Bill C-332 (Historical)

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

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

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on this beautiful Monday, December 1, it is my honour to start the week by talking about Bill C‑225 on the issue of intimate partner violence. This is a major issue for the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which is continually having to re-examine the issue in the light of new developments. That is unfortunate.

The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code in order to create specific offences in cases where the victim is an intimate partner. It seeks to prohibit a peace officer from releasing a person who has been convicted of a similar offence within the previous five years. It would increase the detention period of property seized from three months to one year, with the possibility of an extension of up to two years. It would also implement stiffer punishments for criminal harassment of an intimate partner, threats to an intimate partner, assault, aggravated assault or assault with a weapon.

Coercive and controlling violence is a widespread problem, which is unfortunate. Allow me to provide a definition. It refers to repeated behaviours that aim to isolate, control, monitor or dominate the victim. This includes financial control, psychological manipulation, social isolation, restricting movement, breaking phones and threatening children or animals. Since we are talking about these behaviours, this violence, this coercive control, I want to emphasize the fact that this is one of the priorities I had established after a Quebec report about rebuilding trust was published. I received the request from Sherbrooke MNA Christine Labrie, who had served on the expert committee. We met at a café in Sherbrooke, and she told me that this was something that falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. I seized the opportunity, listening to the member who had worked with her colleagues in a non-partisan manner. The group was made up of people from all political parties. The work that Quebec did was very thorough. As they have requested, coercive control must be criminalized. This is really important.

After that brief digression, I would now like to return to the ultimate purpose of coercive control, which is to take away the victim's autonomy and freedom. Ninety-five per cent of domestic violence crimes involve some degree of coercion or control. That is serious. The Bloc Québécois supports studying the bill given the urgency surrounding the increase in domestic violence. Unfortunately, the numbers confirm that domestic violence has increased and that cases are on the rise. Some municipalities and some locations have even declared domestic violence an epidemic.

The bill seeks to protect the concept of first-degree murder by creating a new, stand-alone paragraph. The Bloc Québécois wants this protection to expressly include children and loved ones and to avoid creating redundant offences if the same offence already exists in the Criminal Code. As I was saying earlier, we want to include coercive violence in the Criminal Code, which, incidentally, was the purpose of a bill introduced in the previous Parliament by a colleague from the New Democratic Party and which made it all the way to the Senate. Unfortunately, that bill died on the Order Paper with the election. It was even the theme of last week's press conference to launch the 12 Days of Action to End Violence Against Women campaign. Finally, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled the report on a study that my colleagues and I proposed on coercive control. Once again, we determined that this is one of the main demands that must follow the tabling of this report.

There are problems with the current legislation. Victims have very little trust in institutions, in police forces and in the courts. Violence is massively under-reported. Only 36% of cases of domestic violence and only 5% of sexual assaults are reported. Immigrant women face additional obstacles because they are afraid that reporting will affect their immigration status. It is difficult to prove coercive control under the existing legal framework.

Some people say that coercive control should not be criminalized because it is difficult to find evidence and difficult to prove in court. However, we believe that we need to overcome that obstacle and focus instead on how to better educate people within the system, from police officers to judges. How can we better educate people to ensure that this is properly recognized? We also need to be able to find evidence of coercive control and present it in court.

Existing laws are also not being properly enforced. Charges are reduced to a peace bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code. With the Conservatives' support at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I proposed a study on the specific issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code and whether it truly meets the needs of victims.

Section 810 is deemed inadequate in cases where the risk of reoffending is high. That is what we have been hearing.

In the parliamentary context, there have been several attempts since 2020 to regulate coercive violence. First there was Bill C-247, Bill C-202, then Bill C-332, which is more recent. In 2023, we passed Bill C-233, which was drafted by the Liberals and was on electronic monitoring and continuing education for judges. A widely publicized increase in femicides has added more political pressure to take action and introduce legislation to try to find solutions to this scourge.

Several committees are currently studying the issue. I mentioned the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, of which I am a member, but I know that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are also studying aspects related to this file. I have had discussions with the members who sit on the same committee that I do, but I have also talked to members of these other committees, including the member for Rivière-du-Nord and the member for Drummond.

Let us talk about what Bill C-225 will actually accomplish. Under this bill, the murder of an intimate partner will automatically be classified as first-degree murder. That is what this bill says. Sexual harassment and threats against an intimate partner would both carry a maximum sentence of 10 years, while threats against a partner's property or pets would carry a maximum sentence of four years. Simple assault against an intimate partner would carry a maximum sentence of 10 years, while armed assault, bodily harm and strangulation would carry a maximum sentence of 12 years, and aggravated assault, 14 years. The bill also makes it mandatory for those accused of such offences to be detained in custody for up to seven days following arrest to undergo a risk-of-reoffending assessment.

