Evidence of meeting #18 for Justice and Human Rights in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was control.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Professor, if you can share that with the committee, that would be really helpful for our deliberations.
We'll go to Mr. Moore, then, for five minutes. Is that okay with everyone?
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Yes, Madam Chair, provided that we are not cutting our next panel short as well.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I would not agree if we're going to cut the next panel short.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Chair, thank you.
Seeing the time is 1:07 p.m. Atlantic, I would think we should probably go to the next panel. I'm prepared to ask a question of the next panel. I do appreciate all the time and the testimony from this panel, but we've divided our questions based on one hour for each panel.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Given that we don't have consensus, I thank the witnesses for their testimony in this hour. We'll suspend as we move on to our second panel.
Thank you, everyone, very much.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
I call this meeting back to order. Just very quickly before I introduce the witnesses, for the benefit of all the witnesses, I will outline a few things.
Before speaking, wait until I recognize you by name. When you are speaking, please unmute yourself and then mute yourself once you've finished speaking. That obviously applies to all members as well. Address all of your comments through the chair. Interpretation is available at the bottom of the screen, so please select the language that you would like to hear. When you are speaking, speak slowly and clearly, and when you're not speaking your microphone should be on mute.
Welcome to our witnesses. We have Carmen Gill, who is suffering some technical challenges right now. She is from the department of sociology at the University of New Brunswick. We also have the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, represented by Heidi Illingworth; and Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society, represented by Andrea Silverstone, who is the executive director.
At this time, we'll turn to Ms. Illingworth for her opening remarks, for five minutes. I will give cues of one minute and 30 seconds to members and witnesses as you grapple with the timing.
Ms. Illingworth, please go ahead.
12:15 p.m.
Heidi Illingworth Ombudsman, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime
Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me to appear here today.
I am the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime. My office is an independent, arm’s-length organization within the Department of Justice Canada. We work with victims by taking and reviewing their complaints and making recommendations to federal decision-makers to ensure that victims are treated fairly and with respect across the criminal justice system.
I want to pay my respects to the first nations, Métis and Inuit ancestors, and affirm my office’s commitment to respectful relationships with one another and this land.
I would like to begin by thanking the honourable member Randall Garrison for his efforts to bring awareness to the issue of coercive control in Canada. I do appreciate that the subject is very meaningful to him personally. In fact, my office commissioned a paper on this subject last spring and I wrote to the Minister of Justice to request that he introduce such legislation. This is because at my office, we hear regularly from survivors of intimate partner violence who feel that they are not heard, believed or treated fairly when they report their experiences to the police. That is why there is a need, in my view, for legislation to criminalize coercive control, which is a pervasive form of psychological violence.
Briefly, coercive control consists of repeated behaviours that aim to isolate and intimidate an intimate partner. These behaviours can include limiting the victim’s freedom, verbal abuse and threats of harm to the victim, their child or pet.
Currently, IPV is approached as an incident-based problem. It is treated as an episodic or one-time event and the repetitive dynamics of coercive control are not recognized. This makes it extremely difficult for law enforcement to intervene effectively. Experts have identified coercive controlling behaviours as important precursors for femicide worldwide. This harmful and dangerous behaviour has been criminalized in other jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, Ireland, Scotland and several American states.
As you undertake this study, it is important to consult with diverse experts who serve survivors on the front lines. It is also critical to apply a GBA+ analysis and hear the lived experiences of survivors, especially those from indigenous communities, Black people, people of colour, individuals with disabilities and members of the 2SLGBTQQIA community to ensure diverse voices are considered.
The following data shows us how prevalent intimate partner violence is in Canada. In 2020, between January and September, the Calgary Police Service responded to 15,038 domestic incidents. This is 55 calls a day in a city with a population of approximately 1.5 million. In Winnipeg, a city with some 817,000 residents, they typically record 16,000 domestic incidents a year. That’s 44 per day. Statistics show us that victims of IPV are disproportionately female. We also know that this plagues our society and costs us billions of dollars every year.
