Evidence of meeting #95 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was control.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I am, unless Ms. Silverstone has one. I know I'm almost out of time.
9:35 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society
For me there are four big amendments. The first is around significant impact—
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
We are exactly on time, so how about we table that and go to the next questioner?
I will note that this is extremely important for the committee. If we run out of time with any of your responses, please send them in writing to the clerk so they can be distributed.
Mr. Fortin, you have six minutes.
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I'd like to welcome the two witnesses.
Thank you for being with us. Your comments and observations are most valuable.
Ms. Gill, you've proposed an amendment to include children among potential victims. I've thought about this, and wonder how it might apply.
Let's take the example of a child who is told to go and think in his room by one of his parents because his behaviour is not acceptable. He'll think that, if he doesn't go, he'll be taken there by force and that he'll be a victim of violence.
You're going to tell me that that is a caricature and that I'm going quite far, but I'm looking for the limits.
If we include children among the potential victims, how are we going to avoid convictions that would make no sense? We want parents, teachers and everyone else to be able to continue exercising some control over children and their behaviour. What limits are we going to set if we include children among the potential victims?
9:40 a.m.
Prof. Carmen Gill
That's an excellent question. It can be very problematic, we agree.
When children are victims of such behaviour, their mothers are too, usually. If a mother is the victim of coercive control, for example, her child will be too.
I wouldn't think of children as lone victims of coercive control. Rather, it would be part of the relationship that parents have with each other. When it comes to intimate partner violence, children are usually left out of the equation. Yet they're not just witnesses, they're also part of a certain dynamic where they're controlled by the aggressor.
We can think of behaviours like simply looking at a child in a certain way to make him understand that he'd better behave, because we...
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Isn't it important that it be this way? Isn't it normal and useful for parents to have some control over their children?
9:40 a.m.
Prof. Carmen Gill
Parents certainly need to have some control over their children. However, we are not talking here about disciplining children, but about excessive control over people who will not have control over their everyday activities; and children can be among those people.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Ms. Gill.
If I understand correctly, you agree with me that it's difficult to impose a limit. Besides, I wouldn't want to be the one to impose it. I think there's work to be done to do it wisely.
I'm going to move on to a question that is on another topic completely, but which I...
9:40 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society
Can I add something to that?
One of the areas where we see a lot of coercive control in relation to children and in relation to intimate partner violence is the realm of parental alienation. When the law is been applied in Scotland, which does have provisions for children in particular, it's usually being applied in circumstances where there is parental alienation. That's being used as one of the mechanisms of coercive control against the other party, but then also ends up being used as a mechanism of coercive control against the child.
February 15th, 2024 / 9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Ms. Silverstone.
My next question is for both of you, but I'm not sure who's best placed to answer it.
According to section 5 of Bill C‑332, someone who is accused of engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour could cite the defence that they acted in the best interests of the person towards whom the conduct was directed. For example, if you accuse your spouse of such conduct, they will say that they sincerely believed they were acting in your best interest by controlling this or that. You're going to tell me I'm exaggerating, and I agree.
The question that nags at me is this. Let's assume that the accused sincerely believed he was acting in the victim's best interest. In that case, doesn't section 5 open the door to the defence that the individual did not have criminal intent? Even if a person is accused of unacceptable behaviour, they may not have intended to commit a criminal act. Section 5 clearly states that it is a defence to claim that the person acted “in the best interests of the person towards whom the conduct was directed”.
Ms. Gill, what do you say to this possibility? Ms. Silverstone will be able to answer that question later.
9:40 a.m.
Prof. Carmen Gill
It's complex.
It's a defence that refers to the victim's incapacity. We can think of cases of dementia, for example. It's rather marginal. It's a defence that could easily be used by people who are violent towards their partner while they are vulnerable, precisely to evade enforcement of the law.
An alternative solution would be to remove these two paragraphs. There's no need to insert a defence right in the text. If we decide to keep this text, we should state that it is up to the accused to show that his conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.
That is my answer to your question.
9:45 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Ms. Gill.
I don't know if I have enough time left, but I'd like to hear Ms. Silverstone's answer.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
You don't have enough time left, Mr. Fortin.
Thank you very much.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
I'm trying not to cut the witnesses off, so if there are a few seconds, not minutes, I'm letting it go, but we'll watch that as we get closer to our deadline.
Mr. Garrison, you have six minutes.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'd like to start by thanking both our witnesses for their previous appearances and for the help they gave us in preparing the original report this committee did two years ago on coercive control. It's not just today, but these two witnesses have been very valuable to the committee all along. My thanks to them for being with us again today on short notice.
I want to give Ms. Silverstone a chance to talk about the changes she thinks should be made to the bill through amendments, which Mr. Housefather had led up to. Let me start with that.
9:45 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society
For us, there are four key amendments that we think need to be included.
The first is around the type of relationship. We think it would be very valuable for Canada to have a piece of legislation around coercive control that also encompasses victims of sexual exploitation, especially because there is often an intersection between victims of sexual exploitation and intimate partner violence.
The other is around the length of the relationship. We know that long after a relationship ends, especially if there are children involved, there is a risk of coercive control being continuous.
There is also the issue regarding the inclusion of children. I talked a bit about that, especially in regard to parental alienation.
Finally, there is the significant impact issue.
For us, those are the four pieces.
One thing we really appreciate about the bill is the reasonableness piece, which I think answers questions about the person saying, “I'm acting in your best interest.”
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much.
There have been lots of comments about the need for training and the need for awareness. Because Professor Gill does a lot of work with the police, I want to ask a question again about those who have suggested we need a delay in the legislation or a delay in the coming into force of the legislation to allow time for training.
I wonder what your comments would be, Professor Gill.
9:45 a.m.
Prof. Carmen Gill
My take on this is that it's like the chicken or the egg, so you wait for the legislation while everybody is being trained. I think you need movement that goes hand in hand, so you're moving forward with the legislation while you're training people at the same time. The fact that we are talking about this amendment is already raising awareness for many people in the criminal justice system.
I've been asked to speak to judges for the last three years about this because they want to know more about how they can see this in the courtroom. I'm working with the police because they say they want to be ready. Whether it's criminalized or not, they want to better understand the complexity of this issue.
For me, it's not one or the other; it all goes together.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
In your introductory remarks, Professor Gill, you made reference to dealing with the unintended consequences of moving forward on coercive control. At the same time, we've heard that while there's a higher likelihood of marginalized women being victims of coercive and controlling behaviour, there are also concerns about this law's impact on marginalized women.
Can you say a bit more about the unintended consequences question?
9:45 a.m.
Prof. Carmen Gill
On the unintended consequences, every time there's a new policy or new law, there are some consequences we will have to deal with. If we are, for example, considering the misidentification of the victim as the perpetrator and are providing more awareness and, of course, more training, we are going to be better informed in order to intervene in those cases.
When it comes to marginalized populations, I think we really need to focus on what I would call an entrapment framework. This means it's not just about looking at this particular issue, but looking at other forms of inequality as well that have led those particular groups to be more vulnerable than others. This has to be taken into consideration as well. Where? It's in training. I'm taking a lot back to training because I strongly believe that if people are aware of what this particular issue constitutes, it will work better for everybody.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I know time is always short here, but I want to go back to Ms. Silverstone and the link between coercive and controlling behaviour and femicide. I'll ask you to talk about what you've learned about that link.
9:50 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society
The majority of victims of coercive control who also experience homicide are women. It's overwhelmingly so. It's over 90%. We also know that coercive control is the best indicator of lethality in a relationship. Being able to have this be part of the tool box the justice system has could even prevent the escalation from getting to the point that there is a homicide.