to her state of mind—it's usually a woman—on the witness stand and be subject to cross-examination on that.

We were also pointed to Scotland's domestic abuse act, which puts the focus on the intentions and actions of the perpetrator: “a reasonable person would consider the course of behaviour to be likely to cause [the victim] to suffer physical or psychological harm”.

What do you say about that? Is that a better way to go, to prevent and avoid victims being revictimized, which of course is your profession?

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

In your opinion, should we simply amend Bill C‑332?

I'm thinking of the two amendments you suggested and I made note of them, but there are others, which is why I'd like a written copy of your notes.

Briefly, what would be your recommendations to improve this bill and better protect victims while at the same time better educating, and also punishing, those who tend to this type of conduct?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us today.

Mr. Roebuck, as federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, you must hear from victims every day telling you about the vagaries and the virtues of our criminal justice system.

This morning, we heard some people say that Bill C‑332 is a bit dangerous, first due to counter-complaints. Essentially, they worry about victims being treated as abusers for wanting to protect their children, for instance.

Is that indeed a problem? Could victims be penalized because of the definitions that appear in this bill or because of the way the bill is designed?

Furthermore, you made a number of interesting recommendations in your opening statement. Specifically, you suggest using the definition of intimate partner under section 2 of the Criminal Code and removing the two-year time limit after separation.

We've heard those suggestions before, but if at all possible, I'd love to get a copy of your statement or your brief. I'd really appreciate that. I don't know if you have a brief ready to go, if we just haven't gotten it yet or if it's only me who hasn't gotten it.

That said, I'd like to return to my previous question. Is it possible for victims attempting to defend themselves to be seen as having controlling or coercive behaviours?

[Melanie Omeniho, President, Women of the Métis Nation - Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak]

Thank you very much.

My name is Melanie Omeniho. I'm the president of Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak. I'd like to acknowledge that I'm joining you today from Treaty 6 territory and the motherland of the Métis nation.

Les Femmes Michif is known as a national indigenous women's organization that is mandated to represent women of the Métis nation across the Métis nation motherland. We advocate nationally and internationally for the equal treatment, health and well-being of all Métis people. We focus on the rights, needs and priorities of Métis women, youth, children and 2SLGBTQQIA+ Métis people.

I'd like to present that we proceed with caution around Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to controlling or coercive conduct. Although we're supportive of it in principle, this bill does not go far enough to fully define the act of coercive control. It limits it only in terms of intimate partner relationships.

To begin with, this puts the burden of proof of significant fear of violence on victims. Victims of coercive control often don't identify what they are experiencing as coercive control. It happens slowly and insidiously. Coercive control exists beyond a two-year limit in a domestic relationship and does occur between intimate partners who have not agreed to be married. In this light, we recommend that before passing this bill, we redefine the persons who are connected.

What this bill also fails to recognize is the unique presentation of violence in 2SLGBTQQIA+ relationships. Regarding sexual exploitation, this act does not include this controlling and coercive conduct within the existing definition. It also does not include children and other family members who may also fall victim.

Canada has used as an example the bill passed in the U.K. around controlling or coercive behaviour. What the U.K. bill does not consider is the specific implications around Métis women and the strained historical relationship with police and other colonial processes. Indigenous women living at the intersection of multiple sites of oppression face the highest rates of violence of all. That's especially for indigenous women with current or past child welfare involvement who are living in poverty, are often homeless or unhoused, are disabled, are navigating trauma or have different substance abuses. About two-thirds of Métis women self-report experiencing physical or sexual violence in their lifetimes. Nearly half are survivors of intimate partner violence.

This law relies heavily on the myth that the police are the only ones who can keep us safe. It would be part of a police officer's role to determine whether a situation should be considered as controlling or coercive conduct. Police attitudes usually focus on the presence of physical violence and on specific incidents, rather than a pattern of coercive control. This focus also minimizes other forms of violence. Too often in these cases, police do not see survivors as credible victims or witnesses. Rather than assessing protection, survivors are approached with dismissals and suspicion.

We also note that indigenous women are being criminalized for fighting back. This is reflected in the stats showing that indigenous women are 13 and 15 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-indigenous women and indigenous men. Indigenous women's incarceration rates in provincial jails are also alarming. In Saskatchewan, indigenous women are 29 times more likely to be jailed than non-indigenous women.

