Justice Committee on Feb. 18th, 2021

[Reena Vanza]

I think it will help them. We're talking about power and coercion here. A lot of the time, as we know, when it comes to violence it's the physical violence that people look for. Can we see a bruise? Can we see the physical assaults that we can protect the mom from? The children see the coercion; they see the power and the control. They hide under their beds and in their bedrooms. They witness the part that we don't see.

I think it will give women—their moms or their guardians—empowerment, that we are able to step in and do something about this. It doesn't have to get physical. I think giving that power to the woman translates to giving power to children and seeing that there is protection for us out there.

Yes, absolutely, I think this bill will protect children and women, and it will make a huge difference in how women feel empowered with their own families and their children.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

Chief Duraiappah, this question is for you.

A Canadian Press article from October 20 suggested that some police departments have experienced similar or fewer domestic abuse call rates since the beginning of the pandemic, despite the rise in domestic abuse, in contrast to the rise in calls to helplines.

What has been your department's experience with calls of this nature over the last 10 months?

[Chief Nishan Duraiappah]

That's an accurate depiction of what's happening in Peel region.

As the previous witnesses stated, the isolation that individuals have experienced has stopped their ability to call the police, but it is disproportionate to the actual demand on service providers. We've seen service providers having more people in an intimate partner violence situation seeking help, and we have seen a slight reduction in calls to police. This is the perpetual issue of the fear of calling us when one is in an isolated situation.

We know that the trust in police in 2020, based on geopolitical circumstances, has probably also compounded that factor. We know that some regions across the GTA have seen a slight spike...but your comment is accurate for Peel region.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

Chief, you reiterated that there's a trust factor.

Do you think that some may see this legislation as preventative and some may see coercive and controlling as an actual criminal offence, so it's in the eye of the beholder? I think it's the latter. It is a criminal offence in itself.

Do you think it will help to build that trust, as the police will be able to do more preventative measures—and hopefully the Crown, as well—so that people trust the police more and will approach the law rather than just transitional shelters or other women's shelters?

[Chief Nishan Duraiappah]

We welcome it as another tool. Any opportunity to mitigate risk in the cycle of intimate-partner violence is a positive one, particularly because many individuals who call us don't think we're going to be able to help. We've stepped into homes where there is an absence of violence, and an officer ends up leaving, with no action or outcome.

What this does is to provide us with the ability, in the absence of violence, to disrupt that cycle. I agree that my people need comprehensive training, and our Crown needs clarity on how it will be prosecuted and standards of proof, but I can tell you that it is certainly a positive, positive thing, for sure.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Monsieur Fortin.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here today to discuss this important matter. I am very happy to hear their testimony.

My questions will have to do with the procedural side of things, and I would like to address them to Chief Duraiappah.

Chief Duraiappah, I have a two-part question. First, where do you place a possible controlling or coercive conduct offence on the spectrum of offences related to acts of violence, such as assault, harassment, threatening or conspiring to commit assault?

Second, how would one of your police officers determine that such conduct, such an offence, was indeed going on when he arrived at the site of the alleged offence?

[Chief Nishan Duraiappah]

Thank you for the question.

My first thought on the placement of this offence is that I see it as one tier below the violent commission of offences such as assaults. I see it almost in the space of one or two existing criminal offences, such as threatening and criminal harassment. At the moment, the Criminal Code criminalizes language before there's an act of violence, and I sort of see it in that subset of offences. However, what it has allowed us to do is to peel back that ambiguous space of coercion, which was never embodied in really specific language. I do see it in that space.

With regard to the second part to your question, it is a new, complex element that we're asking frontline responders to be able to discern. I agree with the witnesses. It is a huge new subset of training, but I am confident that this element of training [Technical difficulty—Editor].

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to ask Chief Duraiappah for clarification, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Yes. I think the chief was frozen there for a little bit.

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

All right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Please go ahead, Monsieur Fortin.

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

I may have been unclear.

Chief Duraiappah, in your opinion, what situations would not fall under the definition of harassment, assault or threats, but would fall under the definition of controlling or coercive conduct? Could you give me an example?

How can a police officer who shows up at a home from which a distress call originates determine that it is not harassment, assault or threats, but rather a situation of controlling or coercive conduct?

Do you have any tools to help police officers determine that?

[Chief Nishan Duraiappah]

Thank you for the clarification.

I'll just be frank and honest. That is actually a concern for us as well.

The standard of proof for offences like criminal harassment or threatening is very specific and has a very confined context. I know that for my officers and for our Crown attorneys who will have to prosecute it, the standard of proof will need to be extremely clear and articulable for terms like “controlling” or “significant impact”, especially when the defence is reasonableness.

We do have a question mark. I would have to say this is an element that we hope gets defined more clearly in the form of a standard of proof that the prosecution or the Crown attorneys can run with, and therefore we can derive articulation to our officers.

We need to define.... Are they going to be prohibited from attending a social event in a declined state, or is it actually controlling their finances?

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

I'm sorry to interrupt, Chief Duraiappah. I don't mean to be impolite, but I only have one minute left. You know, my time is limited.

According to your testimony, I gather that you support creating such an offence.

Tell me about a situation you have experienced where you could not have charged someone with harassment, threats or assault, and you could have charged them with controlling conduct.

Can you tell us about a situation like that in 30 seconds?

[Chief Nishan Duraiappah]

Absolutely, sir.

The very quick answer is that sometimes we don't meet the threshold of criminal harassment or threatening. We just don't meet the definition, but we are clearly aware that the individual has imposed psychological, verbal or non-verbal pressures to restrict mobility, finances and a variety of different artifacts such as that.

That would be the immediate area where an individual is able to articulate how they've been negatively impacted, from being mobile, free financially...child care, possession, their employment or activities being restricted in those ways, which don't actually get to the point of a threat. This will be the space that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you.

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

Chief Duraiappah, have you often found yourself in situations like that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Sorry, Monsieur Fortin. We're out of time.

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

I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Maybe in the next round, Monsieur Fortin....

We'll go to Mr. Garrison now for six minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to start by thanking all the witnesses, but in particular those frontline service providers, such as Women's Habitat and Nisa Homes, who deal with these terrible tragedies every day and are doing so during a pandemic. My hope is that the staff there are also able to acknowledge the impact of COVID on them and the increased demand and are able to take good care of themselves in providing these services.

I noticed during Monsieur Fortin's questions that witnesses from both Nisa Homes and Women's Habitat wished to speak. Instead of starting with my questions, I'd like to let them respond, as they had their hands up.

Perhaps we'll start with Nisa Homes, and then Women's Habitat.

[Yasmine Youssef]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and MP Garrison.

I did want to clarify some issues with regard to how we can see whether coercive or controlling behaviour is taking place. We've seen it through a lot of our clients, who come to us having no access to finances, as the chief mentioned, no access to any means of communicating with friends, family or even resources, no access to phones, no access to computers, and no access to even being able to leave the home. Sometimes they're confined to the home. Although there's no threat, no actual “If you do XYZ, I will do XYZ”, they're just not allowed access to these items. They're not allowed access to a bank account or to study or to work or to any means that basically allows them independence and allows them to be able to take care of themselves if something were to happen or if they were to leave, which kind of puts them under the control of the abuser.

I hope that clarifies that situation.

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

Ms. Neto, I think you also wished to respond on this.