Justice Committee on Feb. 15th, 2024

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

We will now go to our second round.

We will start with Madam Gladu for five minutes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I want to start with Professor Gill.

I'm concerned when I look at this bill that the definition of “coercive control” is not detailed enough to be recognized by the police or courts, necessarily. I used to be the chair for the status of women committee. We were working on the elimination of violence against women and girls and talking about sexual assault. There were a number of instances at that time of judges who didn't really have adequate training to recognize the problem.

It sounded to me, Professor Gill, like you were thinking we should include a non-exhaustive list of examples, as in the Scottish legislation. Is that your recommendation?

[Prof. Carmen Gill]

I think it would be helpful to have a non-exhaustive list of certain behaviours so that people in the judicial system can work with something. They will know quickly that they are dealing with cases of coercive control.

Of course, that doesn't prevent us from having guidelines to accompany it. That's what I'm seeing, especially in the U.K. The Home Office has provided guidelines for prosecutors, so there is a list of behaviours that will be encompassed under coercive control. That would make sense, because you can't just have legislation and throw it at police officers, expecting them to know what coercive control is. I'm training them to better understand what it is. That's why I'm suggesting a non-exhaustive list.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I fully agree.

The other thing I want to talk about is the limitation of two years. In my experience, especially where there are children in the relationship, a coercive, controlling partner will continue and probably escalate over time, especially as the kids get older.

Ms. Silverstone, is that your experience?

[Andrea Silverstone]

That is absolutely my experience. I think it's really important to acknowledge that especially when children are involved, for the entirety of the co-parenting relationship, there is a high risk of coercive control. That needs to be acknowledged by the justice system.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Very good.

I think you said we should remove the two years. That would be a good amendment, I think.

[Andrea Silverstone]

Yes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

There's been some concern expressed by Ms. Collins and others that this private member's bill may not make it through the system in time. I just want to point out that the Liberal government is able to include this in their legislation. Some of my colleagues' great ideas from their private members' bills were adopted—Dr. Ellis, Rosemarie Falk, Ryan Williams and Chris Lewis. All of those things were adopted into government legislation. If, by some chance, this doesn't happen, I think the government has the ability to do that.

I wanted to talk a bit about the experiences of the U.K., Scotland and France and the public campaigns of education and awareness.

Could both of you tell me what you think we should leverage as best practices from other jurisdictions?

[Andrea Silverstone]

First and foremost, when the United Kingdom made it very public that it had changed the definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control, calls to the police went up immediately. They went up by 30%. I think it's really important that we have a public awareness campaign around the definition of coercive control and the fact that the justice system takes it very seriously.

All the time at Sagesse, we have women calling in who say they're not sure whether they're in an abusive situation, but it doesn't feel exactly right. They say the things that are happening and it's almost always coercive control. As soon as we name it for them, they say, “Oh, yes.” This is why it's so terrible.

The United Kingdom has had amazing campaigns. Sagesse has actually built on some of them. We've done lots of work that we've heard is very resonant.

I think, for me, that's what's most important. First, name it and then let people know that it is a form of violence and it is a form of violence they can seek help for.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Go ahead, Professor Gill.

[Prof. Carmen Gill]

I echo what Andrea said, but I want to talk about the experience I had in New Brunswick when we developed specialized courts on domestic violence in Moncton.

We had a rise in cases that came out. When you have something happening like this, you can expect that there will be a rise in the number of reports. It will go viral because the victims are going to think they will finally be heard.

What we saw in Moncton the first year that we piloted the specialized courts was that we had more cases of domestic violence—not because there was more domestic violence, but because victims could be heard. I suspect that's what will happen with coercive control.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much for that testimony.

We will now go to Madam Dhillon.

You have five minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our two witnesses for being here today and for the very important work you're doing on this subject.

I will send my first question to both of you.

In the first two years, how can law enforcement and the justice system efficiently protect victims of coercive control and intimate partner violence post-separation? Is there a way to cut off coercive control after a separation? We see it can still continue, as you've mentioned in your testimony.

[Andrea Silverstone]

I don't think there is a way to cut it off. If an abuser is going to coercively control, they're going to coercively control.