Honourable members, I put this to you: It has to stop. That is why I support the study of this legislation. Several provisions of Bill C-247 bring positive change for victims. I especially welcome the proposed broad definitions of the concept of connection found in proposed subsection (3).
We are submitting a written submission as well, which will address some of these issues more fulsomely.
Honourable members, I would like to say in closing that I believe the Canadian legal and justice systems must be more responsive to the lived realities of victims and survivors. I work directly with survivors, and that is why I think it is time that we address this gap. Victims deserve access to justice, which is often not possible due to our limited legislative framework. By making Criminal Code amendments, we can improve women and children’s safety. We must also take the time to address the current police limitations in recognizing these coercive and controlling behaviours.
I welcome the opportunity to answer your questions. Thank you.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much, Ms. Illingworth.
We'll now turn to Andrea Silverstone for five minutes.
Go ahead.
12:20 p.m.
Andrea Silverstone Executive Director, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society
Good afternoon, Ms. Khalid and members of the justice committee. Thank you for having me today and for providing me with the opportunity to discuss a topic I am incredibly passionate about: coercive control as a framework for understanding and addressing violence.
I am the executive director of Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society, which is a provincial organization in Alberta that supports individuals, organizations and communities to disrupt the structures of violence. I am also a graduate student at the University of Salford in Manchester, United Kingdom, working towards the completion of my master's degree in the psychology of coercive control.
Coercive control is a pattern of behaviour that seeks to strip away a person's freedom and their sense of self. It is a liberty crime. Focusing on coercive control as a criminal offence is crucially important in devising measurements of criminality, because it reflects the multiple tactics of coercion and control employed by perpetrators of violence.
The current framework of criminal offence does not reflect the experiences of victimization or the harm perpetrated to victims of domestic violence. This is evidenced by high attrition rates, sentencing data and low conviction rates in cases of domestic violence.
Relationships with coercive control result in greater injury to the victim and are characterized by more frequent and severe violence that's less likely to desist. The increase in severity makes the need for legal intervention in cases of coercive control even more imperative, in order to interrupt the escalation and frequency of abuse.
Because the current criminal framework to address domestic violence does not take into account coercive control, the justice system is not viewed by many victims or victims' advocates as a tool to address domestic violence in society. This is evident not only through the low conviction rates and high attrition rates I already mentioned, but also through the fact that less than a quarter of victims of domestic violence report it to the police.
It should be noted that when the justice system in the United Kingdom changed its working definition of domestic violence—years before the legal system changed to make coercive control a criminal offence—calls to the police increased by 31%. This is because once the definition changed to encompass the true experience of the severity of coercive control, victims believed that the abuse they were experiencing would be addressed by the police and, by extension, the courts.
Because our current criminal justice system focuses only on events that are deemed criminal offences, it ends up excluding many other threats that make up ongoing coercive control, blinding the justice system and leaving it without the tools to actually address violence in our society.
I've been working in the domestic violence sector for over 20 years, and I believe that including coercive control as a criminal offence is a game-changer. It's going to give the justice system the opportunity to intervene in violence before it escalates. Coercive control is present in 95% of relationships where there's domestic violence. It's one of the best indicators of lethality. If the police and justice system have the ability to address coercive and controlling behaviour criminally, it's going to allow them to prevent the escalation of domestic violence.
It will change how society views domestic violence. If our justice system puts the lens of coercive control on domestic violence, it will create a discourse in the public in which all Canadians will understand that violence is much more than a black eye and that people stay in violent relationships because of a loss of personal agency. It will destigmatize domestic violence, allowing us as a society to do a better job of addressing violence.
It will save our system of care—non-profit agencies, police and health—and businesses money. It's way more economical to intervene before the domestic abuse becomes physical. It allows the perpetrators to get support before the lethality of their crime increases. It breaks the stigma around domestic violence, allowing both victims and perpetrators to get support.
Domestic violence is at epidemic rates in Canada and is rapidly increasing due to the effects of COVID. We need to improve and innovate our approach to addressing and stopping the violence before it escalates. Making coercive control a criminal offence in Canada is our opportunity to do this.