What is also integral in the enactment of this bill is a robust plan for information sharing, training and education. This is not limited to the police and all players around the justice system. It's most importantly for women and gender-diverse folks to understand what controlling conduct and coercive control are. The emphasis of risk assessment tools on physical violence and injuries leads to the minimization of non-physical violence.

We ask if police officers will be able to assess intimate partner violence situations that do not present physical violence when they arrive on the scene. Will they have enough understanding of the dynamic to see if they are in the presence of potentially harmful situations in which coercive control is an issue?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime]

Thank you.

Honourable chairperson and members of the committee, we gather today on the traditional unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. In honouring the leadership, strength and wisdom of indigenous peoples, we are reminded of the profound importance of respect, autonomy and protection of the rights and dignity of all people. These principles guide our discussion on coercive control.

Intimate partner violence, or IPV, is an epidemic. It transcends geographic, economic and cultural boundaries, affecting millions of people. The 2018 Canadian “Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces” found that since the age of 15, 6.2 million women and 4.9 million men in Canada had experienced IPV at some point in their life.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof. Coercive control violates these fundamental rights, permeating experiences of IPV, sexual exploitation, human trafficking and criminal harassment. It does require intervention.

Bill C-332 would criminalize repeat or continuous patterns of coercive control, providing more tools for police to intervene in patterns of abuse. The current incident-based approach to IPV focuses on physical incidents. This can leave police feeling powerless to intervene in some cases in which they believe a person is being harmed, or worse, hoping for a future incident of physical violence so that they can protect the victim.

There are many things we can learn from the criminalization of coercive control in Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. The evidentiary burden on survivors can be heavy. Access to electronic devices and communication records is often required to build a case. Training for police, prosecutors and judges is critical. Risk assessment tools for coercive control can help to identify patterns of behaviour.

In Canada, recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize the harmful impacts of coercive and controlling behaviour, but proceedings in family court can be messy. Early in 2024, the National Association of Women and the Law sent a letter asking the Government of Canada to amend the Divorce Act to ban claims of parental alienation in family disputes because of the harmful impact on women. The letter was endorsed by more than 250 feminist organizations. I am concerned that the criminalization of coercive control could become equally problematic in family court.

Even so, domestic homicide reviews in Canada have identified coercive control as a risk factor in several cases of intimate partner homicide with no previous physical violence. When a survivor leaves an abusive and controlling partner, the criminalization of coercive control may allow them to access provincial compensation programs to help meet their immediate needs.

I know that the committee has previously studied this topic and heard from our office in addition to experts in the field. I support the criminalization of coercive control, but it must be accompanied by systemic change. I urge the government to respond to the calls of the Mass Casualty Commission by declaring gender-based, intimate partner and family violence an epidemic, and to commit to primary prevention.

These are some final thoughts. Justice Canada helped develop the “HELP” tool kit for lawyers after the Divorce Act was amended to include coercive control. It could be updated to reflect changes to the Criminal Code. We recommend using the definition of intimate partner violence under section 2 of the Criminal Code, removing the two-year time limit after separation and strengthening victim rights to improve gender equality in the criminal justice system.

Thank you for the invitation.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you explain the differences between your respective opinions?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 97 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 7, 2024, the committee is meeting in public to continue its study of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you so much.

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

[Karine Barrette]

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

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

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

Do you think this could cause confusion?

[Karine Barrette]

Thank you very much for the question.

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

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

[Prof. Jennifer Koshan]

Thanks very much. I appreciate it.

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

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

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do we recommend?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will now welcome our witnesses for our first panel.

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

We have three witnesses appearing in the first hour.

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

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

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

Welcome to our witnesses.

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

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

Thank you very much.

We'll start with Ms. Pamela Cross.

Ms. Cross, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Ms. Silverstone.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 95 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 7, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to begin its study of Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 15, 2023. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I can confirm that all sound tests have been done.

For the first hour, we have with us Laurel Collins, the member of Parliament for Victoria and sponsor of Bill C-332.

Welcome to the committee. You are the only witness for the first hour. You have five minutes to present, if you have opening remarks, and then we'll go to questions from members.

Criminal Code

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

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.