Let us now talk about the most recent statistics on domestic violence in Canada. According to the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, in 2024, a woman was killed every 48 hours by an intimate partner. According to a 2023 Statistics Canada report, 76% of victims of domestic violence are women. Over 127,000 incidents of domestic violence were reported to the police in 2022, an increase of about 5% compared to the previous year. That is rather alarming.

Indigenous women are three to four times more likely to be the victims of domestic violence. Young women between the ages of 15 to 24 are most at risk. Four out of 10 victims report coercive control before the situation becomes physically violent. One in three children who is exposed to domestic violence will experience severe psychological distress. Again according to the 2023 Statistics Canada report, in 60% to 70% of cases, children witness violence first-hand.

There is also technology-facilitated coercive control. More than 50% of victims of domestic violence report being subjected to technology-facilitated control through location tracking, forced access to accounts, digital surveillance, or threats to share compromising images online. Data are also available for rural areas. The rate of domestic violence for women living in rural areas is 1.8 times higher than the rate for women in urban areas. Close to 80% of victims of domestic violence never contact police. Nine victims out of 10 say that they do not report the abuse due to fear of retaliation or due to financial dependence.

For cases of domestic femicide and homicide, 75% are committed by a current or former partner. Again according to Statistics Canada, a separation increases the risk of homicide by 500% in the year following the breakup. Domestic homicides account for 34% of all homicides of women in Canada. More than 50% of femicides occur after a lengthy period of coercive control. Domestic violence is on the rise. Between 2014 and 2023, it went up by 30%. In 2022, police recorded an incident of family violence every two minutes. The provinces with the highest rates are Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.

I could go on in this vein for hours, but I have only a minute left. To wrap up, 60% of victims say that coercive control is more traumatizing than physical violence, and 70% of victims report being under constant surveillance, including digital surveillance. One victim in two reports being subjected to economic violence, which prevents the victim from leaving the relationship. Financial dependence is also a barrier to reporting. The populations at greatest risk include indigenous women, as I mentioned. It is also important to find solutions for the children, as 60% of children exposed to violence develop symptoms of PTSD.

I could also talk about the impacts of separations, technology-facilitated violence, and the economic and social impacts, because the cost of domestic violence in Canada is $7.4 billion per year, which is huge. What we are also seeing is that 50% of women lose their jobs or have to change jobs because of violence, and over 800,000 women and children use shelters every year.

Given the numbers I just shared, I think that it is even more important to act, but we must do so carefully. We need to analyze this bill in committee and then we will see.

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague, the Secretary of State (Nature).

I believe that there is no such thing as too many opportunities to talk about women and violence against women. We have the chance to talk about it here from November 25 to December 10, although we should be talking about it all year round. In fact, that is what we do at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, but I will come back to that. The period from November 25 to December 10 is a key time of year when men and women come together to look at what is happening in our communities, in our country, in our provinces, in our cities and in our towns. How are women's issues being approached? How are women being treated?

I want to share some background information about the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. There are three key dates, as my colleague mentioned. In 1999, the United Nations declared November 25 as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

There is obviously December 6, a date that is painful for all Canadians and, it goes without saying, for all Quebeckers to remember. I am the same age as the women who were murdered on December 6 simply for being women and perhaps for studying in traditionally male-dominated fields. They were murdered. My colleague called them her 14 sisters, but I would call them our 14 sisters.

There is also December 10, Human Rights Day, which celebrates the adoption of the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights back in 1948.

The news for women is not especially positive today. The picture is not completely bleak, but neither is it very rosy when it comes to women's safety. A woman or girl is murdered in Canada every 48 hours, meaning every other day. In 2024, 240 women and girls were murdered. There have been approximately 15 femicides in Quebec over the past year. These women, these people, were murdered simply for being women.

Our committee is in the middle of a study about women's safety and the Criminal Code. We have heard chilling statements from witnesses. They told us there is an epidemic of violence against women. I would go even further and call it a national crisis. I think we have a national crisis on our hands when it comes to the status of women and women's safety.

Here are some statistics. Sexual assault is up 76% since 2015. Homicides are up 30%, and violent crime is up 55%. Two or three weeks ago, the Liberal Minister of Justice said that the violent crime index in Canada has increased by 41%. According to police across Canada, the number of female victims of domestic violence has risen by 40% nationwide, which is very high. That is extremely concerning.

A number of initiatives have been implemented. Every small step, every small gesture, no matter how small, is important and brings us one step closer to being able to keep women safe.

