Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Some quite general things were stated there. I will get to Mr. Fortin's subamendment, but I think, with all due respect, they mis-characterize what's gone on in this committee. What is in G-2, from my point of view as the original author of the bill and from very quick consultations just now with Ms. Collins, reflects the testimony we heard and reflects the consultations that took place. It's not true that this appeared from nowhere.
There were always two approaches to the bill: to have a more exhaustive list in the bill or to have those things in prosecutorial guidelines. The original bill suggested that they would be in prosecutorial guidelines, not in the bill. We heard testimony on that. It's not that we never heard about this.
I do not believe G-2 is a complete rewrite of the bill. I believe it addresses many of the things we heard in consultations and in testimony before the committee, in particular for the survivors of coercive control. I know we can all imagine scenarios, but we have coercive control being used by male partners against their female partners very extensively in this country. It is almost always, in cases of femicide, the precursor to femicide.
It's a crisis that's going on, and we've been dealing with it. I made my first attempts to bring this to the committee's attention four years ago. However, we knew the amendment package was coming, and I believe we've had time to look at it.
I think this package does some important things. There were concerns raised over the amendment about whether it should be two years after or five years after. This amendment goes with the word “former”, which would include after five years if a judge thinks that's appropriate, so it has addressed the concern over that amendment.
I could go on with a number of others. I think there are two really important improvements here. One is the test of what someone would reasonably believe. That's something we heard from survivors and we heard from other experts. We've also had, in the intervening three-year period, the benefit of experience in other jurisdictions, which this bill reflects.
The final one, which to me is the most important, is in G-2's new proposed subsection 264.01(3). It introduces the vulnerability clause, which should help address the very serious concern that many had that this bill could be used against the victims of coercive control by a controlling partner. I think the vulnerability test that's introduced here largely helps answer that question.
When it comes to the specific subamendment by Monsieur Fortin, I think it has an inadvertent consequence, which would be to change the arguments in the initial cases of coercive control to be about whether criminal acts were reasonable or not. I don't think that's a door we should open in this committee. I accept the testimony of our experts that this bill does cover reasonableness in two other places and narrowly applies that to the third category and not to the criminal acts.
I will be opposing Monsieur Fortin's subamendment and urging us to move forward. I reject the argument that this is a completely new bill and that it came from nowhere. It came from consultations and the testimony we heard before this committee. I believe it's a better version, and I believe it will more effectively address the concerns of the survivors we heard before this committee.
Thank you.