École polytechnique de Montréal

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to rise today and honour the memory of the 14 women who were murdered 34 years ago at École polytechnique de Montréal. These women, studying to become engineers, were trailblazers in a male-dominated field. They were going to change the world. They were going to build, create and inspire other women to follow in their footsteps, but they did not have the chance. Their lives were cut short by an act of unspeakable misogynistic violence. I too want to say their names as my colleagues have here today, because this provides that memory with power in this place.

Today we remember Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne‑Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne‑Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St‑Arneault, Annie Turcotte and Barbara Klucznik‑Widajewicz. We will remember them.

These women were killed because they were women. They were killed by a man who was consumed by hate. He shouted, “You're all a bunch of feminists, and I hate feminists”. Then he opened fire in a classroom.

It is just as true now as it was then that hate kills. Gendered violence is still a clear and present danger to the safety of women, girls and gender-diverse people; moreover, that violence is rising. In the last year alone, three women in my city of London, Ontario, have been killed by the men in their lives. We lost Carolyn Carter, Caitlin Jennings and Tiffany Gates to femicide. Across Ontario, 62 women and gender-diverse individuals were killed by a man in their life. Anova's emergency shelter for abused women and their children in London has helped 342 women in our city this year, but the shelter was forced to turn people away more than 2,400 times because of a lack of beds.

The experience is the same for so many organizations fighting on the front lines against gender-based violence. The London Abused Women's Centre, Le carrefour des femmes, Atlohsa and My Sister's Place are all seeing a rise in demand for the support and services they provide. The people who work in these organizations are incredible. They are doing everything they can to save people's lives. Of course, that rise in demand is not just happening in London, Ontario. Across Canada, more than four in 10 women have experienced intimate partner violence and a woman or girl is killed every 48 hours.

Yesterday, we received new numbers from Stats Can showing that more women have faced sexual violence and gender-based violence in the military. After years of repeated promises for systemic change and an overhaul of the toxic culture, after so many false starts from senior leadership in terms of making those reforms, the sexual misconduct crisis is only growing.

In this country, there is a hard truth that, if I went missing, it would mean something different than it would if an indigenous woman or girl went missing. In Canada, indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people are 12 times more likely to be murdered or go missing compared with any other woman in Canada. It is important that we take today to remember the victims of violence against women, but that is not enough. Year after year, government after government has kept women waiting on action for systemic injustices.

There are real, tangible solutions that we can take up in this chamber to support women. Today is a day for us all to find the political courage to act. My colleague spoke about that action that we need to see now. It is possible. We hold that position here today. We have bills from my NDP colleagues, such as Bill C-332, to criminalize coercive and controlling behaviour, from the member for Victoria. Over 95% of victims of intimate partner violence report coercive behaviour and control as a precursor to physical violence. We can take a meaningful step towards ending femicide with this bill by allowing women to speak out early.

On other important changes, I have two bills, Bill C-362 and Bill C-363, that would give women in the military access to justice. Since Justice Arbour's recommendations came forward, we have heard from every party in the chamber that members want to end the rampant abuse and cover-ups that protect perpetrators and hurt survivors of military sexual trauma. We can come together and pass all of these bills.

Finally, in the spring, we unanimously passed the motion from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, to create a red dress alert system to find and protect indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. We can act to create that system.

On this National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, I hope we all reflect on the actions we can take and the responsibility we have as parliamentarians. We must renew our efforts to end gender-based violence with the urgency it requires and demands.

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill S-210, an act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As we know, the bill is intended to protect children from access to sexually explicit materials. This is a very important bill, and I am happy we are speaking to it today.

One thing I want to address from the outset is that an important consideration of this bill is not only ensuring that we look at protecting children from access to sexually explicit material, but also ensuring that mechanisms are in place to protect the personal information of Canadians when developing what is required to protect children. Witnesses testified at the Senate on this exact issue, speaking in favour of using a responsible third party service provider, as an example, to conduct age verification rather than sites. Many Canadians, of course rightly so, do not want their personal information to be provided to those who are seeking profit, so we need a responsible third party provider.

I want to quote Kevin Honeycutt, an educator. He said, “Kids are growing up in a digital playground and no one is on recess duty.” I thought that was a really powerful way to show what is happening online right now. I am a former educator who worked in the school system, and I can say there are always many eyes on the playground to ensure that children are playing respectfully with one another and to identify any concerns. Now we have children accessing online content without any such supervision and it is highly problematic.

