Justice Committee on Feb. 29th, 2024

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Parsa, just quickly, I don't remember the exact wording, but you basically said that there's an increased risk of misinterpretation to see abuse when it is non-existent. Can you please clarify what you meant by that comment and provide an example? That would be helpful for me.

Thank you.

[Roxana Parsa]

Sure. I think what it was related to was that I was building off situations of dual charging. Oftentimes, specifically dealing with racialized populations, the survivor might be seen as the abuser. In a situation of coercive control, where the behaviours are so subtle and really dependent on the relationship, it's very possible that the abuser would actually portray the survivor as being the perpetrator.

That's what I meant as misinterpreting. That is embedded within the discriminatory system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much for that.

Thank you to both witnesses. I would encourage you, if you feel there's anything more you'd like to add, to please send it to us in writing.

We'll suspend while we set up for the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting back to order.

We have two witnesses with us. Each will have five minutes for their introductory comments. I will watch the time carefully, and for the question period as well. We have another 39 minutes, so we will do our best to get as much information as we can within that time.

If there's any further testimony that you would like to give us that you don't have a chance to respond to in your introductory remarks or when you are questioned, I would encourage you to please send it to us in writing.

I will have to watch the time very closely, unfortunately, and may end up having to cut people off. I will be very kind and raise the 30-second mark at 30 seconds. The problem is that when people are on video conference, they don't necessarily see that, which means I have no choice but to interrupt.

Let me start off by welcoming both of you.

I will ask Mr. Benjamin Roebuck, federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, to please commence with his introductory remarks for up to five minutes.

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime]

Thank you.

Honourable chairperson and members of the committee, we gather today on the traditional unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. In honouring the leadership, strength and wisdom of indigenous peoples, we are reminded of the profound importance of respect, autonomy and protection of the rights and dignity of all people. These principles guide our discussion on coercive control.

Intimate partner violence, or IPV, is an epidemic. It transcends geographic, economic and cultural boundaries, affecting millions of people. The 2018 Canadian “Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces” found that since the age of 15, 6.2 million women and 4.9 million men in Canada had experienced IPV at some point in their life.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof. Coercive control violates these fundamental rights, permeating experiences of IPV, sexual exploitation, human trafficking and criminal harassment. It does require intervention.

Bill C-332 would criminalize repeat or continuous patterns of coercive control, providing more tools for police to intervene in patterns of abuse. The current incident-based approach to IPV focuses on physical incidents. This can leave police feeling powerless to intervene in some cases in which they believe a person is being harmed, or worse, hoping for a future incident of physical violence so that they can protect the victim.

There are many things we can learn from the criminalization of coercive control in Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. The evidentiary burden on survivors can be heavy. Access to electronic devices and communication records is often required to build a case. Training for police, prosecutors and judges is critical. Risk assessment tools for coercive control can help to identify patterns of behaviour.

In Canada, recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize the harmful impacts of coercive and controlling behaviour, but proceedings in family court can be messy. Early in 2024, the National Association of Women and the Law sent a letter asking the Government of Canada to amend the Divorce Act to ban claims of parental alienation in family disputes because of the harmful impact on women. The letter was endorsed by more than 250 feminist organizations. I am concerned that the criminalization of coercive control could become equally problematic in family court.

Even so, domestic homicide reviews in Canada have identified coercive control as a risk factor in several cases of intimate partner homicide with no previous physical violence. When a survivor leaves an abusive and controlling partner, the criminalization of coercive control may allow them to access provincial compensation programs to help meet their immediate needs.

I know that the committee has previously studied this topic and heard from our office in addition to experts in the field. I support the criminalization of coercive control, but it must be accompanied by systemic change. I urge the government to respond to the calls of the Mass Casualty Commission by declaring gender-based, intimate partner and family violence an epidemic, and to commit to primary prevention.

These are some final thoughts. Justice Canada helped develop the “HELP” tool kit for lawyers after the Divorce Act was amended to include coercive control. It could be updated to reflect changes to the Criminal Code. We recommend using the definition of intimate partner violence under section 2 of the Criminal Code, removing the two-year time limit after separation and strengthening victim rights to improve gender equality in the criminal justice system.

Thank you for the invitation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

Welcome to Madam Melanie Omeniho from Women of the Métis Nation.

You have up to five minutes.

[Melanie Omeniho, President, Women of the Métis Nation - Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak]

Thank you very much.

My name is Melanie Omeniho. I'm the president of Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak. I'd like to acknowledge that I'm joining you today from Treaty 6 territory and the motherland of the Métis nation.

Les Femmes Michif is known as a national indigenous women's organization that is mandated to represent women of the Métis nation across the Métis nation motherland. We advocate nationally and internationally for the equal treatment, health and well-being of all Métis people. We focus on the rights, needs and priorities of Métis women, youth, children and 2SLGBTQQIA+ Métis people.