I'd like to end by making four recommendations. The first is that we immediately implement a new nationwide working definition of domestic violence to reflect coercive and controlling behaviour. The second is that the Canadian criminal law be changed to reflect the criminality of coercive and controlling behaviour. The third is that support be provided for nationwide training for police, judges and Crown prosectors on the framework of coercive control and domestic violence. The last is that we appoint a coercive control and abuse commissioner for Canada, with expertise in all forms of abuse, to provide public leadership and expertise to legislators about abuse issues and to play a key role in overseeing and monitoring the provision of abuse responses with a focus on coercive control.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Garrison for bringing forward his private member's bill and bringing attention to this issue, and I want to thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to present to you today on an issue that is so important to me and for all Canadians.
I look forward to the opportunity to answer any questions and to continuing this dialogue.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much, Ms. Silverstone.
We'll now go to Carmen Gill, professor in the department of sociology at the University of New Brunswick.
You have five minutes. Go ahead.
12:25 p.m.
Professor Carmen Gill Professor, Department of Sociology, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
I'm really happy to be here before you to share my position about the criminalization of coercive control.
I prepared a brief. I don't know if you have it with you, but I will refer to the document I already submitted yesterday.
It's clear that intimate partner violence encompasses different forms of violence that are physical and non-physical. However, from the criminal justice perspective, it is difficult to recognize certain behaviour as being part of an intimate partner violence dynamic. This is the case with coercive control that does not necessarily involve physical violence or a single incident, but instead consists of repeated and continuous patterns of behaviour that occur over a lengthy period of time.
Since we're not covering this particular form of behaviour in the Criminal Code of Canada, it's completely hidden from the criminal justice system response. Intimate partner violence is multi-dimensional in nature and will encompass numerous forms of violence.
I would like to talk a little about what coercive control is and the difficulty in addressing coercive control from a law enforcement perspective.
Coercive control encompasses acts of both coercion and control through the use of force, deprivation, humiliation, intimidation, exploitation, isolation and domination. A number of behaviours that we see in coercive control seem to be normal, but if you combine all those behaviours together, they become part of what we call coercive control in the dynamic of intimate partner violence.
This is done to produce a victim's obedience, ultimately eliminating their sense of freedom in the relationship, something that Evan Stark has referred to as the entrapment of women in their relationship. This form of violence is continuous, and resulting harms are cumulative over time, and therefore, unable to be explained by a single event. The intent is to remove the victim's sense of individuality, autonomy, liberty and capacity to make decisions for themselves, effectively trapping them in their own personal lives.
It's about microregulation that is associated with traditional gender roles and the division of labour in which women are stereotypically more passive, dependent and responsible for household and child care duty. In this type of pattern, it's going to be emphasized that the traditional role of masculinity, where men have the responsibility to pursue female partners, and the general physical advantage that men hold over women, results in the unlikelihood that a woman would be able to achieve the same kind of dominance over her male partner that would be reflective of coercive control.
There are numerous tactics that we can highlight about coercive control. Of course, there is physical violence and sexual violence, but there are tactics, as well, that are going to include limiting transportation, denying access to household, controlling food consumption, disconnecting phone lines, breaking cellphones or preventing them from going to work or going to school. If you accumulate all those forms of behaviour, combined together, they are going to fall under coercive control.
In Canada, the Government of Canada recognizes coercive control in various documents, but it has not been translated into an offence in the Criminal Code.
What I would like to go for here is to talk about the police response to coercive control.
Police have the responsibility to assess and manage the risks that are posed by an intimate partner perpetrator, and of course, they are going to assess those situations in light of the tools that are offered to them. The tools that they have are risk assessment tools, and without having an offence around coercive control in the Criminal Code, they are not likely going to see certain behaviour as part of the dynamic of intimate partner violence. It's going to be hidden, because they are going to look for the one incident and for evidence of physical violence.