One case that I think is very relevant right now is the case that recently happened in Calgary, where there was emergency protection and a no-contact order in place. It had been breached numerous times and he eventually did kill his partner. I believe that had coercive control legislation been in place, the police would have had another tool in their tool box to hold him accountable for his behaviour, which I think would have changed her safety.

When I think about it, it's not that coercive control is going to end, but if we acknowledge it and there's a tool in the tool box of the justice system to address it, then we can provide better safety for victims of domestic abuse.

[Prof. Carmen Gill]

I will again echo what Andrea has been saying.

It's not necessarily going to end coercive control, but at least we'll have something bringing us forward to intervene in those situations. We should not forget that perpetrators are also going to need some form of intervention. We cannot just focus on the victim. We need to focus on the victim, the perpetrators and the children.

Of course, it's a societal issue. Once we start talking about this publicly, it's going to raise awareness to everyone. The police are going to have a tremendous role in recognizing and determining that it's an intimate partner violence situation they're dealing with.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Both of the witnesses and the MP presenting the bill spoke about the definition of coercive control. We see that coercive control can encompass a broad range of things. We spoke about children. Would it also include abuse towards the complainant's pet and other extended family members?

I see Madam Gill is smiling, so I'll let her answer first and then Ms. Silverstone.

[Prof. Carmen Gill]

Absolutely. It also involves the abuse of the animal that lives in the home. I've seen cases where the partner has killed the dog. That was his way of telling his partner that she could be next.

There is an issue when you start seeing abuse towards pets. It's generally a red flag telling us that if it can go towards the pets, then it can go towards the partner.

Thank you for this question.

[Andrea Silverstone]

I think the strength of the coercive control definition is it recognizes that part of the perpetration of domestic abuse is taking one of the things that is most precious to the individual and then using it as a mechanism to enforce domination and control. That could be anything from a pet to a bank account to a home—whatever is most precious to that individual. It could be their standing in their profession, or in the case of 2SLGBTQ people, being outed if they're not already out.

There are many various ways. I think the strength of coercive control as a definition versus other definitions we've used is that it recognizes that.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Ms. Silverstone, I was going to ask about the LGBTQ part of coercive control. How do same-sex couples report coercive control? How would this affect them and make life better for them as well?

[Andrea Silverstone]

I'll begin by saying that we know some statistics state that domestic abuse has even higher rates in cases of 2SLGBTQ families for reasons of homophobia, heterosexism and barriers to accessing services. Part of what coercive control does is it removes a lot of those binaries, which very often fall into other ways that we look at domestic abuse, and recognize that it's all about the experience of the individual. I therefore think it actually opens it up so equity-seeking groups, including 2SLGBTQ individuals, are more likely to access supports and services.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you for that.

We will now go for two and a half minutes to Monsieur Fortin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Gill and Ms. Silverstone, one question is nagging at me. Ms. Gill, you were saying that, in New Brunswick, a specialized domestic violence court was created and that complaints increased after its creation. I have no trouble believing that. Victims probably thought they had a better chance of being believed and heard.

The bill under consideration deals with violent and coercive behaviour on a repeated and ongoing basis. So it's not about specific acts of violence, such as a punch or a stab, which are specific events. The victim reports to the police that their spouse has attacked them with a knife. It's simple.

I'd like to hear from you about how the bill will work around complaints and offences. For example, what victim is going to say that her spouse, in the first year, took control of her bank account, and in the second year, followed her four or five times? I feel there's a certain fluidity to the behaviour.

Don't you worry that it will be difficult to press charges or to pinpoint the offence that will be the subject of an eventual trial?

[Prof. Carmen Gill]

The offence would not necessarily consist of an event, but of a set of behaviours. How do we determine that these are controlling behaviours? We'll have to rethink the way we put questions to the victims. This will make it possible to establish the type of controlling behaviour they've been subjected to. I don't think it will be problematic.

In fact, I've often seen cases where women have called the police because they feared for their lives, but by the time the police responded to the call, there had been no physical event, no physical offence. So the police couldn't pinpoint what had prompted the woman to call the police. No questions were asked about the events leading up to the call to the police.

This will lead us or force us to rethink the way we ask questions about the whole situation. We need to take a much broader view. It's not about a punch or a slap in the face. It's about someone terrorizing someone for weeks, months, even years, which we still don't consider a crime. In my opinion, that's problematic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.