Justice Committee on Feb. 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I'm okay with that.

Mrs. Brière, you can continue for 30 seconds.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Ms. Omeniho, you also mentioned that criminalizing coercive control might minimize the presence of other offences.

Can you tell us more about that?

[Melanie Omeniho]

What I mean when I say that is that sometimes the physical violence as well as the emotional and financial violence that women are often victims of may not be as seen if they just focus on coercive control. It is important that, when they do these things, they don't leave out the other parts of intimate partner violence that can really be harmful to the people in our community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much. That was 55 seconds, but it was only fair to hear the response.

Go ahead, Monsieur Fortin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us today.

Mr. Roebuck, as federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, you must hear from victims every day telling you about the vagaries and the virtues of our criminal justice system.

This morning, we heard some people say that Bill C‑332 is a bit dangerous, first due to counter-complaints. Essentially, they worry about victims being treated as abusers for wanting to protect their children, for instance.

Is that indeed a problem? Could victims be penalized because of the definitions that appear in this bill or because of the way the bill is designed?

Furthermore, you made a number of interesting recommendations in your opening statement. Specifically, you suggest using the definition of intimate partner under section 2 of the Criminal Code and removing the two-year time limit after separation.

We've heard those suggestions before, but if at all possible, I'd love to get a copy of your statement or your brief. I'd really appreciate that. I don't know if you have a brief ready to go, if we just haven't gotten it yet or if it's only me who hasn't gotten it.

That said, I'd like to return to my previous question. Is it possible for victims attempting to defend themselves to be seen as having controlling or coercive behaviours?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

We certainly do hear a lot in our office about coercive control challenges with family court. I have more concern, to be honest, about how these issues play out in family court than how they're likely to play out in the criminal court. The interplay between the criminal justice system and family court affects people in real time, in custody decisions with their children.

It's a challenging space to find the right balance between protections for somebody who has been accused and the rights and needs of the person who has been harmed.

I do think there is a risk for this to be abused and for allegations of coercive control to be provided flippantly in family court. I think that happens in family court already, but if it's a criminalized offence, then that creates complicated follow-up.

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

Do you have any examples of situations where that might be an issue?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

As a researcher on youth homelessness before coming into this role, I know there were a lot of young people who would become homeless as a result of high conflict in their home. Maybe there's a high-conflict divorce that's happening, or a blended family in which the young person is targeted because of the relationship to their parent who is experiencing abuse.

I think the line where there's reciprocal violence becomes difficult. It's hard to differentiate between when someone is fighting back and when someone is fighting. That's the nuance that's makes it really challenging to apply the law to partner violence in general.

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

In your opinion, should we simply amend Bill C‑332?

I'm thinking of the two amendments you suggested and I made note of them, but there are others, which is why I'd like a written copy of your notes.

Briefly, what would be your recommendations to improve this bill and better protect victims while at the same time better educating, and also punishing, those who tend to this type of conduct?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

We've been advocating for victim rights to carry the same weight as the rights of the accused. In particular, a victim should have the right to be informed of what their rights are when they report an offence.

In particular, in cases of partner violence, there is independent legal advice that's available, but we often hear in our office from people who say they were never informed. They didn't know they could speak to a lawyer for free for advice on the system.

I think those are pieces that have to come into place if we want to tackle these challenging issues.

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

The offence is to repeatedly or continuously engage in controlling or coercive conduct.

What are your thoughts on this notion of frequency and continuity? Is it a good or a bad thing, and should we change that?

I'd like for you to comment on that issue.

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I think it's really positive to have some recognition of patterns of behaviour, because one of the challenges with policing and intervening in situations is that they might see something that they perceive as relatively minor. The implications of the control involved aren't obvious to them. They aren't able to see that, oh, you're not allowed to leave the home every Friday night, not just once. I think patterns are really important. That's a strength of this law.

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

Thank you, Mr. Roebuck.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

I have Madam Barron for the final six-minute round, please.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

There are just so many questions to ask. It's almost overwhelming to figure out what the most important ones are, in particular since I don't have the opportunity to attend this committee as often as I would like, and in particular talking about this study.

One thing I've been reflecting on is the bigger discussion here around the fact that we're talking about a tool to be able to move forward in a positive direction, but in no way will this resolve the complexity of the systemic issues of the interconnections here. There are just so many pieces that need to be looked at. I appreciate that we're looking at moving forward with this specific tool, but I also like that we're talking about the bigger pieces here.

