Evidence of meeting #96 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 children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Ms. Ritchie.
I have another question about children. There's talk of including children as victims under the bill.
According to your interpretation, should children be considered indirect victims of controlling or coercive behaviour by one parent towards the other parent, for example, or should controlling or coercive behaviour by one parent towards the child be taken into account?
12:40 p.m.
Founder and Clinical Director, Currents Counselling
I think the children are direct victims, and I can think of many examples where, because of the behaviour of a perpetrator, the child of the perpetrator who is engaging in this kind behaviour will identify with the perpetrator and believe that the victim is the problem. I've seen extreme alienation, where a child is so supportive of the perpetrator that they actually have no relationship at all with the victim, who is the mother.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to start with a question for Ms. Ritchie and, of course, express thanks for the frontline work she does on these issues. To start with, I'm going to ask a somewhat leading question.
Since I began working on this issue three years ago, we've had lots of women contact our office saying that they hadn't recognized that they were a victim of coercive controlling behaviour because no one had ever talked to them about it. I wonder whether you find in your counselling practice that people somehow think it's their problem, an individual problem, and that it's something that's not really recognized. Do you find that?
12:45 p.m.
Founder and Clinical Director, Currents Counselling
Yes, that's exactly what we find. Very rarely do I see a client who's initiating services because they're presenting the problem that they're a victim of controlling coercive behaviour violence. We see them coming in and maybe expressing that they're feeling depressed, anxious, overwhelmed or stressed, or that they have trauma or relationship issues. It's through an assessment of what's going on in their relationship that you start to see this pattern of behaviour.
They might even mutualize it in the beginning and say very blanket statements like, “Everybody fights,” or, “We have some conflict, and I contributed.” It's actually through digging deeper into that and finding out who was doing what to whom, the level of vulnerability, etc., that you start to see that this is what's actually happening.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Do you find that there's a recognition among victims that coercive controlling behaviour is a form of violence in itself, or is it excused as being non-violent?
12:45 p.m.
Founder and Clinical Director, Currents Counselling
Yes, I think it's excused as being non-violent. This type of behaviour is nuanced and subtle, and it's confusing to the victim because it is often a pattern of behaviour over a period of time. They may recognize some parts of it that they don't like. It could also be more subtle, where they're slowly not allowed to spend time with friends and family, and that's justified for various reasons. I'm not sure if you want me to continue.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Do you think that this bill would help people recognize that problem earlier on and perhaps seek assistance earlier on?
12:45 p.m.
Founder and Clinical Director, Currents Counselling
My hope would be that this is another tool. I'm hearing the other witnesses. I understand these positions and I agree, but I see this as being an opportunity for us to point at legislation with victims of violence and perpetrators of violence and say, “Let's use clear language for what's happening, look at the legislation, look at potential options for victims and also invite accountability for perpetrators.”
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Ms. Ritchie.
I want to turn to Ms. Coyle.
Again, thank you for being with the committee again. I was hoping you would be here even though I know—and knew in advance—your position on the bill.
I guess I'm going to ask you somewhat argumentatively.... Some people say that what we have now is a failure to recognize coercive control as violence. Therefore, rather than create a new criminalization, what we're doing is taking the point at which we criminalize and moving it from bruises and broken bones to the behaviour that leads to the bruises and broken bones. Therefore, it's not a new criminalization but a moving of the point at which we recognize that the behaviour is criminal. What would you say to that argument?
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Any time there is a creation of a new criminal law that will result in people being sentenced for behaviour, you're going to see an increase in the criminalization of people who are already overly criminalized. That's the only point we wanted to bring here today.
We are not in any way arguing that this isn't an issue. We all agree that it is an issue, and it's an important issue. We are really grateful that we are discussing this issue at such length. I think it's wonderful that this continues to be something that is brought forward. However, we caution and continue to caution—as we do with everything—that any time we create new opportunities for people to be caught up in the web of criminalization, it's very hard to extract yourself once you're in it, and it becomes a form of harm in itself.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I think a very valid perspective that you always bring to the committee is that reminder.
I have one final question for Ms. Cartwright.
Do you believe the bill, as it is written, does not cover abuse of pets as part of it, or are you simply arguing that it would be better to make it more explicit?