Kerri Isham is a constituent in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. She is an educator, author and award-winning presenter with 25 years of experience in the field of sexual health education. She is also the founder of a company called Power Up Education. I wanted to bring her up because she has dedicated her professional career to the safety of children and responding to the needs of communities. I want to highlight the work of people like Kerri Isham and so many across our country who are working tirelessly to make sure that children and youth have access to the education they need around sexual health.

Kerri Isham was so kind to provide me with the wealth of information she uses when she is in the community and in our schools educating parents and children on the importance of not only having the appropriate information and safety mechanisms in place around online access, but also having the information and tools needed to know what it looks like to be safe among this wealth of information.

One interesting point Kerri Isham pointed out to me is that 30% of all Internet traffic is pornography-related. That is a huge number. Tragically, 10% of visitors to pornography sites are under the age of 10. I found it interesting to hear my colleague talk earlier about whether the people accessing it intended to or not. A large portion of people are accessing these sites from a very young age. The average age when boys first view pornography is nine years old, so at nine, boys are seeing this information online. This content is made for adults, not children.

Pornography is shaping sexual imaginations, expectations and practices. It is designed for what is called “adult fantasy”, which is an abstract concept. Teens are concrete learners at a stage of development when they are learning and when their brain is in a much different state. When they watch pornography, they are learning that this is what sex should look like, which is highly problematic. We know that what pornography often showcases is not at all what a healthy sexual relationship looks like, and our children are learning through pornography that this is the way a healthy sexual relationship should look. It is not realistic what children are seeing, and they need to be presented with healthy images and access to the information they need.

We know that pornography has steadily increased. There is violent pornography, horror pornography, child pornography and racist pornography. We are seeing an increase in pornography that, tragically, supports or promotes racial inequality and an increase in revenge pornography, which too many youth right now are experiencing and seeing the impacts of. Misogyny is deeply embedded in so much of what we are seeing, with violence against women, and many are profiting from abuse through the pornography available. The National Child Exploitation Crime Centre, in 2020-21, received 52,306 complaints, which represents a 510% increase from 2013-14. That is a huge increase.

Neurologists have found that brain activity among heavy pornography users showed a behavioural addiction similar to what we would see in substance and gambling addictions. The study, which was conducted in 2017, showed that similar brain activity was present in people who are heavy pornography users, which is highly problematic.

Dr. Megan Harrison, with the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, testified before the Senate legal committee that developing brains are affected by images it sees. The process is called neuroplasticity, which is something many of us are familiar with. However, to ensure we are all on the same page, I will note that it is the forming of new neural networks and pathways when the brain is optimizing itself. That is probably not the best descriptor, but the point is that through neuroplasticity, when the brain sees pornography repeatedly, it adjusts and determines that this is normal content to see. The exposure of pornography can create a distorted view of sexuality that can damage children's and teens' understanding of sexual relationships and their self-image as they mature.

The result of the excess viewing of pornography, which is often misogynistic and violent, is an increase in violence against women, one of the many symptoms. Violence against women is a global public health crisis, and pornography contributes to cultural conditions in which violence against women is tolerated, acceptable and even desirable. It unfortunately creates a sense of entitlement to have sex at any time, in any way, with whomever a person wished, and it regularly depicts sexualized aggression toward women. We know that 44% of women have experienced abuse from a partner in Canada. This is a statistic from 2018, and we know that these numbers have increased since then.

I want to highlight the work of my colleague, the member for Victoria, who recently brought forward a private member's bill, Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding controlling or coercive conduct. This work was carried on by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. The reason we are seeing support in the House for this bill to move forward is that we know, given the science surrounding the development of adolescent brains, graphic sexual images and how they affect an adolescent's understanding of sexual relationships when they are older, that protections and preventions need to be in place from the outset. Instead of us having to create bills that would criminalize behaviour of controlling, coercive and abusive behaviour, I would like us to put in place more preventive tools to ensure that children are accessing appropriate, healthy information from the outset.

We know that key to this work, in addition to having mechanisms in place to control online access to pornography, is prevention so that we do not always have to react to abusive and coercive behaviour after it happens. Sexual health education promotes, among other things, consent, safety and respect, both for ourselves and within our relationships.

Overall, I am happy to support this bill and clearly have a lot to say on it. I hope it gets through committee quickly, as we have a lot of information and want to see it move forward.

Criminal Code

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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