I drew up a list of the work we have done. Perhaps some will say that the women on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and the men who sometimes attend, are hyperactive. The committee has conducted about nine studies that have resulted in resolutions, recommendations and observations that have been presented to the current government to get things moving and speed up action to improve protection for women.

Let us talk about coercive control. As I was saying earlier, the committee did a study on that topic, and the report will be tabled today.

The House passed a bill on this subject that even made it to the Senate. It was Bill C‑332, if memory serves.

This bill had to do with criminalizing coercive control. This is no one's fault, but that bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called. I would therefore like to issue my colleagues a challenge. If this is not already in the works, would it be possible to fast-track the bill to get it moving forward again? The House of Commons passed it, and it got to the Senate. It did not have much further to go.

I hope that the Chair will allow me to make a somewhat more partisan comment. I am not the most partisan person here, so I hope he will indulge me.

First, there is no full-time minister for the status of women. We know that the minister has other jobs and other portfolios to deal with. She is not just responsible for the status of women. Second, we learned in the budget statement that the funding for the department responsible for the status of women has been cut by 78%. Off the top of my head, I think that can be found on page 209 of the French version of the budget.

It seems to me that there is an inconsistency when government members who are wearing the ribbon are presenting these kinds of numbers and rising in the House to pay lip service to women's issues, while, at the same time, cutting the budget to protect women. Something is wrong here.

I would therefore urge the government to bring back Bill C‑332 and fast-track it. We all agreed on it. Let us hit one out of the park and move forward with a bill to criminalize coercive control. All of the stakeholders we have met with in recent weeks are calling for that. While we are at it, perhaps the government should also reconsider the budget it has allocated to the Minister for Women.

I will close by saying that one of the arguments in favour of criminalizing coercive control is that coercive control, as invisible as it may be, can lead to physical violence.

I am sure my colleagues know where things go from there.

Controlling and Coercive Conduct

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to table a petition urging the government to criminalize coercive abuse through the reintroduction of former Bill C-332. The bill, which has already undergone rigorous legal and procedural review, offers a clear and focused approach to addressing intimate partner violence by specifically targeting coercive control.

Families have lived with the devastating impacts of coercive abuse. A constituent in my riding of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna has been actively involved in community efforts and advocacy surrounding the issue. Their insights reflect the urgent need for legal reform to protect vulnerable women from this insidious form of abuse. This petition supports reviving that bill in its original form to ensure swift, effective action.

I thank all members for their support of this important cause to strengthen protections for women who are victims of coercive, controlling behaviours and abuse.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning I handed a letter to your office informing you of my resignation, effective in January.

After more than four years waiting, I now have a family doctor, and it is time to listen to his advice about putting my health first. This means these are likely my final remarks as the member of Parliament for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I want to thank the Speaker and the House in advance for granting me some latitude today and, by doing so, perhaps saving me from having to write a book.

Let me start by thanking all those who have supported me over what has been nearly 14 years as a member of Parliament.

First and foremost, I want to thank the constituents of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for giving me the privilege of representing them here for four terms. It has been and continues to be an honour to work with the diverse communities that make up this riding, including six municipalities, four first nations and the large contingent of military families. In particular, I am thankful for the support I have received from the South Asian community, the Jewish community and, of course, the 2SLGBTQI+ community, both in my riding and from across the country.

Special thanks also go to my campaign teams in six elections and all the volunteers and donors and the many trade unionists who always came out to support me.

My biggest thanks, of course, goes to my husband, Teddy Pardede. When I first told him I was considering running for office, he said, “Okay, honey, you go do that,” but he has steadfastly stood by me as a public figure despite it turning out to require a little more than that from him and to be a little more complicated all round. He has supported me as a public figure for 20 of the 25 years we have been together.

Members know I am a crier, and I promised I would not cry completely through the speech, but I am going to get a few opportunities.

I have to confess that sometimes I am still a little astonished to actually be standing in the House. How did a queer kid from a farm in Nebraska, from a working-class family riven by domestic violence and child abuse, both shrouded in silence, become a member of Parliament? It was never part of my plan. I will always be grateful to Canada for providing me refuge more than 50 years ago, when it was still illegal for men to have sex with men in the United States, and for giving me so many opportunities to build a life here.

Who is to blame for me being a New Democrat MP? Well, it started with Tommy Douglas, who signed me up as a party member when he was my MP in Nanaimo more than 45 years ago; I had to sign the card before I got dessert. That resulted in my working with and for the party for over a decade, including a stint on Ed Broadbent's staff here in in Ottawa nearly 40 years ago.