12:45 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Humane Canada
It's both. I don't think it includes animals, and it needs to be made explicit because, in our society, the way the criminal justice system is set up is that animal offences are often pleaded out. If they are there, they're often not recognized and not recognized by the courts. Therefore, the explicit need to refer to animals will provide the judiciary, the prosecutors and the enforcement officers, as well as the victims, with the understanding that this is what's happening.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
When I was originally dealing with legislative drafters on this, one of the arguments they made was that exhaustive lists in the U.K. are included in prosecutorial guidelines and not in the actual legislation because of the dangers in the way our criminal system works. If you don't list everything, then judges may decide that, if something is not on the list, it's not covered.
Would it be sufficient, do you think, if prosecutorial guidelines included this specific example of pets?
12:50 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Humane Canada
I would recommend that it stays where we suggested, around significant impact. It already mentions the victim's ability to care for herself and her children, so it makes sense to add the pets because it sees the whole family or the whole system. Also, I would broaden that out to say “all animals that are owned” by a victim. That would include farmed animals as well.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you very much.
To take us to time, I will have us go to the second round of three minutes for the Conservatives and Liberals and one and a half minutes for the rest. That will take us to time.
I will call on Mr. Caputo for three minutes, please.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you.
Thank you to the panellists.
Ms. Coyle, I was surprised that you're not supportive of the legislation. The reason is this: We deal with what we call a cycle of violence, and it perpetuates. I think one of the examples you used was that a woman or a victim would be subject to cross-examination, and that's not right, not fair and not appropriate. When that goes wrong, we call that secondary victimization.
However, what's the alternative? The alternative is repeated violence, then repeated violence after that and then repeated violence after that. We just heard the statistic today that every six days a woman is killed. Therefore, when we bear that in mind, how can we not criminalize this behaviour?
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
I think we've had discussions about criminal law before in this committee, and it does sometimes come as a surprise to people that an organization that works with the most vulnerable women and gender-diverse people in this country doesn't support the creation of new laws that would potentially protect them. The reason is that we see the law is used against them time and time again.
I even think of the example that was used by my co-panellist. This person's partner started all the actions behind her back. She got a DUI. She became the one who was criminalized in the end, and he was not criminalized at all.
These examples we see time and time again, so it's not just a theory. This is what is happening in practice. People are being harmed by the criminal law in our country because we don't have a fully functioning system that is able to protect people and prevent harm from happening.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Therein is the problem. She got the DUI because of his coercive conduct, and what are we trying to do here? We're trying to penalize the very thing that was the genesis of her downward spiral.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Exactly.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
If that's the case, why are we not criminalizing it?
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
It would seem that we would be on the same page about this, but you can see what happens. Coercive control is so hard to prove. He was somebody who, potentially, could have harmed her in a physical way. There are laws on the books that already deal with potential financial abuse and physical abuse. These are the kinds of things that we could utilize already, but they aren't being utilized in our criminal system.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
As a former prosecutor, I can say that there are already enough impediments to dealing with intimate partner violence and related offences. I will say that I fully support the broadening of it, because this victim group spans relationships of the rich, relationships of professionals and others. When you talk about just dealing with poverty or things like that, that's the macro issue. The micro issue is the person who's in the relationship today, here and now, who could end up dead and is statistically most likely to end up dead. That's why we need to address this.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you for that.
We'll go to Mr. Arya for three minutes, please.
February 26th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I fully support the objective of this legislation, but at the same time I also recognize that we can't fully change behaviour by just passing legislation. Education and training also have to go hand in hand with it.
I'm glad that we 339 members of Parliament can technically pass any legislation, but the process in which this is passed allows us to listen. For example, Ms. Jennifer Koshan, the professor in the faculty of law, mentioned the “unintended consequences” of this legislation and that, while some of the things are unclear and undefined, it has effects.
Ms. Emilie Coyle, some of the sentences you said stuck with me. You said that criminal law cannot be used as a band-aid for a gushing wound that we have. You also said that criminalizing behaviour will affect the people who are already mainly criminalized. In the criminal justice system, we see that most of the people in our jails are indigenous people and those from racialized communities.
It is very difficult for me. Obviously, when we hear the stories of how this intimate partner violence has affected individuals, we need to take action. Our blood boils. We need to throw them in jail, lock them up and throw away the key. That is the first reaction we have, but we also have to listen to people like you and see that we don't overreact.
I don't have any solutions. I'm sure that you have offered your thoughts. Hopefully the committee will consider more.
If you have anything more to add, you can always submit more in writing.