I will stop here, because I have already spoken too much.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
You're right on time, Professor Gill. I appreciate that. Thank you.
We'll go into our first round of questions for six minutes.
Mr. Moore, go ahead sir.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To the witnesses on this panel, thank you for your expertise in this area.
Dr. Gill, hello from a fellow New Brunswicker. I know that you've written extensively on this. I'll get right into my questions, as time flies in this format.
You talked to CBC last May about the unique situation we're in now, where persons are living in an environment where they're suffering domestic violence but now being told to stay home and stay safe. In Nova Scotia their slogan is, “Stay the blazes home”. We're all being told to stay home, and that it's safe at home. You touched on this, that governments are telling Canadians that the safest place for them is in their homes, but for individuals in an abusive relationship, that's certainly not the case.
I know we're having a broader discussion around this bill, but I think one reason we're studying it right now is in the context of COVID. Could you comment on what you have seen in your research over the last year with lockdowns and people spending more time at their homes due to COVID?
12:30 p.m.
Prof. Carmen Gill
Thank you for this question. It is true that I've been speaking a lot about coercive control during the pandemic. I've been saying that the most dangerous place for women is their own homes. We are more likely to be victimized by someone we know—basically, someone from our home, such as a spouse or somebody else within the home. When you are in an abusive relationship and you have no possibility of getting out, you are completely confined in the home, and when we talk about coercive control, we're talking about being confined. We're talking about isolation. This is the perfect context in which an abuser can really control his partner. There is no way for them to get out of the house.
Especially when we were all in lockdown in March and April, there was no possibility to reach out. It was extremely difficult for those who were in an abusive relationship. It provided the perfect context for abusers who were already controlling their spouse, even before the pandemic. In a pandemic it will be exacerbated, because clearly they will be on them constantly.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you.
Dr. Gill, it was mentioned by earlier panels, on Tuesday as well as today, that the challenge for police is that they are often looking for that one incident that is chargeable, something that's clearly within the parameters of our Criminal Code. You said something in your remarks that I'd like you to elaborate on. I think there is a struggle around nailing down what exactly it is we're talking about and when something becomes coercive control. You mentioned that it can seem to be normal, but the cumulative effect is coercive control.
Can you give some examples of that? We know that in the family relationship all kinds of dynamics go into play. How is something that can be normal and maybe non-criminal in one context, but with that cumulative effect—this gets into the difficulty of charging someone under the Criminal Code—could be coercive control?
12:35 p.m.
Prof. Carmen Gill
That is another excellent question.
I am working with police forces right now across Canada and I give them scenarios. I'm hosting workshops with police forces and I'm doing this across Canada. I'm giving them scenarios where it's a story about a man and a woman who are in a relationship and there are different things happening, not necessarily physical violence but an accumulation of different situations that are going to end up having a tremendous impact on the person who is controlled. The person is going to be controlled in their daily activities. They are going to be prevented from doing certain things.
When you present this to police officers, they are going to tell you, “What am I supposed to do with this? I know this is part of violence, but there are no offences in the Criminal Code that would allow me to pursue charges in this particular situation.”
Basically, police officers are responding to a domestic dispute call. They show up in the residence. What they have to do is determine whether this is intimate partner violence or just an argument between two adults. How do they do that? They look at the tools they have. They look at the Criminal Code, the offences they have within that, and the risk assessment tools they can use. Unfortunately, they can only assess what is providing physical evidence.
If you look at the Home Office, in England and Wales they have developed a whole series of behaviours that are going to be encompassed under coercive control. As well, for police in England they're using a particular assessment tool that is going to look at different forms of behaviour that are going to be combined to be considered coercive control.
I know it's an abstraction when we talk about coercive control, but it's real. People are victimized; people are dying because of coercive control. Women are killed because they are under the control of a partner, and I can talk for longer about that.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Dr. Gill.
I think my time is up. Is that what the chair is saying?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Absolutely, you're way over. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
We'll now go to Mr. Virani for six minutes. Go ahead, sir.
