Good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak with you. We provided our brief, and I hope you've all had an opportunity to take a look at that because it elaborates on the points I'm going to make very briefly here this morning.
Luke’s Place works with women in Ontario who have been subjected to intimate partner abuse. We do this through both the delivery of direct services to those who are involved with the family law system and engagement in system-change work.
While we acknowledge that there are a number of reasons to think criminalizing coercive control could have positive outcomes, we believe that the problems with criminalization are greater than the potential benefits.
Over the past 40 years, we’ve seen the many ways in which the criminal law has failed survivors of intimate partner violence. Despite the many legal interventions and initiatives, IPV, including lethal violence, remains a serious social problem in this country. While we absolutely need to find ways to validate the experiences of those subjected to coercive control, we don't think creating a criminal offence is the best way to do this. As with any law reform, criminalizing coercive control will have an impact beyond the criminal law itself. In particular, the intersections between criminal and family law are so deep that it's not possible to make changes to one without impacting the other.
We are also concerned, based on the negative consequences that have flowed from Canada’s long-standing mandatory charging policies, that a new criminal offence of coercive control could likewise lead to women being inappropriately charged, which would have disastrous impacts, including on their family law cases.
With respect to Bill C-332 specifically, we have three concerns.
First, coercively controlling behaviours are insidious, subtle and often invisible to anyone outside the relationship. What constitutes coercive control is different from one relationship to another. It builds, with one incident leading to another and then another. Only when all of them are examined in totality can the pattern of abuse be recognized—by the survivor herself, as well as by outsiders. For this reason, the bill needs a clear and inclusive definition of the prohibited behaviours and what constitutes repeated or continuous engagement if it's to be effective.
Second, it also requires a clear and inclusive definition of who it is intended to protect. We encourage you to consider the language used by Ontario’s domestic violence death review committee, which I'm happy to share in the question period.
Third, given the reality that abuse often continues long after separation, especially for women with children, the two-year time limitation should be removed.
What do we recommend?
First, we recommend that Parliament not move ahead with Bill C-332 at this time.
Second, we recommend following the Mass Casualty Commission’s recommendation to establish an expert advisory group to examine whether and how criminal law could better address coercive control.
Third, we recommend providing training, with real accountability measures, for police to ensure that they understand the prevalence of IPV, including coercive control.
Fourth, we recommend developing new and mandatory education for Crowns and judges, with accountability measures.
Fifth, we recommend funding access to free independent legal advice for survivors of gender-based violence who are considering accessing the criminal system.
Sixth, we recommend creating a criminal court support worker program to work in collaboration with existing criminal court victim assistance programs.
Seventh, we recommend funding national stakeholder consultations and discussions about the appropriate use of transformative and restorative justice models as a response to gender-based violence, in addition to the existing criminal system.
Then, and only then, consider how the criminal law might need adaptation to respond effectively to coercive control, using a collaborative and consultative process with all stakeholders.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.