I'd like to present that we proceed with caution around Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to controlling or coercive conduct. Although we're supportive of it in principle, this bill does not go far enough to fully define the act of coercive control. It limits it only in terms of intimate partner relationships.

To begin with, this puts the burden of proof of significant fear of violence on victims. Victims of coercive control often don't identify what they are experiencing as coercive control. It happens slowly and insidiously. Coercive control exists beyond a two-year limit in a domestic relationship and does occur between intimate partners who have not agreed to be married. In this light, we recommend that before passing this bill, we redefine the persons who are connected.

What this bill also fails to recognize is the unique presentation of violence in 2SLGBTQQIA+ relationships. Regarding sexual exploitation, this act does not include this controlling and coercive conduct within the existing definition. It also does not include children and other family members who may also fall victim.

Canada has used as an example the bill passed in the U.K. around controlling or coercive behaviour. What the U.K. bill does not consider is the specific implications around Métis women and the strained historical relationship with police and other colonial processes. Indigenous women living at the intersection of multiple sites of oppression face the highest rates of violence of all. That's especially for indigenous women with current or past child welfare involvement who are living in poverty, are often homeless or unhoused, are disabled, are navigating trauma or have different substance abuses. About two-thirds of Métis women self-report experiencing physical or sexual violence in their lifetimes. Nearly half are survivors of intimate partner violence.

This law relies heavily on the myth that the police are the only ones who can keep us safe. It would be part of a police officer's role to determine whether a situation should be considered as controlling or coercive conduct. Police attitudes usually focus on the presence of physical violence and on specific incidents, rather than a pattern of coercive control. This focus also minimizes other forms of violence. Too often in these cases, police do not see survivors as credible victims or witnesses. Rather than assessing protection, survivors are approached with dismissals and suspicion.

We also note that indigenous women are being criminalized for fighting back. This is reflected in the stats showing that indigenous women are 13 and 15 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-indigenous women and indigenous men. Indigenous women's incarceration rates in provincial jails are also alarming. In Saskatchewan, indigenous women are 29 times more likely to be jailed than non-indigenous women.

What is also integral in the enactment of this bill is a robust plan for information sharing, training and education. This is not limited to the police and all players around the justice system. It's most importantly for women and gender-diverse folks to understand what controlling conduct and coercive control are. The emphasis of risk assessment tools on physical violence and injuries leads to the minimization of non-physical violence.

We ask if police officers will be able to assess intimate partner violence situations that do not present physical violence when they arrive on the scene. Will they have enough understanding of the dynamic to see if they are in the presence of potentially harmful situations in which coercive control is an issue?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Madam.

I have two comments. One, they were unable to hear you very well. They're asking whether, when you are responding to questions from members, you could perhaps adjust the mic so that it's right at your mouth. Two, I noticed that you had a script. If there's more that you wanted to send us, or if you wanted to send the script in, that would be valuable as well. We can distribute that to the members.

Let me now move to the round of questioning.

We will start with Madam Gladu.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

We have learned a lot today. When I first heard about this coercive control law, I thought, yes, we need a law. I was hearing that great things happened in the U.K. and all these other countries, but then today we heard that out of all the people who come forward on coercive control, only 6% actually get a prosecution going on. When they looked at 700 cases, out of those prosecuted, only 3% got a conviction. That really worries me. If you think about people who have the courage to come forward on coercive control, and then you think of the justice system and the delays, those people are very much at risk from an escalation of violence from that intimate partner during that period of time.

Mr. Roebuck, you said that the “evidentiary burden” on victims is high. You also talked a bit about primary prevention. Can you elaborate on those two things?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

Gender-based violence is rooted in gender inequality in society. Anything we can do to strengthen gender equality has a preventative impact on gender-based violence. That was a recommendation as well from the Mass Casualty Commission. When we're looking at violence within relationships, we're already far down the road in looking at responding rather than prevention. Training in schools on healthy relationships and lots of different things that are being put in place are important, including the work in the national action plan to end gender-based violence.

Similar to criminal harassment, it's possible to end up with a law whereby survivors have to pull together and document and feel the pressure of creating a timeline, gathering all of this content themselves and trying to curate years' worth of controlling behaviours. If the burden is on the survivor to demonstrate that fear and that concern, then I think that creates an unfair burden. I do prefer a model that shifts that onus onto the perpetrator.

Within the criminal justice system, as well, one of the challenges we have is that in gender-based violence it's predominantly male offenders, whose rights are guaranteed under the charter and are very clear, but victims' rights aren't enforceable. There are lots of gaps that could be improved. When people come into contact with the system, it can be really messy.

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

Very good. Thank you.

Ms. Omeniho, first of all, I want to say that my daughters and my grandchildren are status Métis. I want to thank you for your advocacy on behalf of Métis women.

