Justice Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

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

Another question I have is for Ms. Ritchie.

I see in the bill that there is a defence where you would claim that what you were doing was in the person's best interest. While I can see situations where that might be true—somebody has Alzheimer's disease or something and you have to take care of them and make sure they don't harm themselves—in fact, one characteristic of coercive control is that the perpetrator is telling somebody that they are doing this because it's in their best interest.

Could you tell me whether you think that this defence is appropriate as it is written?

[Shannon Ritchie]

I do think it's appropriate as it is written because the perpetrator is in control of the victim. The perpetrator is using specific tactics in order to manage the victim and make the victim feel as though they are responsible for the violence being perpetrated against them.

They will convince the victim that it is in their best interest, such as around controlling the family finances or maybe, in subtle ways, that they shouldn't be able to go out and see family and friends.

It wouldn't.... Excuse me. I'm just a little bit nervous.

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

That's okay.

Really, that's exactly the point. Although the perpetrator may say, “It's in your best interest”, why should “I was doing it because it's in their best interest” be able to be used as a defence? I think there is a problem there.

Let me ask you one other question.

They suggested that there should be this two years—it's if you're experiencing this with a partner you've been with within the last two years.

Do you think there should be any kind of a limit at all? Should we just remove that two-year part?

[Shannon Ritchie]

I think you're trying to establish a pattern. We know that sometimes this can happen quite quickly, where there is this sort of grooming behaviour and this pattern of behaviour starts soon.

I don't know exactly how long of a time frame there should be, although I do think there should be a period of time where you can start to look at the behaviour over time. In the beginning, it can look kind of subtle and then it can become normalized in the relationship and develop into something more significant.

I don't specifically have a timeline to suggest, but I do know that some sort of a timeline in order to establish that pattern would be helpful.

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

We did hear that, over time, especially if you have children together, sometimes the behaviour can escalate.

Another question I have is for Ms. Cartwright.

England put a list of things in its legislation that were indicative of coercive controlling behaviour, including but not limited to phraseology. I see that they put in here, “threatening to hurt or physically harming a family pet”.

Do you believe the Canadian legislation should contain a similar list with something like that?

[Barbara Cartwright]

Yes. We put forward two amendments, one in recognition that our human services partners feel that there needs to be a definition of coercive control. We recommended in our submission to use the one from the Divorce Act, since it also recognizes animal violence, and then also to include it in the “significant impact” section. The impact is not only to the victim's ability to protect themselves or their children. It should also be to their ability to care for and protect their pets.

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

Very good.

I may run out of time on this one, Chair, but my question for all of them is this: If you have considered the U.K. legislation, the Scottish legislation and other legislation, which one do you feel we should closely model this after?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I will ask you to keep that thought for the next round.

Ms. Brière, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll turn to Ms. Coyle.

You said that people from racialized communities were overrepresented in the justice system. The bill uses the concept of fear, meaning that fear must be proven. I would like to hear your opinion on this issue.

Moreover, doesn't the fact that the victim must be questioned and then cross‑examined victimize the individual even more?

[Emilie Coyle]

I do think that is a problem. In the legal system as it exists, we know that most of the people who experience intimate partner violence do not come forward. We know that many times, if they have come forward and are brought before the courts, they are made to relive the trauma that they've had to endure.

Often, if it's a specific action that has been taken, maybe we can focus on just that particular action, but when it comes to coercive control, because it is something that is experienced by people over a long period of time and is very nuanced, you're going to have a person in front of the court who is experiencing cross-examination on multiple points of pain and trauma in her life. We worry very much about what that would look like for the person who has been harmed.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Do you have a solution? What would you recommend?

[Emilie Coyle]

I mean, we've already discussed training. Training is always important when it comes to the legal system and when we're talking about prosecutors, criminal defence and judges understanding the experiences of people who've experienced intimate partner violence. Not criminalizing coercive control until we've figured everything else out might be another way that we could go.

Also, I certainly think it's important to try to prevent people from being harmed in the first place. How do we do that? It's a huge task, but we have to tackle it. We have to tackle poverty. We have to tackle racism, misogyny.... These are the big issues of our time, and we can be creative here. This is the opportunity to do so, because we're talking about intimate partner violence all the time now and we understand the problem with it. We can't see the criminal law as the band-aid solution to this huge gushing wound we have.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines “intimate partner,” but the bill proposes a new definition, along with the concept of “connection.”