One thing I'm thinking about is the fact that we're talking about training the RCMP and training judges. That's very, very important. It's absolutely a big piece of this. However, I'm also reflecting on the fact that we should be providing, through this study, recommendations on how we can revamp the systems that we currently have. For example, in my community of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, they have implemented a system now whereby an RCMP officer arrives on the scene with a mental health nurse. It's a matter of looking at increasing and supplementing the existing RCMP system with mental health support workers or with those who would be more readily trained and have the expertise to be able to identify the problem at hand.

I'm wondering, Mr. Roebuck, if you could please share your thoughts on some of the ways in which we could complement and revamp the system, which we need to do. What are your thoughts are on that, as just one example of how to best move forward?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

Thank you.

I think you're touching on a nerve for people in the anti-violence sector, who have so much expertise. If we compensated them the same way as we compensate police to arrive on the scene to respond to cases of partner violence, then we might have different outcomes. I think exploring partnerships that bring together the safety that comes for some people, I suppose, with the availability of police intervention if there's violence, is important, but I also think the expertise of anti-violence workers needs to be central to this conversation, and we should be looking to involve them.

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

That's great. Thank you.

I agree that we need to increase training and awareness, but it is complex. We have people who have ample years of education and experience on the ground, and they're not being fully utilized. In particular, when we talk about indigenous people and racialized and marginalized communities, it's important that we are including those voices.

I'm wondering, Ms. Omeniho, if you could provide any additional thoughts on this as well.

[Melanie Omeniho]

I agree with you that indigenous women are treated differently within these various institutions and systems that were set up to protect most people. They feel very vulnerable, and they don't feel protected.

I think this is a tool that can be used, but I just want to clarify to this committee that, yes, there is a gender-based violence plan under Women and Gender Equality Canada. That plan might be as great as all the words that are written—we were part of developing some of those plans—but truthfully, the WAGE funding for gender-based violence, $536 million, was divided up 13 ways and given in a transfer payment to all the provinces and territories. Gender-based violence wasn't put forward as a priority to help do programming and to help fix the justice system to change how things are.

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

Thank you.

Perhaps I'll continue with another question. You were talking about the importance of victims being able to identify that they are experiencing coercive control. I'm wondering if you could share a bit more around that and your thoughts around the importance of education and health care. If people are not aware of the patterns of coercive control, and if the violence and coercive control patterns are normalized, how can we possibly expect victims to self-identify as experiencing it?

I'm wondering if you could share your thoughts on that.

[Melanie Omeniho]

Many of the women in our community don't even understand what their rights are or how to protect themselves. Very often, they're in these very unhealthy, codependent-type relationships. They start protecting the perpetrator rather than protecting themselves. Sometimes it means the loss of their children to child welfare systems.

It's an ongoing cycle when they're in the throes of these. It's really important for them, even at young years; let's start teaching our young people what things like gender-based violence and coercive control really are.

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

That's great.

I have only 25 seconds left, so let me say thank you so much to both of you for all your work. I would love to hear a little more, perhaps in a written submission, about the interconnection between poverty and how it relates to this bill, and something addressing the issues of affordable housing and access to the incomes required so that the patterns of coercive control are not as accessible or available.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

I'll move to a final round. I'll abbreviate the timing to two and a half minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Van Popta.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Roebuck, I have a question for you. Bill C-332 proposes that the relevant controlling and coercive conduct must be proven to have had a significant impact on the victim. Earlier witnesses on this study, last week or two weeks ago, expressed some concern that this could revictimize the victim, in that the victim would have to give evidence as to her state of mind—it's usually a woman—on the witness stand and be subject to cross-examination on that.

We were also pointed to Scotland's domestic abuse act, which puts the focus on the intentions and actions of the perpetrator: “a reasonable person would consider the course of behaviour to be likely to cause [the victim] to suffer physical or psychological harm”.

What do you say about that? Is that a better way to go, to prevent and avoid victims being revictimized, which of course is your profession?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I think it has pros and cons. I think it's better to have an objective person test, like what they have in Scotland, rather than trying to get someone to justify that their trauma is significant enough that it merits intervention. On the criminalization side, it also increases the risk of somebody from the outside looking at behaviours and saying, “Well, that seems to be problematic,” without really understanding the full context of what might be happening in that relationship.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

We also heard from earlier witnesses that Bill C-332 might have the inadvertent effect of criminalizing communities that are already overcriminalized. I was somewhat concerned about that.

I was reading something written by your predecessor, Ms. Heidi Illingworth. She gave testimony on a similar study. She said that intimate partner violence is a “pan-Canadian issue, as this type of violence knows no boundaries”, and that “IPV affects people of all genders, ages [and] socioeconomic, racial, educational, ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.” She cited a study from Statistics Canada from 2019. I would think that would probably be a pretty good source of evidence.

I'd like your comments on that, please.