One thing that often happens in Parliament is that we put things forward and we don't see them through the lens of indigenous people. We think these solutions will fit. Can you give us some advice about what needs to happen to this bill in order for it to be more connected to the Métis culture and what Métis women experience?

[Melanie Omeniho]

Yes. I can, actually.

First off, I want to say that the other thing that hasn't really been considered is that many of our very young women, who are often seen as children within the government process, are not protected with this bill. I think it's really important that we find something that includes them.

I also believe there are things that need to be put in place to ensure that the issues that relate to indigenous women and the lives they come from, and some of the issues of oppression they deal with, will be addressed with this law. The Gladue reports are supposed to benefit us. In fact, it was a Métis woman's situation with the justice system that resulted in Gladue. They do not get the opportunity to present Gladue at court and stuff. They are eliminated, because it doesn't specifically address the Métis. We need to make sure that when we're doing these laws, a distinction-based process doesn't eliminate any indigenous people from having access and protection.

Police can be somewhat subjective. I'd love to tell you that there isn't racism within our existing systems, but racism is alive and well in this country. Many of our Métis women come face to face with that within the justice system and with police services. I believe this law needs to have those things in place to help protect indigenous women rather than make them another victim of something else that happens within the justice system.

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

Very good.

I agree with your comments. We saw the same thing when we talked about sexual assault and the difficulty of it—the under-reporting, the lack of follow-up, the trauma in the justice system and then, at the end of the day, very low conviction rates. Training was recommended for judges and officers and whatnot in that light. Coercive control is even more difficult to define.

One thing I'd like you to do is to send us the improved definition of people in a relationship. I was interested in that.

I'm out of time. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Brière, you have the floor.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for being with us this morning.

Both of you raised the issue of the definition of coercive control. Ms. Omeniho even said that the bill didn't go far enough in terms of defining what is coercive control.

I'd like to hear both of your thoughts on that. First, in your opinion, is it necessary to add a definition?

How can we recognize and prove coercive control?

[Melanie Omeniho]

We need to define coercive control, because when you're relying, as you are with this bill, on police to be able to define that, and the justice system, if there aren't clear and defined parameters about what coercive control is, not only will our community not be able to see whether coercive control is part of what they're experiencing; the police will also, rather than help support them in pushing forward to put perpetrators into a position of being charged, say that they don't have enough parameters, or they're not sure if this meets it. Because of that subjective nature, coercive control has to be defined, with maybe even examples of coercive control.

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I think there can be a combination of the definition in the law and then practice guidelines. In the U.K. they have a guide that provides comprehensive instructions on how to interpret and apply coercive control legislation. Those examples, I think, are helpful.

I believe the committee also met with Dr. Carmen Gill. I've been able to see some of the work she's been doing on research to train police and help them recognize signs and symptoms of coercive control. I think that would be a necessary component, whether it's captured in the law itself or in very clear guidelines. There should be clear guidance on how to recognize and intervene.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

Perhaps you observed the first hour of the meeting, when we heard from the two previous witnesses. They said that there could be an increased risk if law enforcement sees abuse where there isn't any.

Ms. Omeniho, I'd like you to tell us about the unintended consequences on racialized populations.

[Melanie Omeniho]

When it comes to intimate partner violence, very often police may misinterpret, but I want to tell you what our experience has been with the women we've worked with who have told us their stories. It's that very often the police officers don't take their intimate partner violence seriously, and they are left to be victims. In fact, we can show you story after story in which police didn't properly approach situations in a careful way, and women ended up dead. It isn't always a clear case, and I know that intimate partner violence is a very tough thing, because it usually means that people who are trying to be controlling and trying to be coercive with their partners do not let the outer world, including police services, see what's happening.

I'm probably going to be the person who tells you that I think there will be far more police looking and not seeing the coercive control than there are going to be those who have overstepped and are charging people.

I agree with what the previous speaker said too, that the justice system is set up to protect the people who are being accused; it's not there for the victims. I think there are many places within the justice system that would help support them if they were wrongfully accused.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you again.

You also mentioned that criminalizing coercive control might minimize the presence of other offences.

Can you tell us more about that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

There are 30 seconds left. I'm not sure if you heard that question, Madam. She was asking you to answer that.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Ms. Omeniho, did you hear the question?

[Melanie Omeniho]

I'm sorry; the interpretation was really bad. I apologize. I was trying to get it, but I didn't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I'm sorry.

We'll move on.

Mr. Fortin, maybe you can ask your question.

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

I could, Madam Speaker, but respectfully, I have a point of order.

In my opinion, when a question is asked in French and the witness doesn't hear it, the remaining 30 seconds should revert to the witness. Once again, I'm not being partisan here, but out of respect for bilingualism, we should give everyone a reasonable amount of time to ask questions and hear the answers.