Should we refer to this definition, rather than include a new concept in the bill?

[Emilie Coyle]

Yes, I think we have a good definition of coercive control. I'm not an expert on coercive control, actually, and I would defer to those who are.

I think one of the recommendations that came out of many of the inquiries into intimate partner violence was to create a panel of experts on coercive control, and that might be something else that we could do in order to inform the steps that we are taking moving forward.

I also want to say that when it comes to proposed subsection 264.01(5) in the proposed law around the defence of “best interests”, I worry about the infantilization and what that places on the person who is bringing forward a claim of coercive control. Where could a claim of “best interests” ever be used as a defence? That would be a query that I would have.

Anyway, I'll leave it there.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

At the end of your opening remarks, you were giving us a list. Could you please continue?

[Emilie Coyle]

It's exhaustive, but I will be presenting a brief to you by the end of this week. I'll include it there as well.

Thank you.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

My next question concerns children.

Should the bill include children when it comes to coercive control situations?

Should even having a child under the age of 18 involved in the situation be considered an aggravating factor?

[Emilie Coyle]

It's hard for me to talk about what to include in a law that I don't actually think should be moving forward.

As I said, when we criminalize women and gender-diverse people, we are punishing families. When a caregiver is charged—I have this in my notes, but I didn't say this—and is held on remand, so denied bail for even a short period of time, this can have lasting detrimental effects on her keeping her job, keeping her housing and caring for her children. It is the children who will suffer if a parent is removed from them with a charge of coercive control.

We actually know of innocent people who will probably plead guilty to violence towards their partners, so that they can leave jail and get back to their families faster. They will have a criminal record that will follow them for the rest of their lives. It's a really nuanced issue that we have to examine closely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Ms. Brière.

I also want to thank the witnesses.

I now give the floor to Mr. Fortin for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Cartwright and Ms. Coyle, thank you for joining us today.

I had some questions, but I want to focus on the issues raised by my colleague, Mrs. Brière. I'm wondering about some kind of trap when it comes to children. I don't want to make a faulty comparison, but more or less the same reasoning applies in the case of children and animals. I gather that conduct towards children wouldn't be punished, but that children would be indirect victims, a bit like an animal facing threats. For example, a spouse tells his partner that, if she doesn't do what he says, her dog will suffer. Understandably, the dog would become a type of indirect victim. That said, the victim of the controlling and coercive behaviour is the partner.

Doesn't the same reasoning apply to children? As you rightly said, the child is bound to be affected by any charges against a parent or by a criminal trial. Do you consider the child an indirect victim of the situation between the two parents?

Should a parent's controlling and coercive behaviour towards a child, even if the parent doesn't have a spouse, constitute an offence under this bill?

[Emilie Coyle]

Thank you for the question.

I don't think I can answer that question, because I don't think I have the expertise to answer that properly. I'm just going to remove myself from answering that at this point.

Thank you.

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

Okay.

We're talking about repeated or continuous controlling and coercive behaviour. In your opinion, Ms. Coyle, where do we draw the line? Is there a minimum duration? Is it enough to commit a single act of controlling and coercive behaviour, such as withholding a passport or identification documents, or should a minimum number of acts must be committed before we can talk about a repeated and continuous offence?

[Emilie Coyle]

Again, I'm not an expert in coercive control. However, we know that the existing laws that surround intimate partner violence, and the way that women and gender-diverse people are criminalized, are often manipulated by people who are abusing or harming their partners.

If there is a way that a person could manipulate the system to harm their partner, they will do it. It's going to be really difficult, I think, for our legal system to respond to such a nuanced and complicated way of harming someone.

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

Thank you, Ms. Coyle.

Ms. Ritchie, I don't know whether you heard the questions put to Ms. Coyle. I would like to hear your thoughts on the same topics.

Let's start with the issue of repeated and continuous behaviour. In your opinion, is there a minimum number of acts?

[Shannon Ritchie]

Thank you for the question.

I don't know about a specific number, but I do know that you will see a pattern of behaviour. You'll see a pattern of behaviour that starts fairly early on. It may act as a precursor, a bit as a red flag, but it's not enough for her to disengage necessarily from that perpetrator. While I can't speak to the number of acts, you will start to see an increase in behaviour. Once she's more vulnerable or more involved in the relationship, you'll start to see those increase. I can't speak to a specific number, but I think it's establishing that pattern of behaviour and watching as it increases over time.