Good morning, honourable chair and members of the committee. I am grateful for this opportunity to speak before you this morning regarding the proposed legislative amendments aimed at addressing coercive control within the Criminal Code.
The Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, since 1985, has been at the forefront of providing trauma-informed legal, counselling and interpretation services. We support marginalized and racialized women and gender-diverse individuals who have experienced violence. With our extensive experience and expertise in this field, we offer insights into the potential implications of the proposed legislative change.
I'll cover three points in my opening remarks: the fact that justice should not only appear to be served but should genuinely be achieved; the consequences of criminalization; and the need for a holistic approach to address coercive control.
I want to start by recognizing and commending the intent behind this legislative change. It signifies a crucial milestone in acknowledging and addressing coercive control as a pervasive form of intimate partner violence. However, you must approach this legislative change with the utmost caution, taking into account the intricate nuances and the potential ramifications of criminalizing coercive control within the Criminal Code.
Coercive control is characterized by a relentless pattern of behaviour aimed at intimidating, manipulating and inflicting harm upon survivors or victims. This insidious form of abuse often operates behind closed doors, which makes it challenging to identify and prosecute. Survivors may endure multiple forms of tactics, including manipulation, financial control and isolation, which can result in profound psychological and emotional trauma.
My first point is that justice should not merely appear to be served. While the criminalization of coercive control may seem like a solution, it's crucial to recognize its practical limitations and potential consequences. Coercive control, particularly within intimate partnerships, poses inherent complexities, making it difficult to recognize and report due to inherent power imbalances and the systemic biases that survivors face. Moreover, proving coercive control beyond a reasonable doubt in a court setting would add a layer of difficulty that survivors routinely face in IPV and sexual violence cases. In these cases, the system routinely fails survivors, with under-reported cases and low conviction rates. Therefore, my point is that not only should justice appear to be served with a new criminal offence on the books, but we should genuinely be trying to achieve this justice for survivors.
The unintended consequences of criminalization don't always align with the intended solutions. For example, we have observed that existing mandatory charging policies in cases of domestic assault can inadvertently result in survivors being charged with the same offences that are meant to protect them. Moreover, survivors, particularly those from marginalized and racialized communities, specifically from non-status immigrant communities, indigenous and LGBTQ+ communities face additional hurdles, such as language barriers, discrimination within the system, intergenerational trauma and lack of trust in the legal system.
My last point is that it is essential to explore holistic approaches that prioritize survivor safety and well-being while holding perpetrators accountable within the criminal justice system. Drawing from the experiences and the jurisdictions in which coercive control has already been criminalized, such as England, Wales and Scotland, we must recognize the limitations of relying solely on the criminal justice system. It is only one part of the solution. Comprehensive support services, awareness campaigns and professional training are essential for meaningful change and for healing for survivors. Furthermore, the inclusion of a broad defence based on the coercive actor's best interests for the survivor raises serious ethical and practical concerns, risking further harm to survivors and perpetrating power imbalances within abusive relationships.
In conclusion, I echo the sentiment of many others who have already testified in front of this committee that increasing criminalization is not the solution. Emphasis on the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission's recommendation, which advocates for a community-based approach over a carceral one, including a community advisory, is something that we also support.
While we oppose the implementation of the new offence for coercive control, we stress the importance of equipping all legal actors with the necessary knowledge and skills to identify and address coercive control effectively. This includes developing risk assessment tools and training that consider intersecting identity factors for survivors who are disproportionately impacted by gender-based violence.
We believe that introducing such legislation prematurely without adequate education, resources and accountability mechanisms in place for legal actors—