February 4th, 2021 / 12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you very much.
Thank you to all the witnesses for your insight and all of the work and the advocacy that you're doing. It goes without saying that this is a really important study.
I just want to put in a comment and then ask two questions, possibly three.
First, I think there have been some steps made in the right direction towards the training piece with Bill C-3 on the judicial sensitization towards sexual assault law. All of us know that the definition of “family violence” in the Divorce Act has been coupled with training that's being put out by the Department of Justice for public legal education and information materials, and for legal advisers. Those are important steps in the right direction. The message I am getting is that we need a lot more of that.
I have a couple of questions, and I am going to start with Ms. Illingworth.
Thank you for your letter to Minister Lametti asking for this to be addressed. The question I have relates to what we heard in the last hour, and you heard the people. Your testimony just now and your letter talk a lot about intimate partner violence and no doubt that is at the crux of what we're talking about here. Some of the testimony we heard just in the previous hour also talked about women who are often on the blunt end of this kind of control, but who aren't necessarily in an intimate relationship. It might be an aunt, a mother, a grandmother or a niece. They're having relationships that are controlling, but don't have that nexus of intimacy.
I am wondering how we can ensure that whatever we do is comprehensive enough to ensure that it's dealing with coercive control that deals with intimate relationships, but not to the exclusion of some of those other relationships.
Ms. Illingworth, could you try to tackle that maybe in about 90 seconds? Thanks.
12:35 p.m.
Ombudsman, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime
Sure, I can try.
I think we have to be careful in our definitions. The proposed bill has the concept of close relationships and not this.... It encompasses family members who may not be in an intimate relationship, so I think that's something that has to be considered, as you suggest, perhaps with aunts or mothers, and that sort of thing, who may be experiencing this as well.
Yes, we have to examine this carefully and look at what the lived realities of people are. That's why it's so important to keep hearing from those experts on the front lines, like Andrea, who are responding to this every day. Who is coming to them for assistance? Who is experiencing the bulk of coercive control in relationships? Are they spousal relationships?
We know that a lot of coercive control happens in dating relationships as well, so that can't be overlooked, and in same-sex relationships as well. We have to look at all of these contexts. If we're creating a law, it has to be able to respond to the Canadian context and what we're seeing all across the country.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you, Ms. Illingworth.
I'm going to pivot from there to my next question, which is related to something you mentioned—and Ms. Silverstone, you could jump in. We heard this in the last hour as well, about the disproportionate impact of this on people who are racialized, people who are indigenous, etc. Can you try to tackle it from both ends based on your experience? I want to know the prevalence of this kind of control among Black people, people of colour and indigenous people, particularly women.
I also want to hear a little bit, from your perspectives, about some inhibitions that there might be, given the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in particular in the criminal justice system. Might there be some reluctance on the part of women in those communities to come forward because the men from those communities are already overrepresented?
It's a tough issue, but if I could have your thoughts on that....
Perhaps, Ms. Silverstone, you could go first and then Ms. Illingworth. Thank you.
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society
That's a great question, and it's one that I think we have to be really sensitive in answering to make sure that people have equitable access to whatever it is, whatever solutions we put out there around addressing domestic violence.
It's important to note, actually, that coercive control doesn't just relate to domestic violence. It relates to all forms of violence, which I think is of particular importance when looking at marginalized communities, such as people who are from equity-seeking groups, because often the violence that happens in those communities is lateral violence, not just intimate partner violence. Coercive control is also something that can be laid over those communities.
The more we, through our legislation, represent the experiences of people who experience violence, the more likely they are going to be to reach out to the system to get support, because they will see themselves in the system. If we don't just limit it to spousal violence, intimate partner violence, even domestic violence, but understand that lateral violence does exist in different types of communities, I think that we're a little more likely to get the outcome we want of people from marginalized communities feeling that they can come forward.
Having said that, I think that we, as Canada, can always do better in making sure that marginalized communities feel that we, as a country—and our systems—are there to serve them.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Illingworth, do you want to respond to my second question?