After that time, I spent over a decade involved in human rights and international solidarity work. When I arrived back in Canada after a year of human rights work abroad and took up teaching again, I fell for an invitation from the new NDP leader, Jack Layton, to have lunch to discuss my human rights work. We did discuss human rights, but at the end of that lunch Jack said, “I'll bet you think there should be gay members of Parliament,” and of course, I agreed. Then he said, “Well, how do you think they get there if people like you will not run?” So I agreed, despite repeatedly having said no before and despite the many, myself included, who thought the path for a gay New Democrat running in the second-largest military riding in the country was more than a little uphill.

When I came to the House, it was after two losses, but more importantly, it was after more than 20 years teaching criminal justice, after serving as a municipal police board member and city councillor, and after working as an international human rights researcher in Indonesia, East Timor and Afghanistan, where I was often in the field alongside Canadian peacekeepers. I have tried to be true to who I am and to bring the expertise I acquired along the way to my work here in the House. As an out and proud member of the queer community, I hope I have demonstrated that diversity is one of our strengths as a nation and that more diverse Parliaments do indeed make better laws.

From 2011, I have been privileged to serve as the NDP spokesperson for queer rights. Fourteen years as the critic on one topic may be some kind of record, I am not sure, and we are still the only party to have such a position. I am proud to have successfully led initiatives in the House to add transgender rights to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code, to ban conversion therapy, to bring an end to the gay blood ban and to provide a path to safety in Canada for queer and trans refugees whose lives are at imminent risk. However, I want to stress that any progress on queer rights that has been made here has only been possible because of years of struggle at the grassroots level across the country by the queer community and the always unwavering support of my caucus, our leader and, I have to say, key MPs in other parties.

In the House, I have also served as the NDP public safety, defence and justice critic over the years. Again, I have been able to lead initiatives in the House that have led to the elimination of criminal records for the personal possession of drugs in this country and to expand access to community-based bail supervision, both to help make communities more safe and also more just.

Some things are still left undone. My initiative on coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate partner violence, now in the form of the member for Victoria's private member's bill, Bill C-332, remains stuck in the other place, despite having passed here unanimously last summer. I remain disappointed that my repeated attempts have failed to convince both Conservative and Liberal governments to remove self-harm from the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence, an initiative that would signal an important change in attitude toward mental health in the military.

I have been privileged to be able to bring the whole of who I am to my work here in the House, despite increasing levels of harassment and threats for doing so. I am disappointed that we failed to pass my private member's bill to add the queer community to federal employment equity legislation so we can have a workforce that fairly represents the whole of the country we are. As a gay man who lost many friends in the first round of the AIDS epidemic, I remain perplexed by the government's failure to take the measures necessary to eliminate new cases of HIV in this country by 2030. All it would take is decriminalizing HIV non-disclosure and modest annual expenditures on community-based testing and treatment programs.

As an MP, I have also worked to provide strong service to my riding. I successfully secured better protections for southern resident killer whales, got federal funding for the initial cleanup of Esquimalt Harbour and delivered support for the local shipbuilding industry, as well as providing strong advocacy for individual constituents in their dealings with the federal government.

Let me stop to say how important the support is that I have received from my staff here in Ottawa and in my constituency office, most of whom, breaking the rule, are here in the gallery right now. They have been loyal and long-serving. Again, maybe I have set some records here; I have one staff person who has been with me from day one, and we refer to the other person in the office as the junior staff person because they have only been here 12 years. The same is true in my constituency office. None of what I have been able to accomplish would have been possible without their support.

I am especially proud to be part of this, my fourth, NDP caucus, which is particularly skilled and hard-working and which, under the leadership of Jagmeet Singh, has secured many important victories for ordinary working Canadians—

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, we are very aware of Bill C-332. I thank the member for the fact that this bill was generated from his party, and also for the fact that there was a lot of collaborative work that was done to make strategic amendments to improve the content of that bill.

My understanding is that this bill is coming up for third reading, and we are very dedicated as a government and as a party to addressing issues of gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. Coercive control is part of that continuum. The fact that other nation-states with which we are allies have addressed this issue already prompts us to act at a faster pace to try and ensure that this bill becomes law as soon as possible, at least through its passage through the House of Commons and off to the Senate.

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

Madam Chair, members from all sides of the House have supported the creation of a new offence in the Criminal Code for coercive and controlling behaviour. Bill C-332 is scheduled to return to the House for report stage and third reading next week.

Can the minister tell me when the government will act and implement the changes to the Criminal Code that are urgently needed to protect survivors, families and children who are at risk of coercive and controlling behaviour and escalating threats of harm and violence?

Is the government committed to fast-tracking the implementation of the legislation, given the all-party support?

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 with respect to controlling or coercive conduct.

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

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.

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

[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—